Our rights are enumerated in the constitution, and it pretty clearly says you must be born (even if the framers never considered this situation). In order for the unborn to have rights, we’d have to ammend it into the constitution. I disagree with the Federal Government making rulings on this (and with the Supreme Court making up new rights, not their job), if we’re going to have laws on it it should be the States job, so the laws can be suited to local beliefs. Oh we’d have people going out of state, but, so what? We have that for gambling too, and on a federal level we could just as easily have people go out of country.
Laws are just so arbitrary, they seem ill suited to deal with this situation. And I really dislike the simplification of it by both sides, “It’s my choice, a fetus isn’t alive vs. It’s a life, you get what you deserve”. Ppppbtttt, really not that simple, we need an open and honest debate, and both sides should stop deluding themselves. I know, I know, I live in fantasy world, but I can dream can’t I?
To sumarize, I’m technically “pro choice” because I don’t see any good reason to make it illegal, but I am morally conflicted.
Oh, P.S. I’m not accusing anyone here of anything, most of you seem to enjoy a good open debate, I’m talking, well, I guess of the mainstream media’s handling of the debate.
Would you mind providing a cite, please? I never got that impression, but I never really searched through looking for that.
I understand what you are saying. I am trying really hard to do that. I didn’t mean to impugn your logic. In my post #433 I tried really hard to define what the debate was, and see everyones different perspective. I was trying to see where you fit in.
It appears to me that you are saying that the fetus does not have rights. Why?
If it did have rights, would you then agree that there should be government protection of these rights? Why or why not?
I can appreciate your effort, but that’s rather like defining black people as those with dark skin and white people as those with light skin and assuming this defines the debate on race relations.
Oh I was joking about impunging my logic. Gosh humor can be hard to get across in a serious debate.
As for constiutional rights, they apply to citizens of the united states. Who are citizens? Those born or naturalized in this Country. Like I said, somewhat of a stretch and not what the framers had in mind, but it’s the only thing we’ve got to go on.
The only way I see to possibly find cause to illegalize abortion is TO define rights of a fetus (such as “The right to the opportunity of independent life” or something). Roe V. Wade seems to have said “The fetus has no rights, as such it’s a violation of a womans privacy for us to get involved.” Part one is just a legal truth, part two, while I agree with, seems to be reading a bit much into the constitution, which I don’t like (if you can justify putting words in the framers mouth for your own cause, whats to stop someone else from turning this on you?)
So, again, my biggest problem with the laws as they stand is that Women get 2 chances to choose whether or not they want to be responsible for a kid, but Men only get 1, and they’re expected to decide this in the throes of passion.
I don’t think there’s any possible way that we can have an honest discussion so long as you characterize me as ‘near criminally insane.’
You’re severely barking up the wrong tree if you’re aiming any of this at me. I have numerous times and in numerous locations advocated the right of a man to abdicate all parental rights and responsibilities for a period of three months after he learns of the pregnancy or child, as that would be in keeping with the Roe standard on unrestricted access to abortion.
I have even called this ‘male abortion.’
The actual fact of the matter to me is, and pay attention all you who would make abortion illegal: there will be those who have abortions whether you like it or not, and whether it’s legal or not. I’m one of them. You will not stop me from having an abortion if my birth control ever fails me, no matter what protests you hold, threats you shout, or laws you make. You can make it risky, you can make it expensive, and you can cause a lot more women to die for it than there need to be, but you can’t stop it. How long do you think it would take before black market RU-486 showed up? Think about it. There are currently a million abortions a year in the US. You will not stop one million desperate pregnant women. You can’t even stop the high officers from your own organizations from getting abortoins, as the link I posted above demonstrates. Desperate and pregnant, a lot of pro-life true believers become pro-choice for themselves in a hurry.
For someone who wants an alternative to being pregnant, adoption is no answer.
I’m not sure if you haven’t ben reading my arguments, or are confusing me with another poster? I would have thought it was obvious I knew the difference.
…but in other fundamental ways (location, dependence) *is * like some of those things, and that’s something that should be acknowledged too, when it comes to the pro-choice side.
I haven’t made a habit of making those comparisons, though - I fully acknowledge the humanity of the foetus, if not the personhood, and you’ve paraphrased my argument quite well, there, except I’d change the bolded bit to "does not matter as much"
Why does the biology have a bearing if it doesn’t speak as to the “rightness” of eliminating it? Biology is neutral when speaking of whether an action is right or wrong, which is what the whole abortion debate is.
Not the same moral status, but also not the same moral status as a delivered baby, either, never mind an adult human. That’s kind of the point.
I acknowledge that it’s complicated.
What your’e getting from me is the end result of my internal reasoning. I’ve tried to convey, in the last couple threads on this, how I’ve arrived at the conclusions I have (my whole thing about Societal Actors, relative morality and personhood, remember?), but it’s a little bit demeaning for you to say I haven’t considered things. I have, but the arguments I’ve gotten haven’t convinced me.
There seems to be a fundamental disconnect, and I think it happens somewhere in the underpinnings of our respective moral frameworks, rather than here, at the endpoint of one particular argument where we’re both assuming a familiarity with each other’s mindset that may not exist.
I wasn’t directing anything at you, though I suppose I made it look like that by quoting you, my apologies.
I’m quite happy to hear you advocate “male abortion”, as you put it. This helps put the laws on equal ground and allows choice for all parties involved, it’s the only thing I’d ask to have changed as the laws stand now.
As I’ve said before, me personally, I am morally conflicted, but as far as the legality of the issue goes, I have no arguments against it. Hell, if you don’t want to be a parten, you SHOULD NOT be one, it’s better for everyone involved.
Although I have to ask, you consider it perfectly find to abort a child up to the point of birth? This seems remarkable cruel, I mean, if you can do it at that point, why not weeks or months after the birth as well?
Hey, if prerson can vote once they turn 18, why not weeks or months before? That’s surely a less significant milestone than the time you moved out of Mom.
In practice, though, very few doctors would perform such a procedure, so it’s moot.
Well, I was really trying to direct my question at any/all pro-choicers (I think I said that before, didn’t I?) You were just the only one who answered, so I kind of used you as a mouthpiece for the “other side.” That wasn’t fair, and so I’m sorry for that.
I acknowledge those things.
Yes, you were the one who spoke of showing the 10-week ultrasound around. Honestly, this is part of my moral issue with abortion. I suspect many, many people have both had an abortion (or, for men, caused a pregnancy that led to abortion) AND shown such pictures around during a subsequent, wanted pregnancy. I can’t resolve in my mind that a fetus is as important as the mother’s desire for the baby. To me, a fetus has inherent worth, or it doesn’t. And, while you obviously are not in this camp, there are many people I have debated with on this message board who do NOT acknowledge that there is an inherent humanity to the fetus. I was attempting to find out if they actually believe this (which doesn’t seem possible if they have any knowledge of biology), or if they just say this disingenuously because they believe that if they admit it, they have lost the debate.
I was attempting to show why some people feel that it DOES have the same moral status, and that it is difficult to deny that there are fundamental differences between a fetus and the other items Bryan Ekers gave in his list (what were they…a tumor or a bad tooth?) Obviously, people are not worried about saving bad teeth…the moral status of the fetus is very, very much at issue on the pro-life side.
I’m sorry if I implied anywhere that you haven’t thought about it. I think it’s clear that you have. Likewise, I have my own internal reasoning that leads me to a different conclusion.
Maybe. I think I’m much closer to relating to your moral framework than a lot of other people on “your side” of the debate, actually.
Voting at 18 is an arbitrary decision as well, based on I don’t know what. As I’ve said before, the designation of being alive or human is arbitrary as well, but most people would err on the side of trying to ensure no serious pain or suffering was endured by the fetus. But you’re right, it is a moot point.
I think I’ve fully expressed myself here, so, no more debating for me. I’m off to greener pastures to torch, muahahhahahahahahha.
Sorry for the late response, I’ve had no Internet connection for the last few days.
Well now. You’re asking me for cites of things that are not being done. Kind of like asking me to prove a negative, isn’t it? Actually, yes I found examples of a few pro-life groups that seem to have some involvement at least with adoption or placement issues. Of course I would.
But if the pro-life movement is supporting unwanted children in a big way, I’m afraid the ball is in your court to cite it because I never see evidence of it other than doing a search. Show me the cites where the major pro-life organizations are protecting and advancing the rights and welfare of unwanted children by changing the adoption system.
Or how about some where they are fronting legislative attempts remove the red tape? Often poor mothers abort simply because they can’t afford more kids. Where are the pro-lifers in asking for the expansion of social programs like food stamps and education, and daycare assistance to help them? Is there actually a social movement doing this I haven’t heard of?
Until you show that, you have no proof against my statement about the disconnect which was “How can you be ‘pro-life’ when you do not want to also ensure that the lives of unwanted children have at least as good a chance at success as kids born into loving families?”
But I still think that both the pro-life and pro-choice sides could do a hell of a lot better at making something like adoption a more viable choice for mothers or couples. But when was the last time something like this, or even day care assistance (which most families could use) came up in Congress and made headlines?
This is just silly. There are a whole bunch of places where the pro-choice side is well defined. Here’s one cite for you. And another. And another.
This is simply a matter of you getting on the same page that everyone else has been reading off of for years. These are widely used terms and the only ones who would question it are those who attempt to narrow the definition, to keep people focused only on abortion and not all the other privacy benefits derived from Roe. v Wade and other privacy decisions.
Because while abortion tends to be a divisive hot button issue, the other choices she faces tend to be found reasonable by the vast majority of Americans. These include birth control, prevention of reproductive system health risks in women, and her quality of life and ability to bear and raise a(nother) child. Likewise some people don’t like the term pro-choice because it’s opposite would be considered anti-choice, which many Americans would consider a negative connotation, especially those who take umbrage at being told what to do regarding reasonable personal freedoms.
Unless I am mistaken, foreigner nationals visiting the U.S have the same basic rights as U.S. citizens, like due process and what not. I am pretty sure that it is not okay to kill them, even though they are not citizens.
Be fair. What I laid out was a little more thorough than what you said. I certainly used more words.
I acknowledge that it is a complicated issue. Even so, I think I gave a pretty good synopsis of the debate, and pretty much every argument I have seen on this board fits in. I know there are specific examples that people can come up with, like rape or incest, but these specifics are not what the debate is really about. I think the debate is about when a fetus becomes a person, and when that person acquires rights that supercede a parent’s right to terminate it.
MojoBox, I am deeply disappointed that you think that non-US citizens have no constitutional rights. Golly gee. I guess they’re just a bunch of stinkin’, worthless foreigners, right?
Quick! Let’s issue pardons to everyone in prison who’s been convicted of killing a foreigner. I think we’ve got a constitutional crisis on our hands!
