Because.....If liberal progressives are for abortion and gay marriage, then it makes sense that mostly progressive liberals will most often enact those rights...far more than conservatives.
Which means...there will be far less progressive liberals in the future. Wouldn't it make sense to give them what they want?
Are all individuals guaranteed the inalienable rights of natural law, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
If yes, then...
Is the unborn child an individual?
If yes, then...
Isn't that unborn child worthy of those protections?
If yes then...
Is government responsible for assuring that those protections are afforded to that unborn child?
The argument against gay marriage is a little more complex and nuanced. Of course consenting adults should be allowed to do whatever they wish, and that raises certain concerns. If you allow same sex marriage you will have to allow other arrangements as well, multiple and mixed marriages, incestuous marriages etc. This I believe is what conservative are trying to avoid.
Is a Palestinina baby a human being?
Then why isn't Israel on trial for murdering innocent Palestinian babies????
YOU pick and choose which lives you consider worth saving.
Why aren't any Palestinians on trial for all the Jewish babies they killed? It goes both ways. Palestinians are eons away from innocent.
That is not the point moon. The point it all these anti-abortion people say the unborn child is deserving of protection....
Well, what about the children that are already here?? Seems they can be blown away on a whim.
The Israelis killed 50 Palestinian women and children for every Israeli killed by the Palestinians.
Palestinian babies are innocent. Jewish babies are innocent. Making comparisons like this is obscene: it's not "either-or", it's "both-and". Small children don't generally have political views...
I'm not pro war, nor am I pro Israeli, or pro Palestinian. I do find it rather curious that you point to the death of Palestinian children but you don't have a problem with Israeli children being killed by rockets lobbed blindly into their neighborhoods?
War is wrong. It should only be a last resort to defend lives from aggressors.
Okay now it's your turn to renounce the murder of the unborn.
I thought you were libertarian? Am I confusing you with someone else?
They used the "slippery slope" argument back when people were fighting for the right to marry people of other races, too, and it was as silly then as it is now.
But, supposing for the sake of argument, that it IS true and the federal government starts recognizing any marriage that occurs between consenting adults, what exactly is the inherent harm in this? Many human societies - probably the majority - have been polygamous, and there are some that are polyandrous. Neither is a lifestyle that would appeal to me personally, but that doesn't make it WRONG.
As for incest, the government does have reasonable cause for prohibiting marriage between close relatives, even if they are consenting adults, because of the increased likelihood of serious genetic problems in resulting offspring, so I think it's pretty unlikely that incestuous marriages will ever be permitted. I suppose incestuous gay marriages theoretically might, but there again - what harm does it actually do if the genetic problem is removed from the equation? Sure, it's weird and gross, but as long as it takes place between consenting adults and doesn't hurt anyone else, it seems to me that society has more important things to worry about.
"They used the "slippery slope" argument back when people were fighting for the right to marry people of other races, too, and it was as silly then as it is now."
I never knew it was against the law to marry someone of another race.
But lets say you are correct, wouldn't this be the slippery slope they spoke of?
"I never knew it was against the law to marry someone of another race."
It was against the law as late as 1967 in some states, when the US Supreme Court ruled anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-misce … ted_States
"But lets say you are correct, wouldn't this be the slippery slope they spoke of?"
Haha, probably! First, blacks marrying whites, now men marrying men. Society is obviously crumbling around us!
Then you must admit the argument has some merit.
I don't care if homosexuals marry, its none of my concern. But when you say the argument is "silly" it really isn't.
Not to bigots, I guess, but bigots aren't a sector of the population whose opinions I particularly value. They were silly to wring their hands over blacks and whites marrying, and they're silly to wring their hands over gays and lesbians marrying. If polygamy/polyandry comes next, I'll think they're silly then, too, and also woefully ignorant of their own religion, since most of the Biblical patriarchs not only had multiple wives but also multiple concubines. Apparently not even God consistently defines marriage as being between one man and one woman, and the majority of human societies certainly haven't!
God doesn't have anything to do with what men and women do.
If you can't see that the argument has merit then you are not being honest.
If the argument was "if we allow interracial marriages then what next?"
This is obviously what's next.
"God doesn't have anything to do with what men and women do."
Tell that to Prop 8 supporters.
"If you can't see that the argument has merit then you are not being honest."
Oh, I can see that the argument has merit in their eyes, but that doesn't mean it has merit in the real world. This is what's next. So?
Well said kerryg, What is problem understanding that basic human rights apply to all humans equally. We have one primary group in this country whose main purpose in life seems to be deciding amongst themselves, who gets which rights. The moral majority or the rights police, what ever you want to call them are the ones standing in the way of equal rights to marry. That they base this decision on the bible and not the Constitution or Bill of Rights that govern this country, isn't a problem for them. We all have the right to think just like they do and this also makes perfect sense to them. It comes down to fear of the unknown. This is something they don't understand and they choose to fear it. It is odd considering that it's thru differences that we learn about other people. Do they fear these people or do they fear knowledge?
The Racial Integrity Act required that a racial description of every person be recorded at birth and divided society into only two classifications: white and colored (all other, essentially, which included numerous American Indians). It defined race by the "one-drop rule", defining as colored, persons with any African or Indian ancestry. It criminalized miscegenation, classifying marriage between a white person and a non-white person as a felony. In 1967 the law was overturned by the United States Supreme Court in its ruling on Loving v. Virginia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_Int … ct_of_1924
Some called it the "one drop rule." That is if you had one drop of Negro blood you were a Negro.
I like that rule (not how it was used) because genetics teaches us that we're all black.
The liberals will still keep their segregationist mentality though. They will never accept that blacks and whites are equal. They will keep treating them like the 4 year old playing a board game on family night. They don't think they're capable enough to win so they cheat on their behalf rather than see how well they can do on their own.
Thanks to capitalism and the conservatives of the 60s black women and men have risen to positions of great importance, as a result of their own strengths and motivation. Thomas Sowell came out of the ghetto and became one of the greatest and most level headed economists of our time. Look him up and hear him speak.
Most of us know that racism and bigots are a minority and an exception, not a rule. They need to make them the rule though because they can't help but separate blacks from whites in their own heads.
Well...not all of us take the bait.
"Liberals will still keep their segregationalist mentality."
Who supported the civil rights revolution and legislation to eliminate de jure segregation in housing, voting, hiring, etc.? Here's a clue: It wasn't conservatives like you. And this is pure bullshit:
"Thanks to capitalism and the conservatives of the 60s black women and men have risen to positions of great importance, as a result of their own strengths and motivation."
Thomas Sowell is a leading Uncle Tom who writes pure crapola.
You are a right wing idealog. White is black, up is down, wrong is right.
Who just called a black man an "Uncle Tom", Ralph? I'd bet you money that you've never read a thing he's said. You think it's crapola because you stereotype. You discount Thomas Sowell because you don't like Logical Brian. Shame on you tying him to me.
Then you use a racially insensitive slur like "Uncle Tom". Ah, yes telling a black man he's no black man. You're a gem, Ralph.
Oh, forgot to refute your nonsense about who supported and who opposed the civil rights legislation of the past.
Dwight D. Eisenhower supported and signed the 1957 civil rights act which proposed fair voting rights for blacks. It was proposed by a conservative Attorney General - Herbert Brownell.
John F. Kennedy, Al Gore Sr., James Eastland, Strom Thurmond and many other Liberals voted against and tried to filibuster it.
But I'm not suprised that you pulled out your Olbermann-opedia for your facts again.
Look at voting records and see who is really conservative and liberal. Those men who I just mentioned voted as liberals (they also happened to be democrats) and they voted against the civil rights act of 1957.
I believe the kids today call that "owned".
I should point out this glaring example of how a liberal argues.
Ralph asked me a question, but didn't give an answer. It makes it look like his ilk of politician (liberal) did. The fact is that if he tried to answer his own question with names he'd come up with a ton of conservatives and a few liberals.
Liberal voters today are mostly pro civil rights and that's on par with the fact that the US is mostly pro civil rights.
You guys have been voting for Bob Byrd for 50 years now?
Google him, gang. Do it.
Okay, fine...Ku Klux Clan recruiter in the 40s. I couldn't help myself.
I hubbed on that very topic. It seems that the Left has been committing atrocities for generations, and stupid ol' Christian Republican Tea Party types, down through American history, have been the ones to stop them.
The new plantation is the Welfare State. The new crop is Voter Turnout. The new whip is "If you vote for those evil Republicans, they will take away all the free things WE give you, which you already can barely survive on." The soft slavery of dependence. We've been domesticating entire species of animals with that same trap, for thousands of years. Doing it to other people just seems foul, somehow. Calling black men who refuse to knuckle under to that kind of insidious domesticity "Uncle Toms" speaks to an intellectual shallowness which seems to typify the liberal mindset.
Robert "Sheets" Byrd filibustered the 1964 Equal Rights act for 14 hours straight. Democrats applauded his efforts. Republicans passed a resolution condemning and chastising him for it.
If the two parties flipped ideologies, like the Left SWEARS happened, why was ol' Pointy Hood Byrd still a Democrat Senator til the day he died (just the other day, in fact)? Seems like, in your reality, KKK Byrd would have been a Republican, huh? Or proud Segregationist Democrat Senator Al Gore Sr? Why did HIS boy stay a Democrat?
Sorry to screw-up your argument with silly ol' Facts and Genuine Reality there, Ralph.
The FACT is that the Democratic Party has been a stronger supporter of civil rights than the GOP. Your mentions of Byrd and Gore Sr. prove nothing. Nixon invented the GOP southern strategy and Reagan and Bush, Sr. refined it. Old segregationist Democrat senators and congressmen converted to the GOP or were replaced by Republicans.
So I'm wrong? Ol' Pointy Hood Byrd was a Republican all this time?
So when Wilson segregated Government workers it was because of the GOP? So Detroit was actually in the South when it built it's WALL? Race baiting is neither partisan, nor geographical. Neither party has clean hands on this Ralph, you know better. Both parties have used a painfull issue to divide us, while they divide the gold.
I honestly don't understand the argument that if you allow same sex marriages you have to allow all other kinds. Why? Same sex is just two people who are not related to each other wanting to be together forever and not have govermental, banking, property issues when one dies. What is the big deal? It does not in any way mean we then have to let a man marry a goat or a woman marry her uncle. And the reasons are quite obvious.
Not so... logically we need to either allow folks to do whatever they wish, or we need some rules/guidelines that our society holds to be the limit of personal free expression.
I would warrant that if a refeendum was held, most of society would be AGAINST killing unborn children and same sex marriage.
Having said that, I would have no objection to protection being established for a committed partnership relationship, irrespective of who was committing.
Just don't call it a marriage, nor expect that any religion MUST accept it as such.
Yes, those are the ones that judges evaluate whether a change in laws would result in actual harm. Judge Walker (nor the Prop 8 supporters, actually) was unable to find a single reason why allowing gays to marry would harm anyone.
And that's why we have courts (and a Constitution, which doesn't allow the establishment of laws that abridge minorities' rights), because the rights of a minority shouldn't be subject to the whims of the majority.
Calling it anything else results in "separate but equal" (or, actually, separate and unequal, which civil unions are).
And I have yet to hear anyone advocating for religions to change their own private distinctions - this is a paranoid fabrication by equality opponents, nothing more.
We obviously need rules for behavior in our society. The discussion is about what the rules should be.
It's not correct that a majority would vote for banning abortion (killing unborn children is inflammatory and incorrect word usage.) Polls show that a majority support the Roe v. Wade decision. Attitudes toward gay marriage are changing. One day a majority will support this as well. Moreover, many thoughtful people have pointed out that we don't determine minority rights under the constitution by voting or by polling. Gay and lesbian constitutional rights are currently being violated wrt marriage and the right to serve openly in the armed services. The opinion of the majority is irrelevant wrt constitutional rights.
Ralph since you haven't read my scientific explanation:
A human embryo (day 1 to week 8) is life by Scientific definition. An embryo exhibits all the life qualifiers that an infant does...all the same qualifiers that a pre-pubescent child does.
GREAT SCINTILLATING SCIENCE, BATMAN! An unborn child has all the same life qualifiers as a post menopausal woman!
EUREKA! I've found a way to place unborn human children on the same platform as some adult women! They exhibit the same six life defining characteristics of (1)Homeostasis, (2)Organization, (3)Metabolism, (4)Growth and (5)Adaptation and (6)Response to Stimuli. The only of the seve which unborn children, pre-pubescent children and post-menopausal women lack is (7) Reproduction.
Thankfully Science tells us that all of the above are still Living Humans. Thank you science!
Put the Olbermann-opedia away and look up some medical facts already.
You are the one who's straying from the facts with inflammatory rhetoric. Hardly scientific. Science can provide facts but not answers to moral issues.
The 7 Characteristics that Define Life are Scientific, Ralph.
Are you trying to say that a zygote is a person? Murder is defined as premeditated killing of a person.
I can't imagine where you would want to go with this, Ralph.
Legally Starbucks is a "person". Choose your words carefully or you'll look like a Liberal...oh, wait.
But, because I know you skip over 98% of what I say I'll quote myself for you:
"...killing of an innocent human life..."
In one of my posts I even
to make it as plain to people like you as I could.
That's better but---
Here's another quote from one of your earlier over-the-top, inflammatory posts--
"I'm not going to kill a baby to do it."
"The answer in this instance is abortion and since it is murder, we as a society do have the obligation to intervene."
Please quit calling abortion "murder." By no accepted definition is it murder, except possibly in the case of late term abortions.
Let's try the Socratic Method. I like him as I'm sure you can tell by my avatar.
Now to lay the groundwork for you, Ralph, I'm not asking you to kowtow to some goody-goody god-sense. I want you to use medical definitions only. I promise I won't cheat.
(You may use my answer from yesterday if you like. It is a medical definition. You may also use a #2 pencil, but I wouldn't recommend using it on your screen.)
I find your comments patronizing as well as incorrect for the most part and not very logical at all.
My aim is not to patronize. I'm telling you that I'm not going to twist things around.
Please, define abortion.
1 : the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: a : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation -- compare MISCARRIAGE b : induced expulsion of a human fetus c : expulsion of a fetus of a domestic animal often due to infection at any time before completion of pregnancy
Note: no mention of murder, babies or children.
Most of the pro-life statistics will also include miscarriage as part of their survey.
Thank you, Ralph.
Actually since your answer already takes care of the next couple steps we can skip ahead.
What is an embryo?
Nope, I missed it can you define it again? Thanks
<sigh> I hope you're not just trolling me. Many won't read previous posts anyways, so it's worth keeping this close at hand.
Life: A characteristic of organisms that exhibit most if not all of the following seven phenomena: homeostasis, metabolism, organization, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, reproduction.
"Polls Show"?? Again Ralph, I'm going to have to see your dice. A Recent Gallup Poll:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/conse … group.aspx
Shows Conservatives at 40% of the population, while only 21% identify as liberal.
This poll shows that fewer Republicans are finding Abortion cool:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/126374/Repub … rized.aspx
So your statement that "Polls show that a majority support the Roe v. Wade decision." is wishful thinking at its ill-informed best.
Did you consult your Oblermann-opedia before swallowing your foot?
DON'T ASK DON'T TELL
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010 … dont-tell/
As the Obama administration proposes repealing the policy known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” a new New York Times/CBS News poll finds that a majority of the public support allowing openly gay men and women to serve in the military.
There’s less support, however, for allowing homosexuals to serve openly.
The results highlight the importance of wording on the issue. In a test, half of the poll’s respondents were asked their opinion on permitting “gay men and lesbians” to serve, and the other half were asked about permitting “homosexuals” to serve.
The wording of the question proved to make a difference. Seven in 10 respondents said they favor allowing “gay men and lesbians” to serve in the military, including nearly 6 in 10 who said they should be allowed to serve openly. But support was somewhat lower among those who were asked about allowing “homosexuals” to serve, with 59 percent in favor, including 44 percent who support allowing them to serve openly.
Democrats in the poll seemed particularly swayed by the wording. Seventy-nine percent of Democrats said they support permitting gay men and lesbians to serve openly. Fewer Democrats however, just 43 percent, said they were in favor of allowing homosexuals to serve openly. Republicans and independents varied less between the two terms.
ROE V. WADE
Poll: Most Americans Support Roe vs. Wade
Adjust font-size: + –
Published November 09, 2007 by:
View Profile | Follow | Add to Favorites
More: Roe Vs. Wade Roe Vs Wade Roe V. Wade Roe V Wade Roe Poll Wade Poll Results
The Harris Poll has been taking the public's opinion on roe v. Wade ever since the Supreme Court handed down its ruing back in 1973. Over the course of time, the percentage of support has ranged from 40 to 65%.
The latest poll shows that support for the decision has been increasing at a significant rate in a short period of time. Right now the level of support is at 56%, the highest it has been since 1998. It is also up 7%
since last year. They also found that just 20% of the adults in the U.S. are in favor of not letting a woman get an abortion under any circumstances.
They also found that by a margin of 60% to 24%, they do not think that the Supreme Count will overturn Roe v. Wade.
Some of the other results are:
There is 25% of the adult population who favor allowing abortions in all circumstances, 52% in some circumstance and 20% who do not favor abortion under any circumstance.
Breaking the results down by parties, most of the Democrats, 61%, support Roe v. Wade 51% of the Republicans oppose it, while 45% of the Republicans support it and 33% of the Democrats oppose it.
The number of Republicans who support the decision has increased Over the last year from 37% to 45% and the number of Democrats who oppose it has gone down from 43% to 33%.
They also looked that the opinions of the independent voters, who will be playing a big part in the 2008 election and they favor Roe v Wade by a margin of 61% to 36%, Last year it was 56% to 37%.
This might well explain why candidates like former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, even with his more liberal or moderate views on issues like this and gun control, are out in front in the Republican party, which usually espouses a much more conservative program. Right now the current administration is not getting a high rate of approval and this could be the Republican voters way of saying that they do not follow the President's way of thinking.
The way it looks right now, Giuliani's position is more in line with the opinion of the voters than the President's or the far right members of the party. Of course, this is right now an with about a year until the general election, anything can happen and probably will.
12Next Page »
Published by Regina Sass
I have been writing, editing and doing advertising online for 10 years. I have been a gardener for more than 50 years. I am a member of the Society of Professional Journalists. View profile
Roe Vs. Wade Decisssion is 35 Years Old.
Male editorial writer sings a song of how the world would have been saved had this decission not passed.
Is Roe vs. Wade Overemphasized?
The emphasis pro-life and pro-choice supporters place upon the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision can leave the impression that legal abortion did not exist prior to that, or that it will end if Roe is overturned. Neither...
Roe v. Wade: An Ethical and Medical Case
Roe v. Wade is one of the most famous cases in American history, and one of the most influential. What was this case about and why is it so powerful in America?
Overturning Roe V. Wade: What Would States Do?
While Roe v. Wade continues to be the case that led the way for a woman's right to choose abortion, we look at what would happen if Roe v. Wade were overturned and the state's were left to regulate
Roe v. Wade
What impact does Roe v. Wade have on our society? Is the right to choose a right we should or shouldn't be willing to give up?
The McFadden Minute: Stalker!
Miz Hollywood Interviews Lauren...
Hands-On X-Box 360 Kinect Preview
* Is it Possible to Be Both
http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl … oe_vs.html
Because it's a "rights" issue. That's the argument for gay marriage, that they have a right to do as they please, that hetero marriage is a form of discrimination. Well if they have such rights then why can't I marry my sister if we're both consenting adults and we love each other why should we be denied our rights to happiness? This argument can be applied to any number of possibilities.
As distatsteful as that might sound to some I couldn't offer a reason why you couldn't marry your sister if we lived in a truly free country. The arguements about incest were adressed else where and apply here. No possibility of children, no problem. What harm would you actually cause the country if you married your sister out of love and a desire to provide her with the finacial benefits all the other free people enjoy. How would you personally affect those around you with this? More than likely this would not be a snap decision by either of you. Just like straight people and probably more so, gays are in long term committed relationships. I don't remember hearing of a quicky Gay marriage service in Vegas, but I'm sure they might be one. Straights don't take marriage seriously anymore, Look at the divorce rates we now have. Shoot if you really disliked the gays you would let em get married. Odds are it will end in divorce and they'll be miserable. Isn't that the who;e idea of keeping another in their place...Too Keep Them Miserable about being themselves?
well done, i like that answer.
ps I hope I haven't responded wrongly. If this thread is over 2 mo old, WHY is it still here??????????? I really don't have time for this crap!!!
I have no idea, It's my first day here and I'm still trying to find my homeroom. Nice to meet you anyway, peace my friend.
There is no such thing as an "unborn child."
Scientifically, there is such a thing as an "unborn child", Ralph. Get out your medical dictionary or look at the explanation I give below. You lose.
So, in Ralph's world, giving birth is a spiritual experience, in which Human-ness is imparted by traversing the birth canal. Which means we can abort that toenail right up until the Dr. smacks it's little bottom.
Does the baby Inhale it's personhood, or is that first cry the mark of humanity?
Got some data to back up that particularly pin-headed point, Ralphie-boy?
If you want me to reply to you, mind your manners.
Olbermann relies on facts in contrast to whatever your sources of information are. See my previous post polling results on Roe v. Wade and Don't as don't tell.
"So your statement that "Polls show that a majority support the Roe v. Wade decision." is wishful thinking at its ill-informed best."
You didn't reply to the information refuting your quote above. You seem to have a problem acknowledging when you are wrong.
Even worse: I own a convertible, live within striking distance of Lake Tahoe, have a number of Lady friends who seem to desire my company -evil capitalist Bastard thought I may be- and enjoy a full social life.
Bottom line here, Ralphie-boy; You're not really a priority.
Now lets address this 2007 poll you quoted. Wait. It's 3 years and full presidential campaign cycle old. Conducted by a newspaper which has been hemorrhaging readers for the past decade, because it ever and only leans far to the left. Few Conservatives read that rag, and those who do are generally only interested in keeping track of the Left's mindset.
Got anything better?
Do you have anything better? You haven't cited anything other than your own opinionated blather.
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/am … _abortion/
Are you trying to say that you believe if the Conservatives give in to equal rights for all, eventually liberals will die and you wont have to worry about equal rights anymore?
Where you trying to say that you somehow believe that liberals give birth to liberals and Conservative should allow liberals to have abortions so that no more liberals will be born because liberals will kill their children and gay children wont be born anymore and all your problems will be solved?
You take the cake in trying to disguise your true feelings. If you hate liberals and believe that liberals want to kill babies and have gay children then just say it.
"Are you trying to say that you believe if the Conservatives give in to equal rights for all, eventually liberals will die and you wont have to worry about equal rights anymore?"
No....I want to know the truth behind the face of judgment?
One of which has already accused me of hatred because of a spun interpretation without knowing me at all.
I find both liberals and conservatives, very often hypocritical and full of useless accusations along with blind hatred towards the opposite....yet...a bird needs two wings to fly straight.
My point is as follows: Please read carefully.......
If conservatives truly hate liberals...why would they care if they want the right to terminate their unborn or engage in gay relationships?
So...is this based on hatred or true concern? Do conservatives love liberals and just want them to do the right thing? Do liberals love conservatives but can't seem to convince them that liberal policies are for the greater good?
Again...what is the truth behind the face of judgment?
I believe I know the answer...but I want to wait and see if anyone else does.
PS. I like strawberry cake!
Hmmmm another "I have the answer" waiting to see if anyone else does !!
Pleeeease ! if it was not so ridiculous it would be condescending - if you have the answer spit it out and lets all have a good laugh.
I just gave it Mr. Condescending.....you should really read slower.
Maybe you could write your answer more simply ? I read it through a few times and see nothing but vague 'stuff', is that the answer you are pointing to ?
Yip...I so dumb....I mean to say that people who think they have the answer for everybody are the problem itself. Especially when they are condescending and rude.
Oh, OK you mean christians ?
I thought for a minute you were referring to me.
Abortion opponents too often state their side of the arguement as pro life . This incorrectly labels their opponents as anti life or pro death. The only way to address this fairly is to refer to it as pro choice and anti choice. I dont find anything in the constitution or bill of rights that gives our government or any group of people the right to tell another what to do with their body, period. I dont personally agree with abortion as a form of birth control but it's not my body and my rights end at the tips of my fingers and toes. I have no right to tell you what to do with your body. Some seek to keep women classified as second class citizens based on the fact that they can get pregnant. They are no longer afforded the same rights that I should have based on her sex. If it were the men being forced to carry a child to term you might see a diferent outlook on this here in America. It is possible to be anti abortion and still be pro choice.
A baby gets killed, people profit, and it's all voluntary (except, most disparagingly, for the baby in question. SHE gets no "choice" in the matter at all). That is a Pro-death as I can imagine.
And the Constitution has all kinds of language about what people can and cannot do to other people, as groups. Search and Seizure, Arrest, Trial, Punishments.
What I REALLY do not see in the Constitution or Bill of Rights is the "freedom" to kill the innocent.
In fact, a great deal of the language is about the freedom to defend yourself, and those innocent people who rely on you for protection, from people who DO seek to cause injury or death.
It seems that the crux of the "Pro-Death" (sorry, pro choice) crowd is that "it ain't a separate life until its convenient for ME to say it is, so killing it isn't really murder, per-se." Hoping against all hope that repeating that mantra will somehow quiet the scientific evidence that it IS a separate, aware, conscious Life they are systematically snuffing out, with a regularity that puts lie to the "legal safe and RARE" claim, creating a billion dollar industry.
that's not an easy thing to answer. one could argue that it's because of religion because ever since george w. bush was president, people have this odd stereotype about all republicans being devout christian followers that hate abortions and gay marriages. which in reality isn't true at all, as i actually know quite a few republicans that are not only atheists, but could care less if gays get hitched. therefore, i think the religion argument is simply nonsense and irrelevant, as not all republicans are religious.
as for abortions though, it's tough to say. i think a lot of it is more a moral dillema if anything. you have some that argue that abortions and using cell embryo research is wrong because the baby has a right to live. saying that the baby inside is alive inside the woman's womb, and killing it just would be disasterous. im not saying it would, as i understand abortions are sometimes necessary. however, im just stating a point. however, if that's the case, then what about sperm? isn't that also sort of a living creature as well? should we consider it murder if sperm is ever wasted then? seriously, at what point does a life become...A LIFE?
As for gay marriages, i chalk that up to more of a society issue if anything. you have to remember here that it took decades and years before it became reasonably acceptable for INTER RACIAL MARRIAGES AND DATING. plus, the whole coming out idealogy hasn't been around for that long. therefore, it's going to take years before people will finally accept it as a normal thing. hell, i'll probably be an old man by then, but i think within the next 30 to 50 yrs, you'll see more and more people be okay with the idea. that i'll guarantee.
...got me scratching my head over here in Canada Tom....never thought of that....
Me too....it just popped in my head....like ....duh?
Abortion is a fine word, because it serves to disguise both the original intent of eugenics, and the current practice it describes. Eugenics was always about curtailing the births of the "lesser races" (not my words) so they would eventually die out. VERY popular in NAZI Germany, where Aryan racial purity meant anyone with too much melanin in their skin was suspect.
It came to America with the clearly stated intent of curtailing minority breeding rates, lest they become Majority. Convincing sane, healthy women to kill their unborn babies voluntarily took a very convincing marketing campaign. "Racial Suicide" became "Reproductive Freedom".
You may now sleep with losers, whose children you would in no way wish to bare, because the baby can be killed before you even feel it's there.
This meant guys need no longer prove themselves Worthy or Committed, and could treat women as so much sport. How that benefits women is beyond me.
They also marketed the killing of unborn as a cure for rape. The logic used is "if your father was a bad man, you need to die." MY father was a flaming dirt-bag, so I live my life in complete opposition, if only to make up for him. Should it be OK to kill people like me?
Few women who have seen a sonogram of their unborn baby, regardless of the sperm-donor's personality, chose to abort. I myself have never met a baby whose life makes the world a worse place to live in.
Conservatives are against abortion because it is a complete devaluation of Human life, perpetrated on the most defenseless, innocent among us. Sold to the mothers of those babies on the strength that the baby is unseen, and she is enriching her life by ending the child's. Again, a decision no sane, healthy woman would accept 100 short years ago.
It's also worth noting that Abortion is the TOP money earning out-patient procedure in America. It's a Cash-Cow, whose benefactors donate large amounts to the liberal democrats who promise to keep the money rolling in.
Abortion has nothing to do with Eugenics. Eugenics is Nazi, abortion is a medical procedure women choose to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
And if the goal was to stop brown and black babies...it didn't work. Whites have more abortions that others.
No one can claim to care about life unless they agree to take care of them once they're here, and put an end to all war, which after all, kills real live people.
Stop the hypocricy.
Actually the United States was practicing Eugenics in the 1920's and inspired Hitler.
Buck vs Bell
In 1924 the Commonwealth of Virginia adopted a statute authorizing the compulsory sterilization of the mentally retarded for the purpose of eugenics
"Whites have more abortions that others." True, by strict count.White women accounted for 53% of all abortions in 2003, followed by 36% by black women. By ratio per 1000 in population not at all. Minority Women have abortions at nearly three times the rate of white women. Source, CDC.gov.
Lets not forget American Tiger in the 70's you might remember, if you are as old as I am or older, the Catholic church had no official stand on abortion and in fact would NOT perform a funeral for a miscarriage because they said "it was not yet born and was not a living thing, as it had no soul". There words, not mine. Some time later feeling the pressure and wanting to influence people against it, they decided it was a sin. That did not help my friend who did not get to properly bury her 7 month old stillborn child.
You are right about this - and it shows the double standards and double speak of religion perfectly. When it suits 'them', christians in this case, a foetus is not a 'person' then when it suits their purpose they decide that it is.
This is the problem with living by moral values - morals must be supported by lies and dogma because thay are only the morals of one point of view and have to fight against 'other' morals.
That's also the case for the evangelical Christians, including the Baptists, who are among the loudest anti-abortionists nowadays. Before 1980, the Southern Baptist Convention advocated for abortion rights; now they say banning abortion rights is second only to alleviating poverty in terms of priorities.
Margret Sanger used Catholic Opposition as a rallying cry throughout her struggle to put Eugenics forward and strike down the Comstock Law, which classified obscene writing, along with drugs, and devices and articles that prevented conception or caused abortion, under the same net of criminality and forbade their importation or mailing.
In 1934, Sanger went before Congress. Reporting on the first day of the hearings, the New York Times noted:
... the almost solidly Catholic opposition to the measure. This is now, according to Margaret Sanger. . . the only organized opposition to the proposal.
Protestants repeatedly stated their unity with Catholics in opposing Planned Parenthood's initiatives. During Sanger's attempts to reform New York state law, a Protestant Preacher stood with Catholics on the issue. The Rev. John R. Straton, Pastor of the Calvary Baptist Church of New York City, said: "This bill is subversive of the human family . . . It is revolting, monstrous, against God's word and contradicts American traditions."
I'm hard pressed to find any Baptist OR Catholic advocating [i]for[i/] abortion. I'm afraid I'll have to see your dice on all that. Where you came up with those statements is beyond me. If Sanger were as anti-eugenics as Planned Parenthood says she was, she would not have printed as many articles sympathetic to eugenics as she did. By the late 1940s, she spoke about ways to solve the "Negro problem" in the United States.
Sanger published the Birth Control Review at the same time that black men, returning from World War I, were lynched in uniform. That she did not see the harm in embracing exclusionary jargon about sterilization and immigration suggests that she was, at best, socially myopic.
As far as there occasionally being women throughout history wanting to kill their own babies, does that make then sane, or the practice any less reprehensible?
Conservatives are against abortion because unborn babies, in and of themselves, are the very reason -genetically speaking- we create societies.
Now do us all a favor and help end this illegal warring, lovemychris & company. Vacation in Iran or Afghanistan or anyplace on the planet where Hamas or the Muslim Brotherhood hold sway, and you protest those guys. You might even be in their next VIDEO! Or go tell any Iraqi woman with a purple finger that you're sorry America soldiers came and closed the Rape Rooms and let her vote. Or tell a Chinese woman that forced sterilization and mandatory abortions are good for her.
I don't live in Iran or Aghanistan, I live here. And I want women to be in control of their lives here. You, as a man cannot possibly understand how infuriating it is to hear you say--You will be forced to carry that preganancy to term whether you like it or not.
Did you read Sangers book?
Did you read how she was working on the Lower East Side and how the poor women were having baby after baby, not being able to support them all, and dying young due to giving birth so often??
Did you hear what the doctor told a woman when she asked him how she could prevent so many pregnancies? He said, "Tell your husband to sleep on the roof."
I don't need to go to China or Iran to be suppressed. You want to do it here, after my fore-women fought so hard to gain their freedom from people like you.
So we should allow the murder of the innocent? You're saying it's OK to kill one class of people so another class have have a better life? "If they would rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population..."
Sanger equated "non-productive feeder/breeders" with "brown" people. She wrote several books, and untold numbers of articles, all in a very sympathetic voice to the Eugenics concept. She felt ending poverty was as simple as killing off those who were impoverished. That's Your Girl. That's your leader and matron and Voice.
Me? I'd be about spreading Capitalism, so mankind might continue to grow in wealth and happiness. I might also suggest less spreading of the knees, because we have definitive evidence as to the cause of pregnancy.
If leftist theories were so very great at building wealthy, prosperous, equal, fair, just, harmonious communities, why is it that predominantly Liberal Democrat cities and states are the ones suffering the worst poverty? The most likely to see riots and civil unrest? The highest crime rates? The most abortions?
There is another thing that could be done to reduce the number of abortions in this country right now. Teach realistic sex education to kids. Teach the the real dasngers of unprotected sex and give them access to a safe souce of protection. This would greatly reduce the number of teen pregnancies and there by reduce teen abortions. The real imprtant question is why wo conservatives fight so hard to keep kids from learning the truth about sex. Conservatives actually work towards and force many young children die from STDs rather than allowing them to protect themselves. If your really concerned with reducing abortions, allow schools to reduce teen pregnancies.
"...give them access to a safe source of protection."
Stump, give me a break. How responsible to you expect children to be? You think giving them a condom will keep them from getting pregnant?
"Kids, don't do heroin. Here's a sterilized hypodermic needle."
People who think giving kids condoms will prevent pregnancy are absolutely Nuts!
Condoms are more effective than abstinence only sex education.
How do you measure that, Ralph? There are no facts to support you.
Oh, I forgot. Olbermann-opedia. Sorry.
Each year, U.S. teens experience as many as 850,000 pregnancies, and youth under age 25 experience about 9.1 million sexually transmitted infections (STIs).[1,2] By age 18, 70 percent of U.S. females and 62 percent of U.S. males have initiated vaginal sex. Comprehensive sex education is effective at assisting young people to make healthy decisions about sex and to adopt healthy sexual behaviors.[4,5,6,7] No abstinence-only-until-marriage program has been shown to help teens delay the initiation of sex or to protect themselves when they do initiate sex.[8,9,10,11] Yet, the U.S. government has spent over one billion dollars supporting abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. Although the U.S. government ignores it, adolescents have a fundamental human right to accurate and comprehensive sexual health information.[8,11]
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/index. … Itemid=336
Gee, what a credible source. You really got me there, Ralph. Their studies are so clear and complete and since you did a good job looking at their research I...wait a second...
Children are clearly getting less pregnant, less STDs and less emotional stress now that our schools have spent the last couple decades teaching sex education the liberal way. The coorelation is so clear, Ralph. Good job.
(That was sarcasm, by the way.)
EDIT: You're the one using a government funded body to refute a government funded program with a government funded program. I'm not going to defend one failed government program just because you like the other.
That was the first one that popped up. There are plenty more studies showing that abstinence only doesn't work. (I'm not opposed to teen abstinence components, but they are clearly not sufficient.)
The following is just my opinion.
Okay, Ralph, I'll agree that we need to teach children about sex. I just go about it a different way: mom and dad + birds and bees discussion. The shotgun method of teacher and class unnerves me and at best is safety net for bad parents. "...at best..."
The sad thing is that there is not conclusive evidence to say whether giving kids condoms will increase or reduce the problems we've listed. I am concerned that it encourages and enables sex among children. I therefore promote getting parents involved in teaching their children to wait for marriage.
If you are right and giving condoms to kids and teaching them how to have sex is effective I will be behind it. Until that is proven I cannot.
Actually, it is pretty clear.
"The teen pregnancy rate declined 41% between its peak, in 1990 (116.9 pregnancies per 1,000 women aged 15–19), and 2005 (69.5 per 1,000). Teen birth and abortion rates also declined, with births dropping 35% between 1991 and 2005 and teen abortion declining 56% between its peak, in 1988, and 2005. But all three trends reversed in 2006. In that year, there were 71.5 pregnancies per 1,000 women aged 15–19."
"The significant drop in teen pregnancy rates in the 1990s was overwhelmingly the result of more and better use of contraceptives among sexually active teens. However, this decline started to stall out in the early 2000s, at the same time that sex education programs aimed exclusively at promoting abstinence—and prohibited by law from discussing the benefits of contraception—became increasingly widespread and teens’ use of contraceptives declined."
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2010 … index.html
"with births dropping 35% between 1991 and 2005 and teen abortion declining 56% between its peak, in 1988, and 2005. But all three trends reversed in 2006. In that year, there were 71.5 pregnancies per 1,000 women aged 15–19."
What year did the democrats take control of the House and Senate?
Where was Bill Clinton during this time?
Who said anything about Clinton? All I talked about was abstinence-only versus comprehensive sex ed.
Can't you just hurry up and get yourself banned again so we can have another break from your incessant derailing?
This is an argument against abortion.
Does anyone have an argument for abortion?
I would offer that not allowing a woman to decide whether to abort a fetus relegates her to the status of a human incubator, and terminates her free will (something that a man will never have to face because of a biological inequality).
After conception....a man has no choice in the matter at all...under current law.
That is correct, as it should be. The father will never have to bear the burden of carrying a fetus to term...until medical science allows a man to implant a womb within himself.
Its not as it should be and very few women consider carrying their children to term a burden.
LOL, I wouldn't go that far! Morning sickness, constipation, hemorrhoids, swelling ankles, bleeding gums, heartburn, restless leg syndrome, muscle cramps, migraines, skin tags, fatigue... and that's before the extended fun and games of childbirth and postpartum recovery!
Most of us do consider the burden worth it, though.
I have all of those problems, could I be pregnant?
If you're not just being facetious, then hie thee to a doctor and talk lifestyle changes! A handful would be one thing, but all of them together is cause for concern.
That's a poor argument. If women have to deal with the "burden" of carrying a child to term, then they can deal with the burden of raising said child until they're an adult. Using your logic, you'd give deadbeat dads a pass. It takes two people to have a child. Both are equally responsible. Grow up.
I don't know where you got that, and I don't understand your dismissive attitude towards my post. You may disagree with me, but the patronizing tone is totally unnecessary.
My point is not that mothers see pregnancy as a burden, but that pregnancy is something that only mothers have to live through. A father's biological role in parenthood ends with donating a sperm. He will never have to make the choice about carrying a fetus to term. There is no such thing as a male pregnancy.
And yet, at least in California, a woman can bring a baby she doesn't want to a fire station or police station and drop it off, no questions asked. No responsibility required, financial or otherwise. Women have the option of totally washing their hands of an infant. However, if a male wants no responsibility, oh well. If the mother wants to keep it, he's on the hook--forever. While women may be the ones having the babies, and often stuck with them, I think it is naive to think that males have only the interest of a "sperm donor" in the outcome of conception. Pressure to abort comes not just from unwanted motherhood on the part of a woman or even from social stigma etc., but also from men who do not want the parental AND/OR financial responsibility.
Are there any instances of a pregnancy that a woman brought full term and didn't want, but the father did want it, and the mother was then responsible for child support for the next 18 years with the risk of life-long interest bearing liens and incarceration if she didn't pay?
I'm just curious. There's an implied hypocrisy here that likely stands as an obstacle to finding a solution to this endlessly polemic debate. Until men have the same option of washing their hands of the child, there will be pressure from the male half of the universe (at least some of them) to keep abortion available.
(And yes, I know, no parent should be trying to wash their hands of a child, but reality has proven Utopia doesn't exist.)
Well, I didn't say that men only have an interest in being a sperm donor, any more than I said women consider carrying a fetus to term a burden. In terms of biological obligations, men have virtually none (and one that is generally wholly pleasurable). It seems to be true, though, that a woman decides whether to abort, carry to term but give for adoption, or raise the child. This seems to be primarily because nature has given women the ability to bear children, and not men.
I've seen several such cases on Judge Judy, so yes, it certainly does happen. In most cases, the woman "wanted" the child (i.e. claimed she did) but custody was still given to the father because he was the only suitable parent in the eyes of the family court judge. The mother was forced to pay child support. (Here's one example: part 1 * part 2)
Exactly my point. When men have wombs, and can get "accidentally" pregnant, and be forced to make a decision of whether to carry a fetus to term, then both men and women can have equal say into whether pregnancy is something the parent should have full control over.
Right to choice. It's a legal medical procedure performed and remains an option, because once pregnant, there is no other option but to carry it full term. My argument isn't based on PRO-Abortion. It's based on PRO-Choice.
And, if you look at on a larger scale- without Abortion(the medical procedure) being an option- over population in America would completely drain the resources available and only create more homeless, and non-productive people. Not to mention, more and more children would be murdered and tie up the court system, for which, is already over-run by criminals.
While I totally agree with some of this, like the stuff about women who see their babies on a sonogram not wanting to nuke it, and that abortion gets sold to women as a justification for promiscuity that has consequences that can go beyond expressing their autonomy, I have to tell you that the huge, huge, huge portion of your argument hinging on the fact that this is some modern movement is totally and completely wrong beyond all measure.
Shaman, witches, gypsies and holistic healers on the "edge of society" have been brewing potions and administering some hard-core "treatments" that were intended to (and in more than a few cases marginally effective for) the ending of pregnancy or the prevention of it for thousands of years. THOUSANDS. You need to read wayyyyyyyyyy deeper before you try to pin abortion to the last century or two and some random modern philosophy.
I'll concede your point about "edge of society" killing of the unborn going on for thousands of years, Shades.
I'll also posit that we end more "inconvenient" pregnancies -not pregnancies resulting from rapes or incest, just elective terminations because a girl let some looser screw her- in any given year, just here in America, than all those previous abortions put together.
In a survey taken of women who have had abortions, 63% of them felt “forced” by other people into the abortion, and 74% of the women surveyed said they would not have the abortion again.
And don't let the "safe" label fool you, either. Approximately 10% of the women undergoing elective abortion will suffer immediate complications, of which approximately one-fifth (2%) are considered life threatening. The nine most common major complications which can occur at the time of an abortion are: infection, excessive bleeding, embolism, ripping or perforation of the uterus, anesthesia complications, convulsions, hemorrhage, cervical injury, and endotoxic shock. The most common "minor" complications include: infection, bleeding, fever, second degree burns, chronic abdominal pain, vomiting, gastro-intestinal disturbances, and Rh sensitization.
The risk of breast cancer almost doubles after one abortion, and rises even further with two or more abortions. Ovarian, cervical and liver cancer rates also increase following abortion.
Not to mention the higher chances of a myriad of complications to any children a woman may wish to carry to term, later in her life.
In a strictly Cost / Benefit business analysis (I'm a business negotiator, it's how I think), abortion makes little sense at all for the woman who get them, other than to line the pockets of the clinics who perform them.
What were those -awesome killer devastating in their inescapable logic- arguments FOR abortion, again?
Where are you getting your information...? According to the National Cancer Institute there is no causative link between abortion and breast cancer.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/fact … iscarriage
Nor can I find any information there about a link between ovarian, cervical and liver cancer and legally performed abortions. It is true though that in countries where abortion is illegal, backyard jobs can cause serious problems for women.
No abortion. IT IS MURDER. The fertilized egg develops a heartbeat in the first 5 days, so you are killing a baby. I think gay marriage should be allowed because, well, why not? It's no different then straight people getting married. Isn't marriage part of the church because you get married by a priest? I thought the government wasn't allowed to interfer (spelling?) with religion?
Then it follows that war is murder. When do the leaders go on trial for starting war? That would be GW Bush.
And everyone who voted in favor of sending troops?
Conservative is adoptive... ie., adoption of out culture and tradition. If our predecessors did any thing good, we must adopt that and avoid unnecessary problems. I think no predecessor could have thought of abortion and gay marriage... At least they would have been afraid to do that.
It is obvious that both sides are passionate about their position on abortion.
I wonder...how many religious conservatives have secretly taken their girlfriends, wives and daughters to have an abortion.
How many liberals have done the same because they have conservative friends and family?
By removing politics and religion....there is...basically the woman who ultimately makes the heart wrenching decision to terminate her pregnancy.
Only a woman knows her reasons to or to not become a mother at a certain time in her life.
The right wing stands with the unborn child and the left stands with the woman's right to decide.
Regardless of politics and religion....it is...the woman's body and it is her decision in the end.
I asked the question in the beginning of this post,"Why don't conservatives give them what they want?" It is a moronic question but it serves a purpose nonetheless. Some attitudes are moved by self righteousness and blind hatred. Some are out of true concern for the human race.
While both sides are gnashing each other with opposing philosophies....abortions will go on whether legal or not....they always have.
So finally...If we are not spending all of our time making this a better world for mothers, fathers and children...maybe we should all just shut the hell up....and focus on making better human beings of ourselves.
Then...there might never be another...unwanted pregnancy.
At least half of the babies aborted are female. Don't they have a "Right" to decide about their bodies?
In a presidential debate once, the Democrat said (and yes, I'm paraphrasing) "What a person Chooses to do in that regard is their own, personal Choice." To which the Republican responded (again, I paraphrase) "I will concede that Choice is important, but in the Master / slave relationship, I believe we are asking the wrong person about that choice."
The man all for "Choice" was Democrat Senator, Judge Stephan A. Douglas, fighting hard to maintain slavery as the Law of the Land. He was always and only for the Owner having a choice. Lincoln was very correct to point out that it should be the person getting the shitty end of the stick, who should get to make the Choice.
"Freedom of Choice" is an empty, selfish argument if you limit just one person in the bargain to the choice.
If a man "chooses" to have sex with a woman who does not oblige, we call it rape and do our best lock him away. It is brutal and violent and completely inexcusable to overpower someone who cannot physically defend themselves against you.
If a woman "chooses" to stop the heartbeat of a child too small to speak for itself. we call it a social obligation for Taxpayers to fund.
Take your "Choice" argument and stick it where the Sun never shines.
So...what is your solution? Take away the choice...then what?
Begin prosecuting women for having back alley abortions? Would you charge them with capital murder? Maybe go back to stoning?
The sun already doesn't shine where your head is.
You forgot to call me a homophobic racist misogynist hater of the environment and the poor. But I'm sure you'll get around to it. Attempting to make the other guy out to be a neanderthal is the default position of the weaker argument. Attack the messenger effectively enough, and who cares what his message is.
Yes. I do indeed feel that murder is murder, even if you cannot see the victim. Perhaps even Especially if you cannot see the victim. I reserve my protests to forums like this one. I keep politics and religion out of my arguments, and try simply to speak with passion, using facts. It is those who dislike my points who seem to constantly bring politics and religion into the fray. Name calling is a poor excuse for genuine debate, but that's the level of argument I most seem to hear.
If we "took away the choice", women would, by and large, require men to once again prove themselves Worthy and Committed. Why does that concept never enter into the Abortionist argument? Unwanted/Unplanned pregnancy statistics would drop exponentially, because men would no longer find it easy to treat women as so much Sport.
Did making slavery illegal fail to curtail THAT injustice? America still does have "back-alley" slavery, even today. Girls as young as 12 shipped in from other countries, and forced into prostitution. Should we legalize that, because, "you know, it's still going to happen."?
Reducing ANY human life to the level of "disposable" is the mark of brutality, barbarism and slavery. It has never produced a society worth emulating, in all of Mankind's long history. Societal progress can easily be measured in terms of how much value we place on human life. Making abortion legal did nothing to make it safer, but it sure made it a ton more lucrative!
Killing the unborn of the losers you'll sleep with but don't really want raise children with, no matter how nice a name you call it, or the straw-man arguments of "choice" you use to justify it, is a major step backwards in Societal Evolution.
I disagree with the murder is murder statement but I think you make some very valid points concerning abortion.
Check your dictionary. Abortion is not murder. This is an inflammatory misuse of the English language.
Real Dictionary for Ralph
Abortion - termination of pregnancy
Pregnancy - a developing embryo or fetus in the uterus
Embryo - an organism in the early stages of growth
Fetus - a post embryonic organism in the early stages of growth
A human embryo/fetus is scientifically defined as life. It is a Human life inasmuch as its parents are Humans. It is also innocent.
Terminating an innocent life is murder, Ralph. You get out your dictionary!
Not in my dictionary. Which one are you using?
Merriam Webster--1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
Can the fetus survive on its own outside its mother? Or is inside its mother's womb the only way a developing fetus can survive?
Can a person shot in the stomach survive on their own? Or is it in a doctor's hospital the only way a dying person can survive?
How can your minds survive the punishment you give them?
We're not talking about a random act. Pregnancy works like this. Only woman can get pregnant. A fetus requires nurturing in the womb to stay alive. A man can not carry a fetus, and a fetus can not stay alive outside its mother's womb until the final trimester.
A fetus is not an independent life until it can survive on its own. Until it can survive independent of its mother, it is not a full life.
So what you're saying is that an infant is not a "full life"? It is also entirely dependent.
I like that you make up your own terms to skirt the hard scientific and medical definitions I use.
I like that you decide your terms are "hard" and "scientific" because you choose to view them that way.
I use words like "homeostasis" and "adaptation" completely in context. You use phrases like "full life".
Where exactly do we find this medical term?
You don't even know what homeostasis or adaptation means!
Oh, my! Sandra says Homeostasis doesn't mean "Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state" which an embryo does.
Sandra suggests in denying my credibility that Adaptation doesn't mean "The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment" which an embryo does.
Just remember, she is not a doctor. Bring this list of characteristics to your doctor and ask them. I'm not your doctor, so you don't trust me. I get that. So ask your own and don't worry about the angry Liberal.
Your use of your terms is arbitrary.
The answer for when life begins is a clearly complex one. You've chosen to choose a definition that suits your viewpoint.
In your link Mr. Gilbert talks about the definition of "life" is fluid "because any answer about when human life begins is deeply integrated with the beliefs, values and social constructs of the community or individual that drew the conclusion."
That is not anchoring the definition to science. That individual is clearly stating that they feel it fluctuates based on viewpoints.
I'm using strict science.
A human embryo exhibits 6 of the 7 "Characteristics of Life" as accepted by the current body of medical science.
It has fluctuated a bit over the years, but as the dust has settled recently these 7 (homeostasis, reproduction, metabolism, growth, organization, adaptation, response to stimuli) are the accepted characteristics.
Look it up and stop worrying about who is right. There is a definition that is broadly and uniformly accepted at this time. It may change and I will change with it if it does. I am fallible and rely on the knowledge I find.
Brian, I have so far avoid engaging with you for several reasons. Perhaps foremost because I really was not very interested in getting involved in this debate in the first place, but American Tiger asked me to share my views and I appreciate the respect he has shown me on this thread. At AT's request, I wrote a very lengthy post discussing my views...although you habitually accuse people of failing to respond to your posts, I notice that you have not responded to the points raised in mine. Specifically, the first point in my post was that I conceded that a fetus was alive. Of course it is. My post focused, however, on whether our society should permit abortions to be legal as a matter of law and ethics. You apparently do not understand the distinction. But I need to object to the way you have approached this debate.
Your MO is to make a post describing the scientific definition of life. Then you accuse everyone that disagrees of being ignorant of science. Then, incredibly, you demand that no one actually respond to your posts because they don't understand science as well as you. If you wanted to share that you have a medical education of some kind...that's fine for context. But you are making naked arguments from authority...and worse still, demanding that no one participate in the debate with you. Why are you posting in this thread at all?
Here is the basic flaw in your reasoning. You argue: 1) a fetus is a living thing because it has 6 of 7 characteristics of living things; 2) therefore abortion is the killing of an innocent human being. But point 2 does not logically follow from point 1. No wonder you angrily attack people for not following what you consider to be simple logic. Your argument is simple but it is not logical.
Because something is alive (a fetus, a kitten, a cow, etc.) does not mean our law requires that other beings keep it alive, much less lose control over what they can do with their bodies for a period of time. Our laws permit humans to let certain things die, and in certain circumstances even kill them. There is no other circumstance under which our laws have required anyone to keep a physically-dependent living alive. But at the same time there laws against killing a person. So the real issue is whether a fetus is the kind of living thing that our society should require human beings to surrender control of their own bodies (for only a 9 month period of time) to keep alive. Science can define what "life" is but it cannot define what rights to award a living thing.
I made a more recent post which was admittedly slightly tongue-in-cheek, where I pointed out that sperm was potential human life, including sperm still inside a man's body. I labeled every act of masturbation or abstinence as murder because it terminated a potential life. It was tongue-in-cheek but also a trap. On seeing this, you went to great lengths to explain why a fetus was alive but sperm was not. Just as we agree that a fetus is alive, I think we can agree that potential life is not something that requires legal protection. Which returns me to my original post. It is one of the longest ones on this thread, and I believe sets out my complete views on when a living thing should have the same rights as a human being. I sort through a number of possible criteria, including the concept of consciousness, and end up with one that I believe is quite compelling...the distinction between social dependence and physical dependence. Laws have been promulgated to protect social dependence but never physical dependence. A few other posters have put up some briefer explanations, but I would ask you to read my original post because it has several helpful analogies.
You also argue that a woman is responsible for surrendering some portion of control over her body to fetus because she chose to have sex. I could not disagree more. She chose to have sex but did not choose to become pregnant. Again, why this does not give rise to an obligation to surrender control of your body for a physically-dependent creature is something I explain in greater detail in my post. Let me point out that if you leave the house in the morning and get hit by a bus, you are in some way responsible for being hit by a bus because your decision to leave the house was a causal factor in your death. Most people would not say it was your fault for leaving the house though. Most of the times women and men have sex, it is not to procreate. It is done for recreation and all of the other good things intimacy brings. A woman may become pregnant either because the form of contraception used was ineffective (and every form has some level of failure rate) or because of some degree of human negligence. But whether the condom failed or the couple did not take sufficient precautions, an unwanted pregnancy is by any definition of the term an accident. You might say that negligence contributed in some sense to the fetus but I refer you to my original post for why even negligence does not give rise to sustain a physically dependent creature.
You have made absolutely fabulous points throughout the course of this thread. I leave them be because there is nothing to refute. Then you make fallacious points that are similar enough to what somebody else said and I just put it under the same umbrella. Though it will seem contrary, the following is out of respect for your implied request that I answer your long reply to AT.
“A fetus is plainly alive, as is every other part of a woman’s body. A woman’s tonsils and appendix…”
This is a Fallacy of Equivotation. Your statement uses “alive” to describe two different states of being and you treat it as synonymous. You likely didn’t mean it, but it is fallacious nonetheless. An appendix is not alive in the way that a fetus is.
“The analysis needs to go beyond whether a fetus is alive.”
I refined the analysis with science. And neither a sperm nor an appendix meets the criteria which a human embryo so handily does.
You then carry on about hair (also not “life”) and though you mention DNA you forget that from the forming of the zygote, the unborn does not have the same genetic structure as its mother. It is a separate, human being! Do you see why I left some of your comments alone? I thought they were covered when I refuted the others.
“…whether a fetus is a person…”
Legally McDonalds is a person. What definition do you want to use? Again, avoiding the Equivocation fallacy, you must only choose one. This is again why my refined approach to the discussion “Is a fetus life by scientific definition? What else is or is not?” is such an excellent one. I didn’t make it up. It is a present to us as a result of hundreds of years of scientific/medical development and a modern consensus.
“…a fetus, it is physically dependent. It literally cannot survive independent…of the mother.”
Again, others have made similar statements. If you want to draw the line with “dependence” then...
When technology reaches back into the second and then first trimester with incubation, you should concede that an embryo or fetus is the same as an infant in this regard.
You assert that a fetus “is, at best, a potential person.” But, what do you base that on, Sylvie? Just your own morals? Your own opinions? What is your foundation? I used science to define life.
You want to draw the line where a human life deserves rights? I ask you and all the others: With what measure? Ralph says law. How about you? And will you espouse every other act that is not illegal? When in history do you draw the line? At what borders? From which society?
Oh, yes, I’ve commented on some Hubbers' lines. You used technological possibilities and a bunch of analogies that makes the pregnant woman a “kidnap victim” a “breaking and entering victim” all great analogies for rape.
And rape victims deserve special considerations, but unless you are raped you can prevent pregnancy with 100% accuracy. If you choose not to, you are jumping out of a plane with a parachute (condom, birth control) not being kidnapped. You are joining a fight club with head gear on, not coming home to a break-in. Your logic is so out of whack that, except by your express plea, I would not give it credence. Your feelings, I shall. Illogic, I shall not.
Just look at the definition I’ve accepted to define life. I didn’t participate in its conception nor its delivery, but it makes sense. It’s scientific. You agree that a fetus is life, but want to draw a line somewhere between zygote and infant and say, “No rights until you cross.”
That’s where I take issue with you. Your manners are fantastic. Your loving nature is apparent, but you’ve accepted convoluted logic and I felt I had already given you and everybody and opportunity to redress that.
I have already conceded that a fetus satisfied the scientific definition of life. So does a kitten, a cow, and a person. I do not believe you mean to expand the protection of our laws to all life. Perhaps you mean to expand it to "human life" or "innocent human beings" or to "people." But you fail to prove why a fetus is any of the latter things, and just assume that it is. Indeed, your whole argument appears to be premised on showing that a fetus has common characteristics to an adult kitten. In fairness, you cannot prove your argument this way because personhood is not subject to scientific definition. Unlike an adult kitten, a human fetus has the potential to be born, grow into an adult human etc. So does sperm. Is the potentiality of a fetus relevant to whether it should receive legal protection, if so, why not give such protection to sperm? Is the distinction because a fetus has biological characteristics such that it can be defined as being "alive?" If so, how is it different from a cat?
Your point about a corporation being a "person" is more of a tautological problem. I could use other terms. I could use "human being" if you want. The corporation analogy isn't very good, is it? A corporation has certain due process rights but not others that courts consider to be personal rights rather than collective rights (i.e., generally no 5th amendment privilege against self-incrimination). A corporation can be held guilty of violating criminal laws, and could be the victim of financial crimes I suppose, but I don't recall any instance where dissolving a corporation or harming it in some way was charged as murder. I don't think you should get hung up on "person," "human being" whatever. But find a logical way to distinguish how you want our laws to treat a fetus and how you want our laws to treat a cat.
If a fetus could survive outside the mother with advances of science that should be the appropriate procedure. This does not impose an unreasonable burden on a woman because the law is not requiring her to use her body to keep a physically-dependent creature alive.
I gave you some very specific and famous examples, and you gave them rather short shrift. I'd like you specifically respond to them. I know you disagree but you don't really explain why other than submitting other analogies that you like better. I believe I used the analogy of the woman that woke up one morning to find that she was physically-attached to the world's best violinist (substitute the world's most brilliant scientific mind if you want). Assume that there is no medically-safe way to detach the violinist and he will die unless this woman consents to permit him to continue using her kidneys for 9 months. While there are moral arguments why she should allow her body to be used in this way for the good of society, few people would argue that the violinists rights were such that the woman should be compelled to do so, or that her decision to cut the cords is murder.
Here is another analogy. A woman negligently leaves her door unlocked and goes on vacation. She comes back and there is a person living in her apartment. This person is physically dependent on her shelter and the food in her home, and will die if she asks him to leave. It would be nice for her to continue to shelter this man, but few people would say that she was obligated to do so or that a failure to do so was murder. This is true despite that he would have never entered her home except for her negligence and even though she knew that it was possible someone would enter her home if she left it unlocked.
I never said these women were victims and did not draw an analogy to rape. I just said that they should not be obligated to continue providing for a physically-dependent creature, even if negligence is a contributory factor (and there are instances where negligence is not a factor, such as when a birth control system fails). There are forms of social dependence that give rise to rights, such as the dependence that a child has on its parents. But, like the woman upon whose kidneys the violinist was dependent, we do not normally require people to surrender their bodies to a physically dependent creature. If you want me to personalize it, if another person required you to allow him to be attached to your kidneys for 9 months or he would die (and there are no suitable transplants that his body will not reject), some people would be willing to do that. But the law would not require you to.
I am just going to disagree again a woman is responsible for surrendering her body to the needs of a fetus because she did not make the one choice that 100% guaranteed that she would not become pregnant. That would require her to forego sex, a rather basic human activity. When she engaged in that basic human activity, it resulted in an unplanned pregnancy. The word unplanned connotes a lack of consent. An accident is an accident, even if your decision was a causal factor. You will never choke on food if you refuse to eat. It does not follow that if you choke you had it coming.
Even this guy says, "Discrete marking points such as the fourteen day dividing line between a zygote and an embryo are entirely artificial constructions of biologists and doctors in order to better categorize development for academic purposes."
Also, since then the dividing line was moved from 14 days to eight weeks. It may move again, but is nonetheless artificial as he and other scientists and doctors agree.
That's really a pointless thing to bring into the discussion, isn't it? The difference between a zygote and an embryo. Whether it's a few minutes, a few days or a few weeks, it doesn't change our arguments one whit.
Apparently you just Google-planted your reference, whereas I read it. Try again after you take his whole treatise as context for your consideration.
You're assuming I make a distinction between a zygote and an embryo for the purposes of this discussion, and I don't. You clearly don't either. They are both a form of dependent life.
No, I'm reading that you didn't peruse the link you offered any further than the first screens-worth. I could be wrong.
Zygote, diploid, embryo, fetus, infant, pre-pubescent, post-pubescent, adult...I'm glad you agree that labeling stages doesn't matter.
Wholly dependent or not, if it is a life then I believe we should defend its rights.
The difference between a zygote and a late term fetus capable of surviving outside the womb is significant. That's the line drawn by many ratinal, tolerant, moral people.
what about preemies? do they count? they cannot survive on their own without medical intervention.
I agree with you. But the difference he was bringing up was between a zygote and an embryo. I know we've been caught up with the terminology, but in this case it's important; in neither case (zygote or embryo) is the developing child viable on its own outside the womb.
A late-term fetus that can survive on its own should not be aborted.
We're on the same wave length with an exception for the life or health of the mother. The matter should be left to the pregnant woman and her physician.
I want to destroy a drum too! So again, once technology can support the unborn, they become a life. It is almost like saying that in addition to the 7 accepted characteristics I brought up that you guys want to add:
Technological dependence: The ability to survive outside the mother's womb thanks to advancements which change from age to age and from year to year...in which case a unborn human will be considered a life earlier and earlier...and earlier.
Soon the diploid cell will be able to survive outside the womb, ladies and gentlemen. Then will you agree with us that it is life? When your 8th characteristic reaches our 7?
Yes, this is how I personally define it.
If you're looking for consensus, you probably won't find it. But it's relatively meaningless because we will all be dead by the time that technology exists. This will be an ethical matter future generations will have to grapple with.
So you draw the line based on technological advancements, Ralph?
A thousand years ago there were no incubators, no fancy medicines to lower infant mortality. They would have died outside the womb then.
I hope you live long enough to see the advent of technology that will allow a diploid cell to survive outside the womb. Then you will have to live up to your support of "life when technology can support it instead of biology."
"Not a full life"?? "Full" being defined as "able to survive outside the womb"? Is that seriously your argument? And if, by a few more steps in the technology ladder, we discover how to incubate zygotes to full term outside the womb, are you THEN going to say Abortion should no longer be legal?
I mean... Survivability IS your argument as to why it's fine to kill babies, so long as you catch them early enough, yes?
Does the pro-abortion crowd not see how far they have to stretch meanings to justify their actions?
Are we next going to debate what the meaning of "is" is?
Not everyone against gay marriages are conservatives. Moderates will also not like that kind of marriage.
That would be the catholic church agaisnt all this.
Most conservatives i would know are not to worried about about any of this.
I consider myself a person with conservative values. I am against abortion but superseding my opinion is the rights of the individual. I would never want to impose and force my beliefs onto another.
I also have no problem with gay marriage. I do not believe that government should be involved with marriage at all.
The government should only recognize a civil union between any two people.
Arthur, you're not a conservative or a liberal based on allowing another person to infringe upon the rights of others.
I am a conservative, but I don't believe my opinion should mean John Smith can't beat his wife. I don't have the right to deny him the right to beat his wife. In fact I don't have the right to deny him the right to kill her.
Do you see how that sounds?
EDIT: I also don't think government should be involved in marriage. But I don't just mean gay marriage. Churches like the mormons who believe that their marriage is part of salvation do that in their own churches.
The only reason we have marriage is to make a class of people and that's not something a conservative wants. No classes. Married or single you should pay the same taxes on your income.
What's all the hubub-bub...I'm afraid I don't understand the "We don't want gays to get married" hootnanny. Let them get married if they wanna. They'd have the same rights if they married same sex...right. Too much money wasted on this subject.
"If we "took away the choice", women would, by and large, require men to once again prove themselves Worthy and Committed."
This just doesn't add up. You would also have to make divorce a crime. Maybe even a break of engagement...a criminal offense?
What punishment would you recommend for women who had illegal abortions...since you say..."Murder is murder?"
It sounds like you are putting most of the blame on lying men and ignorant women. Consider the government dependent families and welfare studs. More kids = more money. It grows every year and so does crime as a result of poverty.
I would think...the best solution would be educating our youth about the responsibility of having children. Most of them are clueless and many suffer from society inflicted low self esteem. Stop the corporate "Sell with Sex." Follow the money and find the problem.
The only real "Abortionist." are the ones who make money from abortion....directly or indirectly. It's not about women having a choice....but needing a choice in the current social atmosphere. Fix that....and abortion will fade away.
If abortion is made illegal...losers won't stop lying.
Oh...I forgot...I was attacked first.
"Take your "Choice" argument and stick it where the Sun never shines"
Tom, this kind of response brings the forum, the community, and Hubpages down in my opinion.
Exactly...that's why I re posted what he said.
Ah. I wasn't addressing you personally in Sunshine statement, Tom. My apologies if it came out that way.
The "choice" argument is many many centuries old, and invariably invoked by those with vile intentions. It's the misdirection called up and applied most often in human history to totally screw the defenseless, who never seem to be given a voice in the "choice." It gets my hackles up.
I point it out as the excuse men used to justify slavery here in America, because I live in America, and it WAS the straw-man argument. "Freedom of Choice" means BOTH parties are free to choose. Short of that, there is no Freedom, there is no Choice.
Having never met a newborn, of any race or gender, who did not bring a deep joy to my heart and a broad smile to me face, I'm hard pressed to find a viable justification for killing them on a whim, to make a profit.
Snuffing them out when they're too little to be noticed, doesn't make it any less vile a practice. The ONLY reason abortions became legal is because we do not see the tiny crushed and mutilated bodies. Hearts beat at 5 days. Thumbs are sucked in the 2nd month. They die in searing agony.
We write & enforce laws against killing people. How does the size or visibility of the person make a genuine difference? Ending a heart-beat is ending a heart-beat.
Giving great wads of money to the leftist politicians and slick marketers who promise to keep the Cash-Cow alive and killing, doesn't make it any more cool and acceptable.
Divorce doesn't end a life. Marriage is one of those "both parties get a choice" deals. Neither party is forced into the arrangement. That was an empty straw-man argument in this discussion Tom, and I'd like to think I expect better from you.
To quote Benjamin Franklin, when he addressed the British concerning their growing Welfare class "Repeal that [welfare] law, and you will soon see a change in their manners. ... Six days shalt thou labor, though one of the old commandments long treated as out of date, will again be looked upon as a respectable precept; industry will increase, and with it plenty among the lower people; their circumstances will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing all your estates among them."
I don't believe it is about choice or legality. It is about a society that constantly degenerates because of financial and political opportunity sleeping together in beds of power.
Abortion was never made legal because of concern for the welfare of women. It was as I believe you will agree...set in motion to decrease the impoverished populous...while making a profit. It is hidden behind a woman's choice...but in reality ...it is about social manipulation.
Abortion was made legal years ago. Where were the voices of the mighty "Religious Right" for the unborn then? They were too busy picking out stained glass for their multimillion dollar mega churches. Even today...they blab about heavenly rewards and bitch about gay marriage as women enter the clinics daily.
Is abortion wrong. Only an idiot would say it was right. Is abortion murder? I would think...that is the ground of God. I remember Hippies calling soldiers,"Murderers and Baby Killers" when they came home from Vietnam.
Those same Hippies were deforming and killing their own unborn with LSD among other drugs. My ex-wife was a statistic of the 70s butchering of women through hysterectomies. She was 26 years old and on welfare at the time. She had to have three more major surgeries to fix a doctor's rushed incompetency.
I knew a girl that told me she'd had three abortions between the time she was 11 and 15. Her parent's weren't poor and were obviously too busy with keeping up with the Jones to raise their daughter.
What it boils down to is...the unborn can't be heard over the bullshit and bickering....myself included. Remember the,"Strain a gnat and swallow a camel line." It's easier to bash gays,adulterers,sinners etc than it is to actually counsel (not preach to) a woman who is trying to make a decision that will effect the rest of her life and could terminate a new life.
I wonder how many times that condemnation has made women who were on the fence....to decide to abort? How many times has compassion done the opposite? We should consider the woman and child...not just one or the other.
If there is a solution to the madness of society...I would be the first in line to stand with it. I am sure..you would too.
How do you feel about showering civilians with white phosphorous?
This is against the law. Yet, it was done.....How do you feel about shooting a pregnant woman, point-blank? This also was done. No recriminations, no actions to punish the "sin".
Your "religion" justifies what you want, and condemns what you want.
Same old story.
Freedom of choice involves me and my own body.....what do you say about a gvt. that voluntarily murders mass amounts of people.....cause they don't like them?
Did you even comprehend what I wrote? Killing with the irresponsibility of using LSD is no different than killing with a bullet or phosphorus...the end result is still dead.
I wrote about compassion....did you miss that word....or don't you know what it means?
You saw God in the midst of my post and climbed on your."I don't do God" pedestal and shouted down with your Diva ego without actually caring to understand what I wrote.
This is what I was responding to:
"It's the misdirection called up and applied most often in human history to totally screw the defenseless, who never seem to be given a voice in the "choice." It gets my hackles up."
Maybe you yourself should be a little more circumspect befor you jump the gun.
The "Religious Right" was screaming bloody murder when abortion became, not a Law, but a Legal President. A Law is something debated in an elected Congress, voted on, passed and signed into law by an elected Governor or President. A Law is assumed, in a Democratic Republic, to be the will of the people.
Roe v Wade was a decision reached by FIVE Supreme Court Justices, who decided that killing the unborn was a "privacy issue", which they inferred from the 4th Amendment, the Freedom from Search and Seizure. Never before in the history of our country had the 4th been applied as "privacy", and never before had privacy been interpreted to mean "kill the unseen in the womb."
Even more telling: the abortion never happened. "Wade" (not the woman's real name) decided to keep the baby after all. Which makes the legal president of finding the murder of unborn to be "difficult to prosecute" on very shaky legal ground. Not that you'll ever hear that from anyone connected to the Cash-Cow that is the Abortion Industry. Which includes a great many, liberally greased leftist politicians.
Lovemychris? You seem to be all about the Preservation of Life, a worthy position, to be sure. Why is it that "your" body is more sacrosanct than the unborn child in your womb? And don't repeat the "war is murder too" rant. We've heard that. NOW explain how YOU justify the killing of someone else's body, simply because they're riding inside yours. I am very curious to get your actual take on why your body is more important than the baby's.
I'll be even more impressed if you can post your thoughts without mentioning someone else's evils as a justification. We all agree that phosphorus and shooting and all that jazz is bad and wrong and uncivilized. NOW you get to make make your case free from all that clutter.
"Killing unborn babies is OK because...."
I do not accept your perception of it.
It is not a human until it is formed into one. I decide whether or not it will happen in my body. It's that simple.
It's none of your business, just as it is none of your business should "God " decide to prevent a pregnancy with a miscarriage.
Mind your own business, the world would be a better place.
Lovemychriss? Do you contend that a heart beating in a chest is not a mark of humanity? When do YOU say that threshold is? Seriously. Do you rally and protest late term abortions? I earnestly and sincerely want to hear your clearest and best argument in favor of Abortions. Or, is "because I said so" the peak of your reasoning? If it is, I'm curious why you even entered into the discussion; Because as arguments go, that's less than weak, and tends to paint you a narcissistic self-centered twit. I'd like to hope you can do better than that.
The best, most effective, and easiest way to "decide whether or not it will happen in your body" would be to simply keep your knees together. Do you back Abstinence programs for teens?
Perpetrators, collaborators, bystanders, victims: we can be clear about three of these categories. The bystander, however, is the fulcrum. We don’t usually think of history as being shaped by silence, but, as English philosopher Edmund Burke said, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
Should those Republicans who stood up to free the slaves or give women the vote have listened to the Democrats who fought hard & dirty to stop both those issues, and shut up about it?
Should the North have just minded its business because the South had free labor and cotton prices were low? As if it was the North's business to bother Southern Democrats about where they "Chose" to burn their Crosses or lynch their own, uppity property. The Nerve!
To be fair, the Republican party of Abraham Lincoln was more doctrinally similar to the Democratic party today. I'm not saying that modern Republicans are in favor of slavery. Just saying that you are taking credit where none is deserved. I am disappointed with your instruction to lovemychris to keep her legs closed. Her decision not to does not condemn her to any punishment, much less loss of control over her body. If sex were only for the purpose of procreation perhaps your argument would have merit, but it is also for recreation by both married and unmarried couples. Some may not like it but their views do not have support in the law. There are theocratic governments elsewhere where they may be more comfortable. Most men would not carry a walnut in their rectum for a few days, much less a child to term. Motherhood and childbearing are wonderful things but let's not force them on other people. I would ask you not to call her a twit anymore, or instruct her to keep her legs closed. That is offensive no matter what she believes. I encourage her to open her legs whenever she feels like it.
Your analogy of the right of the Southern states to choose to maintain slaves and whether women should be be entitled to choose whether to have an abortion is absurd. Is that the best you have? Your analogy is ridiculous but if we go down this road, the choice that was vindicated was that exercised by the human beings in yokes and working in plantations. They were the ones that regained control of their bodies. I'm not saying that this analogy advances either side of the debate much because it is quite off point, but you brought us here.
Au contraire, Silvie. Democrats would love us to believe they were the Republicans of old, but the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. voted Republican. And that Solid Christian Base which lovemy cited as the block who voted for Bush is the same Solid Christian Base that fought to end slavery and give women the Vote.
The Republican message has not changed. The Democrats have learned to sing different words, but they still have the same tune.
Jun. 9, 1964: Republicans condemn Democrat Senator Robert Byrd’s (D-WV) 14-hour filibuster against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He was a former Ku Klux Klansman. The Act was introduced and approved by a staggering majority of Republicans in the Senate, and opposed by most southern Democrat senators, several of whom were proud segregationists—one of them being Al Gore Sr.
And I pointed out to lovemy that keeping legs closed was the best defense, and did she back Abstinence, which you obviously do not. Nor did I call her a twit. I pointed out that her current line of argument painted her that way, by virtue of it's lack.
You now, Silvie, seem better written, but still happy to misunderstand my points: Unborn babies are NOT offered a "Choice" by the "Choice" crowd. It is a very valid and telling argument, because there ARE two people involved in the "Choice", but only one of them gets a say.
PLEASE give me a better reason to justify killing unborn babies than "lets not force them on people". Really? Do you actually mean to say that people can be killed if they're inconvenient? Better yet, Innocent Defenseless Children who are too small to be seen? Or should we be able to kill Anybody, provided we put them in a big sack, so we cannot see them anymore?
And if you insist on using the "they ain't people yet" argument, can you please be a tad more specific about when they DO become "people"? After which you can tell me about the next Democrat planned "Late Term Abortion" rally and protest. Hearts beat at 5 days. Little tiny thumbs are sucked inside of two months. Eyes and faces for much sooner than that. Little limbs wiggle in less than a month. At least half the babies are female. Their little bodies not get rights?
I expect to be wowed by your logic, use of scientific reasoning, and clearly delineated, inescapable upside in the forward motion that killing unborn infants brings to Societal Evolution.
The Republican and Democratic parties bear little resemblance today to what they were 50 years ago, so how one particular American saint voted 50 years ago does not give any kind of indication as to how he would vote today.
MLK, Jr. was a socialist, so I doubt he would be welcome in the modern Republican party!
MLK Jr. identified with the National Socialist [NAZI] Germans, 45 years ago? Less that 20 years after America fought Socialism and Communism at the cost of HOW many American lives? You're going to actually tell me that the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a Baptist Minister, would be FOR Abortion? You're actually going to say that?
To quote Richard John Neuhaus, the white Lutheran pastor who worked closely with Dr. King for years:
"I recall rallies when, in the course of his preaching, King would hold forth on the theological and moral foundations of the movement. The klieg lights and cameras shut down, only to be turned on again when he returned to specifically political or programmatic themes. 'Watch the lights,' he commented. 'They're not interested in the most important parts.' ”
If modern Democrats are now the inheritors of the old Republican ethos, why do Democrats still revere all the old Democrats like KKK Grand Klegal and Sr. WV Senator Robert Bird or FDR, the Democrat President who took us off the Gold Standard back in the 30s and sent Japanese Americans to Internment Camps? Democrats still hold evil and excoriate 50s conservative Republicans like McCarthy or Goldwater. I know its fun for Democrats to "hope" it "changed", but they are STILL the party of Segregation and Racial Suicide, and Republicans never have been.
The twisted logic that says both parties just jumped the fence
Ugh, must we? "Keeping your legs shut" won't prevent you from getting raped or sexually abused. It won't protect you from marital or partner rape either - did you know that a recent study of teenage girls and young women in abusive relationships found that 35% reported attempts by their partner to sabotage birth control or force them to get pregnant against their will? In some cases, the forced pregnancies are followed by forced abortions - it's not really a baby these abusers are after, it's power.
As for abstinence education, I oppose it because it results in more abortions, not less, and so should you.
Abstinence only education attempts to scare teenagers into not having sex by telling them that birth control is useless for pregnancy and STD prevention. Unfortunately, the only thing that sticks permanently is "birth control is useless," so when the teenagers eventually do have sex (and most of them delay sex only a few months longer than teenagers who've had comprehensive sex education, if at all), they don't use birth control!
Even those who do wait for marriage don't have any way to protect themselves - being married does not necessarily mean that you're ready for a baby, you know, even if you already have one. I got my period back just six weeks after childbirth, despite breastfeeding exclusively. Another pregnancy at that point would have been unhealthy for my body and would probably have resulted in my daughter being weaned very early, instead of the 21 months she ultimately nursed thanks, in part, to the wonders of birth control. Additionally, not everyone is cut out to be Michelle Duggar, nor should they be. Weaning your babies at six months so you can get pregnant again is just as "unnatural" as using latex or hormonal birth control to prevent pregnancy. Babies should ideally be nursed for at least one year and among traditional cultures, it is common to nurse children up to five years! (Wouldn't have helped in my case, but for most women it doubles as a very effective form of birth control.)
Comprehensive sex ed tells teens that abstinence is the only way to be completely safe from pregnancy and STDs but it also gives them the tools they need to protect themselves when they eventually do become sexually active, in or out of marriage.
Kerry G? In a clear attempt at only saying nice things about someone, I would like to point out that you have, herein, nicely encapsulated every Leftist propaganda bullet point on teen abstinence. All of which assume the average teen is a rebellious idiot. You've also managed to nicely work in the rape and abuse angles. Whats a good abortion debate without rape and incest though, huh?
Abuse is against the law. Rape is against the law. Children should be murdered because their fathers are rapists? HOW is that a good thing, again?
My own father, while not a rapist, was still a flaming dirt-bag. Following your logic, I should be placed in a big bag -so no one can see me- and killed by any number of violent methods, up to and including pulling my head from the sack just far enough to suck out my brains.
You know. Because any child by that man need not live.
Couldn't I just have somebody adopt me? Because none of your deal sounds fun.
Against abortion and gay marriage?
OUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS tell us that abortion is a sinful act, '' thou shall not kill''. There are exceptions to having an abortion that sometimes are considered. Laws regarding having a abortion must be considered in performing the act.
Our religious beliefs again enter into the debate. God created man and from the rib of man he created woman. One man and a woman bound together for God to create another human being.
Marriage is the union of a man and a woman, to think other wise would be to disregard the principals of religion.
A natural family consists of a mother, father and a child.
Gay marriage is not an acceptable way of a natural family. A man and a man or a woman and a woman relationships can be recognized only as a civil union, nothing more.
I respect the works of religion within the religious community and their charitable works in the world. Religion has its purpose...sometimes good...sometimes not.
The secular community has always shunned generalized condemnation...which is the very thing attitude many religions use most. Attacking women who are considering abortion with scripture does little but make them defensive. They need to be talked with (If they wish)....not at.
The greatest part of religion is standing in the water and fishing on the bank. They keep building more and newer churches as more and more families go hungry and become homeless. (Feed, clothe and visit). People need the bread of life....not the bricks of glory.
The gay marriage argument within denominations is fine. If a church doesn't want gay members....then quietly tell them "no."
Gay couples need and should have the same benefits and protections of marriage under the constitutional laws that declare equality. If they truly love one another...they are already married...they are a family and they do have the same right to live in peace and pursue happiness.
"The "Religious Right" was screaming bloody murder when abortion became, not a Law, but a Legal President."
I guess they continue to fail their mission....and the screaming bloody donations is still louder.
Why isn't the right exposing the leftist politicians who are getting rich from abortions?
What are their names and where is the absolute proof?
I would think that evidence of such.... could turn the tide of politics to change the "Legal President.
Are you kidding me? Just the mere mention of abortion from the right and there would be mass attacks from the left and NOW.
Look at what they said and did, and more particularly - didn't do, when Palin CHOSE to exercise her right to CHOOSE. She was blasted across the nation for having a baby that she knew ahead of time had Downs. Aside from all of the other Palin bashing, this was clearly a choice but she was denigrated for it because it didn't fit with what they thought a woman's choice should have been.
Any attempt by the right to even discuss abortion on a national stage is met with the most fierce opposition.
Palin didn't "choose". She doesn't believe in choice. She did what she had to do as mandated by her god.
And the "right" want to make sure that all of us are forced to do the same.
That is still a choice. She could have ignored her faith as so many do. But she stuck to her convictions and chose life for her son. '
The right hasn't tried to overturn Roe v Wade in a very long time, they just don't want to pay for what your, ummm, mistake.
In the 2008 Election Cycle, the lobbying arms of Planned Parenthood and NARAL alone donated $2,853,363.00 to Democrats, and $399,916.00 to pro-choice Republicans, just on the Federal level. This is not the totals for all lobbying groups, nor does it count soft money or Levin fund contributions to state and local politicians from Union Groups and Corporations. Open Secrets dot org is my source for those numbers.
This is America. Donating money to politicians is not illegal, and if you think money doesn't buy legislators...
Joni hit the nail on the head. Liberal politicians and their leftist media sycophants are far more than happy to make anyone in the public eye who even Whispers that abortion might be a Bad Idea, get pilloried, mocked, vilified and made to either look Stupid (Sarah Palin) or Evil (Rush Limbaugh). Unless you have an even-handed story in the New York Times you can show me about either one of those Wildly Successful individuals?
"Any attempt by the right to even discuss abortion on a national stage is met with the most fierce opposition."
Then be more fierce.
Connect the political movements to the money...get solid evidence and name the names. If money and manipulation is at the roots of abortion...expose it.
I would LOVE to see that too....and explain how anyone is forced to have an abortion!
You can go to a Catholic Hospital if you are so against abortion. They don't do them there. Or anywhere near where I live for that matter.
Thanks for making my Constitutional right so hard to access. I can get a gun--no problemo! Guess the NRA are all religious types, huh? Kill Kill Kill....but no abortion.
Chinese women are forced to have abortions at the end of a Communist gun, pure and simple. By the millions.
And Abortion is no more a "Constitutional right" than Drag Racing or Wearing Makeup. A 5 to 4 Supreme Court Ruling once claimed that "killing the unborn" was difficult to prosecute because it might be stretched to be construed as a "privacy" issue, which is very clearly NOT MENTIONED AT ALL in the 4th Amendment. Thereby entering it into " Legal Precedent" status, which liberals fear greatly might be challenged, because the Roe v Wade abortion never happened, and Wade is decidedly "Pro-Life" these days. That makes the precedent ridiculously easy to overturn.
"So why don't you try?"
G Dubya's ban on Federal Funding of Embryonic Stem Cell Research was never ever ever a ban on the research itself -just a ban on federal money going into it- but was cast that way by every Pro-Abortion group in existence. Lies and violence followed any politician brave enough to stand with the President on that one. And let me repeat this:
FEDERAL FUNDING of Embryonic Stem Cell Research was ALL that was ever banned. NOT the actual research itself. Research went on just fine without Taxpayer funding.
If it was really all that hot a research direction, private money would have been flooding into it. But it wasn't. Embryonic Stem Cells tend to get cancerous fast when they're manipulated. Adult Stem Cells are a far more promising avenue. Bone Marrow Transplants are Adult Stem Cells.
If a ban on taxpayer funding can be THAT easily twisted into wanting Michael J. Fox to die early, or Christopher Reeves to never walk, what kind of public sodomy do you anticipate might follow a court case challenging Roe?
The funding ban was feared by the Abortion Profiteers (Ooo. I like that term) because it MIGHT swing a little too close to saying embryos are persons who Should Not Be Killed. Which would ruin a lot of Abortionist's incomes.
One of the Great Truths of American Life is that Conservatives Don't Riot. They may be assembling peaceably in greater numbers these days, but they still bring their youngest children along with them, because violence really isn't on the agenda. The Left, however, will flip police cars and set fire to storefronts at a moments notice.
Abortion is the Holy Sacrament of the church of liberal fascism. It is defended with a Religious Zealotry that would shame the Knights Templar. We need only read lovemychris' statement that "It is not a human until it is formed into one."
No scientific reasoning. No biological facts or definitive evidence. Just an Absolute Faith that whatever the liberal "clergy" -Planned Parenthood and NARAL, et al.- has told her, MUST somehow be true. Requiring "Evidence" of those statements is the mark of an apostate heretic.
That would be Me.
Nooooo, it's a fact that the forming happens in my body...not yours. Should I decide to allow it, it will happen. If not, it won't. SIMPLE! No scientific facts needed.
Because, after all...don't you rely on faith, not science??
Because science will tell you that the earth is millions of years old, not 6,000.
And here is another fact:
George W Bush was elected by the Christian Conservatives. He owed them once he came into office.
Clipping stem cell research, shutting people up about birth-control and abortion as options for women, and banning Howard Stern were all on their agenda.
Bush gave them what they wanted.
"churchgoers mobilized as never before and helped re-elect a President they see as one of their own. Now they expect him to deliver for them. The early signals from President George W. Bush have been mixed. Bush's Inaugural Address brimmed with religious imagery, but abortion was the only top priority of the Christian right that he mentioned. He congratulated the tens of thousands of abortion foes who marched in Washington last week on the gains they made during his first term but promised nothing concrete in his second. The White House then backtracked from Bush's recent comments on the poor prospects for banning gay marriage, but only after major conservative Christian groups fired a warningshot, saying they might withhold their support for plans to revamp Social Security. For increasingly anxious conservative Christians, it must truly seem as if Providence has a sense of timing: this week they will hear Bush spell out his priorities in the State of the Union address. The next morning they'll tell him theirs at the National Prayer Breakfast.
What do they think Bush owes them? His campaign barely had time to sweep up the confetti last Nov. 3 before the victorious President got a congratulatory bouquet of praise, threats, warnings and demands. "In your re-election, God has graciously granted America—though she doesn't deserve it—a reprieve from the agenda of paganism," wrote Bob Jones III, president of the namesake South Carolina university that his grandfather founded to foster "Christ-like" character. "Don't equivocate. Put your agenda on the front burner and let it boil. You owe the liberals nothing."
And he owed CC's everything.
We now have a lot of work to do to get rid of all the backwards-moving, freedom-suppressing crap that Bushco did....and you know how that goes...it's easier to tie a knot than undo one.
So, if them slaves is on MY property, I's can keep them slaves? My choice? None of your damned Republican business?
Again, I have entered NO religious arguments, quoted no scripture, sited no faith. Other than to point out your own religious zealotry in defense of your position. And isn't it interesting that you claim you "need no science" to justify what you do, then foist religious beliefs onto Me? This isn't a hub dealing with religious beliefs. Why do you insist religion be brought in as MY argument? Could it be because YOUR argument is selfish, narcissistic, and doesn't have a leg to stand on?
I've used genetics, sociology, history, anthropology, biology and case law to make myself as clear as possible on this subject. You have given the written equivalence of crossing your arms, stomping your foot, and saying "HNN!" like my daughter did at 6, when she wasn't getting her way.
Making ANY human life "expendable" is moving backwards. Your "freedom" is little more than Human Sacrifice for profit. (A knife is used to end a Human's life, usually on a slab-like table. You've got a better name for it?) Tell me how that's at all forward motion in societal evolution, again?
"Life. Liberty. The Pursuit of Happiness."
Denying those rights to innocent people is NOT Freedom. It is a vile, despicable practice. Religion has nothing to do with it.
There is surely somebody in here that has made some of the points I will offer. BOTH of these arguments are at least somewhat tied to how much we value our children. Hear me out and you'll see very clearly why I hang my hat on that statement.
The REAL debate should be: Is an unborn fetus a life? This is a scientific question with a scientific answer that has already been framed. This is why liberals make it an argument of a woman's rights, and fallaciously so.
For your consideration - "LIFE" is a characteristic of organisms that exhibit most, if not all, of the following: Homeostasis, organization, metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli and reproduction.
At CONCEPTION the zygote exhibits (1)Homeostasis, (2)Organization, (3)Metabolism, (4)Growth and (5)Adaptation and (6)Response to Stimuli. Six is MOST of seven, therefore a human zygote is life by scientific (not religious) definition. A woman has the natural right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", but just like a man - SHE DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO KILL AN INNOCENT. That easy enough for everybody? Logic is powerful. Use it, conservatives, and quit mucking things up with bias and rhetoric. Not necessary.
I invite you to type "definition of life" into your search engine and read up before replying. This invitation is not only to those opposed.
...is not ANYBODY'S right. You read me correctly. Neither straights nor gays have the "right" to marry. That word (Right) has been so mucked up over the last few years that it practically has no meaning anymore. (To refine your understanding of "right" see my addendum at the end.)
Marriage is a classification created and defined through the government by the order of its people. It is not a right. Do you have the "right" to be an LLC? No, that is classification that grants certain benefits and limitations to a company. Clear so far?
Its purpose is to grant benefits to a specific type of union. This "specific union" benefits society primarily through the proper rearing and support of children. That is the primary function of a marriage and that is why same sex marriage should not be admitted.
Now before all of the homosexuals out there get mad at me, please understand that the rearing of children has been studied for generations. Homes with a father and a mother, who are mentally stable and economically secure raise healthier children than any family in which one of those three aspects is missing.
In all honesty there are many heterosexual couples that should be denied a license to be wed. Please note that children are removed from their parents custody every year regardless of their being a married heterosexual couple. I personally feel that they should lose their license just as a drunk driver does for abusing it.
As for the legal complications that unwed couples struggle with, remember it's conservatives that want to eliminate the Death Tax and alleviate our society of all the knots that have been placed in the way of individuals NOT liberals. If you want your gay partner to inherit your estate in the same fashion as a spouse, vote for conservatives (note I did not say "republican"; there are only a handful of conservatives out there).
(Addendum to follow.)
Now because BOTH of these issues cover what rights people have let's just clean house a bit.
A RIGHT can only be taken away from you, not given. I can't think of an easier way to put it.
So if you want to get married, but in your mind that requires that the government gives you a license?...not a right. That is a CLASSIFICATION.
And if you want to own a house, but to do so you need to buy it from somebody else and get a big loan?...not a right. That is an OPPORTUNITY.
If you want to live, without somebody else allowing it (as a slave for instance) and want to WORK HARD to be happy?...that, my fellow hubber, is a right. Nobody can give that to you and we as a people should ensure that nobody can take it away from you.
~stands and applauds~
~holds up a big sign that reads "What HE said"~
Thanks Logic. Was that a polite way of telling me I was bit Wordy?
abortion has been proven to be murder, scientifically
why are there so many wanna be murderers in usa?
Because these women were sold the empty promise of guilt-free promiscuity. Abortion Profiteers and Eugenics proponents, along with their sycophantic lap-dogs in the liberal media, have fought long and hard to keep the word "murder" out of the conversation. You read lovemychis and her insistence that HER body was the only one that should be considered?
Earnest, well meaning young women (and men) are completely distracted from the actual issue of a child being killed, by the deft use of assumed societal acceptance, "responsibility to the community" red herrings, and "Choice" straw-man arguments.
Liberals don't want open debate of issues. They want opposing views to "mind their own business" and shut the hell up.
Ah, guilt free promiscuity. And conception is God's punishment for having sex. Thank you for clarifying this.
Now, that's a first time for hearing that one. Touche.
Funny. It's always the liberals who tell me I'm bringing up God. Where did I mention God, again??
I'm still waiting for your devastating diatribe on the benefits of baby-killing, Syl.
Oh. Sorry. The benefits of "offing the unborn of the domineering jerk you'd sleep with, but would never raise a child by."
And in that Rape and Incest comprise less than 1% of all abortions performed in America -according to the New York Times- I'd like an argument for the other 99%.
You're the eloquent member of the honorable opposition here, Sylvie Strong, and should therefore make the most convincing argument that your position is a step forward in Societal Evolution.
I wait, on pins and needles.
AT, I will engage a little bit but not much. This debate does not interest me beyond the basic point that you believe that by the virtue of having sex you should be punished if it results in a child. I disagree and believe your roots have theological roots. If they do not, I am even more concerned.
Since you asked, I will engage a little bit. Draw whatever conclusions you like if I don't keep it up. If you have a theological basis for arguing where life begins and whether abortion is murder or at least against the dictates of your religion, I don't really have an argument with you. Believe whatever you like, but our Constitution makes very clear that our laws do not exist to enforce your religious beliefs.
If you want to have a discussion of whether a fetus is alive, it will be a short discussion. A fetus is plainly alive, as is every other part of a woman's body. A woman's tonsils and appendix are alive, yet we do not consider it murder to remove them. The analysis needs to go beyond whether a fetus is alive.
An fetus has a full set of human DNA. But so does a single strand of your hair. If you pull it of your head and throw it in the trash, you have not committed murder.
Perhaps the next question should be whether a fetus is a "person." Plainly no. A fetus lacks "consciousness" or self-awareness that comes from interacting with others and having a place in the social structure of our society. A fetus may someday be a person but it isn't one while in the womb. Indeed, consciousness or personhood is a troubling measure because an infant probably does not develop conciousness until a significant period of time after birth...perhaps years. So what is the difference between a fetus in the womb, and an infant, so that we so that an abortion of the former is matter of choice and killing the latter is murder? Neither have consciousness and neither are persons.
It has to do with the difference between physical dependence and social dependence. A two month, two year or 10 year old child is socially dependent on his or her parents to meet physical and emotional needs. A newborn may even breast feed and derive physical nourishment from its mother. But these children are physically independent. If their mothers fail to fulfill their parental duties, these children can be taken away by the state, or cared for by others. Even a nursing baby can survive if its mother dies provided that we substitute a wet nurse or formula.
But when we look at a fetus, it is physically dependent. It literally cannot survive independent of directly being part of the mother. Factors affecting the mother's health will affect the fetus's health and vice versa. It is in every sense of the word, a parasite, albeit one that many women want. The moral question is whether our laws can force a woman to surrender her body to a physically-dependent being for a period of 9 months. I would answer no. And although you think the answer is simple there is no single other circumstance in our range of human experiences where any person, man or woman, has been required to lose control over their bodies and forced by the state to nurture a physically-dependent creature. The state may force us to take on financial or social obligations, but never physical ones. If this were her 2 year old child and she refused to care for it, the state could take it away and perhaps punish her in some way...but she would not be required to surrender her body to sustain a parasite. This is because a 2 year old child is not a parasite...it is only socially dependent on its mother.
I will borrow from a rather famous philosopher from the 70's whose name escapes me right now. What if a woman was kidnapped and woke up one day and her kidneys were attached to a famous violinist? Let's say that the violinist needed to remain attached to this particular woman for 9 months to survive, but after that the violinist could safely be removed. It would be great for society, culture and the arts if this woman was willing to remain attached for 9 months. And if the woman decided to cut the cords before then, it would result in the death of the violinist which would result in not only the loss of 1 life, but the loss of life of a great person. But even though it would be great if the woman decided to let the violinist remain hooked up to her kidneys, few would say that she had a moral obligation to let her body be used this way. The violinist is physically dependent on the woman's body but she has no obligation to surrender her body to that need. Moreover, a fetus is not a violinist or even a person. It is, at best, a potential person.
So let's return to some comments you made about "guilt-free promiscuity." If you believe that sex is only for procreation or that conception is punishment or a consequence of having sex, then you do not appreciate that we live in a society where it is accepted that couples may have sex and intimacy for recreational purposes. No system of contraception is perfect and there are unplanned pregnancies. Sometimes human error may be a contributing factor, although even used perfectly no form of contraception is 100% effective. So if a woman becomes pregnant when it is unplanned it is no less of an accident than if she got hit by a bus. She was involved a normal human activity. If we want to return to famous philosophical analogies...consider if you came home one day and saw someone else living in your apartment. They need the food in your place and the heat and shelter of your home to survive. If you kick them out, they will die. It would be nice if you sheltered them, but do you have a moral obligation to do so? No. This is true even if your negligence may have contributed to them getting into your apartment in the first place. Let's say you accidentally left your window open and they never would have gotten in if you had not been so careless. Do you have an obligation to give them a place to live for 9 months even if your carelessness was a contributing factor? Again, no. And this isn't a good example because we aren't talking about hosting a physically-dependent parasite in your body...that is more to ask than putting up with a houseguest. Unless you think this is punishment for or a consequence for recreational sex, the moral obligation is not there. If you think it is a consequence or punishment for "guilt-free promiscuity" let's agree to disagree. I will return to having sex with whomever I want, and you can go back to living in the 50's.
One important distinction between social dependence and physical dependence is that with social dependence the mother's life is never at physical risk. A mother can put her child up for adoption, release it to the government, etc. There may be punishments for that, but the dependence would end. With physical dependence, the state is forcing a woman to put her health at risk. Even in the modern Western world, every pregnancy carries some degree of risk. Again, there is no other circumstance in our society where we force people to accept physical risk on behalf of a physically-dependent creature.
These are not easy issues. But whether the government should impose laws to force a woman to
surrender control over her own body and carry a physically-dependent fetus to term seems like a gross invasion over the control we have over our own bodies. And as I've described in this post, this kind of requirement is unprecedented...unlike any that any man has had to undertake or unlike any that any woman has had to undertake in circumstances other than pregnancy.
As I expected: Eloquent, well spoken, and very well thought out.
I got the impression, while reading this exceptional response, that Abortions have been the norm since the beginning of time, and the challenge to them was a new thing. You seem to labor under the impression that women have always felt pregnancy a "punishment" or "burden". That's a rather new concept.
Living tissue is not a separate entity, and only a separate entity could be a parasite. In truth, I feel your parasite argument is the strongest I've ever heard in favor of abortion. A tiny human however, is NOT a tape-worm, it is a tiny human.
I keep God out of my arguments against abortion because their are plenty of people who use God exclusively in theirs. I cannot and do not speak for God. I speak for me.
You argued that a child is not a person, until it gain a consciousness. "..an infant probably does not develop conciousness until a significant period of time after birth...perhaps years." A fascinating bit of psycho-babble, and patently false.
Even inside the womb the embryo is conscious and is having experiences from a first person phenomenological perspective. Based on Husserl, intentionality is important for consciousness. There is still “about-ness” to the embryo’s experience because the embryo can at certain weeks “touch and feel” having senses to navigate the world. Is socializing in an outside world any different than having senses as an embryo? Couldn’t a ten year old child living in the world, be a being-in-the-world just as much as an embryo inside the womb? In both situations the child and the embryo are able to feel their surroundings, whether it is painful, comforting, cold, etc. Consciousness IS awareness, and fetuses ARE aware.
For all that your argument was fulsome, well written and exceeded my expectations, it is still predicated on incorrect data. You're killing a self-aware consciousness, you're not trimming a toe-nail.
Hope you don't mind - I cut out the emotion-mongering hyperbole.
Consciousness is not awareness - not by any reasonable definition in any case.
What you are failing to grasp (politics and religion aside) is that the woman bearing this "potential person" is the one who should be choosing to have an abortion. If she wishes. It is her body this potential person is living in and she will have to go through some months in order to bring it to term. A good proportion of fetuses miscarry - or "God murders them" if you prefer (couldn't help responding to your obviously religious roots)- so "potential" seems an appropriate word to use.
You wish to use the government to remove that right from her. Why would you wish to force some one who does not want a child to undergo this? And have laws introduced to do so? Odd that many religionists are so keen to add yet another law. I thought they were in favor of less government. Or do you want a return to teh good old days of the Church actually being the Government?
Looking forward to the proof you have that fetuses are self aware. I do not even know of any way of proving that humans are actually self aware, and most of the tests I am aware of involve a high level of interaction with the subject. Not really sure what Husserl has to do with your tirade either. There certainly is no consensus as to whether or not a fetus - even as old as 20 weeks can actually feel pain or not. Reacting to stimulus is no indicator of consciousness - or conscious awareness.
As you are also a keen student of the scientific method - I am certain you have a large quantity of Testable, Repeatable, Verifiable facts published for me to read.
I making a little fun there - you are obviously passionate about wanting more laws to prevent women from choosing an abortion. Sadly you are basing this on several misconceptions, false data and the rather odd opinion that the government should have the right to dictate what you do with your body.
"I got the impression, while reading this exceptional response, that Abortions have been the norm since the beginning of time, and the challenge to them was a new thing. You seem to labor under the impression that women have always felt pregnancy a "punishment" or "burden". That's a rather new concept."
You and Sylvie have been having such an interesting conversation that I hate to jump in, but I have to disagree with you on this quite strongly. There's a difference between being an "accident" and being "unwanted." Most accidents are welcomed joyfully, it's true, but I think the minority of pregnancies that are genuinely unwanted have always been regarded as a "punishment" and a "burden."
Modern society's widespread belief in the sanctity of human life (whether you believe that it starts at conception or at birth) is a historical anomaly, not a traditional value that we are losing sight of.
Although there have been periodic attempts by governments to outlaw abortion and infanticide for thousands of years, these were instituted more commonly as a way of increasing the population to support military activities, rather than on the grounds of the sanctity of human life. Religions emphasized the importance of the sanctity of life, but both government and religious prohibitions on abortion and infanticide were widely disregarded by a majority of families throughout history on both practical and cultural grounds, to the extent that the rate of infanticide in some societies has been as high as 50%, and some experts estimate that as many as 1 in 3 children ever born may have been deliberately killed by their parents.
Families simply could not afford to feed unproductive or "extra" mouths, so they killed or abandoned them. Social causes, such as the shame of having an illegitimate child or cultural preferences for male children, also resulted in many deaths.
Personally, I don't think we'd even be having this debate if not for some progressive cultural shifts over the last hundred years, including:
* widespread access to birth control (and yes, abortion), reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies
* the abolishment of dowries and the women's rights movement, which turned women from burdens to productive members of society
* the relaxation of social taboos against illegitimacy
* social welfare programs such as food stamps, allowing even very poor families to improve their food security
* improvements in medicine, allowing children with serious medical problems to survive to adulthood and become productive members of society
We've gotten rid of most of the reasons families had for sacrificing some children for what they perceived to be the greater good, and as a result, we're one of the first societies in history that has even been capable (on a societal level) of valuing children for their own sake, rather than what they can contribute to family and society.
This is not to say that families in the past didn't love their children as much as we do today (in general - you can still see the results of the widespread dehumanization of girls and the disabled as a way to feel better about killing them lingering in some societies today), but when a hard choice came up, they had to make it or risk even worse consequences. Today, we have the luxury of options.
I believe the below-quoted language from Mark Knowles's post is an appropriate response to your argument about consciousness. As I said earlier, the absence of conciousness in fetuses is not the basis for my argument because it is unclear that conciousness exists after birth for a period of time. I think the issue turns on physical dependence versus social dependence.
I do not even know of any way of proving that humans are actually self aware, and most of the tests I am aware of involve a high level of interaction with the subject. Not really sure what Husserl has to do with your tirade either. There certainly is no consensus as to whether or not a fetus - even as old as 20 weeks can actually feel pain or not. Reacting to stimulus is no indicator of consciousness - or conscious awareness.
A zygote or early embryo is not in any sense self-aware or conscious.
Sylvie, Sylvie, all this god talk. Biologically speaking a man and a woman of reproduction age have the natural possibility of conceiving. If I drive my car, but take all the precautions not to get in an accident, but then I do, guess what? It's a consequence I accepted when I got behind the vehicle of my car.
You'll keep getting verbally lashed by the "you're not considering the innocent life" whip as long as you ignore that innocent life in your proposals. There is a child to consider. Consider it.
You are mistaken in conflating sex, promiscuity and abortion. Why are you so preoccupied with sexual issues when there are so many more important things to worry about? This preoccupation is shared by the Taliban, Christian Evangelicals, Roman Catholics and religious fanatics of all stripes. Why don't you follow your own beliefs and leave the rest of us alone? And why, as a man, do you presume to dictate your cramped "morality" to women? Further, your extremely inflammatory commentary (murdering children) doesn't lead to respectful discussion.
Because it is patently obvious that you've read -or perhaps only understood- all of two sentences I've written in this discussion (then decided you knew my arguments front to back), I'll try to be brief.
I adore babies wholeheartedly. In a masculine, protective, paternal sort of way. Deeply. I have yet to meet or even hear of one whose existence harmed the Earth, in any way. I'm also a Conservative. Those two realities are completely independent of each other. Neither informs the other.
A question was asked which involved two concepts I am passionate about: Conservative motivations, and killing unborn babies. So I answered the question, and every challenge to my answers. I've been clear, consistent, open. detailed, honest, passionate and unflinching.
You, Ralph, are a blithering idiot who seeks to put motivations in my mouth that I've never uttered. You raise the "religious beliefs" straw-man as if it were the single bullet in your gun, shot off at every opportunity. I'm quite sure it's your only bullet, because even when I've never brought God up as an argument, that is your default defense. You are an embarrassment to your cause, and a veritable poster-child for retroactive abortions.
Silvie Strong speaks clearly, passionately, intelligently, and with the strength of her convictions. She has a facile mind, and I am honored to have had the opportunity to fence with her in this Arena of Ideas. She and I may never agree, but my respect for her as a person is deep, and well founded. I am very grateful that her own parents opted to keep her, and I intend no pun in that.
Try to learn from her example.
I don't find Ralph to be an idiot. His contributions to this thread and others are welcome, at least by me.
Very well. I hereby withdraw "blithering idiot" from the above statement.
May I replace it with "inept, slip-shod sophist" or do you feel "intellectually myopic, pretentious blowhard" better captures his essence?
Ralph is bereft of the tools of logical argument.
He asks questions hoping nobody gives the answers that prove him false.
He ignores medical dictionaries with regard to understanding what an abortion is.
He doesn't do his history homework about which side voted for Civil Rights.
He just pulls out his "bumper sticker-o-dex" or "Olbermann-opedia" and spouts.
Ralph, why as a man or woman should anybody be able to stop anybody from doing anything to a second party?
The reason you're not squaring up properly in this debate is because you're not paying attention to that second human life. You discard its existence and declare that a "man" should keep his morality to himself and let her do what she wants to that other life.
If my wife beats my kids is that any of your damned business? You better believe it is. Because those kids deserve to live free of tyranny, from their parents or otherwise. If a woman makes an unborn a victim, we must intercede for that voiceless person.
Lots of unsafe abortions were occurring before Roe v. Wade. Now women who choose abortion get good medical care. Opponents of abortion should support comprehensive sex education and other measures to prevent unwanted pregnancies, better prenatal care and support for indigent pregnant women and better adoptive services. However, the vocal opponents of abortion tend not to be found in support of sex education and other measures which would actually result in a reduction in abortions.
More absolute numbers of women's deaths arising from abortion complications occurred AFTER Roe. Those numbers rarely make headlines or make it into statistics, because we cannot be speaking ill of abortion. A reporter for the Chicago Sun-Times uncovered 12 legal abortion-related deaths in that city in 1978. The government statistics show only 16 deaths for the entire country in that year.
For 1972, the last full year before Roe, the federal Centers for Disease Control reported that 39 women died due to illegal abortion. (The death total for all abortions, including legal ones, was 88.) Many will claim that the number of illegal abortion-related deaths were not reported accurately or underreported. Yet, when a woman was seriously injured by an abortion, she went to another doctor for care. The abortion practitioner was rarely involved at that point.
The new doctor in many cases had to attempt to save the mother's life. In cases of maternal death, this new doctor was required to report, and falsification of the death certificate was a felony. Therefore, prior to legalization of abortion, it's safe to say deaths from illegal abortions were rarely covered up.
Falsification of death certificates happens all the time when the social consequences of telling the truth are perceived to be worse than the risk of being caught in a lie. For example, out here in the Midwest you get a lot of suicides reported as "hunting accidents" because suicide still carries a strong social stigma. Being unmarried and pregnant was one of the worst social situations a girl could find herself in, and like suicide, was perceived as bringing shame to the family as well as the girl herself. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence that it was covered up all the time.
In the developing world, it remains so. 13% of all maternal deaths around the world are caused by botched abortions, most from countries where abortion is illegal and women are forced to go to back-alley practitioners to get them.
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1 … 483C158794
http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/af … voa23.html
http://articles.latimes.com/2006/mar/21 … -molmann21
http://www.womensenews.org/story/the-wo … in-america
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/15/world … phils.html
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia- … 66515.html
http://southasia.oneworld.net/globalhea … indonesia/
I've said it before and I'll say it again - nobody wants abortions to happen, but making them illegal will not make them stop, it will just make them unsafe. The best way to end abortions is to improve access to contraception and sex education.
Very good point. All pro-lifers should be the biggest proponents of comprehensive sex education and contraception.
I try to keep my cool, but if I hear one more ignoramous talk about SAFE when you're KILLING AN UNBORN I'll start looking up ways to reach through the internet and slap you.
How safe is the abortion for the unborn child, backyard or otherwise.
The point is, making abortions illegal does nothing to stop them from happening. It just increases (dramatically) the chances that two lives end instead of one.
Therefore, it behooves us to focus on preventing abortions from happening by other means, which include, but are not limited to:
1. Improving sex education so people know how to prevent unwanted pregnancies
2. Improving access to contraception so people have the means to prevent unwanted pregnancies
3. Improving social support (financial, medical, AND emotional) for women experiencing unwanted pregnancies
4. Improving domestic abuse and rape prevention education, counseling, and support services
Focusing on any one of those would do more to reduce the number of abortions in the world than outlawing them ever has. It's not a coincidence that Western Europe, which does pretty well on all these measures, has the lowest rate of abortion in the world, despite also having some of the most permissive abortion laws.
Karry, while I fundamentally agree with you that education is key, the things you wish to teach are not, historically, creating the effect you seem to think it should. A recent study, published in your NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/educa … nence.html
Shows that abstinence programs do indeed work better than the usual "comprehensive health" programs, designed to "Improv[e] sex education so people know how to prevent unwanted pregnancies."
If anything, programs like the ones you prefer tend to give children tacit permission to be as promiscuous as they like. Which everyone agrees is a bad thing.
Most of my knee jerk reactions to Ralph start with "Whaaaaa?" This is another case of that.
Ralph, if people were taking their children to a place where somebody killed them, but it put their life at risk would you suggest that we provide a service to make it safe?
I can't even believe I'm making this argument, but I have to take a stab at living in your world just once. If this is how you think then we should have hospitals provide heroin injections too. Think of all the addicts we could save by providing the service through medical professionals.
I want to save the pregnant woman and the heroin addict from putting their lives at risk, but I'm not going to kill a baby to do it. Are you getting that yet, Ralph?!?
Conservatives are against anything that takes any power away from them since they follow the bible and not the constitution of the united states.
They see the bill of rights and think it should only apply to certain folks. tHEY SEE THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT AND WANT TO HAVE CONVERSATIONS TO CHANGE IT. They see progressives and want to go hunting for them.
They see the constitution and want to re-write it to an america that benefits them. They see the rich and decide it's better to cut their taxes and raise it on the rest of us.
They talk about judicial activism then they speak of sonia sotomayer,ruth bader ginsburg,and thurgood marshall. Yet they overlook such acts like the recently ruling in favor of citizens united.
They hate gays and lesbians for the simple fact because they are the only ones left we're they can still treat them like they are inferior like they did with blacks,hispanics,asians before 1964.
Why am I not surprised that THIS towering beacon of Leftist Elitist fact-free Mantra-spew has a personal hub score of 23
Is this the same guy who spoke during Obama's coronation about how terrible it was that he still had a job at McDonald's?
Or perhaps the woman who thought Obama's presidency meant she no longer need worry about her mortgage or car payment?
This comment almost seems to be a parody of itself.
The only reason I'm against it is because of the whole adoption clause. If I, or anyone I know gives up a baby for adoption I would want a say in how that child was raised.
If the gay marriage bill passes, I have no 'freedom of choice' in the matter and my child can be raised in a home I do not approve of.
I do not even know if this post is serious or not. It is sad, but given some of the forum posts I've seen, it might be. Apologies if I can't take a joke. I'll bite...if you give your child up for adoption, it isn't your child any more. You shouldn't have any say in how it is raised. Let the new parents and the State worry about it. You won't have visitation rights so you won't need to trouble yourself about it.
However, parents do have the option of choosing who their child will go to. If the parent just drops them off to the state, then they reliquish their parental authority but if the go through the entire process with the social workers they are allowed to have a say.
Of all the things to worry about when giving up one's child for life to the care of someone else, the possibility that he or she could end up with a loving, stable couple that happens to be homosexual is what we're focusing on? *facepalm*
Silvie and I are complete accord on this one: If a woman needs must drop off her newborn, she is relinquishing all her rights to that child.
There are a great number of loving couples, of means and perfect intentions, who want little more in life than a child to share it all with. They are screened and vetted by adoption agencies, and as qualified as anyone to raise a child. Let them.
I find adoption to be a far more sensible course of action that abortion. For all parties involved.
Read my entire post before responding.
People like Mark and Sylvie believe that a woman has the right to have an abortion. That is their stance and they will not deny it. They’ll reword it until you have a headache, but that’s the plain truth of their stance.
They avoid medical definition and scientific fact, but I’m not trying to convince THEM. You can’t reason somebody out of something they haven’t reasoned themselves into. This is for those of you who want a more firm understanding. So let’s look at this using medical terms and scientific fact only.
I will capitalize KEYWORDS and show the following definition in [brackets].
A woman has the right to have an ABORTION.
A woman has the right to have a [termination of PREGNANCY].
A woman has the right to have a termination of [a developing EMBRYO/FETUS in her uterus].
A woman has the right to have a termination of a developing [HUMAN ORGANISM in the early stages of growth] in her uterus.
HUMAN ORGANISM is synonymous with HUMAN LIFE, scientifically speaking*. The human life in question in this case is an innocent one.
Those who believe a woman has the right to terminate innocent human life, raise your hand.
I didn’t think so. Don’t reply yet.
Those of us with highly logical brains do the above analysis in a split second. Then either social conservatives muck it up with a bunch of god-sense and/or fallacy or social liberals muck it up with the standard liberal playbook and beat another innocent foe – The Straw Man. The former will dilute my excellent explanation, thereby throwing fuel on the fire. The latter will ignore 98% of what I said and convert it all to “Logical Brian doesn’t think women should have rights.”
I sincerely wish both parties would cut it out. We’re talking about the right to life of a developing human being* here.
*For those who have not seen my post on what SCIENCE defines as LIFE I will repeat: “Life is a characteristic of organisms that exhibit most of, if not all of the following phenomena: homeostasis, organization, metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, reproduction.”
Don’t throw your 3rd grade understanding of the above terms in there. Look up the real scientific definition. It is scientifically factual and defensible to call a human embryo or fetus LIFE because it exhibits 6 of those 7 phenomena (only lacking reproduction until puberty) from day one. Get a scientist or doctor to refute me. They won't. If they're a liberal doctor or scientist they'll do some word hustling, but they won't say I'm wrong.
Social Liberals like Mark, Ralph and Sylvie will refuse to meet me head on concerning this clear and present fact, but for those of you still in search of a better understanding, there you go.
This debate is as follows:
Woman's Right to Abortion vs Human Embryo/Fetus' Right to Life
The issue is YOU who are not Me do NOT get to VOTE on a person other than yourself's RIGHT TO CHOOSE.
So, Sandra, you're saying a woman has the right to terminate an innocent human life and that the rest of society is not supposed to intervene on behalf of the innocent victim?
The issue I take with your statement is that you end it before it's over. The "RIGHT TO CHOOSE (what?)".
The answer in this instance is abortion and since it is murder, we as a society do have the obligation to intervene.
You don't seem to understand the real question. Most people who have the RIGHT to CHOOSE will NOT CHOOSE ABORTION. What don't you understand.
Rape victims should have the choice to choose whether or not they want to go through with it. They have the right to chose their own life over one that has not come yet if complications do arise and they are faced with a decision to die and let their child be born with out a parent and abandoned their other children.
You are demonizing people who have to face tough decisions and telling them that they don't get to choose what is best for themselves or their families that are already here.
You are saying that YOU get to say what they get to do. What YOU don't seem to comprehend is that YOU DONT GET TO choose what someone else does with their life.
Their rights are not up to your approval.
Let’s work on the rule before we discuss the exceptions (about which I am sure we would agree).
Women whose lives are on the line are fortunately rare and in these sad cases abortion is being considered in order to preserve life - The life of the mother as you've stated.
Rape victims are another exception. I have a close personal friend who, as a single mother, cares for a son who was the result of rape. She loves him and does NOT connect him with the rape at all.
Fortunately she had loving support to help her work through the trauma before having to face the pregnancy. Let's assure these women these tools before we talk about rape. I do not lump them in with the other 99% as you do.
So do you feel that the 99% of women who are pregnant as a result of their own choice have the right to terminate that innocent human life? That is my question.
And again, I'm saying that there are two lives to consider here. You seem to suggest that there is only one.
Somehow I missed where you jumped to conclusions about how I would treat a rape victim or mother whose life is at risk. The first post you responded to has a clear purpose: defining an unborn embryo or fetus as life. Once we do that we can cover the exceptions.
Actually, in more cases then not, I am suggesting much more than two but you are only focused on only 1.
So, please help me understand: Do you think an unborn embryo (conception to 8 weeks) or fetus (8 weeks to delivery) is a life?
Let's start there so we know whether we're engaged in the same discussion.
To revisit a recent post of mine the argument is:
Woman's Right to Abortion vs Human Embryo/Fetus' Right to Life
Once we understand that the latter half exists we can discuss the rare and unfortunate cases of rape and maternal risk. I suggested nothing by this point and if you can accept the imperfection of dialogue via internet forum I'm sure you can see that I merely boiled all the rhetorical devices of the previous few days back down to a real argument.
Sorry, "Logical" Brian. Abortion is not murder. Please try to use correct English.
You've got a better, more suitable word to use for terminating an innocent human life, against its will, desire, or knowledge?
Wait. You want to go back to the "it's a toenail" argument, which LB has handily crushed, without once mentioning God.
We need to buy you a couple more drums, kid. You've about beaten this one to pieces.
What an epic discussion. Ultimately though, if you strip everything else away, the question is one of resources and who should have a say on how those resources are used.
Suppose I am very sick and if I do not have this very expensive medical procedure I would die. Since I am too sick to work, I do not have the financial resources to pay for this treatment. Knowing that there are many kind hearts on HubPages I come here and ask for all your help. Indeed I may even get a lot of help. But that is not the issue - the issue is should there be a government mandate that forces you to help me. Sound familiar? ... where have I heard of such a plan?
Now take this one step further. Since I am sick, I cannot work, as a result, I lose my house. To survive, I need to live with one of you while I recuperate. Without shelter I will surely get sicker and die. Again some may be willing to help - but should there be a law saying that you *must* invite me into your home and let me stay there for 9 months while I recuperate?
What if I need a donation of blood?
There are many people dying of starvation, disease, poverty, war. Indeed many people dedicate their lives, money, energy, and all of themselves towards saving lives. But it is their choice, there is no law that says they must do so.
Should there be a law that requires everyone to spend say at least 9 months abroad saving lives?
Tom brings up a very good question - why are we for/against abortion? Is it a question of life, freedom, punishment, or something else entirely.
Aya, are we back to this?
We're not discussing a newly proposed law to make a guest, welcome or not, legally required to be put up for nine months. As if that's been an unheard of concept for 1000s of years.
We're discussing a 40 year old legal president which made the act of killing unborn babies difficult-to-impossible to prosecute. THAT is the new concept. Carrying your infant to term has been the majority norm for as long as there have been people on the planet. Killing them off for profit is a billion dollar industry, with hi-powered lobbyists, top-shelf marketers, and liberally greased politicians.
Oh, and thousands of earnest people who are so focused on the magician's sparkly wand of "Choice" that they do not see the blood-drenched ground-up corpse of the infant he's dropping into the trash with his other hand.
Dear American Tiger,
I do not know you, so I ask you this ...
What is your motivation? Is it to convince others of your point of view, is it to find a solution to a difficult issue, is it to show others that they are not as clever as you are, is it to condemn them for their mistakes in deed and thought, or is it something else?
"Carrying your infant to term has been the majority norm for as long as there have been people on the planet."
Of course! Survivability of the species requires it and we are hard-wired to multiply. Most people have lots of children and some even live happy lives. Still, that does not mean that the government should have the power to say that I must multiply, that I must help everyone in need, or that I must save certain lives over others.
My motivation was a question touching on two issues I'm more than conversant on: Conservative Motivation, and killing the unborn. I neither started nor supported the issue all those years ago, yet I am disgusted by the inhumanity it represents.
We find slavery to be a vile usurpation of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Slavery was the rule for thousands of years. The people who engaged in it, and reaped the benefits of all that free labor, argued constantly that there should be no consequences for robbing others of the ability to lead free lives. They claimed it was natural, right, and just the way things were... A "difficult issue" involving the "choice" to own slaves or not.
They were loud and angry, telling people who did NOT feel it was a fair choice to "shut the hell up and mind their own damned business." Because those damned Christian Republicans kept sticking their noses into affairs that were none of their own. "Keep your hackneyed, outmoded, backwards morals out of MY plantation!" "It's MY land, and weather I have slaves work it or not is MY business!"
I find the arguments for abortion to be just as empty, just as ridiculous, and just as bereft of humanity as I find the same arguments that were used to justify slavery. And yes, they used exactly the same arguments.
Whats more, I find killing unborn children to be a far more foul, despicable act than slavery. Slaves could be freed. Dead babies are dead forever, and mostly disposed of as medical waste.
Fighting hard to justify that, coming up with clever, impossible scenarios like waking up with a man attached to your kidneys or people walking into your home and demanding support for 9 months... All so a billion dollar industry can thrive on supposedly guilt-free activities which should be contemplated deeply, and require mutual commitment, because they CAN have consequences which will last far beyond the pleasures of the hour... THAT is something I am required by my conscience to combat with every ounce of cleverness, every persuasive argument, every detail and fact at my disposal.
Your side seems damned picky about what the government gets to force people to do. What to eat (salt is becoming illegal), what to pay for (federal tax funds now pay for abortions), who you must save (failing to help a stranded boater is a federal offense), who to ensure with (insurance companies cannot sell across state lines), where to build a mosque (Nancy Pelosy has demanded an investigation into the funding of the people who do not want the Cordoba House, but not into the funding of the project itself) where to smoke, how to speak... Damned if it should have any opinion about weather killing a baby is really killing a baby, though. Rather disingenuous, on the whole.
They're not really very comparable situations, considering that pro-slavery advocates were equally convinced of Biblical justification for their beliefs.
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)
I guess pro-choicers could start using all the babies and pregnant women God orders to be murdered in the Bible as justification, but the funny thing is, unlike God, most of us are not actually pro-abortion and pro-infanticide. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.
When are you goofballs going to understand that:
Conservative =/= Christian
Some Christians are conservatives, some are liberals. Some atheists <ahem> are conservatives, some are liberals.
When did I imply that all pro-lifers were religious or that all conservatives were? I was talking specifically to a Christian about his erroneous implication that Christians opposed slavery, when in fact both sides used Biblical arguments to justify their beliefs about slavery.
Wow, I did totally misread your comment. My apologies.
And again, with ZERO mention of God or any religious view, I am told my argument was a Christian one.
GOT to buy you kids a few more drums to beat, this poor "religion made you dislike killing babies" has been beaten to splinters.
Quoting Old Testament societal guidelines as the heart of Christian thinking is a false analogy, at best. Slavery was the norm for 1000 of years. We all know that. We also know that ANY devaluing human life is a step Backwards in societal evolution.
Sure, there are disingenuous tin-hats and pointed hoods who will usurp Biblical passages to paint themselves with piety, but that does not make them any less vile. Nor does it make slavery a good thing, or killing unborn babies acceptable.
Part of the reason is that you made moralistic comments about guilt-free promiscuity and women keeping their knees closed. I often associate those beliefs with Christians. I still hold these views against you but apologize for making assumptions about your religious beliefs.
We don't need a god or a religion for morals. Don't assume that morals are rooted in a god and we'll be cool.
I was tweaking lovemychris with the knees argument. It was couched as a question. Guilt Free Promiscuity is a lot of what Sanger was pushing. Sanger was convinced that large families lead to poverty, and saw the "negro problem" (her words) as evidence of that.
I'd like to feel we all agree that Single Motherhood is not the best thing in the world, for any party involved. When women required a man prove himself worthy of ending the first part, there were a lot fewer reasons to ever think about ending the second part. There is plenty of evidence, of every stripe, which points to long-term married couples as having the most successful children, and the most successful lives.
Abortion "fixes" the wrong half of the problem, removes incentives to correct the first half, and Oh by the way kills a baby.
None of which moves society forward.
Ahh, thank you for letting me know where you are coming from. That helps a lot.
It is interesting that you bring up slavery - isn't slavery giving slave owners the power over the bodies of their slaves?
What you seem to be advocating is giving governments the power to tell women that they must use their bodies to sustain a certain life.
True, saving lives is a noble cause. True, saving innocent lives is a noble cause. However,I do not believe that governments should be given the power to tell us what we should do with our bodies - even if it is to save lives. Would you want the government to require you to use your body and travel abroad to save lives?
"people walking into your home and demanding support for 9 months"
That is not so impossible a scenario. Many people have lost their homes and jobs. We have many homeless. Without the help and kindness of others, many of us may not survive through these difficult times. I know many people who have moved back in with their parents.
Still, why should government have the power to tell me to use my belongings, my house, and most sacred of all my body to save one of these lives?
"I am required by my conscience to combat with every ounce of cleverness, every persuasive argument, every detail and fact at my disposal. "
I humbly suggest that derision, condescension, and condemnation are poor tools of persuasion. They are not present here, in your second response, which I found to be much more compelling.
"Your side seems damned picky about what the government gets to force people to do."
My side?! Again let me humbly suggest that you do not know what "my side" is except in this one issue.
As I said to Logical Brian I am not a proponent of giving government more power over the individual.
Letting the government dictate to a woman that she must use her body to save or sustain a life is extremely intrusive. Are you willing to let government dictate to you that you must use your house, much less your body to sustain a life?
Again if the woman is pregnant by her specific individual choice it is entirely different than all these specious analogies that are being made.
That shifts the discussion to one of responsibility. But again, it begs the question - what role should the government play in assigning the right or the minimum level of responsibility between parent and child?
Should adoptions be illegal because birth parents have a responsibility to bring up their own child? Should children be required to care for their parents when they are old and can no longer care for themselves? What kind of care? Is it ok to send them to a home, or must we accept them into our own homes?
Do we want government to have a say in these issues?
Whether you want to call the government society's only arm or not, we the Anti-WCHA group, feel that we must defend the rights of that second individual.
EDIT: The distinct difference between abortion and adoption is that adoption includes consideration of the child.
Abortion terminates the unborn.
Adoption puts the newborn into a better situation.
All considerations, whether regarding an infant or elderly should endeavor to serve their rights to life, liberty and "the pursuit".
We're just trying to help people understand that the other side of this coin is that by giving government power over a woman's body, you are saying that government has that same power over all of our bodies, house, and property.
"If you pick one end of a stick you also pick up the other end. We are free to choose but we aren't free from the consequences of our choices."
Yes but you are advocating that the government should limit our choices or choose for us.
Not going to say this again here.
A human life deserves rights. That's where Anti-WCA (woman's choice to abort) stand.
The human right of the unborn child is not the right of the woman to snuff out.
We're just trying to help people understand that the other side of this coin is that by allowing it you are saying that a woman has the right to terminate an innocent human life.
If you pick one end of a stick you also pick up the other end. We are free to choose but we aren't free from the consequences of our choices.
I think both the man and the woman are very aware of what choice they are making.
"Both times seriously damaged me physiologically and must have been tenfold for my wife." ~~[Anichol]
If only they had been shown that they could avoid the permanent and irreversible event of abortion (and thereby the suffering) by carrying the baby to term and placing it with a loving family who could afford it...
Adoption is a means to provide that individual, whose rights were defended, a financially secure home to live in.
I am not wrathful of people who have made this choice. They often weren't given the whole picture. There is forgiveness, growth and wisdom to be attained. Going forward we must choose to defend the rights of that developing human individual.
Wasn't it the Government that has granted women this current freedom to kill their unborn? That same government which creates laws "against" on a daily basis?
Without said Government (Well, Judicial) interference, abortion would have been an issue which States could have brought up for referendum, voted on in the democratic process, defined and delineated. Many states were doing just that. Abortion WAS legal in at least Cali and NY.
Killing babies is still illegal, unless said baby is small enough, or cannot be seen. In which case, Supreme Court Legal President has made the prosecution of that crime difficult to impossible.
Over-turning that legal president would not be "Giving Government Power" over a woman's body, It would make killing unborn babies a crime once again punishable by law. No additional powers or laws required.
What a dishonest argument. You want to go back in time to a situation where the government did indeed have the power to force a woman to do something with her body that she did not want to do, by re-introducing a law? Dear me. Pretty certain this unjust, illegal, anti-constitutional law was forced though by misogynistic moral reprobates such as yourself at the time.
Thank goodness your laws are not decided by majority opinion.
And for Christ's sake! - It is legal "precedent" not "president."
The Government does not "grant freedoms," - it can only take them away. I suggest you learn something about the legal basis of your country - your ignorance is appalling. You are not a democracy - you are a constitutional republic. Education - its a wonderful thing.
And your dishonest rhetoric speaks strongly to your religious roots. Killing babies is illegal. Fetuses are not babies.
Rather than thinking you are being pushed to agree with us, try this. Just try to understand why we are convinced that an embryo is a human life.
I subscribe to a definition of life which I have shared in explicit and exhaustive detail. You may not agree, but that's where I and the vast majority of science and medicine stand.
I also can observe that a human embryo exhibits 6 of the 7 characteristics which science uses to define life.
I therefore think that a human embryo is an innocent human life.
You say that it is reprehensible for the government to take away our rights. Then understand that we see abortion as a woman taking away the ultimate right - life.
We understand the hardship. We know that mistakes happen. But, once that mistake has happened let us not commit a crime against another human life to resolve it.
Stop whining. I understand your argument.
"Life" huh? No one is arguing that there is not "life" there. Are they? My definition of "life" is exactly the same as yours.
This is a dishonest argument typical of religionists and right wing misogynists.
Perhaps you just plain did not understand most of what has been said? Or you prefer not to address it in any way?
A ten week old embryo is demonstrably not a human being. Yet. It may be one one day.
Try to understand the basic principal that forcing your ridiculous morals on other people and asking for the government to implement laws and police these people - because you do not understand this fact is offensive to a lot of people.
You want more laws to take away a woman's right to have an abortion. I know. I understand your argument. Apart from the fact that I do not want the government to have that power.
One - you are wrong.
Two - taking away one person's right in favor of an as-yet unborn potential person makes no sense and is morally questionable.
Plus - it has already been tried. What happens is illegal, dangerous abortions or trips to other places where abortion is allowed.
And - as I stated - governments do not grant freedoms - they take them away.
I do not think you should be allowed to smoke, drink alcohol, drive a car that goes faster than 20 miles an hour, produce any pollution, build a house that produces any pollution, be more than 10% over your perfect body weight or throw any garbage into a dump.
I can prove all that these things are detrimental to both you and your fellow man. Lets start getting laws introduced to stop it.
You measure this, how? Please, tell me? Because Clinton said it? Palosi? Your mother? wife? What credible measurement are you using to determine when it becomes a human being?
You do not understand me. Because you clearly used abortion in a way contrary to my view of it. Remember that when I read that sentence, science tells me that you think we should not stop a woman from have the right to terminate of innocent human life.
Flame. Say, "whining." But, first put me in the context in which I present myself.
A Slippery Slope Fallacy. Next?
It is Obama and a couple hundred democrats who are forcing people to buy health insurance. It is a variety of bureaucratic blowhards that force us to subsidize ethanol (now proven to be a greater pollutant than gasoline).
Watch where you point that thing, Mark. You may not agree with Obama or the others in forcing people to use their money, which most earn by laboring with their bodies, in the way their morals dictate.
What has that got to do with anything?
Road deaths in the USA account for around 50,000 deaths a year. Of actual bona fide guaranteed, proven human beings.
Obesity - 110,000
Smoking - 400,000
Cardiovascular disease- 5,000,000
Induced cancers - 2,000,000
Most of these are preventable deaths. Yet you get on your soap box asking for laws to put women in prison for having an abortion.
You drink alcohol?
You use plastics?
You use electricity?
If you answered "yes" to any of these questions - you are a hypocrite. Let me know when you have stopped doing all these things that kill actual people - then I will listen to your whining. Not before.
Ah, that skill to infer. I've yet to see a Death Certificate that reads "Cause of Death: Cigarettes." And I don't really like cigarettes. There is also a good chance that every one of the people whose deaths you describe in your list also Ate Carrots!
We need to Ban Carrots!
Ah - probably a good idea to ignore the point I made in favor of creating reams of emotional rhetoric to demonstrate your ignorance of some of the actual causes of death of real people, which we have actual statistics for and which there is no doubt as to whether or not they count as people. - and instead continue to cast aspersions on the moral character of people who do not believe the unfounded nonsense you choose to believe. Like most conservative christians - you seem to lose interest in these innocent babies as soon as they start to walk.
I see you couldn't help yourself but to bring in the threat of judgment after death (albeit couched in such a way as you can deny it as your next argument). Love it that you know what this judgment or "long-term consequences for our actions and attitudes, which echo beyond the time we spend here on Earth" will be. Who knows? Maybe a few abortions will save us from destruction? You sure there is no judgment to be had for being willfully ignorant and making dishonest arguments? I thought lying was one of those things you got judged for?
You guys are so very funny. Still - now I understand why none of your arguments are backed up with anything other than emotional rhetoric, constant repetition of the same unfounded argument and "morals" that allow you to drive a gas guzzling car spewing fumes into the atmosphere and point a finger at some one else for doing something you think is not "right." And then say you hate bullies. I can see why you identify yourself as "Christian."
Precedent. Thanks. So far you've proven good for the one thing. Lets address your points, shall we?
"You want to go back in time to a situation where the government did indeed have the power to force a woman to do something with her body that she did not want to do, by re-introducing a law?
~ You just ignored what I wrote, and had this conversation all by yourself, didn't ya? I never said Government "granted" freedoms, never said to write a new law. Killing the Unborn is STILL against the law, no new laws need be written. That's an oldie but a goodie.~
"Dear me. Pretty certain this unjust, illegal, anti-constitutional law was forced though by misogynistic moral reprobates such as yourself at the time."
~What law would that be, exactly? Are you quoting Sharia on us, Mark? Baby killing has been frowned on by most sane peoples, for as long as there have been peoples. By all means show me the "Law" which Roe "overturned". You appear to have these very few arguments -which must have served you well against somebody, once- so you keep regurgitating them as if they are defense against ANY argument. I was curious when Misogyny would enter the dialog, but you forgot Racist Homophobic Hater of the Environment and the Poor.~
"Thank goodness your laws are not decided by majority opinion."
~Got to admit I'm gobstopped by this statement. Socialist Dictatorships, Caliphates and the like are ruled by the minority. What on Earth is Mark talking about?~
And he ends of course on the "it's a toenail" argument, which the non-religious Logical Brain has handily crushed.
My position is simple -
Nobody should be granted powers over my body. Not you, not the majority, not the government, and not the fetus or unborn baby.
In my home, I decide who stays and who goes, and in my body I decide who stays and who goes.
You believe that carrying a baby to term is the better alternative to abortion - which is fine. You are certainly free to convince me of your beliefs and why you think it is the better option. However, I should ultimately have power over my own body.
You are free to sign away rights to your own body in a legal document but you should have no say over my body.
"It would make killing unborn babies a crime once again punishable by law."
This was discussed below by Logical Brian, Sylvie, and many others. We have also discussed this previously, and you dismissed the examples as specious and impossible.
Are you killing when you turn a homeless man away from your door and he dies the next day from exposure?
If you care about innocent lives, there are many who are in need in Africa, Thailand, Vietnam, etc. Aren't you also killing these innocent lives by not contributing the use of your body?
As pointed out by Logical Brian, the more relevant issue is not these endless shouting matches about killing and blood seeping from the ground. This does nothing to further the discussion and only polarizes and enrages people. The relevant question is one of responsibility.
Both parents are responsible for creating the fetus - so should there be some responsibility towards sustaining it?
Logical Brian believes, I think, that as part of that responsibility, the mother should be required to surrender her body to sustaining the life she created. I believe that none of us should be forced to surrender our bodies over to the government, the majority, or even to the life we may have created. You don't get to decide how I use my body and neither does the government.
Our bodies are our most sacred and personal possession - talk about setting up a totally scary legal precedent by giving the government power over its use!
There is nothing more I can say and I do not think you will change your mind nor will I change mine. There is little point in continuing this discussion, but I thank you for an interesting exchange.
But you should be granted the power to take a life...
but the government declared that abortions are legal. isn't THAT the government having say-so over your reproductive rights?
what about the rights of the unborn? don't they deserve rights?
so, when women miscarry, everyone is so sad, telling them how sorry they are that they lost their baby. imagine if we had sympathy cards that said 'sorry you lost your zygote' or telling her 'oh, it wasn't a person!'
what happens when a pregnant woman gets hit by a Pepsi truck and loses her baby? does she get to sue Pepsi for the loss of her unborn baby? or does Pepsi say 'oh, heck, what are you whining about, so you lost a clump of cells, big deal'...
and what about the unborn baby's father? doesn't he have rights? it is half his child...
Please look up reproductive rights and reproductive justice.
And if you are interested in the unborn child's welfare, here are results from a WHO study -
"A comprehensive global study of abortion has concluded that abortion rates are similar in countries where it is legal and those where it is not, suggesting that outlawing the procedure does little to deter women seeking it.
Moreover, the researchers found that abortion was safe in countries where it was legal, but dangerous in countries where it was outlawed and performed clandestinely."
Perhaps our energies are better spent winning the hearts and minds of women. Coercion, condemnation, and rolling eyes will do little in helping to save anyone.
While I applaud your citation of statistics, I am loathe to believe any pro-abortion group is going to report any numbers that place abortion in a bad light. I refer back to the 12 deaths, directly resulting from Abortions in Chicago, in the same year only 16 such deaths were reported nationwide.
Abortion is billion dollar industry with excellent marketing, hi-powered lobbyists, sympathetic media and an entire political wing, all dedicated to its continued existence with a religious zealotry unmatched by any mere Christian concept. It is the Number One money making out-patient surgery in America. By a wide and comfortable margin.
The idea behind abortion is racial-genocide via eugenics. If lots of white girls get abortions too, that's just more money and good marketing.
Making ANY human life less than valuable is a backwards step in societal evolution, and there are laws requiring that a person give aid to another, under circumstances where they are alone in their ability to render such aid.
And liberals always want to tell me they are FOR "the children". Odd damned way of showing it.
Here, have some more statistics:
The fatality rate from complications of abortion is 0.2-1.2 per 100,000 abortions in countries where abortion is legal. The fatality rate from complications of abortion in countries where it is illegal is 330 per 100,000 abortions.
Western Europe, which has among the most permissive abortion laws in the world, also has the lowest rate of abortion in the world. (11 per 1000 women of childbearing age.) South Africa, Oceania, and North America, most areas of which also have permissive abortion laws, are neck and neck for third, fourth and fifth place, with 19, 21 and 22 per 1000 respectively.
The only region of the world where abortion is illegal and abortion rates are LOWER than South Africa, Oceania, and North America is Islamic North Africa (17 per 1000), and I doubt I need to remind you that girls there are routinely killed if they're seen so much as talking to a man who is not a family member, let alone doing anything that could get them pregnant. If they actually manage to get pregnant, the family keeps them alive until the baby is born and then kills them. Sure does keep the abortion rate down!
In regions where abortions are illegal and "honor" killings are not employed to keep the rate down, the rates are consistently anywhere from 50% higher than North America(~30 per 1000) to more than twice as high.
Making abortions illegal does not stop them from happening. It only increases the chance (by 27500%) that two lives will be lost instead of one.
All very excellent statistics, and we agree completely that sharia is a Bad Thing (Religion-O-Peace my Royal Irish Posterior).
Abortion is a global reality. I know that. I am sickened by those who promulgate it, and disgusted by those who profit from it.
I only have the two little caveats to all those numbers, Kerry: 100% of the babies aborted, are dead. And I do not at all trust the Global Baby-killers for Profit crowd to tell the truth, where so much money and religious zeal to keep the cash-cow alive and killing is concerned.
I feel like Charlton Heston dropping a brick on the scale in "The Ten Commandments"
"Dead slaves make NO bricks!"
Aya, there is a distinct difference between an adult of sound mind having sex and getting pregnant and a mandate to force others to share another's consequences.
In the case of a woman pregnant of her own volition we have a person now espoused to the consequence of being responsible for another human life by THEIR OWN CHOICE.
It's like my "driving a car" anecdote. I choose to drive the car and while I take every precaution NOT to get in an accident...if I cause one it is my fault and I SHOULD have to deal with the consequences thereof.
Now to make a more direct comparison to the abortion debate.
Let's say I veer into your car and you are hospitalized and you and your family have absolutely NO WAY of paying for the care you need to live. Your life is now my responsibility. I brought you into that world. It is my DUTY and OBLIGATION to make sure you make it through. I never wanted to hit you. I didn't plan for it, but nevertheless and notwithstanding you are now in my care and I must as a morally grounded individual care for you now.
That is the situation 99% of women getting an abortion are in. They caused the "accident". They are responsible for the life that now relies on them.
(The man who also had his hand on the wheel better darn well believe he's obligated to support the woman during the pregnancy, by the way.)
So - you are actually suggesting another new law? Now you want to make it law that the man responsible for a pregnancy - regardless of their marital status - financially responsible for the woman and child until the child is of legal age. Say 18? And say 50% of his income for that time? If you implemented that - I bet you would see a drop in unwanted pregnancies.
We could have everyone in the country DNA tested and have a huge database of everyone so there was no question as to the father was and then special police forces to chase down errant fathers that are not paying and - prolly want to create a mandatory income minimum limit as well - earning less than $36k a year? Off to prison and the state takes over the financial burden.
You like jumping to conclusions, Mark? Or do you just dislike me so much that you don't want to keep my thoughts in my framework?
I do think that both individuals responsible for creating that life are obligated to take care of it. As economics and math are my strong suit I can tell you that the vast majority of caring for that child can easily be written down and split in two for the mother and father to share. Hospital bills, diapers, food.
Don't blow me out of proportions, Mark.
EDIT: And when I said that he better support that woman I meant it. you can make it mean whatever you'd like. I suppose you think men should be able to impregnate and disappear?
I see - so you only favor laws that concern the woman? Interesting. I thought you might somehow.
I don't know you well enough to dislike you - but generally I am not fond of people who use dishonest arguments and emotional rhetoric in an attempt to guilt people into doing what they consider "right."
Nor am I fond of people who wish to introduce laws to force women to do what they consider to be "morally" what they want.
Nor am I fond of trolls who set up Internet accounts just to spread their illogical, misogynistic nonsense.
And using CAPS is considered to be SHOUTING in online discussions.
"I see - so you only favor laws that concern the woman? Interesting. I thought you might somehow."
Killing an innocent human being is not a law that affects a woman more than a man. It is blind. I don't need to add a law. You just need to uphold the one on the books and understand:
A) What the Scientific definition of Life is.
B) Whether a human embryo or fetus exhibits most or all of those characteristics.
"...I am not fond of people who use dishonest arguments and emotional rhetoric..."
I used scientific fact and medical definitions.
"Nor am I fond of people who wish to introduce laws to force women to do what they consider to be "morally" what they want."
Again, no new law needed. Killing an innocent human life is already covered. I just don't think we should abide the men that strand those women. It is a logical conclusion that they would naturally be on the hook for 50% of that child's support. We shouldn't require laws to tell us that, but I guess you're right. We probably should make it a crime to abandon a woman pregnant with your child.
"Nor am I fond of trolls..."
I'll get my hubs out soon enough. Relax.
"And using CAPS is considered to be SHOUTING in online discussions."
I'm sure most of the folks reading me are smart enough to forget that 20 year old meme and realize that the forums don't provide us with italics.
Actually they do.
[ i ]italicized text here[ / i ]
Remove all spaces and that'll do you.
Hey thanks, kerryg. I didn't know I could do that.
*g* No prob.
You can underline (u instead of i) and bold (b instead of i), too.
I just fixed all the shouting I could. Some of my posts were too old. Mark can turn his speakers back up at least.
Sorry if I blew out your eardrums with my logic. Even though I take all the precautions I can not to harm you I will pay for the medical bills involved in the ear damage I unintentionally caused.
You logic is flawed at best, Mark. We already have all the components of your first paragraph in place, and it has boosted unwanted pregnancies.
Or is your attempt at sarcasm just to nuanced for me to grasp?
That is a very good argument Logical Brain.
It focuses the discussion on the issue of responsibility - responsibility of parents to their child, and responsibilities of the child to his parents.
Still, it is unclear what the government's role should be in this. Currently, parents may adopt out their child and children may file for emancipation from their parents. If anything, our current laws seem to support or enable the breaking of that parent/child responsibility.
So the question is - how much do we really want our government to say? Should they determine the right or minimum level of responsibility - to our parents, to our children, to our brothers, sisters, uncles, and aunts?
I don't know - but I am not a big proponent of giving government more control or more powers.
We already have laws against killing innocent humans. No more power needs to be given.
So you think women who get abortions should go to jail for first degree murder?
Why do you ask me to give you an answer that's contained in your question?
I must confess that I have been trolling all this time. I actually believe that that even pro-lifers have been complicit in this holocaust, this pogrom, this killing of potential humans. I say this for two reasons: 1) Pro-lifers use the language of holocaust but then go back to quietly waiting at the polls and bitching about all the murder. Anyone that truly believes that this is murder should be willing to do more than this surely. History did not smile on the complacent German population when the Jews were being rounded up. At least a few brave people have been willing to kill doctors that commit abortions. But I have no respect for the rest of us. At least Brian has the courage to say that he believes any woman that obtains an abortion should be punished with first degree murder. 2) Pro-lifers take the indefensible position that life begins at conception. Actually potential life begins much sooner than that. Indeed, sperm is potential life, yet rather than trying to use each drop to fertilize an egg, men needlessly waste it in masturbation or have the temerity to shoot it into a condom. Frankly, every time a man has sperm in his body he is obligated to ejaculate it into a woman. So it isn't even that "masturbation is murder," it is that every moment not spent ejaculating costs us lives. Being tired is really not an excuse. I am not trying to unfairly oppress the rights of a certain gender. While this may place burdens on men, women will be fully utilized in pregnancy and childbirth. This might sound a little extreme but I think what people forget in all of this is the rights of the unborn. We will never know the wonderful people that could have been but for the selfishness of masturbators and those that preach abstinence. Remember, life begins before conception.
You're clever, Sylvie. I also honestly appreciate your sense of humor. More importantly though we need to address some word swapping that has occurred all over this forum.
Murder is the intentional and premeditated termination of an innocent life.
A sperm is not a life, but a human embryo or fetus is.
I used medical terms and science and while I know it gets lost in the tumult of this swirling forum I encourage you to look for my comment yesterday in which I used medical terms only to explain that abortion is murder.
I know it sounds like a great leap, especially to folks like Ralph who have been told for decades that an embryo/fetus is just a hunk of cells. Science disproves this notion and that is where I stand.
Ever look under a microscope at a sperm? It is definitely alive. How hypocritical of you to say that men can masturbate and premeditate the death of their unborn, is that because you are a man?
A sperm is not alive by scientific definition.
You posted this reply after reading the scientific definition I provided.
You said: Life: A characteristic of organisms that exhibit most if not all of the following seven phenomena: homeostasis, metabolism, organization, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, reproduction." And then you said that "Sperm is not alive by scientific definition.
Why are you contradicting yourself?
Response to stimuli? No
That's "most" and I have to look deeper into "metabolism" to go further.
No, a sperm is a cell, which is the basic unit of life, so by definition it does possess most of those characteristics.
Homeostasis - yes
Organization - yes
Metabolism - yes (mitochondria in the tail)
Growth - yes
Adaptation - questionable
Response to stimuli - yes
Reproduction - questionable, ironically, since it doesn't reproduce itself
Growth? What, you think they magically appear the size that they are?
Adaptation? So what you are saying is; sperm do not adapt to their new environment inside the mother? lol
Response to stimuli? So you think that sperm just ejaculate on their own with no help from you? Or that they do not respond to the egg?
Reproduction? Now you have to be kidding. Sperms primary function is reproduction.
I had a feeling I would have to get exhaustive. Get a doctor or scientist to debate me. Non-specific education will not give you a medical or scientific understanding of these terms.
Homeostasis: The sperm does not regulate itself to maintain a constant state. It is regulated by, and maintained by the fluids from the male's body.
Organization: I did not list organization as it is debatable among scientists at this moment concerning cells of a fully formed organism, in this case a human being.
Metabolism: The sperm clearly exhibits this characteristic. I did not list it.
Growth: The development of the sperm is the function of the organism which creates and changes it. The sperm does not exhibit growth, but is grown by the male reproductive system, a system that is part of a human being.
Adaptation: The sperm is incapable of adapting in any way, shape or form. Through metabolism it maintains a driving mechanic and if the male fluids succeed in protecting it from the female fluids that would kill it and it reaches a (human) egg it will create a zygote in most cases (there can be failure).
Response to stimuli: No matter the stimuli the sperm does the one thing it is programmed to do. It maintains a mechanical process and regardless of any environmental change it will not respond. It will only die.
Reproduction: A sperm is clearly incapable of reproducing sperm. Reproduction means just that. The human male and female reproduce through healthy reproductive organs and correctly created reproductive cells.
You guys are likely highly educated in some field, but it is clearly not scientific. That's okay, just don't have a joust on scientific definitions if you're not going to look them up first.
This is an important lesson for all of us. I am one to whom this lesson has been very important and enlightening.
If we make conclusions based on incorrect assumptions we will fail at reaching a higher intellectual state. Some of my opponents here felt so giddy about proving me wrong that they applied a rudimentary understanding of terms that do not meet the more refined and specific medical definition.
Assumption is an enemy to truth.
You're right, I was playing devil's advocate, but I think you're missing the point that the human embryo is equally dependent on the body of the woman for at least the first ~22 weeks. Up to that point, the fetus, like the sperm, is not so much life as potential life.
Furthermore, nobody is arguing that snuffing out a life (or even a potential life) is not a bad thing that should be avoided as much as possible. We're arguing, rather:
1. that abortions will happen whether they are legal or illegal
2. that illegal abortions have much higher rates of serious or fatal injury to the mother than legal ones
3. that we must therefore reduce the number of abortions that occur every year through alternative means
The only alternative to the current situation that I've seen you offer is to start throwing women who get abortions in jail, but that has not noticeably acted as any sort of deterrent in most of the third world, where abortion rates are anywhere from two to four times higher than Western Europe, despite the fact that abortions are illegal in most of the third world and available on demand in most of Western Europe.
(Before you argue that infertility, maiming, or death are also suitable punishments for women who get abortions, let me point out that the prospect of these has also failed to act as an effective deterrent in countries where abortions are illegal.)
You just repeat the same old bull**** about how handing out condoms encourages teen promiscuity even when presented with evidence that comprehensive sex education reduces teen pregnancy and abortion rates more than abstinence-only sex ed.
Promiscuity is not the ultimate problem - married women get abortions, too, and in fact make up a substantial majority of women getting abortions in Eastern Europe, which has the highest rate of abortion in the world (90 per 1000 women aged 15-44, compared to 11 in Western Europe and 22 in North America.)
The ultimate problem is education and access to reliable contraception.
Close, but...The fetus is a "dependent" organism, not part of the woman. A sperm is not a dependent organism, but is part of the reproductive system of the male.
When looking at the sperm and asking whether it exhibits most or all of the characteristics of life the conclusion is that it does not. It exhibits one, maybe two (jury still out on organization) characteristics.
When looking at the embryo and asking whether it exhibits the characteristics of life independent of its host the definitive answer at this point in time is: Yes. It exhibits six of the seven characteristics through an examination of "potential and actual autonomy".
Please, guys, school me on your areas of expertise and stop trying to disprove me in areas that you're not specifically trained or educated in.
OMG! Yes, just get rid of the mothers and life will flourish!
Do you cross your eyes when you read my posts? What don't you understand about the difference between "dependent" and "part of"? (Or in this case specifically the difference between connected to and part of)
How about an infant? Capable of sustaining life without assistance? How about a near-murder victim laying on a hospital bed? Dependent and would die without the hospital (or more specifically the professionals therein), but it is not part of the hospital.
What you lack in scientific knowledge could easily be made up for with some humility.
The difference is that a baby's dependency can be fulfilled by anyone. A fetus's dependency is inextricably linked to its mother.
And inasmuch as that woman was is not pregnant by rape, she chose to engage in the act that produced that life.
Just like the car accident comparison. She may have done everything to prevent it. She didn't want it. It was an accident, but she decided to get behind the wheel.
A woman has a tremendous degree of control over whether she becomes pregnant, as she does over whether she carries the fetus to term. It is her body.
I'll try this with you. You seem sensible and intelligent.
What is an abortion? (Use medical terms.)
the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus
What is the definition of an embryo?
the developing human individual from the time of implantation to the end of the eighth week after conception
So if you agree that an abortion is the termination of the pregnancy of an embryo or fetus.
And if you agree that an embryo is a human individual.
Then how do you miss that Abortion is the termination of a human individual?
It is the termination of a developing human individual. A woman can do that until the human individual is developed (i.e. it can live independent of her).
That's an important distinction, and the reason there will never be consensus on this issue.
Another example of the Fallacy of Dissection.
An infant is also a developing human individual. So is a child. The stage of development is different, that is all. I expected you to respond that way. In the end, that embryo satisfies the scientific definition of life.
It is life, livelonger, that is plain. If we can have a consensus there, that is all I'm working toward.
I just wrote earlier that a baby is developing, but whose needs are easily substitutable by another person. So, if one person can't/doesn't want to care for a baby, someone else can step in.
A fetus requires its mother, and only its mother, to nurture it until the point where it can receive care necessary for its survival from another human being (a foster parent, an orphanage, a hospital, etc.). This is an obligation on the mother alone.
So, livelonger, if at some point in the near future a diploid cell can be supported independent of a mother you'll call it life?
The logic you're using suggests that it is technological means, not an organism's own characteristics that make it alive.
Yes, absolutely. It won't be in the near future, but it might very well become a possibility.
And then magnanimous individuals, maybe like you, will be able to take care of the zygote/embryo/fetus. I doubt very much a pregnant woman would find an abortion procedure any more appealing.
You understand that, as AT has pointed out (I'm changing the opinion you gave me on Stormy Brain's hub rapidly, AT.), if you took your statement and replaced the word "abortion(s)" with "slavery" that it would be defensible* by the same logic. (You would also have to replace mother with slave or slave-owner depending on how hard you wanted to compare.)
*And by defensible, I mean indefensible.
The only means to approach slavery is abolishing it. The reason we're not squaring up here is because you don't agree that a human embryo or fetus is a life. Once that changes - the dialogue changes.
Not really. Slavery has been illegal for ~150 years. In all that time, I'm unaware of any societal harm caused by that illegalization equivalent to raising the maternal fatality rate from 0.2-1.2 per 100,000 abortions in countries where abortion is legal, to 330 per 100,000 in countries where abortion is illegal.
Just as you, an intelligent adult, have been mislead by the loud narrative of the pro-abortionists I understand that the vast majority of these women were not aware of the reality of the situation. I can actually grant them a pass and would compassionately work with them to understand this weighty issue in the future.
Those who agree that the human embryo or fetus is life should be held accountable for their knowledge. In the rare cases of the risk of maternal fatality, abortion may be a doctor's prescription to preserve life (that of the mother). In the case of rape, we have a huge tangled web of fear and trauma that needs to be lovingly worked through before facing the reality of the pregnancy.
You guys may assume that I'm shallow in my stance, but my feelings go much deeper. There are exceptions to most (if not all) rules and if we look at each situation logically we will know if a given case is an exception...or not.
Okay, how about:
Pro-woman's choice to have an abortion
I'll call it Pro-WCHA from here on out.
So what you are really trying to say is you don't believe it is okay for a woman to choose?
...to kill another human life. No.
Remember, I know you don't agree with me, but I am convinced by a scientific definition of life which I observe to be exhibited by a human embryo. I am convinced that it is a life.
How, Sandra, do you define life scientifically (as I have done)?
All terrible, reprehensible practices. Don’t even try to touch me with that.
Here's a philosophical question for you.
If you pursue a course of action (i.e. making abortion illegal) hoping that something good will happen (abortion will stop) and instead something bad happens (the fatality rate from abortions rises from 0.2-1.2 per 100,000 abortion to 330 per 100,000), does the fact that you didn't intend the bad thing to happen really matter?
The temperance movement didn't intend for Al Capone to happen, but that didn't stop him happening anyway.
And when you've been offered considerable evidence that the bad result is more likely than the good one, but persist in ignoring the evidence and pursuing your original course of action anyway, how is that different from intending the bad result in the first place?
You are close to being rational here. The issue is that defending another human's right to life is our obligation. You are not convinced that an unborn human is life. That is where we part ways.
Should we legalize heroin and offer administration in our hospitals because people will put their lives at risk in the back alley? My answer is no.
I will not step back and say, "Okay, kill the unborn child in a hospital so his/her mother won't go risk her life to kill it."
I agree with that statement almost entirely.
I'm educating by defining a human embryo in a way that has been intentionally denied and covered up, or ignored for decades.
I'm not saying children should have unprotected sex. I'm saying that nobody should have sex without accepting the potential of creating a life. As children are ill equipped to deal with it, they should be taught not engage in sexual intercourse until they are ready to support another human being.
You are educating people by telling them that the fetus is not part of the woman? Who is telling you this crap?
Is a child a part of its family? Yes.
Is a spouse a part of his/her marriage? Yes.
Are you a part of your neighborhood? Yes.
Again, cut the armchair analysis and understand words in the context in which they're used.
In dusting off some old materials I was reminded of something that is also patently obvious to discredit Sandra's "part of the woman" argument.
Once the sperm penetrates the egg and the begin to process that leads to the formation of the diploid cell it is already a new individual from its mother.
It has a genetic structure which is different than both of its parents.
This is out of a textbook.
Yes it is different from both the parents ie: in terms you can understand it contains the x,y,z, a code. It doesn't have legs or lungs or a heart or ears or 'fingernails' or hair...
(Science: genetics, cell biology)
A cell or an organism consisting of two sets of chromosomes: usually, one set from the mother and another set from the father. In a diploid state the haploid number is doubled, thus, this condition is also known as 2n.
In none of your reply am I refuted.
Those two sets neither completely respemble the mother nor the father. As I'm sure you remember from high school biology. A sperm and an egg have half the genetic information of its host.
I didn't say a diploid had hair. That's a Straw Man Fallacy.
I didn't say it didn't inherit it's DNA from its mother. I said it was a different structure. It is a different individual.
It pleases you to see a blob as "not a life". So be it. A child would say the same thing about a single celled organism until it learned the difference.
Millennia, then, if we're counting. Parents, especially fathers, have been granted life and death power over living children as well as those still in the womb in many societies throughout history.
In theory, I agree that people should only have sex if they're prepared to deal with the possibility of pregnancy, but in practice it is simply not going to happen.
You can keep on "educating" women about the biological definition of life all you want, but when the time comes to make the hard choice, history shows that practical (and in some cases social) considerations come before moral ones as often as not. That's why I maintain that if you really want to reduce the number of abortions, you'll be better off working on sex ed and contraceptive access.
LOL. So what you are saying is only virgins have babies? I mean, you think that babies only happen through immaculate conception.
There is a term for people like you, it is called Hoodwinked. Regardless of you lack of 'common sense' or understanding of 'science' which is pretty basic, you seem to have no understanding whatsoever about cell division, adaptation or how ignorant your response actually is.
You don't seem to know how babies are made let alone understand the terminology you are trying to use to present your argument that sperm are not living.
Why not just tell everyone what your definition of living is. I am guessing it goes something like this: the spirit of your god.
A hammer can drive a nail right? No. A system capable of operating the hammer can drive a nail with it.
Your error is defining a part by its whole. This is called the Fallacy of Division.
By forcing me to broaden and deepen my explanations you are not refuting me, you are only showing how broadly and deeply wrong you are.
We all have specialties, but if a rocket scientist explains jet propulsion using jargon most of us will be lost.
I tried to approach this from a simple understanding using the common denominator of knowledge that all intelligent adults have. I am happy to teach you further and I would love to learn from you. But saying I'm wrong doesn't make it so and a hammer does not drive a nail.
"...you have no understanding of what cell division, adaptation or..."
Cell division does not take place until after the zygote is formed. Thank you for supporting me through refuting me. Oops on your part.
Adaptation has already been explained to you. Thumbing your nose at me and saying "Nuh-uh!" is not an argument.
At least you are right about a hammer driving a nail. lol
And quite a few other things as well.
Oops, sorry kerryg here I go posting when I should be doing something to get banned.
The scary thing is that there are people who think like this:
Possibly including God, if you want to believe Genesis, although given that 99.9% of all adult humans have masturbated at least once, He may have given it up as a lost cause.
One might die of thirst with two full bottles of Hydrogen and Oxygen. They have to be combined to make water.
Same with Human Life. Combining the sperm and egg is required, or all you have is sperm and egg.
Next silly straw-man argument, please?
In your opinion abortion should be considered murder, but under the law it is not murder. And when you call abortion murder you are misusing the language which inflames people like the idiot who murdered the abortion doctor in his church in Topeka.
the definition of murder is 'to kill intentionally and with premeditation'.
hmm...that sounds about right.
To kill with premeditation another HUMAN BEING which my understanding is defined by the law either as an infant, child or adult or in some jurisdictions a fetus capable of surviving outside the womb. A zygote or early term fetus is not yet a human being under the law.
Science cannot define morality as "logical" Brian attempts to do. That's a matter for each person to decide. Society decides what is legal and what is illegal. Our democratic society and many other advanced societies have decided that abortion is legal. It is not "murder" as much as you like to call it or make it so. You and Brian and others are trying quite unsuccessfully to enforce your moral beliefs on others. You are entitled to your beliefs and those who disagree are entitled to theirs. And you are entitled to try to change the law. Until you succeed abortion is not murder as much as you would like it to be. If you think abortion is immoral, don't have one and leave others alone.
people have the right to do whatever they want within the boundaries of the law. i don't dispute that, nor would i take away anyone's right to do what they wish within the law. but it annoys me when people use euphemisms for everything from what it is that they "terminated" to the name for the act itself - "termination of pregnancy".
at least do the honorable thing and say 'yes, i had an abortion' and 'yes i severed my unborn baby's life from my body'. i mean, don't you think the unborn deserve that, at least?
I agree that supporters of women's right to chose shouldn't avoid using the word "abortion." That's the correct term.
I'm not sure what, if anything, a zygote or early embryo "deserves." The more developed the embryo and fetus are the more consideration they deserve. A very early abortion, for sake of argument withing a month of conception, is not "severing an unborn baby from my body." A zygote or early embryo simply isn't a baby. I don't know why anti-abortion crusaders insist on calling a zygote a baby.
No. When I call abortion murder I am not agreeing with the stance of a fallible government.
There are a number of atrocities committed by governments throughout history that neither you nor I would uphold, Ralph. I know you're a good man. I got heated yesterday, but in the end I know this all rests on our disagreement over when life is life.
I urge you to consider whether it is better to err on the side of "a woman must carry to term" and "an unborn child must die."
"At least a few brave people have been willing to kill doctors that commit abortions."
Murderers are now "brave people".
Lets list some "brave people"
James Earl Ray
Brave souls everyone....Wow.
"We already have laws against killing innocent humans. "
Ahhh, that is interesting because now we come to what we mean by 'killing' and which type of killing should be against the law.
Am I a murderer if I turn you away from my door knowing that without shelter you will die? Should I go to prison for this?
Am I a murderer if I turn my brother or parents away from my door knowing that without shelter they will die? Should I go to prison for this?
Just my view on abortion
My ex wife an i descided to abort 2 pregnancies based on our financial situtaion at the time and i can only speak for myself in i also was a little concerned about our future together.
Both times seriously damaged me physiologically and must have been tenfold for my wife.
I try not to think to much about it but when i do i realise that 2 individuals dont exist because of our choices.
The individual side of things is what gets me the most as i have 2 teens now and both are unique as is everyone one i have met in my life.
This is why i grieve the most about our choices.
But it is not the right for governments or anyone else to descide how someone should deal with an unwanted pregnancy.
Demonizing someone for there limited choices is wrong.
If society could stop pointing the finger and actually be supportive then there could be better choices made instead of people like my wife and i making descision that will haunt us to the grave.
I see many news items relating to addoption and the like so why cannot society offer some sort of support for this option.
It is clear that abortion rights has as many for and against, so lobbying government to support those who for what ever reason find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy to have another option would be the solution yes?
I'm really sorry to hear that.
As for society providing better choices for people like you and your wife - adoption.
People wait a long time to cherish and raise a child via adoption. The screening process needs to be good, to be sure. But as long as it is, there you have it.
I'm not sure how you missed that, but to help others with this careful consideration:
Many (if not most) people are willing to pay for everything from prenatal vitamins to ultrasounds to delivery when adopting because...well, they would have had to pay that if they did it themselves. They accept it as a natural cost for their desire to raise a child and thanks to that, folks like you don't have to worry about the finances.
Thank you for sharing your very difficult experiences with us.
"Demonizing someone for there limited choices is wrong."
It is wrong and unhelpful. But being human, we sometimes get motivated by our own pride.
"It is clear that abortion rights has as many for and against, so lobbying government to support those who for what ever reason find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy to have another option would be the solution yes?"
if a fetus is not an 'unborn child' but just a cluster of meaningless cells to be easily sloughed-off, why do we celebrate when a woman gets pregnant? to paraphrase dr. seuss, '[an unborn child] is a person, no matter how small'...
haha!!! love it...
Because most of the women who announce their pregnancy are planning to carry their fetus to term and give birth to it.
No one's arguing that pregnancy is shameful or anything less than wonderful. We're arguing that the mother, and only the mother, should have control over it.
Because they are conservative, God fearing, by the book, bible thumping Christians.
bsscorpio, you seem to have missed that the two main anti-abortionists here have mentioned no gods or bibles. Glad you took the opportunity to jump in, read almost nothing and comment without consideration.
A fetus is a human life. Period. I will keep pounding that and I will keep reminding you of the Science behind it, libbies.
Life is Scientifically:
Organisms exhibiting most or all of the following:(1)Homeostasis, (2)Organization, (3)Metabolism, (4)Growth, (5)Adaptation,(6)Response to Stimuli, (7) Reproduction.
Embryos and fetuses exhibit the first six of those seven (that's "most" for those of you who don't get math). Human embryos and fetuses are therefore
Science kills your arguments.
I think they should build a mosque overlooking an abortion clinic.
Yeah - 2,000 years of wars and murder. Well done Jesus. You think Mary would change her mind if she knew the trouble caused?
I'm sorry, Mark. So if your HubPages followers start a crusade we should blame you, right?
Mark? You seem to have been worshiping at the alter of Bill Maher. Name form me please the Christian "Jesus" motivated war?
Men of any faith are likely to say "God is one our side", because humans are psychologically bared from ever doing something they absolutely believe is wrong. Which has made us damned good at coming up with justifications for our actions. "It's a TOENAIL, not a baby!"
"God is on our side" might be wishful thinking in some cases, but wars are invariable started over resources, land and political ideologies. (With the notable exception of Islam, which is traditionally spread by the sword.)
Guys like you need to misinterpret that to mean "God said we should go to war" in order to justify your own refusal to acknowledge any moral authority higher than your own. An intellectually bankrupt position, which attempts to absolve the individual of any responsibility for any action.
Which I personally find to be the refuge of the craven, and the ethically challenged.
Every day I thank my Mother for not aborting me.
Every day I thank my Father for not shooting me into his fist or into my Mother's mouth.
Everyone should thank God that their parents were not Sodomites.
murder is murder
a person is a person
you can euphemism it all you want, but it is still the deliberate severing of life, termination of life, ending of life.
and sperm are the potential to create life, and spilling it someplace instead of the womb doesn't destroy a life that has already begun.
Conservatives are against those things because those things are considered RADICAL, hence, the difference between conservatives and non-conservatives aka democrats, although there are left leaning repubs, as there are right leaning dems. To embrace radical policies they must all become dems, and lean no more. Now that's RADICAL!
After reading this thread, it seems obvious that the assumptions of the anti-abortion folk here are based on beliefs that are not shared by all. Just on those grounds alone, an argument over beliefs is a ridiculous waste of time and effort.
Why, you may ask?--because this country was founded on a tolerance for different beliefs and religions. Anti-abortion people want to impose their beliefs on others who do not share their way of life. That is opression and a form tyranny, plain and simple. I don’t like what agribusiness does to animals, but I don’t go out and call people who eat over-fed, over-medicated chickens “murderers.” I tolerate them and hope that they may someday see the obvious harm, pain and suffering they support.
You may argue now that an unborn fetus is certainly more important than an over-fed chicken that was born--and what about the pain, harm and suffering it causes the fetus? But, with respect and in all sincerity, no one can ever know if a seed is as fully conscious as an out-of-the-womb creature is. Moreover, no one can ever prove that his or her God-belief is true for all. However, I have indeed witnessed the harm and pain of unwanted people on this planet and what mayhem and frustration can ensue as a result. Our prisons are over-filled with them throughout the world.
Intolerant people are still out there killing one another over their beliefs about God and that will not stop until our species learns to respect, tolerate and work with one another in solving the global problems we all share. If that’s not our first priority our species is headed for oblivion.
Roe Vs. Wade may stick in your craw because you fear what an angry or intolerant God may do to you for allowing the actions of non-believers, but your rationale for ending a law that actually helps some people survive (and who simply don’t believe what you believe), is based on false assumptions because it doesn’s conform to the basic tenets of this country—namely the freedom to believe what you want about God and your own life and body.
pardon me if i don't sympathize with criminals.
there are plenty of people who were unwanted by their mothers and they don't go around committing crimes or hurting people
And here we can start to formulate an important distinction.
A moral society (morals do not require religion, by the way, sorry for all of you out there using god-sense) operates on a primary function which is to preserve natural rights.
The right to life is one. If Chris enslaves, kills, steals from Riley then Chris has infringed upon Riley's rights. The society steps in with laws.
In this case we of the anti-abortion crowd are explaining how a human embryo or fetus is a life and thereby protected by those rights. I have done it using the scientific definition of life followed by an exhaustive dissection of its parts.
pardon me if i don't sympathize with criminals.
there are plenty of people who were unwanted by their mothers and they don't go around committing crimes or hurting people
You mean like the guy who killed Dr. Tiller?
what was your point then? you said that the prisons are full of people who presumably are in there because they were 'unwanted'.
i said i don't sympathize with criminals, and being unwanted shouldn't be an excuse for criminal behavior, so what did i miss.
Once more the irreligious left feels that every argument against abortion MUST have something to do with God or religion or some misguided group-think foisted on uneducated people who blindly follow whatever someone tells them that removes responsibility from their actions, allows them to kill the unborn with impunity, and says man creates his own morality.
Wait. That last part was liberalism. Sorry.
While I'm personally not supportive of either. Wouldn't the later reduce the rate of the former?
Because abortion is wrong and not all of us conservatives are gay. Simple enough?
The reason this is getting so much press is because people who should not be involved in Politics, are using their clout to amass large groups of people and rally them to their cause. And, the Media won't shut the hell up about it.
People keep bitching about the Taliban and the aweful things that they are doing to women in Afganistan. Well, what these people are doing here is no different. They use lies and a bunch of nonsense to get more and more people to join their cause. thus eventually getting a majority to get our government to create laws in their favor. And, not only that, but get someone in their hate group into political office to pass those laws.
For example: There is a group in Texas that is trying to get the state to pass a law banning Gay parents from having Children, and getting them to pass a law to have those who have children arrested and have their children taken away.
Another part of this stupid group is arresting anyone who performs gay marriages in the state, and sentancing them to jail time. And, also arresting those attempting to marry. As if that is ever going to stop gay people from wanting to marry.
The problem you have is that these people are not going to change their minds, they will be just like the taliban, and keep on pushing until they get what they want. They may not be as violent, but their essential wants are no different. You will probably find that there are other things on their agenda, and we just aren't hearing about it from the press.
Trust me. These groups have more than fighting gays up their sleeves. I think people with any kind of connection to a hate group should be banned from running for office.
"Hate Group" ever and only, of course, being what Mr. Candy defines as one.
It never ceases to amaze me how liberals will pick some genuinely evil group or individual, who has far more in common with them than they'd like to admit, then accuse conservatives of being like them.
Taliban: Hates Israel and wants to wipe it off the map. Hates Christianity in any form. Hates the Great Satan America, and wants to curb it's power globally, and never drill on her own soil, so Middle Eastern nations will remain rich. Wants to abridge and amend the Constitution to be more "International Law (sharia) Compliant."
Hitler: Vegetarian. Womb-to-the-tomb socialized health-care, anti-smoking, your private health is a public issue, so you'd better eat right and exercise. Best Gun Control Laws in the history of guns. New Age Eastern Religions like Tarot and Astrology. Hated the Jews and International Bankers. Encouraged Gays in the Military.
Are you sure you still want to run with that theory, Candy? Is there one thing I've mentioned here that isn't a cause you promote? And isn't all this hype about gay marriage just your side "pushing until they get what they want"? ~just like the Tally ban!~
I'm a moderate-conservative and am not against gay marriage. I'm generally against abortion but do not think it should be illegal in the first trimester. I do think, however, abortions should be done on a case-by-case basis and not as an across-the-board means of birth control. I am all for passing out contraceptives to teenagers!!
Can I ask you Mark, whether you agree that once a sperm has conjoined with an egg, that apart from an act of God or man (and you can exclude God if you so choose, let's just say a natural occurrence or a man made intervention) that the life form created will produce a human being?
And if you agree that this is the case, does not life occur at conception, and can only be terminated by natural or physical intervention?
Life already existed aquasilver - in both the sperm and the egg. Life continues when the two join together. Yes. Some of these joined together eggs and sperm will eventually keep going and may produce a human being. This is dependent on a lot of factors - including the age and physical condition of the woman, environmental factors and "random chance."
A fetus is not a person aguasilver. It is not recognized as a person by any scientific or legal body. It it was - we would have different laws. The presence of life is not in doubt. Potential person? Yes. An actual human being? No.
Now - I have some questions for you:
Do you agree aguasilver - that it is none of your damn business what a woman does with her body?
Do you also agree that you wanting the Government to write laws to force a woman to bow to your bronze age moral standards that you did not even have the ability to determine for your self - someone else told you what to think - is utterly wrong?
Do you also agree that you are incapable of determining which of these potential people, who are incapable of surviving without direct intervention by the mother will or will not produce a viable person?
Odd that you wish to force laws upon a person - to do something that you are incapable of doing yourself.
And even before a sperm is conjoined with an egg, it is also a potential life. Indeed, failing to conjoin a sperm to an egg is a form of intervention, or, as some hubbers are fond of saying, murder. Had you conjoined the sperm to egg, it would have produced a human being. Why do you believe that life begins at conception? Why not before?
The point that has been made is that "potential" is incorrect once the newly formed organism "exhibits most or all of" the 7 characteristics of life.
You have provided a biological definition of life. The issue is not whether it is alive but whether it is a potential person that has certain rights and privileges under our laws. A fetus is not a potential life but it is a potential "person." Sperm is also a potential person.
What method or means did you use to draw this line? This thread has been all over the place. Your side has used, technological availability, laws...
What criteria do you use? How do you draw the line?
Millions of sperm, thousands of eggs. None of which are a Life any more than Hydrogen without Oxygen is Water. And even the two together have to be bonded in the right way, under the right circumstances, or they will remain just H and O, or Sperm and Egg.
You all refuse to see, due to a deeply held religious belief, that killing a baby you cannot see, is just as bad as killing one you can. Even when clearly understandable Science is presented to you in no uncertain terms, your dogmatic adherence to the dictates of your clergy force you to look away while endlessly reciting the holy writ. "It's a Choice. It's a Choice, It's a Choice... A woman's body, A woman's body, A woman's body... Not a baby, Not a baby, Not a baby."
Our Lady of the Holy Sacrament of Abortion. "You should not be punished with a baby, just because you like to sleep with losers."
If abortion is such the cool-kid deal, and the baby ain't a baby, why do women who see a sonogram tend to bolt from the abortion clinic?
The Earth is a sphere, not flat. It orbits the Sun, not the other way around. There are billions of other Galaxies, not just our Milky Way. Human Sacrifice does not appease the gods. Devaluing ANY human life to the point that killing it is no big deal, turns us back towards thinking the Earth is flat.
The more hyperbole you insert in your posts, the less persuasive they become. Stop making bizarre remarks about human sacrifice to my gods and the flatness of the earth. If you read my posts, you will see that I agree that a fetus satisfies the scientific definition of life.
But you jump from that fact to the conclusion that abortion should be illegal without filling in the logical steps in between. Indeed both you and others on this board have repeatedly done this without even noticing that your argument is missing several essential steps.
You have, apparently, missed the point I make about sperm. I said that sperm is a potential human being or person just as a human fetus is. I am questioning whether being a potential human is relevant to your argument. It does not have to be. You can focus on the scientific definition of life. But that is not a response to my argument.
If you focus on the second paragraph of this post (or my posts generally so far, frankly), and try to come up with a solution to the serious logical flaws in your argument, you will benefit from it much more than sitting around in your apartment coming up with masturbatory comments about baby murder and Charlton Heston movies. Telling us what the biological definition of life is does not win your argument or justify your conclusion. It is only the first step. What are the steps in between?
Silvie. You are sharp, you are clever, you are earnest. You are on the side of killing innocent life, simply because it is inconvenient. Aya. You're in that same boat.
Yes, most states have variations on the Criminal Charges for "Failure to Render Aid". Like most laws that are actual LAWS (not legal precedents) they are based on "Natural Law" or acceptable civic behavior. Yes, you can be arrested and convicted of Negligent Homicide or variations on the Good Samaritan laws, in a few of the more extreme circumstances you've used as an excuse to kill an unborn child.
Silvie, Aya, I am still honored that I got to fence with you two in the Arena of Ideas. Logical Brain has a deeper knowledge of the key scientific issues, and Cosette is far better at sharing religious tenets than I am. I'm just a blunt instrument. A retired bodyguard with a hard won, proven set of rules, based on years out here in the trenches.
I love babies. I hate bullies.
Your irrational adherence to the "choice" argument, in spite of actually acknowledging that the baby IS a baby, conscious, feeling and aware of it's environment, requires a far deeper faith than any I might have. Faith that the tender little child you're relegating to the medical waste bin was of zero consequence. Faith that killing unborn children has "acceptable" long-term societal consequences. Faith that the girl who "chooses" to evict that absolutely innocent and perfectly precious little life, will suffer no lasting physical or psychological harm.
A question was asked. I answered it. I'm in no position to change a legal precedent from the haloed halls of HubPages. I'm not even out to change a mind or influence Societal activity. I can neither stop, nor convince you to stop, the killing of babies. I don't hang out at abortion clinics calling little girls names.
You claim you want abortions to be rare, then all but bend reality to justify them, even under the most selfish and narcissistic of circumstances. Other than religious zealotry, I have no idea how you can justify that kind of attitude.
I'm not particularly religious, but like most Americans, I identify as Christian. Some few of you will now be saying "Ah HA!" Feel free to run with that. There are long-term consequences for our actions and attitudes, which echo beyond the time we spend here on Earth.
If you really want to think that advocating for the death of innocents is a good thing, I really have no further use for you. I'm done with this forum, but don't worry; you "choice" types will get along just ducky without me.
Perfect reply to a legal mind that is more concerned with legal precedents than moral obligations.
If I ever need a defence lawyer, she will get my vote, especially if I were guilty.
Sperm needs an egg to become anything, on it's own it has no capacity to exist beyond the body, and once ejaculated is a waste matter unless it is set to combine with a female egg.
THEN it is undeniably capable of producing a future world leader, famous surgeon, doctor or even a lawyer.
Or IF we intervene, it can become a torn apart 'fetus' in a hospital waste bucket for the convenience of the parents who care not enough to consider their actions before they started the process.
"You are sharp, you are clever, you are earnest."
Yet too stupid to make decisions about our own bodies.
"You are on the side of killing innocent life, simply because it is inconvenient. Aya. You're in that same boat."
Most of us are in that boat. Almost all of us are unwilling to give up our conveniences to save lives. However, we are very willing to give up the conveniences of others in order to save lives. Why not? It costs us nothing and makes us feel like Saints.
Thankfully, that is not to say that none of us are willing to give up conveniences. Aguasilver's son for example, is one of those few who willingly give up much to help others.
"he chose to do this without any suggestion from me, indeed I did not want him to go at first.
Proverbs 22:6 (King James Version)
Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it." ~~[aguasilver]
He got to choose his own way and to volunteer his help of his own volition.
Do you believe that all women are incapable of making such choices? Perhaps women just do not have the reasoning capabilities and do not know when to open their legs? Or it is both men and women who cannot be trusted with their legs?
If that is the case, then perhaps like little children, we must all ask government for permission before we are allowed to have sex. This upstream method would likely be more effective at "stopping the killing of innocent lives".
However, I doubt there would be much support for this. Again, it is easy to give away the conveniences of others but when it comes to our own conveniences ... not so much.
Negligent homicide involves cases such as doctors misdiagnosing patients. It does not even come close to any of the examples that were described. If you think it does, then please list specific cases.
"I hate bullies. "
Ditto. There are many interesting articles on bullying. Bullying is about coercion and forcing others to act in a way that is inconsistent with their own will but consistent with the will of the bully.
well, i just have a question. how many first-trimester abortions are too many first-trimester abortions? i had a girlfriend once who had five of them. she was so blasé about it too. that was one of the things that made us drift apart.
anyway, you guys think one is ok.
how about two?
do i hear three?
Personnally, I believe it's a human being from the moment the sperm and egg are joined. No one has the right to take a life, and making it simple, accepted, and available doesn't make it right. After all, certain practices which were once deemed acceptable, are now considered way unacceptable. In this culture, where we have access to multiple methods of birth control, getting prego is pretty dumbo. You, who claim "Control" over your own bodies, obviously wasn't worried about it recently. Practice a little bodily control over access to your pubic region and there will be no more prob. 20 20 hindsight is no excuse.
i agree. if girls are 'woman' enough to consent to have sex and boys are 'man' enough to engage in sexual activity, then they can be responsible and take care of the baby they created. people need to stop thinking of the unborn as zygotes and cells and stuff and start seeing the person inside.
Dave! How dare you say a woman is responsible for her actions and body PRIOR to making a baby?
We've already been told how rape and incest are the leading cause of almost 1% of all abortions, and what girl could be responsible for that?
All Men are Misogynist Rapist Bastards with no regard for the discomfort of the last trimester of child-baring. Unless they sycophantically defend a woman's right to kill babies, from behind the safety of their keyboards. THEN they're obviously intellectually cool-kid Romeos.
The Nerve of some Conservatives!
i don't condemn anyone.
but i think anyone is capable of being responsible, even young people.
it's too easy to just wash away the unborn and then forget they ever existed, like, 'well, glad that's over with'
girls think 'well if i get pregnant, i can always have an abortion'.
my whole point all along in my responses is that people should at least acknowledge what abortion is instead of euphemizing it to death to make themselves feel better, 'k?
and not a single person answered my question about just how many abortions is 'too many', which is interesting.
I respect everyone's decisions since I am not in their shoes, but I personally wouldn't do it. In my opinion one abortion is too many.
Having never met a baby who made the world a worse place, I'm also on the "One is too many" list.
Besides: For a Big Mean Fearsome Chest Beating Dominant Male Retired Bodyguard Cro Magnon knuckle-dragger, I am an absolute, flat lay-down sucker for an infant. Little babies make me feel warm and protective. They reduce me to quiet babbling, and seem to fill every fiber of my being with naked, unadulterated Joy.
Guys like Mark and Ralph and Candy seem to want to appeal to women by saying "See how cool and hip and intellectual I am? See how I called the Bad Mans a misogynist for daring to have an opinion that differed from Yours?"
The arguments FOR abortion seem to center around "It ain't a baby, and why should *I* be held responsible for my actions if I can just kill it, anyway?"
How is an abnegation of responsibility a good thing, again? How does that strengthen society, create forward motion, add to a person's growth, or serve to curtail a backwards slide into a time when human life was cheap?
"and not a single person answered my question about just how many abortions is 'too many', which is interesting."
It is not my place to judge for others as to how many is too many.
"but i think anyone is capable of being responsible, even young people. "
If you think people are capable of being responsible, then they should be the ones to make the decision. You would only decide for them if you think they are incapable, incompetent, or otherwise unable to think for themselves.
"people should at least acknowledge what abortion is instead of euphemizing it to death to make themselves feel better,"
People think lots of things to make themselves feel better. We can persuade them to think differently, but their thoughts are their own.
Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of water.
They had sex and old Jack split
Now Jill has a daughter
In the beginning of this post....I asked a stupid question,"Why don't conservatives give liberals what they want?"
From what I've been reading....everyone is passionate about how they feel...so the question remains stupid because people do care and everyone wants to find a solution that will erase abortion from history.
A man has never had to face the fear of physically bearing a child alone....therefore it is impossible for a man to understand what a woman goes through from conception to birth. What are her glimpses of the future? Will she be alone to raise her child? Will her child be happy? Will her child be abused? Will she meet someone to love her and her child? These are just a few of the thoughts that might be running through her mind.
I could go into divorce stats, abuse, neglect, missing and exploited children and so on...or the wonderful benefits of having a child...but...it would be pointless concerning a woman's individual decision to have a child or not. Only she knows her deeply personal reasons for her decision. The world can make their judgments about abortion but each individual woman will find their own way...law or not.
Murderer, slut, whore, among other things written on the stones of self righteousness tossed at women....serve no purpose whatsoever in any discussion.
If we can't find compassion for her....would we find compassion for the child she would have had?
Maybe she should have compassion for herself; the man does not always "abandon" the woman and child, sometimes women choose to be single mothers (very selfish) and drive the men away.
I raised a child alone, he's 21 years old now and working in Metro Ministries helping take care of children from dysfunctional children in New York City, yep, there are 22,000 of them being cared for by 320 loving believers, and he chose to do this without any suggestion from me, indeed I did not want him to go at first.
I got my child rearing info from the bible, and it served me well.
Proverbs 22:6 (King James Version)
Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.
ON the abortion issue, it also states:
Psalm 127 ....children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.
I would not want to kill Gods 'reward'.
I have three wonderful children. One is of my blood and all three are of my heart. I have two other children from a previous marriage that still call me "Dad" because their biological fathers abandoned them....I love them dearly also.
Yes....children are God's reward according to scripture...and I believe...the reward of any parent who truly loves them.
Abortion terminates a life....forever. A condom or pill terminates the possibility of a life.....also...forever. How many condoms, pills, early withdraws, or simply deciding to not sex have terminated the possibility of life?
What does the scripture say about birth control? "It is better for a man to cast the flesh into the belly of a whore than to cast it on the ground."
When religion begins passing out food to the hungry, clothing to the naked and visiting the sick and imprisoned....instead of excluding themselves of guilt from their judgment thrones...maybe...just maybe...abortion will disappear.
In closing.....30 thousand children die a day from malnutrition (brick and mortar...wood and glass)....which is more important? Religion seems to often choose to build new churches instead of building the life of children.
"If we can't find compassion for her....would we find compassion for the child she would have had?"
I forgot how to do the "qoute" thingy...but thank you Tom.
This article illustrates fully the hard won freedoms and right for a woman to control her own body.
"....official statistics show that the total number of abortions has soared in a generation to reach the highest level in Europe, with around 200,000 now carried out every year in England and Wales.
In 1969, there were 5.3 terminations per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44. By 2008, the rate had more than tripled to 18.3 per 1,000 women, according to the Office for National Statistics – with the rise particularly marked among teenagers."
Long live feminism...it's really brought about freedom!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … -pill.html
And just a bit ago I was told how few and rare abortions were in "abortion made easy" Western Europe.
Could the pro-death crowd REALLY be fudging their numbers to make themselves look good?
Shocked, I tell ya.
18.3 per 1000 is the nation rate of the UK, not Western Europe as a whole, which had an average rate of 12 per 1000 in 2008. 18.3 per 1000 is still one of the lowest rates in the world, far lower than East Africa (41 per 1000), West Africa (37 per 1000), Southeast Asia (40 per 1000), South America (39 per 1000), Central America (30 per 1000), and the Caribbean (50 per 1000), all of which are areas where the majority of countries outlaw abortion.
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2007 … index.html
by silverstararrow20 months ago
Hello everyone! I've been on HP only for a short while, three weeks to be exact. In that time, I've come across one prominent topic on both the forums and the questions section. The Gay Issue. Why people are gay, how...
by Evan Hutchinson6 years ago
Should gay people be allowed to marry? Why? Why not?
by Jason Menayan7 years ago
"Many of my fellow conservatives have an almost knee-jerk hostility toward gay marriage. This does not make sense, because same-sex unions promote the values conservatives prize. Marriage is one of the basic...
by Deidra267 years ago
I know this topic can be a lightning rod, but i believe that a civilized people or even a civilized society must be able to have a public discourse on vital issues without vitriol or caricature. I may not always agree...
by theirishobserver.6 years ago
We have been told time and again that unborn babies under 24 weeks have no chance of survival and so the legal limit in the UK for killing an unborn child is 24 weeks - however - we know from the story below that the 24...
by gabgirl124 years ago
If gay marriage does not infringe on the first amendment why are christians trying to stop it from becoming legal?
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.