When I hear pro-lifers people calling for people's heads etc., I become very concerned. There are too many heads to call for. What a sad road that will be to go down. I say try our best to persuade people not to have abortions without the use of force. If you can't, let them go, and try to understand and forgive them. Kind of like we do now...(well some do)
Mewogi I agree with you. There is way too much "violence" in all of this. No doubt. Having said that...if you truly view this as a human life being snuffed out, then you have a very different perspective on this. If someone snuffed out YOUR life, we'd demand justice. Whether or not our system can ever really afford us justice is for another thread...another discussion. But if you are convinced that this is a human life being snuffed out...then it changes the entire way you view this situation. That's why it's so hard to argue the issue at all (see all the threads here). There's a ton of misunderstanding and circular argument because the argument really starts with the assumptions going in. The definitions of the words we're using...and definitions of words are rarely merely objective.
I do absolutely see it as a life, but I see the mothers as a life too. I have no anger. I'm not as concerned about "justice" as much as compassion and understanding and peace. The mothers can learn to see things differently. I want to let them have a chance to live and change and heal. That to me is justice. What good would it do us to judge and "punish" every women who has had an abortion? Absolutely nothing. That is the exact opposite from that we really need.
Again, I'll say...I've never seen proposed legislation that contemplated a criminal penalty for the woman who has an abortion...only for doctors who provide them.
I hear it all the time. It's evident in this thread. That's one of my fears. What about self-induced abortions?
Of course not. We know for a fact and without question that a person who has been born is a "life" and nobody has the right to take another's life with certain exceptions (war, capital punishment, etc.). The point, however, is that we cannot seem to agree on when "life" begins. Personally, I wouldn't mind defining it and restricting abortion once the agreed upon point is reached. I don't "presume" that a fetus is a "life" until it can viably survive outside the womb. Right now, that is 25-30 weeks, though I would not be opposed to setting the limit at the end of the first trimester in order to compromise with the "life begins at conception" crowd. We will not make progress on this issue until we stop fighting each other and begin working together to reduce abortion rates.
i'm not sure that the "fighting" here is keeping anyone from working on the problem, as they see it, though!
Agreed. But there are FAR more of us moderates who believe that there is room for compromise than there are extremists on either side. We need to get together and come up with a viable compromise so that we can reduce abortion rates, a goal that virtually everyone can agree is a laudable one.
The point, however, is that we cannot seem to agree on when "life" begins. Personally, I wouldn't mind defining it and restricting abortion once the agreed upon point is reached. I agree with that. My contention was primarily with the statement that this life, if it's a life, is none of your business. I think if you decide its a life, it is everyone's business. If you decide it's not a life though, that's a different story entirely. Which is why this issue is such a freaking mess.
Certainly not the fighting HERE, but the fighting between the -choicers and -lifers ITRW sure seems to get in the way of any meaningful work getting done.
There is some truth to that but at the same time many of the abortion providers and pro-choice groups also support efforts to reduce abortion. Planned Parenthood, as its very name goes, also advocates against getting pregnant and provides a range of services to prevent unplanned pregnancy. On the wider political level many of the most ardent pro-choice politicians also support programs that will reduce the causes of seeking abortions by making it easier to raise children. Unfortunately many of the most ardent pro-life politicians seek to cut such programs.
I just don't believe that you can have a legislative ban on abortions based on "ifs" and "mights." I would support reasonable restrictions (first trimester, parental notification for minors, etc.), but a legislative ban on elective abortions would do far more harm than good.
Agreed. But there are FAR more of us moderates who believe that there is room for compromise than there are extremists on either side. We need to get together and come up with a viable compromise so that we can reduce abortion rates, a goal that virtually everyone can agree is a laudable one. I agree. I think both sides, just like both political parties, have two problems. One is that they have some pretty radical people at the top - that discourages compromise right there. But beyond that, there is this fear that compromising on ANYTHING is akin to folding and will open the floodgates. So both sides just harden their position. I think in reality, there is a lot that both sides can agree on, and would do so in a non-political setting.
I want to resolve this with you. I see you post this a lot. I'll adopt Major's statement in its entirety in order to do this. So assume I wrote it...and you were responding to me with the post of yours I'm quoting above. We can argue about if the sky is blue or not. But it is ultimately blue or it is not blue. One of us is right...one of us is wrong. I don't mean to use this example to say it's blatantly obvious, for this illustration, which is right and which is wrong. Just to say that whether we disagree or not...it is what it is. And if we err to one side, and we're wrong...then we restrict rights of women to prevent the termination of something that isn't life....and if we err to the other side, and we're wrong...then we are snuffing out human life because someone else doesn't want it there. This is where the argument gets frustrating. I don't know how it's anything other than living...and as such, is a life. If it's not a life, I don't know what it is. Maybe it's not human life? I don't know. But my perception isn't important to what is ultimately true. I know that there are those who disagree with me...but I find their arguments in describing what it is OTHER THAN A LIFE to fall very short. Don't you? Because when taken in other contexts (like mentally disabled people or even newborn babies) they justify the position that to be "alive" one has to be able to do handstands and long division. And it's chilling to me to imagine where else that could lead you.
Given my views on choice, I'm not sure what being ultimately wrong on abortion means, other than it being one hugely misguided war on unwanted pregnancies. Many people have committed manslaughter in circumstances more questionable than elective abortions. I'm not in a position to judge any of that. My line drawn in concerning abortion usually comes with the start of consciousness. As for the embryo/fetus being alive, a sperm and an egg is living too if you want to paint that broad a brush. On the surface, a one celled embryo doesn't have that much distinction as a cancer cell or a stem cell. I have to rely on the sum of the parts being greater than the whole to carry this thought. If a zygote doesn't differentiate into crucial cells like a nerve cluster or intestinal linings, then it'll eventually terminate. It wouldn't fit the preconditions of a human life. With normal cells, if they don't differentiate right, unused in function, or if its function becomes obselete, it'll terminate by cell apoptosis. I could be ignorantly wrong. People base most decisions on the external benefits while weighing the social costs in the back of their minds. Maybe the personal social cost of criminalizing murder outweighs the external benefits of not. This doesn't seem to be the case with abortion in the minds of many people.
For me, the rights of the fetus completely trump the rights of the mother once it is viable and could survive outside the womb (25-30 weeks). At that point, I believe that the fetus should be protected and it should have rights as an already born baby. However, I am willing to compromise this belief to extend said protection to fetuses outside the first trimester because I, like you, would "err on the side of caution" when it comes to abortion. I am just not willing to "err" so completely that the woman has no rights after conception. I believe that if a woman is to have an abortion, she needs to make and execute that decision as early as possible, but I do think she has the right to make that decision, given reasonable restrictions.
Not to be churlish, but I would like to point out that, unless you posess an equaly strong distaste for the death penalty, the side most associated with "pro-life" is perfectly willing to snuff out human life under a specific set of preconditions. If you would like to argue the validity of abortion preconditons vs. death penalty preconditions, I would not fault your logic, but as you frame it here, (assuming, again, the statistical link between 'pro-life' and 'pro-death penalty' which I hope we can agree exists) the basic premise behind how you frame your arguement is unsound.
