I wanted to ask this question to the bbs because I feel it is a great way to get good sample of answers and opinions so here it goes..... First of all, being a conservative and pro-lifer poli-sci student I hate debating abortion, its a sensitive subject and no one likes to discuss it. However, I feel that in todays society, there is a increasing need for more clearly defined legislation on it, that would serve as a bridge for the opinions of conservatives and liberals so let me pose this question to anyone who would like to answer. How do you personally feel about a policy that would restrict abortions to being carried out in the first trimester of pregnancy, barring incest or rape, in which case there would be no limit? In a model legislature, I wrote a bill to this effect, and it was harshly rejected by the "democrats and liberals" of the legislature. I was very suprised by this because I thought it to be a good comprimise. Why is 3 months not enough? If a child is not "alive" at conception, when is it "alive" Thoughts?
Okay, I'll bite. Something tells me I'll regret this. I think you've proposed a compromise that will divide both pro-choice and pro-life sides of the debate. You're alienating the pro-life side because most of them believe that, at conception, an unborn child has the same rights as a newborn child. You're alienating the pro-choice crowd because they believe that a woman rights should take precedence over an unborn embryo. See, here's another point at which you're being (possibly subconsciously) biased. When pro-life people use the words child and baby, and make no seperation for the born and the unborn, pro-choice people feel that they are avoiding the issues by making appeals to emotion. Most pro-choice people seperate an embryo and a fetus from a child. They view the process as one with seperate stages of development. And most grant that an embryo or a fetus is alive. They just will not grant that this being has a greater right to life than the woman that is carrying it. The pro-choice position is that anytime you restrict abortion rights with legislation, you take rights away from adult women, and you put their lives at stake. There are plenty of cases where women's whose lives were lost because they were refused abortions because overzealous doctors used the law to prop up their own personal beliefs. So, from a pro-choice perspective, any curtailment of a woman's right to choose, no matter how practical, puts the lives of women at risk.
Why is pro-life a conservative issue supported by scripture and anti-death penalty, which doesn't get the same support by scripture, a liberal issue? Makes you go hmmmm.
I don't necessarily agree that the baby (embryo, fetus, whatever) is part of her body and not part of another body. Does a conjoined twin have the right to decide to have surgery to remove the other, knowing that it would kill the other but not the decision maker?
The whole argument goes back and forth. If a pregnant woman is killed (in some states) the killer can be charged with a double murder. But the mother can ok an abortion and that is not. So if a woman is on her way to the abortion clinic and something happens to the unborn baby (car wreck, someone pushes the mother down stairs, etc) the person can be charged (either for engangerment or murder) while if nothing had happened the mother would have had the same thing done. Again I know my view on the thing (pro-life except in cases of incest, rape or if the mothers life is in danger) and I know others are totally different. IMO - The moment a life begins needs to be defined. Too much ambiguity that a unborn child is counted unless the mother doesn't want it.
What a horrible argument. You're taking a rare and serious birth defect, and comparing it to normal, everyday pregnancy. The two things are very different. As far as whether or not an embryo is part of a woman's body, well it can't survive outside of her body, no more than her heart or her lungs could. That makes it closer to being a part of her body, or at least depending on her body, than a seperate being. Remember, the pro-choice position hinges on the fact that there is a rights conflict between the unborn and the mother. They side with the mother. I tend to agree.
I'm not going to argue that my example was a good one, I realize it wasn't. However, comparing a baby to an organ is just as poor. Leave the heart in a person and it's not going to eventually grow into another living, breathing human. It's hard to find comparisons between child birth and anything.
I tend to agree with your point about contradiction, though I don't know if you'd like my bright line. I think it should be at birth. Everything else is ambiguous, and puts the life of a mother at risk. I really think if abortion is such a serious issue, more pro-lifers would adopt and be willing to spend money on safe-sex education. They seem to want to have their cake and eat it too.
Your argument makes being pregnant tantamount to a threat on the woman's life. The greatest percentage of pregnancies are normal and routine with very little impact on the mother's health. A newborn baby cannot survive outside of the womb either. S/he still relies on a woman's or a man's body to survive. This is an unusual situation. Is this a unique situation whereby when the rights "conflict" the one right is allowed to trample upon the other one... even unto death? Strange.
I believe a fetus is a life, but on the other hand, I don't think men have any jurisdiction over a woman's body. I don't think we have the closest idea in understanding what a woman goes through when she is pregnant, emotionally or physically, nor the regular pressures of life that she has to deal with. If women made all the rules, and they were debating if men's genitals should be put in chastity locks until marriage, I still don't think we would understand what they go through when we are the ones debating about abortion.
The reason it does not fly for me is because it denies the freedom for other people to disagree on when a child is "alive." I understand it is grey-area, i understand why people could be spooked by it, but my - or your - interpretation of when a child is "alive" enough to have civil rights will never be shared by everyone. I really think that if something is living inside of someone, it should be considered part of them. I just think that trumps even the most compelling anti-choice arguments. I see how you can disagree, but I think sometime freedom forces us to cohabitate with principles we are not totally in agreement with. I believe a fetus is 'alive.' But I also believe bugs, cats, trees and aardvarks are alive. It's not black and white to me. Maybe to you. Not to me. And not to people who are considering terminating a pregnancy. And for the record, all this abortion debate and advocacy for changing the laws seems like an awfully slow way of discouraging abortion. Education, community resources, promoting responsbility among *males for this problem - not just hammering away at women - would be faster and decrease the frequency of abortions. There is actually alot of common ground on this issue if you can set aside the politics and desire to legislate. Criminalizing it does not mean it will not happen. I think it has been fetishized into this bulls-eye 'morality' issue, when things like poverty, justice system, education and the environment are more complicated, but more pressing matters of morality. How many passages are there in the Bible about poverty? 3000 or so? Justice? How many times do you hear people prioritize those politically? (democats too - they are often at the mercy of wealthy trial lawyers...) Then again, most types of 'morality' are fueled primarily by demonizing those you disagree with, which makes things like abortion and gay marriage so much fun to argue, I guess. I mean, I get it, but I find compromising on it tough to stomach. If I could get some iron-clad guarantee that illegalizing third trimester ones would mean that we would focus on the acutal morality issues facing our country, maybe i would do it. But i don't think i would trust anyone who offerred me a 'deal' on abortion because i don't think they would have any clue where actual problems were hanging out.
What about other women then? There are women in law and the judiciary and in healthcare who oppose abortion. Are we just to dismiss them, too... and on what grounds?
The mother's life is not really at risk in a normal childbirth, and it is very rare for a pro-lifer to demand that the mother die so the baby may live. What a load. I really think if homelessness is such a serious issue, more liberals would welcome the homeless to live with them. They seem to want to have their cake and eat it too.
Since women are allowed to hit the reset button and men have no say, I propose that men be allowed to choose to abort any financial responsibility of an unwanted child for a reasonable one-time fee. It's only fair.
im going to avoid the "when is a baby a baby" debate and just answer the first question. i think that some kind of reasonable compromise is what we need and what will eventually have to happen. a woman should always have the right to choose, but limits should be put of late-term abortions. as to when (1st trimester, 2nd?) i dont know. i will say that if you have been carrying a fetus for a few months and still havenet decided than you should probably go ahead and carry it to term. i also dont think that it would be unreasonable to require parental notification when minors (under 18) get an abortion. im a liberal for sure, but this would seem to be good judgement and common sense. parents should know what their kids are doing, especially in a matter as serious as abortion/careless sex. the problem right now is that neither side want to budge. most pro-lifers (im one) are against any restrictions as far as late-term and for some reason, many fight against parental consent. i dont have kids, but i know that most all parents want to know what their young children are doing. seems common sense to me. most pro-lifers are equally stubborn on the issue. and will only accept total bans, but i feel dont take into consideration the fact that its a safety issue as much as freedom of choice. when abortions were illegal, women still got them and many either died or became sterile in the process. you may not like abortions, but they are going to happen whether or not they are legal. i would never want to see abortion outlawed, but i think some kind of compromise will have to be reached between both sides in the near future.
Enforcement is the issue to me. How would it be carried out? It would be a huge mess. How much time, money and manpower would be continuously spent on an vain endeavor? A war on abortion would be absolutely hideous. We have no idea what the unforseen consequences would actually be. I also hear no concern for the born who feel the desire to have an abortion. That is the true problem which can not be solved through might.
Yes, but this is the implication of the pro-life position, that abortion is IMMORAL. Whether a woman's life as at risk or not is a subjective decision, and one that should be left to a woman, not an overzealous doctor or the courts. How many liberals consider homelessness the primary reason that they get out to vote? Now, what about conservatives and abortion? A closer analogy would be the environment for liberals, and many do there part in trying to protect it. And your homeless straw man completely dodged my safe-sex argument.
