Political Crossfire Forums

Hypocritical_Hypocrisy · Joined: 30 Aug 2006 Posts: 104 Location: Your bathroom!

Selfish_Meme wrote: Good Post, we tend to overlook the womens rights to her body, when we discuss abortions.

Right...
You also have a responsibility for your body, so if you have a humongous lack of foresight and start screwing without popping the pill, I believe you hold responsibility for what you just created. And killing babies with the argument, "They were an inconvenience." is just idiotic. Lives are at stake here. If you honestly don't want the kid, just ride out the pregnancy and put him/her up for adoption.

TheCaliforniaLife · Joined: 18 Sep 2005 Posts: 551 Location: California

JayDubya wrote: Fetus and zygote and blastula and what not are terms of scientific terms for developmental stages.

They are no different from "infant" or "toddler" or "teenager." Human embryology is not so special as to be distinct from later development.

Pro-abortion folks like to use terminology incorrectly just to dehumanize and push their agenda.
Exactly. They are Pediatric terms. In actuality, Pediatric is a medicine, which would mean it is a health science. So with such correlation, they are scientific terms; but so are infant, toddler, and adolescents.

Gitana · Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 7:44 pm Post subject:

Quote: just ride out the pregnancy and put him/her up for adoption.

Right. That's just another form of avoiding responsibility, and one that leaves the life of the child (who is now conscious & aware of his circumstances) completely at the mercy of fate. Funny how it's so accepted by prolifers - which is why one tends to get the impression that your "caring for babies" ends the minute they are born, or is only ideological at best.

I'd go into the stats af how many babies are available for adoption (about 150,000), that few get happily adopted, and how that number doesn't count the estimated 1,000,000+ that are shuffled through foster homes or unadoptable - because their parent(s) either don't want them, or were declared unfit - but they never sign over the child so he may be adopted....but somehow, I doubt you really want to have to consider this alongside with your anti-abortion stance. O, yes - I haven't included the 500,000+ that are hospitalized with serious abuse injuries, or - well, nevermind.

But they gave birth, so that's good, yes?

Is being born more important than protecting a living child from harm?

:roll:

TheCaliforniaLife · Joined: 18 Sep 2005 Posts: 551 Location: California

Gilbert1908 wrote: Gitana wrote: All that has been covered in this thread. Since we are now repeating ourselves, it's time to end it.

So then your answer should be brief and need no explaination.

When is the human embryo scientifically determined to be both alive and a human individual?
Conception. The unborn is alive. This is a simple biological fact.
The phenotype, genotype, and DNA, is that like any other homo sapien. Oops, I forgot about carotype as well.

Prog · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 2301

Gitana wrote:
Unfortunately, I too often hear prolifers say "cut the 'it's my body' crap." Uh..ok, than who's body is it? LOL They never have an answer for this, for they do not want to confront the paradox.

Exactly, embryo=person or not, no human-entity has the absolute right to exist by use of the body of another human-entity. Either an adult human using your heart, lung, kidney to survive or a human-fetus using the body of a woman, its all the same and quite simple when emotive fervency is removed.

Gitana · Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 4:20 am Post subject:

That's an interesting point I've never thought of in quite that way. Of course, the immediate arguement is that that person created it...which could lead to... if the person created it, than how can it be a seperate person with seperate rights.....or is the creator the owner?

I see a Greek statue coming to life...lol.

Prog · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 2301

Gitana wrote: That's an interesting point I've never thought of in quite that way. Of course, the immediate arguement is that that person created it...which could lead to... if the person created it, than how can it be a seperate person with seperate rights.....or is the creator the owner?

I see a Greek statue coming to life...lol.

If your interested, read more: Judith Jarvis

Gitana · Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 3:22 am Post subject:

Love the violinist arguement, thanks for the link. That coalesced a point that was lurking somewhere, but I hadn't quite put my finger on as I batted around the sovereignity issue. The violinist restated:

If a person's "right to life" supersedes another persons right over their own body, then I can force my brother to donate an organ against his will to save my life - even if it will make him ill. My right to life outweighs his right over his body, and my chance of dying trumps his potential illness. That dovetails beautifully with my proposed legal paradox regarding a zygote eventually attaining Personhood with assignable rights.

Can a father who wants the child born take the woman to court and demand custody over the fetus? Can he demand that the court force the unwilling woman to 'eat well', take vitamins, etc? How could this possibly be enforced? It leads us right back to pregnancy prisons. Let's call them Mandatory Gestational Units ("MUGs") or maybe "No Aborted Zygotes Institution" (NAZI).

Since humans have the unique propensity towards abuse and uh, 'creative application of the law,' this could lead to all manner of bizarre courtroom antics if the basic premise were to come to pass. I could see a later arguement for adding the concept of quality to the life that has a right to live, and demanding sperm from exceptional men; a reasonable arguement could be made that if they refused even a perfect stranger, they were denying good genetic material to the potential life. (they would of course be required to pay child support to all their children). The same could be done to women. Adulterers could be charged with unauthorized potential life activity.

It's all so very scifi, and deliciously controlling, wouldn't you say? 8:)

Gilbert1908 · Joined: 26 Jan 2005 Posts: 5148 Location: Boston, MA

Gitana wrote: Love the violinist arguement, thanks for the link. That coalesced a point that was lurking somewhere, but I hadn't quite put my finger on as I batted around the sovereignity issue. The violinist restated:

If a person's "right to life" supersedes another persons right over their own body, then I can force my brother to donate an organ against his will to save my life - even if it will make him ill. My right to life outweighs his right over his body, and my chance of dying trumps his potential illness. That dovetails beautifully with my proposed legal paradox regarding a zygote eventually attaining Personhood with assignable rights.

Can a father who wants the child born take the woman to court and demand custody over the fetus? Can he demand that the court force the unwilling woman to 'eat well', take vitamins, etc? How could this possibly be enforced? It leads us right back to pregnancy prisons. Let's call them Mandatory Gestational Units ("MUGs") or maybe "No Aborted Zygotes Institution" (NAZI).

Since humans have the unique propensity towards abuse and uh, 'creative application of the law,' this could lead to all manner of bizarre courtroom antics if the basic premise were to come to pass. I could see a later arguement for adding the concept of quality to the life that has a right to live, and demanding sperm from exceptional men; a reasonable arguement could be made that if they refused even a perfect stranger, they were denying good genetic material to the potential life. (they would of course be required to pay child support to all their children). The same could be done to women. Adulterers could be charged with unauthorized potential life activity.

It's all so very scifi, and deliciously controlling, wouldn't you say? 8:)

You continue to make this agument about the body as sacred vessel, yet the woman's right to her body is not absolute since after the 24th week the state acting in the interest of the fetus dictates and in most cases prohibits abortion.

How does that aspect of present law fit with your argument since it is not a "body" consideration but the timing of state protection acting on behalf of a seperate life? There is a growing concensus medically that it should be pushed back to 21 weeks since this now is the new point of viability, but again viability does not fit within you argument either since the body argument ignores the status of the fetus altogether.

The father has no legal standing and therefore your scenario of his legal threat is moot, this tact was tried and dismissed many years ago and it is always dismissed not based on Roe but on lack of standing. And consider this, how does the court KNOW who the father is without a DNA test, which can not be done?

What is interesting however is that states can and do incarcerate a mother for drug or alcohol abuse whild pregnant, remove the child once it is born AND be charged with abuse that took place during the pregnancy. These cases occur TODAY under the Roe laws so again the woman's body argument is NOT absolute by any means.

Selfish_Meme · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 726

Aren't you doing what you accuse others of and confusing laws and morality? How does the law influence what she believes to be her position, this is what she is arguing for, not what is. There are good and bad laws and they are not always consistent or reasoned. You yourself have stated that laws don't make something right or wrong, and now you try to use them in an argument against her logic?

Gilbert1908 · Joined: 26 Jan 2005 Posts: 5148 Location: Boston, MA

Selfish_Meme wrote: Aren't you doing what you accuse others of and confusing laws and morality? How does the law influence what she believes to be her position, this is what she is arguing for, not what is. There are good and bad laws and they are not always consistent or reasoned. You yourself have stated that laws don't make something right or wrong, and now you try to use them in an argument against her logic?

I am sincerely seeking to understand where the reliance on the law ends and the moral stance begins.

If I base my moral argument on the women's right to control her body then I would be AGAINST ROE as it is, because it limits that right by permitting the state to "invade" privacy based upon fetal viability.

If however I support Roe because it protects privacy until the fetus is viable then I can not base my argument on the sanctity of the women's body being ONLY her dominion and I would then have to be open to reducing OR extending the point at which the STATE can control abortion based upon medical concensus.

Or not.

Selfish_Meme · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 726

I think the Roe laws are a comprimise and not necessarily based on a really reasoned moral stance except secrecy :think:

To try and compare them to a reasoned and logically consistent view is probably to fail. In a way though, society needed them regardless of their incomprehensibility.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7797

14th Amendment of the US Constitution wrote: Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

To the original poster, you're reading of the Fourteenth Amendment is slightly skewed, and so I will attempt to clarify for the interest of finding truth.

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution does nothing but incorporate the Bill of Rights into state government Constitutions.

The Constitution was never applied to state government when it was ratified, meaning that while the federal government was required to respect your rights granted in the first ten amendments, the state governments were under no such restriction. If you look at the original Bill of Rights, the First Amendment starts by specifically mentioning "Congress". That specific mentioning means that while the federal Congress was prohibited from infringing upon your rights to speech, press, religion, assembly, and petition, the state governments had the authority to suspend all of these rights. The Second, Third, and Fourth Amendments apply the same restrictions on the Executive Branch. The Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Amendments all apply restrictions upon the federal judiciary. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments apply restrictions upon the national government as a whole. Never, anyway, are those restrictions applied upon the states... until the Fourteenth Amendment.

You are correct in saying that the Fourteenth Amendment expanded civil liberties to African-Americans, but I get the impression you do not understand how this was accomplished. This expansion of liberty was accomplished through the very wording of the Fourteenth Amendment. If you read it again, you will see that it specifically refers to the state governments, meaning that the rights that are respected by the national government via the Bill of Rights must also be respected by the state governments. Because of this, slavery was officially made illegal on the grounds that the state governments were rejecting respected liberties to African-Americans.

The to understand the phrase "born or naturalized", we must first define "naturalized". The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines this as "to confer the rights of a national on; especially : to admit to citizenship", and the Supreme Court has upheld that definition. The term "naturalized" is simply meant to imply immigrants that have become citizens, but are not native to the United States. Your analogy of the illegal immigrant is not applicable, considering that illegal immigrants are not American citizens, and therefore, do not have Constitutional rights. Also, to be considered an American citizen, you must either go through the proper government channels to attain citizenship, or be born within the United States. As the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Roe v. Wade, unborn persons are not citizens, and therefore are not Constitutionally protected.

Also, the Fourteenth Amendment does not grant any rights. In fact, the Constitution doesn't grant any rights in any places. The Constitution applies only to the government, and never has any connection to the people (with the exception of prohibition, which was later repealed). The Constitution is merely a blueprint for government. Prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, this blueprint applied only to the federal government, however, after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Constitution applied to state governments as well. This application to the states is all that was achieved through the Fourteenth Amendment, as thus was the purpose of the Amendment.

TheCaliforniaLife wrote: It disappoints me that so many people are wrong.

Indeed.

Gilbert1908 · Joined: 26 Jan 2005 Posts: 5148 Location: Boston, MA

Selfish_Meme wrote: I think the Roe laws are a comprimise and not necessarily based on a really reasoned moral stance except secrecy :think:

To try and compare them to a reasoned and logically consistent view is probably to fail. In a way though, society needed them regardless of their incomprehensibility.

I am asking Gitana for her rational and explaination based on the comments she made, trust me I don't seek morality or rationality from ROE.

Gitana · Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 8:52 pm Post subject:

I'm just positing theoretical legal arguements; they don't necessarily portray my personal views. Since a portion of our SC now claims that stare decisis carries less weight than has traditionally been thought, my proposals could conceivably evolve into reality.

Quote: the woman's right to her body is not absolute

True; and that's the real underlying legal issue -(and perhaps where the prochoicers should be taking the legal fight, rather than playing defense). If my right to my body is not absolute due to gender, that's pure discrimination, which is un-Constitutional/anti-Bill of Rights. Let's see the SC clearly declare that no woman in this country has absolute right over her own body should that specific issue be forced upon them independent of abortion. ;)

How was the assumption made in the first place?
......................................

Your arguement actually reinforces this part of mine:
Quote: If a person's "right to life" supersedes another persons right over their own body, then I can force my brother to donate an organ against his will to save my life - even if it will make him ill. My right to life outweighs his right over his body, and my chance of dying trumps his potential illness.

I feel the law should be based on fetal development, not personal or religious beliefs (fertilized egg=baby). I have a bit of a problem with the idea of government, through laws, enforcing 'morality' - which is entirely subjective.

The other element that disturbs me is others trying to enforce their idea of personal responsibility upon others. In the prolife group, that usually has something to do with sexual behavior - but in my mind it's a bigger issue. I am responsible for my own decisions; one cannot NOT be. So what the prolifers really mean is that they want to define what responsibility is, too, according to their beliefs. Sexual activity is not automatically irresponsible; birth control is not completely reliable - and it's increasingly harder to get/expensive under the Bush admin. How about helping out with that? lol

Quote: I think the Roe laws are a comprimise and not necessarily based on a really reasoned moral stance except secrecy

What gave you the idea that Roe was supposed to be based on 'morals?' Whose morals?

Oxford:

Privacy: The state or condition of being alone, undisturbed, or free from public attention, as a matter of choice or right; freedom from interference or intrusion.

Secrecy: The quality of being secret or of not revealing secrets; the action, practice, or habit of keeping things secret.

That's the perfect definition of spin; you overlook the very significant differences in meaning. ;)

Gilbert1908 · Joined: 26 Jan 2005 Posts: 5148 Location: Boston, MA

Gitana wrote: I'm just positing theoretical legal arguements; they don't necessarily portray my personal views. Since a portion of our SC now claims that stare decisis carries less weight than has traditionally been thought, my proposals could conceivably evolve into reality.

Quote: the woman's right to her body is not absolute

True; and that's the real underlying legal issue -(and perhaps where the prochoicers should be taking the legal fight, rather than playing defense). If my right to my body is not absolute due to gender, that's pure discrimination, which is un-Constitutional/anti-Bill of Rights. Let's see the SC clearly declare that no woman in this country has absolute right over her own body should that specific issue be forced upon them independent of abortion. ;)

But the issue is NOT the woman's body, it is the woman's ability to hold a second unique distinct life within her body that creates the issue and it is the status of the second body that is at issue.

It is a legitimate and reasonable position to question the morality of terminating a human life at any stage is it not?

Gitana · Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:24 pm Post subject:

Quote: But the issue is NOT the woman's body, it is the woman's ability to hold a second unique distinct life within her body that creates the issue and it is the status of the second body that is at issue.

You cannot seperate the abortion issue from the woman's rights aspects; it's impossible since her body created, and sustains the fetus. No legitimate legal arguement could address the fetal rights as if they were completely independent of the body, and to my knowledge, no one has successfully attempted that specific arguement for fear of raising the woman's legal status as a Person issue.

Quote: It is a legitimate and reasonable position to question the morality of terminating a human life at any stage is it not?

Of course. (So I take it these same people are also fighting to eliminate capital punishment?)But it's equally legitimate and reasonable to be concerned about the woman's rights and the possible ramifications the State (Plato's meaning) decreeing that it holds more right over her body than she does. It's a bizarre legal conflict.

Because we are a free democracy with individual rights, (at least for now, -sort of) we cannot ignore that a group, based solely on gender, may find itself under State orders that are applicable only to that group. And as I've said, I could be totally on board against any and all abortion if alternatives, such as Plan B, were freely available/affordable; or contraception were 100%, or a woman - no matter what her age or number of children/lack of- could be sterilized on demand. None of those are reality.

Until such time, outlawing all abortion (with the above facts in mind) is going to essentially mean that only women do not have the right to sexual activity unless it for procreation purposes. The State will be declaring that sex is primarily for the purposes of procreation. Think about it. In addition, if there are to be legal consequences and parameters regarding pregnancy, the male must be equally culpable and responsible; or we heighten the discrimination aspect.

There is no easy answer. I end up focusing on the woman's right's because they are so cavalierly dismissed in this issue. That does not mean that I am non-cognizant of potential fetal rights.

Hypocritical_Hypocrisy · Joined: 30 Aug 2006 Posts: 104 Location: Your bathroom!

Gitana wrote: Quote: just ride out the pregnancy and put him/her up for adoption.

Right. That's just another form of avoiding responsibility, and one that leaves the life of the child (who is now conscious & aware of his circumstances) completely at the mercy of fate. Funny how it's so accepted by prolifers - which is why one tends to get the impression that your "caring for babies" ends the minute they are born, or is only ideological at best.

I'd go into the stats af how many babies are available for adoption (about 150,000), that few get happily adopted, and how that number doesn't count the estimated 1,000,000+ that are shuffled through foster homes or unadoptable - because their parent(s) either don't want them, or were declared unfit - but they never sign over the child so he may be adopted....but somehow, I doubt you really want to have to consider this alongside with your anti-abortion stance. O, yes - I haven't included the 500,000+ that are hospitalized with serious abuse injuries, or - well, nevermind.

But they gave birth, so that's good, yes?

Is being born more important than protecting a living child from harm?

:roll:
Yes, I have to agree with you there. I mean, you do know a lot about irresponibility, correct? The adoptions system is a completely different subject anyways. The population you're talking about is a pretty small percentage in the larger picture. there are tons more that eventually find good homes and loving parents. But I see that you want to protect the babies from injury. I mean injury is a bad thing...

As opposed to killing them? :roll:

So, you're saying we should euthanize babies because they MIGHT get the bad end of the adoption system?

So you would rather abort them. So they'd be dead, and that's good, yes?

Gitana · Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 7:09 pm Post subject:

Quote:
The adoptions system is a completely different subject anyways.

Right - it has nothing to do with adding almost a million more unwanted babies annually to the system. That kind of blind stubborness is what got hundreds of Asian childrens' arms cut off when the US insisted on vaccinating them against their parent's will. Yup, that 'good intention without realistic consideration' worked out great, wouldn't you say?

Obilisk18 · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 538

Gitana wrote: Love the violinist arguement, thanks for the link. That coalesced a point that was lurking somewhere, but I hadn't quite put my finger on as I batted around the sovereignity issue. The violinist restated:

If a person's "right to life" supersedes another persons right over their own body, then I can force my brother to donate an organ against his will to save my life - even if it will make him ill. My right to life outweighs his right over his body, and my chance of dying trumps his potential illness. That dovetails beautifully with my proposed legal paradox regarding a zygote eventually attaining Personhood with assignable rights.

Can a father who wants the child born take the woman to court and demand custody over the fetus? Can he demand that the court force the unwilling woman to 'eat well', take vitamins, etc? How could this possibly be enforced? It leads us right back to pregnancy prisons. Let's call them Mandatory Gestational Units ("MUGs") or maybe "No Aborted Zygotes Institution" (NAZI).

For the record, I believe the violinist argument to be the best pro-choice argument I've seen presented (and I do believe I'm privy to virtually all of them). That said, you're mis-construing the formulation of the pro-life argument. As I suspect even Thompson would grant, independent of other concerns, the right to life is a higher order right then the right to control one's body. This is reflected quite extensively in our laws and traditions. Murder gains one a more severe punishment then rape. At the least, they are rights of an equal magnitude. The effectiveness of Thompson's argument, is that, if it can be accepted as a valid analogy for the abortion process (I don't think it can for reasons I'll get into later), it provides a means by which we can disentangle these conflicting rights. This is the problem with your ideas concerning legal precedents. They assume that tacit in the pro-life position, is the notion that the right to life doesn't merely supercede the right to control ones body, but that it invalidates it. In reality, the pro-life argument makes no such claim. When rights conflict, there must be some means of differentiation. Thompson, in presenting her little analogy, makes a compelling, yet hasty dash for the finish line. It merely provides a compelling example of a situation where we might be prepared to resolve the issue in favor of bodily rights. But it is unclear "why" we should resolve the abortion question in particular, in favor of bodily rights, and not the right to life. After all, it clearly does not follow that because one situation may be resolved in favor of bodily rights, that all situations must be resolved with such priorities in mind. And yet, her argument hinges on this premise. We can certainly imagine a myriad of situations where life is in fact the preferred good. For instance, my bodily right to beat you to death can clearly be suspended. You'll notice that this contrasts quite nicely with your absurd examples of compelling the removal of one's organs for the benefit of another. I am also not allowed to enter a plane with a bomb lodged in my stomach or, to make the analogy even more basic, in my fist. Indeed, it is clear that law quite often chooses to resolve issues in favor of life, over bodily rights. Therefore, Thompson's scenario must adequately represent the particular situation of abortion to be useful. It fails in this on a variety of grounds. It, and I suspect this is purposeful, neglects the way in which the fetus/violinist came to be in this desperate and vulnerable situation. Perhaps we have some believers in the stork theory among us, but in point and fact, the mother/violinist's helper, had a significant stake in the situation currently arrived at. The fetus did not merely materialize in the womb willy-nilly. A more apt analogy would ask whether or not you had a right to disengage the violinist, if you had previously injected the poison from which he was suffering, into his circulatory system. Sex, being an act that leads to needy, vulnerable offspring; indeed an act that has it's very raison d'etre in reproduction, constitutes a tacit invitation into the womb from the mother (and admittedly the father as well, who's obligations must by necessity be met in a different fashion) to the embryo. There is also a substantial difference between an act which has forseeable negative, yet unintended consequences (detaching the violinist) and an act which has as it's purpose negative ends. You can imagine, for instance, the difference between a situation where I take the last parachute from a failing plane, leaving one individual to crash to his death, and situation whereby I forcibly push an individual out of a damaged plane, so as to keep it's weight down. These are just among the few of the various disanalogies which make Thompson's example ineffectual.