i said i dealt with SOME of these women...and then described them. i'm not generalizing. i know people come from all different backgrounds. but i can tell you that most of the women who have abortions come from impoverished areas served by poor schools. so all your points on sex ed ring true.
you're right..for the most part you can't be convicted for failing to help someone out who is in trouble. remember the last seinfeld episode?? that's what that new law was about. in europe, laws like that exist. but that's off-topic and not analagous to what we're talking about here.
You keep coming back to these "principles' as if they're eternal. They're not!!! Roe has not always been the law of the land, and it likely won't always be the law of the land. Because of its erosion, it wasn't the law of the land, the way it's written, for more than about 5 years. The law is ever-changing. It's not static. The interpretation of the Constitution is ever-changing. It's not static. It's interpreted differently, for example, in times of war than in times of peace...it's interpreted differently from generation to generation...it's interpreted differently with new discovery. But I'm pretty sure you just became everything you hate about conservatives when you said, "you're either with us or against us...love it or leave it", above. Your transfer to the Dark Side is almost complete. The world's definitions for the inception of life have changed forever. In the Roman Empire, babies were put out in trash piles when they weren't wanted. No big deal, it was said. They can't think, so they're not really human yet. That was ever-changing. Life is life...it always has been. It always will be. No matter what 9 men and women in long black robes say about it.
Krosfyah- It is the 'play' on words that give any success to these statements- this is abortionspeak. 'fetus' is human, the 'fetus is alive. Is the fetus in a woman, anything other than a human 'fetus'? What species are you talking about. This is clearly a play on words to dehumanize reproduction in women. As if we arern't conceiving humans. I would rather you be honest and use the word unborn child. Or living embryo. At what point you want to call it a growing embryo or a baby does not affect it being human. Nobody can make it non-human. That is a ridiculous statement. So the second part is 'living'. Is the fetus alive? Well is the fetus alive or dead. So many pro-choice views try this word wrangle as if we are stupid for saying it is a living human. At least say it is a living growing embryo so that there is not deception in the statement. human + living= human life. Does anyone thing birth is a process of giving the world dead humans? Has anything been more twisted as a process of nature. If there is no God you couldn't say that nature's own course is one of producing death in reproduction. Nothing could be more absurd. Freedom without responsibility- You mean that anyone can do whatever they want? Is that the freedom you speak of. Ungoverned anarchy that each person decides for themselves what is right and wrong. That nothing has value, protection and dignity. That sounds to facist, too cruel and to unhuman. Freedom is not the blanket word for justification of every human cruelty that man has perpetrated from genocide to rape to murder. You have taken freedom to mean lawlessness and tried to combine it with the word life. There is no liberty in that kind of freedom, only death. China views abortion the same way America views abortion except that they view the size of the family a necessary part of the premise. In other words we have population control based upon abortion on demand. They demand population limits and use abortion as control. China's policies are the next natural steps for us to take if we do not change our own policy. Your view doesn't sound cruel it is. The freedom for a women to live is protected. The freedom for a woman to kill should not be protected. America is not about people having the rights to choose as they please. America is about protecting the endowed rights of individuals to live. The right to self govern is one that does not eliminate law, it is one that eliminates the need for government. If everyone was self governed to the point there was no theft, murder or rape- the laws would not be necessary. The more people can govern themselves morally, responsibily and ethically the less need for government. That is the idea behind the Republic. Limited government based upon personal responsibility to the law of the land. In the question of abortion we don't need to debate whether this is human reproduction or whether the embyo is living. We need to debate at what point the choices of the mother violate the life of the baby. If you want to believe it happens at one day old and a mother cannot take her new born child and smother it with a pillow, fine. But to deny a living human dies from abortion is to deny truth.
Webster's dictionary (2005) fetus- a developing human from usually three months after conception to birth. Let us at least use the word human. This is not a stretch to say we are reproducing human life. Please allow us to say that death results from abortion so that the dignity of pregnancy and motherhood is not reduced to tumors, parasites and disease.
here's the definition i found at dictionary.com In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo. Eight weeks is within the first trimester, by the way.
As has been pointed out before, that practice could have (and should have) been discontinued except for the intransigence of the pro-life lobby that didn't want language protecting the health of the mother in the bill. Maybe I am naive, but I believe that most people on my side (not the fanatical ones, but most of us) would be willing to agree to limit elective abortions to the first trimester if most on your side (again, not the fanatics, but most) would budge on the whole "life begins at conception" thing. I just know that working together instead of fighting each other will get more done in the long run. It is not a red herring because the lack of sex education is inextricably linked to unwanted pregnancies and as such, abortion. If the people fighting so vociferously for a ban on elective abortions put that energy and money into sex education, we would see real abortion rates drop dramatically. It is also linked because many of the people who fight so strongly for a ban on elective abortions are the same people who fight to keep real sex education out of our classrooms in favor of "Abstinance Only" programs that are now starting to bear the fruit of unwanted pregnancies and increased abortion rates.
So now we each have our own formula. Pro-Choice: Freedom + Life > Life Pro-Life: human + living = human life We've gone round and round. It is my beleif the Pro-Life formula is based in opinion and therefore the result of that formula is suspect. Therefore, when in doubt, you must look at the Constitution that grants you the rights to express such opinions. However to implement the Pro-Life solution compromises the Constituional ideals and therefore is self-destructive (governmentally speaking). The beauty of the Constituion is that it allows you the solve the problem (abortion) without compromising the Constituion itself.
1. the bill being that way or not. the very fact that a procedure like that is EVER performed is ridiculous. it's awful. 2. i'm saying it's a red herring because no one here is arguing with you. no one is saying more sex ed would be inappropriate or unhelpful. but i wouldn't want to limit it to just intercourse issues...they should also be taught about the stages of fetal development, if you want to solve the issue i was talking about; women showing up in abortion clinics not having any clue as to what exactly is happening inside them.
1. "Developing" being the key word here...ie. It isn't whole yet. 2. Nobody here is opposing abortion after the first trimester. So your defintion only supports my position further.
when aren't we developing, krosfyah. sitting here at my desk right now, i'm a developing human. are you sure nobody here is opposing abortion after the first trimester...because that's certainly not what's going on in the world.
If we get into the business of taking away freedoms from Americans, then we fall into that slippery slope. Anti-abortion groups feel it is immoral to abort. We are already saying it is immoral for gay marriage. Next it may be immoral to even conceice unless married. It is this slippery slope stuff that lead to witch hunting. We must fight to maintain freedom while acheiving our desired results. It CAN be done. We CAN have our cake and eat it too.
i'm not saying it's immoral. i'm not equating this with mores on sexuality or decency or anything like that. and frankly, one doesn't have to come from a conservative bent to arrive at the conclusion i've arrived at. my point is this. you and i may disagree on whether or not its life from the moment of conception or not. we can disagree as to exactly when it's a life or when it's not. the extinguishment of life, however, is murder. when we play with life or what may be life (and frankly, if it's not life, i don't know what it is) we MAY be murderers. i'm saying the protections for human life are stronger than the protections for a woman carrying a baby. government doesn't force conception on anyone...it's natural. it just is. if you believe that's Nature, fine. if you think that's God, fine. whatever. it just is. i'm saying when you play the card of, "well we might NOT be killing babies," that's reckless. recklessness with human life is already something the law discourages, big time. defining a fetus as a living being isn't a moral distinction. it's one based on evidence. you may view the evidence otherwise. but i'm not arriving at my conclusion out of any sense of morality, beyond the same sense that i'd use to protect your life, today, were it taken from you.
Never said the embryo was fully developed. I was just addressing the use of words to twist the issue. It is affective but wrong to say the fetus is not human. I wouldn't argue about development of the baby. I oppose abortion after the first trimester. Is that what you meant to say? Is your position that the fetus is human and the fetus is alive? If so we are in agreement. If your position is that it is some other species or it is dead then we are not in agreement. dead fetus= pregnancy complications= failed efforts to save teh baby=miscarriage live fetus + killing by someone= abortion.
Yes, I agree. Good point. We cannot define what is human based on its developmental stage and that is at the heart of the issue. Since we CANNOT define it, we must fall back onto American ideals of Freedom + Life which allows the mother to chose. I agree it is an ugly result but we'd be hypocrytes if we get to pick and chose when Freedom is important and when it isn't. Therefore, we must always uphold freedom + life whenever and wherever we can. We must look for solutions to the problem within that context. I agree that this isn't what is going on in the world. But if we push to place restrictions all abortions AFTER the first trimester and implement stronger social programs to prevent unwanted pregnancies, we will be FAR more effective...and all within the framework of American ideals of freedom.
1. I hear you. I just believe we're denying the ultimate freedom to some humans by doing it. These are competing freedoms, apparently. 2. I agree wholeheartedly. But at this point, we can't even prohibit partial birth abortions, where the baby is pulled out of the womb and has scissors jabbed into the back of its head moments from its first breath. That's the state of issue right now. I'm all about preventing unwanted pregnancies, however. 3. Again...I don't know what "framework of American ideals of freedom" means. It's a moving target.
And as such, an underdeveloped embryo is not afforded the same constitutional rights as a fully developed human...under our form of government. No, but I'll accept that as a reasonable compromise. What is your compromise? Actually, I think 2nd trimester abortions should also be allowed under certain legal and medical circumstances. If a doctor can provide a sound medical justification, it should be allowable. If it occured due to incest or rape, it should be allowable.
Once again, I believe that most of the people on my side of this debate would not argue with you that late term abortions should not be carried out unless the mother's life was actually at stake (the missing language that caused the USSC to strike down the recent law). I further believe that if those of us closer to the middle of this debate were to band together in a compromise of the first trimester (compromise being that the pro-lifers will not push for a more extensive ban and the pro-choicers will not fight to extend elective abortion rights), we could probably limit elective abortions to the first trimester. Once said compromise is reached, we could all start working together to educate people and arm them with the contraceptives they need to reduce elective abortions even more without having to ban the procedure altogether. I don't disagree that "dilation and extraction" is a barbaric practice. At that point, the fetus is viable and IMO, that is a line that should not be crossed. If a woman is to have an abortion, she needs to make and execute that decision ASAP, and IMO the first trimester is as good a cut-off point as any.
