Political Crossfire Forums

[Gitana]

Whether it's 'out of her will or inspite of it" has no relevance. The fictitious woman isn't the one arguing for someone else's control over her body.

Adoption rates have held steady for over a decade, and while that looks not-too-bad, the largest portion of those adoptions are amongst relatives. So, despite the pro-life movement, fewer stranger adoptions than ever are taking place. That points to a serious potential hypocrisy among those clamoring for ever more babies to be born.

While Roe vs Wade may be challenged on it's privacy grounds, human slavery is not likely to be an issue many politicians will take on, even for the Religious Right donors. The 13th amendment clearly states that no person can 'own' another. It can then be logically assumed that only I can own my body, and have exclusive possession of it. Prolifers would have to attack that premise in order to force an unwanted pregnancy on a woman; in addition to attacking whether a woman has the right to privacy between her & her doctor (Roe).

So, while the more extreme prolife/anti-choicers are attacking this issue from the backdoor, ie, trying to get 'rights' assigned legally to a zygote (to dodge the woman's own rights over her body issue), or fighting one's decision to decide one's death (all related), they will sooner or later force the issue of a woman's legal sovereignity over her own body. They aren't likely to find a large American audience for the view of removing her right of ownership of her own body, and in a legal battle, it will never happen. At least, not until we are firmly established as a theocracy/fascist country. (Which might happen.)

There are countries where these attitudes against women's soveriegnity are welcomed & encouraged; oddly enough, most prolifers don't like those countries.

Bottom line: abortion has existed since time immemorial, and always will, whether it's legal or not; there are plenty of methods, both natural and medical, available. (Incidently, if your position stems from a Christian viewpoint, the Bible didn't consider a fetus a human child until birth.) Outlawing abortion will also not prevent sexual activity - (a hidden agenda side issue for many prolifers). It comes down to this: if you are against abortion, don't have one. Support a woman who chose not to abort; help her with medical bills, and adopt the child. Put your money where your opinion is.

Btw - how many of your kids are adopted? There's four in my family; all stranger adoptions, and we are all - gasp- proCHOICE. As is the Bush family - except when gw is raising money. lol. :wink:

[Captain Lovebird]

Gitana wrote: Whether it's 'out of her will or inspite of it" has no relevance. The fictitious woman isn't the one arguing for someone else's control over her body.

No- you are arguing that a woman should have complete control over the life of another body- the baby's. It's is sad that you are blind to this hypocrisy. Who's looking for control of the woman's body?? Do whatever you want to your body. Just don't hurt the the baby. Got it?

Gitana wrote: Adoption rates have held steady for over a decade, and while that looks not-too-bad, the largest portion of those adoptions are amongst relatives. So, despite the pro-life movement, fewer stranger adoptions than ever are taking place. That points to a serious potential hypocrisy among those clamoring for ever more babies to be born.


This is irrelevant to the moral issue.

Gitana wrote: While Roe vs Wade may be challenged on it's privacy grounds, human slavery is not likely to be an issue many politicians will take on, even for the Religious Right donors. The 13th amendment clearly states that no person can 'own' another. It can then be logically assumed that only I can own my body, and have exclusive possession of it. Prolifers would have to attack that premise in order to force an unwanted pregnancy on a woman; in addition to attacking whether a woman has the right to privacy between her & her doctor (Roe).


Wrong again. What's at issue is recognizing the baby as a distinct entity. When does the baby get to "own its own body" the way the woman does?

Gitana wrote: So, while the more extreme prolife/anti-choicers are attacking this issue from the backdoor, ie, trying to get 'rights' assigned legally to a zygote


This is an extremely dishonest characterization of abortion. Abortions are not performed on zygotes. This is a naked attempt at dehumanizing the baby.

Gitana wrote: (to dodge the woman's own rights over her body issue), or fighting one's decision to decide one's death (all related), they will sooner or later force the issue of a woman's legal sovereignity over her own body. They aren't likely to find a large American audience for the view of removing her right of ownership of her own body, and in a legal battle, it will never happen. At least, not until we are firmly established as a theocracy/fascist country. (Which might happen.)


The baby and mother are two seperate entities. For the last third of gestation, the baby could survive outside the womb if the mother were to die.

You continue to ignore that the baby is alive. It is not the woman's property.

Gitana wrote: There are countries where these attitudes against women's soveriegnity are welcomed & encouraged; oddly enough, most prolifers don't like those countries.


Ooh, nice move! Those who wish to recognize the life of the baby are all fundamentalist extremists now! We should all move to afganistan.

Gitana wrote: Bottom line: abortion has existed since time immemorial, and always will, whether it's legal or not;


What a ridiculous argument. So has rape. We might as well legalize that shouldn't we? For the exact same reasons?

Gitana wrote: there are plenty of methods, both natural and medical, available. (Incidently, if your position stems from a Christian viewpoint, the Bible didn't consider a fetus a human child until birth.) Outlawing abortion will also not prevent sexual activity - (a hidden agenda side issue for many prolifers). It comes down to this: if you are against abortion, don't have one.

No it comes down to this- if you are not ready to get pregnant, be more responsible with your sexual activity. But no!!! We don't want to infringe on a woman's ability to have casual irresponsible sex, 'cuz we're too modern and civilized for that!

You don't want women to take responsibility for their own actions, or for the life they've created.

[Gitana]

Ah, Capitan...I fear this is really a control issue for you. The rest of your post is aggressive and emotional, so I will assume that you just wanted to blow off steam at mine.

No matter how many laws you get passed, you will never be able to control women - not their private sexual lives, nor their bodies. Yes, it's a modern world, but women have been enjoying sex since the beginning of time. We have a right to a sexual life, just as a man does. When we find a birth control product that is 100%, than this subject will no longer be an issue. However, I suspect the thought of women enjoying casual sex will still incense you.

Isn't it funny that so much medical research goes into giving men an erection - and so little goes into new birth control methods - for either sex? :lol:

[LostSoul3412]

Gitana wrote: Isn't it funny that so much medical research goes into giving men an erection - and so little goes into new birth control methods - for either sex? :lol:

Priorities, I suppose. :lol:

[Gilbert1908]

Gitana wrote: Ah, Capitan...I fear this is really a control issue for you. The rest of your post is aggressive and emotional, so I will assume that you just wanted to blow off steam at mine.

No matter how many laws you get passed, you will never be able to control women - not their private sexual lives, nor their bodies. Yes, it's a modern world, but women have been enjoying sex since the beginning of time. We have a right to a sexual life, just as a man does. When we find a birth control product that is 100%, than this subject will no longer be an issue. However, I suspect the thought of women enjoying casual sex will still incense you.

Isn't it funny that so much medical research goes into giving men an erection - and so little goes into new birth control methods - for either sex? :lol:

If a woman wants to enjoy casual sex and she knows birthcontrol is not 100% then she also is aware that pregnancy may very well be a result.

The issue then is NOT sex, the issue is, is a pregnant woman carrying a meaningless set of cells or an individual human life which SHE was partner in creating?

If you erroneously believe that an embryo/fetus is not a living human individual then abortion has NO moral implication, if you either believe that a woman is carrying an individual human life or you are not sure the moral question becomes critical.

One MUST answer this question first before stating an opinion on abortion.

Is an abortion the termination of an individual human life?

[Selfish_Meme]

Gilbert1908 wrote: In fact the word person can mean many different things.

It is a legal term within the context of the USA constitution and originally excluded women and slaves, so in that case it means what ever the legislature defines it as.

It can mean MY person or body or what I have in my posession.

It can mean a human individual too, which is interesting because human individual is precisely the term embryologists use to describe the human embryo at conception.

The larger point however is that PERSON is NOT a term applied as a scientific term. Personhood is a PHILOSOPHICAL term applied by those who want to ascribe an arbitrary state of achievement within the natural continuum of human development in order to justify abortion.

It is not just coincidence that virtually all points of achievment of personhood are reached when a developing human can exist outside the womb, despite the fact that a healthy fetus is perfectly "viable" in its natural state from conception until birth.

Making the life or death measurment of human development the point at which they can live outside the womb (NOT on its own by the way) is a bit like disqualifying the leader of a race at the half way point because he has failed to FINISH.
This is sort of my point about the word 'person', it has lots of different meanings, only one of which is explicitly 'Human Being' thank you.

I agree with you, 'person' is a very bad word to use scientifically and I regret even mentioning it, passionately.

In my own warped mind I think that logically, a newborn to young adult are not fully mature beings, and so of not equal value. I only speak in a general sense. My own child would be a different matter. I think that the laws restricitng the rights of children reflect that.

I my mind that sliding scale doesn't start or stop at birth, that is just one event upon it. It is significant in that the newborn can then be declared a seperate legal entity from the mother and its fate is not so intricately bound with hers.

On this sliding scale any point upon it is arbitrary, but that does not mean unimportant. Birth and now even before birth define the ability of a seperate existance for the young human. Killing the mother is no longer necessarily killing the fetus as well.

The leader of a race is no

[Gilbert1908]

Selfish_Meme wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: In fact the word person can mean many different things.

It is a legal term within the context of the USA constitution and originally excluded women and slaves, so in that case it means what ever the legislature defines it as.

It can mean MY person or body or what I have in my posession.

It can mean a human individual too, which is interesting because human individual is precisely the term embryologists use to describe the human embryo at conception.

The larger point however is that PERSON is NOT a term applied as a scientific term. Personhood is a PHILOSOPHICAL term applied by those who want to ascribe an arbitrary state of achievement within the natural continuum of human development in order to justify abortion.

It is not just coincidence that virtually all points of achievment of personhood are reached when a developing human can exist outside the womb, despite the fact that a healthy fetus is perfectly "viable" in its natural state from conception until birth.

Making the life or death measurment of human development the point at which they can live outside the womb (NOT on its own by the way) is a bit like disqualifying the leader of a race at the half way point because he has failed to FINISH.
This is sort of my point about the word 'person', it has lots of different meanings, only one of which is explicitly 'Human Being' thank you.

I agree with you, 'person' is a very bad word to use scientifically and I regret even mentioning it, passionately.

In my own warped mind I think that logically, a newborn to young adult are not fully mature beings, and so of not equal value. I only speak in a general sense. My own child would be a different matter. I think that the laws restricitng the rights of children reflect that.

I my mind that sliding scale doesn't start or stop at birth, that is just one event upon it. It is significant in that the newborn can then be declared a seperate legal entity from the mother and its fate is not so intricately bound with hers.

On this sliding scale any point upon it is arbitrary, but that does not mean unimportant. Birth and now even before birth define the ability of a seperate existance for the young human. Killing the mother is no longer necessarily killing the fetus as well.

The leader of a race is no

The laws DO NOT reflect the value of human being but the ability of the immature human being to be responsible for his/her own decisions. You are the one who determines that life has a different value at different stages.

The only point at which the "sliding scale" is NOT arbitrary is its beginning. Anything after the life starts is arbitrary I agree and any value placed then must be arbitrary.

The only consistent non arbitrary argument is that life once it starts is of equal value, since every human life MUST pass through ALL phases of development, once one determines a human life is not worthy until it reaches stage A what then is keeping others from determining a human life that has not reached stage B, H, N or R is not worthy. Either human life is to be protected or it is open to be interpreted by any individual values.

[AllAmericanMan]

Quote: No matter how many laws you get passed, you will never be able to control women - not their private sexual lives, nor their bodies.

One last time, this isn't about controlling women. It's about preventing them from committing the most heinous action I can think of. More grotesque than rape, it is robbing an individual human being of their entire life. I can think of no worse crime than murdering an immature innocent human being who has not yet had the chance we all have had at living life. For those who are so selfish to obtain an abortion for no important reason, I hope there is some special evil place you will be sent to where you can think about your crime for the rest of eternity. I don't believe in hell, or God for that matter, but people who are so selfish make me wish for its existence. If I had my way, mothers who abort their child simply because they do not want a child would be sentenced to death. Not because I want to control them, but because I want to protect innocent human beings from such vicious monsters. Does this bring the debate into perspective for you? Or do I need to explain myself more vividly? THIS ISNT ABOUT WOMEN, ITS ABOUT THE VICTIMS OF ABORTION!!!!!!!!!!

[Captain Lovebird]

Gitana wrote: Ah, Capitan...I fear this is really a control issue for you. The rest of your post is aggressive and emotional, so I will assume that you just wanted to blow off steam at mine.

No matter how many laws you get passed, you will never be able to control women - not their private sexual lives, nor their bodies. Yes, it's a modern world, but women have been enjoying sex since the beginning of time. We have a right to a sexual life, just as a man does. When we find a birth control product that is 100%, than this subject will no longer be an issue. However, I suspect the thought of women enjoying casual sex will still incense you.

Isn't it funny that so much medical research goes into giving men an erection - and so little goes into new birth control methods - for either sex? :lol:

Please refrain from projecting arguments to me while you ignore the ones I actually make. This is dishonest and distracting.

What has incensed me is absurd and tangential arguments offered to rationalize killing an unborn child.

This is not about sex, no matter how much you want to keep dragging it back to sex. Women can have all the sex they want as far as I'm concerned. I support this and all freedoms for women.

Also, go ahead and advocate for women's rights to have abortions.

Don't expect me to buy into the rationalizations you have constructed to make abortion psychologically easier for women to carry out.

It's much easier I'm sure to abort a pregnancy if a woman has convinced herself that the baby is not really alive, feels no pain, has no rights, and all the rest of it. But there is little or no scientific, philisophical, or moral basis to support this.

I have never said that women should not be able to have abortions if they choose. I don't believe in state sponsored authoritarianism. Just don't tell me it's simply the innocuous and innocent destruction of property. Don't hand me a pile of sh*t and tell me it smells like roses.

Instead of trying to characterize me as some kind of primitive control freak, why don't you try engaging in honest debate?

The pro-choice people are the ones who are making a u-turn in social progress. The progression of human rights has always been moving in the direction of protecting life, not destroying it. Of extending protection, and broadening defintions to afford such protection, not restricting it.

In fact, for the sake of argument, and to focus on the real issue of life and death, let's remove women's body rights from the equation for a moment.

Let's say our lovely technology has created an EGM, an exogenesis machine. You put a fertilized egg into it, plug it in, and nine months later a bell dings and the new born baby is ready to emerge. Ok?

The EGM has a single button on it, which reads "abort".

Would it wrong for someone to push the button?
Does the mother still get to push the button on a whim?
At any time during gestation? Why or why not?

I look forward to reading your views.

[Gitana]

Quote: This is an extremely dishonest characterization of abortion. Abortions are not performed on zygotes. This is a naked attempt at dehumanizing the baby. -captain

Yet you do what you accuse me of: characterizing a fertilized ovum as a baby is extremely dishonest, and an attempt to create an image of a 'baby' where a clump of cells exists. Abortions are performed as early as the pregnancy can be detected - are you stating that you feel a 3-week-old pregnancy is a 'baby?'

Quote: Don't expect me to buy into the rationalizations you have constructed - captain

I don't expect you to buy into anything; please expect the same of me; we were just expressing our opinions. But I will answer your 'button' question: If the fertilized ovum is independent of the woman's body (assuming it was given up voluntarily) , than there would be never be a need to push the button. This entire issue, for me, rests upon other people determining what I can or cannot do with my own body and a pregnancy within my body. I personally only believe in abortion in the first trimester, but that is, like most of our opinions, a somewhat arbitrary choice - and one that I am entirely comfortable with based on the science that we have available. However, I would not support lobbying for that limitation at this time in our country, because I know it would only serve to fuel the push to completely eliminate the right to choose. So, as in many issues, we find ourselves having to defend a broad right because not doing so might risk losing that right completely. So, while I understand how passionately some people feel about the concept of a potential human being (and I do understand it), I will never concede my personal right to choose, nor will I support legally banning that right.

Quote: Instead of trying to characterize me as some kind of primitive control freak, why don't you try engaging in honest debate?

I did, insofar as I perceived it possible. I won't respond to sheer emotion - there is no suitable response. My comment about controlling women's sexual activity was in response to your comment regarding "casual, irresponsible sex" - if controlling a womans sexual activities isn't important to you, than good - and I stand corrected. :wink:

Quote: It's much easier I'm sure to abort a pregnancy if a woman has convinced herself that the baby is not really alive, feels no pain, has no rights, and all the rest of it. But there is little or no scientific, philisophical, or moral basis to support this. -captain

I disagree. The science has convinced me that an early developing fetus, not yet possessed of it's brain or developed nervous system, can most certainly not be cognizant of it's self or it's condition. It's simply impossible. That's not a justification, it's pure science.

Quote: The laws DO NOT reflect the value of human being -Gilbert

Actually, laws are crafted exactly that way in many court cases involving loss of life; ie, determining the lost 'monetary value' to calculate an award settlement. A white adult professional male has the most 'lost potential value.' Insurance companies actually had charts outlining monetary value of everything from a limb to a life at one time; I don't know if they still do. A baby (infant, born) had very little value; a pregnancy, almost none (same in the Bible). But I know what you mean.

Quote: One MUST answer this question first before stating an opinion on abortion. Is an abortion the termination of an individual human life? -Gilbert

In the first trimester, no. In the second, it is the termination of a potential human life. Third trimester, yes. These are my personal views.

Quote: If a woman wants to enjoy casual sex and she knows birthcontrol is not 100% then she also is aware that pregnancy may very well be a result. -Gilbert

True. The 'Morning After' pill is a far better solution than becoming pregnant & deciding on abortion.

I hope that clarifies my complete position on this subject. I will not argue the emotionality - there is no constructive way to argue that other than to express an opinion, and it leads to fighting, which I'm not interested in.

[toddytodd]

UrielsFyre wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: Helena` wrote: It's still a parasite, by definition Not unless you classify the human species as a parasite. While it may have some simularities with a parasite, it is simply a young and immature member of our species. Nature has determined our species to start out in the womb, that doesnt make us all parasites it makes us young. I was never a parasite. I was a human embryo, and there is a difference. No, like it or not, it is a parasite by definition. It is reliant on the host (the mother) in order to live. If the host dies, it will die.

Now, once the child is born it is no longer reliant on a host. Yes, others have to feed and care for the child until it reaches a further stage of maturity, but it is no longer in a parasitic relationship. The fact that mammals have this as a way to reproduce does not make the fact that it is a parasitic relationship any less valid.

Agreed. It is our emotions that attach us to things like a fetus, zygot, clump of cells (whatever term you wish to use at whatever stage of development you wish to quote). We are thinking with our emotions (bad idea) and/or our unproven beliefs, not our minds.

Something like 20% of all pregnancies (if I remember right) start off as 'twins' then one dissolves the other one early in the development - often times even before the woman knows she is pregnant. Is the surviving baby to be born a murderer?

[Captain Lovebird]

Gitana wrote: Quote: This is an extremely dishonest characterization of abortion. Abortions are not performed on zygotes. This is a naked attempt at dehumanizing the baby. -captain

Yet you do what you accuse me of: characterizing a fertilized ovum as a baby is extremely dishonest, and an attempt to create an image of a 'baby' where a clump of cells exists. Abortions are performed as early as the pregnancy can be detected - are you stating that you feel a 3-week-old pregnancy is a 'baby?'

Quote: Don't expect me to buy into the rationalizations you have constructed - captain

I don't expect you to buy into anything; please expect the same of me; we were just expressing our opinions. But I will answer your 'button' question: If the fertilized ovum is independent of the woman's body (assuming it was given up voluntarily) , than there would be never be a need to push the button. This entire issue, for me, rests upon other people determining what I can or cannot do with my own body and a pregnancy within my body. I personally only believe in abortion in the first trimester, but that is, like most of our opinions, a somewhat arbitrary choice - and one that I am entirely comfortable with based on the science that we have available. However, I would not support lobbying for that limitation at this time in our country, because I know it would only serve to fuel the push to completely eliminate the right to choose. So, as in many issues, we find ourselves having to defend a broad right because not doing so might risk losing that right completely. So, while I understand how passionately some people feel about the concept of a potential human being (and I do understand it), I will never concede my personal right to choose, nor will I support legally banning that right.

Quote: Instead of trying to characterize me as some kind of primitive control freak, why don't you try engaging in honest debate?

I did, insofar as I perceived it possible. I won't respond to sheer emotion - there is no suitable response. My comment about controlling women's sexual activity was in response to your comment regarding "casual, irresponsible sex" - if controlling a womans sexual activities isn't important to you, than good - and I stand corrected. :wink:

Quote: It's much easier I'm sure to abort a pregnancy if a woman has convinced herself that the baby is not really alive, feels no pain, has no rights, and all the rest of it. But there is little or no scientific, philisophical, or moral basis to support this. -captain

I disagree. The science has convinced me that an early developing fetus, not yet possessed of it's brain or developed nervous system, can most certainly not be cognizant of it's self or it's condition. It's simply impossible. That's not a justification, it's pure science.

Quote: The laws DO NOT reflect the value of human being -Gilbert

Actually, laws are crafted exactly that way in many court cases involving loss of life; ie, determining the lost 'monetary value' to calculate an award settlement. A white adult professional male has the most 'lost potential value.' Insurance companies actually had charts outlining monetary value of everything from a limb to a life at one time; I don't know if they still do. A baby (infant, born) had very little value; a pregnancy, almost none (same in the Bible). But I know what you mean.

Quote: One MUST answer this question first before stating an opinion on abortion. Is an abortion the termination of an individual human life? -Gilbert

In the first trimester, no. In the second, it is the termination of a potential human life. Third trimester, yes. These are my personal views.

Quote: If a woman wants to enjoy casual sex and she knows birthcontrol is not 100% then she also is aware that pregnancy may very well be a result. -Gilbert

True. The 'Morning After' pill is a far better solution than becoming pregnant & deciding on abortion.

I hope that clarifies my complete position on this subject. I will not argue the emotionality - there is no constructive way to argue that other than to express an opinion, and it leads to fighting, which I'm not interested in.

I agree that there is a difference in the nature of the fetus in the first trimester vs. the last. Personally I also agree that allowing for abortions in the first trimester would be a better, if still arbitrary compromise.

However, the early fetus is not merely "a clump of cells." If this were true, the dynamic debate about removing this "clump" of cells would not exist. It is precisely because a perpeturally transcendent process is underway in this living entity, one that creates a human being, that it has been targeted both for abortion and for rights advocacy.

As for this exchange:

Gitana wrote: My comment about controlling women's sexual activity was in response to your comment regarding "casual, irresponsible sex"

I stand by it as one that is not emotionally driven. The same casual irresponsible behaviour leads to the proliferation of STDs. Should we excuse those who contract and recklessly spread STDs because "they didn't think it would happen"?

Casual sex can certainly be responsible. And besides birth control, being responsible also means being cognizant of risk one may be undertaking when engaging in any activity. This is something we recognize all the time. Forgive my analogy, but I can't drive without accident insurance. I am forced to take responsibility for the fact that I may injure or kill someone, every single time I drive, regardless of how small the possibility may be. And if it were to happen, I am expected to be responsible for the consequences.

Far be it from me to suggest some kind of pregnancy insurance (!) , I am merely pointing out that even casual sex can and should be responsible sex. And the fact that the risk of pregnancy exists is not a reason to bypass that responsibility, or ignore that responsibility.

Which of course, leads us back to the "when is the fetus a person" connundrum.

But, for me it comes down to this: what about if it was me? (or you for that matter) I must ask myself- even in the first trimester, would I have wanted my mother to abort me? Seriously. If she for some reason decided not to carry me to term... Would it matter to me what her reasons were? I have to say, no it wouldn't. Aside from circumstances that would have endangered her own life... in which case I would agreeably sacrifice my developing life to save hers. But beyond that, I would be selfish, and unapologetically so. I have the same desire to exist that she does, whether it is an existence in adversity or not. What about you?

Please don't reduce this to a matter of "well, wouldn't every sperm cell wanna be a person too" debate. A sperm cell, or an egg cell, is not even the blueprints of a person... and certainly not engaged in a dynamic process of becoming that person.

[Gitana]

Quote: Agreed. It is our emotions that attach us to things like a fetus, zygot, clump of cells (whatever term you wish to use at whatever stage of development you wish to quote). We are thinking with our emotions (bad idea) and/or our unproven beliefs, not our minds.

Well said. One can only have a personal stand on this issue; it is extremely subjective. That's why I will not nitpick the science or subjective reasoning line by line; it's really irrelevant, except as a demonstration of how one arrived at their opinion.

No one can accurately tell someone else they are right or wrong on this issue - lol - despite the heated arguements. No matter what personal beliefs drive that opinion, no matter what books tell you - it's still an opinion & a personal choice.

Quote: However, the early fetus is not merely "a clump of cells." If this were true, the dynamic debate about removing this "clump" of cells would not exist. It is precisely because a perpeturally transcendent process is underway in this living entity, one that creates a human being, that it has been targeted both for abortion and for rights advocacy. -captain


This illustrates well what I said above. That you view this as a 'perpeturally transcendent process is underway in this living entity one that creates a human being' - is your personal view of a fertilized ovum. Others don't necessarily share that view in the conceptual way that you do, which is to see it as a potential human being, and to respond as such regarding it. The dynamic debate exists because people are often passionate about their beliefs, and attach emotional investments to those beliefs.

Quote: But, for me it comes down to this: what about if it was me? (or you for that matter) I must ask myself- even in the first trimester, would I have wanted my mother to abort me? Seriously. If she for some reason decided not to carry me to term... Would it matter to me what her reasons were? I have to say, no it wouldn't. Aside from circumstances that would have endangered her own life... in which case I would agreeably sacrifice my developing life to save hers. But beyond that, I would be selfish, and unapologetically so. I have the same desire to exist that she does, whether it is an existence in adversity or not. What about you?

That's an interesting viewpoint, because what you are deciding there is to project how you feel onto every other potential case, and then act accordingly. As for me, I was adopted; I could just as easily have been an abortion, so I can relate to the question well. Had I been aborted, however, I would never have known it, and the question can't exist under those circumstances. However, the question can become, 'am I glad I was born?' Of course. Had I not been, I wouldn't have a viewpoint one way or the other.

Part of your statement assumes that a fertilized ovum - meaning the dynamic process you describe has begun - has some way of desiring life. In a grand biological way, I can understand because life does gear itself towards life. But in the sense of a sentient person desiring life, especially in a conceptual manner, I disagree completely regarding early pregnancy. I think the answer you want from me is this: I do not in any way think of an early first trimester pregnancy as a human being. It could become one, yes, but that concept is not a sacred cow to me, and I have no emotions attached to termination of a very early pregnancy. From that statement forward, how someone views me or my opinion is back to a personal subjective judgement.

Thank you for not yelling at me. :)

[Selfish_Meme]

Gilbert1908 wrote: The laws DO NOT reflect the value of human being but the ability of the immature human being to be responsible for his/her own decisions. You are the one who determines that life has a different value at different stages.

The only point at which the "sliding scale" is NOT arbitrary is its beginning. Anything after the life starts is arbitrary I agree and any value placed then must be arbitrary.

The only consistent non arbitrary argument is that life once it starts is of equal value, since every human life MUST pass through ALL phases of development, once one determines a human life is not worthy until it reaches stage A what then is keeping others from determining a human life that has not reached stage B, H, N or R is not worthy. Either human life is to be protected or it is open to be interpreted by any individual values.
This is where we must differ I suppose, I think that if another Human Being has restrictions to his or her rights that I do not have then the law has deemed them less worthy or trustworthy -> irresponsible -> opposite of responsible, of having them. To me that is a value judgement.

We are agreed that the only point that is non-arbitrary is the start and end, however many things enacted in law are arbitrary. The drink driving limit for example, not trying to say its in the same category as abortion just an example of an arbitrary limit.

The only thing that keeps others from making different arbitrary decisions is the accuracy of medical data and its public dissemination.

I think some of the implications of completely criminilising abortion are abhorent as well. Deaths from illegal abortions, social rejection and family exile, carrying the children of rapists and abusers, poverty. Solve those problems first and I will gladly recomend that abortions be more limited.

[Gitana]

I'd be interested in knowing, if all abortion were made illegal, what punishment people think would be appropriate for a woman who had an abortion anyway?

[Gilbert1908]

Gitana wrote: I'd be interested in knowing, if all abortion were made illegal, what punishment people think would be appropriate for a woman who had an abortion anyway?

I am pro life but do not seek the nationwide immediate ban of abortion, that is unrealistic and in the long term and for the same reason as destructive and divisive as the immediate and nationwide mandate of abortion was.

Instead I seek an over turning of Roe V. Wade and then let the states determine how to handle the issue.

South Dakota for example offers NO penalties for the woman seeking the abortion but punishes the medical people who would provide an illegal procedure.

I live in MA, so I am sure there may some minor restrictions added but probably no real changes.

I have posted here before that 60% of the American public would like to see further restrictions on abortion, while slightly fewer do not want it made illegal. I think almost anyone would like to find a way to reduce the number of abortions, after all it is not as though abortion is a positive experience for ANYONE other than those who profit from it.

[AllAmericanMan]

Gitana wrote: I'd be interested in knowing, if all abortion were made illegal, what punishment people think would be appropriate for a woman who had an abortion anyway?

Death is fine with me, let them share their babies' fate. Either that or a medical procedure that would ensure them never becoming pregnant again.

[Gitana]

My only question regarding overturning Roe vs Wade: how do you overturn that without allowing the invasion of a woman's medical privacy?


:woo: Boston girl here, too.

[toddytodd]

Gilbert1908 wrote: Gitana wrote: I'd be interested in knowing, if all abortion were made illegal, what punishment people think would be appropriate for a woman who had an abortion anyway?

I am pro life but do not seek the nationwide immediate ban of abortion, that is unrealistic and in the long term and for the same reason as destructive and divisive as the immediate and nationwide mandate of abortion was.

Instead I seek an over turning of Roe V. Wade and then let the states determine how to handle the issue.

South Dakota for example offers NO penalties for the woman seeking the abortion but punishes the medical people who would provide an illegal procedure.

I live in MA, so I am sure there may some minor restrictions added but probably no real changes.

I have posted here before that 60% of the American public would like to see further restrictions on abortion, while slightly fewer do not want it made illegal. I think almost anyone would like to find a way to reduce the number of abortions, after all it is not as though abortion is a positive experience for ANYONE other than those who profit from it.
Quote: Instead I seek an over turning of Roe V. Wade and then let the states determine how to handle the issue. Wouldn't that create too much of a riff in the country? Not only that, but I would think many would cross state lines, then there would be financial issues as well. That just seems to be a wrong answer to the solution - almost an answer that is considered an easy out - perhaps to save face.
I have always been taught what is wrong is wrong and what is right is right, regardless of what state one is in. But that's just me...

[JayDubya]

toddytodd wrote:
I have always been taught what is wrong is wrong and what is right is right, regardless of what state one is in. But that's just me...
While that may be true, the constitution does not support Justice Blackmun's decision, the states are very much divided on this issue, and returning the matter to the states where the decision legally belongs is appropriate.


Gitana wrote: I'd be interested in knowing, if all abortion were made illegal, what punishment people think would be appropriate for a woman who had an abortion anyway?

Whatever the state chooses to have as the standard punishment for murder in the first degree seems appropriate. Certainly nothing less than the standard punishment for manslaughter. This goes for the person performing the procedure as well as the patient.

Gitana wrote: My only question regarding overturning Roe vs Wade: how do you overturn that without allowing the invasion of a woman's medical privacy?

In almost all cases for adults, one's medical history and their insurance information and their healthcare and associated what not are only between them and their doctor.

Abortion is not a privacy issue, however, and it never has been. I'd argue that the father has a right to know. If it's a minor, the parents HAVE to know. But that's all tangential and immaterial to the topic of abortion.

So... privacy sans legal abortion? If desired, pregnancy can be kept private and can be hidden with attire or by other means, then the child can be given up for adoption.