Society already has taken a stand on it; Roe vs. Wade (a decision made by supreme court judges appointed by our elected officials), which leaves choice to the woman to make.
At this point in time, the rights of the mother supercede the rights of the fetus, which has no legal rights separate from those of the mother because it is not viable (until late in pregnancy) outside the mother’s body.
Spider Woman:
**The Supreme Court did, as you say, take a stand on it. They did indeed rule that the rights of the woman outweigh the rights of the child. Therefore they are pro-abortion.
My words that you cite were not directed by anyone who, like the Supreme Court, is pro-abortion. My words were aimed at those who claim to be anti-abortion - that is to have not determined that the woman’s rights outweigh the child’s. To say that and still maintain that society cannot impose a judgement on a woman is a departure from accepted practice.
You could say that. 
(Woo hoo! I figured out some of the smileys! – Okay, okay, I know, little steps for little feet. Fine.)
Yeah, that’s what it all boils down to for me. Men have rights. Women have rights. Teens have rights. Kids have rights. Babies have rights. Different rights at different times – but all have the right to live.
Education is one of the basic things I think needs to be worked on in this society. That, and some way to help those in their early years (maybe 0 to 20) realize that they have a future and they can affect a good part of it. If we can do that, we can affect a lot of what people do that gets them pregnant (or makes them responsible for getting people pregnant) in the first place.
Ya done good, honey-pie. 
phantomdiver
I guess I quoted you out of context or something like that. I understand now what you were trying to say.
That is fine, but I guess I’ll need for you to explain on how counseling women in all of their options qualifies as “antics.” I was a client of Planned Parenthood for many years (got birth control & yearly exams from them too, before I got health insurance and started seeing a regular doctor), and the employees there treat their clients with the utmost in courtesy and consideration. They encourage their clients to do what is right for them. They do not try to force anyone in to any particular decision.
I also vividly remember one occasion where I had to go to PP to pick up my birth control pills, and there happened to be protesters there. Now, at the time, PP had sucessfully gotten an injunction against their protesters, which meant they had to stay a certain distance away from the clinic doors and the clients entering. I remember being shouted at by these protesters, telling me “Don’t kill your baby! We can help you!” Now, these women had no frickin’ idea what I was there for. Why shout at me? I know they were shouting at me, because there was no one else going in at the time. I didn’t shout or argue back with them. There was no real point. They’ve got the right to assemble, and they were too far away from me for me to consider them harrasing. But had I been close enough, I’m sure they would have been in my face, something that I’ve never seen a PP employee do.
Izzy,
Sorry, I was kind of tired when I posted.I’ll try to clarify. You seem to be using " society taking a stand" to mean making abortion be illegal, either under all circumstances or some. I don’t believe the woman’s rights in all cases outweigh those of the fetus’, nor do I believe those of the fetus outweigh the woman’s in all cases. However, in a society where there is no consensus as to when a fetus becomes a person,and in fact, the personhood of a fetus is not even seriously argued in any context except abortion, and where every moral issue does not lead to a law ( it may be wrong for me to lie to my husband or to drink or gamble to excess or to not work all the hours I’m paid for, but there’s no law against those things},who should decide which rights take precedence in a given situation? The doctors? I don’t really trust them not to impose their own views, as they used to with tubal ligations,or to consider outside issues such as reputation, as hospital abortion committees used to.The judges? I might have trusted them before I heard a few years ago about a pregnant woman with cancer who had a court-ordered caesarian against her wishes, although her doctors testified that it would shorten her life,(she died the same day)in the hopes of saving the baby ( it didn’t-too premature). If there are to be any exceptions, who should decide whether a particular case is one of them? It’s not the type of issue where anyone doesn’t have an opinion.If there aren’t any exceptions, then at least some women (and girls) will be in a position of risking their lives or health for another,which except during war, isnot a position we put people in unless they volunteer.
IzzyR,
I should have made one point more explicitly in my last post. If you have not made a determination that either party’s rights _always_outweighs the other’s, ( that is, if you neither believe that abortion is wrong in all circumstances, nor do you believe it is morally neutral in all circumstances) you must then decide who makes the decision in a particular case.You might not agree it should be the woman, but you have to pick someone.
If by society taking a stand, you mean individuals making judgements about other individuals based on their actions and reasons, I have no problem with that. I would treat an aquaintance who had an abortion for a trivial reason the same as I treated a friend of my husband’s who walked out on his pregnant wife. I told him I lost all respect for him and I don’t associate with him. I don’t think there needs to be a law making it criminal to leave your pregnant wife just because I find it morally repugnant.
BullDawg:
And maybe I’ve missed it, but I don’t recall anyone making the above argument.
Oh, I knew I was right. Even without you verifying it. I have been an escort at a PP clinic, and Persephone has actually been to a PP clinic for reproductive services that had nothing whatsoever to do with abortion. And you are using FOAF information. Somehow, I think that what she and I have to say carries just a smidge more credibility than what you report. “Antics”, indeed.
Doesn’t really matter to me. After all, it’s your higher power, not mine.
Help me out here. . .when did I equate an occasional joint to abortion? Oh, that’s right! I didn’t.
Well, thank you ever so much. No, really, I mean that with all my heart.
Judge much? If your higher power is anything at all like the one ascribed to by so many folk on this board, then I’m guessing he might be a little peeved at you.
Ooooohhhh! Well, you certainly win the “My penis is bigger than your penis” contest. Just try not to hurt your pitbulls whilst swinging that thing around, otherwise you’ll have animal control called on you.
Waste
Flick Lives!
Doreen,
I think I understand your position. I’ll summarize, and you can correct me if I get it wrong.
“Abortion is a gray area morally, and can be right or wrong depending on the circumstances. However, the nature of the circumstances upon which this morality depends is unique to each woman and situation. Thus, no outside entity is equipped to make a judgement on the morality of a given abortion. Therefore the decision must be lift to the woman.”
As I said, I understand this position. But I would still question whether this can be extended as far as opposing all restrictions on abortions. I would think there can be some guidelines put in place. Of course there will be miscarriages of justice. Every law is subject to these. But laws deal with some complex and difficult areas, as they must in order to provide some common moral ground for society.
(BTW, has anyone ever suggested, as you indicate, that doctors be given authority to decide about abortion? I can’t imagine any role for them other than determining facts.)
Furthemore, and this is the important point, you will surely acknowledge that your position is completely dependent on your premise that the morality of abortion is subject to change based on the particular circumstances. This is of course a valid viewpoint. But from the perspective of someone who disagrees with this viewpoint, it is pointless to argue for the right of a woman to make this decision. The argument should only concern the morality of abortion itself. To the extent that your viewpoint is accepted, you can then argue the “right to chose” perspective.
Having said all that, you would appear to be a genuine “pro-choice-anti-abortion” person.
I would think that doctors do have the authority to decide, in that they can choose not to perform them, or take the role of advisor, if a patient asks them to. At the time I became pregnant with the daughter I ultimately relinquished for adoption, I had a doctor who was anti-abortion, and she gave me some information about adoption that I had not even considered. In no way did she pressure me out of aborting–she just reminded me that I did in fact have other options. I investigated them all, and chose adoption.
IzzyR,
My postition can’t be extended so far as to oppose all restrictions on abortion, but then, as best as I remember neither did Roe v.Wade.If I recall correctly, the Supreme Court decision allowed no restrictions for the first trimester, restrictions based on protecting the woman’s health during the second (requirements that they be performed in a certain setting,etc), and restrictions based on protecting the life of the fetus in the third.If the states have not imposed such restrictions, that’s a different matter. The only thing I can imagine that would justify a third trimester abortion is if a great risk to the mother’s life is newly discovered early in the third trimester ( so early that premature delivery would not result in survival.)-not a common occurence.On the other hand, I’m not even sure if a morning-after pill thae day after sex qualifies as an abortion.
Before Roe v Wade, abortions were legal in some states based on medical reasons. In at least some places, the case would go before a hospital committee ( made up of doctors)which would decide if the abortion would be performed. Even if the woman’s doctor thought it necessary,if the committee didn’t agree,it wasn’t performed.Some of those committees certainly based their decisions, at least in part, on non-medical reasons,such as already having approved too many.Even though it may seem the doctor is only determining facts,he/she is actually making conclusions (saying " this woman has complication X is a fact".Saying “this woman’s life is in danger is a conclusion”. If the decision is based solely on those conclusions the doctor has essentially made the decision as to whether it should be permittted, and a bias may affect the conclusion he/she makes. For example, say abortions are permitted if the mothers life is in danger. Well, every pregnant woman has an very slightly greater risk of death than she had immediately prior to pregnancy. I can easily see one doctor deciding that every woman who comes to him should be allowed an abortion based on that tiny risk, while another requires that the woman be actively hemmoraging before its permitted.
My position does depend on the premise that its a gray area, but the pro-life position depends on the premise that either it’s a black-and-white issue or more commonly, that there are one or two clearly defined exceptions.I don’t think there are many black and white issues in the world. Is murder always wrong? Yes, but that’s because the definition of murder is the unjustified killing of a human being.Is there such a thing as a justified killing of a human being? Yes, in my state it’s justified if you defending your life or another person’s. In other states it’s also justified if done to protect your property. Could abortions be handled in the same way as these homicides? Theoretically, yes, but practically, no. Those homicides are investigated by the police after the fact, a prosecutor decides whether charges are brought,if charges are brought, it goes to a grand jury, which may or may not indict, and if there’s an indictment it goes to trial,where a jury may accept the defense of justification. That system works okay for a rare and spontaneous event that doesn’t involve anyone else, but what doctor would get involved with performing even the most life-saving abortion if the legality couldn’t be known ahead of time?
Abortion is first degree murder plain and simple. Nothing more and nothing less.
If you don’t want an abortion, don’t get one.
Yeah, that adds a lot to the debate… :rolleyes:
Yer pal,
Satan
[sub]TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Four months, three weeks, one day, 21 hours, 48 minutes and 24 seconds.
5796 cigarettes not smoked, saving $724.54.
Extra time with Drain Bead: 2 weeks, 6 days, 3 hours, 0 minutes.[/sub]
"Satan is not an unattractive person."-Drain Bead
[sub]Thanks for the ringing endorsement, honey!*[/sub]
]
So tell me collegestudent. If you knew a madman was going to go and kill hundreds of schoolkids tomorrow, and you had the chance to kill him and protect those lives, would you do it? Or would you just stand around making comments about how it’s murder plain and simple, and not lift a finger.
And I suppose you think miscarriage is manslaughter as well.
Here at GD, we try to back up what we say with things called evidence and proof. You didn’t back that up with anything. Stating your opinion is one thing. Stating it as fact is another.
iampunha:
Actually, CollegeStudent does this sort of nonsense fairly often. It’s probably best to ignore him and continue with the debate.
Waste
Flick Lives!
FTR, that SN is an insult to intelligent college students. I wish s/he would change it to . . . hell, something else.
iampunha: I think of it as an insult to all college students.
Including frat boys and debs.
Waste
Flick Lives!
Well, but some of them possess the same reasoning/logic skills as our acquaintance CollegeStudent.