**DanielWithrow
**
Excelent reasoning, but seems the canard belongs to you. The ESA was enacted in 1973. The Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940 was enacted in…well 1940. And as the national bird you are saying that it has no rights different then the average carrion bird like the crow?
SisterCoyote wrote:
Not without dinner and flowers.
It’s a deal. No more efforts to confiscate guns in exchange for no more efforts to ban abortion.
D’oh! I hate it when I get my facts wrong. So in this particular case, it’s the BEPA that applies?
My bad. That doesn’t, however, change the basic point. Do you claim that the philosophical underpinnings behind the BEPA involve the intrinsic rights of the bald eagle?
That’s a pretty big claim, and one that would have pretty substantial repercussions for US law. I’d have to ask you for a cite on that.
It seems far likelier to me that the bald eagle is protected based on the intrinsic symbolism of the corpse-eating raptor. If that’s the case, then protecting their eggs wouldn’t be an effort to protect individual chicks so much as it’d be an effort to protect the symbol supply.
Anyway, I’ll give the canard to my SO. She likes ducks.
Daniel
tracer - let’s talk.
Tris - no hard feelings, then?
No, sis, not at all.
I should have learned by now that casting swine before pearls gets you nothing but trouble.
Tris
That would be my point. Unless you are stating that a symbol is more important than a citizen I would figure that there would be a larger effort to protect the unborn by the federal government since the citizen they supply is who they represent.
Not to say that is my argument against abortion but that is my point because the government looks at the potential of the issue and makes laws accordingly.
Grr i hate getting a phone call in the middle of a reply.
Anyways, yes I am saying that by the very nature that the bird and egg are supplying the symbol and are born or have the potential to become such then therefore they are protected by the law. Just as my argument that for the very nature that citizens and fetus are born or have the potential then they also should be protected by the law.
That doesn’t address what I’m saying. I’m saying that comparing the protection of eagle eggs to the protection of fetuses is comparing apples to oranges, because the motivation behind the protection of each is different. If eagle eggs are to be protected, it’s to protect the supply of symbols. If fetuses are to be protected, it’s to protect the fetuses’ intrinsic rights.
So if you’re gonna argue for protecting eagle eggs, you gotta argue that protecting a symbol is a worthy enterprise. If you’re gonna argue for protecting fetuses, you gotta argue that fetuses have intrinsic rights.
Do you agree with that?
My point is that one can agree that protecting a symbol-supply is important while disagreeing that fetuses have intrinsic rights. There’s no strong link between the two, where agreement with one requires agreement with the other.
Daniel
So you are saying that a symbol is more important than a citizen. And ummm yeah, I am stating that fetuses have intrinsic rights because of their potential. Just as Bald Eagle eggs have intrinsic rights because of their potential. The argument is not for the fetus or the egg. But for the citizen and the bald eagle. You are making it apples and oranges because you deem to see a fetus as staying so and an egg to potentially becoming a bird.
There is no Bald Eagle Egg protection Act. And there should not be. Just as there should not be intrinsic right given solely to a fetus. But just as BEPA transcends to the egg, citizen rights should also transcend to the fetus. There are two sides to every story but you are adding things to your side.
Saen, saying a symbol is more important than a citizen is fine. But again, you’re trying to equate two things that aren’t similar.
Citizens are more important than candy bars, too. But that doesn’t mean that if I’m opposed to shoplifting candy bars, then I’ve got to be opposed to abortion.
And bald eagle eggs do not have intrinsic rights. Bald eagles do not have intrinsic rights (at least, not under the law’s rationale). I think you’re missing the distinction between an entity protected for symbolic reasons and an entity protected for its own sake.
Unless you got something new to add to this, I’m outta here; I can already see the talking-in-circles that seems to happen in abortion debates beginning.
That’s the crux of it. if there is a distinction my view is that the citizen should have more rights than the symbol. The symbol can become extint if it would save one life for all I care.
And as far as the title of the OP goes, seems your view is the Bald Eagle wins, while mine is the opposite.
Abortion will never be a “settled” matter. Depending on the political tide the abortion laws will change. Before RvW abortion laws were too restrictive. Now they are too lax. And until we get it right people will be polarized to the extent of never agreeing.
People like me see the ruling as letting women use abortion as birth control. They are caeless enough to not use protection, and selfish enough to not abstain and take care of their little problem without so much of a thaught. I was a fetus once, and am glad my mother didnt take care of her little problem that seems acceptable now.
Then there are those pro choice people who only see the rape victims and lethal births and the horror associated with a forced birth.
We used to have a common ground. Before the 14th amendment was even dictated there were laws against and for abortion in every state. Some more restrictive than others, but to say that the drafters had abortion as a right to privacy in mind is means for the end.
Most people think that abortion for rape victims or health reasons is valid. Many people think that abortion on demand because your lazy and irresponsible is murder.
According to the only report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) that I could find, nearly half of the women who had an abortion in 1997 had had at least one previous abortion. Nearly one in five of those women had undergone at least two abortions. Volountary information from abortion clinics so if it IS skewed you guess at what side it is skewed on.
If abortion was so easy a thing then many women would have no problem and feel plain relief from the burden. Yet it is an issue most women deal with for the rest of their lives and many it is the most traumatic expreince for them.
As one social worker writes: “In my work… I have met literally hundreds of women who have made the decision. I have met few who did not stop and think every year that their child would be X years old now.”
Abortion Laws will change. And the only way to ever heal the divide in this country is to make abortion rare.
Okay.
Then allow birth control to be discussed in schools universally.
Find some form of same that is 100% reliable - that is not abstinence - and promote it. (Leave abstinence out of the arguement for the moment, please; we all know that it is a sure form of birth control. Not everyone is willing to remain abstinent, however.)
Make sure there’s comprehensive sex ed in classes, including the difficulties of caring for a child and what it’s going to do to a person’s life. Particularly a young person.
Find some way to make pregnancy less dangerous for the woman carrying the child to term than having an abortion.
Yes, most of us would like to live in a world where every child is loved and wanted. (Both components are equally critical, IMNSHO.)
We don’t.
And, btw, women who have given children up for adoption stop and think - some of them every year - about the fact that their child would be X years old right now. And for my own anecdotal evidence, I know two women who had to have abortions - one for medical reasons, one because she simply did not have the ability or finances to care for the child and would not have been able to give it up - both of whom are very close to me.
Neither of them have ever exhibited any signs of a constant, traumatic regret.
I seem to recall that Stoid had something similar to say.
I also believe that these are different issues.
My view on abortion is one of consent. The fetus has not consented to residing in the woman’s body. The woman, having full ownership of her body, can ask that fetus/baby, to leave. It has nothing to do with if it’s a life or not. After all, if you found a homeless person in your house one day, you are not obligated to provide shelter to that person, even if he would die if he was placed on the street.
It might sound cold and crude, but if we accept that a woman owns her body, the consent argument makes perfect sense to me.
(BTW, the term “consent” refers to the a decision that the mother/house owner makes…not the “decision” of fetus/homeless person)
Under your scenario, is the “consent” revokable? THe woman initially wishes to carry the pregnancy to term, but discovers genetic information, say at 5-6 (or 8-9…or pick any timelie, since the “life” ststus doesn’t seem to matter in your scenario) months that changes her mind, and so chooses to abort.
If so, can I kick my 9 month old daughter out of our house (much like your homeless person…she would be on her own)? I never formally gave her consent to live there, and even if I gave implied consent, why can’t I change my mind (since this is not about “whether it’s a life or not”)…and she’s keeping us up late most nights. It may sound cold and callous, but it’s not about “life” status, it’s about consent…right?
Saen:
Either a fetus has the same high value as a person or it has the value of a lesser living thing like, say, a chicken. Only extreme circumstances such as self-defense or a murder conviction are grounds for killing a person. You can kill a chicken on the grounds that it’s lunch time.
A woman who has gotten pregnant accidentally can be faulted for behaving irresponsibly, but the burdens of pregnancy/unwed motherhood are pretty severe next to the insignificance of the fetus. And who has the authority to impose motherhood as punishment as opposed to ‘letting’ them bring thing back to normal? Beside, abortion isn’t free. If you’re careless enough to have unprotected sex, it could cost you hundreds of dollars!
And how does rape change the value of a fetus? How is abortion murder or not depending on the circumstances of the conception? People who advocate exceptions in this case are just weaseling.
You recall exactly right. For the benefit of those who missed me saying this previously:
I had an abortion at 18, for completely selfish reasons: I didn’t want to have the child. Period. Not interested.
I have never, for one instant, ever, ever regretted it. Nor did I ever even consider not doing it. There was no question, there was no choice. The only way I’d carry a pregnancy to term was if I was in a coma and forced to do so against my will.
I have no regrets about it whatsoever. I know as well as I know my own name that it was the only choice for me and I feel 100% comfortable with it, and I always have.
However, I did find the procedure painful and deeply upsetting. I really hate having my guts messed with, much less scraped out while I’m awake. No fun there at all. Which was a nasty lesson I obviously needed to learn, and I learned it. As a result, I never got pregnant again, because from 18 until 37, when I had my tubes tied, I never once had unprotected sex knowingly (couple condoms broke).
AN interesting side note to this…I am childless by choice. I was never interested in children at all (except for pregnancy and childbirth, which is fascinating to me) But I happen to think that abortions beyond 5 months are pretty disgusting and I have very little sympathy for anyone who does this, barring medical necessity. Once the fetus is viable at all, I think you have the obligation to finish what you have started. Letting it get that far is a de facto decision.
My best friend, on the other hand, is a devoted and excellent stay-at-home mother of two terrific kids. And she believes that all women should have the right to abort any time before natural childbirth begins.
Funny, eh?
Sqweels.
Thats an old argument that that has been beat to death. It amazes me that you can see the destinction between killing someone in self defense or plain murder but you cannot see the destinction between someone carelessly having unproteced sex and another being forced against her will.
Today there is no excuse to “accidentally” become pregnant. With so much birth control out there, and much of it free. Even if a woman get’s pregnant no one forced her to have sex to begin with, and if they did then it was rape. You could say im pro-choice when it comes to sex.
Stoid
You seem like a level headed person. Honestly, If abortion was almost impossible and you lived with the idea that if you got pregnant it was your responsibility by law to have that baby would you have gotten pregnant to begin with? Or did the fact that it was ok for you to abort not play at all with the fact that you got pregnant.
In all the millions of words, in thousands of debates on the subject of abortion I find myself still unsatisfied by one aspect of the criminalization of abortion view.
Everyone has lots to say about the reasons which do, or do not justify deciding this matter. Pounds of ink, tons of paper describe the decision making criteria. But no one has ever offered me any real evidence that shows me that groups of lawyers and judges are more likely to give consideration to all aspects of this choice over the life of a woman, and a possible offspring. There is agreement on only one thing, after the abortion, or the birth, the Lawyers and Judges don’t want to be bothered anymore.
Nope, I am not convinced that laws against abortion are not likely to improve the quality of anyone’s life. I am fairly well convinced that the legal system, as people have no particular interest in the individual consequences of this decision that some feel they should make.
I would not encourage any woman who asked me to have an abortion, although I recognize that there are lots of potential outcomes that could make that choice necessary. But if I am to be a part of this decision, then advising her to give birth, much less insisting that she do so, makes me responsible for the life I have helped bring into this world. If the State wishes to decide, they must share the responsibility for the decision. I have never seen legislation that included that responsibility.
There is no point in being right, if we fail to do right.
Saen:
There is no distinction when it comes to the fetus. How does rape vs careless sex affect whether a fetus is a person? The fetus is ‘innocent’ in either case (but so are the animals we kill).
Unprotected sex has its consequences; abortion is neither simple, nor pleasant, nor cheap. But its not up to the government to impose additional consequences if they can be avoided. There are all sorts of bahaviors that are ‘careless’ or ‘selfish’ which are not crimes and whose natural conseqences are much milder than what a woman goes through when she gets an abortion.