I was merely using different adjectives and did not mean anything by it. I just didn't want to use "triumph" twice in two sentences. I am more than happy to speak on behalf of the mother faced with the choice, who has much more of a right to a voice than a fetus IMO.
Exactly. Many people thought that the sun rotated around the Earth, when in fact it is the other way around. Just because you think a fetus is a life does not mean that it is factually a life, it could just mean that you believe in a fallacy.
And I am sure that in your idyllic world, banning abortion would create a utopia completely free of abortion, but history and facts speak of a far different reality. I would rather see abortion rates going down rather than up, but I do not believe that the most efficient way toward that goal is prohibition of abortion. I believe that we will see far greater reductions in the short and long term through education and provision of contraceptives to the people at highest risk for unwanted pregnancies. The facts are on my side. In countries all over the world (where abortion is legal), they have much more openness and education about sex and contraception and their abortion rates are FAR lower than here. I know, you would rather have an ineffectual law than an effective strategy but I think we can do better.
My opinion is that once the fetus is viable, as in it could live outside the mother's womb, it should have a voice in the matter. That is the point that I think we should draw the line and a good starting point would be a ban of third trimester abortions. That line might change as technology improves, but until the doctor can remove the fetus from the womb and it stand a reasonable chance of survival, the woman's voice should be paramount. It is her womb and if she does not want to use it to bear a child, nobody has the right to force her to.
And that is your right. Does that make me less than human, in your eyes? We have the same goal but we have differing opinions about how do address it. But pardon my skepticm because I've seen relatively little activity on the unwanted pregnancy front. All I see is the legal fights. But so, you are fighting the legal front too. Fine. America has been fighting that front for decades now with nobody coming out a winner. At what point do we regroup? You say we need to error on the side of life in terms outlawing abortion. Fine. I say we need to error on the side of the constitution since the very existance of that life is what is in question. Afterall, it is the existance of the constitution that even grants you the right to have this conversation. So on this issue, for me, the tie goes to the constitution. Since the constitution won the tiebreaker and I still think abortion is bad, I'll chose to fight this battle by discouraging unwanted pregnancies. I firmly beleive this will be FAR FAR FAR more effective then simply outlawing abortion in one random country on this planet.
Totally agree with you. There should be some sort of legal definition of life. To me, it is obviously somewhere between conception and birth. I wonder how the more ardent pro-lifers or pro-choicers would feel about this. Are most pro-lifers against abortion in any case? Are most pro-choicers okay with late-term abortions? A potential sticky point with this sort of compromise may arise if technology advances to such a point that the fetus can survive in an artifical environment and develop at the earliest stages.
1. The Constitution has been amended and reinterpreted more times than I care to count. What you call the Constitution today will be called backwards and antiquated 100 years from now. All sorts of crap has been justified under the guise of the Constitution. I choose life over the Constitution..particularly others' lives, not my own. The Constitution didn't win a tiebreaker...I seriously suggest you read the Roe opinion and then the opinions which followed that watered it down substantially. 2. Of course I don't think you're a bad person. I don't know you. Don't make it personal.
I don't know how that will play out. Remember, the argument has always been framed that "its my body..you can't tell me what to do with my body!!" When you play that argument and frame it that way, it doesn't leave room for this. What if the mother says, no...I'd rather have an abortion! If the argument is, 1. it's not a living being; and 2. it's her body...then does this matter? If it does, than I think it's disingenuous to argue that "it's her body" and "it's not a living being" at this point. If it's just a mass of tissue then it still has no rights...and then there's still no reason to force a woman to do anything but a straight abortion. Right??? I'm not saying I agree with the positions above...I'm pointing out where the arguments lead you, even given advances in science.
The difference is the harm done. There is a definite harm done to someone when you are talking about bank robbery, murder, rape, or assault. When you are talking about abortion, the harm is done to something (to you, someone) that we cannot agree is alive, particularly as early as I think abortions should be performed (first trimester). That means that we have a "consenting adult" component and as we should be well aware, banning behavior between consenting adults makes the problem worse, not better. We saw many of those problems in the days before Roe v. Wade and I have no desire to go back to a system that treats women the way they were treated in those days. Because one is a commendable and achieveable task where the other would be an ineffectual law that would cause more harm and would do little to reduce overall abortion rates. Do you really want to see the abortion drug sold alongside heroin, cocaine, and meth? That is the situation you would be bringing on if you were able to get a law passed that criminalized abortion.
Yes, the Constitution has been amended to grant additional rights to people. (people being the operative word) It has only been amended ONCE in a fashion that removed rights (prohibition). So we really want to be in the business of removing parental rights? History isn't on your side. So since the point in question here is the very existance of a human, it is tenuous, at best to apply the same rule of law. Therefore, as an American, I will chose to fight this battle in a way that is clearly allowable within the Constitution...rather than trying to eliminate rights from America. Why revert to tactics that POTENTIALLY subvert the constitution when you have other options? [smart ass]If you support eliminating rights from American women, you must hate America [/smart ass] I only say that because this is the typical arguments used against liberals. Now the table is turned. Why don't you focus on educating American women instead of just assuming they are incapable of making sound decisions for themselves. Are mothers human? Well, then treat them like it. Help them get out of poverty and help them make informed decision before they get pregnant rather than assuming they are unable. Yes, assuming they can't make informed decisions IS unAmerican.
i didn't ask which one you preferred...which one you thought was fruitful or not. i asked why they were mutually exclusive. they're simply not, andy. one can work on both fronts.
Exactly. You cannot play fast and loose with the life of the mother, either. She has rights and one of those is to be able to decide with her doctor what medical procedures are appropriate. Given certain restrictions (as with many other medical procedures), abortion is a medical procedure that must be performed in a regulated facility by licensed medical personnel. The only way for that to happen is for abortion to remain legal, again given certain restrictions. Virtually everyone I have talked to who has an opinion on abortion has considered that question. The two words that leapt out at me in this were "if" and "might." You cannot ban a medical procedure based on "ifs" and "mights." If we are not certain about the existance of "life" in the womb, we must err on the side of the life that IS there, the mother.
If a man broke into my house, killed my son, and raped then killed my wife, I might go after him and beat him to death with a baseball bat. Should I be arrested for murder for what I might do? You should not legislate based on "ifs" and "mights."
1. wait..parental rights?? now they're parents?? can you be parents without a child?? ARE YOU SAYING IT'S A CHILD!!!??? 2. history isn't on my side?? in what regard?? that totally depends on your beliefs. i'll argue it's not on your side. we once said some other people weren't really "people," a court once said they were property. history isn't on that side. what you're seeing as an elimination of rights....i'm seeing as the fostering of rights for those not being protected. in other words, you're talking to the wall. Look..getting past the B.S....I've worked with these women before...i've met them at clinics in the inner-city, in particular. i've never met anyone who wants to support legislation that would punish these women. never once. they come in confused...they don't know what it is inside them. most of them have never given it any thought. they just have a problem, and they don't know what to do about it. show a woman an ultrasound, and her chances of having an abortion go down drastically...i mean big time. so the more she knows/sees, the less likely she is to have the abortion. but that isn't what the abortion providers do. they have to make money...and there's only one way they can do that. So you're assumptions about what I personally know or assume about these women is unfounded and rests entirely in your own speculation. Sing that song to someone else. And chill with the un-american crap. You're starting to sound like the conservatives you berate all the time.
it's human life, andy. that's the if. if it's alive. that's a pretty damn important if. stab a dead body. stab a live body. the consequences, i assure you, are quite different. and when you play around with it..it's reckless.
My observation leads me to believe that most pro-lifers are okay or at least not completely opposed to abortion in the case of medical necessity, rape, or incest. That is just my observation, but it seems accurate to me. In my experience, no. Most of the pro-choice people I know would not have any problem with banning late term abortion (I'm one!). There are exceptions and fringes who would oppose such a measure, but the same can be said for both sides. For me, this is a no-brainer. Once we get to that point, harvesting the fetus takes the place of abortion. The pro-lifers can have their "lives" protected and the pro-choicers have an early option in the case of unplanned pregnancy.
that's easily the worst analogy i've ever seen. yours assumes inaction...if you did something or if you did nothing. mine assumes action to an object...if it's a human being or if it's not has HUGE consequences.
i can assue you that most women who deal with this issue have never thought of it before they're faced with the choice.
