I am pro-choice. I would not want an abortion for myself, but I do not believe that the government should be making moral decisions for the public, unless those decisions fall under the catagory of infringment of rights. Considering that I belive a fetus is not protected by the government untill it gains a birth cirtificate, it does not gain protection from John Locke's ideals.
I'm sick to death of this "issue". How, can anyone decide they can legislate someone else's body? If men were the ones who had babies, abortions would be like oil changes. On a side note, I could REALLY go for some mandatory vasectomies in this country.
That's a completely circular argument: "The unborn have no rights because the government doesn't recognize them as persons." It's very similar to the arguments once used to defend slavery.
But it's true. As the abortion bill was overturned by the supreme court for being unconstiutional, due to the fact that women couldn't get one if their lives were in danger. People of all races and creeds who have already been born come first, apparently. And untill there's a strong majority of people who dissagree, things will stay that way. But you do have the freedom of choice, just like me. If you ever become impregnated in some wacked-out way, you can choose weather you want to get rid of the kid, or not. It's your choice.
You're wrong. It SHOULD fall under Locke's ideals. It is a human life in development. Once the egg/sperm fuse, a distinct human is formed. It's not devoloped as you and I are, but it does not change the fact it is a human life, and thus its life deserves the same respect. If you are following the Social Contract, it has a right to live UNLESS it is going to infringe on your life (Danger of the mother's life, Rape, etc.)--I am not talking about those, becasue those for me are more than enough reason for abortion, but the fact is less than a minority of all abortions are for those reasons. At what point does a fetus becomed deemed a "human"?? Just becasue a fetus is pushed through a mother's womb does not make it any more human than a few days or months before it was delivered.
So just becasue a majority might agree with slavery makes it okay, that is basically what you are concurring to. I agree that the bill should have included the exceptions, but the main point is you think it is okay for a human life to be murdered by a doctor before it is born, without a legal reason, and (back to the Social Contract), should not be legal
we share 99% DNA with chimps.....dont they deserve as much protection under the law as some zygote or embryo? I value borns chimps over a fetus.
Wrong. It had an exception to protect the mother's life, but the pro-abortionists have insisted on including an amorphous "health" exception that would render the ban meaningless.
The question that goes unanswered here is why? Why is it that the US has so many abortions? Why is it that people feel the need to want an abortion? As I said, "When it comes to the social, economic and cultural problems that cause the large amount of abortions in the US they (the anti abortionists) don’t seem to have many realistic ideas." Any ideas realistic or otherwise we don’t know because they are not telling us? They seem to only have a negative position ‘No to Abortion’ but what about the ‘Abortion Problem’? Why is it that people seem to want or need an abortion and why wouldn’t it be a good idea to try and cut down even stop the people wanting or needing abortions? ** I know that for many (not all) anti-abortions their opposition is based in their religious beliefs, it is wrong because their interpretation of their holy book or a priest’s interpretation of their holy book has told them so. There is no logic or reason needed it has been ordained wrong and so it is wrong. They will not care to find out why people have abortions, or seek understanding or have compassion for the circumstances. Once the woman is impregnated, from that instant, they are to be forced to have the resultant child. Rarely will they care about the circumstances they will not care about before or afterwards just about not allowing an abortion. But religions haven’t a very good history in the field of family planning with religious groups often trying to prevent access to sex education or contraception. The thing is that for some religions it is about getting more souls not how those souls are to live or be sustained, so some churches want more children to be born even into harsh miserable conditions where they are likely to have brutal lives then die, as long as they die "in the church".(Monty Python were making this point in their own satirically humorous way). For other religions population control as a means of having a sustaining environment isn’t important since this world is just some half way house to another place and after rapture and dooms day they will not care. I fear those peoples agenda isn’t about helping people or society by finding out why people seem to want or need an abortion or finding ways to cut down even virtually end people wanting or needing those abortions? They are on a mission and that is to stop abortion being legal and they don’t really care how they do it, in this situation if it looks like democracy will work they will try and change the law, and so they preach. But in the end whatever argument they might use it is still just an irrational held religious thing. ** One of the ‘anti’s’ secular arguments seems to be based on some quasi-legal foundation. In the case of the US the words of the Declaration of Independence were ‘men’ are said to have "unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" Well this and much of the rest of US ‘constitutional’ writing is open to interpretation. I mean the man who wrote those words was a slave owner and today the US government and a vast amount of the American people believe inflicting ‘cruel and unusual punishment" on fellow human beings is not only acceptable but seemingly necessary. Then you have to find the balance within the ideas being expressed. Where the DoI states "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" the Constitution has "life, liberty, or property" cannot be taken away "without due process of law". The unalienable rights become very quickly open to the interpretation and prejudices of self-interested people with influence. So what are the definitions of ‘life’, ‘liberty’, ‘happiness’ and ‘property’ and how do they fit within the context of the social and economic framework of modern America? Is life purely about existence, if a person was from birth kept in a soundproofed and windowless room and given only given enough bland food and drink to sustain them but nothing else until they died, would that be having a life? In my view and I think any other sane person except the legally pedantic would answer no. So why have the ‘anti’s’ seemingly latched themselves onto that definition? For most people (including Jefferson) there is meant to be something else, to Jeff one was ‘happiness’ which I would expand to be ‘quality of life’. The other thing for Jeff was liberty, freedom. The problem is that the US is a strongly capitalist country and under such a system there will always be economic limits to what a person may wish to do that can also have an effect on a persons quality of life, opportunities, both personal and financial. So what is wrong with the economic system in the US that people weighting up the ‘cost’ of having a child in terms of the limitation on their freedom of action, quality of life and opportunities, feel abortion is the ‘better’ alternative? It could be said that adoption is a way out and I would agree, there are people that cannot have children, and I would hope that this could be used, but again there are social, economic and cultural barriers that need to be addressed. Also the matter of recompense, the person has had to carry a the child, go through the pain of birthing then has ‘their’ property taken away. If market forces were allowed to take over however I think there would soon be a situation where wombs and children would become just another commodity on the market, which I’m not sure the ‘anti’s’ would want. So to me until the ‘anti’s’ stop thinking in the lawyers narrow-minded legal definition of life as existence and factor in the whole social and economic context, it would seem to be only a devise to ‘win’ an argument. And to bring in my legal force what they cannot do by reasoned persuasion. In other words it isn’t about helping people just about trying to control them. ** As to the ‘social contract’ argument my criticisms of it have not only not being addressed, but no attempt has even been made to address them. ** The moral argument is hard to pin down, there seems to me to be a whiff of hypocrisy about it. The moral argument seems to be based on the idea that humans have ‘a right to ‘life’. The problem is that many of these same people seem to see the suffering even death of human beings as been acceptable when it fits in with their ‘political’ beliefs. Which would mean their moral position is secondary to their political viewpoint. Which would mean that they are morally flexible. ** I said in my original post that a lot of the debate about abortion should not be all about if it is ‘right or wrong’ but about why it seemed to be needed. I think that every effort should be made to avoid the circumstances that made it wanted or needed but that I feared that they might never be completely avoided. For me the thing was to try, which from what has been said so far is more than what the ‘anti’s’ seem to want to do. Why and how Why are abortions wanted and how do we work to limit them?
Balbus, The single most important factor in the high US abortion rate is its widespread (and virtually unregulated) availability. It increased tenfold after the Supreme Court invented the "constitutional right" to abortion. However, there are certainly factors on the "demand" side that need to be addressed. Here's one laudable effort in that area: http://www.feministsforlife.org/cop/index.htm
I believe we share over 75% DNA with every living thing on this planet. No more fishing with earthworms...
Well I think this is the problem with the US, the low level of debate. I mean this subject is supposed to be one of the mostly hotly contended amongst Americans, but it seems to me from the evidence here that the ‘anti’s’ can’t rustle up a decent argument between them. ** The single most important factor in the high US abortion rate is its widespread (and virtually unregulated) availability. It increased tenfold after the Supreme Court invented the "constitutional right" to abortion. Think about that, it is called ‘take up’, it is what happens when something that is introduced seems to have been needed or wanted. Imagine a medical procedure becomes available to a wider group of people, it corrects, as an example a heart defect. The outcome is a ten fold increase in operations related to that defect, would someone then argue that the increased availability of the operation caused the defect to become more widespread, or that suffers were now able to have the operation? This is very much what I see as the mistaken approach you and presumably other ‘anti’s’ are taking, you are not interested with the ‘abortion problem’. Which is why it is that so many women want abortions. No you are interested in stopping abortions. I would also ask what the figures are based on, since if the procedure was illegal or very much limited we would need to look at many other possibly related statistics (child abandonment, suicide) not all of them available, such as how many self aborted or had successful illegal operations? ** However, there are certainly factors on the "demand" side that need to be addressed. Here's one laudable effort in that area: As to this I’m not quiet sure what it is you are saying? The college strategy is laudable but it is not exactly a penetrative inquiry into the social, cultural economic and political situation in the US that leads to abortion. Also their solutions for dealing with an unexpected pregnancy during college is to give assistance such as - Financial aid, preferential housing, and low cost child care. The thing is that most of the people that I’ve talked to that are ‘anti’s’ are also right wing and I think many of them would see such things as frankly ‘socialist’. I mean this is just for the duration of a college degree but in national terms are you saying that the ‘anti’s’ advocate the state sponsoring of child rearing? For how long and at what level? Well on the same site there is the booklet on the alternatives to abortion "Options Choices". It doesn’t talk about helping out women with more money or assistance it tells them to get what they can out of the present system that is money from social services and charities and such things as preferential housing and food stamps. Well the thing is that these things are already available as is stated and have not been attractive. Also many right wingers think some women have children just to get such hand outs and so want to cut the levels of support to such groups to try and discourage them from having children, are you saying that while this is going on another group of right wingers is advocating and encouraging women to go on support so that they do? This again is where you should be asking why? It is very possible that if cultural and social stigma was lessened and that material assistance was given more women might not have abortions. A really big help would be very low cost or even free childcare. However that doesn’t seem to be the way the right wing in US is going. ** But the thing about the website is that it is concerned with the already pregnant. So I’d have to ask why are they pregnant? Did they have adequate information about sex and about how not to get pregnant and did they have ready access to the means of protection?
as for the last question, i don't know of a single woman who doesn't know how to prevent pregnancy or have the means of protecting against it.
The simple fact is that abortion is largely used as backup birth control. The "abortion problem" is primarily driven by the hedonistic drive for sex without consequence. I realize that judgments about sexual immorality are anathema to enlightened lefties like you, but not every problem in the world can be blamed on outside social/economic forces. See http://www.roevwade.org/myths2.html. What's your thesis? Given the long waiting lists of adoptive parents and network of pregnancy support centers in most cities, it is untenable to suggest that alternatives are not available. First, "pro-life" and "right-wing" are not synonymous. Second, it is often the left that stigmatizes motherhood as a vocation. Contraception is readily available in any grocery store. Of course, it's never foolproof. The best way to avoid an unwanted is to abstain from premarital sex. Gasp!
Well Huck it turns out (once again) that while you may have a position on a given subject, you haven’t any real arguments to back them up. I mean really this is sad - hedonistic drive for sex sexual immorality abstain from premarital sex These are nothing but slogans and not very goods ones at that. As to the repetition of sex, in the immoral hedonistic way and the absence thereof, I am sure people can draw their own conclusions. -) As to your link, did you actually read the article, because I think you should, then read my statement again. ** Well I suppose I should do you the courtesy of actually looking at your, whatever (I mean they are not exactly arguments) - The simple fact is that abortion is largely used as backup birth control. Why? If other forms of contraception are as widely available as you believe why put themselves in that position? The "abortion problem" is primarily driven by the hedonistic drive for sex without consequence. Why? And isn’t an abortion a consequence? I realize that judgments about sexual immorality are anathema to enlightened lefties like you, Why? Do you believe that only the righties have a moral compass? Who decides if a sexual act is depraved or not? Is all sex in someway ‘sinful’? Is all premarital sex immoral? Is sex purely for pleasure wrong? not every problem in the world can be blamed on outside social/economic forces. Why do you believe that is true in this context? The very website you sent me to -as I have pointed out - makes the social and economic argument as to having an abortion or not very clear. Are you saying that you now repudiate that site because it doesn’t fit your viewpoint, which makes me wonder why you chose it in the first place? Given the long waiting lists of adoptive parents and network of pregnancy support centers in most cities, it is untenable to suggest that alternatives are not available. It must be remembered that "Old-time orphanages--large buildings housing large numbers of orphans--mostly disappeared in this country by the 1940s. They have been replaced by modem facilities known as "group homes" or "group residential programs." Today about 30,000 children--a small fraction of the more than 500,000 kids living apart from their natural parents--live in group homes or group residential programs scattered across the country." Current Events, a Weekly Reader publication, Jan 23, 1995 v94 n15 p2A(4) The orphanage: is it time to bring it back? In 1995 there were 188 catholic run orphanages in the US alone, and while Americans adopt many children from abroad some 265,000 since 1971, it is still estimated that by 2010 there will be 44 million orphans in the world. But my own view would be to try an stop the people getting pregnant as much as possible so that there is no need for abortion or adoption. First, "pro-life" and "right-wing" are not synonymous. (First) The people I’ve talked to here that are ‘anti’s’ seem to be right wing, and you yourself (just there a few lines above) say that only the righties know what is moral and immoral and I presume you think abortion is immoral? Second, it is often the left that stigmatizes motherhood as a vocation. (Second) Well I don’t know if to laugh or cry at this, so according to you not only do lefties lack moral fortitude we have it in for mothers as well, what next, are you going to say we have horns, pointy tails and carry three pronged forks? Contraception is readily available in any grocery store. So why are people not using them? Of course, it's never foolproof. Well it is a damn sight better than having sex with nothing at all. The best way to avoid an unwanted is to abstain from premarital sex. Yes it is, but that is easier to command, but harder to enforce. Gasp! Also why specify ‘premarital’, I mean how should married couples avoid unwanted pregnancies? ** As is plain I mostly want to know what you base your views on this is always the problem when people argue in slogans rather than actually using considered statements. Slogans are good to shout at demo’s but they are a sorry why to try and make yourself understood, they tell people what you think but not why you think it. From what I can salvage from the wreck of your reply you seem to believe that it is ‘simple’ and a ‘fact’ that some people are driven by hedonistic lust to have premarital sex. Since this is immoral in your eyes are you implying that these people have no other notion or motivation other than to ‘sin’ because they are ‘bad’? Is that close? If it is do you think these people were just born ‘bad’? **
