Yes, just as grave, particularly since you are pushing your moral belief (the fetus is a "life") on another person. This country was founded on the ideal that one person's morality or religion was their own and not subject to being infringed on by another, especially the government. You have no right to sentence someone who does not believe the things that you do to anything, much less "9 months of suffering and pain." I don't believe that FOCA will pass through Congress without being folded, spindled, mutilated, and amended out the wazoo. Let's comment on a piece of legislation that has passed or is about to pass rather than flights of fancy being used as right-wing boogeymen.
I think that if we poured all of the money currently being used to fight the pro-(life and choice) battle into sex education and contraception, we could reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies by incredible amounts. The number of abortions would likewise plummet and we would be in a much better situation than we are in now.
Holding something that science holds to be true can hardly be called a moral belief. I haven't once brought up God or religion for my argument. This isn't like my argument against contraception, where I know I can't force other people not to use it. This is an argument about helping to save people. Science defines them as people. Liberalism does not. If anything, you are pushing your "morality" (I think philosophy would be a more precise word) on others. I know you are big on the personal liberty thing, which is fine and I encourage in many instances. This isn't just one person though. Science says there are 2 distinct humans there. Abortion laws have taken the lines and drawn them back. They've obfuscated the distinctions between exactly different embryos at the same stage, i.e. killing a pregnant woman who wants to keep the baby means you've killed 2 people. Would the same be true for killing a lady who was on her way to the abortion clinic? What if that lady when she got to the abortion clinic was going to change her mind? When we view the issue like this, we are constantly defining and redefining the issue of what is a person in a way that doesn't make any sense. This goes to the very root of the dignity of the human, what is at the core of all of us. I don't think it should even make it that far. But you have a democratic congress and a democratic president. I don't think it's going to get messed around with too much. Are you in favor of getting rid of parental notification, 24 hour wait limits, and bringing back partial birth abortion? That's what FOCA does. There would be no need to write the bill if it weren't going to do that. I think it will probably get shot down for being unconstitutional. Stephens is not a fan of the whole fundamental right thing. I know we disagree a lot, but you do keep it civil which is great. Anyway, I've really got to start outlining for school so I hopefully won't be checking in, but I'd appreciate your response.
it's not a straw man. since we're slicing every word so thinly in this debate (as the nation does) you have to come with logic that works. suggesting that "this is only about the woman" or that "you can't force your morals on me" are phrases that don't move the conversation along. because it's not only about the woman to half of the people arguing...and laws are a collection of forced morals. someone else here said, it's frustrating having this argument with the pro-choice crowd because most of them don't understand the state of the law as it exists today. i've said this umpteen times in these conversations. there is no unabridged right to abortion. not even the supreme court who handed down roe and its progeny think this is just about the mother...or that morality is not an issue in this matter. but we keep having these discussions, and it seems that many of you are talking about rights that exist in some la la land that have nothing to do with the very laws you say you're trying to protect....namely, Roe and its progeny. so we end up having 2 entirely different conversations.
The education argument is one I don't fully understand. It seems that over 80% of abortions in the United States are performed on women over 20 years of age. Wouldn't you agree that the vast majority of those women are well aware of the fact that having sex could produce a baby? How much more education does a 25 year old woman need with regards to sexual reproduction? It seems analagous to folks not knowing that smoking could cause cancer.
I think people on the pro-life side don't know this either. I certainly didn't before I went to law school.
That's true...I didn't mean generally...I meant in this specific conversation. And the conversations we have on this issue here pretty frequently.
I do not advocate forcing anyone to have an abortion, thus my morality is my own and I will not attempt to force it on anyone. It is your moral belief that abortion is wrong. As much as you try to couch it in language that removes it from the moral arena, when it comes down to it, you are trying to force your moral belief on someone who does not believe the same thing. That is wrong. I am in favor of parental notification, against 24 hour wait limits, and against late term abortions in general (partial birth abortions fit in that category). I agree that FOCA will be shot down, either by Congress or by the courts. That is why it is not a significant issue for me. School is more important. Good luck on whatever you are doing.
Yes, laws are a collection for "forced morals," but the difference is that in just about all cases, the laws that ban certain behavior are prohibiting things that huge majorities of the population know are wrong. Murder, rape, robbery, assault, and other criminal behavior would be considered wrong by 95% or more of the population. Once you have a significant portion of the population questioning whether something SHOULD be illegal, it shouldn't be. I don't believe in an "unabridged right to abortion," I believe in reasonable restrictions, making the decision early, and using it as a last resort. I believe that we could have a MASSIVE impact in the number of abortions performed simply by putting both side's time, money, and energy into reducing unwanted pregnancies, as happened under the Clinton administration. Most of all, I believe that government should stay out of our bodies in general and abortion is one of the issues that fits in that category.
So are you defending Roe?? Or do you want it gone so there will be stricter regulations? Because Roe says the government can mess with your body after the first trimester, because at that point there is another person's interests to protect. This is what I'm talking about...we have this discussion in broad generalties...abortion good...abortion bad. "Keep your hands off my body!! I support Roe!!" It's like watching a Palin speech...just throw out key words and big ideas like "rights" but miss the point that the law you're seeking to protect already does what you very generally say you don't want to happen.
Not just education, you did not look at half of my argument. If contraception was more available (especially for teens), that would cause a major reduction in unwanted pregnancies. If the "morning after" pill was available OTC, that would also cause a major reduction. With ubiquitous contraception options and a massive public service advertising campaign ("You have the right to choose to avoid abortion in the first place"), I bet we could reduce abortions dramatically.
Though I want government to stay out of our bodies as a general rule, I believe there are certainly exceptions. I am not arguing specifically about Roe, I am talking about what I believe to be true.
Forcing moral beliefs and opinion will occur in the nature of political discourse. We fought a civil war over it. And while you think it's wrong, are you in the position to force that belief onto others? Or maybe it's far more expedient to let the courts decide and remove any deep discussion or decision about it from the public. That worked pretty well in the 1800s.
I did look at your entire argument. I simply don't understand the education part of any argument about abortion for the vast majority of those women that have one. Any teen that cannot acquire a condom, isn't trying very hard. All adults can acquire contraceptives with little effort. The vast majority of abortions are performed on women that can obtain contraceptives (or their partners can), know that contraceptives are available, know that contraceptives are not 100% effective, know that unprotected sex can lead to a baby, and know that abstinence or physical impossibility are the only things that are 100% effective in preventing pregnancy. What more can we tell them?
Again...and I'm really not trying to be a jackass (though I don't have to try hard)...it's the sweeping generalizatons and statements that draw me into these discussions. it's only about the woman...protect Roe!! government stay out of my body...protect Roe!! These arguments are founded in assumptions that aren't true. So the discussion in here breaks down to a discussion of rights in fantasyland. Just abstract concepts.
Some education is obviously better than others. When Bush took office and the government stopped funding sex education that was anything other than "abstinence only," abortion rates went up. You can't tell me that more and better sex education doesn't have an effect on unwanted pregnancies because statistics show otherwise. The morning after pill being OTC could have a HUGE impact in reducing unwanted pregnancies. Again, you only have to look at the statistics in the places in Europe where this simple change has been made to see that I am telling the truth. Once you have both of the above in place, a massive public service campaign could solidify it and cause unwanted pregnancies to plummet. But, as with many in your crowd, you simply pooh-pooh the idea, say (without facts to back you up) that it wouldn't work, and continue the Quixotic quest to ban abortions on paper, which wouldn't solve anything. If both camps stopped fighting each other and teamed up to fight against the root cause of abortions, unwanted pregnancies, we would have a positive impact. I am positive that if the pro-life camp gave up their "ban abortion" mantra, the pro-choice camp would join up as brothers in arms in the war on unwanted pregnancies. It doesn't fit with your dogma, but it would work.
According to factcheck.org, the arguments that abortion rates have increased under President Bush are wrong. http://www.factcheck.org/society/the_biography_of_a_bad_statistic.html
