NationStates Jolt Archive

Oh, and an interesting little blurb I found on the internet the other day: "If you cannot trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a child?"

Oh, and an interesting little blurb I found on the internet the other day: "If you cannot trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a child?"
As is typical of bumper-sticker logic, it is a meaningless play on words. Be serious, if you want to be taken seriously.

I am a christian, christians believe that the bible is true. The gospel of luke is part of the bible. The gospel of luke chapter 1 vers 44 says that elizabeth said that the fetus john jumped for joy. I cant figure out how you cant understand this. It is not possible for a soulless non living thing to jump for joy.

You are missing the point.

ELIZABETH could be wrong, even if the whole bible is true.

It is recording what she SAID.

IT DOESN'T SAY SHE WAS RIGHT.... just that THAT is what SHE SAID.

Yes. It says that she says. It does not say that she is right.

Thank you... I thought it was just me being incomprehensible...

I only brought religion into this discussion to try to disprove GI's false teaching on exodus.

Curious... I still think my point stands, and I have seen nothing from you to invalidate THAT point...

And I think that the point you made was irrelevent AND erroneous...

You might want to find a better piece of 'evidence' to 'disprove' me...

I happen to trust what the mother of John the Baptist says, I also trust that luke didn't include any lies in his gospel. Again I do not expect any non christian to agree, I'm just trying to explain why I think what I think. You cannot use the bible to prove abortion is not a sin. You'll have to write your own book if that's what you want to prove.

I have used the bible to prove abortion is not a sin.

Sorry if you don't like it.

But - since Jesus never argued against it, the Old Law stands... and the Old Law says it's okay.

Regarding Luke.

Assume the bible was true.

Assume Luke was telling the truth.

Assume Elizabeth THOUGHT she was telling the truth...

How would she have KNOWN that the foetus 'jumped' for 'joy'? Was she psychic?

How can a pregnant woman KNOW for sure, what her foetus is thinking or feeling?

You are missing the key point here... even if EVERYONE is telling the truth.. or thinks they are, Elizabeth could STILL BE WRONG.

Well God or whoever you believe to be the creator, says its wrong. His law is superior to man's law.

My 'god' doesn't say it is wrong.

I have no 'gods', since I am an Atheist.

So - since I am independent of 'gods'... does that mean that MY law is superior to 'mans law'?

My 'god' doesn't say it is wrong.

I have no 'gods', since I am an Atheist.

So - since I am independent of 'gods'... does that mean that MY law is superior to 'mans law'?
Not only that, suppose you believe in Buddhism. Buddhists (as I understand it) believe that "God" is within all of us. So what then? Who is above "man's" law?

As is typical of bumper-sticker logic, it is a meaningless play on words. Be serious, if you want to be taken seriously.

Actually, why don't you take a serious point seriously? It is more than a meaningless play on words. It raises the key point that pro-life zealots ignore: who decides? who should make decisions about a woman's own body and reproduction?

You apparently do not believe a women should be allowed to decide for herself what is best for her body and her pregnancy. Instead, you would force her to have a child against her will.

Do you advocate controlling who can have children or having all children raised or distributed by the government? If not, you are saying that there are individuals that you do not trust to make decisions about pregancy but that you do trust to raise children. That is a serious point.

In the US, nearly half of all women will have an abortion at some point during their life. It is unbelievable arrogance to assume that you are in a better position that all of those women and their doctors to make decisions about those women's medical care. It is contrary to the most basic principles of freedom: self-automony, self-ownership, privacy, bodily integrity, etc.

It is sad and disturbing that so many look at a troubled pregancy and disregard the only undeniably living, human, sentient moral agent whose rights are involved.

1) I think fetuses are alive when you can kill the and abort their lives.(aka:conception)
2) Is it worse to kill a 3 year old than a 5 year old? I would like to think not. So, assuming this is agreed upon, why is 9 months or so a bigger difference that 2 years?
3) Just use some protection if you're not willing to raise it... or give it up for adoption... or, and this is revolutionary, raise the being you brought into the world.
4) To those who say "What about rape victims?" I say, use aDOPtion. And if you can't differentiate between the raper and a minute being and cannot handle the stress of bearing the child, I doubt your capacity to judge the value of said being's life... or a stick of gum for that matter.

So, let the flames against me begin. ;)

Not worth responding to, really.

Sorry.

Not worth responding to, really.

Sorry.

I'm still waiting for the anti-abortion people to go through the trash cans looking for soiled pads and tampons, and screen them with a microscope looking for miscarried embryos so they can be given a proper burial.

So the difference between murder and convenience is measurable by a month?

I don't see why that would give you a problem.

Are you not arguing that a foetus is alive?

Do you also argue that sperm are 'alive'? Do they have 'souls'? All of them?

So - YOU are arguing that the difference between life (and thus - the potential for murder) and convenience (as in - the convenience of expelling unused sperm in urine, for example) is about 3 minutes?

I'm still waiting for the anti-abortion people to go through the trash cans looking for soiled pads and tampons, and screen them with a microscope looking for miscarried embryos so they can be given a proper burial.

Good point... think of all those poor little miscarriages... what kind of evil bastards do that to those baby 'lives'?

Oh - wait.. miscarriages are natural... so ... god is an evil abortionist?

Not only that, suppose you believe in Buddhism. Buddhists (as I understand it) believe that "God" is within all of us. So what then? Who is above "man's" law?

All of us, I guess... thanks to German's impeccable logic...

Good point... think of all those poor little miscarriages... what kind of evil bastards do that to those baby 'lives'?

Oh - wait.. miscarriages are natural... so ... god is an evil abortionist?

A normal woman in her lifetime will undergo many miscarriages without her knowledge.

So, should we have a Tampon Patrol to scout out the missing little ones, so that we may bury them properly?

A normal woman in her lifetime will undergo many miscarriages without her knowledge.

So, should we have a Tampon Patrol to scout out the missing little ones, so that we may bury them properly?

Well - surely, if the Tampon Patrol got to them early enough... they could nourish them on artificial media, until they could be implanted in infertile women, right?

So - REALLY... Pro-Lifers should be doing periodic (accidental pun) panty searches on EVERY woman.... IF they TRULY believe in giving the best chance at life to EVERY 'conception'.

1) Many of the instance in which abortions occur are because of unprotected sex, the problems easy to solve why not do so? either take a pill or get the guy to wear a condom.

Even if you use both, (Pill + Condom) = something like a 1% failure rate.

My personal opinion on the abortion issue is that people seem much more interested in punishing single pregnant women for having sex than they are in actually protecting children. Where is this galvanizing firestorm of nationwide political energy when it comes to, say, feeding starving children in foreign countries? Or treating poor children dying needlessly of preventable diseases? Or, especially relevant in this case, finding homes for unwanted orphans? When was the last time a presidential candidate took a strong stance on international enforcement of child labor laws? Not sexy enough, yeh? :headbang:

I say hand the decision on abortion down to state legislatures where it obviously belongs and be done with it. Some states will allow it, and others will outlaw it, and most of us can pretty much sketch out the map on that.

snip
I say hand the decision on abortion down to state legislatures where it obviously belongs and be done with it. Some states will allow it, and others will outlaw it, and most of us can pretty much sketch out the map on that.

I agree with much of what you said, but -- sorry -- Constitutional rights (especially fundamental human rights) cannot and should not be left to state legislatures. That is the whole point of constitutional rights.

we're overpopulated as it is. If the mother doesn't want the responsability of a child or the guilt of leaving a child in an orphanage, then abortion is a fine answer. the thing that is aborted has no brains, no feelings, no memories. it is not human. it is a gathering of cells.

I'm all for abortion up to the age of 40.

I agree with much of what you said, but -- sorry -- Constitutional rights (especially fundamental human rights) cannot and should not be left to state legislatures. That is the whole point of constitutional rights.
What constitutional right, exactly? The constitution doesn't deal with this at all, and it doesn't do so as a matter of design. The Constitution describes the outlines of the federal government and the limits of the exercise of federal power on the people of the nation. It expressly does not address crimes like murder. Murder, manslaughter, vehicular homicide, the taking of lives in general... those are *state* crimes, and what does or does not constitute such is a matter for state legislatures.

IMO, trying to make the Constitution describe a stance on abortion is like trying to talk about car stereos in Latin. You can make it work, but only if everyone agrees on a fudge factor in advance. :D

Curious... I still think my point stands, and I have seen nothing from you to invalidate THAT point...

And I think that the point you made was irrelevent AND erroneous...

You might want to find a better piece of 'evidence' to 'disprove' me...

Exodus 21:22-23 shows no evidence to a dead fetus. Shachol is the hebrew word for miscarriage,or abortion(which is not used here). The verse speaks of a premature birth. the word 'depart' is yasa, which is "to go, to come out." The word is used mostly for a normal birth. "fruit" is derived from yeled, which is child. The term child shows that it is a human being in reference. The verse is in reference to men fighting, injuring a pregnant women, causing a premature birth. It seems as if the mother and the baby are under equal protection of the Law.

What constitutional right, exactly? The constitution doesn't deal with this at all, and it doesn't do so as a matter of design. The Constitution describes the outlines of the federal government and the limits of the exercise of federal power on the people of the nation. It expressly does not address crimes like murder. Murder, manslaughter, vehicular homicide, the taking of lives in general... those are *state* crimes, and what does or does not constitute such is a matter for state legislatures.

IMO, trying to make the Constitution describe a stance on abortion is like trying to talk about car stereos in Latin. You can make it work, but only if everyone agrees on a fudge factor in advance. :D

Funny, but you are all wrong. I'm not going to explain this all to you from scratch, but I'll give a basic civics lesson.

The Bill of Rights, as incorporated (http://www.answers.com/topic/incorporation-bill-of-rights) through the Fourteenth Amendment, limits the powers of state and local governments, as well as the federal government.

The right to privacy is a fundamental human right and the Supreme Court has correctly recognized that the right to choose is protected by the Constitution. See, e.g., Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/505/833.html ); Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/410/113.html )

Murder, manslaughter, etc., are also federal crimes (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/51/toc.html).

Funny, but you are all wrong. I'm not going to explain this all to you from scratch, but I'll give a basic civics lesson.

The Bill of Rights, as incorporated (http://www.answers.com/topic/incorporation-bill-of-rights) through the Fourteenth Amendment, limits the powers of state and local governments, as well as the federal government.

The right to privacy is a fundamental human right and the Supreme Court has correctly recognized that the right to choose is protected by the Constitution. See, e.g., Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/505/833.html ); Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/410/113.html )

Murder, manslaughter, etc., are also federal crimes (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/51/toc.html).


ooh.. now comes the legal asswhipping...

I wish you would unload on the people who can't figure out what a Part 1 felony is...

Exodus 21:22-23 shows no evidence to a dead fetus. Shachol is the hebrew word for miscarriage,or abortion(which is not used here). The verse speaks of a premature birth. the word 'depart' is yasa, which is "to go, to come out." The word is used mostly for a normal birth. "fruit" is derived from yeled, which is child. The term child shows that it is a human being in reference. The verse is in reference to men fighting, injuring a pregnant women, causing a premature birth. It seems as if the mother and the baby are under equal protection of the Law.

A valid interpretation - which is why I like to see you grace these pages. :)

However, this is one of those situations where Hebrew can cause more confusion than it cures... since it doesn't NOT say a dead foetus, and Hebrew is notoriously flexible in it's vocabulary... like the use of (what we call) Adam... which refers to one man, or a man, or any man, or all men collectively... etc.

As an example:

Looking at Strong's Concordance for possible interpretations of the word "Ben", usually translated as son (or grandson)... we also get:

son, male child
grandson
children (pl. - male and female)
youth, young men (pl.)
young (of animals)
sons (as characterisation, i.e. sons of injustice [for un- righteous men] or sons of God [for angels]
people (of a nation) (pl.)
of lifeless things, i.e. sparks, stars, arrows (fig.)
a member of a guild, order, class

several of which are plurals, some of which do NOT apply to humans, and one of which SPECIFICALLY means lifeless items.

ooh.. now comes the legal asswhipping...

I promise to restrain myself from further legalism. I just cannot stand it when people think a quick skim of the Constitution tells them all they need to know. :p

I wish you would unload on the people who can't figure out what a Part 1 felony is...

Aim me at 'em. :D

Yes, thank you, I think I've heard of Roe versus Wade now and again. :rolleyes:

I have a number of lawyers in my family, pro-choice and pro-life, and I have yet to meet one who thought shoehorning this issue under the equal protection clause made any constitutional sense. The 14th Amendment limits powers in certain respects, sure, but it doesn't remove the 10th Amendment in the process of so doing.

And, yes, murder can be a federal crime, but it's not primarily so. There has to be some sort of specifically overriding criterion involved to make it a federal matter. For the most part, one person killing another is a state issue.

A valid interpretation - which is why I like to see you grace these pages. :)

However, this is one of those situations where Hebrew can cause more confusion than it cures... since it doesn't NOT say a dead foetus, and Hebrew is notoriously flexible in it's vocabulary... like the use of (what we call) Adam... which refers to one man, or a man, or any man, or all men collectively... etc.

As an example:

Looking at Strong's Concordance for possible interpretations of the word "Ben", usually translated as son (or grandson)... we also get:

son, male child
grandson
children (pl. - male and female)
youth, young men (pl.)
young (of animals)
sons (as characterisation, i.e. sons of injustice [for un- righteous men] or sons of God [for angels]
people (of a nation) (pl.)
of lifeless things, i.e. sparks, stars, arrows (fig.)
a member of a guild, order, class

several of which are plurals, some of which do NOT apply to humans, and one of which SPECIFICALLY means lifeless items.

Very true, many Hebrew words have multiple interpretations. It really depends on context.

I believe its alive at conception. Because at conception, the soul, the spirit of the child enters into the child, and that soul, the spirit creates life. It may not be life at the physical level, like the heart, the brain etc. But at the spiritual level, it is alive at conception.

In that case, nobody is going to convince you, so you might as well shut up.

Very true, many Hebrew words have multiple interpretations. It really depends on context.

Indeed it does... I personally see that the passage I quote CAN support either an accidental abortion, or an early labour... whichever, caused by the 'incident'.

I see no sufficent reason to suspect otherwise.

This is my stance on the issue in a nutshell. It amazes me that the people that advocate outlawing abortion are the same people that balk at the fact that their tax dollars go to welfare for these same children. Like, But this is not a perfect world. We have deadbeat dads. Perfectly eligible foster parents are turned away because of race, religion or sexuality. Many companies are still hostile to single mothers.

And rightfully so. An innocent child being adopted by gays is possibly worse than abortion itself.

And rightfully so. An innocent child being adopted by gays is possibly worse than abortion itself.
Oh worse how?

I believe its alive at conception. Because at conception, the soul, the spirit of the child enters into the child, and that soul, the spirit creates life. It may not be life at the physical level, like the heart, the brain etc. But at the spiritual level, it is alive at conception.


i highlited the important part of that paragraph



now what could ever make you think that your beliefs have any influence whatsoever on what i do?

it's against your beliefs?

don't have one

And rightfully so. An innocent child being adopted by gays is possibly worse than abortion itself.

If you would like to start a thread about the 'evils of gay parenting', then feel free.

The topic on THIS thread is the right or wrong of abortion...

What constitutional right, exactly? The constitution doesn't deal with this at all, and it doesn't do so as a matter of design. The Constitution describes the outlines of the federal government and the limits of the exercise of federal power on the people of the nation. It expressly does not address crimes like murder. Murder, manslaughter, vehicular homicide, the taking of lives in general... those are *state* crimes, and what does or does not constitute such is a matter for state legislatures.
Substantively, you are right, and I agree with you, but I also wanted to point out that "IMO, trying to _____ is like trying to talk about car stereos in Latin. You can make it work, but only if everyone agrees on a fudge factor in advance" is my new favorite metaphor.
And The Cat-Tribe, thank you for ceasing to hide behind a silly catch phrase and actually stating what you mean. I may disagree with you, but that isn't the point (or wasn't at the time). The point is that slogans do nothing to convince anyone, and only allow you to feel superior and confirmed in your opinions without advancing discussion in the slightest.

have the child that was conceived through sin, live a life of misery for both the parent and the child? The mother living in regret that she has the child and the child feeling no love because it was not wanted?

Abortion can in some circumstances be a good thing for both the mother and child. Religion or no religion.

god is omnipresent, he created the apple, he knows all that has, will and is happening in all of the universe, as such got created abortion and he knows who will and wont have an abotion. (in a similar way that god screwed up when he created man, the snake and the apple, he knew what was going to happen and still did it anyway, this makes god imperfect, a man made creation!)

Abortion is something that was created by god, is god's doing, and, if abortion is a sin, god is sinning against himself and should be sentenced by himself to eternal damnation by himself also.

As you can see, the bible and all religions are inherently flawed by their own basic principles. Arguing a point using the bible as evidence is similar to writing "i can fly" on paper and then using that in court as a truthful defence against instanity!

Religions are rightfully called beliefs....a belief does not have to be true, and with religion, it certainly isn't. I feel sorry for all those brain washed billions out there! :(

I used to be one of them ........... until i hit the age of 14.

Yes, thank you, I think I've heard of Roe versus Wade now and again. :rolleyes:

I have a number of lawyers in my family, pro-choice and pro-life, and I have yet to meet one who thought shoehorning this issue under the equal protection clause made any constitutional sense. The 14th Amendment limits powers in certain respects, sure, but it doesn't remove the 10th Amendment in the process of so doing.

And, yes, murder can be a federal crime, but it's not primarily so. There has to be some sort of specifically overriding criterion involved to make it a federal matter. For the most part, one person killing another is a state issue.

Perhaps you should read Roe and the more recent reaffirmation of reproductive rights in Planned Parenthood v. Casey -- rather than just assume they do not make sense. :rolleyes: You'll be suprised. Supreme Court Justices tend to be literate, as capable as you of reading the Constitution, and able to explain their decisions rather well.

Perhaps some of the lawyers in your family should know that incorporation is based on the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. :rolleyes:

The Tenth Amendment has little practical meaning. More importantly, it does not authorize the states to deny any rights of the people -- such as free speech, privacy, due process, or reproductive rights.

I'll let the Supreme Court do a little explaining for me:

Constitutional protection of the woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy derives from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It declares that no State shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The controlling word in the cases before us is "liberty." Although a literal reading of the Clause might suggest that it governs only the procedures by which a State may deprive persons of liberty, for at least 105 years, since Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 660 -661 (1887), the Clause has been understood to contain a substantive component as well, one "barring certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them." Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331 (1986). As Justice Brandeis (joined by Justice Holmes) observed, [d]espite arguments to the contrary which had seemed to me persuasive, it is settled that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to matters of substantive law as well as to matters of procedure. Thus all fundamental rights comprised within the term liberty are protected by the Federal Constitution from invasion by the States. Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 373 (1927) (concurring opinion). [T]he guaranties of due process, though having their roots in Magna Carta's "per legem terrae" and considered as procedural safeguards "against executive usurpation and tyranny," have in this country "become bulwarks also against arbitrary legislation." Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 541 (1961) (Harlan, J., dissenting from dismissal on jurisdictional grounds) (quoting Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 532 (1884)).

The most familiar of the substantive liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment are those recognized by the Bill of Rights. We have held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates most of the Bill of Rights against the States. See, e.g., Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 147 -148 (1968). It is tempting, as a means of curbing the discretion of federal judges, to suppose that liberty encompasses no more than those rights already guaranteed to the individual against federal interference by the express provisions of the first eight amendments to the Constitution. See Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46, 68 -92 (1947) (Black, J., dissenting). But of course this Court has never accepted that view.

... It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter. We have vindicated this principle before. Marriage is mentioned nowhere in the Bill of Rights, and interracial marriage was illegal in most States in the 19th century, but the Court was no doubt correct in finding it to be an aspect of liberty protected against state interference by the substantive component of the Due Process Clause in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967) (relying, in an opinion for eight Justices, on the Due Process Clause). Similar examples may be found in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 94 -99 (1987); in Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684 -686 (1977); in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 481 -482 (1965), as well as in the separate opinions of a majority of the Members of the Court in that case, id. at 486-488 (Goldberg, J., joined by Warren, C.J., and Brennan, J., concurring) (expressly relying on due process), id. at 500-502 (Harlan, J., concurring in judgment) (same), id. at 502-507, (WHITE, J., concurring in judgment) (same); in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534 -535 (1925); and in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 -403 (1923).

Neither the Bill of Rights nor the specific practices of States at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment marks the outer limits of the substantive sphere of liberty which the Fourteenth Amendment protects. See U.S. Const., Amdt. 9. As the second Justice Harlan recognized:

[T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This "liberty" is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . . and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment. Poe v. Ullman, supra, 367 U.S., at 543 (dissenting from dismissal on jurisdictional grounds).

Justice Harlan wrote these words in addressing an issue the full Court did not reach in Poe v. Ullman, but the Court adopted his position four Terms later in Griswold v. Connecticut, supra. In Griswold, we held that the Constitution does not permit a State to forbid a married couple to use contraceptives. That same freedom was later guaranteed, under the Equal Protection Clause, for unmarried couples. See Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972). Constitutional protection was extended to the sale and distribution of contraceptives in Carey v. Population Services International, supra. It is settled now, as it was when the Court heard arguments in Roe v. Wade, that the Constitution places limits on a State's right to interfere with a person's most basic decisions about family and parenthood, see Carey v. Population Services International, supra; Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977); Eisenstadt v. Baird, supra; Loving v. Virginia, supra; Griswold v. Connecticut, supra; Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, supra; Meyer v. Nebraska, supra, as well as bodily integrity, see, e.g., Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 221 -222 (1990); Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753 (1985); Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952).

...

Our law affords constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S., at 685 . Our cases recognize the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child. Eisenstadt v. Baird, supra, 405 U.S., at 453 (emphasis in original). Our precedents "have respected the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter." Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944). These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life


--Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/505/833.html)

I apologize to all for the legal arguments. If you wish to debate the validity of the Roe caselaw, Ninja Zombie Dinosaurs, I would be glad to do so separately. For now, please accept that there is more to constitutional law than you may know. And "states rights" is no solution to the abortion question.

As a DEVOTED Jew, I totally agree with German Kingdoms. Abortion is murder!

Substantively, you are right, and I agree with you, but I also wanted to point out that "IMO, trying to _____ is like trying to talk about car stereos in Latin. You can make it work, but only if everyone agrees on a fudge factor in advance" is my new favorite metaphor.

And The Cat-Tribe, thank you for ceasing to hide behind a silly catch phrase and actually stating what you mean. I may disagree with you, but that isn't the point (or wasn't at the time). The point is that slogans do nothing to convince anyone, and only allow you to feel superior and confirmed in your opinions without advancing discussion in the slightest.

So, let me see if I understand this.

When Nemohee (not I) posted a statement, that "bumper-sticker" slogan was derided by you as "meaningless." And you told Nemohee to "[b]e serious."

I then challenged you to "be serious" and actually deal with the point and explained it at length. Your only response is "I may disagree with you." This hardly seems like you actually wanted to "be serious" about the argument.

Moreover, although I recognize a slight distinction, it is a tad inconsistent for you praise Ninja Zombie Dinosaurs use of an inapposite and baseless "bumber-sticker" metaphor -- apparently because you substantively (mistakenly) agree with the point.

I do recognize your point about slogans, although much of the discourse in this thread is little better.

I repeat the challenge that you (1) respond to argument raised about not trusting a woman to make decisions about her pregnancy but trusting her to raise a child and (2) deal seriously with the issue of why you (or the government) should make medical decisions rather than women and their doctors.

When Nemohee (not I) posted a statement, that "bumper-sticker" slogan was derided by you as "meaningless." And you told Nemohee to "be serious."

I then challenged you to "be serious" and actually deal with the point and explained it at length. Your only response is "I may disagree with you." This hardly seems like you actually wanted to "be serious" about the argument.

Moreover, although I recognize a slight distinction, it is a tad inconsistent for you praise Ninja Zombie Dinosaurs use of an inapposite and baseless "bumber-sticker" metaphor -- apparently because you substantively (mistakenly) agree with the point.

I do recognize your point about slogans, although much of the discourse in this thread is little better.

I repeat the challenge that you (1) respond to argument raised about not trusting a woman to make decisions about her pregnancy but trusting her to raise a child and (2) deal seriously with the issue of why you (or the government) should make medical decisions rather than women and their doctors.Forgive my error in assigning the source of the quote. My praise of the NZD guy was only because I liked the turn of phrase, not because I agreed with his point. I'll admit, I enjoy plays on words as much as the next language lover, but you and I are both intelligent enough to understand that when used as excuses for argument, they are nothing but cheap sophistry.
The reason I did not respond to your challenge was that I had no intention of getting involved in the argument at the time. My criticism of Nemohee was based solely on his style, not his substance, and I intended it that way. However, since you have responded graciously twice now, I'll answer.
My reponse to your challenge is two fold. One, the question of right or wrong, at least as framed by the originator of this thread, is in terms of an ultimate moral concern, and the idea of a "choice" is not part of it. Hence the objection raised in the "child/choice" quip is irrelevant. It isn't about trusting choices to people, it is about moral considerations over the nature of life. *
Two, I think the further point of medical decision/legal decision is grounded on the same assumptions: those of moral consideration. I think most pro-lifers would see this whole issue as a logical extension of the reason Dr. Mengele was morally wrong to do what he did. It is the arrogation of moral judge-ship to doctors and individuals which is objected to.

I am not as vehemently pro-life as you evidently assume. I am moderately pro-choice, in certain limited circumstances, but notwithstanding your eloquently argued legal opinions, I believe Roe v. Wade was an unconstitutional decision. There simply is no right to abortion in the constitution, as there is similarly no right to any number of other freedoms we enjoy. They are upheld by extra-constitutional statutes which are themselves constitutionally based. If the people of the US want a right to abortion, then they have every right to enshine that liberty in law, or even pass a constitutional ammendment for that purpose, but to say that the right exists in the Constitution as it stands today is incorrect and based on shaky legal reasoning, without precedent save in the last 60 or so years. I am in the camp of the "originalists" on the question of the Constitution, which means (for the benefit of others besides you) that I think the Constitution ought to be interpreted to mean what it meant when it was written. It is not a "living document" except in the sense that it can be ammended. What is written is what is written, and should be interpreted no farther than the original intent takes you. If you need a new meaning, get a constitutionally justifiable law passed, or an ammendment. Do not try legislating through the courts, for the benefit of right or left.

*N.B.This leaves entirely aside the consideration that "choices" figure into the conception of a child (under most circumstances) at many points before the possibility of abortion enters the picture.

While I'm glad to see that my little blurb got some attention, I meant it as nothing more than that...a blurb. It was something that I had seen the other day, and felt it was relevant to the conversation. If you had looked at the post above it, I stated my beliefs before hand, as well as went through some problems with the "Adoption is the Answer" arguement. I do not hide behind Bumpersticker logic, I just find it interesting.

As I said before, I personally would not have an abortion, but I cannot tell someone else what to do. Free will is a wonderful and complicated thing sometimes, isn't it?

Ah, and on a side note, I'm a woman. :D Lol

It's property rights. A landlord can evict a tennant in the dead of winter for non-payment regardless of whether or not he has somewhere to go. The tennant might die, but that's not the landlords problem. It's his property, he can dispose of it as he pleases provided he is not breach of the lease agreement. A persons body is -legally speaking- their property to dispose of as they please. No other person can have a claim on your body unless you have signed some kind of contract obliging you to provide a service to them. Ergo, A woman is free to dispose of her body as she pleases regardless of how many babies it might kill. Fetuses are notoriously lax when it comes to ensuring all the paperwork is in order.

From a philosophical perspective, the situation is a little more complicated. The undeniable truth is that abortion ends the potential for a human life. However, the same thing might be said of jerking off into a sweatsock. If masturbating kills babies, I've slaughtered more children than Ghengis Khan, Stalin, and Hitler combined.

As far as Catholic dogma is concerned, outlawing abortion was simply a tool to ensure the propagation of the church. Lots of Catholics having lots of little Catholic babies means bigger congregations, more regional clout, and a solid population base. Abortion was in fact at one point sanctioned by the Papacy as long as it occured before the 'quickening' of the child ie. before it began moving. That's a second trimester abortion. There are many civilized countries that do not allow second trimester abortions.

Personally, I'm somewhat ambivalent as to what the 'right' thing to do is should a woman become pregnant. I'm a dude, I don't know what it's like, I never will, and I am loathe to stick my nose in what is probably absolutely none of my buisness. I do, however, get a little upset when people start tossing around words like 'murder', 'atrocity', and other such nonsense. Life isn't always easy, and as self-affirming as berating people who you deem to be morally inferior to you can be, it's a fruitless and ugly exercise.

As an aside, according to the Man in the Big Hat, animals do not have souls, spirits, or anything of the sort. Even a cursory reading of Genesis makes this painfully self evident. The fact that you -a 'devout' Catholic- could trip over such a basic piece of scripture leads me to believe that you're probably either just a troll, or a self-important moralizer with a brain span roughly equivalent in diameter to the head of a pin. I remember once meeting a 'devout' Catholic who was convinced that the spirits of the recently departed were capable of crossing over to this world and delivering messages of hope to loved ones. I attempted to explain to her that the Church considers this to be either dementia or consorting with the Malign Powers, but she was adamant. The overly and overtly religious are the only people capable of containing within their heads as many blatant contradictions as a 6 year old child... Maybe I'll start my own show... "Catholics say the darndest things".


I have to say this post is a work of ART!

Oh My God.
I take my proverbial hat off to you. :(

hey shed no tears for me :fluffle:

I am on the up and up and believe me success is all the sweeter the second time around :)

they can talk to me - I am a 33 yr old single parent mother (single due to my ex husband being a soul destroying, self serving, possessive and manipulative twat who went personally bankrupt to avoid paying me any real sort of money for running his business, home and life for 9 fecking years whilst not being allowed to go out and earn any money myself) and I can tell you this

no I wouldnt turn back the clock and not have my son BUT I do think every woman (and indeed the man should be involved in the decision making especially if the mother is proposing to keep a child he doesnt want) should have the right to decide if they want to continue with an unwanted and unplanned pregnancy

I nearly died giving birth to my son - I was (and still am) healthy, fit and active but due circumstances beyond my control I ended up in hospital for the last 5 weeks of my pregnancy with life threatening high blood pressure which resulted in an emergency C section (during which I bled so heavily I also nearly died during that aswell not to mention they used an anesthetic I am allergic to for my epidural) - at no time was my son in danger but I was

then when he was 18 months old I finally got the courage to leave my husband walking away from a large country house, a successful business, a £40k car, 2 horses and a very comfortable lifestyle into having to cover not just my own financial responsibilites but also my ex husbands (joint and several liability is a bitch) including credit card debts of over 100k that I had no knowledge of!

after selling the house, car, horses and now living in a 2 bedroomed box on a fairly low salary (I earn less at 33 than I did when I was 25) I have that debt down to less than 5k and I get very little help from my ex husband due to his bankrupcy order

I have a 1st degree (with honors) and if I didnt have my son I could be in a position where I earned alot of money but due to the nature of the work I am so highly qualified in I cant do it with the responsibility of loking after a 4 year old so I am going to have to bide my time until he is old enough for me to be able to work in my career (I am a very highly qualified Psychiatric Nurse with extra qualifications in criminal psychology, counselling and a masters degree in applied psychology and specialised in working with the most violently minded people in society which I cant do now due to the unsociable hours the role demands) but at least I can look myself in the face and say that I am doing whats right for my son in shitty circumstances and that I stand on my own 2 feet with no state assistance at all

I resent hugely those who say that single parent mothers are a drain on society as I am most certainly not!

yes I had it hard, yes I adore my son and yes I wouldnt turn back the clock and not have him BUT I wouldnt wish my set of circumstances on anyone and if someone having an abortion means they dont have to make the kind of hard life choices I had to make then fair play to them


wow...good luck to you, and I wish you all the best!

Its a simple fact that whether or not abortion is legal it will happen. Before it was legalised many women died because of "coat-hangering" or back-room doctor practices.

I think abortion is horrible. My mom had an abortion right after me. She cries about it so often. Since that time she has had 6 other children. The unborn child can start feeling pain at about 2-3 weeks after conception. Considering most people don't find out until about that point I believe it is cruel to abort the child. If you didn't want to get pregnant you should not have been messing around. If you got raped, it isn't the baby's fault and you should put the child up for adoption not kill it for something that someone else did to hurt you. I also believe that there is forgiveness for those that have had an abortion though.
Catholics and Christians of other denominations, don't forget about grace.

Perhaps you should read Roe and the more recent reaffirmation of reproductive rights in Planned Parenthood v. Casey -- rather than just assume they do not make sense. :rolleyes: You'll be suprised. Supreme Court Justices tend to be literate, as capable as you of reading the Constitution, and able to explain their decisions rather well.
Who was assuming? I have my own opinions on the subject, and the Supreme Court has theirs. Just because I disagree with them doesn't mean I don't know what they are.

The Tenth Amendment has little practical meaning. More importantly, it does not authorize the states to deny any rights of the people -- such as free speech, privacy, due process, or reproductive rights.
Free speech and due process are explicitly dealt with in the Constitution, so of course the Tenth Amendment doesn't give states the right to override them. The right to privacy, though, is unfortunately largely a legal fiction, outside of the provisions against search and seizure and the like. It should be in there - I likes my privacy, y'know. Unfortunately, it's not. It's been backhanded in through legal decisions... but it's not an explicit Constitutional right, as much as it should be.

Reproductive “rights” simply aren't spelled out anywhere in the Constitution at all, tortured interpretation of the 14th Amendment or not, and that's precisely the sort of situation the 10th Amendment was designed to handle in its impractical meaning, to be left to state legislatures and state constitutions.

This bit of the opinion in particular… hold up…
Constitutional protection of the woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy derives from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It declares that no State shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The controlling word in the cases before us is "liberty." Although a literal reading of the Clause might suggest that it governs only the procedures by which a State may deprive persons of liberty, for at least 105 years, since Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 660 -661 (1887), the Clause has been understood to contain a substantive component as well, one "barring certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them." Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331 (1986). As Justice Brandeis (joined by Justice Holmes) observed, [d]espite arguments to the contrary which had seemed to me persuasive, it is settled that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to matters of substantive law as well as to matters of procedure. Thus all fundamental rights comprised within the term liberty are protected by the Federal Constitution from invasion by the States. Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 373 (1927) (concurring opinion). [T]he guaranties of due process, though having their roots in Magna Carta's "per legem terrae" and considered as procedural safeguards "against executive usurpation and tyranny," have in this country "become bulwarks also against arbitrary legislation." Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 541 (1961) (Harlan, J., dissenting from dismissal on jurisdictional grounds) (quoting Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 532 (1884)).

Firstly, the controlling word in this opinion is said to be “liberty”… but if you made the controlling word in this opinion “life”, would you come up with a wholly different opinion? If the overtone of this decision were that the 14th Amendment demands that no life be taken without due process of law, could you possibly come out with the same result? The amendment was subjected to the same sort of selective quotation that so frequently afflicts Biblical passages to achieve desired ends. Secondly, if a state’s elected representatives undertake to amend the state constitution through its established procedures to ban the procedure of abortion, and reproductive rights are not a right explicitly granted by the Constitution of the United States, how can it be said that the liberty is being excised without due process of law?

In the following bit… The most familiar of the substantive liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment are those recognized by the Bill of Rights. We have held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates most of the Bill of Rights against the States. See, e.g., Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 147 -148 (1968). It is tempting, as a means of curbing the discretion of federal judges, to suppose that liberty encompasses no more than those rights already guaranteed to the individual against federal interference by the express provisions of the first eight amendments to the Constitution. See Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46, 68 -92 (1947) (Black, J., dissenting). But of course this Court has never accepted that view.

In this bit, the court actually admits that they are inventing rights as they go along! I’m pro-choice. You may not know it from this argument, but I am, in fact, pro-choice. I was, however, raised to throw up the BS flag whenever it arises, and it goes up right here. At this point, right here, they admit that they are just making it up as they go. Well, that’s fine… but anyone who is actually going to look me in the eye and tell me this isn’t talking about car stereos in Latin is going to have to have a damn good pitch when they do.

EDIT: Didn't notice your "in private" request until just now... Well, I've already posted this big damn thing, so I'll leave it up, but I guess that'll have to be it.

The unborn child can start feeling pain at about 2-3 weeks after conception. Considering most people don't find out until about that point I believe it is cruel to abort the child.

please, for the love of Pete, read a book. a human fetus is not capable of feeling pain at 2-3 weeks. the brain structures and neurological mechanisms which recognize and respond to pain do not exist in an embryo at that stage.


If you didn't want to get pregnant you should not have been messing around. If you got raped, it isn't the baby's fault and you should put the child up for adoption not kill it for something that someone else did to hurt you.

it's not the baby's fault because there is no baby present in the situation. "baby" refers to a human infant. an embryo is not a baby any more than it is a toddler or a teenager...just because it might potentially turn into a baby at some point in the future does not mean it is accurate to apply that term to an embryo or fetus. if you think potentiality and actuality should equate, then please begin refering to all humans as "undead corpses." after all, an embryo has a less than 50% chance of ever becoming a baby, while a born human being has a 100% chance of becoming a corpse!


I also believe that there is forgiveness for those that have had an abortion though. Catholics and Christians of other denominations, don't forget about grace.
i believe there is forgiveness for the disgusting arrogance and selfishness of laying claim to another human being's body against their wishes. free persons, do not forget about grace.

Most of the people in the 1st section of this thread (that's all I read) didn't even bother to convince Germanic Kingdoms that abortion is alright. Heh, maybe that is comforting for a person who believes abortion is wrong, because the other side can't even provide logical reasons why a living fetus (with its own DNA) can be put to death, merely because some girl worked at McDonalds instead of married rich.

Well, I'll just say that it IS comforting to know how uncomfortable it makes liberals when I bring up abortion. They know there's something degrading about the act. They know, deep down inside, abortions ARE killing something. Everyone knows that. Women's rights has nothing to do with this issue. She had the right not to get pregnant. From that point on, the baby has a right to life, just like the DoI says. Oh right, the DoI isn't law. I've heard that. Ok. I'm wrong.

Anyway, I don't post much here because I've noticed there are a lot of young (like myself), close-minded, and circular arguers. The first few posters on this thread account for that. The young and close-minded aspects do not always go together, but I can admit, I've been close-minded and it's probably part of my age.

Okay, take a look at these and then try and tell me that you still think that abortion is a humane act.

www.alliance4lifemin.org/unedited.html
www.mttu.com/abort-pics
www.pro-lifeamerica.com/4D-Ultrasound-pictures
www.peopleforlife.org/pictures.html


:mad: :( :mad: :( :mad: :(

Okay, take a look at these and then try and tell me that you still think that abortion is a humane act.

www.alliance4lifemin.org/unedited.html
www.mttu.com/abort-pics
www.pro-lifeamerica.com/4D-Ultrasound-pictures
www.peopleforlife.org/pictures.html


:mad: :( :mad: :( :mad: :(
Good unbiased sources, well done!
And I wonder if the child would look so cute when he's 14, sleeping in the streets, clutching just a bottle of whiskey and a needle?

Everyone has a choice as to what to do with their life. A 14 year old has a choice of living on the street or living in a homeless shelter. You have a conscience from a very young age. Overall what I am trying to say is that women should choose adoption and not abortion. Whether you want to admit it or not, abortion is taking someone's life even if they are not fully developed yet.

The word is "agree", not "admit".

Most of the people in the 1st section of this thread (that's all I read) didn't even bother to convince Germanic Kingdoms that abortion is alright. Heh, maybe that is comforting for a person who believes abortion is wrong, because the other side can't even provide logical reasons why a living fetus (with its own DNA) can be put to death, merely because some girl worked at McDonalds instead of married rich.

Well, I'll just say that it IS comforting to know how uncomfortable it makes liberals when I bring up abortion. They know there's something degrading about the act. They know, deep down inside, abortions ARE killing something. Everyone knows that. Women's rights has nothing to do with this issue. She had the right not to get pregnant. From that point on, the baby has a right to life, just like the DoI says. Oh right, the DoI isn't law. I've heard that. Ok. I'm wrong.

Anyway, I don't post much here because I've noticed there are a lot of young (like myself), close-minded, and circular arguers. The first few posters on this thread account for that. The young and close-minded aspects do not always go together, but I can admit, I've been close-minded and it's probably part of my age.


No one denies that abortion kills something. To deny it would be stupid. I believe the arguement is whether or not it's killing a HUMAN or a cluster of cells.

Being liberal has nothing to do with being pro-choice. I know lots of conservatives who are pro-choice, just as I know a TON of liberals who are pro-life.

I'd go back and read the rest of the thread. There are several good arguements hidden in there.

I'll give you one good one: Adoption isn't all it's cracked up to be. It's expensive for both the Adoptive parents and the birth mother, as well as emotionally taxing. Do a little research on Adoption from a birth mother's point of view.

Another one: A mother who aborts the child because she is poor or has severe medical problems is ENSURING that the child will not suffer. Going ahead and having the child (while poor) could put it at risk for malnutrition, emtional abuse, and physical abuse. Not to mention the little problem that if the child is not white, male, and an infant, it will more than likely circulate around foster home after foster home, which is emotionally damaging. If the mother has health problems that she risks passing on to her child (Such as AIDS or HIV, or even heart problems), putting the child up for adoption will not solve that. That child will have to live with the problem, and will probably suffer terribly before it finally dies ANYWAY.


I'm curious. What do people think happens to an aborted fetus's soul? Just a question...

Everyone has a choice as to what to do with their life. A 14 year old has a choice of living on the street or living in a homeless shelter. You have a conscience from a very young age. Overall what I am trying to say is that women should choose adoption and not abortion. Whether you want to admit it or not, abortion is taking someone's life even if they are not fully developed yet.


Like I told IRF, go do a little research on adoption from a birth mother's perspective. It's not all it's cracked up to be. Plus, how is adoption going to help chronic illnesses that a child might be born with?

The solution does not lie in Adoption alone. It lies in prevention (Birth control, sex ed, etc.)

Okay, take a look at these and then try and tell me that you still think that abortion is a humane act.

Pity there are no pics of foetusses which have not yet developed a neural net there.

Everyone has a choice as to what to do with their life. A 14 year old has a choice of living on the street or living in a homeless shelter. You have a conscience from a very young age. Overall what I am trying to say is that women should choose adoption and not abortion. Whether you want to admit it or not, abortion is taking someone's life even if they are not fully developed yet.

It's ironic that your name is "Hysterian" and you want to tell women what to do with their wombs. I mean, the root (Greek I'd assume) 'hyster' refers to uteruses, hence hysterectomy.

Your assumption that a foetus/embryo is 'someone' is deliberately injecting emotion into the issue, and an attempt to guilt women (withot considering the women themselves, of course). Not cool, not cool.

Okay, take a look at these and then try and tell me that you still think that abortion is a humane act.

www.alliance4lifemin.org/unedited.html
www.mttu.com/abort-pics
www.pro-lifeamerica.com/4D-Ultrasound-pictures
www.peopleforlife.org/pictures.html


:mad: :( :mad: :( :mad: :(Yep, I think so, because the foetus is, for some people, nothing but a usurping parasite. That's how it would be for me because I despise children, born or unborn. I don't wish them any ill, I just don't want them to be anywhere near me - including in my body, using my resources. I don't really care if it's an unpleasant experience for the foetus to be aborted or not. It takes a short time, rather than 18 miserable years of my life bringing the thing up.

Selfish? Cold? Perhaps so, but too bad. I shouldn't have sex because I don't want children? Firstly, I use two forms of contraception, indicating strongly to anyone that I obviously do not want to become pregnant. Pregnancy is only a natural consequence of sex when contraception is not used, or is used wrongly, or in random rare cases. These random rare cases - and even sometimes the cases where it's been used wrongly - are not the couple's fault; they should not be punished for the rare failures of these types of modern technology and medicine. Secondly, I am in a very happy and loving relationship, and even that Bible people keep wittering on about says that sex is not just about procreation. Don't the Christian marriage vows even say that? Something like, "with my body I thee worship." So, as well as (for some) procreation, sex can be about love, which you surely cannot interpret as a bad thing, unless you're even colder than I am.

By the way, the sites you listed are pro-life propoganda anyway, not independent, objective websites that give all the information. So, even if I wasn't such a cold-hearted bitch (and proud of it), I would be very far from convinced by the content of the links you provided, as most rational people would be.

Yep, I think so, because the foetus is, for some people, nothing but a usurping parasite. That's how it would be for me because I despise children, born or unborn. I don't wish them any ill, I just don't want them to be anywhere near me - including in my body, using my resources. I don't really care if it's an unpleasant experience for the foetus to be aborted or not. It takes a short time, rather than 18 miserable years of my life bringing the thing up.

Selfish? Cold? Perhaps so, but too bad. I shouldn't have sex because I don't want children? Firstly, I use two forms of contraception, indicating strongly to anyone that I obviously do not want to become pregnant. Pregnancy is only a natural consequence of pregnancy when contraception is not used, or is used wrongly, or in random rare cases. These random rare cases - and even sometimes the cases where it's been used wrongly - are not the couple's fault; they should not be punished for the rare failures of these types of modern technology and medicine. Secondly, I am in a very happy and loving relationship, and even that Bible people keep wittering on about says that sex is not just about procreation. Don't the Christian marriage vows even say that? Something like, "with my body I thee worship." So, as well as (for some) procreation, sex can be about love, which you surely cannot interpret as a bad thing, unless you're even colder than I am.

By the way, the sites you listed are pro-life propoganda anyway, not independent, objective websites that give all the information. So, even if I wasn't such a cold-hearted bitch (and proud of it), I would be very far from convinced by the content of the links you provided, as most rational people would be.

I'm willing to bet that many of those pictures are actually of miscarriages rather than abortions. And besies, routine abortions are never that late term. Anything that late is usually due to special circumstances, like danger to the life of the mother.

Nope. It hinges on whether you respect a woman's autonomy.
Hmm, there is the child's autonomy as well... easy to forget that which cannot be seen.

Hmm, there is the child's autonomy as well... easy to forget that which cannot be seen.

Quite a few people (myself included) are arguing that up to a certain point in the foetal development the 'child' has none.
I have yet to see a decent counterargument which does not invoke religion.

Hmm, there is the child's autonomy as well... easy to forget that which cannot be seen.

Again with the "child."
Stop using emotive language and meet us in the land of logical reasoning, ethics and science. You might like it.

Edit: Something without neurons cannot have autonomy. That's just illogical.

Okay, take a look at these and then try and tell me that you still think that abortion is a humane act.

www.alliance4lifemin.org/unedited.html
www.mttu.com/abort-pics
www.pro-lifeamerica.com/4D-Ultrasound-pictures
www.peopleforlife.org/pictures.html


:mad: :( :mad: :( :mad: :(
my first response to this was to post the pictures i have of women who were denied access to legal, safe, medical abortions, and who ended up performing their own abortions or receiving "treatment" from untrained "doctors" in unsanitary underground "clinics." i was tempted to show the picture i have of a young woman who died from a tubal pregnancy because she was too terrified to sneak past protesters outside the abortion clinic she was refered to. i was going to put up these images and demand that "pro-life" individuals explain how humane their arrogant and repressive ideas really are.

but then i remembered how sickening and pathetic it is when somebody exploits emotive images to derail serious debate, and i decided that i didn't want to sink to that level even if other people are doing so.

Hmm, there is the child's autonomy as well... easy to forget that which cannot be seen.
again, please, if you are going to apply terms to a fetus based on its eventual status, i would ask that you apply the only term that is 100% certain to apply to all fetuses at some point: "dead."

Hmm, there is the child's autonomy as well... easy to forget that which cannot be seen.

Cute. Of course, an egg, zygote, fetus, etc, is not a "child" and -- more importantly -- has no autonomy.

More importantly, you deliberately choose -- yet again -- to ignore the one undeniably alive, human, autonomous individual involved -- the woman.

Perhaps if you keep your eyes tightly shut you can remain blind to over half the population you wish to oppress in the name of a "child" that you imagine.

Cute. Of course, an egg, zygote, fetus, etc, is not a "child" and -- more importantly -- has no autonomy.

More importantly, you deliberately choose -- yet again -- to ignore the one undeniably alive, human, autonomous individual involved -- the woman.

Perhaps if you keep your eyes tightly shut you can remain blind to over half the population you wish to oppress in the name of a "child" that you imagine.
Hate to bring this out but if you are going to be technical it is correct to call a fetus a child


hild P Pronunciation Key (ch ld)
n. pl. chil•dren (ch l dr n)
1. A person between birth and puberty.
2.
a. An unborn infant; a fetus.
b. An infant; a baby.
3. One who is childish or immature.
4. A son or daughter; an offspring.
5. A member of a tribe; descendant: children of Abraham.
6.
a. An individual regarded as strongly affected by another or by a specified time, place, or circumstance: a child of nature; a child of the Sixties.
b. A product or result of something specified: “Times Square is a child of the 20th century” (Richard F. Shepard).


2a

:) (not supporting one side or the other but figured it would be some interesting information)

Again with the "child."
Stop using emotive language and meet us in the land of logical reasoning, ethics and science. You might like it.

Edit: Something without neurons cannot have autonomy. That's just illogical. I wasn't trying to use emotive language, it was about ten seconds till the end of breaktime, so my thinking was a little hurried.

I may be wrong, but I think a foetus does have neurones. If you have a brain, it contains neurones. After around (not entirely sure on this) is it 18-24 week? The foetus after that time is very similar to a human newborn except in size and bodily development, which is why it can't survive outside the womb. This is why I object to abortions carried out at over 24 weeks (especially with the recent "jaw defect" case), and for quite a few weeks before them. I'm not referring to embryos here. (Mostly.)

Again with the "child."
Stop using emotive language and meet us in the land of logical reasoning, ethics and science. You might like it.

Edit: Something without neurons cannot have autonomy. That's just illogical.
Depends (as my post above says) if it is fetal stages it can be referred to as a child accurately

If you're a man, and you don't want "your woman" to have an abortion, then don't have sex with her. If you're one of those who believes that abstinence is a good method, then you shouldn't have any problems with the inadvertent pregnancy, or uncomfortable subjects such as abortion. You'll have kids only when you want. To have sex, that is.

Having done that, leave the rest of us alone.

you don't think they would have had some positive influence on your life that no one else could have? what if they helped you stray away from suicide at one point when no one else could have ever done that?
What if a woman would have gotten to know you and done the same if she hadn't had to settle down with a kid and work to feed 2 people instead of 1? I think these scenarios are equally improbable and irrelevant.

What about the child's autonomy? You know, all this noise about women's right and its the women's body just comes off sounding selfish to me.

Well, if the child wants to be autonomous then it shouldn't be living inside its mother's body, it is as simple as that. For the most part, it is a mater of jurisdiction, not morality. The question is who is able to best decide what to do with the things that exist within her body, the woman or the State. Now, the State has a lot to do. There are roads to be built, taxes to collect, laws to enforce, ect. The state has neither the time nor to resources to devote inself to micromanage the health of every female (and male for that matter) within its borders.
So, the State hands jurisdiction over the body and all contained within to the body's owner or, in absence of the ability to make informed decisions, the owner's agent. In some places, where citizens aren't seen as property of the government, this jurisdiction is even considered to be a fundamental right.

The captain of a ship out at sea has absolute authority over the crew and passangers so long as the ship is at sea. He can do whatever is necessary to ensure the overall safety and wellbeing of the ship, its crew, and its passangers. This might include detaining suspected criminals. It might even include forcing people off the ship and into the ocean and into certain death. It might even include summery executions.
At port the captain should turn to the courts to make these jusgements but when at sea the courts are far far away. They do not even know of the problem petetioning them for a trial would be wasteful and possibly even dangerous.
So it is with the woman and her body.
The unborn child is little more than a passanger in the woman's body. If that passanger poses a threat to her greater wellbeing she should be the one to decide what to do about it because she is the only one in a relevant position to make such decisions. Most people agree that abortion should be an option when the woman faces the possiblity of death. The question then becomes, who decides when the threat is great enough to warrent an abortion. Courts would take months, if not years, to make such decisions. By then it would be too late. So, it is only reasonable to leave the decision in the woman's hands.
Her jurisdiction over her body and its contents is, after all, a god-given right. At least, it is according to the people who wrote the US Constitution.

Well, if the child wants to be autonomous then it shouldn't be living inside its mother's body, it is as simple as that. For the most part, it is a mater of jurisdiction, not morality. The question is who is able to best decide what to do with the things that exist within her body, the woman or the State. Now, the State has a lot to do. There are roads to be built, taxes to collect, laws to enforce, ect. The state has neither the time nor to resources to devote inself to micromanage the health of every female (and male for that matter) within its borders.
So, the State hands jurisdiction over the body and all contained within to the body's owner or, in absence of the ability to make informed decisions, the owner's agent. In some places, where citizens aren't seen as property of the government, this jurisdiction is even considered to be a fundamental right.


Based on that sort of arguement (the why is it in the mothers body) the other side could just say why was the mother imprisioning her child within here. The kid did not make any concious decision to be there so the mother is holding the kid against his will

Based on that sort of arguement (the why is it in the mothers body) the other side could just say why was the mother imprisioning her child within here. The kid did not make any concious decision to be there so the mother is holding the kid against his will

Of course, the correct decision is to just remove the child and give it a chance to die on its own. This being analogous to throwing dangerous passangers overboard. Obviously, in that situation there is no imprisonment. The fetus is free to do whatever it wants while coping with its certain death.
The real criminals are the mothers who carry the baby to term. After all, they keep the poor kid locked up for a full 9 months :rolleyes:

Of course, the correct decision is to just remove the child and give it a chance to die on its own. This being analogous to throwing dangerous passangers overboard. Obviously, in that situation there is no imprisonment. The fetus is free to do whatever it wants while coping with its certain death.
The real criminals are the mothers who carry the baby to term. After all, they keep the poor kid locked up for a full 9 months :rolleyes:

But if you throw a passanger overboard that has shown no proof of being dangerous even if others of his kind rarly can become so you are criminaly liable for his death

I beleive it does. An unborn child is one of the purest life forms out there. It has not sinned, it has not done any wrong. Its a wonderful thing to behold. Once we are birthed, then that pureness is gone. But during the 9 month, the child is essentinally pure. Abortion kills that pureness.

so? i'm not disagreeing with you, but God does say that all u must do is ask forgiveness and believe that He will forgive u, and u will be forgiven.

But if you throw a passanger overboard that has shown no proof of being dangerous even if others of his kind rarly can become so you are criminaly liable for his death

True, unless the passanger being thrown overboard freely consents to the treatment. A fetus cannot legaly consent to anything. However, the mother, being its guardian, can consent for it. This ability to censent for the child applies even in cases where the child will certainly die. A parent can have a terminally ill child taken off life support, of example. A parent can withhold medical treatment from a child due to religious conviction. The only thing that a partent cannot consent to in the child's place is sexual contact.

EDIT: Didn't notice your "in private" request until just now... Well, I've already posted this big damn thing, so I'll leave it up, but I guess that'll have to be it.
I have no problem discussing the Roe caselaw, but do not wish to annoy those who hate "legal" arguments. (Although I sympathize, I think it rather silly to wish to argue about the law but not deal with actual law.)

Who was assuming? I have my own opinions on the subject, and the Supreme Court has theirs. Just because I disagree with them doesn't mean I don't know what they are.

Given that you made (and continue to make) basic errors about what the Supreme Court has said, it appeared to me (and still appears to me) that you are not well informed about the relevant Supreme Court cases. You are perfectly welcome to disagree. I will defend your right to do so and applaud your efforts. But informed disagreement is different.

You avoided my question -- you still haven't actually read Roe (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/410/113.html) or Planned Parenthood (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/505/833.html), have you?

At a minimum, you might consider reading the quote I gave again for what it says, rather than what you can find to disagree with in it. (I'll point out some examples below.)

Free speech and due process are explicitly dealt with in the Constitution, so of course the Tenth Amendment doesn't give states the right to override them. The right to privacy, though, is unfortunately largely a legal fiction, outside of the provisions against search and seizure and the like. It should be in there - I likes my privacy, y'know. Unfortunately, it's not. It's been backhanded in through legal decisions... but it's not an explicit Constitutional right, as much as it should be.

It is interesting that you trumpet the Tenth Amendment, but ignore the Ninth Amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The Ninth Amendment is one of the many reasons that the Supreme Court has held that the list of fundamental rights in the first 8 Amendments is not to be taken as exhaustive.

Furthermore, the Fourteenth Amendment was an amendment to the Constitution - it amended and changed the Constitution.

Without incorporation through the 14th, you have no protection under the Constitution against state infringement of free speech, free press, due process, etc. (Go back to my original post on this.)

Your insistence on "explicit" Constitutional rights is inconsistent with: (a) the original Bill of Rights (i.e., the 9th Amendment), (b) the intentions of the Founding Fathers (e.g., the motives behind the 9th Amendment), (c) the 14th Amendment, (d) the intentions of the drafters of the 14th Amendment, and (e) well over 100 years of Supreme Court decisions.

Here is yet another quote from the Supreme Court - this one written by Chief Justice Rhenquist and joined by Justices O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas (emphasis added):

The Due Process Clause guarantees more than fair process, and the "liberty" it protects includes more than the absence of physical restraint. Collins v. Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 125 (1992) (Due Process Clause "protects individual liberty against `certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them' ") (quoting Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331 (1986)). The Clause also provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests. Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 301 -302 (1993); Casey, 505 U.S., at 851 . In a long line of cases, we have held that, in addition to the specific freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, the "liberty" specially protected by the Due Process Clause includes the rights to marry, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); to have children, Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942); to direct the education and upbringing of one's children, Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925); to marital privacy, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); to use contraception, ibid; Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972); to bodily integrity, Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952), and to abortion, Casey, supra. We have also assumed, and strongly suggested, that the Due Process Clause protects the traditional right to refuse unwanted lifesaving medical treatment. Cruzan, 497 U.S., at 278 -279.

-- Washington v. Glucksberg (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/96-110.html ), 521 U.S.702 (1997).

Reproductive “rights” simply aren't spelled out anywhere in the Constitution at all, tortured interpretation of the 14th Amendment or not, and that's precisely the sort of situation the 10th Amendment was designed to handle in its impractical meaning, to be left to state legislatures and state constitutions.

OK, I've handled this largely above. A couple of key points that you ignore could use further explanation, however.

First, as illustrated at length in the quotes I gave from Planned Parenthood, the Supreme Court works on the basis of precedent or stare decisis. When an issue has previously been brought to the Court and decided, it generally will adhere to that previous ruling -- unless there is a compelling reason to overturn the prior decision. All those citations in the quotations I provided are prior cases regarding fundamental rights protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. This is why the Court said things like (emphasis added):

"[F]or at least 105 years, since Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 660 -661 (1887), the Clause has been understood to contain a substantive component as well, one "barring certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them." Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331 (1986).

As Justice Brandeis (joined by Justice Holmes) observed, ... it is settled that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to matters of substantive law as well as to matters of procedure. Thus all fundamental rights comprised within the term liberty are protected by the Federal Constitution from invasion by the States. Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 373 (1927) (concurring opinion).

Second, here are just a few examples of Constitutional rights that are not "spelled out" in the Constitution but that are taken for granted by US citizens:

the right to vote, subject only to reasonable restrictions to prevent fraud
the right to cast a ballot in equal weight to those of other citizens
the right to a presumption of innocence and to demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt before being convicted of a crime
the right to travel within the United States
the right to marry or not to marry
the right to make one's own choice about having children
the right to have children at all
the right to direct the education of one's children as long as one meets certain minimum standards set by the state (i.e., to be able to send children to private schools or to teach them at home)
the right to custody of one's children
the right to choose and follow a profession
right to bodily integrity


Do you really wish to insist that none of these are protected by the Constitution?

This bit of the opinion in particular… hold up…


Firstly, the controlling word in this opinion is said to be “liberty”… but if you made the controlling word in this opinion “life”, would you come up with a wholly different opinion? If the overtone of this decision were that the 14th Amendment demands that no life be taken without due process of law, could you possibly come out with the same result? The amendment was subjected to the same sort of selective quotation that so frequently afflicts Biblical passages to achieve desired ends.

If you had read Roe or knew what you were talking about, you would recognize that this argument has been raised and rejected.

The relevant clause of the 14th Amendment reads (emphasis added):
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Thus, one has to be a "person" to be entitled to protection against deprivations of life, liberty, or property. The Court in Roe specifically addressed and rejected the argument that, as "person" is used in the 14th Amendment, the fetus is a person. Among other things, the 14th Amendment implies - if not requires - the person be "born" and none of other provisions of the Constitution referring to persons make sense applied to the unborn.

Secondly, if a state’s elected representatives undertake to amend the state constitution through its established procedures to ban the procedure of abortion, and reproductive rights are not a right explicitly granted by the Constitution of the United States, how can it be said that the liberty is being excised without due process of law?

Again, you appear not be deliberately ignoring the content of what has been explained before. The Due Process Clause is not merely procedural, but places substantive limits on government. This has been the law of the land since at least 1887 -- just nine years after the 14th Amendment was passed!

In the following bit…

In this bit, the court actually admits that they are inventing rights as they go along! I’m pro-choice. You may not know it from this argument, but I am, in fact, pro-choice. I was, however, raised to throw up the BS flag whenever it arises, and it goes up right here. At this point, right here, they admit that they are just making it up as they go. Well, that’s fine… but anyone who is actually going to look me in the eye and tell me this isn’t talking about car stereos in Latin is going to have to have a damn good pitch when they do.

So, where the Court points out that there is another possible view of Constitutional rights but explains it has consistently rejected that view going back to cases decided right after the 14th Amendment was ratified, you read that as an admission by the Court that it is wrong. (You also ignore that the entire passage is an explanation of the Court's almost 120 years of caselaw rejecting your narrow view.) I suggest your reading of the quote in question is as skewed as your reading of the Constitution itself.

It sounds like you don't much like abortions. So why do you want them to be more convenient?

I wasn't trying to use emotive language, it was about ten seconds till the end of breaktime, so my thinking was a little hurried.

I may be wrong, but I think a foetus does have neurones. If you have a brain, it contains neurones. After around (not entirely sure on this) is it 18-24 week? The foetus after that time is very similar to a human newborn except in size and bodily development, which is why it can't survive outside the womb. This is why I object to abortions carried out at over 24 weeks (especially with the recent "jaw defect" case), and for quite a few weeks before them. I'm not referring to embryos here. (Mostly.)

Great! Then I assume you support the current state of the law in the U.S. under Roe v. Wade!!!

Under the Supreme Court’s decisions in Roe and its progeny, US states may restrict or ban abortion after fetal viability, except where abortion is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.

Every state in the nation has limitations on late-term abortions. At least 19 ban late-term abortion except where necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. A handful of other states expand the exceptions to include other specific circumstances like rape or incest of a minor or severe fetal abnormality. 20 states have bans on late-term abortions that are technically unconstitutional because they are more restrictive than allowed – i.e., they forbid abortions even when the fetus in not viable and/or they do not make exception for the life or health of the mother.

As I posted earlier, from the Centers for Disease Control (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htm) re abortions in 2001:

Of all abortions for which gestational age was reported, 59% were performed at <8 weeks' gestation and 88% at <13 weeks.
A limited number of abortions were obtained at >15 weeks' gestation, including 4.3% at 16--20 weeks and 1.4% at >21 weeks.


Also, from The Alan Guttmacher Institute (http://www.agi-usa.org/sections/abortion.html) (2003):

Almost 90% of abortions are performed in the first trimester of pregnancy (in the first 12 weeks after the first day of the last menstrual period).
More than half of abortions are performed before 9 weeks after the last menstrual period, or within 5 weeks of the first missed period.
Fewer than 2% of abortions are performed after 20 weeks.
An estimated 0.08% of abortions are performed after 24 weeks, when the fetus may be viable.

Firstly, I will admit that I have not read the full opinions of either case. Let’s get that out of the way. I haven't. I appreciate your having supplied material quotes and encourage to continue to educate me in this regard. :)

Next, I didn’t forget about the 9th Amendment. However, I was under the impression that the 9th Amendment was simply leaving room for additional rights to be made available under the auspices of other documents, such as state constitutions. That is to say, the amendments in the Constitution were not meant to be an exhaustive list, but that said additional rights would still be codified by a legislature someplace, as is their responsibility. New Jersey (http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/lawsconstitution/constitution.asp)’s constitution grants citizens the right to collective bargaining, for instance, even though the federal constitution lacks such a provision, and the 9th Amendment helps stave off problems with reconciliation, as does a similar clause in the NJ Constitution. Anyway, that’s what I meant by explicitness. Was I incorrect in that assumption?

On incorporation, I understand that, but I also understand that all state constitutions of which I am aware have within them protections that are very similar to those granted the Constitution. You can see them in the above link, and I saw very similar provisions in the state constitutions of Texas and Georgia a while back, too. Of course, that could be a recent phenomenon, as I’m not a historian of law, but the abortion decisions are also recent phenomena, heh…

Of the various rights that are not enumerated… At least one of them is spelled out. The right to vote might not be in the federal constitution, but it is laid out for me personally in the New Jersey Constitution, and from there it gets to play with the 14th and 19th Amendments. It is a clearly codified right passed by accountable representatives.

Next up: I understand the concept of legal precedent, but, as one person put it, “All that means is that bad decisions can get compounded.” I understand it is a key bit of the legal system because it helps keep legal decisions coherent, but that doesn’t mean it always produces good results, just consistent ones. Maybe it’s just me.

As to “If you had read Roe or knew what you were talking about, you would recognize that this argument has been raised and rejected” and “The Court in Roe specifically addressed and rejected the argument that…” I am not of the opinion that simply because a court opted to reject an argument, everyone should. Judges are just people, fallible, biased people like the rest of us, y'know? They're trained specialists, but they're human. Their decisions may be binding, but they don’t get to speak ex cathedra. :D

I think abortion is horrible. My mom had an abortion right after me. She cries about it so often. Since that time she has had 6 other children. The unborn child can start feeling pain at about 2-3 weeks after conception. Considering most people don't find out until about that point I believe it is cruel to abort the child. If you didn't want to get pregnant you should not have been messing around. If you got raped, it isn't the baby's fault and you should put the child up for adoption not kill it for something that someone else did to hurt you. I also believe that there is forgiveness for those that have had an abortion though.
Catholics and Christians of other denominations, don't forget about grace.

Who told you that a foetus feels ANYTHING at 3 weeks?

I know people who are upset over their choice to abort... but I also knew a girl who suicided, leaving a 4 year old son that she always wished she'd never been forced to carry...

Hmm, there is the child's autonomy as well... easy to forget that which cannot be seen.

I'd like to see you explain what you think the word 'autonomy' means... and how it applies to a foetus.

True, unless the passanger being thrown overboard freely consents to the treatment. A fetus cannot legaly consent to anything. However, the mother, being its guardian, can consent for it. This ability to censent for the child applies even in cases where the child will certainly die. A parent can have a terminally ill child taken off life support, of example. A parent can withhold medical treatment from a child due to religious conviction. The only thing that a partent cannot consent to in the child's place is sexual contact.

Hadn't thought of that angle before, but it's true... a parent can allow their child to die.

I think I have now solved the abortion problem.

Simply remove the 'transfusion' (i.e. cut the cord, so to speak).

A parent has that right, yes? To refuse to allow a continuation of a transfusion?

Then - if the foetus 'dies', you can remove the 'body' - because it would be a health risk to the mother.

Who told you that a foetus feels ANYTHING at 3 weeks?


Odd isn't it? Earlier the poster was claiming that the foetus has a reasonable level of neural function by 24 weeks, which is an accurate figure. Make your mind up!

And besides, focussing on abortions which occur AFTER 20 weeks is misrepresentation because, as stated before by other posters the VAST majority of abortions occur before this time. The ones that occur after are generally in cases of medical emergency. Would these "right to lifers" rather the mother lose hers?

True, unless the passanger being thrown overboard freely consents to the treatment. A fetus cannot legaly consent to anything. However, the mother, being its guardian, can consent for it. This ability to censent for the child applies even in cases where the child will certainly die. A parent can have a terminally ill child taken off life support, of example. A parent can withhold medical treatment from a child due to religious conviction. The only thing that a partent cannot consent to in the child's place is sexual contact.
(on the first point being thrown overboard to sure death would be concidered a suicide attempt which is not legal as far as I know ... but we are looking too much into the analogy)

I wonder if being located in the woum and the process of birth could be concidered sexual contact :p

Hadn't thought of that angle before, but it's true... a parent can allow their child to die.

I think I have now solved the abortion problem.

Simply remove the 'transfusion' (i.e. cut the cord, so to speak).

A parent has that right, yes? To refuse to allow a continuation of a transfusion?

Then - if the foetus 'dies', you can remove the 'body' - because it would be a health risk to the mother.
yeah, i've pointed this out a few times, too...legally speaking, if a fetus is regarded precisely the same way as a born child, all abortion should be 100% legal. the only way to keep abortion illegal is to give a fetus "rights" that a born infant wouldn't have.

It sounds like you don't much like abortions. So why do you want them to be more convenient?
i loath mandarin oranges, but i support making access to mandarin oranges convenient for those who choose to eat them. i'm not interested in forcing everybody to like the same things as me.

Odd isn't it? Earlier the poster was claiming that the foetus has a reasonable level of neural function by 24 weeks, which is an accurate figure. Make your mind up!

And besides, focussing on abortions which occur AFTER 20 weeks is misrepresentation because, as stated before by other posters the VAST majority of abortions occur before this time. The ones that occur after are generally in cases of medical emergency. Would these "right to lifers" rather the mother lose hers?

I don't know WHERE some of these people get some of their numbers...

Feeling at 3 weeks? Has he/she even seen what a foetus LOOKS LIKE at 3 weeks? Trying to understand how a foetus might 'feel' at 3 weeks, is like trying to imagine a piano recital by a tadpole.

If the original poster was like so many of the anti-abortion cadre... so long as the foetus drops out through the usual opening, that is their concern done. You don't see anti-abortionists picketing for MORE orphanages, or better help for single mothers. What you see, is people PURELY trying to stop the 'procedure' called abortion. So - if the mother dies... AT LEAST the foetus wasn't aborted. (And, many of them would probably be able to rationalise a situation where the 'mother' dies, and the foetus 'died' as a result...)

Sticking my oar in...

There is something many people fail to realise when speaking of feotus' and abortion.

A feotus is a parasite.

It does nothing for it's host except feed off it, taking all it wants and giving nothing back.

Now, you're all gonns say "But it's the most natural thing in the world"

Well, it happens, i wouldnt say it's as natural as eating, nor as common and it's a hell of a lot harder.

A woman has the right to say what she wants done with her body. Most women are responsible and by luck or grace, their precautuons stop pregnancy but it only takes 1 accident and suddenly you're in a low paid job, have just broken up from your boyfriend and you're expected to house someone else in your body for 9 mths. It's pretty hard to work at 9 mths pregnant plus (in the US) you need insurance to get decent medical care.

This is not to say that abortion is the only answer or that it should be used as a form of birth controle. But while i am now at an age where i wouldnt have one, no matter what my finances or situation, i will defend to the death the right of a woman to decide what happens to her body.

And another thing, if the legislators (mostly men) were the ones pregnant, abortions would be as easy to get as candy bars!

Sticking my oar in...

There is something many people fail to realise when speaking of feotus' and abortion.

A feotus is a parasite.

It does nothing for it's host except feed off it, taking all it wants and giving nothing back.

Now, you're all gonns say "But it's the most natural thing in the world"

Well, it happens, i wouldnt say it's as natural as eating, nor as common and it's a hell of a lot harder.

A woman has the right to say what she wants done with her body. Most women are responsible and by luck or grace, their precautuons stop pregnancy but it only takes 1 accident and suddenly you're in a low paid job, have just broken up from your boyfriend and you're expected to house someone else in your body for 9 mths. It's pretty hard to work at 9 mths pregnant plus (in the US) you need insurance to get decent medical care.

This is not to say that abortion is the only answer or that it should be used as a form of birth controle. But while i am now at an age where i wouldnt have one, no matter what my finances or situation, i will defend to the death the right of a woman to decide what happens to her body.

And another thing, if the legislators (mostly men) were the ones pregnant, abortions would be as easy to get as candy bars!

Very true... as a guy, I don't think it's unfair to say - if men had the babies, there wouldn't be a two-child family in the world...

Sticking my oar in...

There is something many people fail to realise when speaking of feotus' and abortion.

A feotus is a parasite.



What's funny, sperm fertilization is, more or less, a viral infection. It shoves DNA into another cell and completely alters its workings.

Hadn't thought of that angle before, but it's true... a parent can allow their child to die.

I think I have now solved the abortion problem.

Simply remove the 'transfusion' (i.e. cut the cord, so to speak).

A parent has that right, yes? To refuse to allow a continuation of a transfusion?

Then - if the foetus 'dies', you can remove the 'body' - because it would be a health risk to the mother.

There's actually a very nice essay or two on the idea of abortion being the same as taking someone off of life support that required your presence, after a car accident that was nobody's fault.

There's also one about leaving your windows open. Still no excuse for someone to hop into your house.

There's actually a very nice essay or two on the idea of abortion being the same as taking someone off of life support that required your presence, after a car accident that was nobody's fault.

There's also one about leaving your windows open. Still no excuse for someone to hop into your house.

You really don't realise how that last line cuts both ways, maybe?

It sounds like you don't much like abortions. So why do you want them to be more convenient?

Dunno about you, but I don't enjoy open-heart surgery or rectal examinations either. Care to make THOSE harder?

You really don't realise how that last line cuts both ways, maybe?

What? You think that my leaving a window open is a legal invitation for someone to show up and live in my bedroom for nine months, then live in my house for 18 years afterwards?

Simple. Abortions stop you from having kids. No one likes kids.

Simple. Abortions stop you from having kids. No one likes kids.
I like kids more than other people... but then, technically, I am one. :D Still pro-choice!

I like kids more than other people... but then, technically, I am one. :D Still pro-choice!


Somehow I doubt it...you don't seem to be crying, whining, picking your nose, and/or crapping yourself...but you could very well be a worthless non-productive member of society...

Somehow I doubt it...you don't seem to be crying, whining, picking your nose, and/or crapping yourself...but you could very well be a worthless non-productive member of society...
Oh, THAT young, I am not. But still technically a kid.

Oh, THAT young, I am not. But still technically a kid.
So...isn't that a baby goat or something....technically?

So...isn't that a baby goat or something....technically?
What I mean is I'm a teenager, many would not consider that adulthood. Don't be jerk about it, man! :p

The problem is not abortions, it's the fact that you should not be basing your political opinions on them. the president has very little to do with how and if people get abortions. they are using you, the "moral right" to get elected. The point is moot. As soon as the republicans got into office, they did not get to work to ending abortions or ending gay rights, they launched into social security reform. They don't care about the social issues except as a tool to garner votes. In the mean time, they are stripping back things like welfare, foreign aid, and have pretty much given up on debt forgiveness. the welfare part is the thing that really gets me. The very people who are tellingwomen to keep their babies are the ones who are telling these single moms to get jobs. They want her to keep what she sees as a burden without helping lighten the load. You want to see the abortion rate go down? Make it more economically viable to keep the baby. Putin place social programs so a single mother doesn't have to drop school or work two jobs to keep it. If the issue was really about wanting to protect people and care for your fellow man, there would be a carrot as well as a stick. If the issue was about caring for innocents, help would be on the way. As it stands now, the abortion issue is all about feeling good while helping no one. Labeling people as sinners without offering them help doesnt seem very christain to me.

So you are suggesting that I should have to fork over my hard-earned cash so some single woman can keep her child? No chance.

So you are suggesting that I should have to fork over my hard-earned cash so some single woman can keep her child? No chance.

i'm saying you shouldn't make her bring a mouth to feed into the world if you aren't willing to chip in a little.

i'm saying you shouldn't make her bring a mouth to feed into the world if you aren't willing to chip in a little.

Yes, that sounds better.

But on the other hand, I just lost my job and can no longer feed my one month old...so I'm just going to throw him off a cliff unless the govt helps support me.

Yes, that sounds better.

But on the other hand, I just lost my job and can no longer feed my one month old...so I'm just going to throw him off a cliff unless the govt helps support me.

hence wellfare. if you cant feed your kids, the government either gives you an unemplyment check or in really dire circumstances, takes the kid away.

hence wellfare. if you cant feed your kids, the government either gives you an unemplyment check or in really dire circumstances, takes the kid away.

Unemployment doesn't last forever, and where are they going to put my kid? He will probably grow up a felon and rob you.

But this welfare thing is pretty nice, and the more kids I have, the more money I get.

It seems strange to me that people are horrified when reading about infantcide, but fight to protect late-term abortions. Heck, abortions should be legal through 18...that'll keep the kids in line.

Now I'm just rambling. This job is really boring.

Unemployment doesn't last forever, and where are they going to put my kid? He will probably grow up a felon and rob you.

But this welfare thing is pretty nice, and the more kids I have, the more money I get.

It seems strange to me that people are horrified when reading about infantcide, but fight to protect late-term abortions. Heck, abortions should be legal through 18...that'll keep the kids in line.

Now I'm just rambling. This job is really boring.

and i dont really know where i'm going with this, other than not wanting to write my paper. i just dont understand how you can be anti-welfare and anti-abortion.