Let me begin by saying I think that abortion is wrong - I do not think it is ethical to kill a human life unless you are pretty darn certain it is not a person with the associated rights. Let me add that, in spite of this, I think abortion should remain legal. It is neither my nor the government's job to decide the trickiest ethical questions for you.
Having said that, I have to disagree with Roe v. Wade for the simple reason that the court's job is to interpret the Constitution, not enforce what I (or they) think is right.
It seems to me that the abortion issue rests almost entirely on the question of when a human beings becomes a person, with the associated rights. If it does not happen until birth,then the fetus is clearly part of a woman's body, and thus falls under the realm of privacy. If that is the case then abortions cannot be regulated. On the other hand, if a person comes into existence the second of conception then the fetus is clearly a person, and thus has a right to life. And if it somehow happens gradually, and rights slowly accumulate, then abortions would become increasingly wrong as pregancy progresses.
Which of these does the Constitution say is true? The answer is none - the Constitution is silent on the matter. Even the Supreme Court agrees...
quote: "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."
Here the majority opinion is suggesting that the judiciary should not speculate when personhood begins - implying that the answer is not in the Constitution. So, if you agree with the court that it should not speculate on that question, and agree with me that the abortion issues depends fundamentally on that question, doesn't it also follow that the Court should not speculate on the correct answer to the abortion issue?
Yet, they have speculated - and have done so in a manner that seems so clearly arbitrary. They divided pregnancy into three trimesters - but why? Why not four quarters? Or two halves? There is no difinitive change that occurs after three months, so how could the Court have found something in the Constitution that suggests such a line? It seems to me that it is much more likely they did not, and just invented lines where THEY deemed best.
What is wrong with this? Look at the past three decades... Democracy has been shut down on the abortion issue. This is an important issue to many people, yet they cannot vote on it or decide anything about it, except through the most indirect routes - like altering the makeup of the Supreme Court, not funding certain programs, or perhaps blowing up abortion clinics. That is what happens when democracy shuts down on an issue that matters to people - they have to seek other, less democratic methods. This I believe the Supreme Court should leave the question of "When does personhood begin?" up to the people, when they have nothing in the Constitution to base a decision upon. Instead of deciding the unknown factor and drawing lines themselves, they should turn to the American voters and ask them for clarification, so they can make a ruling based in clear law. Abortion might be legal one year, illegal the next, and back to legal the next after, but at the very least it would be through the democratic process. At the very least the losing side could say they lost because more voters disagreed with them on the central question of when a fetus becomes a person. The Court's integrity would remain intact.
Disagree with me if you wish, but this is what I hope for in terms of the new Supreme Court and the abortion issue... Let America decide what a person is, and then the Supreme Court can apply laws accordingly.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
<thinks about posting her opinion and joining in the inevitable kerfuffle>
<thinks the better of it>
<-- waving bye bye
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
One of the things that the Supreme Court is supposed to do is apply the Constitution especially WHEN it is silent on a specific issue. The Court has to interpret the Constitution in every case, not just sometimes, but every time.
It's the nature of SCOTUS. It is their job.
And really, do we need a hodge-podge of laws that vary state to state? Then what? We make it illegal to cross state lines for the purpose of getting an abortion?
And if we have a national law regarding it, we would still have people challenging it all the way to the Supreme Court because the issue of which individual's rights are being protected will come up again.
I think your solution is just a resetting of the whole thing so we can go through it all over again.
It wasn't that much fun the first time.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Personally, I do feel that the Supreme Court needs to revisit the issue.
While I am unashamedly pro-life, I do believe that our knowledge of fetal development and how early a child can be born in its developmental process with a chance of survival, are important factors that should be visited upon the issue.
When Roe v. Wade was decided, we simply did not have this information or the technology to promote the survival of extremely premature babies.
To not re-look Roe v. Wade is to thumb our noses at what we have learned so far. And it turns a blind eye to what is going on in neo-natal units around the country.
Edit to add: Note I am not suggesting we completely strike Roe v. Wade without review. I believe that wiser people than I should be the ones to decide this. Ones who both understand the law and the realities.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:And really, do we need a hodge-podge of laws that vary state to state? Then what? We make it illegal to cross state lines for the purpose of getting an abortion?
Yes. Like crossing state lines to buy fireworks. Because the alternative is, like they did with Roe, to invent a "right to privacy" that entitles someone to buy any fireworks he or she wants, regardless of state law.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:One of the things that the Supreme Court is supposed to do is apply the Constitution especially WHEN it is silent on a specific issue. The Court has to interpret the Constitution in every case, not just sometimes, but every time.
It's the nature of SCOTUS. It is their job.
Yep. And I can't wait until the court actually does interpret the Constitution with respect to this issue.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
Ive always thought that in a democratic country like ours, we dont need reasons to make laws for something we need reasons to make laws against it. If the argument is that the constitution doesnt say anything about abortion then shouldnt a de facto position on the issue make it legal?
Edit: I should have added, make it legal when we cannot decide on when exactly life begins.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Incidentally, I'm reasonably sure SCOTUS didn't invent the concept of three trimesters as stages of a pregnancy.
Posted by 1lobo1 (Member # 7762) on :
Hmm...so what happens when a zygote or embryo can be grown in a test tube? Does this ball of cells have the same rights as an adult?
Let me ask this, if the embryo storage facility was on fire, and a tech was passed out in the room, who would the rescuars save? The passed out tech, or the 1000s of embryos in frozen storage?
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Also, given the US is a common-law country, it also the court's job to apply the common law (which may mean developing it, even to the point of creating new law) where the Constitution is silent on an issue.
I'm not saying that's what they did in Roe v Wade , not having read the case.
But the role of SCOTUS is not limited to applying and intepreting the Constitution.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Let me ask this, if the embryo storage facility was on fire, and a tech was passed out in the room, who would the rescuars save? The passed out tech, or the 1000s of embryos in forzen storage?
If the zygotes or embryos were actually being protected as they should be, they wouldn't be in frozen storage.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Also, given the US is a common-law country, it also the court's job to apply the common law (which may mean developing it, even to the point of creating new law) where the Constitution is silent on an issue.
The essential difference is that an act of Congress can override any SCOTUS definition of common law. Not so with Constitutional interpretation.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
I know. It's the same here. (And in all common law countries with a written constitution, I presume).
Just pointing out that constitutional interpretation isn't the be all and end all of SCOTUS's role.
(Congress could amend the Constitution though, to make a meaning so clear that no ambiguity would exist, couldn't they?)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
That's why I never get to exercised about some of the incredibly ridiculous statutory interpretation that the Courts engage in. It's correctable.
To amend the Constitution requires 2/3 of each house plus 3/4 of all the state legislatures. Not practical.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Actually, now I think of it I have noe idea what the method of constitutional amendment is in the US.
Here it's by referendum, and requires both a majority of states (4 of 6) and a majority of people to pass.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Ah, thanks. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
And lots of the states like to put the things to referendum instead of letting the legislature decide (in fact, I believe some states require it of themselves).
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:One of the things that the Supreme Court is supposed to do is apply the Constitution especially WHEN it is silent on a specific issue.
It is not possible to apply the Constitution when it is silent on an issue. What it means to be silent is to say nothing, and if it says nothing then there is nothing to apply.
It IS possible to decide FOR the Constitution when the Constitution is silent on an issue, but why would we want the Supreme Court to do this? Having a nondemocratic court of legal experts deciding on how to interpret existing law is useful to ensure that that law is applied equally, fairly, and completely - which democratic bodies are not inclined to do. However, when you are asking it to deal with issues that have not been legistlated yet, it is essentially making the law - and I think one of the fundamental assumptions of our government is that law should be made in a democratic fashion, not be "experts". Thus I do not think it should not be the Court's job to address issues that the Constitution does not address.
quote:And if we have a national law regarding it, we would still have people challenging it all the way to the Supreme Court because the issue of which individual's rights are being protected will come up again.
I think your solution is just a resetting of the whole thing so we can go through it all over again.
Just because people want to challenge a law does not mean the Court should accept that challenge. It should only accept challenges to abortion laws if the Constitution does, in fact, assign rights that conflict with those laws. So, until such language is added to the Constitution, I think there is not (and never was) grounds for a challenge. It's a matter of turning down future appeals, or definitively declaring that the government must define personhood in the Constitution before the Supreme Court is going to strike down any more voted-upon abortion regulations.
The idea IS to reset it, but then to have legislative bodies decide what to do (either nationally or by state) rather than courts. If the people vote to allow the option of abortion, I will agree with them. And if they ban it, so be it. Either way at least it could be said that the people decided on when personhood begins, rather than nine justices.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote: It is not possible to apply the Constitution when it is silent on an issue. What it means to be silent is to say nothing, and if it says nothing then there is nothing to apply.
That is the biggest load of cr#p I have ever heard. The consitution could not have mentioned MANY of teh issues before us today, because they were unthinkable back then. Not for moral reasons, or religious ones, but because the situations didn't exits back then.
The greatest strength we have is that the Constitution has room for growth, for change, not just in the actual language of it but in the way it is applied to modern day situations.
A body of law is not all created at once, it is based on a history of judgements...some good, some bad...and is ever evolving, as is our world.
It IS their job, plain and simple. And there are rights that are included in the Consitution that are in conflict with each other, which is why Roe vs Wade is such a difficult issue.
Kwea
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote: However, when you are asking it to deal with issues that have not been legistlated yet, it is essentially making the law
And I repeat - the US remains a common law country.
The laws of contract, tort, equity and so on - all of these have been "made" to a certain extend by the Courts. Of course it is part of the role of the Court.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Yep. And I can't wait until the court actually does interpret the Constitution with respect to this issue.
Dag, could you explain?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:That is the biggest load of cr#p I have ever heard. The consitution could not have mentioned MANY of teh issues before us today, because they were unthinkable back then. Not for moral reasons, or religious ones, but because the situations didn't exits back then.
The greatest strength we have is that the Constitution has room for growth, for change, not just in the actual language of it but in the way it is applied to modern day situations.
The way it is applied, yes. It is, of course, the Court's role to apply things the Constitution actually says in ways we didn't originally realize it applied. For instance, when creating the First Amendment, Congress may not have realized that it forbids the teaching of religious views in school, but that nevertheless was something that it did say, according to the court. That sort of thing is not what I was talking about - I was talking about "applying" the Constitution when it says NOTHING on a matter. If the Court could do that then it could do whatever it wants, deciding any issue it wants, from whether to attack Iraq to whether to raise taxes. It is only because we require the Court to find a basis for their reasoning in the Constitution that they are not all-powerful in their policy-making.
And again, why would we want it to be otherwise? If the Supreme Court simply declared abortion bad and unconstitutional without justifying that reasoning in Constitutional law, would you accept that as legitimate? Even if I disagree with them, the Court still at least attempts to argue that there IS language in the Constitution protecting the right. In Roe v. Wade, the Court definitely does not say "The Constitution is silent on this but we think it should be a right, so we declare it to be so." Instead it points, I believe, to the 14th amendment and suggests the answer is there.
quote:And I repeat - the US remains a common law country.
Yes, but common law should not supercede laws made by federal or state legislatures. It is only the Constitution that can do that. You can't declare an act of Congress unconstitutional just because common law has previously said otherwise - which is what the abortion issue is about doing.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, could you explain?
Simply put, I don't think Roe v. Wade was interpreting the Constitution. And Casey, which is technically the controlling precedent now, punted on the issue of whether Roe was decided correctly and said, "It's been around 26 years, so we shouldn't change it."
I want to see a court recognize that the state has a compelling interest in protecting human life, and that the controversey surrounding the issue of when human life begins means that the bounds of that interest should generally be determined by the legislature.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
As I read this thread, I realized that I had never heard of a kerfuffle before (from Tante's post). So I looked it up: Kerfuffle (n) : a disorderly outburst or tumult; "they were amazed by the furious disturbance they had caused"
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I disagree with that, Dag. I think that the entire purpose if the Fedral government is to protect the rights of those who are members of it's society, and the Constitution says nothing about fetuses or the unborn...and it hass plenty t say on the rights of individuals who exist without question.
If there ever was a subject for SCOTUS, this would be it....the legal ramifications carry far past state lines.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Then let them write an opinion that actually interprets the damn document instead of making crap up ouot of thin air.
You've grossly oversimplified the purpose of the federal constitution, too. It's main purpose is to define the powers of the federal government. The states are envisioned, even today, as sovereign entities who can exercise that sovereign power in any way except those ways specifically barred by the document. Those bars are of two types: things states can't do because they are reserved for the federal government (war, foreign policy, etc.) and things states can't do because they are reserved for the people (free speech, equal protection, right to counsel, etc.)
More importantly, the constitution guarantees that governments can do what the people want them to do, within the limits described above. Every single time SCOTUS strikes down a law as unconstitutional, it contracts this underlying, essential right.
As someone said, it's about balancing rights against each other. And the right of the people to enact the laws they wish in accordance with a republican form of government should be expressly taken into account every time the Court wants to strike down a law.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
this comes pretty late, but I'd like to point out that the words "ball of cells" can be used to describe any organism and it really is not indicative of even the qualitative difference between a fetus and an infant (I'm not sure why the word "adult" ever got into the comparison?) and since the quantitative difference is largely a matter of location and ability to function... neither of which is very good grounds for denying something rights... I don't find the phrase very useful.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: and it has plenty to say on the rights of individuals who exist without question. (edit: typos corrected)
Is it safe to say that you disagree with Tresopax's "better safe than sorry" position?
Is a hunter who fires at something without being sure of his target negligent (civilly or criminally) if he hits a person... or is "well, I wasn't sure it was a human" a legitimate excuse here, too? If not, why the difference?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I disagree with that, Dag. I think that the entire purpose if the Fedral government is to protect the rights of those who are members of it's society, and the Constitution says nothing about fetuses or the unborn...and it hass plenty t say on the rights of individuals who exist without question.
One question to which we do not yet have an answer, Kwea: are fetuses and the unborn individuals?
You must admit that the 'right to privacy' is not in the Constitution. It is implied very frequently, yes. But to my mind that means it makes less sense to apply it even further-since it is implied so often and not explicitly mentioned, don't you think there was a reason for that thunderous silence?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
A lot of people in this thread are arguing from very idealistic positions. If abortion is formally illegalized, do any of you seriously think that women will stop having abortions?
If you oppose abortion, what you should be advocating are very tight controls on who can have one and when -- for example, only in cases where the mother's life is threatened (with multiple corroborating medical opinions required) -- and not a complete ban.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
That is a straw man, Jim-Me.
Let me flip it over so you can see that....do you defend the rights of ants and spiders to live? Because they are orginisms as well? Lets not oversimplify each others arguments, OK?
I think that there are measurable effects to limiting a womans right to choose what happens to her body and her life...and I prefer to error on the side of something I KNOW to be human, and living, and viable.
At least legaly. I had a very seroius conversation with JenniK when we began seeing each other, where I gingerly brought up the subject of abortion. I said that while I would always respect her right to shoose if she got pregnant, I wanted her to realize how I flet about it personally.
I said that no matter how much I loved her, if she were to get pregnant and have an abortion, we would be finished once and for all. I would not condone it, and while I had no legal right to bar her from doing so if that was her choice, I DID have the right to stop dating a woman who had terminated my child.
She agreed with me wholeheartedly, thank God, and that was a huge issue. There are reasons I feel it is acceptable, and reasons I don't find acceptable...
But more than anything, I don't feel it is acceptable for me to force someone to carry a child to term, or to impose my will on them over something that private.
See? I am not a demon child killer;)....I just think the rights of the mother supersede the rights of the fetus, until it is born.
Dag, I am not a lawyer, but I am familiar with the case to some extent. I agree that it is a difficult case, and that the dicision has it's problems...but I think that I was spot on about the purpose of government. All of what you mention, the laws, precedents, defining Constitutionality...all of it is service of the people. The definitions have changed many times....giving right to women wasn't considred, to minorities.....
I am not drawing direct parellels, or setting up straw men here ( ), I am simply stating that there are a lot of things that the Constitution doesn't mention directally, but that can intefere with rights that are mentioned. There were whole catigories of people who weren't covered originally by the Constitution, as it was written.
I just don't think that fetuses should be, not at the cost of the mothers rights. Anything else is trying to impose your morality on others.
Kwea
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: If you oppose abortion, what you should be advocating are very tight controls on who can have one and when -- for example, only in cases where the mother's life is threatened (with multiple corroborating medical opinions required) -- and not a complete ban.
Twinky, this is the precise postion of every pro-lifer I know. I am aware that there are people who will refuse to get abortions *even* to save the mother's life, but I have never heard of anyone wishing to make this law.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If you oppose abortion, what you should be advocating are very tight controls on who can have one and when -- for example, only in cases where the mother's life is threatened (with multiple corroborating medical opinions required) -- and not a complete ban.
This is actually what I advocate. I would consider physical harm to provide a justification as well as actual life-threatening situations.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
JM: Good. Nobody's said so here.
Added: Or rather, nobody said anything about it until I brought it up.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I am not drawing direct parellels, or setting up straw men here ( ), I am simply stating that there are a lot of things that the Constitution doesn't mention directally, but that can intefere with rights that are mentioned. There were whole catigories of people who weren't covered originally by the Constitution, as it was written.
I just don't think that fetuses should be, not at the cost of the mothers rights. Anything else is trying to impose your morality on others.
I'm not advocating that the Constitution be interpreted to grant rights to fetuses, although I would vote for such an amendment if it were well-drafted.
I am, instead, advocating that the Constitution not be interpreted to create a right that is just not present in the document. I'm aware situations change over time.
quote:All of what you mention, the laws, precedents, defining Constitutionality...all of it is service of the people.
And part of that service is the ability to govern ourselves in accordance with the majority's wishes, with limitations imposed to balance out rights of individuals.
quote:I just don't think that fetuses should be, not at the cost of the mothers rights. Anything else is trying to impose your morality on others.
The law is all about selecting which portions of morality should be enforced on others. For example, California enforces its moral view that women whould receive coverage for birth control pills from any employer who provides prescription coverage to its employees. The federal government enforces the moral view that employers should not make hiring decisions based on applicants' race. However, it currently allows employers to make hiring decisions based on applicants' sexual orientation.
The point is that these decisions are made by legislatures and executives directly responsible to the people. The Courts are a check on these decisions - one that, as a virtually unaccountable check, should be exercised with care.
Dagonee
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Kwea,
you are *too*
seriously, though, I'm not sure I follow you on how I've set up a straw man? I was rather redcuing to the absurd... and I still think my point is valid -- if we don't know whether something is human, we need to be very careful about killing it.
Now, this is not to say that we never could. I think we'd both agree that the right to the life of a mother *does* supercede the right to life of a fetus.
The right to avoid being forced into a pregnancy by rape, statuatory rape, or incest? Well... I don't agree with abortion on these grounds (because I think the fetus *is* demonstrably human, but for the purposes of discussion we'll keep that question nebulous) but would happily accpet these limits as it would DRASTICALLY reduce the number of abortions (by a couple of orders of magnitude) and I can see some pretty important needs and rights for the mother here which can be difficult to weigh against the rights of a (again, for the purposes of argument)debatable creature.
But the right of a mother to erase a "mistake" at the cost of what is at least debatably a human life? That scale comes up clearly wanting... and this is where my example comes in-- if we aren't sure something is human, we don't kill it for matters of what ultimately come down to economic gain (referring to time, money and opportunity lost by the prgenancy).
as long as we're not oversimplifying Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
quote:One of the things that the Supreme Court is supposed to do is apply the Constitution especially WHEN it is silent on a specific issue. The Court has to interpret the Constitution in every case, not just sometimes, but every time.
It's the nature of SCOTUS. It is their job.
And really, do we need a hodge-podge of laws that vary state to state? Then what? We make it illegal to cross state lines for the purpose of getting an abortion?
And if we have a national law regarding it, we would still have people challenging it all the way to the Supreme Court because the issue of which individual's rights are being protected will come up again.
I think your solution is just a resetting of the whole thing so we can go through it all over again.
It wasn't that much fun the first time.
Something worth arguing with! And sometimes agreeing with.
If SCOTUS is to apply the Constitution, it would do well to actually apply it, rather than apply its own extra-Constitutional wishes. What the Constitution has to say on issues it doesn't explicitly mention: these are decided by the states (Amendment 10). The states' constitutions have this to say: laws are to be made by legislatures. So: federalism and democracy. Good things!
Hodgepodge of laws: this is a basic part of our form of government, called federalism. Maybe it's a bad idea (I don't think so), but it is the law.
There are other countries that have decided this democratically: most, if not all, of those in western Europe. Abortion is not a significant political issue in Europe, because it was decided by the people. Europe is a hodgepodge on this issue, all right, but it doesn't seem to have caused a problem. May we have democracy restored to this issue as well.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: If abortion is formally illegalized, do any of you seriously think that women will stop having abortions?
If murder is formally illegalized, do you seriously think that people will stop killing other people?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Draw meaningless analogies much?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Why is that meaningless?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's not a meaningless analogy. In fact, it is -- from a pro-life POV -- a synonymous situation.
I'm sure some women will still get abortions. But I think it's not unreasonable to assume that illegalizing abortion will in fact have an impact on its frequency; abortion is not, after all, nearly as universally popular as alcohol.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:A lot of people in this thread are arguing from very idealistic positions. If abortion is formally illegalized, do any of you seriously think that women will stop having abortions?
If you oppose abortion, what you should be advocating are very tight controls on who can have one and when -- for example, only in cases where the mother's life is threatened (with multiple corroborating medical opinions required) -- and not a complete ban.
How about I tell you what you should be advocating on political issues, then? We can pick one, if you'd like.
Just because something will not stop entirely due to criminalization is not sufficient reason to keep it legal-all laws are broken. By the argument implied by you, we should have no laws at all.
And for the record, the position you say pro-lifers should be advocating has been advocated many times in the past, in threads not about why Roe v. Wade should be overturned.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Because the paramaters of abortion and illegal murder are different. Drawing the analogy serves no purpose other than being inflammatory. I'm aware that this issue is important to Tom, but if he's going to quote me he may as well actually address my point the way you and Jim-Me [edit: and Rakeesh] did.
If abortion is completely banned, women will still get abortions. These abortions will necessarily be less safe. Therefore, by banning abortion we are needlessly endangering at least some of their lives. Banning murder does nothing of the kind. People won't "still get murders;" the notion is absurd. The analogy doesn't hold water.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Tom is just pointing out something Dag did earlier... that laws are about morality.
"You can't legislate morality", when taken in context, was a Judge's commentary that you don't make people good by passing laws... not at all that morality shouldn't affect law.
Really, he was saying kind of the opposite.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Because the paramaters of abortion and illegal murder are different.
Specifically, if you illegalize abortion, it becomes illegal murder. Many murderers risk their lives to kill other people, and yet we do not make it safe and easy for murderers to kill their victims without risk, or under medical supervision; you can make the argument that we should, of course.
How are the parameters different?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Well, the parameters are different enough that most people in the US don't think abortion is murder. Even many who are against it don't think abortion is murder, though they think it is also very bad.
Heck, Tom, iirc you're okay with abortion provided its early enough in the pregnancy; how are the parameters different then?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Let's say I tie my five-year-old son to a chair and pay some guy to kill him in front of me. Then I walk out into the street and get killed by a mugger who wants my wallet.
The first situation is analogous to abortion, the second is not. But when people think of murder, they think of the second. See why I think making the "abortion = murder" analogy serves no meaningful purpose in a discussion?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky:Therefore, by banning abortion we are needlessly endangering at least some of their lives.
Define "needless"
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Let's say I tie my five-year-old son to a chair and pay some guy to kill him in front of me.
But the first situation is murder. The analogy isn't meaningless. It is, in fact, highly transformative. The fact that people are more likely to envision the second scenario as murder is exactly the attitude many pro-life people are trying to change.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Just because something will not stop entirely due to criminalization is not sufficient reason to keep it legal-all laws are broken. By the argument implied by you, we should have no laws at all.
I have not said that abortion should be kept wholly legal; rather, I have said that pragmatic constraints should be added to any proposed abortion ban.
quote:And for the record, the position you say pro-lifers should be advocating has been advocated many times in the past, in threads not about why Roe v. Wade should be overturned.
Jim-Me and Dagonee both pointed that out; it simply hadn't been said in this thread. Now it has. I'm satisfied. Finally, abortion bans are a likely consequence of Roe v. Wade being overturned, and certainly merit being part of the discussion.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:If abortion is completely banned, women will still get abortions. These abortions will necessarily be less safe. Therefore, by banning abortion we are needlessly endangering at least some of their lives.
The blood would not be on the state's hands, Twinky. The people getting illegal abortions would be endangering themselves.
You're also ignoring the possibility that making it illegal would also discourage many from getting abortions, thus saving lives as well.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
It's fascinating to watch the dogpiling begin when I haven't even stated my actual position. [Edit: To be crystal clear: The " " implies a jest! A funny! I don't actually feel dogpiled.]
Jim-Me:
quote:Define "needless"
It's needless because it wouldn't have to be done. With the kind of tight control I suggested, it could be easily mitigated, given that abortion infrastructure is already in place. It would take no additional effort on anyone's part (other than lawyers) to propose an abortion ban with the caveat both you and Dagonee advocate. So why not do it?
Dagonee:
quote:But the first situation is murder. The analogy isn't meaningless. It is, in fact, highly transformative. The fact that people are more likely to envision the second scenario as murder is exactly the attitude many pro-life people are trying to change.
You don't see why saying "abortion is murder" immediately polarizes abortion debates rather than fostering civil discussion? There's nothing wrong with trying to change attitudes, but accusing every woman who has had an abortion of being an accessory to murder isn't a very good way of going about it.
Let's say abortion was banned and carried penalties equivalent to what is conventionally understood as being murder. Would the law be retroactive?
Rakeesh:
quote:The blood would not be on the state's hands, Twinky. The people getting illegal abortions would be endangering themselves.
There we disagree, but as we already know you're more libertarian than I am.
quote:You're also ignoring the possibility that making it illegal would also discourage many from getting abortions, thus saving lives as well.
Not at all. I'm simply saying that the number of lives saved or ended in this case is not relevant. [Added: Because of what I said to Jim-Me about effort. It takes almost nothing to add a "in cases of physical harm" clause to an abortion ban.]
------------------
Added: Finally, I haven't even said that I'd oppose an abortion ban; don't assume that I do. (I'm not going to say one way or the other at the moment because I'm not sure.)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Let's say abortion was banned and carried penalties equivalent to what is conventionally understood as being murder. Would the law be retroactive?
Of course not. Ex post facto laws are unconstitutional.
quote:It would take no additional effort on anyone's part (other than lawyers) to propose an abortion ban with the caveat both you and Dagonee advocate. So why not do it?
I'm not sure I understand this part. The needless deaths Jim-Me was referring to were, I believe, those of people seeking illegal elective abortions, not life-saving ones. Since we all agree life-saving abortions should be legal, the next point of analysis is whether your restriction would have any effect on the injuries caused by illegal elective abortion.
I can't for the life of me see why it would. Are you saying that having a life of the mother exception will make people who want a non-life-saving abortion less likely to seek one than if a general ban existed?
I think I must be missing your point somehow, but I don't see where.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:The needless deaths Jim-Me was referring to were, I believe, those of people seeking illegal elective abortions, not life-saving ones.
When I used the word "needless" I meant all women seeking abortions in the case of a full ban (which nobody is advocating). I think that's the source of the misunderstanding.
Edit: This is totally unrelated, but do you have to formally learn Latin to become a lawyer? (I wouldn't think so, but I'm suddenly curious.)
Edit 2: This post still isn't clear. "Endangering at least some lives needlessly" means "endangering the lives of women who seek illegal abortions to prevent physical harm to themselves in the case of a full ban." Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Twinky,
I don't think that any ban would not have that caveat.
as for why it isn't proposed there are a couple of reasons:
1) the court has not overturned Roe v. Wade so almost any law will be struck down by the existing legal precedent
2) pro-choice groups pour an enourmous amount of resources into preventing any limitation or regulation of abortion.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:This is totally unrelated, but do you have to formally learn Latin to become a lawyer?
Nope, not at all. It's not even that useful.
quote:This post still isn't clear. "Endangering at least some lives needlessly" means "endangering the lives of women who seek illegal abortions to prevent physical harm to themselves in the case of a full ban."
Then I think no one is disagreeing with you. Now, if Jim-Me can either confirm my interpretation of his post or correct it, we can go get a beer.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:I don't think that any ban would not have that caveat.
Good! Then as I said on page one, I'm satisfied. Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
While the issue of when life begins is sorted out... how about putting a stop to late-term and partial birth abortions now? Why wait?
I don't see how anyone could actually believe that because part of the child's body is still in the mother's body that it is not murder to "abort" the baby at that time. That child no longer relies on its mother's body to survive. The methods of these "abortions" is absolutely appalling.
Banning that would be really good in the meantime.
-Katarain
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Jim-Me: of course, even given both those things, at the current moment states are repeatedly passing laws attempting to make abortion as illegal as they feel they can reach.
If Roe v Wade were overturned, abortion would be completely illegal except in some very extenuating circumstances in over half the states in the union within a year, similarly to what's happened with states and gay marriage. Legislatures surf the waves they see.
At the same time, I predict we'd see a remarkable lack of non-movement towards providing greater funding for adoption services and birth control.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:A life does not begin until after birth.
How much has to remain in the birth canal for the child not to be alive? If there's a cesarian procedure being performed, how high can the baby be lifted while the doctor works before the baby becomes alive?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Many states do ban late term and the so-called "partial birth" abortions (which is a completely non-medical term used to stir up outrage).
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:partial birth abortions
Tangent:
"Partial-birth abortion" is a horrible misnomer. I'd agree with a ban on late-term abortions, but that ban would by definition cover so-called "partial-birth abortions."
The thing about partial-birth abortions is that the banned procedure and the procedure that ban advocates proposed to replace it with are both... ugh. Awful to even read about, let alone see pictures of.
Warning: this is graphic.
In what has come to be called a "partial-birth abortion," the fetus is pulled most of the way down the birth canal by the doctor before being killed (typically by puncturing the base of the skull and sucking the brain out). It is not, as the term implies, an abortion conducted during a natural birth. The "replacement" procedure that "partial-birth abortion" ban advocates have to paint as more humane to get the ban passed is equally disturbing -- the doctor dismembers the fetus inside the uterus before extracting it piecemeal. To my mind both are horrible; the only difference is that the former is less hazardous to the mother because the doctor does not have to insert any sharp metal implements into her uterus.
End of graphic stuff.
I would be fine with a ban on late-term abortions -- with the caveat, of course, that if the mother's life is at risk and there is no way to get the fetus out alive and into an incubator or something, then I suppose it could be permissible.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It might not be the medical term, but it's a fairly accurate description of some of the techniques.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Dagonee, another reason that I don't like talking in terms of "abortion = murder" is that it raises other questions, such as: If abortion is murder, then is miscarriage involuntary manslaughter?
I definitely think (and assume you'd agree) that abortion, whether it's permitted or not, should have its own legal category.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
So there aren't abortions occuring at times of natural birth?
-Katarain
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: So there aren't abortions occuring at times of natural birth?
This I don't know, but that's not what the term "partial-birth abortion" refers to, which is why it's so misleading.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No idea, can you provide any citations that show there are?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I definitely think (and assume you'd agree) that abortion, whether it's permitted or not, should have its own legal category.
I do agree, but realize this would be one category within the 6 or so others that constitute "murder" to the average person.
Few distinguish between manslaughter and actual murder in casual conversations.
To be more precise, abortion would be one of several different classifications of homicide.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Hm. Okay.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I didn't know it wasn't a medical term, but the practice is still appalling to me. Although, so are other methods of late-term abortion. If I had to pick a date, I'd say illegalize abortion by the beginning of the third trimester.
I'm not saying I think it would be okay in the first or the second, just that it's clearer that it's wrong in the third. At least it is to me.
I'm personally pro-life, but for laws, I'm mostly pro-choice. Up to a point. When it comes to the third trimester, I have less and less sympathy for the mother. It's bad enough that the couple was irresponsible enough to get pregnant when they weren't ready to care for a child, but it's even worse that they waited around to do something about it. By the 3rd trimester, you're almost done being pregnant. Just have the baby and adopt it out already. Sheesh.
-Katarain
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You ask the very questions that the supreme court is there to determine.
Yep. And they determined it wrongly. They also didn't determine it the way you suggested ("life begins at birth").
quote:As for making it illegal on whole I think the focus should be much more on stopping war and the indescrimate loss of life it causes. Like they say you can not be "pro life" and pro war.
So until war is over we can't advocate anything else politically?
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
They can say it all they want, but they'll still be wrong.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Dagonee, another reason that I don't like talking in terms of "abortion = murder" is that it raises other questions, such as: If abortion is murder, then is miscarriage involuntary manslaughter?
This is insulting and an absolutely horrific thing to say, especially considering the recent experiences of some of our posters.
A miscarriage is not manslaughter any more than a man who dies of natural causes in his bed can be said to have been "manslaughtered." If we can't see a difference between a natural death that no one could predict or prevent and an abortion which is a deliberate act to terminate a pregnancy, then there's nothing worth talking about at all.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Ohh and Dag you still have not explained how some rights are shared like the right to life but others like the freedom from abuse or harm are not shared by the unborn?
Brettly are you not aware of fetal protection acts which do precisely that?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:As for the until war is over... Actually you can advocate for anything you want. Hypocrisy flows uninhibited.
Wow, only two pages in and the H word surfaces. The primary pro-life premise is that unborn children are living humans due certain protections that most other living humans are afforded. That premise says nothing about whether or not killing a person in a particular situation is morally or legally justified. You say you are a pacifist. Do you think we should do away with self-defense exceptions to the homicide laws?
quote:Ohh and Dag you still have not explained how some rights are shared like the right to life but others like the freedom from abuse or harm are not shared by the unborn?
If you'd just point me to the law that makes it illegal for parents to smoke near their children, I'd be happy to compare the two situations. Until then, I'm not going to compare two mythical laws.
I still await the logic underlying your position that the difference in physical location of less than a meter determines whether a child is worth protecting or not.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13:At the same time, I predict we'd see a remarkable lack of non-movement towards providing greater funding for adoption services and birth control.
is a "lack of non-movement" a movement?
I really think pro lifers give more in these areas than they get credit for.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Someone should point out to Brettly that in cases where the fetus is not terminated by a doctor, a person abusing the fetus can be and often is prosecuted for murder or mannslaughter.
or perhaps I just did?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
at 25 million and rising, how much innocent life has to be shed through abortion for you to care about it, Brettly? Your assertion that life begins at birth is not even legal fiction, as shown by my mention earlier of prosecution in abuse leading to miscarriage... and I think we can all agree that the fetus is innocent...
Kwea's argument that the rights of the mother trump the rights of the fetus is the accurate statement of the pro-choice legal position...
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:I really think pro lifers give more in these areas than they get credit for.
Yes, I think this is a common misunderstanding.
For example, the church I go to gives monthly to a pro-life organization. The organization specifically does not get involved in politics and does not do clinic protests of any kind. All they do is try to care for, love, and provide services to pregnant women. They offer free pregnancy testing, they offer counseling, and for women that are in financial need they do things like hold baby showers to help a pregnant woman get the things she needs to care for her baby. I've participated in several of them, buying diapers, blankets, and clothing. I've talked to the girls, held one while she cried because two years before she'd had an abortion and couldn't believe we were willing to help her now.
It really bothers me when people say pro-life supporters don't care about the women, only about the unborn baby. It's very, very distressing, because I care very much for the women in these situations. Many times we are the only people who would help them, I've been told more than once that a boyfriend abandoned them when they refused to have an abortion, or in one case a girl's family kicked her out because she wouldn't have one. She was 17, pregnant, alone and terrified and needed help. We gave it to her.
And the ones that do have abortions - we care about them too. The organization offers post-abortion counselling for those that need it. No one is ever sent away from the test center with the words "If you get an abortion you're a murderer." They're treated with compassion and caring and told we will be there to support them no matter what they decide.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Smoking while pregnant has a fundamentally different effect on an unborn child compared to second hand smoke. Both are awful but they are very different.
Millions upon millions of babies have been born to smoking mothers. There's a huge difference between statistically increasing a risk (something that smoking near a child does as well) and vacuuming someone out of a womb.
quote:Location has to do with is the child still actually just an extension of the mother or is the child a separate fully functioning and supported being. This gets into where the Supreme court tried to draw the line. Ya know the whole w/o artificial means of support.
The hundreds of thousands of people who rely on artificial life support to live fulfilling lives will be glad to know you don't consider them separate fully-functioning beings.
Posted by dean (Member # 167) on :
Let's look at this from a completely different perspective.
Part 1
Who has late-term abortions? Are these people who have plenty of medical care and money? Or, more likely, are these people who A) are ignorant about pregnancy (don't realize they're pregnant until it's extremely obvious) B) need to save up for the procedure and/or C) aren't sure how to go about getting a procedure if that's what they want?
How many people do you know of would like to go through the physical discomforts of pregnancy for months and months before having an abortion?
Thinking about it, I don't conclude that people have late-term abortions because they figure that that's the fun way to do it. They do it because for some reason they aren't able to get an abortion earlier.
So completely eliminating late-term abortion takes it away from the people who arguably need the most help and need a child the least.
Part 2
If Roe Vs. Wade is repealed and the states make their own decisions about whether one can have an abotion, then likely places like California will have legal abortions and places like Alabama will not allow abortions in most cases.
So what that means is women in Alabama who have enough money to fly to California for an abortion will be free to have one. Women who are poor will have to have an illegal, dangerous procedure or have a child.
Or as one of my friends did, smoke, drink, use cocaine etc. with the hopes that they miscarry.
How is this fair to poor people?
Part 3
Let's say that abortion is banned throughout the US. No one anywhere is allowed to have an abortion unless they're raped, or it was a case of incest, or their life is in danger.
If the stakes are high enough, people might well resort to staging a rape, as one girl did to protect herself from her pro-life father in a recent episode of Law & Order SVU.
Part 4a
Some of you have tried to argue that the government has a stake in having children born. But do you think that the mother might have a higher stake in not having a baby? And mightn't the woman's stake in not having a baby be more immediate and vital?
Part 4b
If a woman does not want to have a child, do you think maybe she has a good reason for not wanting to have one?
And if she's obligated to have one because there is an abortion ban where she lives, don't you think that would have a negative effect on both her life and the child's life when it's born? Isn't it possible that she would resent the child for screwing up her life?
Part 4c
Several people have attempted to demonstrate that a ban on abortion leads to higher crime rates fifteen years down the line. For a really convincing explanation of this view, I recommend you pick up a book called Freakonomics. It's currently on the bestseller lists, and is easily available on amazon.
Conclusion
Having a child is an important, utterly life-changing event. I doubt if any of you would advocate that someone have a child for a trivial reason. I think "I'm having a baby because I happened to get pregnant" is not a good reason to have one.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brettly10: Location has to do with is the child still actually just an extension of the mother or is the child a separate fully functioning and supported being.
It is never just an extension of the mother. It is a separate biological, genetically human entity from the moment of conception. You may call it a parasite, but it is not physically a part of the mother anymore than a tapeworm.
quote: This gets into where the Supreme court tried to draw the line. Ya know the whole w/o artificial means of support.
You are moving very quickly towards viability being the point of personhood... is that what you intend?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:at 25 million and rising, how much innocent life has to be shed through abortion for you to care about it, Brettly?
That number would be 0 to those who do not believe an unborn child is an "innocent life" yet. There is certainly no consensus on the matter, nor any definitive argument one way or another. Even the Supreme Court admits this.
Perhaps life truly begins on your 3rd birthday... I certainly don't remember much before then.
Posted by dean (Member # 167) on :
I thought most Christians didn't believe babies were strictly innocent, either. Don't they still have the sin of the fall on them? Or am I confused?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by dean: If the stakes are high enough, people might well resort to staging a rape, as one girl did to protect herself from her pro-life father in a recent episode of Law & Order SVU.
Or like Norma McCorvey did in bringing the original lawsuit?
There's a good reason, IMO, right there to overturn-- the original judgement was made based on false testimony.
But, Dean, all your points make perfect sense if you completely ignore the fetus or presume better killed quickly than made to suffer later in life and no sense at all if you consider the the fetus to be a human baby.
I can guarantee you will suffer in the future, Dean. Trying to prevent this does not in any way become an argument for your death. I suffered some nasty and insidious abuse as a child that screwed me up badly enough that it took me 30 years to figure out that I had a horrific childhood, rather than a "normal" one and that, had anyone been aware of what happened to me, even back then I would almost certainly have been removed from my parents' custody.
And I guarantee you I am quite glad to not have been aborted.
Right now the law accords or denies that status at the whim of the mother... doesn't that bother you *more* in the case of a mother resentful of her pregnancy?
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote:Part 1
Who has late-term abortions? Are these people who have plenty of medical care and money? Or, more likely, are these people who A) are ignorant about pregnancy (don't realize they're pregnant until it's extremely obvious) B) need to save up for the procedure and/or C) aren't sure how to go about getting a procedure if that's what they want?
How many people do you know of would like to go through the physical discomforts of pregnancy for months and months before having an abortion?
Thinking about it, I don't conclude that people have late-term abortions because they figure that that's the fun way to do it. They do it because for some reason they aren't able to get an abortion earlier.
So completely eliminating late-term abortion takes it away from the people who arguably need the most help and need a child the least.
I still have little sympathy for those people. They're having sex, so they can be responsible enough to deal with the consequences.
quote:Part 2
If Roe Vs. Wade is repealed and the states make their own decisions about whether one can have an abotion, then likely places like California will have legal abortions and places like Alabama will not allow abortions in most cases.
So what that means is women in Alabama who have enough money to fly to California for an abortion will be free to have one. Women who are poor will have to have an illegal, dangerous procedure or have a child.
Or as one of my friends did, smoke, drink, use cocaine etc. with the hopes that they miscarry.
How is this fair to poor people?
Just because rich people can more easily break a law doesn't in itself mean the law shouldn't be.
quote:Part 3
Let's say that abortion is banned throughout the US. No one anywhere is allowed to have an abortion unless they're raped, or it was a case of incest, or their life is in danger.
If the stakes are high enough, people might well resort to staging a rape, as one girl did to protect herself from her pro-life father in a recent episode of Law & Order SVU.
Same argument. Just because people will break the law doesn't mean it shouldn't be.
quote:Part 4a
Some of you have tried to argue that the government has a stake in having children born. But do you think that the mother might have a higher stake in not having a baby? And mightn't the woman's stake in not having a baby be more immediate and vital?
If that stake is so high for the mother, WHY is she having sex?
quote:Part 4b
If a woman does not want to have a child, do you think maybe she has a good reason for not wanting to have one?
And if she's obligated to have one because there is an abortion ban where she lives, don't you think that would have a negative effect on both her life and the child's life when it's born? Isn't it possible that she would resent the child for screwing up her life?
If she doesn't want a child, she shouldn't be having sex--or at the very least, using multiple methods of birth control. The obligation comes from getting herself into that situation in the first place. She shouldn't resent the child. She should resent herself for having sex when having a child would be SUCH an inconvenience.
quote:Part 4c
Several people have attempted to demonstrate that a ban on abortion leads to higher crime rates fifteen years down the line. For a really convincing explanation of this view, I recommend you pick up a book called Freakonomics. It's currently on the bestseller lists, and is easily available on amazon.
I don't know what you're referring to here. Higher crime rates because the children that are born turn out to be criminals?? If you're going to be bad parents, don't have sex. If you have sex and the woman gets pregnant, give it up for adoption... or grow up.
quote:Conclusion
Having a child is an important, utterly life-changing event. I doubt if any of you would advocate that someone have a child for a trivial reason. I think "I'm having a baby because I happened to get pregnant" is not a good reason to have one.
Yes. It's important and utterly life changing. So don't have sex until you're ready to deal with having children. You don't HAPPEN to get pregnant. It's not complete chance...because you CHOOSE to play the game.
Disclaimer because some people need one: I'm talking about pregnancies NOT involving rape, of course.
-Katarain
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Having a child is an important, utterly life-changing event. I doubt if any of you would advocate that someone have a child for a trivial reason. I think "I'm having a baby because I happened to get pregnant" is not a good reason to have one.
Incidently, I believe that if someone has gotten to the point where they are already pregnant, they have already really waited too long to decide they don't want to have a baby. That decision should have already been made, before that point is reached. Why not just wait until the baby is already born, see if you want it, and then kill it if you don't?
No, the appropriate time to decide you don't want a baby is BEFORE you have sex. If we really care so much about unwanted pregnancies then what we should to is regulate when you can and cannot have sex, rather than waiting until the damage may already be done and regulating when you can or cannot have abortions. As much as I do think people have a right to have sex if they want to, I think that right is far less important than respecting even the chance that an unborn child has a right to live.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Having a child is an important, utterly life-changing event. I doubt if any of you would advocate that someone have a child for a trivial reason. I think "I'm having a baby because I happened to get pregnant" is not a good reason to have one.
Incidently, I believe that if someone has gotten to the point where they are already pregnant, they have already really waited too long to decide they don't want to have a baby. That decision should have already been made, before that point is reached. Why not just wait until the baby is already born, see if you want it, and then kill it if you don't?
No, the appropriate time to decide you don't want a baby is BEFORE you have sex. If we really care so much about unwanted pregnancies then what we should to is regulate when you can and cannot have sex, rather than waiting until the damage may already be done and regulating when you can or cannot have abortions. As much as I do think people have a right to have sex if they want to, I think that right is far less important than respecting even the chance that an unborn child has a right to live.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I'm not sure about most Christians, but I (LDS) believe that babies are innocent.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:That number would be 0 to those who do not believe an unborn child is an "innocent life" yet. There is certainly no consensus on the matter, nor any definitive argument one way or another. Even the Supreme Court admits this.
Perhaps life truly begins on your 3rd birthday... I certainly don't remember much before then.
Tres, I think we both understand that. The point is that someone criticizing someone else's priorities needs to take into account the other person's belief on when life begins. To Jim-Me and me, there have been ~25,000,000 deaths due to Roe. This explains why we might spend effort to overturn it rather than stopping the death penalty.
[ July 20, 2005, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Belle:
quote:This is insulting and an absolutely horrific thing to say, especially considering the recent experiences of some of our posters.
I considered that before posting, but decided it was sufficiently on-topic and hypothetical to be okay.
But more importantly, if we're willing to call people who have had what are essentially abortions of convenience -- like my parents -- "murderers," then I don't think you get to call my post "horrific and insulting." As long as we're considering people's personal experiences, I'll thank you not to accuse my parents of homicide.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Heh, sorry, I meant lack of movement.
And no, I give pro-lifers considerable credit in instances. I give legislatures which are going to get little political gain for something little credit.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag Having a baby after smoking does not mean you didn't harm them. I mean come on Dag that is my point. Anything less than killing a fetus in uteri is ok???? Only abortion crosses that line?
No. You were the one trying to make illogical parallels between child protection laws and the lack of fetal protection laws to somehow show that unborn children should be allowed to be aborted. My point is that we allow things that are dangerous to children; we allow things that are dangerous to unborn children. We don't allow children to be killed; we shouldn't allow unborn children to be killed.
quote:Life support implies at some point the life was not needing support. Maybe not but either way it has to do with where to draw the line.
Why? Are you really saying the beginning of personhood changes based on our technological capabilities?
quote:Really are you saying conception is that point???
Yes. I'm surprised there's confusion on that point.
quote:The supreme court does not believe that a fertilized egg constitutes a separate human life. But hey if you disagree with that POV obviously you are going to feel differently. The whole belief of "pulling the plug" would also mean murder by your argument. I feel that it is not murder to end life support so my views are consistent on this.
Of course, I'm not advocating that SCOTUS decide that human life begins at conception. I'm advocating SCOTUS allow our designated elected officials to make the decision about when legal protection attaches.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Twinky I'll thank you not to accuse me of saying something I didn't say.
Review my post and show where I called anyone, especially your parents, murderers.
I compared miscarriage to an abortion which I then called
quote:a deliberate act to terminate a pregnancy
I did not call it murder.
Then, in a later post, I made a point of saying that the pro-life organization I support and work with doesn't call people murderers.
So before you get accusatory and defensive with me, you'd better review what I've written. Nowhere have I EVER called people who get abortions murderers. I specifically avoid that term, because I don't think that people who get abortions are murderers. For one thing, murder is a legal term, and since abortion is not illegal, people who get them can't be guilty of murder, now can they?
For another, I think people who are in the situation where they feel they must terminate a pregnancy deserve my compassion and calling them murderers isn't very compassionate.
So, please show me where I have done something "horrific and insulting" to your parents before you accuse me of it.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
You said I'd posted something horrific and insulting given the recent personal experiences of various people on the board. But that's hardly fair, since already in this thread people (TomD, for instance) have already equated abortion to murder, which as far as I'm concerned is equivalently insulting -- and note that I didn't mention it at that stage, because in this thread people are speaking in a large part hypothetically and things are generally civil, so I was fine with it.
I'm glad you don't think it's fair to use the term. What I don't see is how you get to call what I wrote "horrific and insulting" when it's quite in line with the rest of the thread's content.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
It's the insinuation that a miscarriage is somehow criminal or should be punished. For a woman who's recently miscarried, that is definitely insulting and horrifically painful to read. If you can't see that, and you don't care about others' feelings, then so be it.
But you don't get to accuse me of not caring for others' feelings on this matter, because I do. I'm not responsible for what Tom has posted, I'm responsible for the word choices I make. I've called no one a murderer. You, however, have likened a miscarriage to a crime. That, to me, is definitely horrific and insulting to the people who've experienced it.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:It's the insinuation that a miscarriage is somehow criminal or should be punished. For a woman who's recently miscarried, that is definitely insulting and horrifically painful to read. If you can't see that, and you don't care about others' feelings, then so be it.
I think for the comparison between a miscarriage and and manslaughter to be valid, the miscarriage would have to have been caused by negligence on the part of the parents. To be convicted of manslaughter it takes more than just a death occuring - it requires that death to be your fault, resulting from significant negligence on your part.
quote:Wait we should allow the elected officials to decide what is right not the Supreme Court. Oh man if that was the case we would still be in segragation. Women might not have the right to vote and a million other horrible things would be ok. The point is elected officials should not be making those decisions.
But elected officials DID decide both of those! They both stem from amendments voted on by members of Congress.
The Supreme Court did broaden the effect of those amendments in ways the original voters probably did not intend, but only because they did not forsee all the ways in which their new law would apply - not because the Supreme Court simply decided it would be "right" to broaden them more than they were.
[ July 20, 2005, 03:12 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Like they say you can not be "pro life" and pro war.
Laughable. One can most certainly be both pro-life and pro-war, without a whiff of hypocrisy, because both of those terms are very vague, Brettly.
One could be 'pro-war' with regards to a specific war and still be pro-life with regards to abortion, particularly abortions of convenience.
But I'll agree with this, it would be nice if we were able to nail hypocrisy on someone without their even being consulted.
'They say' indeed.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
The legislature specifically gave women the right to vote by constitutional amendment. That was NOT a judicial decision.
The Courts did end segregation because they said and explained how "separate but equal" violated a ratified constitutional amendment.
In Roe v. Wade, they said the right to privacy "emanates from the penumbra" of the 14th amendment... which I still find a fascinating concept. They must be truly special to have found something in the light of a shadow.
Twinky and Belle, you guys know I love you both... Peace, please? there's a lot of room for serious feelings to get stirred up in this debate and it absolutely *has* to be approached gently and carefully.
Twinky, you are absolutely right that "Murderer" is inflammatory and counter productive. Belle, you never used that word and were merely looking out for the jatraquera who recently had a miscarriage. Both of you are trying to protect people's feelings... take deep breaths, count to ten, and continue to do so.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Wait we should allow the elected officials to decide what is right not the Supreme Court. Oh man if that was the case we would still be in segragation.
When you want to discuss what I actually said, let me know. If you're confused as to why the situations are different, take a look at the 14th amendment some time, specifically the equal protection clause. I have not advocated doing away with judicial review.
quote:Women might not have the right to vote and a million other horrible things would be ok.
Where did you study history? State legislatures took the lead in granting women the vote, and it became nationwide when an amendment was passed to the Constitution. The judiciary had nothing to do with it.
quote:The point is elected officials should not be making those decisions. The supreme court doesn't worry about polls or re-election so they are the best to decide for the long term.
You prefer it be 9 people appointed for life? You may not be so sanguine about it if a Republican wins the next presidential election. Stevens will likely go, very likely leaving a hard anti-Roe majority. There's a reason a 50-year old got the nomination yesterday.
quote:I think for the comparison between a miscarriage and and manslaughter to be valid, the miscarriage would have to have been caused by negligence on the part of the parents. To be convicted of manslaughter it takes more than just a death occuring - it requires that death to be your fault, resulting from significant negligence on your part.
Quick review of homicide law:
Traditionally, there were two crimes:
Murder, the intentional killing of a human with malice, and manslaughter, the intention killing of a human being in the heat of passion.
Later, murder was divided into murder in the first degree, which is premeditated murder, and second degree murder, which was defined as all other murders. Still later, "reckless disregard (or depraved indifference) for human life" was added as a qualifiying mental state for murder 2.
Involuntary manslaughter did not get divided off from manslaughter - it was simply given a similar name. It requires something akin to gross negligence. The original manslaughter was modified to include general recklessness.
Under the model penal code, there is first degree murder, second degree murder, manslaughter, and negligent homicide. Some states have divided manslaughter into first and second degree.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I assumed that if I was capable of accepting that some people might consider abortion to be murder, given what that implies about people who have elective abortions, it would be okay to use what I consider to be an equally absurd analogy (since miscarriage is not deserving of anything but sympathy) to illustrate how I feel about "abortion = murder.".
You're still missing my point, which is that before you got all high and mighty I'd already been (unknowingly) insulted, but I didn't call anyone's statements "horrific and insulting," because, well, that's really rude and doesn't help the discussion. I just accepted that some people believe, very strongly, that my parents are murderers, and then tried to put that out of my head as best I could.
-----------------
Tres just dealt with it in exactly the right way. I think his criticism of the analogy is perfectly valid (since I think the analogy is ludicrous and used it precisely for that reason).
Maybe I should have made it more clear that I think the analogy is absurd, sure. But if you don't see that your initial post is more than a little unfair in the context of this thread then clearly I'm not the only one who is insensitive to the feelings of others.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I think "I'm having a baby because I happened to get pregnant" is not a good reason to have one.
You're already having one at that point. The person is already pregnant. It cannot be undone. If you exterminate the bunch of cells or small defenseless life, the woman was still pregnant, and the man still sired a child on her.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Okay, okay. Jim's right.
*deep breath*
I am sorry I used that analogy. I obviously misjudged how hurtful it would be, since I thought it would be okay in context.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
quote: If abortion is completely banned, women will still get abortions. These abortions will necessarily be less safe. Therefore, by banning abortion we are needlessly endangering at least some of their lives.
I disagree. I fact, I think as far as early abortions go the issue is getting kind of moot. All you have to do is look in a childbearing herbal, find which herbs you should avoid because they cause miscarriage. ( admittedly I say that from the place of a person who wouild never seek an abortion, unless it were my physical health at stake)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:As for the pro war with a specific war. How is it ok to be for killing innocent people because they are on the wrong "side" in a war but be against terminating a pregnancy because the unborn child is innocent? I don't agree you can not be for random killing of innocent people on one hand and against it on the other. All wars involve individuals who are not part of the fighting but are killed in the process!
Will you at least pretend to read and respond to the reasons people have given about this before repeating the same argument?
For the record, here it is again:
quote:The primary pro-life premise is that unborn children are living humans due certain protections that most other living humans are afforded. That premise says nothing about whether or not killing a person in a particular situation is morally or legally justified. You say you are a pacifist. Do you think we should do away with self-defense exceptions to the homicide laws?
In other words, the pro-life position is not that "innocent life shouldn't be killed." It is that "unborn children are living human beings; we should apply the same rules with respect to the intentional ending of their lives that we do to other living human beings."
Many people agree that we shouldn't be allowed to kill whomever we feel like but that killing in self-defense, or in just wars, or in other situations may be morally justifiable.
Dagonee
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brettly10: As for the pro war with a specific war. How is it ok to be for killing innocent people because they are on the wrong "side" in a war ... All wars involve individuals who are not part of the fighting but are killed in the process!
Now less than ever, but, more importantly, if the War is preventing someone from running rough shod over millions of people, then it is absolutely justifiable to allow a bunch of civilian casualties.
Obvious example of a war that a pro-life person could support: WWII.
But more importantly, you are missing the clear distinction between someone getting harmed accidentally (collateral damage) and someone being actively and specifcally killed.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:I am sorry I used that analogy. I obviously misjudged how hurtful it would be, since I thought it would be okay in context. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you. That's all I was hoping you would understand. And, I wanted to add that I wasn't just looking out for others' feelings in this matter, but I have feelings of my own about the subject. Trust me when I say that the idea that a woman who's had a miscarriage should be charged with manslaughter is also personally insulting.
Consider the situation dropped on my end.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Are you really trying to say that it is the states that have made all
My thoughts on state and federal decision-making are outlined in my post on p. 1 of this thread made at 9:14.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Well again I don't miss the distinction rather we have a different definition of certain terms. I don't agree with you on when life begins. So that is rather not a missed distinction but rather a known difference!
When you accuse someone of hypocrisy, which you have done here, you are, by definition, speaking only of the views held by the person being accused. Hypocrisy is not about whether a person's espoused moral views are correct, it is about whether they are sincerely held and, in a looser sense, self-consistent.
Dagonee
Posted by dean (Member # 167) on :
It's true, though, that fetal protection acts are sometimes used against mothers who miscarry. If, for example, a woman's doctor told her that she had to get bed rest, and she (for example) had to go to work at her menial job, she could still be tried to neglect (and manslaughter, too, I think) if she has a miscarriage.
I don't think having to carry a fetus to term (when there are options available to not have to) is the perfect and appropriate punishment for anyone who has sex. Birth control does have a failure rate, of course, and so does the morning-after pill. Considering that we have another viable backup plan for women who do end up pregnant (and really, seriously don't want to be) is all to the best.
I think that the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness very much does include a woman's right to make a choice of what medical procedures she wants to have, when or if she wants to have children, etc.
Insisting that biologically sex generally leads to pregnancy isn't really a good answer. When we don't like biology or nature, we do what's in our power to change it. The ancient civilzations, for example, allowed for the exposure of unwanted children when women couldn't raise another. Abortion is a more civilized form of the same.
It seems to me very important that women be allowed to do what's best for their own life and for the life of the children they A) already have or B) plan to have in the future.
Somebody has to make a decision about what's the best decision for each person. I like a system in which each (sentient) person is allowed to decide for him or herself. One woman is free to have a baby, and another woman is equally free to not have one.
A blanket decision (either way) strikes me as the worst kind of tyrrany.
I don't trust the government (local or federal) to know what's right for me at my current stage of life better than I know for myself.
I trust that the majority of women are doing the best that they can to make the best choices for themselves, and I don't see a reason to take away their options.
If they choose to have a child, they will be responsible for that child forever, which includes balancing their own needs against their children's needs and each child's needs against each other. Letting them start that time of responsibility with that same sort of balancing act seems like the best way to me.
The majority of women don't run around having abortions because there's nothing else to do on a dull afternoon. Accidents happen, people make mistakes, and it seems to them as though it would be a tragedy or a disaster to have a child right now. Maybe they will be fine and triumph over circumstances if they do have a child. Maybe it will be the disaster that they fear. Most women consider it a tough choice whichever way they choose. Lots of women who think that they would never have an abortion do, and lots of women who think that it would be an easy choice in favor of abortion decide that they just can't do it.
When it's that close, when it's just not clear-cut, it seems to me completely appropriate that each person should have to decide what it is that they can live with.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Ok first no abortion is an abortion of convenience. The consequences to the individual making the choice are deep. It may appear to be convenient but it is not an accurate term.
As for the pro war with a specific war. How is it ok to be for killing innocent people because they are on the wrong "side" in a war but be against terminating a pregnancy because the unborn child is innocent? I don't agree you can not be for random killing of innocent people on one hand and against it on the other. All wars involve individuals who are not part of the fighting but are killed in the process!
Hypocrisy is usually not something you consult someone about. Tends that they don't have the same beliefs and therefore don't feel that their opinions contradict. Like I have said this is one of the places where peoples minds don't get changed by others arguments. So my POV will be very different than Dag's or another’s.
I did not say that abortions turned out to have been convenient, trouble-free decisions, Brettly. But it's absurd to think that abortions are not carried out because the woman or couple just isn't ready for a child and anyway, it's not really a human life anyway so why not?
I assure you, there are couples who have felt that way, and who have had repeated abortions for reasons purely of convience. I have met them.
As far as warfare is concerned, yes, innocent people will die. It is tragic, and all but the most fanatical, inconsiderate fools mourn their loss-on both sides. However, one can still be in favor of a specific war given the likely outcome of not going to war. For instance, let's use that old favorite, WWII. Let's even set aside questions of the morality of things like Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. Let's say for argument's sake that the atomic and conventional bombings of those cities and others like them never happened before.
Do you still say that it is hypocritical of someone to have been in favor of prosecuting that war, and still be opposed to abortion? If so, I'll be blunt: it's not a hypocritical set of beliefs to have, and it is absurd to say so. Here's why: wars may sometimes be necessary. Abortions are in all but a very, very small percentage of cases, both easily and cheaply avoidable with minimal outlay of resources and minimal planning.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Those who were on the wrong end of the atomic bomb might not agree with the its ok to kill in war to protect others!
The people their soldiers would have gone on raping, murdering, conquering and dominating for decades throughout the region might scoff at your ivory-tower morality.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by dean: ancient civilzations, for example, allowed for the exposure of unwanted children when women couldn't raise another. Abortion is a more civilized form of the same.
Dean, I think we agree here, but your supporters may want a word with you .
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
When my husband was young, he had a neighbor who routinely went to have abortions. They were her chosen method of birth control, not even trying anything else.
-Katarain
Posted by dean (Member # 167) on :
quote:Now less than ever, but, more importantly, if the War is preventing someone from running rough shod over millions of people, then it is absolutely justifiable to allow a bunch of civilian casualties.
What exactly is the ratio of harm to one versus deaths of another? If it's okay to kill a percentage of one group of people to secure the safety, security and rights of another (larger) group of people....? Isn't that what abortion is?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Rakeesh... easy fella...
we got a pretty good discussion going... let's not get too riled here... </self appointed abortion thread peacekeeper>
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The ancient civilzations, for example, allowed for the exposure of unwanted children when women couldn't raise another. Abortion is a more civilized form of the same.
Just because one social practice is more civilized than another by no means makes that second practice civilized.
quote:I don't think having to carry a fetus to term (when there are options available to not have to) is the perfect and appropriate punishment for anyone who has sex.
I don't think it's about punishment at all. I feel it is about protection and uncertainty, namely that innocent lives should be protected, and we are uncertain where life begins.
quote:Considering that we have another viable backup plan for women who do end up pregnant (and really, seriously don't want to be) is all to the best.
Considering the quite low failure rate of various forms of birth control, particularly when they are used carefully, I don't see why a 'backup plan' that involves the possible extermination of an innocent life 'all for the best'.
quote:I think that the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness very much does include a woman's right to make a choice of what medical procedures she wants to have, when or if she wants to have children, etc.
Isn't it strange that those three rights aren't found in the US Constitution? And where in the Constitution-or even the Declaration of Independance-is the right for anyone for freedom from the consequences of one's own choices guaranteed?
quote:Somebody has to make a decision about what's the best decision for each person. I like a system in which each (sentient) person is allowed to decide for him or herself. One woman is free to have a baby, and another woman is equally free to not have one.
A blanket decision (either way) strikes me as the worst kind of tyrrany.
I don't trust the government (local or federal) to know what's right for me at my current stage of life better than I know for myself.
One consideration which you are totally ignoring is that there is a second person involved in that decision, who cannot speak.
A blanket decision which no one has advocated sounds stupid to me as well.
I don't trust the government to know those things either.
quote:The majority of women don't run around having abortions because there's nothing else to do on a dull afternoon. Accidents happen, people make mistakes, and it seems to them as though it would be a tragedy or a disaster to have a child right now. Maybe they will be fine and triumph over circumstances if they do have a child. Maybe it will be the disaster that they fear. Most women consider it a tough choice whichever way they choose. Lots of women who think that they would never have an abortion do, and lots of women who think that it would be an easy choice in favor of abortion decide that they just can't do it.
You insist on not mentioning the other possibility, dean. That there may well be someone else involved. And anyway, people have more control over their state government than their federal government, so by your argument-that individuals should be given more control over their own choices-shouldn't Roe v. Wade be overturned?
Or do you only stand by that argument when it means people should be allowed to have abortions as they are now?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I am taking it easy, and I am not riled. I require no peacekeeper.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by dean:
What exactly is the ratio of harm to one versus deaths of another? If it's okay to kill a percentage of one group of people to secure the safety, security and rights of another (larger) group of people....? Isn't that what abortion is?
No it's not.
If you genuinely can't see the diffference between stopping holocaust-perpetrating totalitarians from their stated goals of world domination (WWII) and preventing oneself from having to deal with the responsibilities of an "accident" (abortion) then I'm afraid I can't really explain it to you in detail at the moment.
but going into the act itself... as I and others have repeatedly said... collateral damage casualties are accidental... no one is TRYING to make them happpen (or, if they are, they are a war criminal). Abortion directly and specifically targets a human fetus and says "goodbye".
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I require no peacekeeper.
for some reason this made me think:
"I have no gate key."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Hypocrisy is not by definition from the POV of the speaker.
If by speaker you me "the one stating views which are being inspected for hypocrisy" then you are flat out wrong. Look up the definition of hypocrisy some time.
Posted by dean (Member # 167) on :
quote:by your argument-that individuals should be given more control over their own choices-shouldn't Roe v. Wade be overturned?
No. If abortion is freely available, then women are free to choose it or not as needed and however their values direct them. If Roe versus Wade is overturned, I, for example, would likely not be able to have an abortion should I need one because, living here in Alabama, it will certainly be made illegal statewide.
If women do indeed have a right to an abortion, then the courts need to protect that right no matter how unpopular it is. Whether women have that right is the real question here.
If I had to have an abortion, it would be well within the first trimester, within the first six weeks if I could manage that. In the first trimester, the fetus is not particularly viable, and is certainly not something that I feel I must respect as equally sentient and valuable as myself. Dogs are more sentient than the average fetus and more capable of surviving on their own, and yet we euthanize them every day.
Yes, it's a tragedy to have an abortion. Yes, it's a tragedy to euthanize millions of animals. I do what I can to limit the scope of these tragedies. I use birth control. I adopt animals and have my animals all spayed and neutered.
But when push comes to shove, life is sometimes one bad choice against another bad choice. You make the best choice you can and move on. One person will make one choice and another person will make another choice. It's their life and they have to live with it. Sounds reasonable to me.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Mutually exclusive <> hypocritical.
Are you trying to say those beliefs are contradictory or hypocritical?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
See my posts above, I've repeated myself enough here.
I will say, in answer to this:
quote:If she doesn't feel a child is a living human until the first breath of life then that is fine.
That it is not ok if the fetus is demonstrably a living human individual. This is at best (for the prochoice argument) unknown, and all the empirical evidence says is in favor of the prolife stance.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by dean: Dogs are more sentient than the average fetus
by what definition and support?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
So your view really isn't that people should have the maximum possible control over all of their choices, but just women over abortion?
Because that's what Roe v. Wade did, among other things-took away from the states what would've been something controlled by them, and by the people who elect them. You have more control over state government because you are a part of a much smaller group of people voting.
By supporting Roe v. Wade, you are disregarding the rights of states-and thus the increased right of individuals-to govern themselves.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:For the record Rak keep Ivory-tower morality stuff to yourself. I am giving my perspective and have never indicated my morality is greater only that it is different.
Of course you do! You've said more than once that to support both a specific war and oppose abortion equals hypocrisy. How is that not indicating your morality is better than that of another?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
No, Brettly, it is, quantitatively speaking.
Qualitatively it may not be, but we really don't know, nor do we have any way of knowing at this point.
It is alive, it is human, it is genetically unique.
We don't know anything about its experience except that we know it reacts to stimuli as early as we can record the reaction.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brettly10: DAG,
Wait we should allow the elected officials to decide what is right not the Supreme Court. Oh man if that was the case we would still be in segragation. Women might not have the right to vote and a million other horrible things would be ok. The point is elected officials should not be making those decisions. The shouldn't swing from one term to the next. The supreme court doesn't worry about polls or re-election so they are the best to decide for the long term. Over time things may shift but wow just think how many times this would have changed since 1973 if the elected officials made the decisions.
You are slightly mistaken. If we let the court decide these things then we would have plessy vs ferguson, and the dred scott decision. If we had corrupt people in the legislature and uber good men in the judiciary, then fine lets do it that way. But typically it is not always that cut and dry. The court says "constitutional/unconstitutional, and WHY thats IT. The legislature says "we need THIS law in place, and submits it to the president for approval, if its approved its law, afterwards the Supreme Court MAY say IN our OUT. Often they avoid the issue.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Claudia Therese asked a question in an abortion debate thread long ago that I've never heard answered. Namely, among those who see zygotes as fully human, why is there no outcry, no millions being spent, no huge campaigns to study and prevent the very serious problem of some 30% of these full-humans dying naturally from lack of implantation? If 30% of newborns were dying of some terrible disease like SIDS, wouldn't our society be investing enormous amounts of effort and money into rescuing them? Does the fact that nobody really seems to care, or think it's advisable to rescue those zygotes which don't implant, or to study and understand the causes of non-implantation and combat them one by one, rather lead to the conclusion that people don't truly value those zygotes as much as they do newborns?
We could do much much more to prevent abortions than we do. We could provide better birth control education, more access to contraceptives, and better pre-natal care. We could do research toward better more effective, easier to use methods of contraception, with fewer side effects. We could provide better adoption options. Families who want the children could pay for the room and board, a healthy environment, pre-natal care, and all medical expenses to pregnant women who were willing to give up their children for adoption, for instance. If we really cared about children born unwanted into poverty and neglect, we could take better care of them. We do a certain amount of this, but much less than we could do. It seems to me as though most pro-life advocates care for fetuses, but once a child is born into poverty and neglect, their caring stops. Our country does not tend to rescue babies from situations like that, to give them a better chance. There are millions of unadopted and unadoptable orphans, are there not? Where is the outcry among pro-lifers about this situation? Why don't we fix it?
I agree that it's a terrible thing when an unborn child has to die. I disagree, however, that banning legal abortion is a good way to combat this problem. I feel that the loving means we have of making abortions unnecessary are badly underutilized. Criminalizing abortion is a punitive, unloving approach toward someone who is already, perhaps, in a desperate situation. There's simply no moral way to take free agency away from a pregnant woman. Whatever the courts do, lock her up, force her to eat good food, withold sharp objects, etc. in the interest of her unborn child, she still can harm herself and the baby. You can't force someone to bear a child. Regardless of the rights or wrongs of mothers' choices, trying to force women to bear children against their will is wrong. The cure, in this case, is worse than the disease.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Claudia Therese asked a question in an abortion debate thread long ago that I've never heard answered. Namely, among those who see zygotes as fully human, why is there no outcry, no millions being spent, no huge campaigns to study and prevent the very serious problem of some 30% of these full-humans dying naturally from lack of implantation?
I've attempted to answer this as best I can several times. My old running from the bear hypothetical was one attempt to approach it obliquely. The best I can offer is that 1) it doesn't seem terribly possible to intervene in this process safely - the testing alone would likely cause more deaths than eventual remedies might save given the difficulty of detection; and 2) the fact that an event occurs naturally does not automatically make it morally acceptable to intentionally cause that event to occur.
Ultimately, though, this is irrelevant to the abortion debate (although not the morning after pill debate) because abortions do not happen before implantation.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It seems to me as though most pro-life advocates care for fetuses, but once a child is born into poverty and neglect, their caring stops. Our country does not tend to rescue babies from situations like that, to give them a better chance. There are millions of unadopted and unadoptable orphans, are there not? Where is the outcry among pro-lifers about this situation?
This kind of statement, quite frankly, really pisses me off. Most of the pro-life advocates I know spend far more time on charity work the average person. This kind of thing gets tossed around a lot, and there's no evidence for it.
I wish the two party system didn't force us to choose between legal murder and viable programs for supporting people in crisis pregnancies (not that I consider most of the Democratic programs viable, but at least they offer some). But it does force that choice.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Tatiana, I was unaware that 30% of zygotes fail to implant, but I see tons of money spent combating endometriosis and the like... and also see many embryos cast by the wayside in attempts to perform in vitrio fertilization and by using fertility drugs (which I also oppose for this very reason). I wonder if the implantaion failure rate is so high on what I will for lack of vocabulary call a "natural" pregnancy.
But I think you are right that people do not value zygotes as much as newborns... and that is a shame, but legalizing abortion certainly does nothing to improve how people value zygotes.
As for what pro-lifers don't do to support poor people, I have already said I think that's rather sweeping and inaccurate generalization (though not in those exact words), but more to the point, it doesn't imply that they are wrong. I personally, have done very little to combat abortion (in the ways you recommend, or even arguing the point on this forum) in the last few years because I've had my hands quite full with my own life and family's welfare. That doesn't make me wrong nor even hypocritical in opposing abortion's legality.
That having been said, I don't think it's going to go away, anyhow...I would be very surprised and happy to see it limited at all... and even if it becomes illegal, you are certainly correct in pointing out that the things that make women choose abortions NEED to be addressed, and always will.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:It seems to me as though most pro-life advocates care for fetuses, but once a child is born into poverty and neglect, their caring stops. Our country does not tend to rescue babies from situations like that, to give them a better chance. There are millions of unadopted and unadoptable orphans, are there not? Where is the outcry among pro-lifers about this situation?
See my earlier post about the organization I volunteer for and give money to that does indeed help the mothers who need financial assistance. We do not stop caring when the baby is born.
As to the embryos that naturally don't implant - I don't think it's necessary to interfere in a natural process, nor is it feasible, as Dag said. There is a huge difference between embryos that are formed naturally, and due to circumstances beyond anyone's knowledge or control fail to implant and deliberately removing or destroying embryos known to exist.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I would like to take a moment here to congratulate this group. I am thankful this whole argument has moved away from the arguments I've heard elsewhere.
That argument is not that this is pro-choice vs pro-life, but it is pro-sex vs anti-sex. There have been a limited number of conservative loudmouths, those who only think that they are connected with the true moral issues of this debate, who's main concern is that abortion will lead to more sex. They see unplanned pregnancy as a punishment inflicted on loose women for thier sin. No pregnancy is a punishment from God.
What you will hear more often than this perverse argument is the straw man believed in by many pro-choicers that all pro-life conservatives fit this mode. There are some pro-choice liberals who write off whole groups of thoughtful caring people as mere nosey vengeful prudes.
The flip side of this is the sexually overactive person who only wants abortions legal as a way of escaping responsibility for thier actions. These selfish libertines believe that the choice in pro-choice involves how many sexual partners they can have, not how they need to take care of their own body.
And you get the pro-life groups who have grabbed on to thin minority, and paint the entire pro-choice movement with their ugly face. They disregard large numbers of socially motivated caring individuals as sexual addicts willing to kill for booty.
The result is, instead of rational conversation like we are mostly having here, we get two groups of moral and caring individuals not talking to each other, but laying accusations at each other. Worse than not talking, they are not listening.
That's how the politicians take control of the groups involved, and build their careers not on answering the difficult questions, but on keeping the debate hot and active.
The biggest fact that has to be faced before Roe-vs-Wade is ever reconsidered is not, "Where does life begin" or "Who owns the body, the mother or the unborn?" but this..."This issue is splitting the country in half because both sides have good rational and real concerns."
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:Rakeesh, Jim, Belle, and Dag: While I do not agree with your POV I do recognize its validity for your belief system...However as I am not religious and some of you are
I actually think the pro-life posters in this thread have made a good case without saying anything about religious morality. I certainly agree with them, and I'm an atheist.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I was just saying that it's possible they've made their decision fairly independent of their religion, since I've come to the same conclusion as an atheist.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
It wasn't religioius beliefs that made me convinced that abortion was wrong - it was the ultrasound of my 10 week old daughter in the womb.
Before that time, I considered myself pro-choice, believing that first trimester fetuses weren't "really" babies. At the moment I saw my daughter on the screen, I knew I was wrong. Subsequent thinking about and reading up on life before birth now has me solidly convinced that life begins at conception.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I don't think the debate has ever been over when life begins, though I understand you're likely using it as shorthand, but when human life begins.
While I definitely understand your position, I hope you can understand why many people have trouble seeing a single cell (or a small glob of a dozen cells) as a human life.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
So you agree that it's life, just not human?
What species is it? Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Human is not necessarily a species designation.
Perhaps you'd prefer "a human life"?
That is, an individual.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:You however are trying to imply that I have and do believe I am superior which is wrong. All I am saying is stay on topic and keep the ad-homs for another discussion. I can understand your position without agreeing. You seem to be unable to do the same.
Labelling other people's beliefs hypocritical is not both an attack and a statement of their belief's inferiority? I notice you entirely glossed over that part.
Before it was, "This belief is hypocritical." Now it is, "This is just my belief, that's your belief." My calling you on that is certainly not an ad-hominem attack, and your resorting to that defense tells me you've decided not to answer my question: do you think beliefs which aren't hypocritical are of equal quality to beliefs which are consistent?
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Dagonee, the question of why we don't spend funds and do research into nonimplantation of blastocysts (which I believe is the correct name for the clumps of cells that the zygotes have become by the time of implantation) is not meant to be an analogy to abortion of unwanted pregnancies. Rather, it's a question that illuminates people's true feelings about the full-humanity of zygotes, when compared to newborns.
Even if it occurred naturally through disease or mishap, the death of 30% of newborns would cause a great groundswell of demand for intervention, for research, for something to be done to save these babies' lives. The fact that no corresponding concern is evidenced for the zygotes, even among people who claim to consider zygotes fully human, does lead us to reexamine their claim.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Reading Tatiana's post on the last page made me think of maternity leave.
I think *any* move to re-criminalize abortion would have to be accompanied by full, paid maternity leave for pregnant women and stringent controls ensuring their jobs would be available after that period, on the same terms and conditions as before the pregnancy and that promotion opportunities would not be affected in any way. This would be for every job - including long-term casual employment.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm aware of that, Tatiana. As I've said, I've tried on several occasions to articulate the reasons why there is no moral imperative to increase the implantation rate even though those are human beings.
The techical infeasibility, the fact that it generally happens without people knowing, and the fact that it is a natural part of life all help differentiate it from a childhood disease.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:That argument is not that this is pro-choice vs pro-life, but it is pro-sex vs anti-sex.
Incidently, I think that once you reach the point where an abortion is necessary, it is already too late to decide you don't want a baby - just as it is too late to turn back after the baby is born. Ethically speaking, that decision should be decided BEFORE you decide to have sex.
In this way, I think this issue really should be about sexual attitudes. And if we really think banning things is the only way to alter those attitudes, we should instead ban the instances of sex that initiate the situation, before those situations can reach the point where we must make the tough choice between allowing abortion and risking the death of a human life - a choice that has no good answer. Ban premarital sex or sex by anyone unwilling to be a parent, but then legalize abortion. That seems like it might be a good compromise to me, although largely unpractical. (Practically speaking, such a ban could not be enforced well - but then again, neither could a ban on abortion. Practically speaking, no legal ban will solve any of these problems because people will find ways to secretly violate any of the bans.)
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I have a question - back when abortion was illegal, what charges would a doctor or layperson who performed one face if arrested?
I'm just wondering if abortion were criminalized and people faced possible life imprisonment or even the death penalty in some states how many people would really provide abortions anymore.
I don't know how many people are aware of this, but access is the biggest challenge to those who support legal abortion for all. The abortion industry is in very big trouble, more than half of current practicing providers are over 50 and fewer medical school graduates are entering the field.
Mississippi had two abortion providers in the entire state, when the license of one was suspended after the investigation into the death and injuries of several patients, they dropped down to one. And that doctor whose license was suspended also had his license suspended in Alabama - where he worked several days a week, bringing Alabama's number of providers down as well.
The abortion industry is having trouble attracting providers now, how many do you think would really do it if they could go to jail for it as well?
Information on the shortages of providers can be found below, the information is from a pro-choice medical student organization.
I personally see this as a positive move - I think it's because we are more aware of life in the womb and that many physicians feel that destroying that life is wrong.
Now, I'm not naive, I know that if it were criminalized some people would still provide them, (especially if there's money in it) but I would hope that those of us on the pro-life side would step up and provide free pregnancy testing and counseling, and help women with unplanned pregnancies find the right option, be it adoption or keeping the baby, and discourage them from seeking illegal, unsafe abortions.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Belle, there was a very powerful movie out not long ago about a doctor in rural US in the 30's who performed an abortion (due to a incest or rape, not due to one girls sexual experimentation). It was very powerful. I just wish I could remember its name.
Permenant loss of medical license and imprisonment were standard fines for doctors that commited abortions, which is why it is so hard to determine statistics on abortions before Roe VS Wade. Doctors would mark the operation as something else, and not the loss of the child as an incidental outcome. It also put a lot of strain on doctors who were forced to choose between taking the fetus to save the mothers life, but risking losing their livliehood, their freedom, and their ability to help others.
I know a lot of people here agree that if there is a medical choice between saving the life of the mother and that of an early stage fetus, the mother's life should come first. What I question is whom do we trust with this decision. Whom do we trust to define these terms? Is it the government? The doctors? Or should it be the people most involved--the women who's lives are at stake? The same people who argue that "You can manage your money better than governmental beaurocrats" are also saying that these definitions, and the answers to these big questions, should be taken from the hands of the women involved and put into the hands of those untrustworthy beaurocrats.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Belle: of course, part of the question is, if people on the pro-life side "would step up", why aren't they doing it to the same extent now, when abortion is legal, making the need in some ways greater?
Some are, yes, and I applaud those who adopt children, who work to help children get adopted, who provide family planning services, who educate about birth control, et cetera (notably including providing funds for these efforts), but there's clearly a gigantic gap between current quality and volume of these services and needed quality and volume.
Is this gap suddenly going to be closed by an influx of funding if/when abortion is made illegal (or at least, made possible to be made illegal)? I don't see a big push for it.
The most politically powerful agents in the pro-life movement fixate on Roe v. Wade and negative laws -- ones which penalize, restrict, and forbid. Those are the laws getting passed by anti-abortion political movements, not funding bills to support adoption.
Pro-life people aren't the only ones who need to step up to the plate now or in the future, of course, but they're mostly the ones who've got the biggest moral pedestal riding on it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Not the ban advocated by anyone in this thread.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I know a lot of people here agree that if there is a medical choice between saving the life of the mother and that of an early stage fetus, the mother's life should come first. What I question is whom do we trust with this decision.
And yet, somehow, we muddle through with self-defense as a justification for violence, even killing.
quote:The same people who argue that "You can manage your money better than governmental beaurocrats" are also saying that these definitions, and the answers to these big questions, should be taken from the hands of the women involved and put into the hands of those untrustworthy beaurocrats.
Who's in a better position to determine if those 4 kids in the subway are going to pull a screwdriver and mug you? The government? Or you?
On a side note, you really, really, really should stop conflating two ideas that are held in common by some people as a way to denigrate one of them. Deal with this issue on its own terms, because there is far less overlap than you seem to think there is.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Fugu, Tatiana, and others,
One thing needs to be made perfectly clear: NO ONE is obliged to do anything about this in order to make Pro-Lifers right. Abortion is wrong or right irrespective of what ANYONE is willing to do to help out a woman in those straits.
I am not saying that providing other solutions is not necessary or helpful or the right thing to do at all, but "oh yeah? well what are you going to do to help this person not lay in the bed they made?" (in most cases) or even, to put it as charitably as possible "well, what else is this poor person supposed to do, carry and care for the baby?" makes for a very weak argument and it should be telling that it's often the strongest one brought out.
For my own part, the people who I think have the most important and strongest ability to step up to the plate are the fathers and grandparents of these children. The stories of boyfriends or parents demanding abortions are the most sickening I've heard in my life. What kind of support is that? And where is the pro-choice outrage at these deadbeats? to turn the question around, what are you pro-choicers doing to support women subjected to this emotional abuse and the trauma of abortion itself?
One last side note to Dan: My understanding is that taking the baby to save the life of the mother has NEVER been illegal and should not have put the doctors you speak of at risk. I could be wrong about this, but I am fairly sure of my source (which is admittedly and unabashedly pro-life). As far as who makes that decision... well, there is risk in any pregnancy and it is increased by a couple of orders of magnitude if there is a C-Section involved. My cousin died in childbirth a few years ago, so it still happens, even with a "normal" pregnancy.
But situations where a pregnancy is a present threat to the mother's life are fairly clear cut and identifiable. The most common is an ectopic pregnancy, where the embryo implants outside the womb. The child can't (to my knowledge) survive this one and the mother's life is at risk from internal rupture and bleeding because the implanation area isn't designed to expand with the child's growth.
The only really nebulous threat of which I am aware are the huge multipregnancies which result from in vitrio or sometimes (though they say there is no causal relationship here) fertility drugs. In these cases the doctors and parents work together to decide what to do now, and I don't see why that should change or be threatened by anti-abortion legislation as discussed here.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Like Frisco, I too am pro-life for reasons completely unrelated to any religion.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Tresopax: Not all abortions occur after premarital sex. Some couples feel they are not financially able to give a child a good life or simply don't want kids. Banning premarital sex does not solve for this.
That's why I suggested we could also consider some sort of ban on sex without the willingness to have resulting children. There could be some sort of required signed agreement, perhaps when applying for a marriage liscence, agreeing that privacy rights in regards to the unborn child are forfeited if the couple engages in sex that could induce pregnancy.
As I said though, most people would probably find ways around any such attempted bans - but really somehow the message needs to be gotten across that it is unethical to engage in sex, even as a married couple, unless you are prepared to accept a baby, or unless you are willing to undergo medical proceedures to ensure pregnancy should be impossible. That is the appropriate time to decide you don't want the kid - not after he may or may not already exist.
quote:Also there are many, many cases where the risk to the mother is significant if a pregnancy is carried to term. Often termination of the pregnancy is the only way to protect or save the life of the mother. A ban could be a death sentence to women facing these dangers.
Well, I was suggesting abortions remain legal, plus even if you banned abortions you could easily make exceptions for those cases. Thus, this is not a problem.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Tres, I believe abortion is wrong in most cases, but your ideas are way too radical for me. I'm not sure we could or should legislate responsible behavior. Sign a contract giving up privacy rights to an unborn child?? Do you realize how many doors that opens up, even for those who want to KEEP their babies? What does that lead to? If I don't live up to or agree with the state's ideas of proper pregnancy care, they have the right to enforce it... or even monitor it? No, I think not.
If a married couple doesn't want any more children, I do agree that it is a good idea for them to use birth control or even to get an operation to prevent it--but that is up to THEM as to what method they use.
Saying a married couple can't have sex at all if they don't want children... that's radical and insane.... in my opinion.
I don't even agree that premarital sex should be legislated. Adults should be free to have sex whenever they want to... they just have to live with the consequences. And, to me, that does not include raising a baby that results from their coupling. Adoption is a viable alternative...and newborn babies have a very high adoption rate... much higher than older children, sadly for the older children.
-Katarain
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
fugu, I think we are stepping up to the plate to help people, what I meant to get across is that I hope we step up even more if abortion is criminalized, because I think the need for adoption services and the need to help impoverished young women with unplanned pregnancies will go up. If the need is greater, then the help provided should increase as well.
in other words, for the pro-life community, the striking down of Roe vs. Wade shouldn't mean they can all pack up and go home. They should say "Okay, abortion is now illegal, so what are we going to do to help girls and women with unplanned pregnancies who previously would have had abortions?"
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Thing is, I don't think all that great a job is being done right now. For one thing, there are certainly lots of people going for abortions that aren't going for adoption instead, or going for abortions who lacked birth control, et cetera.
I think many people are doing very good jobs, but I think the overall result is lacking.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Brettly, we have been saying for 4 pages now that an abortion ban would include an exception for the life of the mother.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Saying a married couple can't have sex at all if they don't want children... that's radical and insane.... in my opinion.
I didn't say that. I said they shouldn't have sex at all if they aren't willing to take the child and raise it as well as they can, regardless of whether or not they "want" to. And even then you can get around it through surgery or other proceedures that protects you from pregnancy. What's insane about that? Or has our society gotten to the point where its considered insane to give up sex rather than risk killing an innocent person?
quote:I don't even agree that premarital sex should be legislated. Adults should be free to have sex whenever they want to... they just have to live with the consequences.
Why should adults be free to have sex whenever they want to, but not be free to have abortions whenever they want to? One way or the other, you are attempting to legislate responsible behavior. We could legislate neither, and leave all the decisions entirely up to the individual. But, if we must legislate one or the other, to me it make sense to legislate against sex, because that is the one that is more clear cut. Weighing the potential killing of a person vs. being unable to raise that child is a tough call. Weighing the potential killing of a person vs. not being able to have some sex seems like like a much easier call to me.
Truthfully, I'd prefer legislating neither, and trusting people to make good judgements themselves. However, I know many people don't trust the judgements of others and demand legal bans to enforce good judgement upon them. If that is the case, I'm just pointing out they are attempting to ban the wrong thing.
quote:You can't say abortion should be legal because it is killing a "innocent human life" and then say oh but in some cases that the state feels differently we will allow an "innocent human life" to be killed.
So killing is either ALWAYS wrong or ALWAYS okay? I think its perfectly okay to say circumstances dictate whether any given act is wrong or okay.
[ July 21, 2005, 12:11 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
I'm writing this post from prison. I was arrested two nights ago for having sex with my wife, without any "protection," and purely for the sake of mutual personal enjoyment. We had no intention of bearing or raising an additional child. My wife is an adjacent cell.
How the govenment found out just what our intentions were, we may never know. But they knew. And now we're both busted. Our two existing children have been placed at a foster care agency.
But they're right. The feds, I mean. We shouldn't have had sex like that; it was just stupid and irresponsible. Since we don't have the $5000 ($2500 each) to pay the fine, I think 6 months in jail is totally fair.
I'm glad that law was finally passed.
--Steve (now affectionately known as "Matilda")
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:But, if we must legislate one or the other, to me it make sense to legislate against sex, because that is the one that is more clear cut.
More clear-cut maybe, but unenforceable definitely. What's the point?
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I'm in favor of abortion being legislated, rather than sex legislation. I condemn unsafe sex when no child is desired, but I don't believe laws should be made against it. Rather, a couple should be required to live with the consequences of their actions. I don't see this as a punishment, but rather as a natural result of some sexual encounters. I don't believe the child should have to suffer through having parents who don't want children, so I am in favor of early adoption. Because we have people willing to adopt, the parents don't have to live with the consequences of their actions for 18 years, as they would have had to many years ago. Since a couple would know what would be required of them if they have unprotected sex, hopefully it would cause them to take protective measures and even, perhaps, to abstain from promiscuous behaviors all together. And if a couple does not want to have children EVER, then perhaps they can choose to have an operation, but never demanded of them by the state.
Also, when I say it should be legislated, I'm not talking about a full-ban. Perhaps a decision can be made between the patient, the father, a doctor, and a counselor or something like that. Personal and private. I suppose that system can be abused...but I'm not comfortable with the state peeking into our private lives.
And I doubt anyone will agree with me here, but I think the father should have some say in the life of his own child. I'm not in favor of the woman having the right to abort a baby that is only half hers. If a couple disagrees about an abortion, I think the one who doesn't want the abortion to take place should win that argument.
-Katarain
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
First drugs... now sex...
Just wait.. Rock and Roll is on the way out.
And really, it's all for the best.
-Katarain
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I think (and I imagine everyone here would agree) that regardless of abortion legislation, everyone needs good sex education.
(We might differ on the particulars of "good sex education," of course.)
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Everyone. All ages. Content differs as you get older.
-Katarain
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:More clear-cut maybe, but unenforceable definitely. What's the point?
And an abortion ban is enforceable? I'm not sure about that. I suspect it would lead to many very dangerous methods of circumventing that ban.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: Everyone. All ages. Content differs as you get older.
And when you're 18 you get to enter advanced studies at Dagmar Doubledick's Pink Pussycat Theatre? Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I'm a little afraid.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: And an abortion ban is enforceable? I'm not sure about that. I suspect it would lead to many very dangerous methods of circumventing that ban.
And why, exactly, is that suddenly everyone's responsibility?
I'm sorry, but if people actually choose to do the whole "in an alley with a coat hanger" thing, aren't they at least a little bit responsible for it?
Again, not to be callous here, but I have yet to see a line of reasoning that at all makes it the prolife position's fault or responsibility that desperate and uneducated people exist.
Because there isn't one.
It is humorous how often prolifers get referred to as emotional or religious (and gladly there has been little of that here) while prochoicers tend to be protrayed as the impartial, rational ones... but this whole line of thought is nothing more than "oh look at those poor people... we must do something!"
And yes, we should. The idea that killing their unborn children is at all a solution has yet to be shown, much less that it is a good one. The idea that it could possibly be the best one or, as the "if you make it illegal they'll just go into the alleys with coat hangers" argument assumes, the ONLY alternative is just ludicrous and nothing more than an unreasoned, unsupported assertion based on the idea that people did it once. People also sacrificed their babies to Ba'al once, that doesn't make it a good idea.
Now, as to what the prolife group DOES need to do... well maybe it'll surprise some people what my opinion is on that... maybe it won't, but I'll outlay it in a bit...
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: I'm a little afraid.
Merely a jest, ma'am. I am not really comparing sex ed to pornography.
and, lest you be afraid of something else, Dagmar Doubledick and his "theatre" are fictitious as well as facetious.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:More clear-cut maybe, but unenforceable definitely. What's the point?
And an abortion ban is enforceable? I'm not sure about that. I suspect it would lead to many very dangerous methods of circumventing that ban.
More enforceable than a sex ban, certainly.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I wasn't REALLY scared. Well, not much. haha.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:And why, exactly, is that suddenly everyone's responsibility?
I'm sorry, but if people actually choose to do the whole "in an alley with a coat hanger" thing, aren't they at least a little bit responsible for it?
I just think would make outlawing abortion counterproductive to some degree if people were just going to kill the unborn fetuses anyway, only through less healthy and more dangerous means.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I don't think the circumstances which cause abortion are economic.
I think they are largely social pressures. We've done so much demonizing of pregnancy and child rearing and how difficult and limiting and how much it "ruins your life" once you are pregnant... not to mention the stigma we attach to out of wedlock births. I knew a woman who was openly sexually active and never ashamed of it at all... when she got pregnant she was worried about telling me because I "would know [she] wasn't so pure."
In her mind, being a sexually active college student was fine, but being a mother while she was still in college was evil... made her a bad person. That's how far we've got our moral teaching fouled up.
I have said before and elsewhere that we attach too much stigma to sex. There ARE groups of people afraid to talk about it. I'm VERY easy going on the subject and I get nervous talking to real people about it, particularly when it's my sexuality we're discussing. We need frankness and reality. We need to be able to call things sinful or wrong without making the people who do it out to be sinful or wrong. We need to be able to discuss moral mistakes like mistakes on a math test (though, if we're talking about my parents, this is not such a good idea :-/). We need to be able to discuss moral failures like failing a class at school. And we need to admit our own failures, too.
We need to quit gossiping, quit making ourselves out to be better people than others. We need to approach people with love and understanding and compassion and aid, however little.
And these are not things that can be done by groups of people. They have to be done on an individual basis. Parents so concerned with their reputation that they demand their daughter get an abortion need to be replaced with parents who only care about what is good for their daughter... really good and healthy for her. Boyfriends who treat sex as a touchdown and babies as a penalty need to have their heads rearranged. Girls who think they will have no life if they have a child need to be shown that there is a way to do it, and need to be given the support to do it... not by the government, but by their friends and family.
What prolifers need to do is get off their high horses and get down in the muck... and many of them do... but not as large organizations, but in their lives. When we quit judging women by their promiscuity, when we quit calling girls "slut" and guys "stud" for the same behavior, when we quit raising "men" who feel ok abandoning their progeny, when we quit teaching girls that a child means they can never do anything for themselves again and their life is over and belongs to someone else, when we quit treating children as a life-interrupting disease, or pets, rather than the blessing of heaven (or life, if you prefer) on our race... THEN we will begin to make a dent in demand for Abortion... and, given the lowering in the rates of abortion recently, perhaps we have. One can always hope.
[ July 21, 2005, 04:05 PM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
It's been said before...but what the world really needs is one pregnant man.
-Katarain
Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
And it's been said before, if a man were pregnant, he'd be a woman.
Same as if he couldn't read a map.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I could really use a pizza.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I want to apologize for my strenuous words in this thread.
I am certainly not so cold hearted as to have no sympathy for those who experience pregnancy in less than ideal conditions. My brother had his first child while he was still a recent high school graduate and her mom was still in high school. I was on my third kid before I was able to secure a total family income over $35k a year and had my first while bringing in $9.50 an hour and my second while unemployed.
What I am so worked up about is the idea that by being pro-life I am somehow personally responsible for helping these people make better decisions. It's manipulative to suggest it... like the bum who asked for money getting all pitiful and whiny because I didn't give him enough, in his estimation (really happened, which is why I call him a "bum"). Charity and compassion are surely the greatest of virtues and perhaps that's why I get so riled at being accused of not having them, but they cannot be compelled and whether or not I could conceivably do more to help someone has little bearing on the question of whether their action was morally permissible or not.
So, please forgive me if in my reaction to this I have offended anyone or given the impression that I am unconcerned or unsympathetic to them or their situation. But I insist on being allowed to give on my own terms, so it can be *my* gift. I will not be blackmailed into providing by pictures of human misery.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
All ages. Content differs as you get older. ![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
<-- waving bye bye
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
If you're going to be bad parents, don't have sex. If you have sex and the woman gets pregnant, give it up for adoption... or grow up.