If the government forces her into a situation where she can’t support herself, yes it does. You, of course feel otherwise because you want her and the child to die as slowly and unpleasantly as possible. No doubt that’s one reason you oppose abortion; a mindless fetus can’t suffer, a baby or child can.
If my observation of this issue has taught me anything, it’s the general bigotry and malice of the anti abortion side.
But it’s NOT a child, and therefore - AGAIN - your arguement is meaningless. Try to force this thought into your low capacity brain : We don’t agree that it’s a child. Calling it a child is sick and insulting to actual children, as I’ve said several times. Plus, you’re still ignoring our questions.
I’ve given this a lot of thought and I cannot see sufficient relevance—any real parallels—to the issue of abortion that is pertinent to this discussion.
To the extent it is relevent (and then it is tenuous in the extreme) is the notion that the state would be ‘loaning out your uterus’; and that that ‘precedent’ opens the door for other ‘loaner programs’ for internal organs.
That is absurd on it’s face.
The fact is, in many of the first world countries birth rates are below the rate of replacement—the corresponding rate is less than 1. For some of the older countries in Europe the number is frighteningly low, and the population is aging. In fact, in some of those countries the statisitics indicate, that without a surge in birth rates, populations will fall. While likely never to happen, some of those countries might be well served to ‘loan out your uterus’ as a means of raising birth rates. (something I wouldn’t agree with btw)
Is that happening anywhere in the world? No! Is there anywhere in the world where it is government policy—a requirement— that people get pregnant? No!
Now I’m sure that there are many government policy wonks that are aware of how dire this circumstance is and are frightened. Frightened, in large part, because the Muslim birth rate is exponentially higher, and in a few short decades Muslims may be a majority in several European countries. Yet, has the government required you to get pregnant; to loan out your uterus? I’ll bet no.
You may add the hyperbolic term ‘loaning out your uterus’ to the trash bin that contains the gems, ‘punishment’, ‘oppression’, and ‘slavery’; words that elicit fear and lothing but that wither in the face of rational scrutiny.
In the end, if there is a “for rent” sign on your uterus, it will be you opening it for business. If you end up with a tenant in your womb, it will be of your making. No one is forcing you to have sex. No one is keeping you from acting responsibly. No one is keeping you from a dizzying amount of contraceptive methods. No one is keeping you from a dizzying amount of health information, many of which is financed and published by the state.
And if the SCOTUS determines that the tenant is a human life, than it is reasonable that you care for the baby you created, through your choices and your actions.
If you consider it intrusive that the government expects you to not kill a child in your care, than feel free to call that ‘loaning out your uterus.’
Fine, I’ll explain it again. A fetus is mindless. A brain dead body is mindless. If killing a fetus is murder, it is therefore murder to kill a brain dead body. Therefore, organ harvesting should be illegal.
It sounds stupid because it is stupid, just as your position is stupid. Which is why the example works.
Good. We have far, far too many people.
“An unjust law is no law at all.” A law so obviously stupid and evil should be ignored and subverted at every opportunity.
Again, A FETUS IS NOT A CHILD ! I note you have been too cowardly to even aknowledge the posters who say so, much less debate them.
We could always take the Biblical approach to when life begins, you know the one that says that the foetus only becomes human when it has a soul, and it only has a soul when it breaths, as the breath of life is from G-d. It’s just as legitimate a religious belief as any other.
I’m just glad that when I was 15, 9 of my friends and I each set aside £50, this was so that should one of us need an abortion, we’d have the money. I’m serious, we’d worked out exactly how much it would cost, how long it would take, various elaborate cover stories for the parents, all sorts.
Thankfully we never needed it, but believe me, if I’d got pregnant then, I’d have dealt with it without my parents ever knowing, and so would my friends.
Just because you have certain plans and ideals for your daughter, doesn’t mean she hasn’t got her own.
The raindog, Updike, I asked you a question a couple of pages ago, which you seem to have convenienly overlooked even though, raindog, you managed to reply to just about everybody else. To repeat, back in the late 1960s or early 70s, I assume, a woman learned she was pregnant, presumably by her husband, a few weeks after he left her and their two daughters because he’d fallen in love with someone else. Because this was before Roe vs. Wade was decided, she had to be interviewed by a panel of three doctors and be certified an unfit mother in order to have an abortion. That’s when she became pro-choice. Do you call this woman immoral?
Getting back to the OP, the infant mortality rate for Native American babies is double the national average. As far as I know, South Dakota’s government is doing nothing about this, although I would welcome evidence to the contrary. Until that time, I’m inclined to put the grandstanding government of South Dakota into the camp that supports the rights of unborn children but loses interest in them or their welfare after they’re born. Protect the rights of the fetus at all costs, but once the baby’s born, that’s a societal issue which isn’t fashionable or interesting enough. The raindog, Updike, are you prepared to say anything about the morality of children dying, or do you confine yourselves to the unborn?
It’s easy to look at us women and say we care more about our bikini lines than our babies. It’s easy to say to us, “if you don’t want kids, then don’t have sex.” My best friend and her husband don’t want shildren because of health problems on both sides. She’s also of an age where a pregnancy does pose higher than risks. She has, as far as I know, loved and had sex with only one man in her life: her husband. How dare you tell me she and her husband should not enjoy the comfort and joy that sex can be.
One of the most chilling things I heard was on NPR during Alito’s Supreme Court nomination. A politician (I didn’t catch his name) said he’d talked to a woman who told him about the days before Roe vs. Wade, about women going to great lengths to obtain illegal abortions. She told him about women dying because they didn’t dare get medical help for a botched abortion until it was too late. He said he believed those stories, but he just didn’t care.
In my opinion,. this bill in South Dakota isn’t about saving the lives of poor, innocent babies; poor innocent babies die every day, as evidenced by the infant mortality rates provided by crow many clouds. It isn’t about stemming the rampant tide of abortion, since there’s only one doctor who comes in from out of state to perform them once a week. Given that there’s a 24 hour mandatory waiting period before having an abortion yet 84 abortions a year are still performed in South Dakota, I doubt this bill will stop many of them. From what I’ve read about countries where abortion is illegal, it may well lead to women dying from illegal abortions. The raindog, Updike, are you OK with that? As far as I’m concerned, this bill is about one thing: politicians standing up and showing how brave they are fighting the chimera of unborn babies dying in droves, while children who are already born quietly die in the background.
By the way, o arbiters of female morality (the raindog, Updike, this means you), where are you when some poor fellow over in MPSIMS or In My Humble Opinion is lamenting his inability to get laid? Are you willing to go into those threads and tell the guys, “if you don’t want to have kids, you shouldn’t have sex”? Are you willing to tell Love Rhombus’s acquaintance in this thread that sex is only for making babies? It seems to me the only time I hear the argument that people who don’t want kids shouldn’t have sex is when abortion being discussed, and then it’s directed at the women, not the men.
I actually agree that one should not have sex outside of a committed relationship and that one should ask the question, “What if I/you get pregnant?” before doing anything which could conceivably result in pregnancy. (Pun intended.) However, I find the canard that one can only have sex if one is prepared to have kids a dead duck if ever there was one. There are plenty of people out there who believe gay people should never have sex; apparently that also applies to people who don’t want kids. The curious thing is, of the people who’ve said that, I don’t think I’ve ever met one who’d embrace a life of celibacy himself.
Of course; no explanation needed, really. The only reason I posted at all it is because I suspect I’m just one of many who aren’t posting, yet agree with you. The “redeemer of maledom” was just a lame (and most likely misplaced) attempt at levity in an otherwise fairly brutal thread.
Then let me explain it to you in smaller words. If your premise is that a fetus at any stage of development is a child (a premise I don’t share, because there is absolutely no compelling reason to, but you’re clearly immune to reason on this point), then what is so unique about this little person that it has the right to use of my body against my will?
It’s clearly not that you believe that mere “personhood” is sufficient to co-opt my body. You clearly don’t believe that just *anyone * should be allowed to take any organ of mine that they may need, and I can spare, or you’d have just said so. Is it because you believe it’s *my * little person and *I’m * responsible for it? If so, should the government **compel ** parents to donate organs to their ailing (post-born) children?
And now, in even smaller words, just to make sure you get it: Does *any * “person” have the same rights of use of my body that the “person” inside my uterus has?
And if not, then can you just admit that you’re applying a “you play you pay” philosophy to a game that you play yourself, but are biologically guranteed to never lose?
I’m not going to address the rest of your post. In case you were wondering, that’s because I consider it a pile of irrelevant crap that you spewed in an attempt to not answer the real question.
Why, no, I am not a lawyer.
You, however, are pounding on the table. I speak of Justice Blackmun in the singular, as he wrote the opinion. And clearly, he did seek out legal opinions from outside his bench, as I am entirely sure that before this case, he did not have information on european law of the 13th century, on the Hippocratic Oath since the Greek era, and on the cult of Pythagoras.
Not to mention, of course, his legal clerks. What, do you think Justices work alone?
It is not uncommon to look for law in history, or in other, previous legal systems. That is what it means to be a ‘common law’ based country, as opposed to France’s system. Why, just recently, the supreme court cited international law… what was the case?
And, yes, it was appropriate for him to do so.
That said, you asked, oh Raindog, why we have not covered when personhood began. And you, personally, decried the lax moral code of today that allows for abortions.
And thus, I provided you with the facts, given by the single controlling authority on the matter, that suggest that abortion is not a sin of the lax moral code of today. And the facts that underlie the debate on when personhood begins, and pointed out it has never been a matter of a single cell.
And now you don’t care. Because, you see, you are a dishonest debater, who can not argue against what you see, and thus, you pound on the table.
You have asked questions. I have given you answers of authority equal to Einstein on Relativity. You ask what authority the man has. You ask why it is relevant.
But you can not, dare not, will not disagree, because you are educated stupid.
Please remove the head up your own ass before challenging the mote in my eye.
theraindog A landlord can evict a tenant, and a woman can even evict her own rent paying child from her basement. People kick their own minor children out of their homes all the time, and in some places it is permissable to use lethal force to evict an intruder in your home.
Care to choose another anaolgy?
To answer your questions Life began many many years ago it is a passed on thing even if you believe in Genesis account (it was passed on from Adam).
If you are not supporting the already born children in this country and the entire world, then you are just pro birth. If society has the right to say who should or should not have a child then society(especially the anti abortion people) should be willing to sacrifice, and contribute to a fund( and not just a couple of dollars once in a while), to care for and raise the child from conception to adulthood… So far I have not heard any voulenteers. Nor have any women who believe abortion is wrong stepped up and asked to have the fetus, or Zygote implanted in her womb or that of her daughters. When this happens I will say, yes, you are pro-life.
Note-this thread is not all about me, me, me (me being adult women)–it is about a societal issue that has profound impact on all people.
Ah, I think I sense something underneath all this sanctity of life nonsense.
Why would the countries be welled served to start such programs? Is it because it is the WHITE, CHRISTIAN population that is approaching negative growth rates?
Ah, here it is the Great White Peril–egads! the Saracens are coming to pillage and rape our women! The pure blood of the white man will be tainted! Every white man on deck to Save the Christian World! :rolleyes:
I think that you have some ways to go before you can honestly claim an amount of rational scrutiny.
And no-one is forcing you. Why don’t you set an example for us all?
This is a bald faced lie. Many, many pro-life people are strongly pro-abstinence education ONLY and also want to limit exposure to BC methods and legal options for men and women, boys and girls. These people also oppose handing out condoms in HS or at AIDS clinics/gay neighborhoods etc. This goes beyond disingenous–this is incorrect.
And those looks will only come from you and your kind. It is wrong to tell anyone what they can or cannot do with their body–the Gment should not be in the business of legislatively forcing women to serve as incubators throughout their childbearing years. A fetus is not a child in my care.
One more time: a fetus is not a child. A fetus is not a child. A fetus is not a child. SCOTUS has never said a fetus is a child.
You’re like Pontius Pilate and Iago mixed together. You are the silent accessory to a crime, claiming innocence while it was you who urged your partner to use the gun. You claim to uphold some noble ideal of human life, but you truly don’t care about human life–you care about control. Your control-your values, your choices-they should be everyone’s, because you are right, and the rest of us sadly lost in sin somewhere.
You refuse to allow women to control their own destinies, claiming that you are advocating for those helpless and weak–but once born, you don’t care about that same baby (and mother) once alive and unable to cope/eat/live. Apparently, you then shake your head and say, some people should never be parents. Or is it all in God’s hands, then? And like Jesus said, the poor shall always be with us. So, why bother trying to help them–why increase taxes to strengthen social programs so that this Life you so glorify could be endurable?
Nope, that is not your responsibility. Your responsibility ended when you played God and forced said woman and child into Hell on earth, all the while congratulating yourself on your religious convictions and moral superiority. And if baby is burned to death, or abused beyond comprehension (see the other Pit threads current now)–well, you’ve done all you can. You can’t help it if Evil exists–even as you have colluded with that Evil and compounded it. YOUR hands are clean.
Newsflash: women are not the gatekeepers of purity, fertility or morality. People are–and half of you are male. I wonder if you teach boys around you to be celibate*. I wonder if you were yourself (I’ll bet you see any unmarried sex on the males’s part as a sin confessed and repented for[if even that; it’s probably a godgiven right]–but who were those men having sex with? Just asking–guess her sin is OK, as long as there aren’t consequences…for her. There are none for the men, apparently).
Nothing! What’s remarkable about this little person is how unremarkable he is. He’s a person; a child. He isn’t a squatter, a carperbagger. You made him. Throught your actions. And while you most certainly have a right of privacy, and a right of self determination, and a right not to be set upon by the state, when those rights collide with another right a civilized society must make a decision as to which right is more compelling; your right of privacy and his right to be alive.
I have heard, not just in this thread but in others at SDMB many, many, many reasons why an abortion is a responsible thing to do. To name just a few:
• Trauma (especially as it’s due to rape/incest)
• The health of the mother (especially as it may endanger the life of the mother)
• Poverty
• Immaturity of the parents
• Many variations of “we’re not ready”
• It was a mistake
• The failure of various birth control devices
• The parents didn’t want any kids.
I’ve also heard many reasons here that have no more intellectual vitality than “if you stop me from having an abortion I’ll have an unwanted baby on my hands.” (a direct quote) I’ve seen a bazillion of them.
But if in fact he is deemed to be a child, the reasons to end his life have to be weighed against the value of his life. And while society has determined that there are compelling circumstances in which you may ‘forfeit’ your life, it is my view that “this baby will screw up my plans” doesn’t rise to the severity of “Mr. Smith robbed a convenience store and kiiled all it’s occupants.”
So if in fact, it is deemed a child, than all of these reasons—no matter how heart rending----are arguments for the death penalty----circumstances in which a given reason is more compelling than the ongoing life of a child in the womb.
I think a compelling case can be made that if a mother’s death is imminent and unavoidable, some hard choices have to be made. Trauma, in my view, is not a compelling reason—vis a vis the life of another human being—to end the life of a fetus.
However, many of the other reasons given in this thread (like “we’re not ready”) to justify the ending of a child’s life, seem akin to Mr. Smith getting the death penalty, not for killing all occupants of the convenience store, but for stealing a candy bar there.
First of all, I didn’t say anything about co-opting your body, and frankly that doesn’t make any sense to me. You’re not a taxicab, or a passenger jet I can hijack*. You’re a woman, and the simple fact is that , this is how babies are made; this is how the species propagates.
It would be so much easier if there were some other way, but there isn’t. And what needs to decided, it would seem, are these questions:
When does personhood begin?
At the point that personhood is established, are the rights of a person in the womb (at whatever point that is**) the same as the rights of a [born] human? i.e. equal protection under the law
If those rights are not equal under the law ***, under what circumstances are they different, and why is this compelling?
Now I never said anyhting about organs, organ donations or the like. Do you think that a fetus is the same as an organ? (?!) And so while it is true that I don’t believe anyone can harvest your organs, I also believe that is not relevent to the issue of abortion. (and frankly doesn’t make any sense)
Well…you are in fact responsible, although it seems apparent that you are doing all you can to make the basic case that you should not be responsible for your own choices. That much I get.
And no, I don’t think the government can harvest my organs for any person, including my own child. And… I don’t think you’re making any sense.
Maybe next time you can not only use smaller words, but type slower, perhaps? :dubious:
The little words sure do help!
No of course, “any” person does not have the same rights to "use your body"as the person in your womb. (presumably to harvest your organs…?)
But, if little Johnny in your womb is indeed a human life, than he has the “right” to inhabit your womb for his care and survival in the same fashion as little Suzy upstairs, all comfy in her bed, does. Along the way, you have an obligation, a personal responsibility, to care for both those children in your care, whose existence was by your choices and your actions. You may not kill either one of them.
The good news is this: If either one of them is cramping your style, you may get rid of them. This is not as simple as leaving little Suzy by the side of the road, and you may not have little Johnny surgically killed via an abortion and discarded as Bio-Hasordous waste. While the process is not as easy as discarding them, it’s certainly doable, and to the benefit of all involved.
If you mean I’m making a case that a civilized society should respect all human life, and that people should accept personal responsibility for their choices, you got me. I’m guilty.
But if you are implying that there is no penalty, and no consequence for man because he can’t carry a baby 40 odd weeks, within the context that this human being will be around for many, many years, I’d have to say you’re misguided. Not all men are tomcats, and many men suffer over these decisions greatly. Many of them are extremely involved in their child’s lives, and many of them have custody and are the primary care giver of their children
The story line that only women have consequence, and only the woman will be burdened is simply not necessarily true.
In the end, I don’t think it matters. If it is a child, the fact that burdens are not distributed equally is not a compelling reason to end the life of another human being.
In fact, I was wondering. This is pretty much what I expected. Thanks for sharing.
I suppose your uterus could be hijacked or ‘co-opted’ via rape. But we’ve discussed this, yes?
** While society has decided there is such a point, it is only to the extent that it exists somewhere, in a rather ambiguous way. For example both man and women have been jailed for violating the rights of the unborn, including murder.
***The rights are not equal under the law, although it clearly hasn’t been uniformly and consistently applied. A good example might be the abortion of a fully deveolped fetus because of severe health risks to the mother, among others.
A landlord may evict a tenant for non-payment of rent, but he may not kill his tenant for non-payment of rent. The landlord has compelling reasons to end the tenancy of his renter, but an eviction is an equitable disposition, whereas murder is not.
Similarly, adoption is the intellectual parallel, and represents an equitable disposition, whereas murder via abortion is not. (assuming of course, that this is a human life)
To the extent a fetus may be considered an intruder in a mothers womb, it is through rape.* I do not find the circumstances allow for ‘lethal force’ in the case of rape, any more than I believe you may simply kill any intruder at will.
In fact, most states would not allow you to kill an intruder carte blanche or capriciously, but would impose the burden of imminent threat —that the homeowners life was directly threatened. in that case, lethal force may be the only viable option.
Similarly, a mothers life may be severely threatned vis impending child birth, and I think a compelling case can be made for lethal force, if death would be inevitable in the face of inaction.
*I’m acutely aware of the popularity of seeing any baby as an intruder, based on the whims of it’s parents. Clearly rape, however, is an event where force was used against the woman’s will. The myriad of other reasons however, share in common that they were by choice. The fetus in that context was brought about by the actions of it’s parents, and disavowing that seems to me to be the tired mantra, “we shouldn’t have to be held accountable for our choices.”
No, you moron. I believe that my **uterus ** is an organ. **My ** organ. For **me ** to use as I see fit. Does that make sense? Are those words small enough?
So the government should only imbue my own “child” with the “right” to use my organs to sustain it’s own life until it’s born, after which all bets are off. Now who’s not making sense?
I will post again later as time allows, and I would like to respond to Siege and others. Frankly, I think we’re tearing up the virtual landscape with a lot of discussion that is irrelevent. I’ll elucidate later.
Fine. Sorry I called you a moron, as that’s clearly inaccurate. You are, after all, smart enough to use the fact that I called you a moron to avoid answering the question. Again.
Once again, you utter fool, IT IS NOT ! Blathering that over and over doesn’t make it any more true. Coward that you are, I note that you haven’t even tried to counter me or anyone when we point that out.
It has no more right to be alive than a tumor or an appendix.
All of which are perfectly valid.
That’s kind of cause and effect.
IF. Since it’s not a child, it’s life has no inherent value.
That’s because you are evil.
Both are mindless tissue, so yes, they are the same from an ethical pooint of view. You “don’t believe” it’s relevent because it shows how stupid your viewpoint is.
Of course not; you’re a man. I’m sure you’d have no problem with it dismembering a woman. Especially if you can watch.
I’ll ignore the rest of your repetitive, malignant babble, save to point out that you keep saying “If it’s a child, if it’s a child” without even trying to back that up. Well, if I’m a superior being, you should agree with me. Since the “logic” of that statement is the same you’ve been using, you should now immediately change positions.