http://www.counterpunch.org/schulte01202006.html The antis think that outlawing abortion will stop it. It just does not work that way. When I was young abortion was a dirty underground process which was very dangerous to the woman. We have laws against drugs and you can get them anyplace in America. Like prohibition proved, you can not legislate morality. The drug problems are comparable to the prohibition era. People getting shot taking over territory, police and political graft rampant. Why would any one want that?
Yes, and I question Obama’s commitment to reducing abortions. His rhetoric is not at all consistent with his record, ISTM. A person who would not go so far as to vote for the “Born Alive” bill (or whatever it happened to be called in IL) has drawn a line in the sand. That’s my point. His commitment to protecting unborn life is, well, non-existent. By the way, that’s a hell of plan for reducing abortions he has. Can’t miss.
I don’t see any more important element to reducing abortions than the make-up of the court. That has been the tipping point thus far. I’m quite certain I know what kind of justices Obama will appoint. I’ll take McCain, thank you, for abortion decisions in particular, but for all matters.
I think what we have here is a disagreement of the meaning of terms. I would not say a tumor is human life any more that I would say a kidney has. I’d say it belongs/belonged to a being that possesses human life but does not have any in of its self.
If I am correctly understanding your use of the word ‘person’ then I think would be correct to substitute ‘person’ or ‘personhood’ for ‘human life’ in both mine and the majority of anti-abortion arguments.
So, assuming I understand your use of the word ‘personhood’, I would state that personhood begins at conception.
Yup, Obama likes abortions. :rolleyes:
I would hope that both candidates would elect SCJ’s that decide based on the Constitution and not their personal feelings, I would hope also that both would elect lower judges that obeyed the written law, regardless of personal feelings. Obama is an expert on Constitutional law. McCain saw a documentary on it once. Both candidates want the same thing (less dead babies) but only one acknowledges the complexity of the issue.
Right 'cause that’s what I said. :rolleyes:
Obama can say whatever he wants regarding his preferences, but his record is not consistent with his heartwarming rhetoric. He is beholden to his base and on this issue, he has never, ever deviated.
He has a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood. He co-sponsored the Freedom of Choice Act, a bill he mentioned to Planned Parenthood, saying, “the first thing I’d do as president” is sign this act. NOW’s website lauds this bill, which would “sweep away hundreds of anti-abortion laws.” He refused to support a bill that assigned rights to a child born after a botched abortion–he wouldn’t go that far! And then he lied and spun his reasons for why he didn’t support, none of which even makes sense.
He has never supported a pro-life agenda, not even to the extent now suggested, and I don’t believe he ever will. If someone suggests pre-abortion counseling to guide women to non-abortion alternatives, the base will go insane, and he will not, he will NOT stand up to them. He never, ever has.
That’s why this premise is a laugher. On this particular issue, it’s like saying Hitler was the more pro-Jewish politician in Germany in the 30’s. It’s simply laughable to suggest that Obama is a better pro-life alternative than McCain, a man who has received a zero rating from Planned Parenthood, and a man who has voted to install pro-life policy. That’s all. I’m not shocked that Obama is pro-choice. I’m not trying to convert anyone here. I’m simply pointing out how ludicrous the premise of this thread is.
And Obama’s expertise on constitutional law will undoubtedly lead to justices who can sense rights where none are actually described, unlike McCain appointees who will obstinately insist that there be actual, y’know, words to support their opinions. I can’t wait. :rolleyes:
http://www.counterpunch.org/schulte01202006.html It was an ugly time when it was up to the states. Abortions will happen. You can not stop it . You can drive it underground to an unsafe and dangerous methodology. But it will not go away.
Right, which is why no pro-lifer that I know of would ever make such a claim… no moreso than outlawing rape and murder has caused those heinous acts to disappear.
For those of you who say that one shouldn’t make abortion illegal because some people would surely break the law, can you think of one law that IS universally followed by everyone and never broken?
There will always be some people out there who decide to break any law you make, but that doesn’t mean all laws are invalid.
Heck, there are women out there who kill their born infants or even older children (like the recent Casey Anthony situation evidently). That doesn’t mean we should move to legalize infanticide.
Unfortunately, the national level Democratic party has sent the message for years that they do not welcome pro-lifers. At least I’ve never been told by a Republican that I am out to “abuse” or “tyrannize” women just because I actually do believe that abortion is a tragic situation and actually want it to end.
It is an important distinction, though. It’s easy to prove that a zygote is alive, and likewise easy to prove that it’s human, and some folks think that, having proven that, the argument is over, but it’s not. There are even things which indisputably act as independent, self-sustaing organisms which are human but not persons: HeLa cell cultures, for instance, are so self-sustaining that they end up being a major nuissance contaminant in biology labs.
It works both ways, too: Although it does not seem to have happened yet, we might someday encounter a person that isn’t human (an alien or an AI, for instance). When and if that happens, that entity would still be deserving of the rights of personhood, despite not being human and possibly not even being alive.
Now, all that said, one can certainly claim that personhood begins at conception. I just think it’s important that people are clear that that’s what they mean.
He did not support a bill that assigned rights to a child born after a botched abortion because a child already had those rights. The bill would have only further decreased the right for women to choose.
I understand he is pro-choice, and supports pro-choice policies. What I don’t get is how you are equating that with allowing more abortions than McCain.
He supports a woman’s right to choose. He does not support more abortions. Even though you say you never said that, it is implied through your arguments. Otherwise, if you can admit Obama does not want more abortions, then how can you conclude that:
You obviously believe Obama is not committed to controlling abortions. This isn’t the case. He stated several time that he wants to reduce the number of abortions women have through sex education. He also supports restrictions on late term abortions.
McCain, while I can concede he is committed to reducing abortions, he has no plan that would make that happen. All overruling Roe v. Wade would accomplish is that it would make abortions clinics harder to find. Even outlawing abortion would not prevent it from happening. Educating women on how to prevent unwanted pregnancies would prevent more abortions than overruling Roe v. Wade ever could.
Right. The distinction is indeed important. However, I have the feeling that to those making the argument showing something is both alive and human is to say that thing is a person. However, as I have, of course, not spoken to them I can’t say for sure.
After having read the article (which was very interesting btw*) I would classify HeLa cell cultures as having a human origin, but not being a human as one cannot be a human without personhood, which they do not have.
Also, I agree that non-human persons would be deserving of the rights of personhood, but I doubt those typically pondering the ethics of abortion consider this as they focus on the more immediate problem of the ethics of the current situation with abortion and what to do about it.
*Not to hijack by how exactly do HeLa cells manage to contaminate so much? The article seemed to leave that out. Are they used in many experiments? Hard to sterilize off equipment?
Never had a pregnancy scare, huh?
One would think that Pro-life proponents would first go through extraordinary lengths to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. As if by making abortion illegal the child will suddenly become wanted.
You believe the Constitution DOESN’T protect your privacy and personal rights? That gonverment should interfere in your biology? I find it absolutely incredible that the side of the political spectrum that supports gun rights doesn’t support a womans right to choose what she wants done to her body.
Then why did he say he would have signed the bill ultimately passed?
McCain has actually voted for pro-life legislation. Obama has talked about wanting to reduce abortions, something completely inconsistent with his actions. He has lied about his motives in the born alive bill. I don’t believe him.
All that does is devalue the term “person”. Call it a zygote, call it a persona, call it whatever; it’s still a mindless blob of tissue. If that’s a “person”, then being a person is something of little value.
Of course not; the Republicans want you to HELP them abuse and tyrannize women.
The right wing is all about tyranny, malice and cruelty. They like anything that hurts or kills or oppresses; they hate anything that brings freedom or happiness or saves lives. They love guns and dogmatism and wars and executions; they hate privacy and control over one’s body and intellectual freedom and diplomacy and sex ( and any other form of pleasure that don’t involve hurting people ).
Opposing abortion and supporting guns are perfectly consistent, because these people like hurting people, and because they hate freedom. And gun rights don’t protect freedom; they just con people into ignoring important rights.
If a person created a living will stating that they don’t want to be taken off life support, even in the event of upper brain death, are you okay with overruling that directive once their cerebrum has stopped functioning?
If the Right’s motive is truly to hurt people and they consider an unborn child in any stage of development a person, they would support abortion. No, I think they are inconsistent because the world is easier to handle if it’s black and white, a view you are more than comfortable with as well.
(on edit) Already addressed above better than I could have, so I deleted mine.
What law was that? Specifically?
How about this: overruling Roe v. Wade would be the right thing to do.
Not in the sense of “We should permit abortion” or “We should forbid abortion” – we can argue about the wisdom of either claim – but because it’s unwise to read the federal Constitution as making such a specific, specialized guarantee of a right when no such words appear in it. It’s unwise to continue a process where unelected federal judges can create substantive new law; where five justices decided for the whole country what the law would be.
In our system, the people, through their legislators, should MAKE law. The judges should interpret existing law. Obviously interpretation doesn’t have a bright-line border, but the idea that the Constitution says, “No restrictions on abortion in the first trimester…” – the idea that this specific time limit on this specific medical procedure is a matter of Constitutional guarantee – is insane.
So when we argue about abortion at a state level, we’re arguing about what our legislators should create as wise abortion policy. THAT is what it means to be a nation governed by the people - ourselves. When we argue about overturning Roe v. Wade, we’re arguing about judicial philosophy and the amount of power we should vest in our judiciary.
Unfortunately, many (most?) people don’t understand or care about the distinction. To their minds, overturning Roe is synonymous with ending abortion; sustaining Roe with protecting abortion rights. But a principled observer can easily say — as more than a few do – “I favor overturning Roe as bad law, but I favor supporting abortion rights.”
Hey – if you really want the Constitution to protect abortion rights, then there’s a way to amend it democratically. Do that – don’t short-circuit three-fourths of the states and a majority of Congress with five unelected justices.