I don't really like these debates. I'm personally against abortion except when the mother's life is in danger, rape, or incest. But I don't know about the legislation of outlawing it all together. I do find it interesting that Thomas Aquinas was against abortion but didn't believe that the embryo was human until 40 or 80 days after conception. Saint Augustine and Saint Jerome didn't believe the destruction of a fetus could be considered homicide until the fetus was fully formed. It is interesting to read, but I don't know how significant people find those distinctions made by early leaders of the church.
Pro-choicers would say they are pro-life but they are only referring to humans too (you say except animals and adult humans who have committed crimes; they say except fetuses). To me, you are pro-life or you aren't. I believe I am. I am anti-death penalty and anti-elective wars. I am also anti-meat, fur and hunting and anti-abortion, but I don't favor passing laws such that meat eaters or women who choose to have abortions should go to jail. I was just curious as to how pro-life you are. I suspected I was more pro-life than you were and it turns out I was right. Here you attempt to draw a correlation to abortion for the sake of convenience. No, you wouldn't toss your cat out because you didn't want him. Yes, you would eat slaughtered animals probably every single day of your life because you happened to fancy the taste of them. You and every current and former meat eater (myself included) are personally responsible for more deaths due simply to personal preference, personal pleasure and convenience than every abortion in the history of this country. To you that's fine because animals aren't human. To the most extreme of pro-choicers, neither are fetuses. That's fine. Just never say you're more pro-life than I am. And I'm pro-choice.
Both sides can make a compromise. If we look at the extremes, we will see that there is room for compromise. All of us would admit that an 8.5 month "old" embryo is, in fact, a living being. The embryo, at this point, has fingers, brain, heartbeat, etc. It's a baby! I can't punch a late-term pregnant woman in the gut and get away with mere assault and battery. Scott Peterson got charged with double murder because it WAS a double murder. On the other hand , it is hard to conveive an early-term embryo as a living being. Something like 10 percent of pregnancies are miscarried (is that a word?) without the woman ever knowing she was even pregnant. I would have a hard time envisioning these miscarriages as "babies dying". What we can use is a "definition of life" amendment that would define life as beginning at "X" months after conception. Enough time should be allotted to give the woman a opportunity to get an abortion if that is what she desires. Abortions after this time, would be illegal. If it's a constitutional amendment, no supreme court judges can ever over turn it.
Carrots were once alive too you know! Congratulations on being more pro-Life than me; maybe someday I'll actually be against the Death Penalty. Right now I can take it or leave it. So you're pro-Life but don't have the cajones to insist that it is wrong for a woman to kill her unborn child? That's an unfocused pro-Life stance you have there. Humans trump all animals in my concerns and all animals trump fruits and vegetables-- I guess you agree with that second part there... since you eat those fruits and vegetables.
It's not a matter of cajones. It's no more my place to tell a woman what to do with her body (or her child or her fetus) than it is to tell you what to do with your diet or your cat or your child. Of course I have the "cajones." I'm against abortion. I've said so. Just like I'm against your daily participation in animal murder. I am also against passing laws regarding personal decisions regarding child birth or what people put in their bodies. Humans trumping animals has nothing to do with anything. I didn't ask you if you'd rather eat a human or an animal. I asked how you reconciled your absolutist stance against abortion for what you understand to be convenience or preference with your hypocrisy regarding eating slaughtered animals every single day for the same reason. As it turns out your absolutism is not so absolute, nor is it consistent ethically. You'd never put your cat to sleep because you didn't want him, but you continue to gorge on other animal corpses for nothing more than your personal pleasure. I do every single thing I can to avoid personal responsibility for the pain or death of any living creature. You don't. As such, I'm not inclined to look to you as an ethical guide.
what are you talking about? i think the term "pro-life" is fairly well understood within the context of the abortion debate. except to you apparently, it does not mean you are also vegan and against the killing of animals for food as well. just as being "pro-choice" doesn't mean you think people should be able to choose to do whatever the hell you want whenever the hell you want, even stealing cars or assaulting people if it floats your boat. i mean, when i talk about basketball players, i don't actually say human basketball players, but i sure as hell am not talking about Air Bud, and not many people think i am. and when people talk about being pro-life, it means you are against abortion, not eating burgers. i would think this thread wasn't intended to discuss the ethicality of eating meat through semantics. but, just how do you eat those carrots?
4prez: The abortion issue and the ethics that surround it are about the nature of life. Someone mentioned earlier in this thread that it was strange that a lot of pro-lifers are also pro death penalty. Later someone pointed out the irony of a pro-life BBQ. I didn't change the subject. We're talking about the relative sanctity of life here. In which ways are you pro life, by the way? And in which ways are you pro death?
pro-life: abortion pro-death: good tasting food. on a serious note, i'm not sure on the death penalty. on the one hand, the ability of the state to put people to death sometimes seems to go a little too far (and the fact that if you get it wrong that's unbelievably horrible). on the other, there are just some people who do things so heinous you almost can't help but hope they die (and you even wish we could get rid of that pesky "cruel and unusual" amendment just for them). while i'm catholic, i can't say i'm too unhappy that the death penalty is allowed. on the other, i wouldn't have a problem if they outlawed it. so put me down for undecided.
<b>Originally posted by Batman Jones It's not a matter of cajones. It's no more my place to tell a woman what to do with her body (or her child or her fetus) than it is to tell you what to do with your diet or your cat or your child. Of course I have the "cajones." I'm against abortion. I've said so. Just like I'm against your daily participation in animal murder. I am also against passing laws regarding personal decisions regarding child birth or what people put in their bodies.</b> So those five Yates children would not be alive if you had been the butler at the Yates mansion? Sorry but it doesn't take cajones to be against abortion and then just sit submissively by saying "It's none of my business..." <b>Humans trumping animals has nothing to do with anything. I didn't ask you if you'd rather eat a human or an animal. I asked how you reconciled your absolutist stance against abortion for what you understand to be convenience or preference with your hypocrisy regarding eating slaughtered animals every single day for the same reason.</b> In the fact that humans trump animals resides the absolute justification and explanation for what you prefer to call my inconsistency. Humans are more important-- because I am one, I guess. What chastisement would you offer a crocodile munching on a wildebeast? Now what if that meal turned out to be a young human mother carelessly washing clothes down by the riverbank? <b>As it turns out your absolutism is not so absolute, nor is it consistent ethically. You'd never put your cat to sleep because you didn't want him, but you continue to gorge on other animal corpses for nothing more than your personal pleasure.</b> As has been pointed out, pro-Life has a specific meaning in the context of the abortion issue. You can expand it if you like to try and point up an imagined hypocrisy, but you could be ensnared by the same trickery, so what's the point? Free the Carrots-- not just CarrotTop! <b>I do every single thing I can to avoid personal responsibility for the pain or death of any living creature. You don't.</b> Now there's a Choice I can get behind!</b> <b> As such, I'm not inclined to look to you as an ethical guide.</b> I guess I'll just have to live with that. I knew it was coming. Everything with you ends up in a way to put down those who have the temerity to disagree with you... and you call yourself pro-Choice? Got ya at your own game...
I agree. It would be more beneficial in the long run not to criminalize abortion in conjunction with a transparent sex ed. policy. Conservatives have formed a two pronged attack where sexual education and abortion are taboo and distorted to the point where ignorance and irresponsibility are causing some of these abortions. I'm in the mindset where if someone wants to do something, she will do whatever means necessary to get it, law or no law. Let's say an abortion automatically gets the woman charged for murder. If she was adamant about not carrying to term, she could overdose on alcohol or drugs or have a timely accident. Or she could drive to Mexico, liquor up, have massive unprotected sex, and go to the coat hanger clinic the next day. The only prudent recourse for the government is to inform and allow each person to make their own decision. Though I wish everyone had great compassion for the sanctity of life, prohibition would generate a more disasterous consequence. That's true. Embryos with chromosomal defects are naturally aborted 90% of the time within the first 3 weeks of conception. Miscarriages are often either genetic or lifestyle oriented. Then again, there have been cases like that unbelievable cyclops baby that normally shouldn't come to term. I believe we're at a threshold where science will blur ethics and dehumanize us all, if not already. With genetics and biotech, we will be able to custom select our children's traits and predict their futures without them ever taking a breath. In vitro fertilization is a primitive version of Social Darwinism, where the fastest successful embryos gets to live while the rest are trashed. If that's inevitable, abortion will become a vestigial hot button issue, when the real crime will be performed by expectant parents lured by the on demand convenience of cutting edge science. We will get what we wished for. If we use Government Intervention as an end all means to root out a social problem, then it's not surprising that that same mindset will use Science as an end all means root out other potential social problems.
I've only been able to skim this debate but I get the gist of it from other abortion debates on the BBS. I'm going to reiterate my proposed compromise that the standard needs to be when is a fetus/embryo/baby conscious. Clearly a fetus isn't the same thing as an appendix to be removed but I have a hard time buying that the clump of cells that make up an embryo is a person. Further the argument that the embryo is a unique set of DNA that if given the right environment would become a person is trumped that any random mutation within our cells would create a unique set of DNA and with the very real possibility of human cloning could become a person. So given that standard anytime we exfoliate we are aborting. I know this sounds ridiculous but that is the logical conclusion if the standard is uniqueness of DNA and potential for development into a human. The standard that we generally use to set ourselves apart from animals, plants, and microbes is that we are conscious. Using the Terry Schiavo case as an example that is also a legal standard for determing when someone is alive or not too. So if we can determine when consciousness starts, higher function brain activity, I would consider that a reasonable point that the clump of cells has actually become human. Conversly anytime we can determine that a person is not conscious, higher brain function has ceased, and likely to never regain consciousness then that is when someone is dead.
I had to respond to this statement. Our society and culture almost always places lifestyle over life. The fact that there is so much support for the death penalty because of the desire to punish the guilty vs. mere public safety shows that our society values a lifestyle decision, vengeance is acceptable, over life, even the guilty should be allowed to live as long as they can't hurt anyone. Another example is that we engage in and even advocate wars for resources or geopolitical principals. Leaving aside a debate about the current Iraq invasion and occupation, we still fought Gulf War one even though the only real affect of Saddam occupying Kuwait was on our wallets rather than our long term safety. Finally we base more of our daily decisions on our lifestyle rather than what affect it might have on the lives of others. We defend maintaining our lifestyles even with our own lives. What is "Give me liberty or give me death!" but a declaration that lifestyle is more important than life. So in answer to Giddyup from the time the first humans fought and killed each other over prized resources we've made that choice of lifestyle over life and lifestyle has won. It already is a foundational value of our society.
Invisible fan; Excellent points. Science is proving to be both a bane and boon to the pro-life side of the debate. While science is allowing fetus to be viable earlier and earlier along with being able to tell us much more about development the possibilities of cloning and genetic manipulation are blurring what we can consider as being human and potentially human. Once human cloning and gene manipulation is perfected, inevitable IMO, we will be able to create totally new genetically unique humans without ever requiring the union of an egg and sperm. Would those "embryos" created with that process be considered human also and if someone implanted one of those into their embryos would it be abortion if they deliberatley expelled them prior to "birth"? IMO we're going to have to come up with a standard aside from genetics or even how the "embryo" came to being to decide what is human. I still believe that consciousness is the key and that can be determined by higher brain function. If it can be determined through a fetal EEG (I'll admit I don't know if this technology exist yet) that the fetus' higher brain is functioning then that is no longer just a mass of cells but a thinking and aware human.
i've yet to see proposed legislation that would make this happen. they seek to punish the doctors who perform the banned procedures.
In which case abortions would instead be performed by unlicensed individuals in unregulated facilities. That would be the same untenable situation that forced Roe v. Wade in the first place. I am all for reasonable regulations on abortion, but prohibiting the procedure will be no more successful than prohibiting alcohol or drugs. Prohibition of any type of consentual behavior exacerbates the harms and fails to stop the banned behavior. Don't we have enough evidence of that already? Again, I maintain that if pro-lifers spent the same kind of time, money, and energy educating people (particularly young people) and making sure that they had contraception available on demand (and at very low cost), they would reduce abortion rates far more than if this procedure was banned.
You have made some very provocative observations here which only goes to prove why when two polar opposites both see it as black and white it is actually all gray. Another way to sarcastically make this point: when does the raping and pillaging begin?
The proposal is a prohibion on abortion not a ban on sex... or were you referring to the consentual behavior between the mother and her abortionist?
If a woman consents to an abortion and her doctor consents to do it then it is by definition consentual behavior.
