Abortion Debate Thread

[THL]

Oh, and all of you that want SOME restrictions on abortion: HOW can you legally justify it? The way the law works is, you either make it legal, or you outlaw it. Three strikes and you're out? WHY? Were those first three kids less deserving of their lives than subsequent children?

I dont at all think that those 1st three kids were less deserving. I am going off the assumption that the majority of women that would be having multiple abortions should not be mothers and should not be forced to have the children. My assumption is that they are low-income, welfare most likely, and to expect them to give a child up for adoption is unlikely as that would cut back on their welfare checks. My attempt here is to keep them from getting pregnant at all but if I were to say that they should be on mandatory birth control the human rights activists would be hunting me down (those darn Liberals! ;) )

[Ballguy]

Explain how prevention of murder is legislating morality.

For if innocent life is being taken, define it as anything other than murder. I dare you.

And if you're uncomfortable with the ACT, ask yourself WHY you do not support the act. And supporting the RIGHT is morally no different than supporting the ACT. You are intellectually and morally certain that the former will lead to the latter, which it does, 1.5 MILLION times every year in this country. NO DIFFERENCE.

So, what is it about the act that you don't like? This is not a rhetorical question. I'd like to know why this isn't just another medical procedure, with the same moral signifigance as having a wart removed. I await your answer: WHY are you of the same opinion as Hillary, that abortions should be 'safe, legal and rare'? Why should it be 'rare'? Is it an acknowledgement that there IS a moral dimension to abortion, and that the moral component has to do with innocent life being deliberately targeted and terminated?

You don't get to take that stand, I'm afraid. Either abortion is wrong and the state has an interest in preventing it, or it is no big deal, and there can be no meaningful restrictions on its practice.

You're pro-choice? Then CHOOSE: which is it?

Okay, almost exclusively, medical associations do not view it as murder. It is not just legislating morality, but making abortion legal is the same as practicing medicine without a license.

[Bluesman]

bluesman,

problem with your absolutist position

There is no problem with my absolutist position, and if you can get through the next few sentences that answer yours, you'll see why.

is simply that people are going to be irresponsible, whether abortion is on the table or not.

Well, of course they are going to be irresponsible. And there should be a cost to that. See, you don't really understand freedom. There really is only one human right: to do as you dam' well please. And to accompany that there is but one duty: to take the consequences. BUT YOU would have an innocent life pay for your fun, right? WRONG. Why can't you see that this is WRONG?

do you really think, that if abortion was banned today, that people would all of a sudden just...stop?

Certainly not, don't be stupid. Murder (the commonly-held legal definition, not presently including abortion) is illegal, but humans keep wrongly killing each other, don't they? Yes, they do. And it is still wrong. Do you propose to take capital murder off the statutes, bein' as how folk just won't stop doin' it? Sure would cut down on 'crime'.

that illegal abortions would not exist, child dumping would not exist, that a million other evils that would lead to a slower, more painful death for the baby or the mother would not exist?

I see your point: let's kill 'em quickly and out-of-sight, so your exquisite conscience doesn't trouble you.

No, wait a second...that's a hypocritical and evil stand to take, now that I've put one moment's thought to it. But you stake it out as your position as long as you don't get any personal nightmares about your lack of morality.

I've heard that particular argument until I can now see how the most civilized nation on earth at the time could fill up cattle cars with their own citizens, this 'better to die than live a yucky life' canard. You're a rather revolting specimen of humanity, ain't ya, Herr astralis?

and we're not even talking about rape, where the mother must bear the consequences of having been attacked.

No, we're not, as I said in my post. One doesn't make law on such cases, one makes EXCEPTIONS to the law in such cases.

in fact, it has been conclusively linked- not just correlation but causation- that since abortion was legalized, the US crime rate has fallen. what about the morality and ethics of that?

Okay, I think I'm following you, here, and it goes something like this: if we say murder in the form of abortion is LEGAL, then ALL crime goes down, because unloved and lower-class babies are more likely to be law-breakers sometime in the future. Or they could be George Washington Carver...but the hell with HIM, right?

Let's just go all the way, and start driving the crime rate down by killing probable law-breakers based on actuarial tables. Dude, you're WARPED. Instead, I propose that we start imprisoning people that break the law IN ACTUALITY, not at some indeterminate point in the future (where even that uncommitted crime gets a death sentence without trial).

And I challenge your assertion that crime rates fall in proportion to abortions performed, instead of as the ACTUAL result of effective policing and incarceration. THAT is the positive and proven correllation, NOT the incidence of abortions performed, and I had better see some stats if you come at me with that crap again, Professor. (DAYUM, the stupid things some people will put their name to... )

to think about it in another way, we allow cars to be driven (in most places) at 55-65 mph. this results in thousands of fatalities every year, as innocent drivers/passengers/pedestrians get killed. in your terms, then, how can the state sanction something that will inevitably lead to the killing of innocents?

They do; have you never gotten a speeding ticket? In other words, there are laws in place that keep people from being RECKLESS with other's lives, by keeping speeds reasonable. Note how I'm not arguing that every single child's in utero death is a murder, only the ones that are deliberately killed. Can you see the difference? Do you see why that analogy is a complete non sequitor?

by the way, not every high school sophomore biology student can tell you when life begins.

True; retards abound, particulalrly among the half-educated high schoolers. You seem to be one. There is simply no question about when life begins.

plenty of definitions for it.

But only one is correct. And that one is plain. As much as you'd like to believe that YOU or anybody else gets to decide, this is an iron FACT: at conception, nothing needs to be added for that combination to fit all definitions of HUMAN LIFE, and its processes will continue, if not interfered with, to result in a human being.

which definition would one use in this case?

See above.

that's a question that has been debated for years among bio-ethicists.

Let 'em debate, because that's what this whole thing is about: ETHICS. What value do we place on inconvenient human life? (In your case, the answer seems to be 'Not much'.) But the question of Biology 101 is definitively CLOSED.

Philosophy is hard, folks and subject to interpretation. Biology is LOTS more straight-forward. You want to argue the merits of your side? FINE, do it on the ground where we can split the difference. Science is MY ally.

[Bluesman]

First of all, lets not forget that abortions are legal.

Second of all, let's not forget that at one time slavery was legal, too. But it was never moral, and it came to be seen in more enlightened times as the indefensible shame that it always was.

The highest court in the land has said so.

Ditto slavery. Too easy...

The law has held up against tirades such as yours for decades.

The first slaves arrived in America in 1619. The last ones were freed in 1865. How many decades is THAT?

As such, abortion clinics , and the people who use them, are acting within the law.

Selling other human beings and whipping them for a whim was legal for the entire span of slavery, as well. But it was always WRONG.

That the fetus is living and is a human is not the dispute.

We agree on THAT.

The dispute is exactly what rights the unborn have (if they have any at all.)

Well, as the Consitution is silent about WHEN rights accrue...I win. If they're human, and you concede that they ARE, then they benefit from the same right to life as you or I do.

Rape, incest, when the mother's life is at risk, are valid reasons and they happen enough to be a consideration.

Not for purposes of abrogating Consitutional rights on a broad basis to persons not in any way connected with any of those circumstances, they aren't.

Additionally, we now can do testing to see if the fetus has some dibilitationg disease that would mean when born, the child will be in constant pain and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical care befor dying a few months later.

Okay, knock it off. These aren't the cases we're talking about, and you dam' well know it. Well over 99% of abortions performed are simply methods of birth control, done for the convenience of one or both parents. You want to get into the other 1%, let's talk about THAT. I'm talking about abortion-on-demand. THAT is the law of the land, NOT the difficult and wrenching cases that are properly considered to be the exception to the law.

Many parents do not have that kind of money and an abortion would save them the agony of seeing their own child suffer.

Let's kill every single child found in a homeless shelter, then. No difference. Mom and Dad didn't know they were going to fall on hard times, and not be able to raise the young'uns like Wally and the Beav, so sell the little corpses to science.

NO, and I cannot BELIEVE anybody would try to sell me the utterly contemptible argument that a bad life (POTENTIALLY a bad life; poverty-stricken doesn't mean 'worthless', you know) is worse than no life.

Religions also give people a choice. They can follow the teachings of their religion or not. If you tell a lie are you automatically struck down by a bolt of lightning? The key is the choice. When that person dies and meets his maker is when he has to reconcile all that he has done.

Not even sure where you're going with all of that. If you're attempting to buttress your point, I fail to see it.

When I say I'd rather we have less abortions it is not the act itself, but the actions, inactions and attitudes that lead up to the abortion that I would rather see changed so the parents would not have to use the abortion choice as often.

So, all the dead kids don't bother you, it's really just the carlessness, laziness and immorality of the baby-makers (you used the word 'parents' but of course, that word is completely the wrong word to use - for so many, many reasons - for people that abort their child(ren)) that you have a problem with.

But why WHY WHY is abortion troubling to you AT ALL? It's like saying, 'I wish so many men didn't wear earrings', or 'There shouldn't be all those silver cars on the road.' It's a matter of moral insignificance, right? Why not have THREE MILLION abortions per year in America? FIVE MILLION? What, EXACTLY, troubles you enough that you'd like to see their numbers reduced?

The bottom line is that abortion is a personal choice and it really is not our business if our neighbors, or someone across the country has one.

It's my business if they kill their children POST-natal. Why is it not my business if they kill 'em in utero? See, I happen to believe that they are endowed with all of the rights that you and I have to life, and their placement in reference to Mom's womb is really immaterial to the application of those rights.

We all have enough of our oun problems to work through with out sticking our noses in someone elses problems.

Then let's make ALL infanticide a matter of choice for the parents. Their own bidness; not my concern.

I'd rather that we have less wars, but I do not think that the world will change, and become peacefull because of what I believe in.

Adoption is laughable.

IS IT, now? Personally, I think it's an exalted and selfless act, but I sure see how somebody that's pro-abortion would sneer at it. If you'd countenance 1.5 million murders of children a year, I can sure see that the welfare of the luckier survivors would be a joke to you.

There are many healthy children in the U.S. who are waiting to be adopted but aren't.

I doubt that, but you get me a figure, and I'm willing to be corrected. But even if what you say is true, PLEASE try to sell me on how their pre-natal deaths would've been better for them than their sub-par lives vainly waiting to go home with Ward and June.

Until these kids are adopted, we don't need any more unwanted children.

NOW we're down to it. UNWANTED. And from this, YOU or a court or some other man-made and fallible structure will dispense or withold their humanity, decide who's worthy of their right to life. NO. THAT IS WRONG.

Human life is inherently valuable, actually it is THE most inherently valuable thing, and you don't get to 'grant' it, like it was a party favor reserved for your pals.

We already have millions of abandoned, neglected and abused children, which is a huge strain on the goverment's and local community's resources, and another 1.5 million unwanted children a year more won't make things any better.

And I think they WILL make things better. Remember when human beings were actually thought of as, well, as fellow human beings? Instead of being competitors for government largesse and spoils, they actually had value and reflected in their protection and inclusion the values of a society that had as its prime concern things more cosmic and deep than how much of your stuff you'd have to give 'em? Keep in mind WHO you advocate killing: the least able to defend themselves, the ones who need protection the most.

And I reject the argument that 1.5 million children a year are all future orphans or abuse/neglect cases. Ask for my phone number, call me sometime, and I'll let you speak to three reasons why I feel this way.

So in conclusion, the law says people have a right to choose and religions give the right to choose. Bluesman, you have no legal or moral right to stand on when you rail against choice.

In conclusion, I'd say you'd be right if I was as blase about the rights and lives of my fellow Americans as you seem to be. Because it's not ME who's against choice, chief: it's YOU that tries to prevent the most defenseless and voiceless from ever exercising ANY choice, instead of the people responsible for exercising THEIR choice, and failing to live with the consequences of those choices.

[Bluesman]

I dont at all think that those 1st three kids were less deserving. I am going off the assumption that the majority of women that would be having multiple abortions should not be mothers and should not be forced to have the children. My assumption is that they are low-income, welfare most likely, and to expect them to give a child up for adoption is unlikely as that would cut back on their welfare checks. My attempt here is to keep them from getting pregnant at all but if I were to say that they should be on mandatory birth control the human rights activists would be hunting me down (those darn Liberals! ;) )

Well. That post is quite the philosophical and legal dog's breakfast. No offense, but that is a completely indefensible stand you've taken, there, and represents some of what is so wrong with the 'kinda-sorta-for-abortion-but-not-always' crowd. It is confused and incoherent, and needs to thought through, because it is simply unsustainable intellectually.

[Confed999]

I really like you Bluesman. :)

[Bluesman]

Thanks, dude, back atcha.

I'm really rollin', here...

[astralis]

haha bluesman,

aren't we a mite sensitive on this issue. :)

in any case,

the main point of contention is that you believe that all the sanctity/rights that a living, breathing, fully-formed innocent human being should be given just when sperm meets egg.

i do not believe so. and neither does the vast majority of scientists/bio-ethicists. nor your average american, right or left (including current and the presumed future members of the US supreme court). you will find your position still rarer if the sample size enlargens to other people of the world.

the basis of your position lies, then, not in science but in your personal philosophy of when this sanctity should be granted.

in other words, by condemning me as being immoral and equivalent to a fascist goon, you are doing the same if not worse to most of your fellow countrrymen (whom you've defended valiantly all these years).

so...do try to attack the argument without descending into a personal level.

also,

And I challenge your assertion that crime rates fall in proportion to abortions performed, instead of as the ACTUAL result of effective policing and incarceration. THAT is the positive and proven correllation, NOT the incidence of abortions performed, and I had better see some stats if you come at me with that crap again, Professor.

i will. in fact, there is a book written for the layman about statistics that deals with this, and it has been quite popular.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/006...lance&n=283155

it is certainly a compelling book, and not just for its take on the abortion issue as well. they use various references and sources for their calculations in the matter that may be of interest to you.

[astralis]

an interesting site that lays out the argument for both sides.

http://www.efn.org/~bsharvy/abortion.html

[sparten]

I agree with Bluesman. Human Life begins at conception. Hence, abortion should be illegal (never mind that; it should be murder).

Let me ask you one question; most common law countries (of which the US is one) hold that if say "a man deliberatly stabs a pregnant women's womb with intent to kill the child, and the Child is determined to have died of said stroke", the man would have committed murder. This has been the position going back to old Billy Blackstone.

Most (I daresay all) people would agree that it is murder. So Tell me, if abortion is oka, than why not that act? Why permit the doctor, and not the idiot with the knief? Pretty flawed logic.

[THL]

Well. That post is quite the philosophical and legal dog's breakfast. No offense, but that is a completely indefensible stand you've taken, there, and represents some of what is so wrong with the 'kinda-sorta-for-abortion-but-not-always' crowd. It is confused and incoherent, and needs to thought through, because it is simply unsustainable intellectually.

No offense taken.

I think it would be great to be able to keep everyone from ever needing to have an abortion. As you mentioned, there are plenty of people in the US alone that cannot have kids and would LOVE to adopt these babies. If it were possible, I would sign that petition by lunch...but it is not possible I don't think.

Given the choice between telling a woman to have an abortion or make her have that child which will end up in a dumpster somewhere or hungry and crying while the mother and father (if he is in the picture or even known) are off at the local bar - I would fight for that woman to have an abortion. Even with IL's law where a parent can bring a baby to a police station, fire station or hospital and leave it there - NO QUESTIONS ASKED, this is still something that happens often...too often. Anyone can get pregnant and have a baby without the state stepping in and "taking away that right".

This is a lesser of two evils situation. Which is better? Aborting the baby when it is a zygote or letting it go full term, risk it being born addicted to who knows what, let it go through withdraw symptons after being born and then left to die, or at best have a horrible upbringing being neglected, anyway?

[THL]

Let me ask you one question; most common law countries (of which the US is one) hold that if say "a man deliberatly stabs a pregnant women's womb with intent to kill the child, and the Child is determined to have died of said stroke", the man would have committed murder. This has been the position going back to old Billy Blackstone.

Fetal Homicide is governed by the state. I know IL has a fetal homicide law and, at least when I was in college, it was any fetus more than 7 weeks old would be eligible for a homicide charge.

Most (I daresay all) people would agree that it is murder. So Tell me, if abortion is oka, than why not that act? Why permit the doctor, and not the idiot with the knief? Pretty flawed logic.

General question, not just directed at you, sparten:
At the risk of starting a whole new twist to this thread, and that is not at all my intention so try and stay with me here, folks, I ask this:

There was a thread where I had said that I thought the government should be able to "govern" or monitor who has and who does not have a gun. I was outnumbered on this to say the least. Why then, would it be okay for the government to "govern" what a woman can and cannot do with something that is affecting her own body and would not be able to survive outside her own body (assuming early term abortions)?

I know that someone will answer because is murder and murder is illegal - but why would the government be able to say what is and is not legal. Down to it, why should the government only be able to govern certain things and not everything?

(again, I am not trying to turn this into a gun legality debate - we have already been there and done that. I am only using this as an example)

[Monk]

I see that Bluesman has made this thread his own and he seems quite angry.

Anyway to the question at hand, Bluesman's assertion that abortion for convenience/demand is wrong seems to be largely correct since he has made exceptions for Rape/Incest/Mother's ill health etc however I would also like to add underage immature mothers and economically weak parents who already are taking care of several children to this list. If these exceptions are in place then yes the remaining cases shouldn't be allowed.

But Bluesman I have a specific caveat to my concurrence with you, the point that the the foetus on attaining life signs has legal rights is an absolutely untenable stand. You cannot acquire constitutional rights unless you are a distinct individual i.e. the mother has given birth to the child. Then and only then can the child attain constitutional rights. An anti-abortion law with suitable exceptions is a fairly good idea but I will certainly not support punishment and most certainly not a murder rap.

One final question for Bluesman, If the anti-abortion law comes into force, the mother is being forced to do her moral duty of having the child she conceived but what about the father and what if he intends to abandon the mother and child. How are you going to regulate him or is it only a mother's job to have a child, care for it etc?

[THL]

I see that Bluesman has made this thread his own and he seems quite angry.

I think that this is just something he feels strongly about - can't hold that against a guy, lord knows I have mine.

One final question for Bluesman, If the anti-abortion law comes into force, the mother is being forced to do her moral duty of having the child she conceived but what about the father and what if he intends to abandon the mother and child. How are you going to regulate him or is it only a mother's job to have a child, care for it etc?

fighting for the opposition, and I hope no womens right groups are lurking around reading this, but this is what I think:

Yes the father should be held responsible, he was there, too after all.

But prevention, ultimately, I think comes down to the woman. We all know it is the woman that can get pregnant, we all know how it happens, and we all know how to prevent it from happening. If a woman REALLY does not want to get pregnant and does not trust the conventional means, there is a minor surgery that most insurance plans will pay for. Snip, Nip, All Done.

[sparten]

7 Weeks in IL? Thanks for the info THL!
Over here its whenever the person is aware that a women is pregnent.