I believe that I am. I put that line in quotes because either you or giddy used that phrase. I do not believe that the fetus is "alive" until much later in its development than y'all seem to. Personally, I think that "life" begins with higher brain function, and I further believe that if one is to have an abortion, it should be done as early as possible to avoid causing any pain at all to a being capable of feeling it. I agree that late term abortions should be outlawed and actually think the limit should be 20-24 weeks (after the worst of the birth defects can be detected). As I have mentioned before, these procedures could have been illegal now but for the idealogues who were unwilling to insert language protecting the health of the woman. I also think that we should do everything possible to reduce the number of abortions that are performed, I just believe that education and access to contraception are the best way to affect such a reduction. Banning abortion would not significantly reduce abortion rates (just "reported" abortions) and would drastically increase the risks to women who would still choose to have them. It is interesting that abortion rates have risen since Bush has taken office and "abstinence only" programs have been the programs that are funded, to the detriment of education that IMO did more good. Obviously.
I never take what you say as "picking on" me. You are one of the people that I feel capable of having an intelligent, rational discussion with, even when the subject matter tends to raise intense emotions. Unfortunately, there are some pretty massive ifs in your position. These are ifs that are better sorted out by the individuals involved in the decision rather than people who are not directly involved. When it comes down to it, the ifs involved do not lend themselves to legislation. I appreciate that you may feel that there are lives at stake, but it is not good policy to legislate, much less ban a medical procedure, based on ifs. Just as is the case with drugs, gambling, and prostitution, banning abortion would not, in reality, eliminate abortion. Prohibiting abortion would not, in all likelihood, significantly reduce abortion rates but such a ban would definitely increase the suffering of women who choose to have them anyway. We had an abortion ban once and it was an unteneble situation. I do not want, and will fight against, any such ban ever being reinstated because I believe that this is a choice that should be left to the woman involved, her doctor, and God. Nobody else has a legitimate reason to involve themselves in such a decision, IMO.
So practically speaking, I am not sure where "rights of the fetus" end in a "pro-life" world. Do we make smoking during pregnancy a crime? How about cocaine? How about drinking more than four cups of coffee? Because if the fetus is a full-fledged human being, don't you have to? It's not the crux of the argument, but the relationship between a mother and a fetus is complicated immeasurably by declaring the fetus as "alive" as a kid. What's child abuse? I'm not trying to corner anyone here, but I am curious as to where this goes... And I think that if you are truly pro-life, you can not argue the "other than in cases of rape or incest." I mean, you're arguing that the fetus is a person, so what makes that person more deserving to die just because his mother was tied down raped at age 13 by her brother? If you endorse the "rape or incest" loophole, you have already made the ethical compromise you so abhor in the pro-choice position - that a fetus' rights are somehow different than that a two year old, and that the mother's circumstances are relevant to the fetus' livelihood. I mean I get it, I really do. But the whole argument is killing me. Does anyone else here have the balls to say that they do NOT feel a woman having an abortion is morally wrong? Not be insensitive or coarse, but I can not say with a straight face that I absolutely do in every case. It would have to be case by case, and quite frankly, who the hell am I to judge. I have never had a g/f who has aborted a fetus with my DNA or anything, and I do not plan to. In fact, my wife is due... today, actually, so I am in total baby-gush land. And yes, it would be tough to have ever made a decision to abort anything. But cripes, this whole "LIFE IS LIFE IS LIFE IS LIFE" argument is so out of context from the killing, sufferring, cruelty, dishonesty, greed, gluttony and immorality that goes on in our world, I just can not think that any God with any sense of the world he/she created would send someone to hell solely for making that decision at some point. There is grey area, Yes. I-Get-It. But I think we are capable of trusting each other to make our own moral decisions a little better than outlawing all abortions ever no matter what, outlawing people who love each other from getting married, outlawing alcohol, outlawing boobs, and so forth. I think that if we spent less time cowering in front of a vengeful God - a vengeful God with serious sex issues, it would appear - and more time giving a loving, caring smart God a hand down here, I think we might get it right a little sooner.
1. Where do you get off saying that I have no concerns for the deaths of soldiers or civilians from the other side in a war? 2. If these women don't consider these fetuses to be human, why are they having such a hard time? 3. I don't eat corpses; I eat meat-- often delicately prepared: Mongolian Beef tonight! 4. You repudiate my ethics because I make a distinction between humans and animals? 5. I don't know about you, but I still have canine teeth. 6. You say you don't care for the semantic games yet you are the Chief Gamesman....
I've read books worth of your take on the Iraq war. I've never heard you express concern about the Iraqi dead. Your take seems more akin to 'you have to break some eggs to make an omelette.' If I've misread you, I take it back and I apologize for getting you wrong. I can't speak for them (like you apparently can), but I would guess it's because they consider them to be potential humans. Your repeated take that women make these decisions lightly is the only reason I'm even in this thread. In fact you assume much more about their frame of mind than I do about your attitude toward Iraqi casualties. I at least have some basis for my opinion on your opinion. Dead bodies are corpses. And here you really expose your hand. You not only contribute to death and suffering happily, you gloat about it. You will never hear any woman speaking this way about abortion, yet you speak this way to me knowing my sincere feelings on the matter. No, I repudiate them because they're hypocritical. I make a distinction between humans and animals too. Given the choice to save the life of one or the other, I'd choose the human without thinking. Given the choice to eat one or the other, I'd eat the animal. You aren't faced with that choice so I don't know why you keep repeating this non-argument. You choose to participate in the suffering and death of innocent animals on a mammoth scale and you gloat about it. And then you seek to preach ethics to others. That's what I repudiate. Me too. I even have a prominent brow like Cro-Magnon man, but it's left over. It's not to keep the sweat out of my eyes. I don't need it any more than you need your canines. If you can't tell I am talking to you from a position of deeply held personal beliefs, I don't know what to tell you. I'm not in this thread to have a snarky argument. I'm not here to win. I'm here to open your mind to the idea you might be doing the same thing you accuse others of. I don't expect you to agree and I certainly don't expect to have the last word (nobody gets that where you're concerned), but I do expect you to recognize I'm not playing word games. I care about this stuff as much as you do.
<b>Originally posted by CBrownFanClub So practically speaking, I am not sure where "rights of the fetus" end in a "pro-life" world. Do we make smoking during pregnancy a crime? How about cocaine? How about drinking more than four cups of coffee? Because if the fetus is a full-fledged human being, don't you have to? It's not the crux of the argument, but the relationship between a mother and a fetus is complicated immeasurably by declaring the fetus as "alive" as a kid. What's child abuse? I'm not trying to corner anyone here, but I am curious as to where this goes...</b> If you kill a fetus with a gun or with wanton reckless driving it is murder. If you kill it with forceps and saline it is a choice. The mother-child relationship is complex and some of those things you listed are child abuse based on what science can tell us about the damage those things (i.e. cocaine) can do to human beings. <b>And I think that if you are truly pro-life, you can not argue the "other than in cases of rape or incest." I mean, you're arguing that the fetus is a person, so what makes that person more deserving to die just because his mother was tied down raped at age 13 by her brother? If you endorse the "rape or incest" loophole, you have already made the ethical compromise you so abhor in the pro-choice position - that a fetus' rights are somehow different than that a two year old, and that the mother's circumstances are relevant to the fetus' livelihood.</b> You are absolutely right here, but it is better to save some than none. Anytime that line can be moved in the favor of saving unborn children, that is a good thing. What I abhor is how easily some compromose the pro-Life ethic. I compromise it very grudgingly which earns me enmity. That's okay; I'm thinking about the little girls dying in their mommy's womb. <b>I mean I get it, I really do. But the whole argument is killing me. Does anyone else here have the balls to say that they do NOT feel a woman having an abortion is morally wrong? Not be insensitive or coarse, but I can not say with a straight face that I absolutely do in every case. It would have to be case by case, and quite frankly, who the hell am I to judge.</b> Your focus is mis-placed. The interest is in saving the child not condemning the woman. The pro-Choice people have successfully taken the focus off the unborn child and put it on the woman to turn it into a Woman's Right issue. To justify the abortion, they have to come up with a definition of life that allows their abortive intervention. Neither side can prove anything conclusively about when Life begins. I say err on the side of caution and assume that that child is a human being for it certainly will become one unless nature terminates the pregnancy. <b>I have never had a g/f who has aborted a fetus with my DNA or anything, and I do not plan to. In fact, my wife is due... today, actually, so I am in total baby-gush land. And yes, it would be tough to have ever made a decision to abort anything. But cripes, this whole "LIFE IS LIFE IS LIFE IS LIFE" argument is so out of context from the killing, sufferring, cruelty, dishonesty, greed, gluttony and immorality that goes on in our world, I just can not think that any God with any sense of the world he/she created would send someone to hell solely for making that decision at some point.</b> I think you are missing the point. We should do something about whatever demeans life that we have control over and that motivates us. We make the laws. We educate our people. We do what we can when and where we can. Who said anything about someone going to hell? Yeah, I've seen those signs too but no one has posted that here. I've gotten criticized here for supporting the War in Iraq and opposing abortion, while my "opponents" take pride in criticizing the War in Iraq yet being pro-Choice. Let me ask you: which circumstance has ended more lives? andymoon will simply rejoinder that those fetuses are not alive. That's hard to argue with beause he smugly sits on the vagueness of his certainty about when life begins. I say err on the side of caution: err on the side of humanity. I get shut down with "I believe....." and some unproven science. <b>There is grey area, Yes. I-Get-It. But I think we are capable of trusting each other to make our own moral decisions a little better than outlawing all abortions ever no matter what, outlawing people who love each other from getting married, outlawing alcohol, outlawing boobs, and so forth. I think that if we spent less time cowering in front of a vengeful God - a vengeful God with serious sex issues, it would appear - and more time giving a loving, caring smart God a hand down here, I think we might get it right a little sooner.</b> I haven't seen anybody call for outlawing all abortions no matter what... Even your own words critcize some for compromising the Right to Life ethic in the instance of allowing abortion for rape or incest.
<b>Originally posted by Batman Jones I can't speak for them (like you apparently can), but I would guess it's because they consider them to be potential humans. Your repeated take that women make these decisions lightly is the only reason I'm even in this thread. In fact you assume much more about their frame of mind than I do about your attitude toward Iraqi casualties. I at least have some basis for my opinion on your opinion.</b> My ex-wife (we were married for about 13 years) had had two abortions before I ever knew her. I've lived first-hand with the trauma that those events caused her years after the fact. Do you want to try and dismiss me again as presumptuous about the matter? I'll take my basis for knowledge on the matter over yours, thank you. <b>Dead bodies are corpses. And here you really expose your hand. You not only contribute to death and suffering happily, you gloat about it. You will never hear any woman speaking this way about abortion, yet you speak this way to me knowing my sincere feelings on the matter.</b> I know. I'm just not going to play along with your inflammatory language-- calling my meal a corpse! I only gloat because you are intent on demoralizing me. I don't gloat with Jeff over this subject because he doesn't care what I do or do not eat. I have a vegetarian who loves the smell of meat searing but she hasn't eaten it in 15 years. I have another vegetarian friend who will eat fish but not meat or chicken. I don't mock them the way that you mock me, period. <b>No, I repudiate them because they're hypocritical. I make a distinction between humans and animals too. Given the choice to save the life of one or the other, I'd choose the human without thinking. Given the choice to eat one or the other, I'd eat the animal. You aren't faced with that choice so I don't know why you keep repeating this non-argument. You choose to participate in the suffering and death of innocent animals on a mammoth scale and you gloat about it. And then you seek to preach ethics to others. That's what I repudiate.</b> I'm hypocritical because I make a different choice than you? How hopeless it is for me then... you absolutely leave me no room to do anything but agree with your stance or be a hypocrite. If I eat meat I am a hypocrite because I don't have to eat meat, but if I was in a circumstance where I had nothing to eat but meat that would be okay. You repudiate what does not agree with you. <b>If you can't tell I am talking to you from a position of deeply held personal beliefs, I don't know what to tell you. I'm not in this thread to have a snarky argument. I'm not here to win. I'm here to open your mind to the idea you might be doing the same thing you accuse others of. I don't expect you to agree and I certainly don't expect to have the last word (nobody gets that where you're concerned), but I do expect you to recognize I'm not playing word games. I care about this stuff as much as you do.</b> I can tell. I think you just take yourself too seriously. You are offended when someone doesn't agree with you. I can tell that your positions are seriously considered and deeply-held. Lighten up on the intensity and the accusation in your voice and we won't have this problem.
I'm sorry for your ex-wife. My ex-girlfriend (we were together about three years) had one abortion and the baby would have been mine. I was personally devastated by it and she was too, but I'm not inclined to have a competition with you about that. Did your ex have that abortion as a matter of convenience? Was her decision a frivolous one? You seem to paint a great many women you've never met with that brush, so I'm curious if your one experience with abortion is responsible for that. And again, I have to say, I would not be in this thread if you didn't continually make these accusations about women you've never met. I talk about the ethics of my diet in one situation and one situation only -- when someone presents their ethics to be somehow holier than mine or someone else's. That's the only reason I'm here talking about it. My "inflammatory language" WRT meat is no different than yours WRT fetuses. You don't have to agree with my ethics. Most of my friends eat meat. They only hear from me about it if they preach superior ethics on something else. You're accusing me of doing to you what you did first. You can dish out the ethics but you can't take them. That's why I call you a hypocrite. Not because you don't share my ethics but because you seek to impose yours on others and get ruffled when someone does it back. I've said my piece. I agree with you that abortion is a tragic thing. I hope we'll have a lot less of them in the future.
So your ex-girlfriend's health was endangered and that's why she chose to have an abortion? Batman, you started in on my ethics, remember, and now you act like I started the fight. I argue for the lives of the children and am happy to leave it at that, but I go where the argument leads.
Giddy, you did start the fight. You used this thread to tell people you were right and they were wrong when it came to the sanctity of life. I came around to open your eyes to the fact that there are gray areas, whether you like it or not, and you took it as an attack. Welcome to the world of the people you've been attacking. If I were a moral absolutist I'd argue for the lives of the fetuses or potential children too (and also the animals and the death row inmates rightly or wrongly convicted and the casualties of war) in a blind I'm-right/you're-wrong fashion. But I'm not and I don't and I won't. What went down with my ex (and me) is none of your business. NONE. OF. YOUR. BUSINESS. When the time comes you think the law should enter into my business and hers, I'd like to talk about your diet, how you like to eat dead bodies, how you think it's funny, how you think it's righteous. But not before that. Until that time comes I will defend the right of women to make the most difficult decision of their lives even while I defend your right to make the easy decision to eat dead things just cause you feel like it. I am anti-abortion, but if I was going to go on a crusade it'd be an easy choice which one to go on. Long before I went after women who made that difficult choice I'd be after the moral hypocrites who stuffed themselves on dead things without thinking twice about the pain and death they contributed to before they went out on "pro-life" crusades.
Batman: Here's the portion of your first post in the thread and the portion of it directed to me: <b>"giddy, you mentioned a double standard in the context of MEOWGI's reference to the pro-life BBQ. You also said you'd be willing to back an end to the death penalty if it meant an end to abortion 'on demand.' (Sorry, I am staying out of that part -- I just don't like the language, hence the quotes.) I'm curious. Would you extend that offer to end the practice of animal slaughter for "self-serving" purposes? Could an extension of your ethics here lead you to a vegan lifestyle? To me, a pure pro-life ethic would include opposition to abortion, the death penalty and the slaughter of animals for human pleasure and convenience (whether for food, clothing or sport). How pro-life are you?"</b> Don't try telling me that I started this fight over ethics with you... Why do you make it sound like one thinking that one is right about a conviction is wrong? Am I to assume that you think you are WRONG about your convictions? Of course not. That makes no sense. We have a conviction because we think it is right. Somehow you wrangle this into a condemnation of me though. Weird... and you think I'm a funny little man?!? It was you who confided about your ex-girlfriend's past. If you don't want to talk about it, leave it off the table. You assserted it as some sort of controversion to my abortion for the sake of convenience charge but you were vague. My follow-up question was natural and normal. If you don't want to talk about it, fine. DON"T BRING IT UP. You can't inadequately present it as some kind of proof and expect no challenges. How am I going after women? By telling the truth about the majority of abortions? Most women have abortions because they don't want the responsibility of the child or they don't want the change in lifestyle that a child will bring. Are you going to try and tell me that they do because their "health" is at risk? You didn't defend my right to eat corpses; you called me a hypocrite. We will next see that kind of defense from Saddam's attorney...
That is exactly why I posted in this thread. You have no idea what's gone through the women's minds who have chosen to have abortions, yet you have no problem accusing them of being frivolous where it comes to the sanctity of life. Meanwhile, you eat "Mongolian Beef!" which is to say dead cows dressed up in sauce for hypocritical moralists to feast on. If you hadn't pretended you'd known what was in the minds of the women who'd made that difficult choice you never would have heard from me (after all giddyup, I'm on your side here). But you did and you still do and so I call you a hypocrite. You don't value "life." Not in any real way. You only value it where it meets your political agenda. I value it broadly. I value life for real. In other words, unnecessary death bothers me. It does not bother you. That's clear. You preach, I act. In the face of that, I'm not listening to your lectures. Keep talking about the motives of women you've never met if you like. And keep eating death. You're a fake pro-lifer if you refuse to even acknowledge there's another level. Max at least understands it even if he's not willing to go there yet. You see it too but willfully refuse to consider it. You're a fake.
I have never claimed any type of "certainty" regarding when "life" begins. I am a realist and a pragmatist and as such, I know (with certainty) that banning abortions would not be good public policy. Women would die under such a policy. Women would become sterilized under such a policy. Women would be raped and otherwise taken advantage of under such a policy. I am certain of this because we had that policy in our history and it was a horrible policy to live under because of the problems that prohibition of any behavior between consenting adults causes. We know what the consequences of banning abortion would be and those consequences are too severe to suffer with based on some people's opinion of when "life" begins. I am erring on the side of humanity. I am erring on the side of the woman who would otherwise find herself sterile, raped, hospitalized, or killed because a few vocal activists want to force their opinions on the rest of us. Keep in mind that all of your arguments are basically "I believe....." and some unproven science also.
exactly...there are ifs on both sides. absolutely. that's my point entirely. if i'm wrong...i've needlessly infringed on womens' liberties. if you're wrong, we're killing massive numbers of human beings every year through this process. that's the deal. i completely disagree with the assertion that if you criminalized the practice of abortion...or made the restrictions tighter...or hell, even if you actually enforced the regulations under Roe v. Wade without softening the language so as to make it abortion on demand...then i think you'd see lower numbers of abortions. not seeking criminal action against the women, of course...but against the abortion providers who break these laws/regulations.
www.fifthward.org this is a group i've worked with. a group my firm has supported big time. it's decidedly Jesus-freakish and makes no apologies for it. but it's model is Jesus meeting the woman by the well...shunned by her village because she hadn't lived to their standards. he changes her life...her outlook...by meeting her with love and respect that she had not received from anyone else. THAT changes lives. it's the only thing i know that truly helps in this deal. they shower the women who come in to their facility with love....most of them have never been treated this well in their lives. they're met with assistance for job training or money to finish school....they're met with free parenting classes...free ultrasound....financial assistance for having the baby...free formula/baby clothes/furniture/toys, etc. and if they choose to abort, they're still met with love and free counseling. hearing these women speak after the fact...holding the baby in their arms that they considered aborting...talking about their lives with the baby...is just about the most amazing thing i've ever encountered. and those stories are what keeps me going back...and keeps me engaged in this issue. it's not just about the baby...it's about changing lives in general to support a culture that seems to choose heartache at every turn. /stepping off soapbox. sorry!
I just don't believe that you can legislate based on ifs. You may think that, but the evidence indicates otherwise. Before Roe v. Wade, that was the situation we had and there were still abortion providers virtually everywhere ready to perform their back-alley mutilations. With the advent of RU-486, I suspect that it would end up being the primary method of abortions, but without the necessary component of medical supervision. We have seen how effective the drug war is at keeping drugs out of the country, with RU-486 freely available in many parts of the world, policing it would be even more difficult than enforcing controlled substance laws. As I have said, I agree with reasonable restrictions on abortion including a late term ban and parental notification. However, a ban would introduce far more problems than it would solve as evidenced by our previous experience with abortion bans as well as our current experience with the drug war.
This is a great post and one that encapsulates why we are struggling with this issue. In regards to cocaine use during pregnancy I've heard of a few cases where pregnant women who used drugs while pregnant have been charged with child abuse. This is the odd legal quandry that we're in that for criminal law purposes a fetus is considered a person and subject to legal protections but for medical purposes its part of the mother. The problem with this is that the pro-life side is seeking to use criminal law to skirt the privacy argument of Roe v. Wade by creating a contradiction that will have to be resolved at some point. I myself suspect that at some point the USSC will have to make a decision legally defining when life begins to resolve this. If they say it begins at the universally accepted point of birth then all those other laws should be moot but if it begins at an earlier point then abortion should be banned from whatever point they decide life begins. This is one area where the conflict between the rights of the mother and the rights of the fetus are most obvious. Is it right to force a mother to bear the product of a violent act? Not only is there physical trauma from it but there probably is enough psychological trauma that if we forced women to go through with the pregnancy there would be a rash of suicides ending both the women and the fetus life. I'm willing to say that human life doesn't begin until there are higher brain functions and IMO its not morally wrong to have an abortion before then. As I've said repeatedly what separates us from animals is our ability to reason. Without that we aren't human. A clump of cells with no higher brain to me is no more a human than if I cut off finger. You're position is the essential pro-choice that we don't know when life begins and until we can actually prove it its better to leave it up to individuals. In general I agree with that position but I think there's so many legal, medical and scientific issues that are at stake that we eventually need to come to some consensus about when life begins.
That is a wonderful soapbox to be on. That sounds like a fantastic organization that does far more good than implementing a ban on abortion would. If we added education and contraception on demand (not necessarily within that organization, just in general) and provided them with the money currently spent lobbying for a ban on abortion, we would have a far greater impact on abortion rates than we would if we legislatively banned abortion.
i agree, i think that the overall #'s would go down. however, that would be negated by the increase in death/injury during attempted illegal abortions. they probably would go down, but they would still happen. only it would be in a unregulated and unsafe environment. and for the question as to "when is a baby a baby" i think i have formulated by own personal opinion on the matter...you become a human when you are "born" (i.e. - pulled from your mothers womb). i guess i look at it in the same way that an egg is an egg and not yet a chicken (but delicious none-the-less) or to quote the late, great bill hicks, "your not a human till your in my phone book."
