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.
122 —The circle is a magnificent symbol–but of what, I don’t know. If you maintain your good humor, yes, the inconsistency will resolve, or not be important to begin with==but that would be rationalizing.
So yes, people tend to rationalize more than force themselves to be rational. It takes practice, but attitude and desire can push in a certain direction. Do you want the comfort of old ideas, or the horriffic torture of thinking things through?
I look forward to your future posts.
#46 Rob R
Oh such a hard ponderable batman, riddle me this joker please.
“Would you turn your daughter, sister, aunt, mother or female relative who got a abortion in to police?”
Would I turn in my daughter if she killed my wife, yes
Would I turn in my daughter if she tried to kill me, yes
Would I turn in my daughter if she killed my other daughter, yes
Would I turn in my daughter if she killed my son, yes
Would I turn in my daughter if she killed our pet, possibly.
And to answer your question, would I turn in my daughter if she committed murder, yes.
If abortion is considered murder (as I consider it) and adoption is always an viable option, given that so, many; (did I say many) if not allot of couples fly all over the world desperate to adopt, not abort.
So again, IMHO the question really should be, with so many couples flying all over the world to adopt, why is there a need to abort?
The answer seems to be convenience.
#120 – Thomas
“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).”
“…if that act is viewed by some as murder…”
But there’s the fatal flaw in your reasoning; it means not Jack Shit what “some” view it as, all that matters in a representative democracy is the consensus of the majority. The collective society they live in does NOT view it as murder, so it is nothing more than their belief. Their CHOSEN belief, to be precise. If they choose to differ with the majority, that’s not anything forced on them. They can either see if they can convince a majority to share their view, join a society more in line with their beliefs, or shut the fuck up, their choice.
123–Noname–you dodged the question while pretending not to, or was it intentional?
Do you think a mother who aborts her fetus should be put in jail like any other murderer for a term of years from 15-30 but no less than 10?
That can be answered yes or no, or substitute a lesser or greater number of years?
#122 – bobbo,
I’ll continue to think things through. I’d be surprised if my opposition to the death penalty or my support for choice change. But, I come here to share ideas and learn new points. Debate helps me clarify and formulate ideas. I’ll consider your input as I continue to attempt to grok fullness to the best of my limited abilities.
The circle was not a metaphor in this case. It was literally that the conversation had come around in a full circle to a question I asked in post #5.
Should abortion be legal only when state mandated anytime after the 75th trimester?
Death penalty was exactly what I was referring to in the question. The end of the 75th trimester is a person’s 18th birthday.
#123 – Noname,
You’re amazingly self-consistent. I’ll grant that. I’m glad not to be a member of your family or circle of close friends though.
#124 – Lauren,
You’re correct, mostly. But, please don’t ignore the fact that democracy has two important parts to it.
1. Majority rule.
2. Protection of the rights of the minority.
Without the latter portion, it is very easy for a slight majority to form a totalitarian state. In these times, when people are trying to do just that, i.e. legislate a theocracy, we must be on guard to protect the minority.
#123
Noname, I applaud your consistency, but think yours is the minority view. You’re right, adoption is an important option. I know in our family’s case, having a child wouldn’t kill my wife, but it would most likely wreck it, at her age.
I think most of us either don’t feel it isn’t murder (especially if we’re using Cursor’s definition of the start of life in post #72) or feel it is a justified choice, similar to the loss of innocent life in Iraq George W is causing, per my post in #113.
#64 Mr Fusion,
Congratulations, you convinced me, I stand corrected; if I ever said you where intelligent, I was wrong!
My question:
1.) A mother bearing a child and due to give birth tomorrow, however; she decides instead to take a kitchen knife and stab herself, killing the child, but she lives. Is that murder?
Your answer:
The answer to #1-4 would be no. The answer to #5 is yes.
The first four would be involuntary manslaughter, or the equivalent in your State. The fifth is premeditated.
———————————————————————————————
Where do you read “involuntary” in “she decides instead to take a kitchen knife and stab herself, killing the child”?
I guess you can relate, given it appears; your reasoning is very involuntary, spastic even.
When it comes to endorsing murder, no since in being nice about it.
#97, What makes a human being really human? If a woman gave birth to a child that was brain dead would that child be kept alive artificially just because it was born?
The BRAIN is what makes humans human. It is not the blood, it is not the heart, it is not the feet, hands, legs, liver, spleen or any of that. And a soul cannot be medically quantified so that is right out.
It is the BRAIN that holds memory and the personality of a human. It is the cessation of brain activity that most modern medical practioners state is DEATH of that human being.
Reverse it and we can logically say LIFE is when those brain waves START. That is where the memory starts, the personality begins from the expereinces within the womb and the HUMAN is made. You even LEARN in the womb with that HUMAN BRAIN. No functioning brain and no learning, no memory, no personality. Not HUMAN.
What is so hard for people to understand that the brain is the actual centre of the HUMAN BEING? Even the ancient greeks stated that same ideal. We have conveniently forgone that ideal because of religious nut jobs and people hell bent on the end justifying the means.
When the brain waves start we cannot abort for any reason save that to save the life of the mother. The mother will have to buckle up and carry the HUMAN to term just like any responsible parent would. After that adoption is more than adequate to handle the human.
Logically I see no reason why not to use science and not emotion, religion or a lack of HUMAN compassion as the barometer for this issue. All other methods to this point have FAILED. Why not try something different?
Is not a human life truly worth something? The presence of brain activity denotes memory, personality and sentience. I am not for snuffing other sentient humans whilst out of the womb, why should I stand behind killing sentient humans just because they happen to still be in the womb. There is no profit in killing sentient human life. None.
Cursor_
#127 Misanthropic Scott
Ditto.
However; I am glad, I have your retorts to laugh at.
#93, then I suppose you are also confident in outher dawn of time concepts like fire god, light that comes from sky god, thunder god and other primitive hunter gatherer ideas?
We cannot throw out science just to placate ones desire to be an ancronism! If we do that we might as well go back to death by stoning, cavorting druids and dung for dinner. We are SUPPOSED to be logical, rational and civilised human beings now.
We cannot go back to the stone age, it is too late for that. It is the 21st century and we KNOW when life ends and when it begins. If we left up to your dawn of man thinking that would mean that brain dead people would STILL be alive until they stopped breathing. Is that what you want? Is brain dead people breathing on at a cost of their humanity?
Compassion. That is a cornerstone of a real human. If we lose that we ARE animals.
Cursor_
#124
> But there’s the fatal flaw in your reasoning; it means not
> Jack Shit what “some” view it as, all that matters in a
> representative democracy is the consensus of the majority.
> The collective society they live in does NOT view it as
> murder, so it is nothing more than their belief.
There are more than just a few people that see abortion as murder. I would wager to say millions in the US (maybe the majority of the State of Utah? ;->.. I agree that what matters is collective reasoning of society. However, the US is not ruled by collective opinion. It is ruled by the Constitution which lays out how we go about formalizing that collective wisdom. That document specifically states that any right not *specifically* granted to the Federal government via the Constitution is given to the States. At that point, the collective wisdom is determined by each State and thus they are the ones that get to choose whether and under what conditions abortion is legal or not and under which circumstances.
The Constitution also provides a means by which certain rights could be protected across all States: an Amendment. That would put the issue to rest once and for all.
#128
> 1. Majority rule.
> 2. Protection of the rights of the minority.
In a true democracy, this is not true. True democracies only provide for the first item. It was because democracies do not provide for the second item that the Founding Fathers did not want to create a democracy. The Senate is an example of that. If majority ruled, then Congress would be ruled entirely by representation based on population. It is our Constitution that actually protects the rights of the minority. It says, for example, that no matter how many people do not like what you have to say, they cannot pass a law that prevents you from saying it.
#131 – Cursor_
I’m neither agreeing nor disagreeing with your other contentions right now. But I’m going to have to break something to you. Your proposed definition of the beginning of life has already been considered. Long ago. Many times. AND been dismissed as unworkable.
Brainwaves do not “start” as if you flip a switch and a current flows. It’s not that simple. Electrical activity in the developing brain commences with signals that cannot be considered brainwaves – for one reason, because the structure producing them is not yet a brain, not even remotely. For brainwaves to be produced, fetal development must reach the stage where the proto-brain becomes an actual brain. AND good luck on trying to get even two authorities on fetal development to agree on exactly what marks that event.
I could continue, but what I’ve said so far, by itself, nails the coffin lid closed on your plan. Sorry, but the tail of Life is still unsalted…
Hey folks:
Show of hands, how many of you have personally directly experienced an abortion? As in, you were pregnant and had an abortion, or you got somebody pregnant and had an abortion?
#137 – Gurl,
Nope. Not that personal. Just some very close family members.
#136 – Lauren,
Good point. Hey, no one answered my question about brain waves of the fetus versus brain waves of the animals we kill to eat everyday. If we go the brain wave route, don’t we end up making meat illegal? Anyone have an answer to that? Humans aren’t special. Like the life of the fetus itself, life on this planet is a continuum with varying degrees of intelligence. Due to our altricial nature, our babies have quite low intelligence, even at birth. Adult pigs are certainly much smarter than human infants. If we use the brain wave test, infanticide becomes legal or pork becomes illegal.
138–Scott, didn’t you just say Lauren had a good point? And wasn’t that point that references to brain waves were totally inane? Keep this up, and the ADD analysis will have to be seriously repeated.
What I thought reading cursers drivel was that its pretty well accepted that memories don’t form until language skills develop. Don’t think thats causitive but rather concomitant. But as Lauren posted, and you agreed to for 5 seconds, brain/brain wave analysis is irrelevant.
I’ll say it again–“anyone”/everyone interested in the abortion issue owes it to themselves and informed discussion to go read the Roe v Wade case. It is an interesting historical review of several issues this thread touches upon.
Since it is the Supreme Court that decides these issues, should their analysis be some sort of touchstone?
Yes it’s about her body- and the body of another person inside her. From that point of view, she is God and has an awesome responsibility- and power. If she “chooses” to kill that unborn human and I know of it, my opinion of her will be crimped and tainted until the end of our time together. Every time I look at her I think of what that little dead person might have been. Viva “Choice”!
#106 – #105
Ok, first, if you want to be taken seriously, don’t start your post with “I asked my mom…”
Weepy decided that in considering his position on this issue, he’d consider the opinion of his mother. Weepy’s mom is a woman, who has experienced childbirth. Who the fuck are you?
Instead of taking a pompous asshat position, maybe you should ask what your mom thinks. We should all ask what all of our mothers think.
If Weepy’s mother had logged on to this site and posted her position, would you invalidate it because she’s a mother?
Your just taking a swipe at a perfectly valid opinion derived in a perfectly valid way because when you have the bravery that comes from being out of range you can say whatever the hell you want without fear of reprisal… except that doesn’t change the fact that your criticism of weepy’s response is arrogant and wrong.
#137 – Hands up here…
#139 – bobbo,
OK, one of us misinterpreted Lauren’s post completely. I thought she was stating that brain waves should not be used as a measure because they don’t simply flip on at some point.
Lauren, please clear up your post for us.
BTW, bobbo,
WRT death penalty, I have given it some more thought and come to the following conclusions:
I’m willing to remove any objection based on cruel and unusual punishment. We kill animals everyday. There’s nothing unusual about it. I’ll assume we can implement the taking of life in the most humane way possible, perhaps even giving the convict a choice.
So, if you can present me with a way to guarantee fairness to all parties, including the victims of the original crime, based on race, gender, wealth, etc., and if you can guarantee that we will do everything possible to minimize the killing of innocents, including allowing presentation of any new evidence of innocence right up to the point of execution, and if you can ensure that the costs will be consistent with or less than those associated with life in prison, I would remove my objections to the death penalty. I still wouldn’t run out to support it, but would not object.
Does this meet your standards of self-consistency? I think it meets mine as well as most human positions on complex moral issues.
#123, Nosense,
Adoption is not a viable alternative to abortion. The two have nothing in common. I get so upset at the publicity certain people garner as they travel the globe with some smug attitude that they have a RIGHT to adopt and bring home a child from another country. There is no need to fly around the world looking for babies.
Check any State Child Welfare site for the adoptions. Every State has hundreds or thousands of children waiting to be adopted. These children are sitting in foster homes, never knowing where they will be tomorrow. All they want is to know someone cares enough to give them a home.
That has to be the worst argument anyone, even someone of your obvious inferior intellect, can make. Well, maybe “because God loves all his little children” would be lamer, but not by much.
#130, Nosense,
If the woman tries to injure herself, she could be declared mentally incompetent and a danger to herself or others. Many States grant certain rights to a fetus. Because the fetus is not viable though, ie the fetus is still attached and living off of the mother, the fetus does not have nor could ever have the same rights or consideration as a born human. She is deliberately trying to injure herself. That the fetus is included is secondary. Thus, if the fetus is injured it would be involuntary manslaughter.
Your big error is in already deciding the fetus is a child. Not true. This “object” is properly called a fetus. I don’t enjoy the comparison, but a fetus should not enjoy any more rights then does the family dog. The second the baby is born, then all rights become inherent, but not before.
#141
Seriously, consider decaffeinated coffee. You are going off the deep end over nothing. The opinion of Weepy’s mother is valid as was the rest of his post, but a response that begins with “I asked my mom…” sounded a bit juvenile.
First, Cursor, since he seems to be genuinely misinformed, not a racist like Lauren the Bigot. Cursor, as Scott said, you a focusing on the wrong thing by saying brain function makes a fetus a person. As I said in describing the genesis of Roe v. Wade, the ability of the fetus to live outside of the womb is the key. A month or two old fetus can’t. The likelihood increases at five months old, but even seven-month birthshave a high likelihood to either not survive or have significant birth defects. Brain activity is not a measure of viability.
Mr. Fusion is correct about adoption not being a panacea for unwanted pregnancies, particularly in a multiracial society in which minorities are disproportionately poor and stressed. For the record, the white people most likely to adopt black American children are. . .Canadians. That’s one of the effects Lauren’s ilk have on our society.
Scott, yes the correlation between crime and economic status has been examined. Economic status is a better indicator than race. However, with half of the black population living in poverty, three quarters of Native Americans poor, and Hispanics also having significant rates of poverty, minorities are overrepresented in the low economic status demographic. Contrary to Lauren’s claim that the white poor are numerous and the most oppressed, only eight to 10 percent of white Americans live below the poverty line.
#146 – Podesta,
I don’t agree with you about the ability of the fetus to live outside the womb. If that were the measure, the anti-choicers would need to actually be willing to take in all the fetuses separated from the mothers. (I would actually not be for this; do not mistake this as a recommendation.)
So, are you prepared to find parents for all of the barely viable fetuses taken out of the wombs of women who should not be forced to carry to term? Are you prepared to pay the expense of their extra hospital care? Are you prepared to deal with the suffering of the babies that were not fully developed when removed from the womb and now have health problems? Even the ones that are addicted to crack? Even the ones whose mothers did not want to give birth because they had horrible birth defects detected with amniocentesis? Even the ones that have AIDS?
Are you sure you’ve thought this all the way through?
Or, are you thinking that because the baby has a fair chance of survival outside the womb that you can force the woman to carry to term and give birth? And will you pay the medical bills for that? Will you ensure the adoption? Will you set up a trust fund to care for the child and pay college tuition?
I appreciate what you are trying to do. However, I think it is poorly thought out and doesn’t consider the parent or the cost to society.
#147 – M. Scott (to Pod-person)
“Are you sure you’ve thought this all the way through?”
HAW! That’s rich, considering he’s constitutionally incapable of thinking for himself and can only parrot ideological propaganda. The last time he had a thought that originated in his own mind was when he was 12.
#146 – Pod-person
“For the record, the white people most likely to adopt black American children are. . .Canadians. That’s one of the effects Lauren’s ilk have on our society.”
That’s nice. Did you know your mother wears Canadian underwear? With the Canadian still in ’em? 🙂
Why’d the pic change? Takedown notice?
#144 Mr Blown Fuze,
Mr F your first of many logical short circuits in #144, your response statement.
“If the woman tries to injure herself, she could be declared mentally incompetent and a danger to herself or others.”
“Could be” is the operative word. Unfortunately you fuzed the meaning of “could be” into a certainty! This from your original response #64 “The answer to #1-4 would be no. The answer to #5 is yes.”
———————————————————————————————-
Your next fuzed logical short circuit in #144
“Because the fetus is not viable though, ie the fetus is still attached and living off of the mother, the fetus does not have nor could ever have the same rights or consideration as a born human.”
Hum, let see, let’s do a simple Gedunken experiment.
The fetus(s) (as you call it) is born as conjoined twins. Doctors say there is nothing they can do, but they both will live well and a long life as conjoined twins. In a fit of desperation a parent decides to sever the parasitic twin from the viable twin. The parasitic twin dies and the viable twin lives, indeed thrives.
Did the parent commit murder?
Hum, yea, your argument seems as flat as your manhood. Viability as a requirement of person-hood is as bogus as you are.
———————————————————————————————-
Now, lets go onto your social viability as healthy caring human. Lets examine another one of your statements in #144
“I get so upset at the publicity certain people garner as they travel the globe with some smug attitude that they have a RIGHT to adopt and bring home a child from another country.”
Man oh man, the pure audacity and self-righteousness. Is this something you learned as you grew from childhood or is just your nature (nature vs. nurture question)?
——————————————————————————————–
Ok, one more of the many Mr Fuzion of illogicals.
Here is another dreadful gems of yours in #144.
“Your big error is in already deciding the fetus is a child. Not true.”
Who decided, you? What an utter asshole! You have the same “supremest” thinking as slave holders did in the deep south and the supreme court at that time.
#150, Nonsense,
You proposed a hypothetical situation. Take it and put it someplace where the sun don’t shine. Take all your little “experiments” and push them in with the other crap. You’re just a sicko with strawman arguments and “what if” scenarios. You want a legal definition, go ask your local District Attorney. Be prepared to hear “well, it depends”.
The proper term for an unborn mammal is a fetus.
After the fetus exits the birth canal and takes that first breath, the term baby or childmay be used. The fetus may be called a “baby” while still developing, but that is not the proper term. Regardless of the personal terms, citizen is not used until after the birth.
Then you have the unmitigated audacity, the brazen gall, the almighty nerve to criticize the fact that globe trotting people might not have an unfettered right to adopt other children. You, ya effen moran, was the one who decided we needed more children for adoption because of these selfish “adoptive parents”. You don’t give two shits how many American children are on adoption lists already.
Then to top it off, you compare my thinking to the slave holders and Supreme Court. You have no idea what the eff you are talking about. Slavery was a moral issue. In order to abolish slavery, they needed a Constitutional Amendment. Cases dealing with slavery were correctly decided using the law as it was at the time, especially cases like Dred Scot. In modern morality, we see slavery as wrong. But 150 years ago it was legal.
The only connection between slavery and abortion is when assholes like you think they can control another person’s body. Effen wannabe slave master.