You have been too busy, if you can't waste sometime here in D&D BTW ate at Yao's rest. the other day it was really good and crowded. I don't bring that up because I think it adds credence to the abortion issue or helps the pro-life cause. I bring it up to point out how well arguments can be made to protect the habitats for breeding, the reproduction process for animals, the right to life for animals that actually make sense, especially if you love animals. It is not unreasonable to see groups passionately trying to save animal species from danger, to protect their breeding and to see their arguments as logical and valid. My point in referencing the work of animal conservation groups is that essentially they are fighting to protect the unborn animals and making sense. For me the argument to protect unborn humans makes as much sense and is just as reasonable. That is why I bring that up, because much of the dissention against pro-life comes across like it is strange that we would view a 'fetus' as human. Strange????
that's cool...if you have the time, make the drive to T&C at least once. the kids' drama thing in the morning is a blast. the kids love it but the humor hits at the adult level. kinda like watching Shrek.
For some reason, I never really liked Shrek, but I will commit to visiting the drama show at least once. As soon as I can drag the wife out of bed by 8 a.m. on a Sunday.
OK I've finally gotten through this thread and I'm glad I did. First off let me say this is an excellent thread and if there was a rating system for D & D thread this would definately deserve 5 stars. Very respectful, very thoughtful, and no one calling each other "murderer" or any of the other language that frequently accompanies this subject. A lot of the points that I would like to make have already been addressed but I wanted to hit on a few things. One thing is I noticed a few times Constitutional issues were brought up that were mistakenly applied. "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" aren't in the Constitution but in the Declaration of Independence and it is very unclear how much the Declaration of Independence applies to the Constitution. Generally its considered that the Declaration of Independence is a philosophical statement stating why revolution is justified along with a list of grievances why the Colonial revolution meets that philosophical standard. As such it has no bearing regarding the structure of governance of the US or what rights are granted. The Constitution is the only document that does that. The Constitution actually stipulates that rights are only granted at birth. Ammendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. From the Constitutional standpoint birth is what matters for granting rights as prior to that embryos and fetus aren't considered people. If an embryo or fetus isn't considered a person then in regard to a pregnancy there is only one person which is the mother then from the Constitutional standpoint the fetus is part of the woman's body. Leaving aside though the question of pesonhood though there is another issue in regard to what control someone has over their own body. Many people have brought up the argument that a baby up to about 3 won't survive without care. Yes that is true in a societal and environmental context but not biologically. Even though intelligence has done away with a lot of our survival instincts a newborn human can still respirate, consume and excrete waste on its own. Its not biologically depended any more on the mother so while it still needs care that care doesn't have to come from its biological mother. As of now though you can't take a fetus out of the womb and transfer it to another womb. So while yes a baby needs care to survive it isn't hooked up to someone's anatomy to do so. What happens then is even if a fetus is considered human there still is a problem that it essentially a parasite feeding off the metabolism of another human. I understand this sounds harsh but that is what it is. I brought this situation up before in previous debates but this is akin to the situation that if someone is dying of liver failure if you could hook them up to someone else's liver so that liver is sustaining both. A situation not as far fetched as it sounds as their have been experiments showing this may be possible. Now would the person who is having their liver used in such a way be in their rights to decide to end that attachment even though it means the death of the other person even if the person had volunteered to allow their liver to be used? I think most would say yes. So even givien that another life is at stake I think most would recognize that people should have a right to what happens to their body. This is the essence of the Roe decision. Finally I will say that I don't think this issue is, or should be, a straight up arguments of the rights of the individual to do as they choose with their body. The question of when does life begin and pregnancy is a special situation regarding where rights might conflict. My own feeling is that human life doesn't begin until consciousness. I have a hard time seeing a blob of undifferentiated cells as being human. When consciousness starts though is a difficult question of it self. I think everyone here agrees that abortions should be very limited. I think in an ideal society there would be no need for abortions but we live far from the ideal. Unfortunately as humans I think there will always be a need for abortion as things like rape and incest will always continue on some level and even if banned there will always be women so traumatized by things like that that they will seek to abort even if illegal. Also pregnancy while natural is a very very rough thing to go through and there will always be situations where the life of a mother is at risk. So while yes abortions should be rare and we should work to discourage people having them I don't see an outright ban as helping because what very likely will happen is abortions continuing but instead of now being done in regulated medical facilities under very dangerous uncontrolled situations. You could see not only back alley abortions with all of the horrors going along with those but also an unregulated market in RU-486 and other drugs with no controls on safety. This would mean that "babies" are still being killed but at the same time many more women's health is being put at risk too. While this is a very passionate issue I think if both sides can step back from the extremist positions there can be reasonable agreement.
it's not like shrek in the characters..just that the humor is directed at both kids and adults. would love to see you there. just let me know.
the constitution is a pact between government and man. i owe you no constitutional duties, sishir. no one is claiming that a mother owes a child a constitutional right. if someone murders you today, it's illegal..not unconstitutional.
Agree Agree Agree This speaks specifically to US citizenship and says nothing about pregnancy. It is implicit that the Constitutional rights afforded a mother are all that is needed to be defined within the Bill of Rights. Unborn babies don't vote and need protection of free speech, religion etc. Abortion was not a Constitutional issue when they drafted the Bill of Rights. I wish it had been, then it would have been included and we never would have had Roe. This is not stated in the Constitution so you cannot possible say "From the Constitution". Birth establishes citizenship. I would never argue that in a Constitutional context. That is completely separate from the human life - reproduction- protection of the unborn issues. It only shows that it WASN'T specifically addressed in the Bill of Rights, because it wasn't a specific issue. What was the abortion rate at that time per capita? You have stetched beyond the Constitution as stated above. You are at best giving your personal interpretation from your personal belief system. You have not quoted anything in the constitution that addresses abortion specifically. Which is what we should do for this important issue if we want the Constitution to be the guideline. The only point I made on this issue is that it cannot live without care from somewhere- a mother figure- human intervention- Point being it will die left to itself- there is total dependency on another human for its own viability. Unless it is raised by monkeys and becomes Tarzan- That's what Agent Smith told Morpheus- we are parasites! Truthfully, sharing a liver is not in context with the reproductive process. That example is apples-oranges. The reproductive process is fixed. In nature it is what it is- to have a human you MUST start at conception and have a mother carry to term. Can't change that one yet. If I shared my liver to extend someone elses life and changed my mind, I have given them extra life. I haven't taken anything away from them. You and I aren't promised tomorrow, if we get another day it is a blessing. Now if I kill you and blame it on 'we aren't promised another day' that is murder any way you slice it. MadMax- has always addressed your thoughts here well. If we are not sure, if there is a small possibility that we are killing a conscious baby- why are not being much more cautious and careful and trying harder to limit abortion? I tried to step back from an 'extreme' position early, agreeing to a compromise from Andymoon. Appreciate your comments.
The mother has the right to have someone who kills her fetus criminally prosecuted, and not on the basis of the battery to herself. Granted, a fetus isn't legally considered a person, but it is afforded virtually all of the same basic rights as an individual except in cases where the mother decides to kill it herself. Nobody argues that a woman can't do what she wants with her own body, but the "nobody can kill my fetus but me" argument is somewhat disingenuous...
Sishir Chang, that was an excellent analysis. Now personally I think the Constitution as a document is not too usefull here. Abortion is made possible through completely unforseen technologies, I think it is little use to look for much guidence through it. At best a collection of extensions of the Constitution (living Constitution) to medical ethics or such might be possible, but I don't know enough in the matters--seems to me trying to argue for a Constitutional right to abortion OR that a fetus has a Constitutional right to life without going through the Amendment process are both pretty tenous. Sorry, but I have not heard a compelling reason, to make the most extreme case, for saying a raped girl of 15 shouldn't be allowed access to the abortion pill within a week after the event. Miscroscoping cells, yes with a genetic program to be a person, but no subjective features of being human and can only get there through the organs and nutrients of a single other person. The "be responsible for your actions" argument falls apart in the case of rape. The "sacred pure reproductive process" argument, well I am OK if someone chooses that value for themselves, but is hardly persuaive as common societal ethic to be be enforced on all. I think you have to judge when a human life takes place. If collection of cells are not a human life, how is it the moral responsibility of raped girl to covert those cells to human life. She didn't ask for it, it wasn't her lack of responsibility, she may have had no agency in the process at all. Seems to me you are saying it is a human life, worthy of all protections of an American citizen, when the fertilized egg implants in the mothers womb. That is OK if you do, I see it differently.
Fair enough, I should have said 'the only way I can debate when human life begins is by using Bible scriptures and I don't think that will get credit with the pro-choice view'. So I am not trying to prove when human life begins. There that is the correct thought I had, I think. Based upon my understanding the Bible I would say human life begins at conception.
I agree but that was why I was bringing it up since there were a few arguments against abortion on Constitutional grounds that I felt was mistaken. Whethere abortion is legal or illegal the Constitution neither promotes or prevents it.
Good comment as always and I apologize for not having the time to respond to them fuller but will respond to a few points. Except that I am citing the Constitution specifically and the language of it specifically says "Born". If personhood was considered at conception then it should say "conceived." While it does state "naturalized" it takes 5 years minimum and a test to become a naturalized citizens. Even if fetus' were considered people that wouldn't apply. You've already answered the question regarding why the Constitution doesn't consider a fetus a person as the only rights from the Constitutional standpoint is the pregnant women's the fetus is a subset of the women. As far as if the Founders had known better they would've changed the language to include the unborn that's highly speculative and I don't think can be historically sustained. Abortion existed at the time of the founding and while I have no idea how many abortions happened I would guess that it wasn't so rare as to be exceptional. Even during then there was still rape incest, adultery and all sorts of reasons why a women wouldn't want to have a child. At the same time there was a very high infant mortality rate along with many women dying in childbirth. That might've made abortion less of an issue since pregancy, birth and early childhood was already so fraught with death that abortion wasn't an issue. Anyway for whatever reason birth was considered the standard by which rights were granted, ie personhood since you wouldn't consider a nonperson to be deserving of rights. MadMax though has addressed the point I was getting at which is that the Constution isn't a guide in this matter. Any claim to a Constitutional right to life on the part of fetus falls flat because the Constitution doesn't grant rights to fetuses. As Mad Max says this doesn't mean abortion couldn't be outlawed but that wouldn't be a Constitutional matter. I'm willing to say with conviction that I don't believe an undifferentiated clump of cells has consiciousness. A fetus that has developed a brain I would say has. The gray area is how many neurons though leads to consciousness? That I don't know but I will say that prior to the differentiation of stem cells into neurons there is no consciousness. Its a clump of cells that could become a human or could remain a clump of cells. From my understanding only about 1 out 4 fertilzed embryos end up attaching to the uterine wall to develop beyond that stage. Appreciate yours too and as I said I think we can all agree that the ideal goal is to eliminate abortion. Even if you don't think that it is killing a human there is no denying its a traumatic experience that no woman should have to go through. My own view is that working to create a society where abortion is uneccesry by choice is better than legislating a ban. As long as there are women who want abortions they will get them and as such I would rather they get them from regulated professionals than from back door hacks.
The words I bolded, with all due respect, only apply to more modern "technologies." There have been abortions, and ways to bring them about, since at least Roman times, and no doubt earlier than that. A very nice argument, Sishir. Thought provoking, which I always love to see here. Keep D&D Civil.
Valentinus of Valentines Day fame belonged to a sect that was associated with abortions induced by plants after which the congregation would add a touch of honey and eat the fetus. This was either 1st or 2nd Century AD, and when they started the practice the methods were apparently well known. They actually have a genuine theological motive. They did this because they believed that the world around us was created by evil and that to bring a new soul into this world of evil was a sin. Obvioulsy with a theology like this you run out of members after a generation or two. I'm not sure what the eating of the fetus accomplished in this framework but it was done.
rhester, I'm like the least eloquent person here at expressing myself so I haven't posted in this topic even though it brings up really strong feelings in me, but I wanted to tell you thank you and I really respect and admire you for the work you are doing. It is people like you that help me keep my faith in people when so much of society is inundated with empty slogans and electioneering without regard for the real people involved in everyday circumstances of life and death. Keep up the good work, and I'm praying for you.
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wPbj6Lz1enA"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wPbj6Lz1enA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
I am sort of sad it's so "YES" here, but hey, it's opinion. It's a good discussion but I haven't read all of the responses. Sishir... that's good sh*t right there, man. I like that argument. "Should abortion be legal in the U.S." is the question. Isn't it already legal? I thought it was. My answer to the poll is "NO", btw. I tend to think of the "YOU DID IT, now you pay for it" ideal... let the punishment fit the crime kind of thing... not that having sex with someone is a crime, but if that is the case... and it's a rape, then you CAN have it... but I know that many women will claim rape as soon as they can pin it on the guy... and the only way I think it should be a NO QUESIONS ASKED thing is that if the baby or the mother or both are in danger of losing their lives. That is all. Ya'll go back to arguing this thing. I am no good at that.
I am not trying to be difficult with this question, it is genuine. I just did a web search on 'abortion' and 'bible' and I turned up a number of passages which I would describe as 'siverely reaching' with regard to the moment life begins. In some cases the same passages were quoted by both people who wish to outlaw abortion, and those who think abortion could only be used before a specific time. If you know of a couple of verses, that would be sufficent. I can look them up. I don't want to put you on the spot, either. If it would require any work I can do without.
I will post them Mon. morning when I return to work. (hope I remember) I don't have internet at home, so I don't normally check the BBS on the weekend. Thanks
On the other hand, a fertilized egg does not require the person who provided the egg (the genetic mother) to survive, only a viable host. So a fertilized egg needs care, but that care can come from any of billions of candidates, much like an infant. It is only from the time that the egg implants itself until the baby is able to survive outside the womb that a specific person is required (namely the person in whose uterus the egg implanted). A person hooked up to your liver would need to stay there indefinitely. A baby will be born in about 9 months, and if it was really such a big deal, could even be taken out sooner than that. If hooking someone up to your liver would magically heal there liver in 9 months (and removing them before that time would kill them instantly), I think it would be tantamount to murder to remove them before they were healed. Also, it is quite a bit easier to lug around a ten pound baby than an adult human. Most peoples arguements are based on when they believe life begins. If someone didn't think life began until birth, of course they would have no problem with abortions. If someone believes that life begins at conception, then abortion is the same as murder. That there is an argument that life could begin at conception should give people a great deal of pause in supporting abortion, as they are wagering with peoples' lives. Supporting abortion means you could be supporting the deaths of millions of people every year. Would any of the pro-choice people support the random strafing of American neighborhoods simply because you might not be killing anyone? Bank robbery is outlawed, but it still continues, and because it is illegal, people go to great lengths and put their lives in danger just to take money that isn't theirs from the bank. Imagine how much safer it would be for everyone if you could just walk into a bank and demand that the teller give you money, and they had to give it to you.
