If you had read my initial post in this thread, you would find that in my philosophy, it doesn't matter whether it is a life or not, the woman STILL has the right to choose. We play fast and loose with human life when we allow people to drive, put people in jail, allow people to skydive, etc. Besides, I never said it was OK or "right," just that the woman has the right to make the choice herself. No, it doesn't. The woman has the right to choose what happens in her body. Even in the absence of the right, she would still have the ABILITY to choose simply by drinking, drugging, falling down a flight of stairs, or going to a back alley abortionist. In the absence of proof or a viable alternative, the government's responsibility is to oversee EVERY medical procedure performed in this country. Yes, forcing a woman to bear a child IS taking away her life. She has a life that she is living and if you FORCE her to bear a child, her life will be irrevocably changed and the life that she had before the pregnancy will never be again, even if she does give the child up. Even if the fetus is a "life," I would rather end the one that has only been for a few weeks than the one that has been established for, on average, a couple of decades. Because we are both assuming, we are forced to make policy and law based on what we KNOW, which is that the woman has the ability to choose to have a child or to abort a fetus or zygote. Policy needs to exist outside your idyllic world where, with an abortion ban, women will just have their children and give them up for adoption. That does not happen in the real world, women get abortions when it is illegal at pretty close to the same rates they do in our society today (look up the numbers, its true). Government policy needs to reflect the reality of the situation. This is why I have a HUGE problem with drug prohibition, it does not take into account the reality of drugs in society. Your view of abortion does not reflect reality either.
So, you are saying that the only time you have had sex is to make kids? In our society, there is a reasonable expectation of being able to have sex without getting pregnant. I agree that one should not use abortion as birth control, but it will happen whether abortion is legal or not. It is her body and she can do with it as she pleases. God gave her the body, freedom of choice, and the technology to accomplish it. Again, it is her body. So what? It is still a private choice between her and God that the government should not get tangled up in.
ok..i think i'm officially done arguing now. if you're taking the position that a woman has the right to terminate a life that is inconvenient to her...well...we're done arguing. that leads us to some really awful and nasty conclusions, andy. for the record, you're saying even if it is a life, she still has the right to terminate it. unbelievable. so why even bother with the distinctions about whether or not the child is viable or not, if that's the case? just say from day one until the baby takes its first breath, it is nothing more than a piece of meat completely at the woman's disposal. that's exactly where it leads. the only difference is time...doesn't matter if it's alive before 3 months...she can kill that life anyway, if she wants to. simply doesn't matter that the being is alive. i have to say...that's a pretty cold analysis, andy. congratulations...that is the most shocking thing i've ever heard anyone say here. good luck with fatherhood.
How about this? The Pope wears a thong, and he spreads peanut butter on ham sandwiches. By the way, I hope we can all with sincerity wish Andy a wonderful fatherhood, even if some of us don't like his beliefs.
absolutely... but as for that pope thing...i'm gonna need pictures to believe that...wait...strike that...no pictures, please.
I am saying that in MY philosophy (which is followed by nobody but ME, to my knowledge), if (and again, that is a BIG if) it is a life that the woman ends, SHE will have to deal with the karmic debt, which is between her and God. Because the karmic debt doesn't exist if it is not a life. YOU are the one quibbling about WHEN it is a life. I told you what I believe. Not cold, just real. The question of whether to terminate a pregnancy is between the woman and God. Nobody else has the right to have a say in the decision, especially government.
is the question of whether or not i take my son's life today a question between just me and God? because i don't see how the analysis changes if it is a life at month 2 in the womb. again...if everything is just a question between the individual and God, why do we bother with criminal justice? there are consequences for our actions here and before God. society has every right in the world to judge your actions and prosecute what it deems to be criminal. that happens every day in every country around the world. you said...even if it's a life, the woman's right still trumps. i say if it's a life and it's extinguished by the act of another, that's murder. which leads me back to my question above...is the question of whether or not i take my son's life today a question just between me and God?? or does society have a compelling interest in preserving life?
Disclaimer - The views presented below are not ascribed to any particular religion, sect, denomination, or cult. Morally, this is true. On this Earth, we punish those that take a life by putting them in some of the worst places on Earth. We do this partially to punish and partially to see that the person does not perform such a heinous act again. Morally, you will have to repay the karmic debt generated when you end a life. Personally, I believe that you pay this debt by actually experiencing the life of the person you killed, bringing your action full circle. I agree. People who cause harm should be punished but the bigger reason to jail those people is to see that they can't hurt any more people. As far as society goes, there is no way to PROVE that it is a life, therefore society does not have a justifiable reason to punish the person. IF it is a life, the person WILL answer to God after this life is over and they WILL repay the karmic debt.
Why would God, in his infinite wisdom, give us the ability to figure out how to abort a fetus if he didn't intend for us to be able to? Who are you to question God?
andy -- i don't think it's a matter of proving it's a life...i think it's a matter of how we define life. the law already has some pretty firm ways of defining death...of determining the exact moment someone is dead...we've had those guidelines for many years. unfortunately, we choose not to be consistent in defining life using some of those same concepts. oh, well...it's just a life, right? i mean it's not like the stakes are all that high, right?
<b>andy</b>: You are just too willing to make a mistake where there might be a life at stake for many of us. I'll stick with my humane and cautious assumption about the right to life of that uniquely human being growing in someone's womb. You can stick with your political angle about women's rights if that gives you joy. I'll defend the defenseless and sleep well. You stick to your own peculiar clinical definitions. I hope you don't wake up some night in a cold sweat after a nightmare. This may happen sometime after that child of yours is born. Let us know about the happy event...
It is called free will. God gave us the ability to do many things. Some of them good. Some of them evil. It is up to us to decide which path to follow.
Why would God, in his infinite wisdom, give us the ability to figure out how to abort a fetus if he didn't intend for us to be able to? Who are you to question God? Well, based on this logic, murder is OK by your standards too? God gave us the ability to murder, so it must be OK, right? And why would God let us, as a society, ban drugs if that was not right?
And you are just as willing to take the rights away from a woman whose history you don't know, whose life you haven't live, and whose morals you don't share. I don't have peculiar definitions, I have common sense that says that if the fetus cannot live outside the womb, it it not a life yet. We don't call miscarriages lives. The only nightmares I have are the ones where people like you are successful in abrogating the rights of Americans. You may not like it, but this is the land of the free. If you want to live in a place where women's rights are curtailed so drastically, there is space in Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.
EXACTLY!!! At last, we finally get to free will. Women have the right to choose, and that choice was given to them by God Himself.
You can't frame your argument as to whether or not we can legally deal with abortion around 'free will'. That being the case, then we shouldn't legally handle murder, rape, theft, etc. We are a country of laws. We make laws to define and deal with behavior. We can't disregard behaviors simply because of free will. Using your side of the argument, since we have free will, we have the ability to make whatever laws we want to deal with any behavior. After all, if our laws are wrong, then so be it, we'll have to take that up with God.
you realize this is the weakest point of your argument, right? this is like the people who told me that since God forgives Bill Clinton, he shouldn't be impeached. huh? separate and apart from the judgment of God, society sets up systems to punish wrongdoers. we call it the criminal justice system here in america. yes you have free will...but consequences from society still exist. as for miscarriages...we don't call them life...we call them loss of life...and the life lost is mourned.
And we will pay the price when we get in front of Him. In this instance, the additional punishment meted out by society is justified because someone has hurt another LIVING, BREATHING human. A fetus, as discussed before, is not alive yet (especially when MOST abortions take place, before the 12 week mark). Drugs are more available with a ban than they would in the absence of one. God does not let us ban drugs as evidenced by their availability even in the face of massive consequences imposed by society.
Society, represented by government, does not have the right to ban abortion based on assumptions any more than it has the right to impose drug or alcohol prohibition based on assumptions. I have full confidence that in 50 years, drug prohibition will be seen as the single most expensive, misguided policy in this nation's history. The exception to this would be if government banned abortion, which is just as difficult, if not more, to enforce than drug prohibition. Government has the responsibility to oversee every medical procedure performed in this country, even the ones that are unpopular.
