Be advised I love to argue both sides of issues, for my own reasons.
M. Anthony characterizes abortion as “an act of desperation”. Please, that’s as bad as calling those who support it “pro-choice”. Except in the narrow case of rape, getting pregnant is a CHOICE that actually involves a series of CHOICES made by the woman (and the man involved). At any point along that chain of choices, the woman has the power to assert her CHOICE and prevent a pregnancy. Unless your argument is that women are nothing more than sex-machines, powerless to say no to any man who attempts to seduce them, there’s no way you can argue that getting pregnant is NOT a choice a woman makes. Personally I respect women too much to let such an argument stand unchallenged.
Tim J did not present any decent arguments. He merely attacked the original author (Cecil). I’m against adhominem attacks no matter which side of an issue they’re directed against. They’re pointless and only prove the lack of intelligence & logic of the person who posted them.
I was drawn to this statement: “I would not be able to live with myself if i terminated a fetus that i could feel kicking. I am not a monster, and i am not stupid.” Some who terminated a “fetus” who could not yet even kick wound up having trouble living with themselves, as I think would anyone who spends even a moment thinking about such selfish destruction of life they created. Indeed there are TWO cases that were used to form a basis for abortion on demand, more or less, in America, and few seem to know that both women who were involved in the cases are pro-LIFE.
There are, I suppose, arguments for abortion somewhere. But I’ve not seen a good one yet. I have seen a good number of ridiculous ones here. Consider these, paraphrased:
bmoreluv said “many women die in childbirth.” In what country or century are you claiming this is the case? And, as an aside, does a “fetus” deserve “moreluv” too? Apparently not.
1010011010 said, “Many very tasty animals have heartbeats and brainwaves.
“But a cow is not a person.” True. Neither is a fetus.” If you wait long enough, will a cow become a person? Will a HUMAN fetus?
Cecil said, “What are you talking about? Prior to the last century, reliable birth control wasn’t even available.” I’m curious. What form of birth control advertises as 100% reliable?
bmoreluv said, “The primary factors are lack of education and reproductive rights.” Now maybe I missed something, but are you saying people that get abortions are stupid, or what?
I think Irishman did a great job in his post 11-25-2008, 02:48 AM.
bmoreluv said, “When considering this question; Why were black people enslaved in America?” This reveals the biased and disingenuous thought processes at work. Blacks weren’t “enslaved in America”, they were ENSLAVED IN AFRICA. As to why, well some people over there hated other people over there, or they coveted their land, their women, or they felt they could get rich by taking & selling slaves, whatever, and decided the best way to get what they wanted was to kill some and enslave and sell off others. I just love the people who are all about “people of color” who conveniently forget that “people of color” often tend to be the primary reason “people of color” have the problems they do. And before you go blasting me, remember, you don’t know what color I am and don’t try to guess because you’ll no doubt get it wrong.
1010011010 said, “It’s highly suspect to me to put protection of women’s rights subordinate to the protection of something we can’t even agree is a person.” Look up which logical fallacy you’re committing. Raising a false issue doesn’t help your argument. Just because you choose not to accept what a human baby is, from the point of conception on, doesn’t mean that it is not that thing. Now there may be some legal confusion on the issue, but once sperm and egg unite it’s generally just a matter of time before we get a new person who has rights and is a person, sometimes anyway (see The State of California v. Scott Peterson, for instance). Merely injecting your opinion into an argument to win it isn’t logical.
The bottom line is one a man and a woman let sperm and egg get together, a person is on the way unless something is done about it. So, why is it NOT reasonable to hold that the “person” starts at conception?
1010011010 also said: “I will agree that a fetus, especially a late-term fetus, has several items on that fuzzy list of criteria, but not enough for me to tell a woman that it’s rights supersede hers.” I suspect the courts would beg to differ… and have in several cases - perhaps you should do some research? Or do you need me to do it for you & get back to you? What rights, exactly, are you talking about? Your next comment seems illumanatory:
“In all honesty, I don’t think we are “sufficiently human” until a while after birth.” You know, I wouldn’t suggest putting that philosophy to a practical test, unless you’re OK with winding up in a cell with a horny guy named “bubba” - assuming you’re a guy. You quickly added that you’re not suggesting infantacide, yet clearly YOU WERE. You did. Indeed the “rights” argument does strongly support infantacide until well after birth. For having a baby does impose severe responsibilities and restrictions on BOTH PARENTS in a proper relationship. It severly curtails their “rights”. You suggested that a woman must choose between caring for and killing her infant - yet there is a third option you dismiss as “too hard” or some such. There are always people who want to adopt. Always.
Strassia said, “if they are euthanized, it is because they have exercised their rights, not because they have lost them.” Good point, although not all states, or countries, allow euthanasia.
Strassia (Jonathan?), I get your point on rights, and generally agree with it except this bit: “A one year old has right to equal protection under the law, but not the right of free assembly.” I think they DO have that right (assembly), it’s just pretty darn hard for them to exercise it, at least unless they get help from others.
This bit got me thinking, too: “This of course brings us to one of the many slippery slopes that crop up in this issue. Do premature babies have less rights than those carried to term (both because their brains are less developed and because they need more intensive care)? As medical science gets better, it may be possible to transfer the care of a blastocyte to someone else, how does that change things?” Good comments.
And he continues: “First perfect positive birth control (meaning you must take positive action to disable it, rather than requiring action to stay effective) readily available to everyone (male an female) of reproductive age.” Wow, the religious right would have a field day with that one! Why, exactly, other than the obvious “moral” reasons, and the ridiculous ones already given here, do you think religious people tend to be against abortion? Still, you make a good point with this comment. But is it possible? Will it ever be?
Now I don’t know about this: “A safe, effective, and supportable means of transferring any fetus at any point during gestation into an artificial support system that is cheap enough that it could be covered by the state if necessary and that could suspend gestation indefinitely if necessary.” Mother was an incubator. Father was the contents… of a test tube… in an icebox… in the factory of birth. My name is 905… and I’ve just “become alive”. I’m the newest populator… of the planet… called Earth. (905 - The Who)
Irishman said: “euthanasia typically does not revolve around the status of personhood, but rather other issues such as the quality of life.” At what earliest point do babies become reactive to stimulus, such as music or sound, light, etc. from outside the womb?
He also said: "To me, the salient point is that at some point the developing human is granted the right to existence. What that point is and should be is what is under contention. " The problem is those who want to prevent this discussion from happening seem to be determined to muddy the waters with issues of “choice” and “privacy” and “reproductive rights”.
[QUOTE=1010011010]
OK I DID IT, what next?
1010011010 said: “QOL also plays into the abortion question, too, in terms of growing up in foster care, not having the means to adequately support a child, etc.” Again, a side argument meant to distract. Which is worse, having a life with a degraded quality, or no life at all?
“Someone might find the “fetus on ice” scenario more repugnant than abortion.” Good point.
Also: “While your solution may answer the “I don’t want to be pregnant.” concern, it doesn’t address “I don’t want to reproduce.” That’s a particularly hairy issue, because males have a valid cut on that one, too.” Well, the "I DON’T WANT TO REPRODUCE is easy - GET YOUR TUBES TIED - male or female. That normally fixes that pretty reliably, though not 100%, so be sure to use a backup, as is always a good idea anyway. And while we’re talking about “reproductive rights”, I’m glad you brought up the case of women who use a pregnancy to “trap” a man. It’s a salient point.
Then there’s: “Some systems of the world simply do not work and can be deemed, objectively, “bad”. Or rather “worse” than other systems that do seem to function usefully and sustainably in the real world.” Can you say “cultural imperialism”?
Moving on to Thee Erin: "My rights most certainly DO trump the “rights” of an “unborn child.” Yeah, of course they do, as far as you’re concerned. Selfish prig.
gprimos1 said: “I would prefer that abortions would be illegal” Hey, a position that is coherent & makes sense. Amazing. For it’s true, in this day and age, there’s no excuse for an “unwanted pregnancy”.
“I enjoy his column and I hope he stays clear of political issues in the future so he can keep on publishing.” What, you worried he’ll express another non-PC opinion and get shut down by the “free speech - as long as it’s speech that agrees with us” police?
Back to the binary kid: “Go look a the hypothetical examples of what sort of woman seeks an abortion. Is it a fornicating young woman mainly concerned about how pregnancy will interfere with her carefree lifestyle? How dare she think she should be able to evade the consequences of her poor choices. At the very least she could give it up for adoption. How selfish. Why isn’t the example ever a mother of two whose husband has been laid-off unexpectedly, making it impossible for them to afford a new baby?” Please explain why this woman couldn’t get help from friends, family or, as a last resort, put HER child up for adoption? Why is it that there are so many who are pro-abortion who work so hard to ensure women never consider adoption anyway?
It gets worse: “The whole idea of anti-choice is that women deserve to “face the consequences” of their immoral behaviour.” You’d do better if you would stick to arguments you know & understand. This statement of yours is pure hogwash, pure BS, couldn’t be further from the truth. A woman who, by WHATEVER MEANS, finds herself with an “unwanted pregnancy”, is NOT to be punished, but then again, neither is her unborn child, don’t you agree? Yet you callously sentence that unborn to death by saying, “It’s not a person” or some equally ridiculous argument.
You are the devil incarnate! Next, you said: “Calling it “pro-life” is misdirection.” No, calling it “pro-choice” is the misdirection! Calling it pro-life is spot on! Those, however misguided, who think that all life (even in cases of rape, incest, etc.) is worth preserving are certainly PRO-LIFE. You totally mischaracterize them. Why?
Then you go on: “It’s not melodramatic to say there can be no middle ground when the goal of one side is to render the other subservient.” I’m sorry, but IDIOT and LIAR both fit here. A woman has the right to choose not to risk a pregnancy by multiple means - abstinence being only one of many. In the vast majority of cases, women who wind up aborting could have avoided pregnancy in the first place much easier.
Finally, M. Anthony’s last post is generally well thought out and excellently expressed. There are exceptions. How about the people who’ve declared open season on those who provide abortions? How are they any different from those they attack? Is it the “just war” argument?