Abortion is wrong

[torie]

Cut the crap. All the superfulous crap that people include to answer the same question. Right or Wrong??? That simple.

Discuss.



Thanks


Torie

[adaher]

Abortion is wrong, except when the life of the mother is at stake, or in cases of rape. In my view.

However, just because I think something is wrong doesn't mean I should call my legislator and try to get it made illegal.

[Bryan Ekers]

It's not as wrong as the alternative.

And what is there to "discuss" if you want to limit responses to "right" or "wrong"?

Back to Debating 101, torie.

[even sven]

Abortion is right. Abortion is always right.

Um, do I win?

[Soup_du_jour]

Abortion should be avoided, except when the alternative is worse.

[FUNKYMADENA]

I BELIEVE IN ABORTION, FOR THE PURE, SIMPLE REASON THAT I HAVE NO RIGHT, NOR DOES ANY ONE ELSE, TO MAKE THAT DECISION FOR ANOTHER PERSON. I FEEL WE MUST TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR OUR BELIEFS, AND OPINIONS. SO TO ALL THE RIGHT TO LIFE PEOPLE, ARE YOU A FOSTER PARENT, ADOPTIVE PARENT, VOLUNTEER IN A YOUTH PROGRAM, OR DO YOU VOLUNTEER AT YOUR LOCAL HOSPITAL TO ROCK AND SOOTHE DRUG AFFECTED BABIES. WELL IF NOT YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO YOUR OPINION, BECAUSE IT IS EASY TO RUN YOUR MOUTH AND PROTEST BUT ARE YOU GOING TO TAKE RESPONSIBILTY IN SOME WAY TO HELP THESE UNWANTED CHILDREN THAT YOU ARE NOW FORCING THE MOTHERS TO BEAR. I THINK NOT !!! I AM A PRESCHOOL TEACHER AND I HAVE WORKED WITH TO MANY UNWANTED, DRUG AND ALCOHOL AFFECTED, ABUSED, AND NEGLECTED CHILDREN, MY BELIEF IS QUALITY OF LIFE, NOT LIFE ITSELF SHOULD BE THE ISSUE HERE. AND NOW TO REALLY PISS PEOPLE OFF I THINK IF THE WOMEN IS UNABLE TO PAY IT SHOULD BE FREE !!! NOW WATCH THE CASE LOADS AT CHILDRENS SERVICES MAKE A DRAMATIC DECLINE, AND THINK OF THE MONEY WE WOULD SAVE ON FOSTER CARE, JUVENILE DELINQUENCY, AND ADULT CRIMINAL HOUSING AND REHABILITATION. I THINK FREE ABORTIONS WOULD MORE THAN PAY FOR THEMSELVES. SO THE NEXT TIME YOU SEE A PROTEST OUTSIDE OF AN ABORTION CLINIC TAKE THE TIME TO ASK THE PROTESTERS HOW THEY WILL HELP THESE CHILDREN WHO ARE UNWANTED, WHAT IS THEIR CONTRIBUTION. I KNOW THE ANSWER BECAUSE I HAVE ASK, BUT I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN HEARING ANY ANSWERS OR THOUGHTS YOU HAVE ON MY OPINION. MADENA

[adaher]

No. No government funding of abortion. While I support the right of women to have an abortion, I think the issue is so emotional for many people that they should never be forced to pay for it. The price of abortion would also skyrocket in short order just like anything else paid for by third parties, placing an even more noticeable burden on taxpayers.

There are more than enough pro-choicers to fund a charity, if there isn't one already, dedicated to providing free abortions for those who cannot pay for them. Their energies would be better spent towards that end than trying to petition the government to force everyone to pay for their cause.

[Bryan Ekers]

Thank you for demonstrating your caps lock, Madena. I realize you're a preschool teacher, but I should point out that unlike your students, the people here are for the most part familiar with the differences between the big letters and the small letters.

As for the government funding issue, it's likely cheaper to subsidize abortion than pay for social services for overburdened familes.

[Siege]

In my opinion, abortion is like divorce -- always morally wrong, but sometimes the best of a bunch of bad alternatives. I'd like to emphasize that, sometimes there is no right thing to do, only least wrong. The best thing to do is to try to make sure you don't get into a position where either one becomes a necessity or even a likely possibility.

I am, however, firmly politically pro-choice and I don't want to see abortion made illegal any more than I want to see divorce made illegal. I would also consider having an abortion if I found myself pregnant and in a situation where carrying a child to term was impractical. That would have applied last winter when I was unemployed, with no health insurance, little money, and unemployment running out.

I don't like abortion, and I'd love to see a time when no one has one. Until that time if such an age of miracles ever comes, I'd like to see abortion, in the words of one pro-choice group, "safe, legal, and rare."

Respectfully,
CJ

[Doc Nickel]

I understand it's not a decision one enters into lightly, nor is it something one ought to make a regular habit of, but why would an abortion be considered a "bad" thing?

[adaher]

As for the government funding issue, it's likely cheaper to subsidize abortion than pay for social services for overburdened familes.


A price that most pro-lifers are more than willing to pay if the alternative is funding abortion.

I understand it's not a decision one enters into lightly, nor is it something one ought to make a regular habit of, but why would an abortion be considered a "bad" thing?



Because it ends a life. Whether or not a fetus is a person is a matter of debate, but there is no doubt at all that it is a living thing, and that an abortion kills it. At best, it is a necessary evil.

[Doc Nickel]

Originally posted by adaher
Because it ends a life. Whether or not a fetus is a person is a matter of debate, but there is no doubt at all that it is a living thing, and that an abortion kills it. At best, it is a necessary evil.

-All life eventually ends. We must end lives by the countless hundreds simply to survive from week to week. Why is the death of a particular zygote any more or less relevant than any other death?

[adaher]

The manner in which it ends. Purposefully destroyed by the hand of man.

Well, you did say zygote, and I have to admit I don't particularly worry much about zygotes. The further along into development it gets though, the more the idea of killing it makes me queasy. That's why I'm a big supporter of the recent decision to make the morning after pill over the counter.

I'd love to put the abortion mills out of business, and the pill does more to make abortion a truly private matter than anything else.

[Doc Nickel]

Originally posted by adaher
The manner in which it ends. Purposefully destroyed by the hand of man.

-Again, why is that any different than any other death? A cow slaughtered for beef, a chicken for it's meat, a lab rat to see if the medicine worked, that duck for its liver?

[torie]

Originally posted by Bryan Ekers
It's not as wrong as the alternative.

And what is there to "discuss" if you want to limit responses to "right" or "wrong"?

Back to Debating 101, torie.


I don't want to limit responses to "right" or "wrong". You can be as wordy as you want. I knew someone would say something in his or her response that would kickstart a debate.

I chose to word the OP in that manner because I see all kinds of odd threads with ridiculous premeses because the OP wants to discuss religion. Or abortion. Or Bush. And every one of these threads end up boiling down to something just like we have here.


Thanks
Torie

[Joe Random]

Originally posted by Siege
In my opinion, abortion is like divorce -- always morally wrongNot to hijack this thread or anything, but how is divorce always morally wrong? For instance, if your choices are between staying with someone who is physically abusive and divorce, then the divorce is morally right, and remaining in the marriage is morally wrong (especially if you have children who are being abused, and who you could remove from the abusive situation via divorce).

Likewise, I feel that there are times when abortion is morally wrong, and times when it's morally right. It depends on the situation.

[vanilla]

wrong according to God
not wrong according to the law

Its something no one ever WANTS to happen.

Sometimes it does.
Its unfortunate.
I await the day when science will be able to take embryos out of women who don't want them and implant them in women who do.
Problem solved then.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

The OP is asking a bogus question. It's set up specifically to bait those who are pro-choice into essentially stating that abortion is "good," which is not the position of most pro-choicers.

If I don't think something is "wrong" that does not mean that I must think it's "right." I think abortion is a morally neutral act. It's simply a termination of pregnancy before it produces a child. It has no greater moral significance to me than any other surgery.

What is wrong is any attempt to control women's bodies and make those choices for them.

[vanilla]

Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic


If I don't think something is "wrong" that does not mean that I must think it's "right." .

.

Bush is wrong.
;)

[David Simmons]

What is even wronger is for people who have no stake in the matter trying to arrange how others should live their lives.

And don't give me that baloney about the "moral degradation of the society."

According to those who trumpet the propaganda about such degradation, society has always been "in decline" and requires a supernatural savior.

[JThunder]

Originally posted by Doc Nickel
-Again, why is that any different than any other death? A cow slaughtered for beef, a chicken for it's meat, a lab rat to see if the medicine worked, that duck for its liver?
Because it's a human being. Unless, of course, you think that gunning down a bunch of children in Columbine is morally equivalent to slaughtering a bunch of Turkeys in November.

[Joe Random]

Originally posted by JThunder
Because it's a human being.And once again we have reached what seems to be the main difference between those who are pro-choice and those who are pro-life. Let's see if I can summarize:

Pro-life: A fetus is a human being and killing it is murder the same way that killing a baby is murder.

Pro-choice: A fetus is a human being, but it's not a person, and it's killing people that's wrong, not killing human beings in general.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Because it's a human being.
Cite? :p

[Jonathan Chance]

Dork! :)

A fetus is a potential human being. With all the greatness and suckiness that entails.

And in my opinion, human potential (to build, create, what-have-you) is the only thing that gives this weary world meaning.

Who can tell but that the man or woman to invent fusion power or teleportation might not have been cut off in the womb?

But, that said, I don't see a way around this problem: I don't feel morally empowered to make decisions for another person.

It's legal...and it should stay that way.

[IWLN]

Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
Cite? :p Worldnet Dictionary.
Noun 1. human being - any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae Is a fetus or embryo not "living"? What "species" would it be?;) :p ;)

[CrazyCatLady]

Well, up to a certain point, a fetus has no heartbeat, no brain activity, and no voluntary movement, and it doesn't start to breathe till it's on the outside. If I had no heartbeat or respiration or brain activity, I'd be dead, as in "not living", right? That's why people tend to be more comfortable with very early term abortions than later term ones--because the embryo or fetus falls into that nomansland between what we usually consider "living" vs. "not living".

[Stratocaster]

Originally posted by Doc Nickel
I understand it's not a decision one enters into lightly, nor is it something one ought to make a regular habit of, but why would an abortion be considered a "bad" thing? Your question implies its own answer. If abortion is not a "bad" thing, why shouldn't someone make a regular habit of it if she wishes? Why shouldn't it be entered into lightly? Care to explain?

[Stratocaster]

Originally posted by Joe Random
And once again we have reached what seems to be the main difference between those who are pro-choice and those who are pro-life. Let's see if I can summarize:

Pro-life: A fetus is a human being and killing it is murder the same way that killing a baby is murder.

Pro-choice: A fetus is a human being, but it's not a person, and it's killing people that's wrong, not killing human beings in general. I don't think you speak for all pro-choice people. There are those on this very board who have no trouble with abortions right up to the moment before birth, because the "personhood" of the child is not what their belief hinges on. For example, some strenuously argue that the mother gets to decide regarding anything that is contained within her body, whether that entity is a person or anything else.

[Stratocaster]

Oh, and there are those on this board who have actually argued that a fetus is not a human being too.

[Palo Verde]

I think abortion is wrong. It's killing, murder etc.

However, whenever I've tried to get pro-life folks (and I count myself among them) to go into detail about how this would work, I just get silence. What would the law say? What would the punnishments be? How could you prevent illegal abortions? What would the social consequences be? How could we minimize unplanned pregnancies? ETc, etc, etc.

I HATE the idea of abortions. It's bad and wrong all around. But until I can have a good feeling that making it illegal would improve things, I'll just have to sit here firmly on a fence. And it's not a comfortable place to be.

[XT]

I see abortion as an individual choice. For myself, I wouldn't choose it...but then I didn't have too when my wife and I were in the child having stage. From a society, I think its 'wrong' to NOT allow folks to make their own moral choices..its what a free society is all about. So, IMO, one should be able to choose whether they can have an abortion or not as it suits THEM. Its THEIR choice IMO, their decision, their own moral code they must follow. And I think its dead wrong for anyone to make someone elses moral or ethical choice for them on this issue.

And I'll tell you...it sure beats the 'good old days' where an unwanted baby was born and left on a hill side somewhere for the wolves to get at. By a long fucking shot. Or the equally 'good old days' with back ally abortions by butchers.

So, it boils down to, I think abortion is 'wrong' (for me and my wife, as my INDIVIDUAL choice), I think choice is 'right' for a free society (something that is up to each individual, and should be protected as such), and I think the OP is poorly worded to bring the pro-choice people out to say 'abortion is good'.

Reguards,
XT

[Joe Random]

Originally posted by Stratocaster
I don't think you speak for all pro-choice people.True. My characterization is probably more accurate for moderate pro-choice proponents.

For example, some strenuously argue that the mother gets to decide regarding anything that is contained within her body, whether that entity is a person or anything else. That is something that I don't agree with completely. My belief is that you have to weigh many different factors against each other to reach a decision. It's not as cut-and-dried as "my body; my decision" because, at some point, you begin dealing with someone else's body as well. When that point is, however, seems to be a sticking point between the pro-choice and pro-life camps, with the three most common points being "conception", "the onset of brain activity", and "birth".

[Stratocaster]

Originally posted by autz
I think abortion is wrong. It's killing, murder etc.

However, whenever I've tried to get pro-life folks (and I count myself among them) to go into detail about how this would work, I just get silence. What would the law say? What would the punnishments be? How could you prevent illegal abortions? What would the social consequences be? How could we minimize unplanned pregnancies? ETc, etc, etc. This has been discussed on this board many times. I for one don't know why it's so difficult to envision how abortion bans would work when they were in place as recently as 1972.

[Stratocaster]

Originally posted by xtisme
I see abortion as an individual choice. For myself, I wouldn't choose it...but then I didn't have too when my wife and I were in the child having stage. From a society, I think its 'wrong' to NOT allow folks to make their own moral choices..its what a free society is all about. This is just silly. There is not a single law on the books that does not impose a moral choice. Are you against every law in existence?

[Palo Verde]

Originally posted by Stratocaster
This has been discussed on this board many times. I for one don't know why it's so difficult to envision how abortion bans would work when they were in place as recently as 1972.

I tried to get pro-life folks to detail these things in a GD thread and didn't get much that was helpful or convincing. I DID get another pro-life person who said she'd gotten the same lack of response to the practical questions.

I would would be willing to participate, I would be happy to start another thread with my specific questions.

The world has changed a lot in the last 30 years.

[Gyrate]

Abortions for some, miniature American flags for everyone else!

Seriously though, count me in the "legal, safe and rare" category. I would much prefer that abortions be rendered unnecessary, first by more responsible behavior and then by the development of feasible fetal transplants, but, like it or not -- legal or not -- abortions will continue to happen regardless of our individual or collective opinions here.

[Doc Nickel]

Originally posted by Stratocaster
Your question implies its own answer. If abortion is not a "bad" thing, why shouldn't someone make a regular habit of it if she wishes? Why shouldn't it be entered into lightly? Care to explain?

-Certainly. For the most part, an abortion is still a surgical procedure, with it's own risks. Even simple, common procedures like having ones' wisdom teeth removed have their share of risks.

That's not something one should take casually, even in these days of strip-mall cosmetic surgeons.

[E-Sabbath]

Mandatory abortions for all!

Some people can have tiny american flags, too.

[torie]

Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
The OP is asking a bogus question. It's set up specifically to bait those who are pro-choice into essentially stating that abortion is "good," which is not the position of most pro-choicers.

No, I wanted to discuss something without crafting some big idea or ridiculous premise to do so. I wanted a no frills, to the bones disussion of the issue.
For the record, I do not intend to bait anyone in to saying that abortion is good, happy happy, yay for abortion. I don't feel this way and I would be hard pressed to find anyone who does. Sorry if that wasn't clear, but I certaintly don't want people thinking that I run around with a "yay kill babies" attitude.

If I don't think something is "wrong" that does not mean that I must think it's "right." I think abortion is a morally neutral act. It's simply a termination of pregnancy before it produces a child. It has no greater moral significance to me than any other surgery.

What is wrong is any attempt to control women's bodies and make those choices for them.

Fair enough.

[torie]

Originally posted by xtisme
and I think the OP is poorly worded to bring the pro-choice people out to say 'abortion is good'.

Reguards,
XT

OK, you may have me on "poorly worded", but please no more comments about me thinking "abortion is good". If I didnt really want to hear dissenting view points, would I have posted this here? Where I know for a fact everyone has different viewpoints?

I DON'T think abortion is good. It is hurtful to me for people to assume that without asking me to clairify my post first. When I composed the question, I assumed people would take the "right" or "wrong" to apply to the statement "Abortion is Wrong", not the act itself. Then I assumed that the awnsers would be extrapolated (sp?) upon to include all sides of the issue. The issue id very personal and emotional for me, and every so often I would like to re-examine it by throwing to the finest minds of the internet. Sorry if you found me misleading.

I am enjoying reading your responses, but now I am upset so I am taking a break from this thread for 24 hours.

[Bryan Ekers]

What are you, some kind of hothouse orchid?

[chicksdigscars]

HI everyone! New to this board and had to post on this subject because I feel very strongly about it.

As someone stated earlier, there is not a law anywhere that doesn't legislate morality. Smoking, drinking, prostititution, the list is endless.

I consider myself to be pro-choice. That does not mean pro-abortion. I wish that a fool-proof method of birth control existed so we wouldn't have to be discussing this. Until that time comes, if it ever does, society has to deal with abortions. Women have had abortions since the beginning of time, and will continue to do so, even if the Bush administration manages to overturn Roe v. Wade.

I can recite to you many horror stories that my mother told me of what it was like before Roe, how she drove her friend to Florida (from Texas) to have an abortion performed by an exiled Cuban doctor. My mother and her friend met two Cubans at the airport in Miami, were blindfolded and then driven to the place where the abortion was performed. This man did happend to be a real doctor, but because of the political climate in the 60s was unable to get a licence to practice here in the states. So he did illegal abortions. No woman should have to go through something like this because she chooses not to become mother. My mother and her friend could have been raped or killed.

So not only do I think that abortion should be legal, I agree with someone else who said that it should be free. The cost of the abortion is FAR cheaper than paying 18 years of welfare for the child of a woman in poverty.

[beagledave]

Bob..er Stratocaster seems to be covering the bases nicely, but TARNATION FUNKYMADENA...

1) What happened to the "COLD" in FUNKY-COLD-MADENA?

2) Please lose the caps lock and please work on phrasing your point a little more...um...clearly?

3) Your *point* (and golly, it IS such an original point)


O TO ALL THE RIGHT TO LIFE PEOPLE, ARE YOU A FOSTER PARENT, ADOPTIVE PARENT, VOLUNTEER IN A YOUTH PROGRAM, OR DO YOU VOLUNTEER AT YOUR LOCAL HOSPITAL TO ROCK AND SOOTHE DRUG AFFECTED BABIES. WELL IF NOT YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO YOUR OPINION, BECAUSE IT IS EASY TO RUN YOUR MOUTH AND PROTEST BUT ARE YOU GOING TO TAKE RESPONSIBILTY IN SOME WAY TO HELP THESE UNWANTED CHILDREN THAT YOU ARE NOW FORCING THE MOTHERS TO BEAR.


I assume you are currently sheltering victims of domestic violence?

If not, I assume you could care less about victims of domestic violence..because by your above stated criteria, unless you physically provide for their needs, you can't posit an opinion that domestic violence should be illegal? (Unless..you know..you don't mind the hypocricy stuff.. :rolleyes: )

BTW..love how you won't even permit pro life folks to have an opinion contrary to yours...


"WELL IF NOT YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO YOUR OPINION"


Taking that pesky little first amendment right away from me, huh?

[Edlyn]

I'm all for sexually mature "adults" taking responsiblity for their actions which includes using birth control properly, abstinence, or sterilization.

Personally, I like to see pro-choicers own up to where they stand on the issue which is pro-abortion, isn't it?

funkymadena
Read my first paragraph fifty times. If needed, read it two hundred times.

[chicksdigscars]

Even if you do use birth control "properly" it can STILL fail, leaving you facing an unintended pregnancy. Even sterilization can fail. Even married people face unwanted pregnancies. What then? Burden the welfare system? Burden the parents? Pregnancy takes a huge toll on a woman, physically, mentally, emotionally. No woman should be forced to endure something she never wanted to happen in the first place.

I know you are going to say "Well put the baby up for adoption." And I say again that no woman should have to endure 9 months of a pregnancy that she never intended to happen.

[Joe Random]

Originally posted by Edlyn
Personally, I like to see pro-choicers own up to where they stand on the issue which is pro-abortion, isn't it?If you've been reading the thread, a few people have already stated that their position is pro-choice even though they're anti-abortion.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally posted by Edlyn
Personally, I like to see pro-choicers own up to where they stand on the issue which is pro-abortion, isn't it?

No, it isn't. Tell you what; define the term "pro-abortion" and us pro-choicers might tell you if it's descriptive of us or not. One caveat, though, if enough of us say your particular definition of "pro-abortion" is not accurate, you have to stop using it or at least stop equating it with "pro-choice".

This should be good.

[county]

Originally posted by beagledave
Bob..er Stratocaster seems to be covering the bases nicely, but TARNATION FUNKYMADENA...

1) What happened to the "COLD" in FUNKY-COLD-MADENA?

2) Please lose the caps lock and please work on phrasing your point a little more...um...clearly?

3) Your *point* (and golly, it IS such an original point)



I assume you are currently sheltering victims of domestic violence?

If not, I assume you could care less about victims of domestic violence..because by your above stated criteria, unless you physically provide for their needs, you can't posit an opinion that domestic violence should be illegal? (Unless..you know..you don't mind the hypocricy stuff.. :rolleyes: )

BTW..love how you won't even permit pro life folks to have an opinion contrary to yours...



Taking that pesky little first amendment right away from me, huh?

Is patronizing someone who states a valid positon how this great debates thing works?

[Zoe]

I am opposed to abortions in general, but not as opposed as I am to:

1) Not allowing the mother to make this decision for herself until the point of viability.

2) Self-righteousness.

3) Deadbeat dads

4) A non-supportive community after the unwanted child is born

5) Anyone other than the mother choosing the life of the baby over the life of the mother

6) Whole bunches of other things

FUNKYMADENA, welcome to SDMB.

[chicksdigscars]

By definition, "pro-choice" means just that. CHOICE. Carry the pregnancy to term or abort it.

Pro-abortion would mean that you think all pregnancies should end in abortion. That's gonna get us nowhere fast!

Some "pro-lifers" say they approve of abortion in the case of rape or incest. HUH?! Talk about hypocrisy. I'd have more respect for pro-lifers if they said that NO ONE should have an abortion. If it is okay for a woman who has been raped to have an abortion, then it should be okay for anyone to have an abortion. To single out the means of conception in deciding whether to abort or not, those pro-lifers are contradicting themselves. They say that all babies deserve life, then they say, well, only those babies not conceived by rape deserve to live, or only those babies not conceived by incest deserve to live. They can't have it both ways.

I truly wish abortion were not necessary. Until there is a foolproof method of contraception, there will be unwanted pregnancies.

I read a quote from someone I can't remember now, but it says "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."

[Joe Random]

Originally posted by county
Is patronizing someone who states a valid positon how this great debates thing works? Is unnecessarily quoting an entire post for no discernible reason how this great debates thing works?

Now, technically speaking, patronizing someone with a valid position requires them to have an actual valid position first, and telling people that they have no right to an opinion unless they are directly involved in what they are expressing an opinion about is not a valid position, as beagledave rightly pointed out.

[Bouncer]

Not taking a stand on "right" or "wrong", but can someone point me to the vast hordes of women having twice a week abortions?
This sort of claim is made, and I'm really really dubious of it.

I once knew a young lady who made the decision to abort a pregnancy. This was while I was in college. I drove her and her then boyfriend to the clinic and walked them past the lines of protesters right outside (this was before they had to be farther down the street)..

The procedure took a few hours, from the time she entered till the time she left and it wiped her out. She was pale and felt sick and weak for days after. I mean.. she could barely walk for the next few days and had severe cramps and other issues for a while after.

My point is, that from personal experience I don't think it's a decision any woman ever enters into lightly, and it sure as heck isn't something I could imagine a woman doing more than once in any kind of a casual way. I do know that my friends girlfriend was an emotional wreck for months after, and I do know that they (boyfriend and girlfriend) were conscientious as all hell about contraception after that.

I've known a few women who have had a single abortion, but I don't think I know any that have had multiple abortions. It was never (in my observation) like going down to the dentists and getting your teeth cleaned as some portray it. It was more like going in for knee surgery. It might be an outpatient procedure, but you ain't driving yourself home and you are going to be hurting like hell for quite a while after.

So please, someone, show me these women running on down to the clinic twice a week as an alternative to using a condom. Or can we all agree that argument is a cheapshot load of crap?

Regards,
-Bouncer-
PS: My experiences with this date from the early/mid nineties or so so I've no idea if procedures have changed since then.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally posted by Bouncer
So please, someone, show me these women running on down to the clinic twice a week as an alternative to using a condom. Or can we all agree that argument is a cheapshot load of crap?

Welllllll, I hesitate to bring it up, but such women do exist (even though the "twice a week" hyperbole, obviously, does not). There is a small number of women in the U.S. who have had multiple abortions, even if the vast majority have had none, or at most one.

I agree that pointing at the behaviour of a few is a piss-poor reason to restrict the legitimate concerns of the many.

[beagledave]

Originally posted by county
Is patronizing someone who states a valid positon how this great debates thing works?

Uh, what?

First point was a joke..obviously.

Second point was a request to not use all cap locks and to present her (I think) point more clearly.

Third point was to rebut her notion (with an example) that I am not entitled to my opinion.


Which of the above three do you find problematic, so that I can further address your concerns?

[MissMonica7]

This is my own theory...but.....

I sometimes feel that some pro-lifers want to see these mothers of unborn children actually suffer through the pregnancy and suffer through the raising of these unwanted children...as if this is their "payment" for getting pregnant in the first place. Like..."Well you got pregnant, it's all your fault, now you have to pay the price".

Also, it is also my own personal opinion that men have no idea what it's like to get pregnant with an unwanted child. Or to know what it's like to be deathly worried that you might be pregnant. So I find it funny to read some of the men's repsonses.:dubious:

[Stratocaster]

Originally posted by MissMonica7
This is my own theory...but.....

I sometimes feel that some pro-lifers want to see these mothers of unborn children actually suffer through the pregnancy and suffer through the raising of these unwanted children...as if this is their "payment" for getting pregnant in the first place. Like..."Well you got pregnant, it's all your fault, now you have to pay the price".Are you asserting that you sometimes feel that this is a typical pro-life tendency? Or that you sometimes see this tendency, but it isn't typical?

If it's the former, that's pure stereotyping bullshit. If it's the latter, well, so what?

[Edlyn]

Originally posted by chicksdigscars
Even if you do use birth control "properly" it can STILL fail, leaving you facing an unintended pregnancy. Even sterilization can fail. Even married people face unwanted pregnancies. What then? Burden the welfare system? Burden the parents? Pregnancy takes a huge toll on a woman, physically, mentally, emotionally. No woman should be forced to endure something she never wanted to happen in the first place.

I know you are going to say "Well put the baby up for adoption." And I say again that no woman should have to endure 9 months of a pregnancy that she never intended to happen.

Couples who do not want (more) children could exercise common sense and both be sterilized. If you disagree that this eliminates the possibility of unintended pregnancy, provide stats to back up your claim.

Burden the welfare system? Are you assuming that individuals with little or no wealth are not intellectually capable of using birth control methods?

Burden the parents? Who else should take responsibility for their sexual acts?

Women need to know their bodies and their cycles to use extra protection and/or abstain from penile contact during and near ovulation time. Isn't that part of sex education? My daughters and I have never had a failure by applying this common sense approach, nor any one I know who also practices this advice. You can still be spontaneous AND responsible.

[Edlyn]

Originally posted by Joe Random
If you've been reading the thread, a few people have already stated that their position is pro-choice even though they're anti-abortion.

Alrighty then, choice of what, exactly?

[Edlyn]

Originally posted by Bryan Ekers
No, it isn't. Tell you what; define the term "pro-abortion" and us pro-choicers might tell you if it's descriptive of us or not. One caveat, though, if enough of us say your particular definition of "pro-abortion" is not accurate, you have to stop using it or at least stop equating it with "pro-choice".

This should be good.

Oh no, uh-uh. You define yourself if you disagree with my statement. Which you did. Now explain.

[Edlyn]

Originally posted by MissMonica7
This is my own theory...but.....

I sometimes feel that some pro-lifers want to see these mothers of unborn children actually suffer through the pregnancy and suffer through the raising of these unwanted children...as if this is their "payment" for getting pregnant in the first place. Like..."Well you got pregnant, it's all your fault, now you have to pay the price".

Also, it is also my own personal opinion that men have no idea what it's like to get pregnant with an unwanted child. Or to know what it's like to be deathly worried that you might be pregnant. So I find it funny to read some of the men's repsonses.:dubious:

As my mother explained it to me, before the pill and numerous other options were available, "If you don't want to be hit by a bus, don't cross a busy street without looking both ways and being very cautious.".

Guess what?!? She was right. Certain actions can cause certain consequences. Everyone has a choice to act responsibly or not. Both will reap a consequence.

It isn't a matter of wanting someone to suffer.

[beagledave]

Originally posted by Stratocaster
Are you asserting that you sometimes feel that this is a typical pro-life tendency? Or that you sometimes see this tendency, but it isn't typical?

If it's the former, that's pure stereotyping bullshit. If it's the latter, well, so what? [/B]

Well, more importantly..this is Great Debates, not IMHO. This is not the place to just toss out personal opinions about a topic without providing some basis for debate.

(I'm saying this as a poster who notes that he can't really "debate" a personal opinion..not as a "junior mod").

[E-Sabbath]

Well, I gave an example of a pro-abortion... and patriotic... stance, before. Mandatory Abortions for All! Negative Population Growth!

Here's a pro-choice one: A woman has the right to choose if she brings another life into the world or not. Reproductive rights are the essence of personal freedom. It his her body, and her choice.

Is there a difference?

I am minded, by the way, of a definition of pro-life. "Well, every time an egg is unfertilized, a potential life is lost. We need a squad to hunt down fertile women and make sure their eggs become implanted so not one potential life fails to come to term!"

[beagledave]

Originally posted by E-Sabbath
"Well, every time an egg is unfertilized, a potential life is lost. We need a squad to hunt down fertile women and make sure their eggs become implanted so not one potential life fails to come to term!"

So you think implantation=fertilization?

Perhaps you could provide a link to the science behind that?

(I'm not sure how an "egg" becomes "unfertilized").

[Stratocaster]

Originally posted by beagledave
Well, more importantly..this is Great Debates, not IMHO. This is not the place to just toss out personal opinions about a topic without providing some basis for debate. Yep, that was my point exactly.

Bob

[Stratocaster]

Originally posted by beagledave
(I'm not sure how an "egg" becomes "unfertilized"). Dave, it's all about choice. If an egg can't decide to become unfertilized, then are any choices real? ;)

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally posted by Edlyn
Oh no, uh-uh. You define yourself if you disagree with my statement. Which you did. Now explain.

Oh no, uh-uh. If you won't offer your definition of the term "pro-abortion" then your use of it is meaningless. I feel entirely uncompelled to defend my position against undefined labels.

[Joe Random]

Originally posted by Edlyn
Couples who do not want (more) children could exercise common sense and both be sterilized. If you disagree that this eliminates the possibility of unintended pregnancy, provide stats to back up your claim.Here's a cite (http://www.afraidtoask.com/contraception/bsterilization.html) for you:

Given a tubal ligation failure rate of 0.5%, and a vasectomy failure rate of 0.05% - 0.15%, the percentage of couples who will have a baby even though both are sterilized is 0.00025% - 0.00075%, for an average of 0.0005%. That is one out of every 2000 couples.

Burden the welfare system? Are you assuming that individuals with little or no wealth are not intellectually capable of using birth control methods?I doubt that anyone is saying that. What if a couple is barely getting by with their three children, and then they accidentally conceive again (due to a broken condom, for instance)? Suddenly they are burdening the welfare system.

Oh, and as for cites, here's a link (http://www.epigee.org/guide/) to information on various birth control methods, including failure rates. It seems that condoms have a failure rate of a whopping 14%! So my above scenario is not at all unlikely. Even if the wife is on the pill, there is still an average combined failure rate of 0.77%, which is much greater than that for sterilization. And considering that sterilization is not as cheap as a condom, someone who is hovering on the edge of welfare is not likely to take advantage of it.

Burden the parents? Who else should take responsibility for their sexual acts?The problem here is that abortion is one way to take responsibility.

Women need to know their bodies and their cycles to use extra protection and/or abstain from penile contact during and near ovulation time.That's not 100% effective, either. In fact, It's only 85% effective. That is based on your comment of "during and near ovulation time". If it's used perfectly (i.e. only have intercourse after the fertile period has ended rather than before), it's still only 99% effective.

My daughters and I have never had a failure by applying this common sense approach, nor any one I know who also practices this advice.But it does happen. And just because it hasn't happened to you or any of your acquaintances doesn't mean that it can't. It's all probability.

[Joe Random]

Originally posted by Edlyn
Alrighty then, choice of what, exactly? Don't be obtuse. Just because someone wants to allow others to choose whether or not they have an abortion doesn't make them pro-abortion. Think about it:

pro-choice = everyone should have a choice

pro-life = everyone should have life

following that pattern

pro-abortion = everyone should have an abortion

Now seriously, one can hate the idea of abortions while still believing that it's a woman's right to make that choice for herself.

[Edlyn]

Originally posted by E-Sabbath
[Well, I gave an example of a pro-abortion... and patriotic... stance, before. Mandatory Abortions for All! Negative Population Growth!

Here's a pro-choice one: A woman has the right to choose if she brings another life into the world or not. Reproductive rights are the essence of personal freedom. It his her body, and her choice.

Is there a difference?



:D So you want to play games? Okay. I totally agree with that pro-choice statement. I absolutely do.

The difference is when it's applied. What I've been advocating and what you advocate are before and after. One involves abortion, the other does not.

[Clothahump]

It's the woman's choice alone. The only opinion she should even remotely consider is the father's, but she's certainly not bound by it.

And I, for one, am really disgusted that the extremist bible-thumpers have managed to make this issue be a central plank for conservatives in the political world. It's the woman's choice, pure and simple. Everyone else, butt out.

My $0.02 worth....

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally posted by Edlyn
Couples who do not want (more) children could exercise common sense and both be sterilized. If you disagree that this eliminates the possibility of unintended pregnancy, provide stats to back up your claim.

Burden the welfare system? Are you assuming that individuals with little or no wealth are not intellectually capable of using birth control methods?

Burden the parents? Who else should take responsibility for their sexual acts?

Women need to know their bodies and their cycles to use extra protection and/or abstain from penile contact during and near ovulation time. Isn't that part of sex education? My daughters and I have never had a failure by applying this common sense approach, nor any one I know who also practices this advice. You can still be spontaneous AND responsible.
And if all that fails, thank Christ abortion is legal.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally posted by Joe Random
Here's a cite (http://www.afraidtoask.com/contraception/bsterilization.html) for you:

Given a tubal ligation failure rate of 0.5%, and a vasectomy failure rate of 0.05% - 0.15%, the percentage of couples who will have a baby even though both are sterilized is 0.00025% - 0.00075%, for an average of 0.0005%. That is one out of every 2000 couples.

Actually, it's one in every 200,000 couples, if I follow your math correctly. In any case, in a country the size of the United States, there are going to be some couples who go the double-sterilization route and still get unlucky.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally posted by Edlyn
:D So you want to play games? Okay. I totally agree with that pro-choice statement. I absolutely do.

The difference is when it's applied. What I've been advocating and what you advocate are before and after. One involves abortion, the other does not.
A woman does not lose her right to make reproductive decisions simply because she becomes pregnant.

[Joe Random]

Originally posted by Bryan Ekers
Actually, it's one in every 200,000 couples, if I follow your math correctly.:smack: That's what I get for attempting to do math in a hurry. You know, I thought that 2000 sounded pretty low. I made the mistake of equating 0.0005% with 0.0005 instead of its actual decimal representation of 0.000005.

In any case, in a country the size of the United States, there are going to be some couples who go the double-sterilization route and still get unlucky. Exactly. Only abstinence is 100% effective, and asking a married couple who are both sterilized to abstain is just plain silly.

[torie]

Originally posted by Bryan Ekers
What are you, some kind of hothouse orchid?


No, I got a little annoyed, clarifyed my post, then took a break so as not to type anything stupid when I was annoyed. I don't know exactly how "hotheaded" that is.


On a lighter note, hothouse orchid would make a great username. May I? :D


Continue.

[Helen's Eidolon]

Originally posted by Edlyn
Women need to know their bodies and their cycles to use extra protection and/or abstain from penile contact during and near ovulation time. Isn't that part of sex education? My daughters and I have never had a failure by applying this common sense approach, nor any one I know who also practices this advice. You can still be spontaneous AND responsible. You're actually advocating the rhythm method? Not only has it been totally discredited as an effective method, but a few months ago a study was done at the University of Saskatchewan which found that many women ovulate more than once per month. link (http://www.indiandoctors.com/news/1086.php3)

I'm of two minds here. First, I agree with the pro-choice notion of legal, safe and rare. I do know people who have had abortions, and it has, so far, never proved to be a pleasant experience for anyone involved, to say the least.

Second, I don't think abortion is morally wrong at all. Even if the fetus is a human life, I don't believe in any inherent sanctity of human life. I believe that death is bad because of the emotional repercussions on those who lost someone, not because there is something special about life.

To sum up: I hope to never need an abortion. I take precautions. I will also not hesitate to get one if I find myself pregnant and unwilling to have a child.

[Edlyn]

Joe

Your cite gave stats for either sterilization procedure individually. However, what you calculated to be one in every 200,000 for a failure rate would have to involve the failure in both the man and the woman's sterilization. What are the real odds of that happening?

As far as married couples abstaining from sex, have you no imagination what you can do during four days of the month if you "just have to"?

Really, it isn't difficult. ;)


LaurAnge

No, I'm not advocating the rhythm method. Please read again what I wrote. If you followed it you wouldn't "find" yourself pregnant.

I found it sad that you do not see your life (or another's) as being special. It is.

[Zoe]

Originally posted by Edlyn
Couples who do not want (more) children could exercise common sense and both be sterilized. If you disagree that this eliminates the possibility of unintended pregnancy, provide stats to back up your claim.

All too often the status of that union changes because of death or divorce and the sterilization can have a negative affect on the second marriage(s).

I think that the "morning after" pill is a good solution. One doctor said that most often it actually prevents conception rather than just causing spontaneous abortion of an hours old zygote.

But even if the effect is to cause the body to throw of the zygote, since this is not illegal, why is their objection to this medication being sold over the counter? Whose business is it?

BTW, I had always assumed that abortions were first legal in the 20th Century. Not so. When our country was founded, abortions were legal.

[catsix]

chicksdigscars said:
I read a quote from someone I can't remember now, but it says "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."

Florence Kennedy, I think.

As for the rest of this debate, it becomes pretty pointless if those who are anti-abortion (wanting it to be illegal) realize that no matter what law they pass, there is absolutely no way to prevent a determined woman from having an abortion.

There are too many ways, too many other countries, too many doctors who will save cells from their non-pregnant D&Cs and preform them on pregnant women to 'correct irregular periods', too many years of women using home remedies like herbs. The bell's been rung, and it cannot be unrung. The only thing left to do is to make it as safe and rare as possible by keeping it legal and developing better and better birth control.

[gluschy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by adaher
[B]Abortion is wrong, except when the life of the mother is at stake, or in cases of rape. In my view.

This is the sort of comment I really hate. Abortion is wrong except.... If you think it is wrong to kill a fetus how does it suddenly become 'right'. If the mother is raped how is that the baby's fault, do they suddenly deserve to die? And what determines whose life is more important, the mother's or the baby's. If you try to put limits on it when does it end? Is it okay when the mother has a drug addiction? Or when the baby is going to be born with aids?

If abortion consititutes murder it should be wrong unconditionally. If you are going to make exceptions for one you must allow it for all.

By the way, I am a firm believer in the right to abort.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally posted by Edlyn
Joe

Your cite gave stats for either sterilization procedure individually. However, what you calculated to be one in every 200,000 for a failure rate would have to involve the failure in both the man and the woman's sterilization. What are the real odds of that happening?

Uh, one in 200,000?

[Joe Random]

Originally posted by Edlyn
Joe

Your cite gave stats for either sterilization procedure individually. However, what you calculated to be one in every 200,000 for a failure rate would have to involve the failure in both the man and the woman's sterilization. What are the real odds of that happening?Well, Bryan Ekers bet me to it, but the odds of that happening are precisely 1 in 200,000, just like I calculated. That's how probabilities work, after all.

As far as married couples abstaining from sex, have you no imagination what you can do during four days of the month if you "just have to"?My point was that abstaining during those few days is not a 100% effective birth control method. In fact, the failure rate is even higher than that for condoms.

No, I'm not advocating the rhythm method.Huh :confused: ? What you proposed above, "abstain from penile contact during and near ovulation time", is the rhythm method. In fact, you mentioned abstaining from sex for 4 days a month. However, the average fertile period is 6 - 8 days, so not only are you using the rhythm method, you are using it incorrectly (unless you have a significantly shorter menstrual cycle than average).

Please read again what I wrote. If you followed it you wouldn't "find" yourself pregnant.Actually, the probability of becoming pregnant while using the rhythm method is pretty high (compared to the pill, or sterilization). It is certainly non-zero.

[Apos]

Actually, the probability of becoming pregnant while using the rhythm method is pretty high (compared to the pill, or sterilization). It is certainly non-zero.

With the newest version, it's around 4.8% and I think that's per year of use.

http://irh.org/pdf/contraception.pdf

[IWLN]

Abortion is going to happen, whether inside the law or out. I am a hard-core pro-life person who would take away your right to choose, in a heart-beat if I could. But, I would only be taking away your legal right, not stopping abortion; so there's no point. Properly used birth control would limit this to a larger extent. But that's a lifestyle choice. I can't make you do that either. I feel like it's my right not to help fund abortion through my tax dollars. It's my duty to help fund the welfare system and have no complaints if there is extra burden put on it, due to decisions to give birth, rather than abort. The statistics for repeat abortions are very high. That tells me something right there. An abortion should be a hard decision and the odds of your contraception failing multiple times must be very slim.

Although I hate the whole concept of abortion, I would be there to hold a friends hand if necessary, after I tried to change her mind. I wouldn't vote against abortion, as much as I hate it, because I do have compassion. What I wonder is how many people have gone ahead and gave birth to an "unwanted" child, and can't imagine their life without them now.

[adaher]

I know more than one person like that.

[CrazyCatLady]

Something else to consider in the discussion about sterilization is that it's often damn-near impossible to have it done if you haven't already had kids. It's not like I can just ask my gyno to sterilize me and have her ask if Tuesday or Wednesday is better for me. It was an uphill battle to get an IUD because (this is rich, really) there's a miniscule risk it might impair the fertility I never intend to use. Same situation for childless men wanting vasectomies. The younger you are, the harder it is. The failure rate of sterilization is a moot point if no one will sterilize you.

The only 100% effective birth control is to never, ever engage in any sort of sexual contact. Anything that might result in semen being spilled carries the risk of it getting spread to the vulva, and all it takes is one sperm. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not willing to go through my marriage never having any sexual contact with my husband.

[Stratocaster]

Originally posted by IWLN
Abortion is going to happen, whether inside the law or out. I am a hard-core pro-life person who would take away your right to choose, in a heart-beat if I could. But, I would only be taking away your legal right, not stopping abortion; so there's no point. You understand, don't you, that this logic applies to burglary, murder, rape--any prohibited activity you can think of. Based on this particular point of logic, and since making rape illegal has not eliminated rape, should we repeal the laws prohibiting this act?

Saying that an abortion ban will not eliminate abortions is NOT the same as saying that an abortion ban won't significantly reduce the number of abortions.

[E-Sabbath]

An egg can be unfertilized if it was never fertilized. Un is a modifier meaning not, not a modifier meaning reversed.

An unfertilized egg will not implant. Every unfertilized egg that does not implant is a waste of a potential human life.

(As is every sperm)

Therefore, to preserve all potential life, every egg must be fertilized and implanted.

That's a pro-life argument, innit?

Not held by anyone, I hope.

Edlyn: So what you're saying is that every woman, if something happens, and she becomes pregnant for some reason, should put her body through the equivalent of nine months of medical proceedures of no small risk to her health and well being and position in society, alterations to her very self image and form, and then give the result away.

Why should she do that? It's a heck of investment of her life. Could destroy her social life, her romantic life, and even her economic life, just to give something away that she didn't want in the first place.

Why should she not have the option to say no? It's her body. She can pierce it if she wants to. She can get fat or skinny if she wants to. Why shouldn't she be pregnant or not as she so chooses?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally posted by Stratocaster
You understand, don't you, that this logic applies to burglary, murder, rape--any prohibited activity you can think of. Based on this particular point of logic, and since making rape illegal has not eliminated rape, should we repeal the laws prohibiting this act?

Saying that an abortion ban will not eliminate abortions is NOT the same as saying that an abortion ban won't significantly reduce the number of abortions.
The difference is that abortion doesn't hurt anybody and banning it does.

[beagledave]

Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
The difference is that abortion doesn't hurt anybody..

Gosh..good thing we've all reached a consenus on that "fact".

Guess the debate is over then.

:rolleyes:

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Making abortion illegal does not prevent abortion it simply creates more victims (even if you believe a blood clot can be a victim).

The choice is not whether women will get abortions or not but whether they will get safe abortions or unsafe abortions. That's not even a choice.

[IWLN]

Originally posted by Stratocaster
You understand, don't you, that this logic applies to burglary, murder, rape--any prohibited activity you can think of. Based on this particular point of logic, and since making rape illegal has not eliminated rape, should we repeal the laws prohibiting this act?

Saying that an abortion ban will not eliminate abortions is NOT the same as saying that an abortion ban won't significantly reduce the number of abortions. I'm old enough to remember what it was like before it was legal, just barely. If you were lucky enough to be born into the right family, unplanned pregnancy meant a little trip and maybe some shopping after if you did the right thing. For the person who's economic situation was average to poor, it meant a) Trying to find a "doctor" that will take care of it, often at great risk or b)having a baby you couldn't afford to take care of, ever. I also remember not being sexually active, slipping up once, not even really "doing it". Technically probably still even a virgin. Suddenly I was an unmarried pregnant teen, with everything it implied then. I remember the mind numbing terror, the panic, the grief at knowing how disappointed my parents would be and that my dreams of being a lawyer were gone. Abortion wasn't legal til the following year, but I can honestly say, it never crossed my mind. What did cross my mind were things like almost hoping I would have a fatal accident, so no one would have to know, or running away, although I had no where to go. Mostly panic, complete panic. But, from the first moment I felt my son flutter inside me, I was in love with him, so strongly I was stunned by those feelings too. After hiding my pregnancy for almost seven months, I did what poor people did in those days. I got married. Ten years later, with three children and a failed marriage, I spent the next 10 years barely avoiding the humiliation of having to ask for help. On the up side, my life, while at times a struggle, has been so full of happiness, I wouldn't change a thing. I have been incredibly lucky. And it taught me compassion.

So, to answer your question, a law against abortion will possibly limit the number of abortions, but put lower income pregnant women at a higher risk for death and injury during illegal abortions and the law would be hypocritical because it would only impact certain people. I care about the women too, not just the babies. I would stop abortion if I could, but not under these terms.

DtC I don't agree that abortion doesn't hurt anyone. Since I don't think death is forever, I don't really worry about the babies. But, I've known enough women who did have a lot of saddness and regret and who always remembered how old their child would have been. I'm sure all women don't feel that way, but some feel the loss for the rest of their lives. I don't really think of the babies as victims, but sometimes the mom is.

[Starrman10]

"WELL IF NOT YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO YOUR OPINION"

Everyone has a right to their opinion no matter what the circumstances. Even if that opinion is grossly uninformed, you cannot tell someone not to have it. Please leave the county immediately.

[Stratocaster]

Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
The choice is not whether women will get abortions or not but whether they will get safe abortions or unsafe abortions. That's not even a choice. Nonsense. Whether or not women will get safe abortions is NOT the only variable associated with an abortion ban. How could an abortion ban possibly avoid significantly reducing the number of abortions? So, from a pro-life perspective, whether there are more "victims" resulting from a ban on abortions is clearly debatable.

[Stratocaster]

Originally posted by IWLN
So, to answer your question, a law against abortion will possibly limit the number of abortions, but put lower income pregnant women at a higher risk for death and injury during illegal abortions and the law would be hypocritical because it would only impact certain people. I care about the women too, not just the babies. I would stop abortion if I could, but not under these terms. The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread. (Anatole France)Do you hold the same concern for all laws that do not impact everyone equally? Do you wish that laws against mugging were repealed, since they undoubtedly affect the lowest economic stratum of our society most significantly? There have certainly been murders committed by poor and desperate people, individuals who felt they had no alternative, lost souls whose circumstances placed them in a vastly different and meaner universe than that of the rich. Should we not prohibit murder?

Where does this notion collapse of its own weight? At what point do we determine that there are certain axiomatically good and evil acts, and that we should hold people accountable for their own decisions, even when making the "right" decision is more difficult for some?

[IWLN]

Originally posted by Stratocaster
Do you hold the same concern for all laws that do not impact everyone equally? Do you wish that laws against mugging were repealed, since they undoubtedly affect the lowest economic stratum of our society most significantly? There have certainly been murders committed by poor and desperate people, individuals who felt they had no alternative, lost souls whose circumstances placed them in a vastly different and meaner universe than that of the rich. Should we not prohibit murder?

Where does this notion collapse of its own weight? At what point do we determine that there are certain axiomatically good and evil acts, and that we should hold people accountable for their own decisions, even when making the "right" decision is more difficult for some? I can't say that I particularly disagree with you. But when the government gets into our rights as far as reproduction, then how far does it go? For instance, if it is determined that abortion in the first 8 weeks is illegal, then why is it not illegal to have an IUD. Intra-uterine devices allow fertilization, but make the uterus hostile to implantation. So, in effect; the woman who has an IUD could be aborting on a very regular basis. Should IUD's be illegal? I had an IUD, so I am guilty too. I didn't understand how they worked and actually, mine didn't (it's a girl!), that was my second unplanned baby. Say you use condoms and spermicide (it's another girl!:)). Your condom leaks and the sperm actually manages to penetrate the egg and then dies a grusome death from poisoning before the embryo starts growing. Okay, enough examples, you get the idea.

I do understand what you're saying and if you want to compare abortion to crime committed by poor desperate people, I will. The laws don't stop the crime committed by someone who feels he has no other alternative. Making more and tougher laws for crime isn't the answer. The decent, compassionate answer is to do more to help people out of desperate circumstances. Personally help, which many people aren't willing to do. This applies for the mugger or the young girl who hasn't become pregnant yet. Figure out ways to prevent the problem, rather than punish people for being human. Don't self-righteously condemn people after the fact. And keep in mind part of the people you're condemning, honestly do feel like they're doing the right thing. That abortion is legal and frequently utilized says that there are a lot of people who don't feel like this is an evil act.

[Stratocaster]

Originally posted by IWLN
Making more and tougher laws for crime isn't the answer. The decent, compassionate answer is to do more to help people out of desperate circumstances. Personally help, which many people aren't willing to do. This applies for the mugger or the young girl who hasn't become pregnant yet. Figure out ways to prevent the problem, rather than punish people for being human. Don't self-righteously condemn people after the fact.There are laws prohibiting certain acts. Then there are programs to help people who might otherwise have committed those acts. The two are not mutually exclusive. We can and should have both. Are you suggesting we must do one or the other, but we can't do both?

Sorry, but I think you're dodging the prior question. If you feel this way, do you oppose laws against mugging? Shouldn't all our efforts go toward helping the poor who are inclined to behave in such a desperate manner? I'm asking you how consistently you apply this philosophy, or whether it permits abortions only out of all the acts you personally find wrong.And keep in mind part of the people you're condemning, honestly do feel like they're doing the right thing. That abortion is legal and frequently utilized says that there are a lot of people who don't feel like this is an evil act. Yes, that's true. Abortion is a singular act. That does not change its consequences, however.

[beagledave]

Originally posted by IWLN
Figure out ways to prevent the problem, rather than punish people for being human. Don't self-righteously condemn people after the fact.

I take it then, that we have you on the record for decriminalizing shoplifting.?

Can you tell us what other "crimes" you wish to decriminalize?

Armed robbery?

Spousal abuse, maybe?

Rape?

Arson?

Carjacking?

serial killings?

None of the perps should be "self righteously condemned", correct? (you've already said we shouldn't "self righteously condemn" a mugger..correct..we should take pity on him and deal with his personal problems instead?)

[Malacandra]

Originally posted by catsix


chicksdigscars said:
I read a quote from someone I can't remember now, but it says "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."


Florence Kennedy, I think.


Whoever it was, it's a great slogan, but devoid of intellectual content to the point that it's only useful for preaching to the choir. I'm not dead sure how I even ought to parse the statement, since it's idiotic in the first place (if men could get pregnant, they would be women), but perhaps it ought to read: "If power resided in female hands instead of male, we would get all the abortions we want, since male-run society ensures that men qua men get all they want of everything else." (The "we" assumes that the speaker is female, of course.)

A moment's thought shows this to be palpably untrue, of course, since there are many laws that prohibit men from doing exactly what they want, and comparatively few laws that exist solely in order to give men something for nothing. So perhaps I ought to strike out the "everything else" clause and restrict the statement a little:

"...since men get exactly the reproductive rights they want". And unfortunately for our slogan this is also a thorough-going lie. I'll leave the details of this as an exercise for the student. The answer should mention men's right to initiate a pregnancy, require the abortion of an unwanted child, or forbid the abortion of a wanted child, and may pay some attention to their post-partum rights into the bargain.

The slogan of course was never intended to be intellectually meaningful, and it over-simplifies the debate to a simple "men-deny-women-abortions" soundbite, neglecting the pro-abortion men and anti-abortion women, both of whom are sizeable groups. Also of course, everyone with an ounce of sense knows this very well, but it does get on my tits when I see someone like chicksdigcars parrotting such tripe.

/rant.

[Malacandra]

/me strikes the phrase "of course" from his vocabulary!

[IWLN]

Originally posted by Stratocaster
There are laws prohibiting certain acts. Then there are programs to help people who might otherwise have committed those acts. The two are not mutually exclusive. We can and should have both. Are you suggesting we must do one or the other, but we can't do both?No. I'm suggesting that you're concentrating your efforts on the wrong one. Your protest is meaningless if you only want someone else to enforce your version of right and wrong.Sorry, but I think you're dodging the prior question. If you feel this way, do you oppose laws against mugging? Shouldn't all our efforts go toward helping the poor who are inclined to behave in such a desperate manner?I don't oppose laws against crime. Crime needs a definition that is consistent with a cultures own version of what it is. It is subjective. I think you actually dodged my last question, but I'll re-phrase it. Do you think that all acts that cause a new life to cease to exist are crimes? Any exceptions. Where is the line in what is considered, and where does your version of good and evil become the standard for someone else's. I'm asking you how consistently you apply this philosophy, or whether it permits abortions only out of all the acts you personally find wrong.I think in order for me to know how to respond to this, I need to clarify what, in your honest opinion would be a suitable law and what punishment would be appropriate. Otherwise this argument is abstract. My main point was new law should be consistent and equal for the majority and also in the majorities best interest. Just stating that abortion should be illegal is a knee-jerk reaction and doesn't indicate a well thought out alternative or plan of action. So answer this and then I will be able to answer your questions, knowing what your point really is. To put it another way, I need to know if you have a valid point or just a judgment?

[IWLN]

Originally posted by beagledave
I take it then, that we have you on the record for decriminalizing shoplifting.?No.Can you tell us what other "crimes" you wish to decriminalize?[quote]Armed robbery?No.Spousal abuse, maybe?Husband or wife? ;)Rape?NoArson?NoCarjacking?Noserial killings?NoNone of the perps should be "self righteously condemned", correct? (you've already said we shouldn't "self righteously condemn" a mugger..correct..we should take pity on him and deal with his personal problems instead?)There is a difference between striking down all law and being reluctant to make a law that is not in the majorities best interest. And yes I do think we should have compassion for people who commit crime. It is in our best interest that we help and not just condemn. How would you write this abortion law to make it enforceable and fair?

[Stratocaster]

Originally posted by IWLN
No. I'm suggesting that you're concentrating your efforts on the wrong one. Your protest is meaningless if you only want someone else to enforce your version of right and wrong.I don't oppose laws against crime. Crime needs a definition that is consistent with a cultures own version of what it is. It is subjective.I'm not sure what your point is here, and I'm also not sure how you know what I'm concentrating my efforts on. Let's try this. Crimes include activities that cause egregious harm to other people. Does that help?I think you actually dodged my last question, but I'll re-phrase it. Do you think that all acts that cause a new life to cease to exist are crimes? Any exceptions.I believe that all deliberate acts that would stop a new life should be prohibited, except to the extent that it may be required to save the life of the mother. In those instances it may be possible that the best outcome is one that saves the mother at the expense of the unborn.

And I see that you did finally answer my question, in response to Dave. He must just have a way with words that I lack, I guess, that old smoothie.Where is the line in what is considered, and where does your version of good and evil become the standard for someone else's. I think in order for me to know how to respond to this, I need to clarify what, in your honest opinion would be a suitable law and what punishment would be appropriate.I'm not sure there's a bright line, but I do believe that the killing of innocents crosses it. I believe society has a compelling interest in prohibiting activity where someone violates a greater right of another. I believe the right to live is the most fundamental right that exists. No other right exists without it. No other right has meaning if the right to live is not real.

A suitable law would be one that bans abortions. Law enforcement and punishment should concentrate on providers, IMO.My main point was new law should be consistent and equal for the majority and also in the majorities best interest.What does "equal for the majority" mean? There is no shortage of laws on the books that impact different segments of society in enormously different ways, and you yourself are on record here as stating that at least some of those laws should not be overturned. That fact does not by itself render a given law inappropriate, by your own admission.

And do you count the unborn in determining "what is best for the majority"? If not, why not? In fact, if you do not count the unborn, what exactly do you find objectionable about abortions at all? And if you do account for the unborn, please explain how an abortion ban would not be best for the majority of those affected.Just stating that abortion should be illegal is a knee-jerk reaction and doesn't indicate a well thought out alternative or plan of action. So answer this and then I will be able to answer your questions, knowing what your point really is. To put it another way, I need to know if you have a valid point or just a judgment? Right, so you're really just struggling with the practical details of an abortion ban. The fact that the issues you cite exist for countless other laws is not a major concern for you, at least not to the extent where you'd want the laws off the books. :rolleyes:

Here's my position. An abortion ban, similar to the ones that existed 30 years ago, would eliminate a majority of the abortions currently taking place in the U.S. That would be a good thing overall. Individual circumstances should be taken into account in determining how to punish, just as it is with every other law on the books. I don't think that throwing women in prison should be an objective, and that providers should be the focus of law enforcement. I also believe society has an obligation to assist women in desperate circumstances as best it can, e.g., social programs, etc. Is that specific enough for you?

I'm not unsympathetic to the plight of women who feel abortion is the answer. Hell, there are people I love who have had abortions.

[Edlyn]

Originally posted by Joe Random
Well, Bryan Ekers bet me to it, but the odds of that happening are precisely 1 in 200,000, just like I calculated. That's how probabilities work, after all.

My point was that abstaining during those few days is not a 100% effective birth control method. In fact, the failure rate is even higher than that for condoms.

Huh :confused: ? What you proposed above, "abstain from penile contact during and near ovulation time", is the rhythm method. In fact, you mentioned abstaining from sex for 4 days a month. However, the average fertile period is 6 - 8 days, so not only are you using the rhythm method, you are using it incorrectly (unless you have a significantly shorter menstrual cycle than average).

Actually, the probability of becoming pregnant while using the rhythm method is pretty high (compared to the pill, or sterilization). It is certainly non-zero.

But I'm not advocating the rhythm method only. It is in addition to whatever birth control that normally is used. I can understand the mindset that since one type of birth control is being used, another in addition to probably isn't necessary. However, the argument for abortion on demand is because there is still a risk present. If you know you do not want a child, then you need to further eliminate any risk of pregnancy. That is what I'm advocating when I stated:
Women need to know their bodies and their cycles to use extra protection and/or abstain from penile contact during and near ovulation time.

Perhaps I should have said "additional" instead of "extra".

CrazyCatLady I agree with you that sterilization shouldn't be so difficult to obtain if you don't fit the "right profile". That should be changed.

[beagledave]

Originally posted by IWLN
And yes I do think we should have compassion for people who commit crime. It is in our best interest that we help and not just condemn.

Well that's nice and warm-fuzzy sounding. Unfortunately thats not what you said earlier. You did NOT just say we need to help and condemn.

You said we should not "self righteously condemn" somebody for these criminal acts. You specifically mentioned mugging as an example.


Don't self-righteously condemn people after the fact.


My goodness, what the hell does criminalizing an activity do but to condemn it (self righteously or not)? It says THIS is a bad thing. It forms a moral or ethical judgment that said activity is a bad thing that should be punished.

When called on specifics for your statement you backpedal away.

I'll try again

Should muggings be "self righteously condemned"?

Should rapes be "self righteously condemned"?

Should shoplifting be "self righteously condemned"?

Should arson be "self righteously condemned"?

[Joe Random]

Originally posted by Edlyn
But I'm not advocating the rhythm method only. It is in addition to whatever birth control that normally is used.And what happens when someone uses multiple forms of birth control and still gets pregnant?

However, the argument for abortion on demand is because there is still a risk present.There will always be a risk present. You could have both parties sterilized, use a condom, the pill, and the rhythm method all at the same time, and there is still a risk of becoming pregnant.

You are correct that using more forms of birth control will lessen the demand for abortions, but it will not eliminate it.

[Edlyn]

Originally posted by Zoe
All too often the status of that union changes because of death or divorce and the sterilization can have a negative affect on the second marriage(s).

Sterilization should be for those who do not want any (more) children and those factors are what you are to consider before having the procedure done/ Doctors do advise you about this.

I think that the "morning after" pill is a good solution. One doctor said that most often it actually prevents conception rather than just causing spontaneous abortion of an hours old zygote.

But even if the effect is to cause the body to throw of the zygote, since this is not illegal, why is their objection to this medication being sold over the counter? Whose business is it?

You may get your wish. Here is a December 16th Article (http://news.public.findlaw.com/news/s/20031216/healthcontraceptivevotedc.html) about it.

[Rodrigo]

I'll just post my two cent's worth.

1) Always wrong, because it is murder. (Enough people have explained why WE think it is murder).

2) Many people say, and it IS a valid point, that we pro-life guys should also care about the kid AFTER it is born. While true, it goes only so far, no one would say that Lincoln shouldn't've freed the slaves because he couldn't provide food or jobs or housing for them. Some even fared, materially, worse than when they were slaves, but freedom trumps almost everything.Living trumps everything else, even quality of life.

[Joe Random]

Originally posted by Rodrigo
Always wrong, because it is murder.Is killing in self defense always wrong, because it is murder? Hypothetically, if a woman is suffering complications from pregnancy that are likely to kill her if she does not abort, wouldn't such an abortion be equivalent to killing in self defense?

[Edlyn]

Originally posted by E-Sabbath
Edlyn: So what you're saying is that every woman, if something happens, and she becomes pregnant for some reason, should put her body through the equivalent of nine months of medical proceedures of no small risk to her health and well being and position in society, alterations to her very self image and form, and then give the result away.

Why should she do that? It's a heck of investment of her life. Could destroy her social life, her romantic life, and even her economic life, just to give something away that she didn't want in the first place.

Why should she not have the option to say no? It's her body. She can pierce it if she wants to. She can get fat or skinny if she wants to. Why shouldn't she be pregnant or not as she so chooses?

So you think it's okay to destroy another's life for position, social status and romantic life? Because what is being destroyed is not her body and never would be. I can't honestly say that no abortion should ever take place, but it's not simply a birth control method. At the rate of abortions being performed, there is a huge failure going on.

As a side note, if you think abortion has no risks, you're very wrong. Increased breast cancer risk (http://www.bcpinstitute.org/booklet.htm) is just one of them.

[Edlyn]

Originally posted by Joe Random
Is killing in self defense always wrong, because it is murder? Hypothetically, if a woman is suffering complications from pregnancy that are likely to kill her if she does not abort, wouldn't such an abortion be equivalent to killing in self defense?

I am aware of labors being induced early because of such complications, but what complications would require an abortion instead?

There will always be a risk present. You could have both parties sterilized, use a condom, the pill, and the rhythm method all at the same time, and there is still a risk of becoming pregnant.


Really? How often has pregnancy resulted from that?

[Essured]

Edlyn, could you clarify something for me please, because I'm not understanding where you're coming from.

Are you saying that abortion is always wrong, and that people who seek abortions should instead be much more responsible with their birth control, but whether they are or not, they can't have abortions ?
Or are you saying that if a person doubles, triples or quadruples up on their birth control, to whatever precautions are considered 'enough', that then *they* could have an abortion, should they fall pregnant, since they've obviously been responsible ?

[Joe Random]

Originally posted by Edlyn
I am aware of labors being induced early because of such complications, but what complications would require an abortion instead?As I stated, my question was hypothetical in nature.

Really? How often has pregnancy resulted from that? Well, I doubt that such drastic birth control methods have ever been used, so it doesn't matter. My point was that no method of birth control (other than complete abstinence) is 100% effective. You seem to believe that people should be more responsible with respect to using birth control (and I agree), but you have yet to address what you think should happen when someone uses birth control correctly and still gets pregnant. Should they be denied an abortion?

[IWLN]

Originally posted by Stratocaster
I'm not sure what your point is here, and I'm also not sure how you know what I'm concentrating my efforts on. Let's try this. Crimes include activities that cause egregious harm to other people. Does that help? I believe that all deliberate acts that would stop a new life should be prohibited, except to the extent that it may be required to save the life of the mother. In those instances it may be possible that the best outcome is one that saves the mother at the expense of the unborn.You know, you're the one that brought up burglary, murder, rape, etc. I'm still trying to discuss abortion. So you do believe that the forms of birth control that allow fertilization should be banned also. I am just trying to get an idea of what you think a workable solution is. So you do consider the mother's life to have more value under certain circumstances? What if she is mentally or emotionally unable to tolerate a pregnancy or child-rearing? Should it be the provider who you're going to prosecute if he and his patient make the wrong choice.

And I see that you did finally answer my question, in response to Dave. He must just have a way with words that I lack, I guess, that old smoothie. I'm not sure there's a bright line, but I do believe that the killing of innocents crosses it. I believe society has a compelling interest in prohibiting activity where someone violates a greater right of another. I believe the right to live is the most fundamental right that exists. No other right exists without it. No other right has meaning if the right to live is not real.I know it's probably not really obvious from what I've been saying, but I was pro-life when I got here, and I continue to be very strongly pro-life. I agree with you here.

A suitable law would be one that bans abortions. Law enforcement and punishment should concentrate on providers, IMO. What does "equal for the majority" mean? There is no shortage of laws on the books that impact different segments of society in enormously different ways, and you yourself are on record here as stating that at least some of those laws should not be overturned. That fact does not by itself render a given law inappropriate, by your own admission.So we're going to have a law again that forbids pro-choice physicians from treating pro-choice women. The woman that decides it is imperative that she end her pregnancy will not bear any of the responsibility for her actions. The provider will be the only one to blame? "Equal for the majority" as in laws that will be enforceable in general and not only for those with fewer options.

And do you count the unborn in determining "what is best for the majority"? If not, why not? In fact, if you do not count the unborn, what exactly do you find objectionable about abortions at all? And if you do account for the unborn, please explain how an abortion ban would not be best for the majority of those affected. Right, so you're really just struggling with the practical details of an abortion ban. The fact that the issues you cite exist for countless other laws is not a major concern for you, at least not to the extent where you'd want the laws off the books. :rolleyes:No, I don't think we should discard existing laws off the books until we have a better alternative, nor should we add laws that will by default be flawed, exclusionary and will only exist as a legal deterent for the physicians. The dr. is providing what he considers a needed service. The woman is the one who actually made the decision to end her baby's life. And the father, if he is aware; then should he be an accesory? I do count the unborn actually as the most important part of the equation, but what I believe or feel isn't very important to those women who are trying to keep their lives together. As it stands, it's hard for me to think about forcing them to do what I believe is right and yes I want to. Again, you brought up the other laws as an example that we already have flawed laws, why not more?

Here's my position. An abortion ban, similar to the ones that existed 30 years ago, would eliminate a majority of the abortions currently taking place in the U.S. That would be a good thing overall. Individual circumstances should be taken into account in determining how to punish, just as it is with every other law on the books. I don't think that throwing women in prison should be an objective, and that providers should be the focus of law enforcement. I also believe society has an obligation to assist women in desperate circumstances as best it can, e.g., social programs, etc. Is that specific enough for you?If you don't believe women should should be punished, then you don't really think she's responsible for her crime?

I'm not unsympathetic to the plight of women who feel abortion is the answer. Hell, there are people I love who have had abortions.I'm not unsympathetic to either the mother or the bably. I would just like to see a more workable solution. I would, at this point in time, if I had any right to, change the law to make three months the cut off time. With increased success at viability happening sooner, an abortion at the latter end of the second trimester seems particularly horrifying. I would also like to see us do everything possible to encourage adoption. That would nessecitate an attitude change from feeling like one is being forced to be a breeding machine(one of the most lame of arguments), to attempting to be unselfish and give the baby who has no personal positive value to a family who are desperate for what they can't have. I have been involved in the adoption process and it was the most excruciating sorrow, that then eventually turned into a great joy for him and about 50 of his new relatives. I'm sure abortion is easier than adoption, but the end result is less damaging to the mother and the baby .

[IWLN]

Originally posted by beagledave
Well that's nice and warm-fuzzy sounding. Unfortunately thats not what you said earlier. You did NOT just say we need to help and condemn.You said we should not "self righteously condemn" somebody for these criminal acts. You specifically mentioned mugging as an example.My goodness, what the hell does criminalizing an activity do but to condemn it (self righteously or not)? It says THIS is a bad thing. It forms a moral or ethical judgment that said activity is a bad thing that should be punished.Well, there you go. I don't think the answer is to criminalize abortion. That won't solve the problem. It will just complicate it. I would rather throw more money at it. Make an unplanned baby not a rapid decent into loss of dreams and ability to get by financially. Hey, actually reward people for not getting abortions. College education, more child-care incentives, whatever it takes. It's only money. If you think that abortion is murder, then whatever needs to be done to prevent that should be done, without complaint. As for all the other crimes on the list, which really didn't seem the topic of this thread; yes, I believe we need to have punishment for crime, but in our best interest; we should also find ways to help, so it doesn't happen again. I am forever aware that I do not have abortions or commit crimes because of the family I was born into and the life I've had. I do feel compassion for the people who didn't have the choices I did.

If it seems like I've been backpedaling, I apologize. Nobody was more surprised than me to find I was arguing for a cause I not only don't believe in; but am violently opposed to and sickened by. That's the emotional side of me. OTOH, I intellectually can't see passing a bad and unenforceable law, based on my knee-jerk emotional response. I was trying to be fair and honest. I haven't made my point well because, hell I don't believe part of what I'm saying as strongly as I should. The problem is, if someone doesn't think their pregnancy is "really a baby" and is really intent on not carrying it for 9 months; I still think we can't force them to. I do have a lot of contradictory feelings on this whole issue and probably shouldn't be debating anything about it. Sorry. :(

[Stratocaster]

Originally posted by IWLN
You know, you're the one that brought up burglary, murder, rape, etc. I'm still trying to discuss abortion.This is still dodging. You are the one who has stated that a problem with an abortion ban is that it would not eliminate abortions, I think. The laws against the above acts have not eliminated these crimes either. Neither do these laws affect every segment of society equally. And still, it is only abortion, apparently, that you feel should NOT be a law. And you have still not explained why a law against burglary is OK--though it affects the poor much more than the rich, and has not eliminated burglaries--but a law against abortions would be wrong.So you do believe that the forms of birth control that allow fertilization should be banned also. I am just trying to get an idea of what you think a workable solution is.I already answered this.So you do consider the mother's life to have more value under certain circumstances? I certainly don't think it has less value.What if she is mentally or emotionally unable to tolerate a pregnancy or child-rearing? Should it be the provider who you're going to prosecute if he and his patient make the wrong choice.It's the provider I would prosecute because that is the most politically expedient and practical way of dealing with it. BTW, a mother emotionally unable to deal with child rearing needn't do so, you understand?I know it's probably not really obvious from what I've been saying, but I was pro-life when I got here, and I continue to be very strongly pro-life. I agree with you here.It's not obvious. You still haven't answered my question as to whether or not you count the unborn in determining what is good for the majority. Go ahead and re-read it and please answer.So we're going to have a law again that forbids pro-choice physicians from treating pro-choice women. The woman that decides it is imperative that she end her pregnancy will not bear any of the responsibility for her actions. The provider will be the only one to blame?I didn't say it wasn't possible that women could be prosecuted. But that wouldn't be a primary objective, nor would it be common. I don't think prosecuting desperate and deluded women is an effective practice."Equal for the majority" as in laws that will be enforceable in general and not only for those with fewer options.And yet you seem to have this requirement only for abortion laws. At this point, this is effectively a meaningless debating point, IMO. You hold a position, but then again you don't.No, I don't think we should discard existing laws off the books until we have a better alternative, nor should we add laws that will by default be flawed, exclusionary and will only exist as a legal deterent for the physicians. The dr. is providing what he considers a needed service.If it's the law of the land, he doesn't get to make that decision. It's the same with euthanasia laws and countless other limitations on what a physician may prescribe as treatment.I do count the unborn actually as the most important part of the equation, but what I believe or feel isn't very important to those women who are trying to keep their lives together.You count them how? Again, you have not answered my question. If they are part of your "majority," for the second time I'll ask you to explain how permitting abortions is the best for the majority. And why do you think abortion is uniquely a province of personal decision where society may not impose a restriction if you do believe that the unborn are people with rights? There are actually people in this world who believe that parents should be able to kill infants for any reason. Would you interfere with this decision? If so, why? They simply don't believe what you do. Why not let them make their own choices?As it stands, it's hard for me to think about forcing them to do what I believe is right and yes I want to. Again, you brought up the other laws as an example that we already have flawed laws, why not more?The "flaws" you refer to are an inherent nature of virtually every law on the book. There is no "perfect" law, one where every person is affected exactly the same, one that eliminates the proscribed activity just by virtue of the grandeur of the law's wording. Those laws simply do not exist. Why would you make this a requirement of abortion laws, then?If you don't believe women should should be punished, then you don't really think she's responsible for her crime?She may or may not be. I believe there are desperate women who are not thinking clearly where prison would serve no purpose. But I believe in virtually every instance, imprisoning women would make the possibility of an abortion ban less likely. Most people would find it distasteful. Hell, so would I, for the most part.

So, if you want an anaology, I would point to drug laws. In many jurisdictions, posession of small amounts is not a felony and would not result in prison time. For the large provider, OTOH, it's another story. Law enforcement pursues the dealers vigorously and major dealers get big sentences. I'm not saying drugs and abortions are analogous, by the way. I'm just trying to respond to your fixation on the logistical details surrounding an abortion ban. This is how it might work.I'm not unsympathetic to either the mother or the bably. I would just like to see a more workable solution.Workable in the sense that this law must eliminate "flaws" that no other law is required to? I would, at this point in time, if I had any right to, change the law to make three months the cut off time.Why? Why isn't this interfering with the mother's personal decision? Why do you get to do so in this manner, but anything further is right out? Viability? What does that have to do with the fact that other people disagree with your morality? BTW, at what point do you stop deluding yourself? Think of what you just said. You're pro-choice, no matter how much it comforts you to think of yourself as pro-life.

Sorry, but your philosophy regarding abortion seems terribly inconsistent and damned convenient.

[WaryEri]

IWLN, you're a saint. I may not agree with your position, but your continued graceful responses to a truly graceless dogpiling has been a pleasure to read (never thought I'd apply THAT word to an abortion debate).

[Susanann]

Originally posted by adaher
1. Abortion is wrong, except when the life of the mother is at stake,

2. or in cases of rape. In my view.

3. However, just because I think something is wrong doesn't mean I should call my legislator and try to get it made illegal.

1. Why do people say that? I dont know any mother who would not rather give her own life in order to save her child(and I am glad that I dont know any mother who would kill their child)? Are there mothers out there who would rather kill their child in order to save their own lives?

(Note: I am not talking about people who like abortion and would kill the child regardless of whether or not it might harm the mother, I am talking about regular mothers. ) I know there are people out there who will kill others, this is not the same thing.

2. a child created from rape is a difficult issue, and the mother was not responsible for creating that child. I would leave it to each individual woman to decide what to do, fortunately, conception from a rape is extremely rare.

3. I agree that it is wrong, and I think it is murder, but I agree that it should not be illegal, just for the practicality of the situation.

When over a million babies a year are killed, it is just physically impossible to punish a million people for murder each year, unless you have the death penalty in every state. I have no problems with giving the death penalty for murder, but seveal state constitutions have to be changed to allow the death penalty for abortion. Without the death penalty, we just cant afford to put the now 30 million guilty women, plus their doctors and nurses, in prison for life terms, and anything less than life in prison for killing a child, is just lip service and rather meaningless. The cost of imprisoning 30 million people is unaffordable. It cost over $20,000 to house a prisoner, times 30 million, is what?

And dont forget to add in the court costs, attorney costs, police time, and how many judges we would have to hire and how clogged up our courts would be just to give trials to a million women a year and their doctors and nurses.

[Susanann]

Originally posted by Stratocaster
I believe there are desperate women who are not thinking clearly where prison would serve no purpose. [/B]

The purpose is justice.

[Apos]

As I've noted before, I can't take seriously the claim that someone believes that abortion is as bad as a cold blooded murder of a grown human being. That would mean the equivalent ofmass genocide going on all around you, every day, and yet you're here chatting to people on a message board about it, mildly complaining? How can we take that seriously? How can YOU take yourself seriously?

[beagledave]

Originally posted by WaryEri
IWLN, you're a saint. I may not agree with your position, but your continued graceful responses to a truly graceless dogpiling has been a pleasure to read (never thought I'd apply THAT word to an abortion debate).

Whaaaaaaa?

I see two posters engaging in debate with IWLN, Stratocaster and me. I'm not exactly sure what is "graceless" about the questions and responses in this thread.

Two posters.

Two.

THAT is a "graceless dogpile"

Wow. Just wow.

Happy Holidays from this dogpiler. I trust that IWLN will survive this brutal inquisition.

:rolleyes:

[Susanann]

Originally posted by Apos
As I've noted before, I can't take seriously the claim that someone believes that abortion is as bad as a cold blooded murder of a grown human being.

It is serious. It is just as bad. It is murder. You are killing a human being. Murder is murder. Killing a baby is killing a baby. Doesnt matter the age when you murder a person, 90 years old, 1 month old, or 4 weeks after conception. No matter either where the baby is geographically, inside or outside of the womb.

[IWLN]

Originally posted by Stratocaster
This is still dodging. You are the one who has stated that a problem with an abortion ban is that it would not eliminate abortions, I think. The laws against the above acts have not eliminated these crimes either. Neither do these laws affect every segment of society equally. And still, it is only abortion, apparently, that you feel should NOT be a law. And you have still not explained why a law against burglary is OK--though it affects the poor much more than the rich, and has not eliminated burglaries--but a law against abortions would be wrong.I'm not dodging anything. I just don't know exactly why you're so fixated on comparing abortion to all the other laws. It is very different. Putting a law into place that is going to have little affect on the action, other than making it more akward, doesn't seem productive. I guess there's another side to it. They won't just be wrong for terminating their pregnancy, they'll also be violating the law. Why does that work for you? I certainly don't think it has less value.But you want to legally determine what the women's morals should be?It's the provider I would prosecute because that is the most politically expedient and practical way of dealing with it. BTW, a mother emotionally unable to deal with child rearing needn't do so, you understand?It's not hard enough to find a good provider now, let's see if we can make it worse. A mother emotionally unable to deal with child rearing may not be able to deal with giving their child away either.It's not obvious. You still haven't answered my question as to whether or not you count the unborn in determining what is good for the majority. Go ahead and re-read it and please answer.Emotionally, I do count the unborn. The women don't want them, but you want to make them have them anyway. The unborn are not here yet and you have yet to come up with a workable plan which considers what to do about that.I didn't say it wasn't possible that women could be prosecuted. But that wouldn't be a primary objective, nor would it be common. I don't think prosecuting desperate and deluded women is an effective practice.What about the one's who aren't desperate and deluded, that only don't agree when life begins?And yet you seem to have this requirement only for abortion laws. At this point, this is effectively a meaningless debating point, IMO. You hold a position, but then again you don't.Well, you have me there. I never thought your comparisons had any validity in this issue. I am content with leaving the existing laws and their inforcement to someone more capable than I.If it's the law of the land, he doesn't get to make that decision. It's the same with euthanasia laws and countless other limitations on what a physician may prescribe as treatment.That's obvious. It would then be illegal for him to follow his conscious.
You count them how? Again, you have not answered my question. If they are part of your "majority," for the second time I'll ask you to explain how permitting abortions is the best for the majority. And why do you think abortion is uniquely a province of personal decision where society may not impose a restriction if you do believe that the unborn are people with rights? There are actually people in this world who believe that parents should be able to kill infants for any reason. Would you interfere with this decision? If so, why? They simply don't believe what you do. Why not let them make their own choices?I never said that permitting abortion is best for the majority. Abortion is never best IMHO. I stated that laws would be ineffective and biased.The "flaws" you refer to are an inherent nature of virtually every law on the book. There is no "perfect" law, one where every person is affected exactly the same, one that eliminates the proscribed activity just by virtue of the grandeur of the law's wording. Those laws simply do not exist. Why would you make this a requirement of abortion laws, then?Already answered.She may or may not be. I believe there are desperate women who are not thinking clearly where prison would serve no purpose. But I believe in virtually every instance, imprisoning women would make the possibility of an abortion ban less likely. Most people would find it distasteful. Hell, so would I, for the most part.I find abortion and punishment distasteful. What puzzles me is since you have equated abortion with burglars, murderers, rapists, etc., I don't understand why you think the crime of abortion deserves less punishment. Why do you call it a ban instead of what it is and why are you willing to compromise on punishment, when you think they are guilty of taking a life?So, if you want an anaology, I would point to drug laws. In many jurisdictions, posession of small amounts is not a felony and would not result in prison time. For the large provider, OTOH, it's another story. Law enforcement pursues the dealers vigorously and major dealers get big sentences. I'm not saying drugs and abortions are analogous, by the way. I'm just trying to respond to your fixation on the logistical details surrounding an abortion ban. This is how it might work.Your response to "my fixation" is noted. :rolleyes:Workable in the sense that this law must eliminate "flaws" that no other law is required to?That would be nice.Why? Why isn't this interfering with the mother's personal decision? Why do you get to do so in this manner, but anything further is right out? Viability? The three month cut off is in the best interest of the mother. Getting an abortion after you feel the life inside you is harder to recover from. Viability has to be an issue as long as abortion exists. Abortion can be traumatic enough, without complication.What does that have to do with the fact that other people disagree with your morality? BTW, at what point do you stop deluding yourself? Think of what you just said. You're pro-choice, no matter how much it comforts you to think of yourself as pro-life.
Sorry, but your philosophy regarding abortion seems terribly inconsistent and damned convenient.My morality is between myself and my G-d. He makes it possible for me to be compassionate and non-judgmental. I'm not pro-choice, but I can understand why you think so. Everything is just not black and white. Until this thread came up, I had to some extent insulated myself from a problem I have no control over. The statistics for the last 30 years are heart-breaking. I'm not sure why you think this is a convenient stand for me. My children are grown, enthusiastically having many children of their own. They are all vehemently opposed to abortion. This issue probably will never personally affect me. So what do you think this convenient agenda is about for me? This is not a legal issue. This is a moral issue. Fifty years ago, people gave birth and raised children who were not taught to value every moral right and aspect of the sanctity of life. Forty million lives lost, due to that. So while every fiber of my being screams to stop this horrible thing, I can't make other people feel the way I do. I can't make their moral judgments for them. The only thing I can do is try not to make it worse for them than it already is. You think I somehow don't value those babies and you're wrong. I do have infinite faith in G-d and know that those children are safe. So if I think the mothers have equal right to my concern, that is my right. I have not failed in any way to examine and even agree in part with your feelings on this. Have you heard anything I've said?

[IWLN]

Originally posted by beagledave
Whaaaaaaa?

I see two posters engaging in debate with IWLN, Stratocaster and me. I'm not exactly sure what is "graceless" about the questions and responses in this thread.

Two posters.

Two.

THAT is a "graceless dogpile"

Wow. Just wow.

Happy Holidays from this dogpiler. I trust that IWLN will survive this brutal inquisition.

:rolleyes: Gasp!! Just barely. Have a nice Christmas.:)

[torie]

Originally posted by Susanann
(Note: I am not talking about people who like abortion and would kill the child regardless of whether or not it might harm the mother, I am talking about regular mothers. ) I know there are people out there who will kill others, this is not the same thing.


Who LIKES abortion?? Who?? Who?? Name somebody.


"Regular mothers" sheesh. There are women all over the place who have had children years after having an abortion. I consider them "regular mothers". I'm very sorry you don't.


Furthermore, just because a woman chooses not to make a sacrifice you would does not give you the right to self-rightously damn them. It is not your life at risk, so not your choice to make. Think about it.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally posted by torie
Who LIKES abortion?? Who?? Who?? Name somebody.

Shhh, it's rude to point out the stupidity of someone else's position.

[Susanann]

People that dont "like" abortion, dont do it.

People that dont like robbing, stealing, murdering others, dont do it.

The 30 million who have done it, must "like" it, else they wouldnt have done it. If you want names, then look up the 30 million who have killed their babies and look up the doctors who have done it.

I think murdering any person or any baby is wrong and that is my unchangable opinion.

There are no gray areas, no excuses, no justification, no arguement, no buts, no negotiation. The baby is dead. The mother(and doctor ) killed it. The baby once had life, it had a future, and someone ended that life, and now the baby's body is decaying and rotting.

I dont consider any mother who kills her child a "regular mother". I dont care if you think mothers who murder their babies to be "regular" or not. You can, but I wont.

I am not "damming them", I am just calling them for what they are : they are baby killers. They killed/murdered a human being. They murdered their own child.

I already said there are too many baby killers to be able to punish them, so I am not advocating that it be made illegal, but I dont have to like anybody who kills their own child.

You will never change my mind. I will never consider killing babies to be ok, so we will disagree.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally posted by Susanann
and now the baby's body is decaying and rotting.

Actually, I think a lot of fetusses are disposed of in incinerators.

In any case, you're free to use the term "baby killers". A number of us, though, don't define "baby" and "killer" the same way you do. Fortunately, the laws don't either.

[IWLN]

Originally posted by Bryan Ekers
Actually, I think a lot of fetusses are disposed of in incinerators.

In any case, you're free to use the term "baby killers". A number of us, though, don't define "baby" and "killer" the same way you do. Fortunately, the laws don't either. Hey Bryan, You're supposed to put water on the "flames", not gasoline. :eek:

[Rodrigo]

Originally posted by Joe Random
Is killing in self defense always wrong, because it is murder? Hypothetically, if a woman is suffering complications from pregnancy that are likely to kill her if she does not abort, wouldn't such an abortion be equivalent to killing in self defense?

Murder and self-defence are different things, yet, I see your point. Abortion is still wrong even if the pregnancy endangers a mother's life, what you do in that case is not to DIRECTLY cause the death of the foetus, but you take it out and try to save it (even if death is sure). That's the difference between death as the means and death as the unintended (yet unavoidable) result.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally posted by IWLN
Hey Bryan, You're supposed to put water on the "flames", not gasoline. :eek:

Gosh, are you under the impression I could drive Susanann further from the pro-choice position? Heavens!

In any case, I respect freedom, including freedom to abort a fetus, or to call the fetus-aborter a pointlessly inflammatory term like "baby killer", which I incidentally feel is inaccurate.

I just hope no-one rises to Susanann's bait, or sinks to her level, or whatever metaphor is fitting, and turn this thread into a simple bout of name-calling. Judging from the thread's title, I think that's what the OP wanted all along.

[beagledave]

Originally posted by Susanann
People that dont "like" abortion, dont do it.

People that dont like robbing, stealing, murdering others, dont do it.

The 30 million who have done it, must "like" it, else they wouldnt have done it.

I consider myself pro life. There is no way I can agree with or support these kind of statements. Furthermore, I think it does the pro life viewpoint no good to be pushing that particular line of thinking.

People do acts that "they don't like" all the time. Often times, they are referred to as "necessary evils" or "the lesser of two evils" or some other term.

(I recognize that there is a spectrum of opinions from the women who have had abortions ranging from neutral or "not such a big deal" up to traumatizing events.)

If a family member becomes seriously mentally ill, for example, and I have to commit that person to hospitalized psychiatric care against his/her wishes...do you suppose that I would "like" doing that? Note that I am using this example only to rebut the notion that folks only do actions that they "like", I am not comparing the action to havin an abortion.

[Joe Random]

Originally posted by Susanann
People that dont "like" abortion, dont do it.I would beg to differ.

People that dont like robbing, stealing, murdering others, dont do it.I don't like stealing, but if my family were starving, and I had absolutely no way to buy food, then I would steal.

I don't like murdering, but if someone attacked me or my family with the intent to kill, I would kill them if doing so were necessary to stop them.

The 30 million who have done it, must "like" it, else they wouldnt have done it.In the Real World, you don't always get a choice between what you like and what you don't like. Often the choice is between what you don't like, and what you like even less.

There are no gray areas, no excuses, no justification, no arguement, no buts, no negotiation.So extenuating circumstances are lost on you? For example, someone who kills in self defense is still a murderer, and should get life in prison (or the death penalty)?

The baby once had life, it had a future, and someone ended that life, and now the baby's body is decaying and rotting.You don't know if the baby had a future or not. Maybe it would have been a Nobel Prize winning scientist. Maybe it would have been a serial killer. Maybe it would have been stillborn. We can play the "what might have been" game all day, but in the end I believe that the mother's right to be pregnant (or not) as she chooses overrides the fetus' right to live -- up until the point that the fetus' brain starts operating, and it becomes an actual person as opposed to a collection of tissues. But that's my own opinion, and I don't expect you to buy into it any more than I buy into your "ignoring extenuating circumstances" foolishness..

. . . I dont have to like anybody who kills their own child.So, hypothetically speaking, a woman whose life is threatened by a pregnancy, and who will die if the fetus is not removed (and the fetus is too premature to possibly survive outside of the womb) has two choices: Not abort and die, or live and have you not like them. I know which one I would choose.

[E-Sabbath]

So, in the end, as always, it comes down to three questions.

When is a fetus a human being? (Before fertilization? Remember, parthenogensis in human beings is technically possible)

When does the right of the fetus to continue existing override the right of a mother to control her own destiny and body?

And, of course, if two people disagree about the answer to those two questions above... who is right? Should we make laws more or less restrictive?

I hate abortion. I think that it would be good if all pregnancies came to term, that all children would be raised in loving homes. But it's not my place to tell someone they can't have one. I feel that the option of the woman to _have_ an abortion should exist... and if the woman truly feels that it's wrong, then they can simply _not have one_.

I understand that Susanann thinks that all fetuses are living beings, and I understand that she thinks they have immortal souls. But the question of an immortal soul is something that can never be answered, until after death, so we must live with what we can look at in this world. Susanann, why must you inflict your religious views on others, to the point of advocating laws that force people to behave in one way or another?

[Joe Random]

Originally posted by Rodrigo
Abortion is still wrong even if the pregnancy endangers a mother's life, what you do in that case is not to DIRECTLY cause the death of the foetus, but you take it out and try to save it (even if death is sure).So shooting someone in the head in self defense is wrong, but shooting them in the head and then giving them CPR (even though their brains no longer contained within their skull) is okay?

If death is certain, then attempting so save a life is morally the same as not attempting to save a life (especially if you put that life into the un-savable position in the first place).

That's the difference between death as the means and death as the unintended (yet unavoidable) result. If it's unavoidable, and you [/i]know[/i] that it's unavoidable, then it must be the intended result.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally posted by E-Sabbath
Susanann, why must you inflict your religious views on others, to the point of advocating laws that force people to behave in one way or another?

Well, I disagree that Susanann is inflicting anything on anybody. Anyone who feels they are being "inflicted" upon is far too fragile a person to use a computer and should be given a pacifier immediately.

[E-Sabbath]

I'm sorry. Why do you think it would be a good idea to enforce your religious ideas on others, Susanann, to the point of advocating laws that force people to behave in one way or another?

Better, Bryan?

[Bryan Ekers]

Allll better.

[Apos]

It is serious. It is just as bad. It is murder. You are killing a human being. Murder is murder. Killing a baby is killing a baby. Doesnt matter the age when you murder a person, 90 years old, 1 month old, or 4 weeks after conception. No matter either where the baby is geographically, inside or outside of the womb.

I don't think this logic even remotely makes sense.

But that's not particularly interesting. What is interesting is that I don't think YOU really and truly believe it either, as I noted. You say it. But I don't think you really react like you would if adult people were being slaughtered all around you and the police did nothing: even prevented you from interfereing. If that was happening all around me, I certainly wouldn't be calmly chit chatting about the rightness or wrongness of it on a messageboard.

[Joe Random]

Originally posted by Apos
I don't think you really react like you would if adult people were being slaughtered all around you and the police did nothing: even prevented you from interfereing.I have to agree. Susanann said:

Originally posted by Susanann
I am not advocating that [abortion] be made illegal. . . .However, if women were regularly killing 6-month-old babies, it's pretty much a given that Susanann would advocate that it be made illegal.

So yeah, it's obvious from her reaction that Susanann doesn't truly equate abortion with the murder of a baby. Maybe it comes close, but she clearly consideres it to be a seperate case that isn't quite as bad as the murder of a non-fetus.

[Stratocaster]

IWLN, it's clear we're talking past each other, and I don't think it would serve any purpose, as far as our exchange goes, for either of us to restate our positions again. We've already done several circuits on this merry-go-round, and that's enough for me.

Thanks. Merry Christmas.

[Stratocaster]

Originally posted by WaryEri
IWLN, you're a saint. I may not agree with your position, but your continued graceful responses to a truly graceless dogpiling has been a pleasure to read (never thought I'd apply THAT word to an abortion debate). Dude, you have got to be kidding me. If this seemed like a graceless dogpile, you little hothouse flower you, then I strongly suggest you stay out of GD before something gives you the vapors.

Tell you what, why don't you report it to a mod? I bet they'll be just as shocked and outraged. :rolleyes:

[Stratocaster]

Originally posted by Apos
But I don't think you really react like you would if adult people were being slaughtered all around you and the police did nothing: even prevented you from interfereing. If that was happening all around me, I certainly wouldn't be calmly chit chatting about the rightness or wrongness of it on a messageboard. So why isn't your behind on a plane right now to help the poor oppressed people in any of a number of nations where human rights are routinely and egregiously violated?

Certainly it can't be that you don't think there are countries right now torturing and killing innocent people. Check Amnesty International's site if you have trouble coming up with one. How can you stand idly by, calmly chitchatting?

[IWLN]

Originally posted by Stratocaster
IWLN, it's clear we're talking past each other, and I don't think it would serve any purpose, as far as our exchange goes, for either of us to restate our positions again. We've already done several circuits on this merry-go-round, and that's enough for me.

Thanks. Merry Christmas. Thanks Stratocaster. It may not seem like it, but I do appreciate the chance to "argue" about this issue. It helps me recognize some of the inconsistencies that I do have and I learn from it. I'd like to make one point, since I know I was vague at best, on other solutions for non-legal intervention. My husband and I provide regular monthly support for a co-op run by four retired nuns, in Mexico. We send our money directly to them. They currently have 25 women and 100 children. They are providing for their needs and helping them learn to take care of themselves. When a pregnant 14 year old shows up at the door, she has a home until she can take care of herself and her baby. A lot of the children there would already be selling their bodies in order to eat, if it were not for this help. They give these women options to abortion and non-judmental help. We also skipped the gift part of Christmas this year and sent the money to them. Save the sarcastic eye rolls. I'm not telling you this because I think I am so self-righteous or anything. Far from it. I am humbly grateful to be able to help and grateful too that I was born into circumstances where my options weren't so limited and desperate. I wish we could do more, but money is usually pretty tight for us. This is our way of putting our "behind on an airplane." My point here is if you truly wish to limit abortion, you will help on a more personal level and not just make a law. Again, thank you for sharing your views with me. Merry Christmas.

[hlanelee]

It is more wrong to bring an unwanted child into the world. There are too many possible cites to even begin the argument.

[Stratocaster]

Originally posted by hlanelee
It is more wrong to bring an unwanted child into the world. There are too many possible cites to even begin the argument. Oh, go on, give it a try. Show us the cites that prove that abortion is, on balance, a better alternative, particularly from that unwanted child's perspective.

BTW, is it more wrong to let an unwanted toddler live, or should we euthanize?

[IWLN]

Originally posted by hlanelee
It is more wrong to bring an unwanted child into the world. There are too many possible cites to even begin the argument. Tell you what. You bring me every "unwanted" newborn you can get your hands on. I guarantee you I can find a loving home for them. I can provide cites if you'd like. This is a lame, overused justification.

[Bryan Ekers]

The unwanted child is actually a secondary justification. The primary, I've always felt, is that it is wrong to force a woman to remain pregnant when she doesn't wish to be. The fact that a fetus dies in the process is irrelevant.

[scotandrsn]

I will go on record with this:

Debates about whether abortion is absolutely "right" or "wrong" are beside the point. It can not be decided absolutely, IMO. If it could, we'd have an answer by now, instead of increasing mountains of invective, which is all I ever see in abortion debates.

There is exactly one person who knows for sure whether a particular abortion decision is right or wrong, and that is the mother. Evolution has placed all the burden of gestation on the female, and therefore only she is capable of being qualified to decide to complete the process or not. To argue otherwise is to argue that women are somehow inherently unable to decide how to run their own bodies. I don't think the human race would have gotten this far if that were true.

There has been abortion for as long as there have been humans, and there will always be abortion. The woman with the fetus in her has always made the final choice as to whether a deliberate end is made to a particular pregnancy or not. There will always be people who disagree with a particular decision, sometimes vehemently so.

The debate is not really about whether it is right or wrong, it is about who gets the legally-recognized authority to decide what gets put into someone's body and what gets taken out (or left in). I have yet to hear a convincing argument that says it's about something else.

[Polycarp]

There are several positions taken in this thread that strike me as irrational -- and not all of them on the same side.

First, let's examine the embryo/fetus. There is in my mind no question that it is an organism with human genes, which in the absence of less-than-likely natural causes or of human intervention will eventually become an independent adult human being.

But it is not one yet.

There is a distinction between child abandonment and putting a child up for adoption -- the first is the criminal act of leaving a child which cannot yet care for itself without adult care and support; the second is abdicating one's rights and responsibilities to that child in favor of another willing to assume them.

However, prior to the third trimester the embyo/fetus is not capable of life outside the womb, with another caregiver providing for it. It therefore becomes the responsibility of the woman carrying it to devote her life to its nurture and care, abstaining from what would harm it.

Now, it's my personal view that terminating its existence by removing it from its natural support mechanism, the uterus, is nearly always wrong -- and while we can all manufacture the rare exceptional circumstance, allow me to make that a generalization with unspecified exceptions recognized. Terminating a pregnancy in and of itself is not wrong; what is wrong is allowing the potential human being dependent on that pregnancy for its life to die, and we have no means of keeping a fetus-outside-the-womb alive in our present state of technology unless it is capable of surviving as a preemie. While this may sound like a pointless distinction, it may in the future prove to be a valuable one, as technology improves, and it sets the stage for a point I want to make that is to me important.

I draw a libertarian distinction between holding a person responsible for his or her acts which violate another's rights, and compulsion on any person to commit a particular act. The first is part and parcel of an ordered society; the second is domination of individual rights by that society.

I believe that, in general, it is the moral responsibility of a woman, having gotten pregnant, to abnegate those elements of her life which would harm the child and to devote her life to the nurture of the child until it is capable of living without her support (which may mean adoption as a newborn).

But, in keeping with the principles above, I believe that deciding whether or not to accept this responsibility is her moral choice, a decision that must be made by her and her alone, in recognition that she alone has control over her body.

I do not believe that we may by law violate the autonomy she has over her body.

And therefore, while anti-abortion, I am pro-choice.

[Stratocaster]

Originally posted by Polycarp
There are several positions taken in this thread that strike me as irrational -- and not all of them on the same side.

First, let's examine the embryo/fetus. There is in my mind no question that it is an organism with human genes, which in the absence of less-than-likely natural causes or of human intervention will eventually become an independent adult human being.

But it is not one yet.Undeniable. But can I ask you to clarify? Is the fetus "not one yet" because it is dependent and not an adult? Or is it also not a human being? I'm not sure if you answered that with the phrase "organism with human genes."But, in keeping with the principles above, I believe that deciding whether or not to accept this responsibility is her moral choice, a decision that must be made by her and her alone, in recognition that she alone has control over her body.Can you expand on this? What principle specifically drives you toward the idea that the mother alone has control over her body? How do you with reconcile this with "holding a person responsible for his or her acts which violate another's rights," part of the foundation of an ordered society? Thanks.

[Apos]

So why isn't your behind on a plane right now to help the poor oppressed people in any of a number of nations where human rights are routinely and egregiously violated?

Well, it is mostly what I am trying to do for a living, but the short answer is: a) these people are not close by to me, not part of the community of laws and politics for which I am more directly responsible b) I don't care as much about human rights abuses as I do about genocide.

Certainly it can't be that you don't think there are countries right now torturing and killing innocent people. Check Amnesty International's site if you have trouble coming up with one. How can you stand idly by, calmly chitchatting?

Because none of these things are going on nearby, in a community and country I represent and have more direct power to do anything about. As bad as dictatorships in foriegn lands are, and indeed I do care and do try to help in my way, they are well outside of my ability to do anything about, unlike if women were taking 5 year olds to have their bodies torn apart daily right in my neighborhood.

I am of course, questioning whether these sorts of reasons are legitimate, and I'm starting to learn towards the view that they aren't. But then, this issue also really isn't about me. For all you know, I could enjoy mass murder, and that wouldn't make much difference either. The question still remains to be put to those who think it really is full-fledged murder: would you really react in the same fashion if adult human beings were being killed by doctors in the same numbers as routinely, defended and abetted by your own state?

[Apos]

But, in keeping with the principles above, I believe that deciding whether or not to accept this responsibility is her moral choice, a decision that must be made by her and her alone, in recognition that she alone has control over her body.

I may or may not be willing to agree with your conclusion, but I also have problems with describing a "moral" choice as belonging to a single specific individual. To me, that pretty much calls into question the idea of morality in general, whereby duties are universal, not specific. If it is wrong for a mother to choose to kill her baby, then it is right to oppose her doing so. There may be a greater duty which outweighs that one to be sure, and autonomy may be it, but I still would be uncomfortable with language that implied that a moral choice can be exclusive to a single person.

To put my own position more plainly for the wider debate:

1) I think that the "it's my body" arguement, in and of itself, is utterly groundless in a imperative sort of sense: if the fetus has interests of its own, then it would be wrong to let its attachment to the mother dictate who gets to decide whether or not it can be freely killed.
2) I would, however, allow an "it's my body" claim to be used in a utilitarian way, as long as it is not taken all out of proportion (i.e. a desire for autonomy could almost NEVER rise to the level were killing a fetus with the moral status of any other human being would be permissible, but if you think that the fetus has much more limited interests, then autonomy could outweigh them)
3) I don't think fertilized or implanted eggs, zygotes, etc have any moral status at all
4) I think fetuses do increasingly have interests that are important, but I don't think they are any greater than the interests of similarly abled animals, and see a great moral disconnect in being against the abortion of a two month old fetus, but eating pork for dinner.

[beagledave]

Originally posted by Polycarp

I believe that, in general, it is the moral responsibility of a woman, having gotten pregnant, to abnegate those elements of her life which would harm the child and to devote her life to the nurture of the child until it is capable of living without her support (which may mean adoption as a newborn).


So, "in general", ignoring the legal issues for a moment...you then believe that women who have abortions are behaving morally irresponsibly then, correct?

[Stratocaster]

Originally posted by Apos
Well, it is mostly what I am trying to do for a living, but the short answer is: a) these people are not close by to me, not part of the community of laws and politics for which I am more directly responsible b) I don't care as much about human rights abuses as I do about genocide.And you infer that from a pro-life perspective abortion is genocide? Huh?Because none of these things are going on nearby, in a community and country I represent and have more direct power to do anything about. As bad as dictatorships in foriegn lands are, and indeed I do care and do try to help in my way, they are well outside of my ability to do anything about, unlike if women were taking 5 year olds to have their bodies torn apart daily right in my neighborhood.Nonsense! Absolute twaddle. Bud, let me clue you in on a little invention: airplanes. They have rendered the world a very small place indeed.

And what does the fact that something is nearby and in your country have to do with the type of moral outrage you seem to find lacking in pro-lifers? You pooh-poohed the thought that someone who believed that fetuses were deserving of human rights wouldn't be appalled to the point of action--violent action, I presume.

There are people, right now, being killed and tortured. Go save them. Even if you fail in the attempt, at least you won't be a hypocrite. Unlike your hypothetical ("What if these fetuses are adults"), you needn't wonder. Right now, this very day, there are adults being killed and tortured. Go get 'em, bud. Let's see what your response would be. Oh, wait. I guess we have already.

[Apos]

And you infer that from a pro-life perspective abortion is genocide? Huh?

Most certainly on the same level. You're the one making the faulty inference. I was here responding to someone comparing abortion to human rights infringements, given the assumption that abortion is tantmount to normal murder. I don't consider the mass murder of a particular category of humanity to be equivalent to supression of the free press, thuogh both are bad.

Nonsense! Absolute twaddle.

No, actually: taken quite seriously as an objection to Unger's and Singer's arguments for our obligation to help everyone in the world regardless of distance. While I am coming around to the view that distance doesn't make a huge difference, surely you are not going to simply dismiss the concern period.

Bud, let me clue you in on a little invention: airplanes. They have rendered the world a very small place indeed.

Mere physical distance is not the only relevant factor.

To shrink things down a little: let's say that there was a police brutality case in Botswana. Would you really feel JUST AS compelled to do something about that as you would for a similar case in your home town? What about if it happened on Mars? In another galaxy? Once you admit that distance plays some role, then we are haggling about degree, not principle, and your "absolute twaddle" becomes a ridiculously dismissive overreaction.

At the very least, it can certainly be argued that a mother of two here can do much more good fighting against drug dealers in here own community than she can if she suddenly rushes off to a plane to East Timor where she neither speaks the language nor holds any sort of special position that would allow her to be anything more than another body among the throng in the midst of ongoing genocide (a greater harm than drug dealers).

And what does the fact that something is nearby and in your country have to do with the type of moral outrage you seem to find lacking in pro-lifers? You pooh-poohed the thought that someone who believed that fetuses were deserving of human rights wouldn't be appalled to the point of action--violent action, I presume.

Yes.

There are people, right now, being killed and tortured. Go save them. Even if you fail in the attempt, at least you won't be a hypocrite. Unlike your hypothetical ("What if these fetuses are adults"), you needn't wonder. Right now, this very day, there are adults being killed and tortured. Go get 'em, bud. Let's see what your response would be. Oh, wait. I guess we have already.

I'm sorry, but these situations are not equivalent. I may be amendable to the view that they are in theory, and later reconsider how that would change practice, but that is not the view we are consideirng. We are considering the reaction of the average person, who, for better or ill, doesn't take as seriously harms done in distant lands outside their own citizenship and community, but who would indeed be outraged to the point of rebellion by it going on in their home town, tolerated by the civil authorities that are supposed to represent the control of violence in our civilization.

Furthermore, we are not talking about a person merely considering a hypothetical (to them) harm. We are hypothetically considering the case of a person who TRULY BELIEVES that abortion at any level of development, even a clump of implanted cells, is a terrible harm.

[beagledave]

There are people dying everyday in Iraq. U.S soldiers..civilians..women and children.

These are folks whose "human being-ness" is beyond dispute.

I see lots of folks on the boards who express opposition to the war in Iraq. If they are not..what was that word..oh yeah "appalled" to the point of "violent action" against the war..if they are not getting themselves jailed for civil disobedience (at the least) ..I take it we can consider them hypocrites as well, huh? They must not really think that the war in Iraq is such a bad thing.

There are plenty of places to do acts of civil obedience (or even better..violent disruptions of military actions) in just about every town in America. Hell, I'd reckon there is some sort of army depot, national guard building or arsenal within an hour or two of everybody. Surely all of the outraged people concerned about the daily deaths linked to U.S. policy can put their actions where their board posts are?

This reminds me of a Pit thread awhile back..here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=157658&perpage=50&pagenumber=2). A poster there took the same tack as you...that if pro lifers were not willing to commit all kinds of acts to disrupt abortions..we must not really take the problem that seriously. When I asked about what he was willing to do to stop the killings in a war he opposed so much..He won my irony post of the decade:


And if I had the (non-violent) ability to stop all those assholes from carpet bombing innocent people I would do it, but I'm not willing to toss any salads over it.

Hell, yeah, I'm a coward. At least I admit it.


It's the same lack of consistency in thinking that Stratocaster referred to earlier. Plenty of laws in our current legal system are flawed and incomplete with varying degrees of exceptions or loopholes added on year by years. When it comes to abortion though, many pro choice folks keep insisting that pro life folks come up with some airtight legal strategy to address the problem...that address all possible future pregnancy scenarios....a theshold that they don't bother to apply to other laws already on the book.

Apos (and other posters) is doing the same thing here...using a "test" to measure the sincerity of pro lifers beliefs..a test that convienently doesn't get applied to plenty of other areas of public policy.

[IWLN]

To say abortion is wrong, illegal, but we're not going to punish you; we're only going to make it really hard for you to get one, is contradictory. If you are pro-life and you are unable to commit to putting into law a definition of the crime and also a fitting punishment, then you are a hypocrite. You can't be anti-abortion and pro-choice either. I would not hesitate to agree that my neighbor who kills her toddler should be punished. But I do an amazing emotional, over-rationalized, convoluted thought process to justify allowing my neighbor to kill her unborn child and do nothing. That makes my actions(or lack of them) pro-choice, even though my core beliefs are pro-life.Stratocaster said: Sorry, but your philosophy regarding abortion seems terribly inconsistent and damned convenient.And I would have to admit, Stratocaster, you're right. That fence I'm sitting on gets pretty uncomfortable sometimes. I do wonder if, at times I can see you on the same fence, just a different section?:(

[Rodrigo]

Originally posted by Joe Random
So shooting someone in the head in self defense is wrong, but shooting them in the head and then giving them CPR (even though their brains no longer contained within their skull) is okay?

If death is certain, then attempting so save a life is morally the same as not attempting to save a life (especially if you put that life into the un-savable position in the first place).

If it's unavoidable, and you [/i]know[/i] that it's unavoidable, then it must be the intended result.


Let me elaborate. when you kill in self-defence, the idea is to save your own life FIRST and whack the other guy SECOND, so your INTENTION is preservation, the means (which you did not want) are unintended yet unavoidable..

In life-of-the mother cases, your intention is to save mum, so given that, you should choose the means that cause less damage. If you have (and you always have) the choice between directly killing the baby and indirectly doing it, you should try for indirectly, In the future we may save a baby , let's say, 4 weeks into the oregnancy, so when the techonology comes you don't have to change yourr morality.

Even in self-defence, there are limits, you can't blow a building, killing 1 000 people in self-defence.Unavoidable does not mean intended. My car pollutes, that's unavoidable, but it is unintended by me (I don't drive my car saying "let's contaminate!!!!")

----------------

As an indirect analogy of means. Let's say you're going to your wife's room to have her "unplugged", she wanted you to perform the euthanasia. Let's say, 10 seconds before this a guy came and shot her, wouldn't you be angry? The result was the same, yet, 10 seconds made a lot of difference.

[Stratocaster]

Originally posted by Apos
To shrink things down a little: let's say that there was a police brutality case in Botswana. Would you really feel JUST AS compelled to do something about that as you would for a similar case in your home town? What about if it happened on Mars? In another galaxy? Once you admit that distance plays some role, then we are haggling about degree, not principle, and your "absolute twaddle" becomes a ridiculously dismissive overreaction.First, I have no means of getting to Mars, wouldn't you agree? Bringing locations into the discussion where it is absolutely impossible to interfere for good (and where there currently doesn't seem to be a strong need) is just a bit of a red herring, dontcha think?

Second, why would the proximity of this earthly "evil" be a material factor when one could get on a plane and be virtually anywhere in the world at will? Let's keep the discussion limited to Earth, okay? Sorry to be so parochial.I'm sorry, but these situations are not equivalent. I may be amendable to the view that they are in theory, and later reconsider how that would change practice, but that is not the view we are consideirng. We are considering the reaction of the average person, who, for better or ill, doesn't take as seriously harms done in distant lands outside their own citizenship and community, but who would indeed be outraged to the point of rebellion by it going on in their home town, tolerated by the civil authorities that are supposed to represent the control of violence in our civilization.No, actually quite specifically we were considering your reaction to perceived evils. This was in reaction to your dismissal of pro-life beliefs based on the idea that pro-lifers weren't currently storming abortion clinics with violent opposition. It was the specific question I posed to you. Nothing theoretical or speculative about it.

You can talk around and around this as much as you like, but it won't change the fact that you are guilty of what you see in others. The only real difference is that you don't craft the non sequitur for yourself that this must necessarily mean your core beliefs are a mirage. If you bring distance into the equation, then you have the same "apathy" that you see in pro-lifers; at that point you are merely able to have irrelevant discussions about degree. Again, you could be on a plane today, if only you made the decision to do so.

If you feel human rights are being egregiously violated, even to the point of death, in the world today, and you do nothing about it (despite the fact that you could do something), how is this in any material way different than what you perceive regarding pro-lifers? Again, no hypothetical here either. There are adults being tortured and killed this very day.

And yet you do nothing.

And Dave was absolutely on point, as usual.Apos (and other posters) is doing the same thing here...using a "test" to measure the sincerity of pro lifers beliefs..a test that convienently doesn't get applied to plenty of other areas of public policy.

[Stratocaster]

Originally posted by IWLN
To say abortion is wrong, illegal, but we're not going to punish you; we're only going to make it really hard for you to get one, is contradictory. If you are pro-life and you are unable to commit to putting into law a definition of the crime and also a fitting punishment, then you are a hypocrite. I gave you a definition: Providers of abortions would be in violation of the abortion ban. I also said, without obscuring the thought at all, that this was in no small part a matter of political expediency.

If that makes me a hypocrite, fine. You seem to be fixated on the thought of some perfect, divinely just system of punishment and control in re: abortions, though--again--you seemingly demand this requirement of no other law. My objective is to make the number of abortions as small as possible. Do you see the difference?

The primary concern for me is the number of human beings that have been killed since Roe v. Wade. I wouldn't say "abortion ban at any cost." But I would accept a less-than-perfect solution that significantly reduced the number of abortions. And this especially when the "imperfections" are no more than those you see in countless other laws.

You, OTOH, seem to like to think of yourself as pro-life, say that you believe that killing the unborn is wrong, but won't support an abortion ban unless it's codified with perfect logic and it satisfies some sense of justice that ignores the rights of the unborn. We don't need to get into this again, but frankly, I can't understand your core beliefs at all. I can't get any two tenets to agree. Hey, I'm sure that's my own confusion. But since I thought we had shut down our exchange, only to see that you have resurrected it to indirectly call me a hypocrite and/or self-contradictory, I felt compelled to respond.

Anyway, given my objective, I see nothing hypocritical in what I have proposed and in how I have explained it. YMMV. Whatever.

[Joe Random]

Originally posted by Stratocaster
Second, why would the proximity of this earthly "evil" be a material factor when one could get on a plane and be virtually anywhere in the world at will?Not everyone can afford to purchase a plane ticket to some random location every few days. Not everyone can afford to skip work and abandon their family for weeks at a time.

No, even though the world is more accessible than it used to be, it's still much more practical to act locally.

Also, you're missing the point (although probably not intentionally). The anti-abortion crowd equates abortion with the murder of a child. Now, do you think that those who feel this way would continue to take the same level of action if we suddenly replaced every instance of abortion with the mother murdering a six-month-old baby instead?

The point is that those who believe that abortion is murder do not act as they would be expected to if somehow all abortions were replaced with murders.

[beagledave]

Originally posted by Joe Random


The point is that those who believe that abortion is murder do not act as they would be expected to if somehow all abortions were replaced with murders.

Are anti war folks on these boards "acting as they would be expected to" with regards to the daily killings in Iraq, all as a result (they believe) of U.S. policy..or are they all talk and no action?

[Apos]

[quote]Apos (and other posters) is doing the same thing here...using a "test" to measure the sincerity of pro lifers beliefs..a test that convienently doesn't get applied to plenty of other areas of public policy.[/qote]

But that misses the point. The test is framed specifically in terms of what one would do if something like this happened within ones own community. Bringing in the question of whether we are responsible for other horrors in the world is irrelevant, because it raises all sorts of other issues and questions without warrant. It's irrelevant because maybe we are and maybe we aren't, but that makes little difference to the question of what we would do here. If such kilings began here, it would be such a violation of our society as to clal off all bets.

To put it another way: few people run around condemning the mayor of stuckyville USA for not doing more about human rights abuses in China. Maybe people should complain, and maybe they shouldn't, but the fact is, most people's common sense morality does not require them to make any such extreme claims. However, those same people WOULD find much to complain about if that mayor was actually mayor of Stuckyville, Turkey, and he wasn't doing anything to oppose the practice of people taking away Armenians to be shot in large groups.

In other words, your objection to my hypothetical fails on the grounds that it violates the common sense view, whether it be right or wrong, that horrors in distant lands and communities are just not as important as those in the here and now. You can argue against that view all you want, but that belongs to anoter discussion: the impotrant question is not what is ultimately correct, but why there is an inconsistency in the common sense moral view of most people when it comes to what they say is going on, and their actual reactions to the situation are.

[Polycarp]

Stratocaster: I specifically avoided addressing the question of whether a fetus "is" a human being -- what I said is what I said: whatever it may be, it is not a person capable of life on its own without support. Does this place an onus on the woman whose uterus is providing that support? IMO, yes. Does it equate the termination of a pregnancy with murder? IMO, no.

Beagledave: It's my policy to avoid judging the morality of another to the extent that I can possibly do so. You may recall comments our mutual Lord made on the subject -- and though a fallible human being, I try to follow what He commanded. Not being personally possessed of the requisite babymaking apparatus, I have never had to make that decision for myself. I will say that two young ladies of my close acquaintance, pregnant out of wedlock (not by me), decided to carry their babies to term, and I supported their choice with everything I had to give. But it's not my province to judge the morality of a woman who is faced with this difficult decision, and I refuse to try to second-guess her.

[Apos]

Strat: First, I have no means of getting to Mars, wouldn't you agree? Bringing locations into the discussion where it is absolutely impossible to interfere for good (and where there currently doesn't seem to be a strong need) is just a bit of a red herring, dontcha think?

No. It illustrates factors that you are blithely ignoring. The fact is, you could get to Mars, if you realy, really tried. It would cost billions of dollars and take years, but it could be done. It would be, of course very difficult and implausible. Which is exactly the point: I have defeated, now by your own admission, your proposed _principle_ that distance makes no difference, and now we are just haggling about how much difference it makes. It's like that old W.C. Fields joke where he asks a woman if she would sleep with him for ten million dollars, and she says, sure, she would. Then he asks her "Well, would you sleep with me for five dollars?" She responds "No! What sort of a girl do you think I am?!" And Fields quips: "Ah my dear, we've already determined that: now we just haggling over the price."

Second, why would the proximity of this earthly "evil" be a material factor when one could get on a plane and be virtually anywhere in the world at will? Let's keep the discussion limited to Earth, okay? Sorry to be so parochial.

You are again simply ignoring key points I've already made. It isn't necessarily proximity itself that makes a difference, but a whole host of other factors that fall under things like social, political, and financial difficulty that are usually associated with proximity and social context and so on.

For instance, consider Bill Gates. Let's say that according to your caricature of my view, he is obligated to travel to Africa and help end the AIDS crisis. But of course Bill Gates has little expertise in directly doing so, cannot speak the necessary languages: would be nearly useless. But what Bill Gates can do is make tons and tons of money. And, in fact, when he does so, he makes enough to contribute so much to charity that it by far outweighs the good the could have done if he had gone personally. So in fact, he does more to end AIDS by staying here and running Microsoft than he would if he volunteered for the Peace Core. In fact, Bill Gates, as much as I dislike his business, does far more good in the world than I will probably ever be able to do (mostly because I am the sort of person Gates would support to go help, as opposed to producing so much money that I could afford to pay twenty more people to go to help).

That's just ONE example of the sort of issues yo are waving under the rug wiht your glib dismissal.

However, as I posted previously, none of this is really an important issue. I've already pointed out that my view stands solidly in the realm of what is known as "moral common sense," while your objection stands well outside it (because it demands a duty that MCS does not recognize, while the charge I am bringing against the pro-life camp IS a duty that MCS does recognize). I would be happy to debate the issue of distance with you elsewhere, and indeed we might have little to debate, because I am coming around to the view that distance makes far less of a difference than MCS says it should.

However, the outcome of that debate makes little difference, because the question here is to pointedly expose an inconsistency in the claimed moral view of pro-life. All one has to do to refute my claim is to argue something like "if mothers were bringing in their 6 month olds to hospitls to be killed en masse, then I wouldn't do much about that either." That would be akin to making my point about distance: it is a further explaination that shows why their is not, in fact, a gaping inconsistency.

Now, I would be welcome to scoff at the moral view that there is no duty to act in the 6month old situaiton, just as you scoff at distance, but the original point would be lost to both of us, because our claimed inconsistency was defeated (remember, it is not the legitimacy of the defeating principle that is immediately at stake, just whether there IS one at all).

Remember, the issue is not what you or I think is a wrong moral principle. Sure, I might object to the "tolerance of 6month old slaughter" principle, but for goodness sakes, I ALREADY reject the view that zygotes have any inherent moral status. We already KNOW that I disagree with many pro-life assertions, so what is one more? So the immediate point is not whether I agree with their claims or even the principles they use to counter those claims (as you do not agree with distance). The point is whether they can for themselves truly resolve the quandry. I have already noted that I sincerely think that distance does to some extent resolve the Singer/Unger quandry, though it is a view I am actively questioning. So your objection to that principle is moot, EVEN IF YOU ARE RIGHT. All that remains is to see if various representatives of the pro-life camp can make similar moves to resolve the ambiguity.

And, if you'll note, Polycarp has already outlined one. I've objected to parts of it, but he met the basic burden of sowing that he himself could resolve in a way satisfactory to himself (though he met it in a way that most pro-life people would never accept)

And anyway, as I have explained, if were to continue the discussion from that point, I still think that my excuse of distance (which fits comfortably within MCS) would have quite an advantage over the toleration of mass murder in ones community (which does not fit very comfortably within MCS).

In conclusion, I seem to have trounced your objection quite soundly.

[beagledave]

Originally posted by Polycarp


Beagledave: It's my policy to avoid judging the morality of another to the extent that I can possibly do so.

With all due respect, Poly..it was you who introduced the notion of "moral responsibility" ino this thread. (I'm not saying that I or other posters don't take a similar position..but that "pro choice" Polycarp said that women have a "moral responsibility (in general) to do what they can to deliver a child to term.)

I'm responding to your earlier assertion, that (in general) women have a "moral responsibility" to


... abnegate those elements of her life which would harm the child and to devote her life to the nurture of the child until it is capable of living without her support (which may mean adoption as a newborn).



If you say that person A has a "moral responsibility" to do action x, what do we say about person A if they deliberately do not do action X? Notice of course, that my question was not whether the woman was immoral, or whether the woman was a sinner, or whether the woman was going to hell etc...My only question was whether the woman "acted morally irresponsibly"

If we say President Bush has a "moral responsibility" to take steps to address social problem X or has a "moral responsibility" to treat group Y (gay couples, Bears fans..whatever) with dignity..and he fails to do so, we are not to say he is acting morally irresponsibly?

We are not to say the polluters of the air and water are acting morally irresponsibly?

We can not say that Fred Phelps is acting morally irresponsibly? (FTR, I'm not comparing Fred Phelps with a woman who is getting an abortion..I certainly am curious why you think someone has a "moral responsibility" to do something...yet if she fails to do that very thing..you wouldn't feel she acted morally irresponsibly)

[IWLN]

Originally posted by Stratocaster
You, OTOH, seem to like to think of yourself as pro-life, say that you believe that killing the unborn is wrong, but won't support an abortion ban unless it's codified with perfect logic and it satisfies some sense of justice that ignores the rights of the unborn. We don't need to get into this again, but frankly, I can't understand your core beliefs at all. I can't get any two tenets to agree. Hey, I'm sure that's my own confusion. But since I thought we had shut down our exchange, only to see that you have resurrected it to indirectly call me a hypocrite and/or self-contradictory, I felt compelled to respond.

Anyway, given my objective, I see nothing hypocritical in what I have proposed and in how I have explained it. YMMV. Whatever. You actually shut down our exchange because you could not get me to see reason, yours. I did at first go away and examine whether or not you had a point about my inconsistencies and your accusation that I was really pro-choice. I concluded that on the surface, you did have a point. Not that I was pro-choice, because you are actually wrong about that; but that my unwillingness to embrace a poor solution did make it look like I was, if not in the pro-choice camp, at least gave the appearance somehow of being less concerned for the babies, than you are. Hopefully your concern is active beyond this forum. My "core belief" is that abortion is wrong under any circumstance. Abortion is a sad, horrible thing.

My only real point in my last post was not to call you a hypocrite or any other name. It was just to see if you recognized that your "core beliefs" did not fit with your actions any better than mine did. I was actually admitting that you had good reason to criticize my stand, since it is weak. I am not here on this forum to solve the abortion problem. That can't be done here. I'm here to get other people's ideas and test what I believe and see if it holds up.

So now I echo your sentiment. Yes, it has become my own. Stratocaster, it's clear we're talking past each other, and I don't think it would serve any purpose, as far as our exchange goes, for either of us to restate our positions again. We've already done several circuits on this merry-go-round, and that's enough for me. YMMV. Whatever. This I do agree with you on.
Well, except for the YMMV. I don't know what that means, but hey, I threw it in anyway.:rolleyes:

[1stChristian]

Funky Madena wrote:
MY BELIEF IS QUALITY OF LIFE, NOT LIFE ITSELF SHOULD BE THE ISSUE HERE

So, you are for euthanasia, for Malthus solution for finite quantities of food and habitat and ever-growing population issue and for selective breeding? For the Nazis who killed crippled and gays and little-people? For a Sparta here and now? For partial abortion, in which the brain of the foetus is sucked out and then discarded?

To hear it from another human, is scarry and monstrous.

For the issue at ahnd, I am against abortion.

[Joe Random]

Originally posted by beagledave
Originally posted by Joe Random
The point is that those who believe that abortion is murder do not act as they would be expected to if somehow all abortions were replaced with murders.
Are anti war folks on these boards "acting as they would be expected to" with regards to the daily killings in Iraq, all as a result (they believe) of U.S. policy..or are they all talk and no action? Are you purposefully missing the point?

Anti-abortion proponents often equate abortion with murder. They say that abortion is equivalent to the murder of a baby. However, if somehow every abortion were replaced with the woman giving birth, and then murdering the baby a six months of age, the anti-abortion folks' reaction would be much different then it currently is for abortions.

My point being, anti-abortion proponents who claim that abortion is murder, yet do not [/i]treat it[/i] like State-sanctioned murder, are being dishonest. They obviously believe that abortion is a Bad Thing, but not as bad as killing actual babies (which is what they claim).

[beagledave]

Originally posted by Joe Random


Anti-abortion proponents often equate abortion with murder. They say that abortion is equivalent to the murder of a baby. However, if somehow every abortion were replaced with the woman giving birth, and then murdering the baby a six months of age, the anti-abortion folks' reaction would be much different then it currently is for abortions.

My point being, anti-abortion proponents who claim that abortion is murder, yet do not [/i]treat it[/i] like State-sanctioned murder, are being dishonest. They obviously believe that abortion is a Bad Thing, but not as bad as killing actual babies (which is what they claim).

What point am I missing? You say that because people are not leaping into certain types of action because of abortions (I guess storming clinics etc..) ..that they obviously don't think of it as a really bad thing or "murder" (otherwise they would actually do something instead of "just" discussing it).

I noticed that you declined to answer my question about war protesters..a question that is relevant to this discussion. Over four hundred american soldiers have been killed (murdered?) in Iraq since the "end" of the "war" in March. Countless hundreds/thousands of Iraqi civilians have also died. Most of the people in opposition to the war apparently ain't too bummed by that..maybe hundreds of American casualties (so far) and thousands of Iraqi deaths (so far) ..and yet all we see is discussion.

I'm still hoping that you will answer the question I asked earlier.

To respond to your point in another way..if the overall goal of pro life folks is to reduce (drastically..it'll never be zero, but then neither is any behavior that society may choose to "ban") the number of abortions being performed..does committing acts of violence against clinics..stalking doctors..yelling "baby killer"..(and other ways of actively equating abortions with killing toddlers) etc really accomplish that goal in the long run?

For most pro life folks, they have come to the conclusion that the answer is no. We can read polls just as well as anyone. While there may be fringe members of the pro life community that choose violent acts out of a belief that abortion is "murder"..the vast majority recognize the political shakiness of such a tactic.

(FWIW, I myself don't refer to abortion as "murder"..the word "murder" is a legal term..not an ethical term. Currently abortion (for the most part) is "legal" in the U.S. so it's not accurate IMHO to refer to it as murder..and it doesn't really seem to accomplish much in the way of my goal anyway. Other pro life folks may feel differently.

I suspect it's the same rationale that distinguishes folks like PETA from mainstream vegetarians ..or environmentalists like Earth First from the mainstream of environmentalism. So yeah..the majority of pro lifers make the same kind of political calculation that majority of folks in other "movements" do when it comes to the actions that they choose.

If you choose to equate that with an insincere opinion of pro lifers about what abortion is (but you don't choose to apply that same kind of standard to other public policy debates)..what can I say.

Like Stratocaster and I have pointed out..it's another inconsistency in expectations.

[Joe Random]

Originally posted by beagledave
What point am I missing? You say that because people are not leaping into certain types of action because of abortions (I guess storming clinics etc..) ..that they obviously don't think of it as a really bad thing or "murder" (otherwise they would actually do something instead of "just" discussing it).Wrong wrong wrong. That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that anti-abortion proponents react differently to abortion then they would to regular, state-sanctioned murder of infants. I really don't care about the degree to which they react in general, only that the degree to which they react to abortions is different that the degree to which they would react to state-sanctioned infanticide. This comparison is aimed squarely at those who call women who have abortion "baby killers".

I noticed that you declined to answer my question about war protesters..a question that is relevant to this discussion.Relevant to the discussion in general, possibly, but not to my little slice of it. I have made no claims that people non-reacting to abortion means that they think it's okay. My claim is that people who equate two actions (e.g. abortion is murdering babies), but react to those two actions to wildly different degrees, are being dishonest, and must not truly equate those two actions.

I believe that they think that it's wrong, but I don't believe that they think it's as wrong as murder, despite what they say.

[Stratocaster]

Originally posted by Apos
[quote]In other words, your objection to my hypothetical fails on the grounds that it violates the common sense view, whether it be right or wrong, that horrors in distant lands and communities are just not as important as those in the here and now. You can argue against that view all you want, but that belongs to anoter discussion: the impotrant question is not what is ultimately correct, but why there is an inconsistency in the common sense moral view of most people when it comes to what they say is going on, and their actual reactions to the situation are. Talk about blithely ignoring the point. I am posing the question to you. You do not believe that there are people being killed with impunity here in your own community. Therefore there is no decision to be made for you as to whether you should concentrate on local evils or those more remote, a decision that might more logically lead you to focus on what is near. For you, the adults being evilly killed are, presumably, only in foreign lands. I assume it's not occurring in your community.

So. I'm not asking you why you're not flying to foreign lands when you could be storming abortion clinics. I'm asking you why you don't simply get on a plane and interfere for good where your help is needed and where you see an obvious need.

Obviously, according to your philosophy, it must be because you don't really think the people being tortured and killed are people with rights. Otherwise you would behave differently. And, BTW, assigning your beliefs pseudo-official names like "MCS" won't give them a weight they don't otherwise have.

And for someone who has hijacked the term common sense to hold that it is within my power to go to Mars--well, I'll leave that to others to deem ridiculous or not. BTW, can you describe the actual evil I need to eliminate on Mars, or can we abandon that line of silliness? You actually inferred a concession on my part in saying I can't go to Mars to do--to do what, exactly? You seem to have ignored that point I raised in your rush to infer an "admission." Not good darts for someone so quick to charge others with ignoring the point.

And if you equate the difficulty of your getting a plane ticket for another country with someone getting to Mars, you have stretched your position to the point of breaking. You can go to another country today, and all you have to do is buy a plane ticket. I posit, using the Apos philosophy, that this means that you don't actually think the adults being tortured and killed in the world today are human beings deserving of rights and protection. I can come to no other conclusion, or surely you would interfere for good.

And if the state currently allowed six month old babies to be killed with impunity, if there were facilities where it could legally take place, if the acts had legal protection, I do not at all know what I would do in reaction to this circumstance. It's possible that I would not storm the facilities, not if I believed it would not serve ultimately to end the practice, not if the only thing it would do is get people hurt and me imprisoned, and the acts would continue effectively unimpeded. Is that cowardly or practical? I don't know. Perhaps it is just as cowardly, or just as practical, as someone who won't fly to another country today to save real people from being tortured and killed.

My point, though, is that it's interesting how you and Joe Random seem absolutely certain what pro-life folks would do in this hypothetical. It must be nice to be a mind reader.

[Stratocaster]

Originally posted by Joe Random
Not everyone can afford to purchase a plane ticket to some random location every few days. Not everyone can afford to skip work and abandon their family for weeks at a time.But surely some people can. And if you are such a person, and see no such egregious evil locally (say, for example, you see nothing wrong with abortion), but DO see it in foreign lands, what should we infer from your inaction?

If you do nothing, but say that you believe that it is wrong for adults in foreign lands to be torured and killed by tyrants, what should we infer? Should we infer that you don't really believe this? That you don't think those adults exist, or that they aren't really "persons"?

And this statement is curious: "Not everyone can afford to skip work and abandon their family for weeks at a time." Are you like Apos, who thinks a true-believer in the pro-life philosophy would be violently storming abortion clinics? How long do you think people taking that action will be away from their families? Does that only matter for others, or can it be a practical issue for pro-lifers too?

If that's the standard you hold pro-lifers to, what is undue in expecting you to hop on a plane and get the job done as best you can in some foreign land, if you can afford a plane ticket? You're being inconsistent. The type of active interference you describe is either a practical matter for all people, or it is for no one. It doesn't simply affect a certain camp.

[Apos]

So. I'm not asking you why you're not flying to foreign lands when you could be storming abortion clinics. I'm asking you why you don't simply get on a plane and interfere for good where your help is needed and where you see an obvious need.

I already explained this to you, which is more than a diversionary hijack deserves. Of course, my intereference where I am is probably doing more good than if I went personally.

And, BTW, assigning your beliefs pseudo-official names like "MCS" won't give them a weight they don't otherwise have.

I already explained what MCS is. If you are unfamiliar with the concept, I suggest you try an elementary textbook on moral philosophy before deriding it or my usage of it.

And if you equate the difficulty of your getting a plane ticket for another country with someone getting to Mars, you have stretched your position to the point of breaking.

Do you understand the concept of principle vs. degree? If not, as is apparently the case, then understand that you have entirely missed the point.

I posit, using the Apos philosophy, that this means that you don't actually think the adults being tortured and killed in the world today are human beings deserving of rights and protection.

Your desperate flailing about cannot serve to confuse the issue. I explained why people may not have as great an obligation to help those who are distant (in a multitude of ways), regardless of their status. I explained that, for better or worse, that is the common sense view. The "distance makes no difference" view would radically alter just about everyone's lives and conceptions of moral obligation.

Also solidly within the common sense view is the idea that the people who tolerated genocide in their communities were doing something horrid that people who live their lives in distant lands doing little to help far away suffering are not. You may or may not agree with this view, but it is most certainly a widespread one, and the one most relevant for posing a sticky question.

I also explained how the dilemna can be resolved. You could raise an objection akin to the objection of distance to your demands. You could raise the issue, like Poly, of autonomy being a greater good. You could even say, as you have, that in a "wolf at the door" situaiton, you would do little to resist it, though I may find it highly implausible from someone with such strong rhetoric on behalf of the protection of life.

I don't claim to see exactly what a pro-life person would do in a hypothetical. The question is meant to pose a sticky question in your mind rather than strictly in the confines of the debate alone.

Is a zygote really the moral equivalent of a formed human being? Is a form of state sanctioned mass murder really going on in your hometown? Or is that really hyperbole on stilts?

Are you like Apos, who thinks a true-believer in the pro-life philosophy would be violently storming abortion clinics?

I don't really think that a true believer would necessarily be storming clinics, or using violence, or even being so busy at their task that they wouldn't have time for messageboard debates. But I do think its worthwhile to pause and think "am I really a true believer, and is the killing of fetuses REALLY as bad as it would be if 6 year olds were being thrown into government protected incinerators at the discretion of their mothers?" I do have great incredulity at people who claim that it is just as bad, and not only because I don't think it can be rationally justified. Also because I don't get the sense that it can be _emotionally_ justified either. Because I've been there, and I tried, and I couldn't fool myself all of the time.

[Stratocaster]

Nonsense! You have posited that someone who believed that human beings were being murdered would interfere to stop those murders, if they actually believed such acts were taking place. Whatever you are doing to intercede with local problems, you are ignoring the murders and torture that you concede are taking place elsewhere in the world. Whatever is occupying your attention locally, it is not the murder and torture of human beings. Do you deny this?

You can dance around this as much as you like, and toss insulting comments out, and it won't make it any less obvious that you refuse to directly address this. You have found fault with the combination of pro-life beliefs and inaction that you have perceived, when that combination supposedly deals with the murder of "real" human beings. You attached no qualifiers to this (e.g., that a pro-lifer's efforts might create more real good directed at other things, if there is no real hope of violently causing abortions to cease). You have effectively asserted in an unqualified manner that this combination is a de facto contradiction.

OTOH, you find the same combination in yourself just fine. This is indisputable, no matter how much you attempt to obscure the matter with phrases like "desperate flailing" and "MCS," no matter how much you try to frame the discussion around "hypothical average people," no matter how many irrelevant names or terms you drop.

You build syllogisms that justify why you wouldn't travel to another country, without recognizing that this could justify why a pro-lifer wouldn't want to cross the street to stop evil. You do understand the difference between principle and degree, don't you?

From you:I don't really think that a true believer would necessarily be storming clinics, or using violence, or even being so busy at their task that they wouldn't have time for messageboard debates.Yet in this same thread, you responded "yes" to this comment from me:You pooh-poohed the thought that someone who believed that fetuses were deserving of human rights wouldn't be appalled to the point of action--violent action, I presume.Which is it? Were you lying before to elicit a response? We have a name for that here. Or did you just forget what you really meant? Bud, you're all over the place, and frankly you're not a very good dancer.

Such an obstinate refusal to answer a question directly! Unfortunately, your attempt to obscure the weakness of your comments with diversionary statements, a pseudo-intellectual tone, backpedaling and weak insults is all too common in this forum. Whatever. I won't lose any sleep over it, I can assure you, bub.

[Bryan Ekers]

Heck, I dont mind if someone believes abortion is the equivalent of infanticide.

I just don't want them doing anything about it.

[IWLN]

Originally posted by Bryan Ekers
Heck, I dont mind if someone believes abortion is the equivalent of infanticide.

I just don't want them doing anything about it. Well so far you have your way. The cheery, bluntness of your opinions always make me smile. My sense of humor seems to have been perverted by too much exposure to the "dark side.":eek: At least we seem to have made it to the name calling right on schedule, as expected. These debates almost always seem to break down into nothing but a fight about whatever comparisons each side has brought up. It becomes a tedious refusal of each side to agree that the other side has a valid comparison. I remain a "pro-lifer", but when I give it honest thought, there is a huge difference between killing a child and terminating a pregnancy. A child has cognitive thought, life experiences and pain responses. An embryo only has the potential for these things and will not be aware of never having them. I still hate abortion because I put high value on potential, but it's tough to make laws around, since many don't agree. I would still like to see laws that make early abortion a requirement, since a five month fetus already has some limited awareness and response. It's kind of a sad compromise, to a problem without a good solution.

[Stratocaster]

Originally posted by IWLN
These debates almost always seem to break down into nothing but a fight about whatever comparisons each side has brought up.I agree, though I have had constructive, thought-provoking debates with pro-choice folks in this forum. Unfortunately, there are certain tired old cliches that get my goat and effectively make real debate impossible. The current canard is one--i.e., the old, "But you really don't even believe what you say you do" dismissal.

How do you move beyond that? How can there possibly be productive discussion when someone offers this as a given? We have actually had posters in this forum state that any true believer in a pro-life philosophy would be out killing doctors. How do you have discussion with this as a foundation for the debate?

"You can't have your pro-life opinion unless you adopt all unwanted children" is another proud tradition on these boards. As is, "The law has no business trying to regulate morality."

I (and some others) generally try to point out why these flat statements, by themselves, are logically fallacious. It's usually not fruitful. There is an abundance of people on this board who who will make not the smallest concession, who will never say that they may have overstated their position even slightly. ::shrug:: What are you gonna do?

[IWLN]

Originally posted by Stratocaster
I agree, though I have had constructive, thought-provoking debates with pro-choice folks in this forum.
How do you move beyond that? How can there possibly be productive discussion when someone offers this as a given?
"You can't have your pro-life opinion unless you adopt all unwanted children" is another proud tradition on these boards. As is, "The law has no business trying to regulate morality."

I (and some others) generally try to point out why these flat statements, by themselves, are logically fallacious. It's usually not fruitful. There is an abundance of people on this board who who will make not the smallest concession, who will never say that they may have overstated their position even slightly. ::shrug:: What are you gonna do? [/B]I do understand what you are saying. I'm just not sure these debates do anything more than make pro-choicers more determined. I could be wrong. Maybe someone hears you. I have tried to put myself in the place of someone who is pro-choice and truly see's nothing wrong with it. You have to get really honest with yourself to do that. So there I am standing in pro-choice shoes and along comes PL, who depending on his level of belief that abortion is wrong, tells me I'm immoral or mistaken or wrong, whatever. I don't see a connection between an embryo and this person's view, that it is already a baby. I even know what an embryo at say, six weeks looks like. It's not a baby. At that point to me, abortion is a medical procedure to prevent the embryo from becoming a baby. PL has a slightly upset, or rabid look in his eye when he's trying to tell me what I'm doing wrong. I don't see how he can tell me what I'm doing with my own body is wrong. Telling me how many other women get this procedure done per year does not horrify me. Why would it? It's not a baby yet. It's not that far removed from birth control, although it is uncomfortable and inconvenient, so I would always try to avoid it. What PL doesn't seem to realize is for the last month I've done nothing but think about this. I've even pictured what it would be like, me having a baby. But I can barely support myself or I really should never have gotten involved with that guy. It would be disasterous to have a baby with him. What about school, my parents are so proud of me doing so well or I can barely handle the two kids I already have. Even, I don't want children, I would not be a good mother, I don't have those kind of feelings. PL makes me feel defensive and he has no right to try and tell me how I should feel or how I should handle my own life. PL needs to mind his own business.Okay, stepping out of PC's shoes.

Don't misunderstand me Stratocaster, I think abortion is wrong. I would like to stop abortion. I'm not sure I have the right to, but I still want to. The only thing I can do is make sure there are options, programs and help in place for those who don't choose abortion. The other thing I feel strongly about and you didn't seem to agree is the viability issue. Making sure that medicine understands where the unborn baby is, as far as what is humane to them. I do feel like I have a right to legislate a standard that regulates abortion. I don't think it is generally necessary, because women in spite of what it seems like in this issue, are compassionate and responsible as far as not physically hurting anyone goes, but the law is necessary for the minority that are not as moral.

I know you think my stand makes me pro-choice, but I still maintain that I'm not, at least emotionally. I do feel compassion though. But since I can't force someone else to think and feel like I do; that's the best I can do.

[Stratocaster]

IWLN, I can understand pro-choice positions. I really can. But I do think that in most instances, both sides hold different things to be axiomatic. I concede that my beliefs, in the end, are axiomatic (grossly simplified: that all human beings have the right to live). Others don't hold that, and when things are reduced to axioms, there's nothing left to debate, by definition.

But I think it can be useful to test your own logic in these threads, and to point out to others what is not logical in their own philosophies (as others have in mine). This really is the process of reducing something to the axiomatic. If we strip away the non sequiturs, that doesn't mean that either side "loses." But it can mean that we lay bare exactly what drives our beliefs. We can see them for what they are.

So I think it is useful to point out what is fallacious with statements like, "The law should not regulate morality." Or, "All real pro-lifers would be storming abortion clinics to do violence; anyone who does not, can't believe what they say they do." "All things with human DNA have the right to live" is another non sequitur that sharp pro-choicers are quick to shred, and rightly so.

To demonstrate how these rest on faulty syllogisms helps to show what truly drives the belief--mine or anyone's. Honest people can have moments where the exchange helps to clarify their own thoughts--"You're right. I guess this is what I really mean" moments. This doesn't mean the basic belief is suddenly rendered false.

And, of course, it doesn't necessarily change anyone's mind. Then again, maybe it does. But I do think these debates can be constructive regardless. Most often, they aren't, and the smallest concession is not given or expected. I'm getting better at walking away from the real pissing contests, though not always. Oh, well.

[IWLN]

Originally posted by Stratocaster
To demonstrate how these rest on faulty syllogisms helps to show what truly drives the belief--mine or anyone's. Honest people can have moments where the exchange helps to clarify their own thoughts--"You're right. I guess this is what I really mean" moments. This doesn't mean the basic belief is suddenly rendered false.

And, of course, it doesn't necessarily change anyone's mind. Then again, maybe it does.Well, you are right, it does sometimes help clarify thoughts. It did for me anyway. While I don't feel like I have the right to take a woman's choice away, I wish that would happen anyway. Just checking. Yep, I'm still a hypocrite. ;) I've never voted for a pro-choice politician and I'm sure I never will. If abortion ever came down to a public vote, I couldn't do anything but vote to make it illegal. I did discover that I have no right to debate this issue and won't be unwise enough to do it again. Remind me I said that if you see me. :(

[Stratocaster]

Originally posted by IWLN
Well, you are right, it does sometimes help clarify thoughts. It did for me anyway. While I don't feel like I have the right to take a woman's choice away, I wish that would happen anyway. Just checking. Yep, I'm still a hypocrite. ;) I've never voted for a pro-choice politician and I'm sure I never will. If abortion ever came down to a public vote, I couldn't do anything but vote to make it illegal. I did discover that I have no right to debate this issue and won't be unwise enough to do it again. Remind me I said that if you see me. :( Don't be silly. Civil discourse and open minds are always welcome. You'll never get this reminder from me. :)

[deftriver]

Abortion is right when a woman makes the decision on her own with her full will, and wrong if forced or if the woman decides it is the wrong decision for her.

[beagledave]

Originally posted by deftriver
Abortion is right when a woman makes the decision on her own with her full will, and wrong if forced or if the woman decides it is the wrong decision for her.

Ummmm...Okay??

[IWLN]

Originally posted by beagledave
Ummmm...Okay?? I think he said babies don't count? Not being old enough to talk yet, sure does suck for the baby.:(

[Rodrigo]

If it is the woman's, and only the woman's, decision, why does Dad have to pay up when the guy's born? If there is no connection between the sex 9 months ago and the baby being born, why is the baby dad's responsibility?

If woman can claim sole "ownership" of the baby's future (during pregnancy) why share after it comes out?

[gluschy]

From reading all these various responses I can conlude that this topic will never be resolved. Which makes sense, it all depends on your personal belief system. As a fully fledged atheist I do not believe that there is any such thing as right and wrong and what human kind has deemed to be 'bad' is merely a matter of convention. From this point of view of course it is up to the individual to decide upon the best course of action for their situation. If you have strong religious or 'moral' beliefs you will think the opposite.

The real point is, we don't know and it is highly likely that we will never know.

Maybe when a pro-lifer dies and has conclusive proof of the existence of God (and a God that disapproves of abortion), and can come back and tell me about it I'll change my stance.

[Stratocaster]

Originally posted by gluschy
From this point of view of course it is up to the individual to decide upon the best course of action for their situation. If you have strong religious or 'moral' beliefs you will think the opposite. So, do you hold this for all moral decisions? Do you understand that there is not a law on the books that does not force a moral choice? Would you have them all repealed?

[beagledave]

Originally posted by gluschy
From reading all these various responses I can conlude that this topic will never be resolved. Which makes sense, it all depends on your personal belief system. As a fully fledged atheist I do not believe that there is any such thing as right and wrong and what human kind has deemed to be 'bad' is merely a matter of convention.


So atheists don't have a moral code..huh you learn something new everyday. :dubious:


From this point of view of course it is up to the individual to decide upon the best course of action for their situation. If you have strong religious or 'moral' beliefs you will think the opposite.

The real point is, we don't know and it is highly likely that we will never know.

Maybe when a pro-lifer dies and has conclusive proof of the existence of God (and a God that disapproves of abortion), and can come back and tell me about it I'll change my stance.

Wow..this could almost make sense..except for the tiny detail that Stratocaster and I have not made an appeal to religion (or belief in God) to buttress our point..

But you know..don't let that detail stop you from making whatever point it is you're trying to make..

[Apos]

Nonsense! You have posited that someone who believed that human beings were being murdered would interfere to stop those murders, if they actually believed such acts were taking place. Whatever you are doing to intercede with local problems, you are ignoring the murders and torture that you concede are taking place elsewhere in the world. Whatever is occupying your attention locally, it is not the murder and torture of human beings. Do you deny this?

Nope. And it is because not many murders of human beings are going on, and certainly none that I know of that involve complicity of a society for which I am democratically and civically responsible.

All I did was point out that for your claims here to be relevant, they would require a radical rethinking of morality. My assertion does NOT require any such radical re-think. You seem to think that your hypothetical is EXACTLY like mine just because you say it is, just because you reject a key difference without further argument. But the fact is, the principle that John Q Public is failing in a moral duty to aid Mr. Starving Child halfway around the world is a principle that, rightly or wrongly, almost no one, including the vast majority of pro-life people, takes seriously.

However, people DO take seriously the idea that one has a duty to do something about great harms happening in our own society, right in front of them.

John is a man living in Dayton, Ohio while people are being slaughtered in East Timor. Would people castigate him for not doing something? For rushing overseas to a place he's never been and has no ties to? You'd find very few people who'd do so. And yet, if John sat on his tush while the government dragged away all of his Polish friends and neighbors to be killed, many _would_ condemn him. Indeed, we hear endlessly about the sickness of societies like Germany or Rwanda in which ordinary citizens tolerated or even aided mass killings. There seems to be a real sense that we CAN hold these citizens to account for what their society does.

You may think that this difference is invalid. You seem to think it is. And maybe you are right. But the fact is, before you try to pass off an argument based on the assumption that there is no difference, you are going to have to mount a substantial argument as to why: and at least act like you're aware of the fact that you are challenging, in a pretty radical way, most people's senses of what morality involves.

Such an obstinate refusal to answer a question directly! Unfortunately, your attempt to obscure the weakness of your comments with diversionary statements, a pseudo-intellectual tone, backpedaling and weak insults is all too common in this forum. Whatever. I won't lose any sleep over it, I can assure you, bub.

I've answered your arguments quite directly. You have not even addressed these responses except to dismiss them out of hand. I have even pointed to counter arguments to my original argument that defeat it, and explained exactly what is at stake in such contentions. All quickly ignored with overblown hand waving.

Instead, apparently it's time to end discussion of substantive issues and start grunting about the futility of discussion, hem hem.

Which is it? Were you lying before to elicit a response? We have a name for that here. Or did you just forget what you really meant? Bud, you're all over the place, and frankly you're not a very good dancer.

I meant that the action need not necessarily be violent (to be effective), and need not even necessarily involve refraining from posting on messageboards. I certianly was too strong in my statements initially if they imply that, faced with an easy path to outlawing abortion or murdering doctors, the "true believer" must necessarily take the murders. Effectiveness is paramount to a particular means.

But then, how can violence be ruled out if lives are at stake? Why is justifiable homicide acceptable to save the life of a child from a murderer, but not to save a fetus from an abortionist?

You complain about overblown rhetoric and an unwillingness to moderate positions, but the rhetoric of full blown murder, and holocaust, and so on is exactly what the pro-life movement has embraced. It may well be that cowardice is a good reason why some do not do more, and laziness another, for any positive duty to stop harms. But that doesn't change the fact that rhetoric like mass murder and carries with it certain implications that seem completely out of sync with what sorts of reactions people are willing to defend and countenance to these claimed murders.

The adoption argument is, indeed, logical nonsense (should those against capital punishment be forced to house the inmates for the duration of their life sentances?) The law of course legislates morality, unavoidably and knowingly, even if not always clearly. But you have not convinced me at all that the reaction of people taking the hard line pro-life position to current abortions is in line with what should be a relevant situation. It may not be a relevant situation (which is what Polycarp argued).

But here I am, a person who, despite not doing all he could for the plight of foriegners (though trying to work in that industry, incidentally), most certainly would strongly oppose a genocide going on in my city if I thought one was going on, and would resist government authorities that aided and abeted it. Perhaps that does involve an inconsistency with any extreme vision of a justifiable moral system. But it is perfectly in line with most people's experiences.

So, here I am, the sort of person described above, and I am told that, in fact, just such a mass murder as I envisioned IS in fact going on. And yet I would be wrong, for some reason, to behave in the way that I definately think would be justifiable were mass murder going on.

So tell me, convince me: what is that reason? Should I revise my original feelings such that I would NOT resolve to strongly resist a genocide here in New York? Is that what you think I should do? What's the resolution here?

[Stratocaster]

I honestly just saw this. My holiday schedule led me to think the thread had died without a response, when it only went to page two without my having seen it. I hope I don't regret ignoring my initial reaction, which was to let this thread rest in peace.

First, let me say this. Whether or not most people feel the way you do is not proven, but even conceding that point, this is a logical fallacy, an argumentum ad numerum. Whether or not our arguments are consistent with "most people's senses of...morality" is not relevant, IMO.

But I would point out that there are people in the world who would perceive your behavior as cowardly and lazy and inconsistent with a belief that the people in foreign lands deserve basic human rights. Otherwise, you would be off your ass. Again, from a certain perspective, one might assert that whatever occupies your attention, it is trivial compared to the abuses occuring elsewhere in the world. However more strongly you can influence local issues, the egregious abuses elsewhere deserve your attention. And if you don't focus there, then you don't believe what you say you do.

What gives such a person the authority to make such a judgment?

I'm not saying you are immoral for your inaction. I am pointing out that this is the same (in essence, if not degree) as your argument against pro-lifers. If you say that you think pro-lifers are not doing enough, we can debate that. If you say that pro-lifers' lack of violent opposition, by itself, is a de facto admission that they don't believe what they say they do, you are wrong. As wrong as the person who might point out to you that you don't really believe that North Koreans deserve basic human rights because you're not over there fighting for the cause.

You can counter yet again with, "But if those abuses were occurring here, I would react differently." That's easy to say. But you don't know what you would do, not in the face of an enormously powerful political infrastructure that opposed your actions, opposed them to the point of imprisonment.

You don't know what you would do if you believed that different political strategies would ultimately produce the greatest good. I honestly don't mean this to sound flippant, but the only thing we know for sure regarding how you would react to horrible human rights abuses (those you believe are occurring) is that you won't so much as take a plane ride to help. Everything else is speculation and not the basis for an argument, not by itself.

Let me explain it this way. You would react in a certain manner to observing mass murders in your neighborhood. You can ignore similar behavior elsewhere in the world. I don't see anything unusual in this reaction and consequently see no reason to prove to you that you wouldn't react as you say that you would.

BUT...here's your non sequitur. If a pro-lifer does not react exactly as you would, it does not logically follow that said pro-lifers holds the unborn's lives in lower regard than they say they do.

It could be that a pro-lifer would not respond in the manner that you would in ANY circumstance. I have already told you I don't know that I would. It could be that there are other practical issues influencing the decision--e.g., a belief that violence will not materially affect the number of abortions, and would serve only to get the pro-lifer imprisoned. It could be that the pro-lifer believes that other strategies would ultimately be more effective in the long term. It could be many things, none of which are inconsistent, none of them requiring a "radical rethinking of morality."

Bottom line, you are begging the question in asserting that a lack of violent action is the very proof that a belief is invalid. This is the point I am arguing against.

You have not proven that your reaction is the only possible valid one to an observation of this type of activity combined with a belief that human beings are being hurt. It is not even your reaction to murders/human rights abuses elsewhere in the world. Why is it IMPOSSIBLE that pro-lifers could be as inactive as you are (insofar as violence opposition goes), for any number of reasons, while still believing that the unborn have the right to live?

Does this explain my reaction better? If you respond with some variation of, "But that's not what I would do," so what? You have not proven that the behavior of pro-lifers can only be consistent with a core belief that the unborn are lesser beings. You can suspect it. You can state that you would react differently. But you would still be begging the question if you continue to assert what you do.

[Silver Serpentine]

Hmm. Touchy subject. I'm not going to try to persuade anyone to my side, since I already know that it can't be done. All I have are my opinions and what my close friends have gone through.

First, for me. If I found out right this second that I was pregnent, I would get an abortion. There's no one that could convince me not to.
For two reasons:
1, I'm nowhere near responsible enough to have a child. Not really a good excuse, but it's not my main one.
2, The idea of being pregnent terrifies me. I've literally had nightmares about being pregnant. Nightmares where I wake up terrified until I realize that I am, indeed, not pregnant. I don't know WHY this is, I just have a terrified, hystical response to the idea of myself getting pregnant. It's not the after-effects of pregnancy (raising a child), because I could easily adopt it out. It's just the act of being pregnant. Just thinking about it right now is causing a lot of anxiety.

Every time I've ever had sex, I've been careful to the point of paranoia. The women in my family are a fertile bunch, so I'm going to take every precaution I can to not get pregnant. If there was a guaranteed method of not getting preggers (but still be able to have sex), I'd do it in a heartbeat, if I could afford it.

I've recently reached a higher level of anxiety about pregnancy, which has resulted in considerably less sex (about once every 2 to 3 months with my fiance). Even when we do have sex, it's harder for me to enjoy it, since I have a nagging in the back of my mind "What if I accidentally get pregnent this time?" Even tho I know I could get an abortion (which I am incredibly grateful to have that option). This lack of sex has put a bit of tension in our relationship. Luckily, the fiance is a very understanding man.

I occasionally wish that I'd turned out to be a lesbian, instead of just bi, so that I'd never have to worry about getting pregnant, and still be able to enjoy sex.

If I had a choice between getting an abortion and having the fetus removed and being placed into another woman's womb, I'd choose #2 in a second. Unfortunatly, that doesn't seem to be an option. But I'm not going to carry a child to birth.

Now, on to other people

Two of my friends have had abortions. #1 was told by several doctors that she'd never, ever be able to have children, due to a disease that I can't remember the name of. She lives at home at the age of 23 because she can't find a steady, well-paying job. #2 got pregnant shortly before her boyfriend got arrested (for a BS charge, but that's a completely different story). She had been living with him (playing housewife), and couldn't find a job at all. She had to move back in with her mother.

For both women, it was a very difficult decision to make, after after weighing all the options they had, decided that abortion was the lesser of two evils. If anyone ever called either of my friends a baby killer to her face, I'd punch them as hard as I could. It's was a painful and personal decision for them that was hard enough to make on their own without people judging.

On the other hand, I have 3 friendswho've accidentally gotten pregnant and decided to keep it. #1 was a terrible alcoholic (so she says, because I wasn't around during that time). #2 was already living in subsidized apts (I think that's the right word) and on food stamps. #3 is still pregnant, due in, er . . . May, I think. Unmarried, but luckily dating a very responsible guy who has a good job. But she is really, really strange. Really.

#1's life has improved. Cleaned up her life, going to college, all that fun stuff.
#2 Has since gotten divorced, contnued to smoke, but finally has a job. Unfortunatly, it's a manager job at, like, Pappa John's or somesuch, and she rarely gets to see her daughter. But her daughter is loved, and has a wonderful GodMother. Still on foodstamps, tho. No child support.
#3 Has lost all initiative to go to college, get a job, or even get her driver's license. Doesn't even talk to her friends anymore. Thinks that all she'll ever need to be in life is a mother. Kay. Don't know what kind of mother she'll be, since her child hasn't been born yet.

What's the point of typing this all out? To, I dunno, show that different women make different choices. But I think that women need to be able to make these choices. I can only imagine the lengths I'd go to to abort a child if abortion was illegal. On occasion, I've thought about it, and none of them are pretty, and some of them could cause me serious injury.

However, I don't agree with 3rd trimester abortions. 6 months is plenty of time to decide if you want to keep it or not.

Blah blah. I had something else to say, but I seem to just be rambling on and on.

[Silver Serpentine]

Hmm. Touchy subject. I'm not going to try to persuade anyone to my side, since I already know that it can't be done. All I have are my opinions and what my close friends have gone through.

First, for me. If I found out right this second that I was pregnent, I would get an abortion. There's no one that could convince me not to.
For two reasons:
1, I'm nowhere near responsible enough to have a child. Not really a good excuse, but it's not my main one.
2, The idea of being pregnent terrifies me. I've literally had nightmares about being pregnant. Nightmares where I wake up terrified until I realize that I am, indeed, not pregnant. I don't know WHY this is, I just have a terrified, hystical response to the idea of myself getting pregnant. It's not the after-effects of pregnancy (raising a child), because I could easily adopt it out. It's just the act of being pregnant. Just thinking about it right now is causing a lot of anxiety.

Every time I've ever had sex, I've been careful to the point of paranoia. The women in my family are a fertile bunch, so I'm going to take every precaution I can to not get pregnant. If there was a guaranteed method of not getting preggers (but still be able to have sex), I'd do it in a heartbeat, if I could afford it.

I've recently reached a higher level of anxiety about pregnancy, which has resulted in considerably less sex (about once every 2 to 3 months with my fiance). Even when we do have sex, it's harder for me to enjoy it, since I have a nagging in the back of my mind "What if I accidentally get pregnent this time?" Even tho I know I could get an abortion (which I am incredibly grateful to have that option). This lack of sex has put a bit of tension in our relationship. Luckily, the fiance is a very understanding man.

I occasionally wish that I'd turned out to be a lesbian, instead of just bi, so that I'd never have to worry about getting pregnant, and still be able to enjoy sex.

If I had a choice between getting an abortion and having the fetus removed and being placed into another woman's womb, I'd choose #2 in a second. Unfortunatly, that doesn't seem to be an option. But I'm not going to carry a child to birth.

Now, on to other people

Two of my friends have had abortions. #1 was told by several doctors that she'd never, ever be able to have children, due to a disease that I can't remember the name of. She lives at home at the age of 23 because she can't find a steady, well-paying job. #2 got pregnant shortly before her boyfriend got arrested (for a BS charge, but that's a completely different story). She had been living with him (playing housewife), and couldn't find a job at all. She had to move back in with her mother.

For both women, it was a very difficult decision to make, after after weighing all the options they had, decided that abortion was the lesser of two evils. If anyone ever called either of my friends a baby killer to her face, I'd punch them as hard as I could. It's was a painful and personal decision for them that was hard enough to make on their own without people judging.

On the other hand, I have 3 friendswho've accidentally gotten pregnant and decided to keep it. #1 was a terrible alcoholic (so she says, because I wasn't around during that time). #2 was already living in subsidized apts (I think that's the right word) and on food stamps. #3 is still pregnant, due in, er . . . May, I think. Unmarried, but luckily dating a very responsible guy who has a good job. But she is really, really strange. Really.

#1's life has improved. Cleaned up her life, going to college, all that fun stuff.
#2 Has since gotten divorced, contnued to smoke, but finally has a job. Unfortunatly, it's a manager job at, like, Pappa John's or somesuch, and she rarely gets to see her daughter. But her daughter is loved, and has a wonderful GodMother. Still on foodstamps, tho. No child support.
#3 Has lost all initiative to go to college, get a job, or even get her driver's license. Doesn't even talk to her friends anymore. Thinks that all she'll ever need to be in life is a mother. Kay. Don't know what kind of mother she'll be, since her child hasn't been born yet.

What's the point of typing this all out? To, I dunno, show that different women make different choices. But I think that women need to be able to make these choices. I can only imagine the lengths I'd go to to abort a child if abortion was illegal. On occasion, I've thought about it, and none of them are pretty, and some of them could cause me serious injury.

However, I don't agree with 3rd trimester abortions. 6 months is plenty of time to decide if you want to keep it or not.

Blah blah. I had something else to say, but I seem to just be rambling on and on.

[Silver Serpentine]

Hmm. Touchy subject. I'm not going to try to persuade anyone to my side, since I already know that it can't be done. All I have are my opinions and what my close friends have gone through.

First, for me. If I found out right this second that I was pregnent, I would get an abortion. There's no one that could convince me not to.
For two reasons:
1, I'm nowhere near responsible enough to have a child. Not really a good excuse, but it's not my main one.
2, The idea of being pregnent terrifies me. I've literally had nightmares about being pregnant. Nightmares where I wake up terrified until I realize that I am, indeed, not pregnant. I don't know WHY this is, I just have a terrified, hystical response to the idea of myself getting pregnant. It's not the after-effects of pregnancy (raising a child), because I could easily adopt it out. It's just the act of being pregnant. Just thinking about it right now is causing a lot of anxiety.

Every time I've ever had sex, I've been careful to the point of paranoia. The women in my family are a fertile bunch, so I'm going to take every precaution I can to not get pregnant. If there was a guaranteed method of not getting preggers (but still be able to have sex), I'd do it in a heartbeat, if I could afford it.

I've recently reached a higher level of anxiety about pregnancy, which has resulted in considerably less sex (about once every 2 to 3 months with my fiance). Even when we do have sex, it's harder for me to enjoy it, since I have a nagging in the back of my mind "What if I accidentally get pregnent this time?" Even tho I know I could get an abortion (which I am incredibly grateful to have that option). This lack of sex has put a bit of tension in our relationship. Luckily, the fiance is a very understanding man.

I occasionally wish that I'd turned out to be a lesbian, instead of just bi, so that I'd never have to worry about getting pregnant, and still be able to enjoy sex.

If I had a choice between getting an abortion and having the fetus removed and being placed into another woman's womb, I'd choose #2 in a second. Unfortunatly, that doesn't seem to be an option. But I'm not going to carry a child to birth.

Now, on to other people

Two of my friends have had abortions. #1 was told by several doctors that she'd never, ever be able to have children, due to a disease that I can't remember the name of. She lives at home at the age of 23 because she can't find a steady, well-paying job. #2 got pregnant shortly before her boyfriend got arrested (for a BS charge, but that's a completely different story). She had been living with him (playing housewife), and couldn't find a job at all. She had to move back in with her mother.

For both women, it was a very difficult decision to make, after after weighing all the options they had, decided that abortion was the lesser of two evils. If anyone ever called either of my friends a baby killer to her face, I'd punch them as hard as I could. It's was a painful and personal decision for them that was hard enough to make on their own without people judging.

On the other hand, I have 3 friendswho've accidentally gotten pregnant and decided to keep it. #1 was a terrible alcoholic (so she says, because I wasn't around during that time). #2 was already living in subsidized apts (I think that's the right word) and on food stamps. #3 is still pregnant, due in, er . . . May, I think. Unmarried, but luckily dating a very responsible guy who has a good job. But she is really, really strange. Really.

#1's life has improved. Cleaned up her life, going to college, all that fun stuff.
#2 Has since gotten divorced, contnued to smoke, but finally has a job. Unfortunatly, it's a manager job at, like, Pappa John's or somesuch, and she rarely gets to see her daughter. But her daughter is loved, and has a wonderful GodMother. Still on foodstamps, tho. No child support.
#3 Has lost all initiative to go to college, get a job, or even get her driver's license. Doesn't even talk to her friends anymore. Thinks that all she'll ever need to be in life is a mother. Kay. Don't know what kind of mother she'll be, since her child hasn't been born yet.

What's the point of typing this all out? To, I dunno, show that different women make different choices. But I think that women need to be able to make these choices. I can only imagine the lengths I'd go to to abort a child if abortion was illegal. On occasion, I've thought about it, and none of them are pretty, and some of them could cause me serious injury.

However, I don't agree with 3rd trimester abortions. 6 months is plenty of time to decide if you want to keep it or not.

Blah blah. I had something else to say, but I seem to just be rambling on and on.

[Silver Serpentine]

Holy crap! Stupid hamsters!