We’re keeping this one up a little longer.
This is a different view of the whole raging controversy over, effectively, which entity has the right to control a woman’s body: the federal government or states.
The Right Without Which No Other Right Exists
The fetus only exists because of the woman’s body — not yours, not that of some possibly corrupt and stupid politician in Washington, and not the body of some possibly ignorant and venal politician in a state legislature. As I have watched this debate develop, and as I have considered with astonishment the increasingly byzantine efforts to ” draw lines” about the point of viability, the time at which a full set of rights attaches to the fetus, and all the rest, I have become increasingly convinced that the right of the woman to control her own body when she is pregnant must be absolute up to the point of birth. All the attempts to craft legislation circumscribing that right prior to birth quickly become enmeshed in what are finally subjective claims that can be disputed into eternity, and impossible of proof in one direction or another.
#87 – bobbo,
Interesting take on the ACLU. Yes, they stand up for people voicing viewpoints I find abhorrent. NAMBLA is not the first or the only such group. They probably also stand up for the free speech rights of the KKK and (at the risk of approaching Godwin’s Law), the neo-nazis.
That said, there is just one organization that is geared toward helping humans that I support, and it is ACLU. They defend our constitution when so many would give away our hard-won rights. We are under attack right now from hard line neocons that want to make this country a theocracy. We need to defend ourselves as best we can.
Remember folks. It’s easy to vote away one’s rights. It’s really hard to win them back.
All other orgs that I support are environmentalist groups. I tend to assume that humans fund human based orgs a lot better than wildlife based orgs. So, I do the opposite.
#77
The issue concerning abortion would ONLY be of human life, not animal. Please let us not have the camels nose enter the tent. Stay on topic.
We have among most of the medical community a clear definition of cessation of life, so to we need of onset. That would deal out any emotional and religious baggage from this discussion. We live in a SECULAR nation and we need to have all our answers and logic stem from a SECULAR reason, not one of emotions that cannot be clearly defined or religious hogwash. Let us end the debate, state it begins with brain waves, do tests on women looking for elective abortion and not medically necessary and be done with it.
#78, with this measure passed into constitutional law we would have a clear, logical, medically approved and SECULAR method of determining when a living human becomes a citizen and is entitled to rights under the law. Instead of guessing and piddling around.
Sentient human life should be determined under the law and protected as such. There should be no room for guessing or hand-wringing. We should state yes or no clearly in black and white terms over life and death. Kinda, sorta, maybe alive does not cut it in a world where the country is polarised between hearsay and data.
There will be no further discussion of the matter if we define life and death without doubt, emotion or superstition.
Cursor_
#93 – Cursor_
Sorry, I just disagree with the concept. I’m perfectly happy with the definition being birth as it has been since the dawn of time. As it is in the rest of the civilized world,
When anti-abortionists can prove that a fetus has been endowed with a soul, then I’ll accept their attempts to impose a ban on abortion. Short of that, the final decision should remain in the hands of the biological host organism, commonly called the “mother.”
Let’s outlaw masturbation and stop the senseless daily slaughter of trillions of sperm!
Cursor_ – M. Scott – Gary Marks
Not bitchin’ atcha, but what problem do you have with: the fetus is a part of an autonomous soveriegn human’s body – until the point it can survive independently, outside the womb. ??
I like to feel that that strikes a balance between the one extreme(unacceptable to most people) of being allowed to kill what would be a living child if removed from the womb – and the other extreme, that a ferilized ovum must be treated as a fully developed human…
• • • • • • • •
ACLU fans and detractors – as some of us say on the northern Gulf coast, “looky here.”
89—IScott. Good. My response.
That’s my short answer. I have other reasons for being opposed to it as well. For starters, the killing of the innocent, /// I agree, this is the best reason to get rid of it or greatly change the rules===but in certain ways, for certain people, life in prison really can be worse? What do youthink of giving the convicted a choice? Life in a hellhole or death by way of your choice? Yes, very humane to give convicted murderers a considered choice.
the extra expense of prosecution under the death penalty actually costing more than life without parole, //// thats true too and reason enough for all tax payers to support “The Choice!”
the lack of any evidence of crime deterrence, //// The only definitive evidence is that it prevents the murderer from killing again. Every other study I have seen is totally uncontrolled and anecdotal
the lack of any way to know whether the criminal genuinely feels horrific pain that is totally masked by an inability to move due to the first drug given, //// Thats certainly not true. Families of drugs have the same effects and members of that family or the same drug in lower doses have all been tested. Is death by injection the majority now? Well, I’d still put it on the list of Choices.
However, if we’re going to live with the horrific death penalty, //// Horiffic again? In comparison to what??? The original murder?== never! I wonder why you concentrate on what is before you rather than on what you missed?? And you call that Misanthropic? I’d call that a form of ADD.
I want it implemented fairly across the board. //// Fair? In practical terms, that means you don’t want it at all, which is what you said.
I don’t care if that means fewer killers of whites get zapped or more killers of blacks get zapped. //// Logically, you should care though if you are against the Horriffic death penalty? What call to fairness overrides avoiding the horriffic? I would think any ruse would do?
I also want less discrepancy in who gets capital punishment based on sex and income. //// Well, as I outline in a previous answer, the lesser penalty for whites may be a form of jury nullification and the same may be extended to women? I’ve seen a few guilty verdicts against women who were “trapped” in various ways and no general threat to society. A month in a health spa could fix a few. As regards to money, that is interesting==what price justice. Do you want to pay more in taxes to provide the very best to all manner of scum, or allow the rich to only be represented by the Public Defender?
But actually, yeah, I agree with you.
97—Lauren, what is your referenced material supposed to mean? The internal strife at the ACLU says nothing of its activities in the legal arena of protecting rights, even if it is true they are violating certain rights within their own organization. Hypocritical?–yes.
I guess if you are against the ACLU then any excuse will do==but a “good” reason would be relevant to its PERFORMANCE in protecting the constitution. Good management is rare.
#97 – Lauren the Ghoti,
Are you actually suggesting physically removing the fetus at that point and raising it in your home? I don’t think a woman should be forced to carry to term. It violates her rights.
That’s the simple answer. I have much longer ones that I don’t feel like typing right now. I think I’ve been quite verbose enough on the topic.
BTW, as for being extreme, please look around at the rest of the developed democratic nations of the world. The fact that we’re having this discussion instead of leaving it between a woman and her doctor is extreme.
#98 – bobbo,
You have some good points in there. Certainly, the horrific act happened before the trial began. However, we do have a concept about not using cruel and unusual punishment regardless of the crime. So, tough call on that. Choice to the criminal is not a bad policy. I almost wonder though if it takes away some of the potential deterrent of life without parole though. Perhaps criminals considering a crime, as if murder is actually considered beforehand (perhaps sometimes, not most). would actually think that they’ll just take the quick way out if caught.
I think that for the death penalty, if we’re going to implement it fairly, yes, it will be expensive. So, again, I would just oppose the penalty altogether. But, yes, fairness is a real issue. If we’re not willing to pay for a real lawyer at full price, perhaps we’re not willing to have a fair system. Unfair not resulting in death is worse than unfair resulting in death.
As for whether I’m a misanthrope, I’ve tried to explain it before on this blog. I’m sort of a bipolar misanthrope. I like many people and love a few. I hate our species as a whole, regardless. I think that our species can literally be viewed as a catastrophic event, the cause of the sixth great extinction. But, I don’t hate all individuals. And, I have a very strong sense of fair play.
100—Scott==what about the horrific pain the innocent fetus feels as it is being aborted?
I say kill anything every chance you get. At least I’m consistent.
Lauren #97, I can’t argue nearly so persuasively against your sort of middle position as I can against the extreme. The best I can do is simply opine that any time the line is drawn inside the womb rather than at the exit point, what may seem rather black and white in theory is doomed to quickly blur into various shades of gray in practice. And within those shades of gray lies the difference between freedom and imprisonment for those people found to have legally strayed into a darker shade of gray.
Personally, though, I’m very queasy with the idea of late-term abortions, just many other people are.
#57
1. The right answer is “maybe.” However, when in doubt I vote for not making something illegal.
2. Same answer as #1
3. Same answer as #1
4. Same answer as #1
5. Same answer as #1
You need to separate behavior you find reprehensible from that which is made “illegal.” There are many things that people do that I find horrid but that does not mean they should be illegal.
The right or not to abortion should not be based on the moving target of “viability” which is yet another reason that Roe v. Wade should go. Imagine the day when a it is possible to “save” a child at conception. The rule should apply regardless of technological advancement. My personal opinion is that there will never a clear answer (even my opinion has changed over the years) and that alone is reason to not make it illegal.
The answer for abortion or not was easy for me:
I ASKED MY MOM what she thought.
She told me how, before Roe vs. Wade, not only did unborn children die because abortion wasn’t available — but pregnant women died getting abortions in unsterile, unprofessional settings.
The good ol’ back-alley abortions.
If abortion is ever made illegal again, we as a society won’t just be accepting the shameful sins of the unborn dying, the back-alley abortions will return.
Then, we will also be responsible for the deaths of our mothers, sisters, wives, daughters, girlfriends, aunts, nieces, and the associated fall-out from their loss as well.
It really is that simple.
#105
Ok, first, if you want to be taken seriously, don’t start your post with “I asked my mom…”
Second, I’m not suggesting that abortion be illegal; quite the opposite in fact. However, it should be up to the States to make that decision; not Congress and especially not the Supreme Court.
Well, I have to correct you – it isn’t exactly that simple, you omitted a tiny detail:
The wealthy and powerful hypocrites who helped ban it will always be able to send their daughters somewhere else, where it’s legal, to have their abortions. It was always thus.
After thinking about it, but not having actually read any of your responses and/or arguments, I will now comment.
You are all wrong.
>>Second, I’m not suggesting that abortion be illegal; quite the
>>opposite in fact. However, it should be up to the States to
>>make that decision
And you know that holy-roller Bible belt sheep-fucker states will make it illegal.
This is one of the few services the government is good for; to protect the citizens from persecution by the tiny-minded sleazebag local politicians who what to ram their own “moral” and “ethical” values down our throats.
104—Thomas==what “exactly” is it that Roe v Wade got wrong?? From memory, it identified 3 trimesters allowing for increasing restrictions by the States. The States were not mandated to apply any restrictions at any stage. Throwing the issue wholesale back to the States would be a bigger error as many (not all) would impose a total ban from day one–ie, personal privacy rights protected by the Constitution cannot be infringed by the States.
A pretty good compromise of “all” the competing interests. Lets not throw the baby out with the bath water?
#109,#110
The Federal government is granted no authority to restrict nor enable the choice of women to have an abortion. Only an Amendment to the Constitution would change that. Further, those in favor of choice have a harder argument because there is no inherit rights to the fetus that might be protected by the Constitution. I agree that abortion should not be illegal and would also agree that an Amendment should be passed protecting that right. However, right now they do not have that authority.
#109
> to protect the citizens from persecution by the tiny-minded
> sleazebag local politicians who what to ram their own
> “moral” and “ethical” values down our throats.
Well, whether you realize it or not, you are imposing your moral and ethical values down other peoples throat by requiring to be legal. Now, in this case, your moral and ethical values and mine happen to coincide. But let’s not think that all of us (those that think it should be legal and those that do not) are not imposing on the other party in some way. There is just no way around that. (Granted, I think we’re right but that’s beside the point).
72 & 93 Cursor_ Nice definitions & thought processes. I also understand #57.
Here’s another take, that society makes the decision all the time to have innocent life taken without penalty. It’s only a debate of what we all agree is acceptable rationale.
1. The anti-abortionist-in-Chief, George, has made the decision that it is okay to kill innocent life, if that innocent is unfortunate enough to be near anyone we call a terrorist or enemy combatant during a bombing run. He could be absolutely certain innocents would die as a result of the Iraqi invasion, but he felt circumstance justified his position & still does.
2. We allow people to continue to smoke, even though we are fairly certain that those innocent people near them could die from it. The basis of that is the view is that they’d smoke anyway and we can’t stop them. Similar to the “back alley abortionist” argument.
In these cases, good people make their best efforts to minimize innocent death as best they can. Therefore this goes back to Lauren’s safe, legal and rare as possible..
I think that Cursors’ 50-60 days call on beginning of brain activity should be a strong basis for making intelligent personal decisions.
#102 – bobbo,
Interesting point. I think I’ll borrow weepy’s answer in #105 minus the asked my mommy portion.
I’ve also been a bit close, without being too specific, to people whose lives would have been ruined at age 15 if they had been forced to carry to term. Today they are successful people and successful parents of happy children. Think about the pain and suffering those fetuses would have felt in a life of poverty with no hope for anything better. Then think about the reduction in crime in the 90s, right when everyone was forecasting it to reach bloodbath proportions. It went unexplained until Freakonomics pointed it out, at least for me.
There is an amazing correlation between the crime drop and Roe v. Wade. There was also an earlier drop in crime in states that legalized abortion before Roe. The drop was greater in states where abortion was considered more acceptable and used more heavily. Similar drops with equally good correlation were shown in other countries.
I would, as would probably everyone else, rather see this happen through birth control than abortion. But, it does show that women know when they are not in a good state for raising children.
Oh well, that was sort of a side track. It doesn’t really make the case for abortion. It just shows that women do make good choices about child rearing. If we want the choice of means to improve, the best we can hope for is sex ed and condom distribution.
The many women who died in back alley abortions prove that even if it were legislated, it wouldn’t stop.
That said, for me, it really is simpler than that. The needs of the born outweigh the needs of the unborn. I’ll stick with the tried and proven life begins at birth philosophy. Or, at least that’s when it gets rights. Perhaps there’s no perfect answer. But, this has been the best one we’ve found thus far.
Nonsense. Making a voluntary act legal doesn’t equate to compelling that act. People who don’t approve of abortions won’t have them if they’re illegal, they also won’t have them if they are legal. Since they are not having them – by their own choice, irrespective of the legality or lack of it – then what, exactly, is being rammed down their throats?? That someone else is permitted to do it? Too bad; the Constitution, nor any other document, grants them the right to not be offended.
Thomas – – looks like you screwed up both your posts. Basically the same error with only a slight twist.
Re #111
The supreme court based Roe v Wade on a right to privacy grounded in the constitution. ((Since you have an obvious difficulty with words I wont say “penumbra”)). Your avoidance of this fact which I assume is well known to you, makes you more than a knave as you are a buffoon as well. Maybe you should stick to the less informed to trot your claptrap out on? I’m thinking Sunday school for retards.
Re#112
M Mustard is more than capable of defending his views and postings but your response is so wildly egregious, it deserves multiple commentary. Allowing other people to act on their own morals is not craming anything down their throats. Given your response at 111, you may indeed be just this feeble? FREEDOM–allowing other people to do that which you would not. No force involved at all. Dolt!
BTW, that last was addressed to Thomas’ #112…
Crikey®™, bobbo! You’re startin’ to sound like me, or Mustardeño.. bad influences, we are.
114—Inconsistencies are not impossible to overcome, but they remain niggly things until they are. You failed totally.
By your view then, the rights of the law abiding should control over the rights of the convicted murdering types. If you don’t like the connotation of capital punishment, then just call it an abortion==after a trial and mandatory appeal.
You are also caught out on trying to equate the assumed but certainly not always pain and suffering of being born initially unwanted with the “horriffic” (although unknown on your part and again totally assumed) pain of pre-execution anesthesia? Since all these concepts are totally made up by you, I don’t think you should have too hard a time avoiding this inconsistency/labored equivalency??
As to weepy, you two act as if abortion was the only alternative to an unwanted pregnancy? Its not you know but it invovles actually caring about the kiddies==something that on the bottom line, few of us do–care about other peoples’ kiddies that is.
Quibble and twist as you please, you have a GLARING inconsistency here that is really misplaced. Kill the innocent kiddie but let the convicted murderers escape the death penalty. Seriously–curious how you might resolve this.
#115
It does if that act is viewed by some as murder. Since each person’s definition of murder is different in the case of abortion, by forcing it to be legal you are telling some State’s that they must allow murder. I do not personally believe abortion to be murder but that is my view (and others like yourself).
#116
No. Clearly you need to re-read my post. Should I use smaller words for you? My response was grounded in what is in the Constitution. Where *exactly* in the Fourteenth Amendment does it say or even remotely imply anything about abortion or privacy? The Fourteenth Amendment requires the States to abide by *due process* which has nothing fundamentally to do with privacy *or* abortion. Those rights were invented out of whole cloth by the Roe court. They do not exist in the Constitution as it exists today (or then). I’m not suggesting that they *shouldn’t* but that is an entirely different question as whether they *do* in fact exist.
As I mentioned above, if you view abortion as murder (I don’t but many do) then it is clear that by forcing the States to allow the procedure to are forcing some States against their will to allow murder.
#119 – bobbo,
ROFL!! We’ve come full circle.
just call it an abortion==after a trial and mandatory appeal.
I did!! See post #5.
As for inconsistencies, we’ve all got a few. I’ve got bigger ones than that though just for eating meat. I’ll live with ’em. I’ll resolve ’em over time. Check back with me in a few more years if our species is still alive.
Remember, at the end of all the discussion, H. Sapiens is still a rationalizing animal rather than a rational one.