Agree completely. The reason this issue remains so contentious and conversations about it become so nasty is that both sides are guilty of refusing to respect the others' feelings and arguments. mc mark says the fetus is irrelevant; giddyup says women are murderers who abort their babies to avoid sore feet. The fetus is at the center of the whole question -- how could it be irrelevant? The woman is too. In order to even have a chance at a productive conversation, both sides need to respect the others' feelings regarding the fetus and the mother. I also think, as I said to giddyup above, that it is incumbent on anyone who takes a position on this issue to deeply consider the legal ramifications and penalties that might be involved if the law were to change.
FOUL on the summation of my position. Excuse me while I "trot out" my evidence: do you really think I'd knowingly marry a double murderer? I've admitted to using the "M" word when sufficiently provoked by the opposing side but it is the exception rather than the rule. I know; you will ignore this explanation and just bludgeon me with this charge whenever the mood strikes. Legal ramifications could be a fine and some reasonable time in jail or community service...just a suggestion; it need not be a lifetime in prison. The law is the flaw. as I said my focus is on the baby. Here's an idea, make the "jail" time equal to the remainder of the gestation period. Would you rather be incarcerated or gestating?
You cannot possibly be this dense. If it were not for the fetus, there would be no discussion. How can the subject of a discussion be irrelevant to the discussion? Perhaps it makes you feel better about the discussion to dismiss the fetus as irrelevant, but that does not make it true.
"Should you choose not to voluntarily bring your gift of glorious abundant joy to full term in the comfort of your home, for the protection of the bouncing baby bambino you will be required to spend the remaining period of your pregnancy at the Encampment for Enforced Gestation."
The point being that the pro-life crowd brings up the “fetus/baby/child to muddy the conversation about abortion. It is used as a cudgel to play to emotions and move the conversation away from the core of the debate; which is do we, as a society, want to regulate a decision that should be left to the woman and her doctor.
i don't think more legislation is the answer. education is the obvious solution. why can't we all just focus our energies there. we all agree on this, no?
I have never been to a pro life meeting or even read the material they mail out to pastors, so I guess I missed the crowd, but I still don't favor abortion on demand. The core of the debate is not regulation of a decision. The core of the debate is exactly what you don't want it to be... should there be any protection afforded a living unborn fetus. I understand how the fetus/baby/child muddies the abortion conversation that comment is as thoughtful as saying the fetus/baby/child bloodies the abortion conversation- and I do apologize for that word in this discussion. To favor abortion is fine, to disrespect and mock millions of women who love and protect the fetus during pregnancy disrupts any effort to resolve the differences on abortion. Ignorance would think the controversy is void of emotion and arrogance would claim that all women must embrace the pro choice position That is the problem with the pro life crowd, it is not the stupid red neck right wing clinic bombers that should be at the discussion table, it is the millions of women who have daughters and have strong opinions about protecting the unborn that should have more voice I have said it several times, we don't need to enact any law to move the discussion to protection of the unborn child and the mothers- let's discuss the protection issue not throw it off the table mc mark, I actually think you are a good poster here, there has actually been some reasonable and decent discussion at times for an abortion thread, stay the course
How dare anybody muddy the conversation with the reason for the debate. Either: 1. You just don't get why the pro life crowd feels strongly about this, or 2. You ignore it because it is much easier for you. I am beginning to think that you are in the camp of 2. above. Anytime there is a fetus, a life in utero, there is going to be argument full of emotion. If it were not for that third party (who is incapable of protecting its rights), then I would agree with you. It is lunacy to ignore the subject of the debate so we can have a sterile discussion about what goes on between a woman and her doctor as though we were talking about a boob job. Until you come to that realization, you will be unable to have an intellectually honest and productive discourse on this issue.
Including the word "living" is including your opinion in the argument. That has yet to be conceded by either side. So the larger question is: when does life begin? Answer that, and you'll answer abortion. Good luck with that...
wait a fetus isn't living??? that's a new one on me. i've heard that it's not a human being. but that it's not living? what the hell is it if it's not living? bacteria is living and is far less complex than a fetus. this is why i've tried to avoid having this discussion....because i'm not really interested in going ape-crap crazy to change legislation that i know won't stop the practice....so having the debate is usually worthless. but when someone just plants a flag and declares victory iraqi press conference style ("there is no debate here!") and someone else suggests a fetus isn't living???? what the hell???
I think I understand how a woman's right to her body trumps a fetus' rights while in the commission of a crime we are talking about an assailants rights versus a fetus' but I am still not convinced that under the Constitution a fetus is a person and has rights. I understand that the push for laws to make the killing and injury of a fetus count as a murder are a backdoor way for granting personhood for a fetus but in my own opinion situations like that should be aggravating circumstances rather than a murder or an an assault on two people. My own guess why there hasn't been a serious challenge to this is that there hasn't been much to be gained from a defendent arguing that their double murder charge should be a single murder charge when its clear that they did murder a pregnant women.
If I can split the difference betwen Rhester and Mcmark here. Obviously the fetus is very important to the discusion and I think if personhood was ever legally defined at conception then abortion would have to be illegal in almost all cases. The problem with the focus on the fetus though is that I don't think there ever be universal agreement on when life begins other than at birth so focussing on protecting the fetus will always come down to the rights of an acknowledged person, the mother, versus an indeterminate person, the fetus. In that case a debate will never be settled since there isn't agreement on the personhood of a fetus. I think that there is middle ground though in a couple of areas since I think most people would like to see abortions become unnecessary so everyone can agree to prevent working on unplanned pregnancy. I also think that providing things like better counselling and support, financial and otherwise, to women who have unplanned pregancies can also reduce the number of abortions. While we might never have universal agreement there is a lot that can practically be done to reduce abortions without having to come to consensus on whether a fetus is a person.
the fetus doesn't have to be a person having rights for a state to criminalize the act of assaulting a pregnant woman and terminating the pregnancy by doing so.
but if you take the tact that there is no value to a fetus and it's ridiculous to even include it in the discussion (as has been done here...called "irrelevant")...then why the hell would you have want to come to consensus on reducing abortions? again, not even the court in Roe suggests the fetus is irrelevant. it suggests its development is highly relevant to the issue...enough to put qualifiers to say that for 2/3 of the pregnancy, you can't get an abortion unless there's a health interest to be protected. if you want a middle ground on it, read batman's posts. he seems to understand there are competing values and suggesting that the other side's concerns are irrelevant won't advance the discussion in any meaningful way.
This is my point exactly, thank you for saying it well Forget when life begins or when a fetus becomes a person, I want to know one thing only, is an unborn human fetus at some point in pregnancy worth protecting yes or no This question is the one for me that speaks loudest to our dignity, humanity and view of womanhood
