Bush already dividing not uniting?

[Laurel]

I can give you 800 pages worth of reasons and they're found in my embryology textbook. With every passing day, medical science reveals more and more what it means to be human and these things all point to conception, not birth, as the beginning of human life.

That's YOU'RE interpretation. I've read others by physicians with extensive medical experience who disagree. There is NO CONSENSUS on this subject within the medical community. You have your own beliefs, colored by your religious and moral background. This is a morally subjective issue. As such, our government has no more right to take a stance than if it were to choose a national religion.

I believe in freedom of action by the John Stuart Mills definition. Your freedoms end where mine begin. Thus, an unborn child does not have the right to take the life of its mother. Period.

And what do your medical textbooks say about the effect of back-alley abortions on mothers and their fetuses? Do you really believe that criminalization will stop abortions from happening? Many women will die on filthy operating tables, or later on from PID or other complications. Are you willing to take responsiblity for those lives - or do those lives not matter?

And your slavery analogy is off base. It has not been categorically and completely proven that a fetus's existence is comparable to our own. Do I think it is? Yes, I think late-term babies are as aware as born babies. Do you or I have the right to inflict our beliefs - both formed more by our respective moral background and values than by any 'facts' - on others?

Hell no.

 

[CreamyLady]

If women are barred by misguided rulemaking from legal, safe abortions, they will return to the old days of do it yourself.

Abortion has been around, conceivably, as long as there has been pregnancy. Miraculous as a child is, there are times when one just cannot go through a pregnancy.

I don't know any women who use it as a form of birth control, per se. I know women whose usual birth control failed, and they were faced with the choice. Not one of them celebrated afterward, by the way.

I would love a world where abortion was not necessary, where every child was loved and wanted from the moment of conception; where every woman had the means to raise the child free from want and financial havoc. Pending that day, however, Roe v. Wade should be left alone, and the means to terminate a pregnancy safely should be available.

 

[Laurel]

I don't know any women who use it as a form of birth control, per se. I know women whose usual birth control failed, and they were faced with the choice. Not one of them celebrated afterward, by the way.

That's what everyone seems to forget...No birth control is 100% effective. But, like 'they' say, I guess we're not supposed to have sex unless we want a baby. Funny how 'they' are always male. lol.

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

I believe in freedom of action by the John Stuart Mills definition. Your freedoms end where mine begin. Thus, an unborn child does not have the right to take the life of its mother. Period.

You're absolutely right that there isn't consensus about the beginning of human life within the medical community. If there were, this practice would probably be outlawed. However, there is an ever-growing appreciation of the complexity and wonder of developing person.

I think you may misunderstand my position. I don't believe the unborn child's right to life supercedes the mother's. I don't even believe it equals that of the mother's. In cases where the mother's life is threatened by her pregnancy, abortion is justified. After all, if the mother dies, so will the fetus (early on, that is).

But you're doing what my debate coach used to to call "attacking the straw man"; attributing to me a position I haven't taken and attacking it. My position is that abortion should not be legally available for simple convenience.

The other problem I have is that the John Stuart Mill argument doesn't apply to fetuses like it does other people. They have no other option BUT to live within the mother or die. That's it. It's not much of a choice. In the end, I think you have to weigh the woman's right to "not be pregnant" against the child's life. To me this isn't a contest.

You may dismiss my arguments because they come from a man, but these could as easily come from a woman. Many of my female colleagues are staunchly anti-abortion.

our government has no more right to take a stance than if it were to choose a national religion.

You know that the Constitution says nothing of the kind. The First Amendment prohibits "establishment of religion". It doesn't forbid morally-based laws. Again, all laws are based on subjective notions of right and wrong to some degree and abortion is no exception.

I'll be the first to admit that the prohibition of abortion would have dire consequences. The hospital where I train had a whole wing of a floor devoted to endometritis from unsterile abortions before Roe. It might once again.

I'm not someone who's unwilling to compromise on the issue. There's not an easy answer. But to couch it in simple terms of religious men attempting to control the bodies of women ignores a legitimate and sincere belief if the humanity of the unborn. No one's out to "keep women down" or anything of the sort.

If I could, I'd invent a magical gestation machine where all the unwanted fetuses and embryos could be transplanted to develop without inconviencing the mother. Until then, though, I'll stand up for the rights of those who have no voice.

[Edited by Oliver Clozoff on 01-22-2001 at 06:49 PM]

 

[ManOSafety]

Well, I'm back and read the posts that have followed on this thread since I had to leave. I'm not sure how to say this, so I'll just come out and say it and hope that people believe me.

Personally, I think that abortion is morally wrong and that the Supreme Court erred in Roe v. Wade in determining that the Constitution gave a woman the right to choose. I realize that this is an unpopular view, but it is mine. Now, having said that, I also need to continue and say that I also don't think that it's my place to tell a woman (unless she's carrying my child) whether or not I agree with what she's doing if she chooses to have an abortion.

I also disagree that government money should be used to sponsor/support groups that support abortion. If these groups want to fight for this, then they should do it with private funding, in my opinion.

 

[Laurel]

You may dismiss my arguments because they come from a man, but these could as easily come from a woman. Many of my female colleagues are staunchly anti-abortion.

Now who's attacking the straw man? When did I say your argument meant less because you were a man? I did make a remark to the effect that some men will say, "Well, if you don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex." It was said sarcastically because obviously men don't have to worry about such things.

There's a difference between being anti-abortion and being anti-choice. You can find abortion to be immoral, yet be against the criminalization of the procedure. I don't think abortion is the optimum choice, and if I were to become pregnant I would probably do what I could to carry the child to full term and then consider adoption if I didn't want to keep the child. However, not all women have that option. For me to make that choice for other women is wrong. And no matter what they do, it's their body - not yours, not mine.

The fact that some women support the criminalization of abortion means nothing to me. There were many slaves and Black writers who have supported slavery and segregation.

our government has no more right to take a stance than if it were to choose a national religion.

You know that the Constitution says nothing of the kind. The First Amendment prohibits "establishment of religion". It doesn't forbid morally-based laws. Again, all laws are based on subjective notions of right and wrong to some degree and abortion is no exception.

More straw men...where did I mention the Constitution, exactly? I said that in my view of what our country stands for - per my reading of history whick includes the Constitution as well as biographies of the various political figures - the government should not interfere with the inner lives of its people. That, to me, is the Utopian ideal - a government in which we are free to create, free to worship (or not), free to speak our minds, free to make choices about our bodies. You may have different ideas about government's role. You may feel, as many do, that it has an imperative to teach us what is right and wrong - by your standards. I disagree.

I think we've had this discussion before. A law against murder, though echoed in the commandment "Thou Shall Not Kill", has practical implications. For society to exist, certain guidelines have to be set. Laws against rape, robbery, murder, and other crimes in which one person interferes with the liberty of another - those are necessary to keep society cohesive. Laws outlawing the use of drugs, laws banning adult material, laws either banning religion or forcing one religion upon all, laws outlawing prostitution or gambling, laws against abortion - these are laws made to inflict one morality upon many.

I had an argument once with a woman who was anti-gun control but supported making abortion a crime. Her argument: the Constitution allowed us 'the right to bear arms' but said nothing about abortion. Therefore, it should be illegal. LOL! Talk about missing the point.

I agree that it's not a cut and dried issue. I don't celebrate the idea of a fetus being 'sucked into a bag'. At the same time, the idea of an unloved child being born into the world to be beaten and degraded and starved is just as painful. There are no easy answers. The deciding factor for me is that I'm firmly against the Government deciding my private life. I want to read what I want, worship (or not) what I want, speak to whom I want, and go where I want to go.

The criminalization of abortion will kill women. It will not stop abortion. GW Bush will fly his girls to Europe to get take care of their unwanted pregnancies. Those without his kind of money will either try to attempt abortions themselves or put their lives at the mercy of some criminal trying to make a few bucks. To paraphrase the gun lobby, "If you outlaw abortion, only outlaws will perform abortions." Thousands of intelligent, young, confused women will die or be maimed.

No one's out to "keep women down" or anything of the sort.

How do you know...?

That was a joke, btw.

If I could, I'd invent a magical gestation machine where all the unwanted fetuses and embryos could be transplanted to develop without inconviencing the mother.

Now, there's a thought! Incubators are getting better all the time...I saw a DC Lifeline episode where a 5-month-old baby weighing 3 lbs was saved. If the anti-choice lobby were to put their time and money into medical alternatives like that - instead of into murdering doctors and harassing women (just teasing, I know all anti-choice'rs aren't murderers) - they'd save many, many lives.

Until then, though, I'll stand up for the rights of those who have no voice.

Good, take a stand. Talk to women, and men. Express your views. But don't make abortion a crime, or you'll be responsible for more murders.

 

[CelestialBody]

 

[Andra_Jenny]

The amount of money we were committing was absolutely insufficient. The amount of money we would need to contribute is unavailable.

This issue needs the help of private efforts coupled with religious reformation in most third world countries which usually starts with the Holy Padre in Rome. We need to deal with the governments and leaders to solve this type of a problem, not the social workers. It's like sending 100,000 children out to stick their fingers in an old dyke.

I saw the chinese mentioned. Hell they already have a solution, and yes, I put my money up, went to china, and brought home the most beautiful baby in the world.

 

[Nogard]

Aren't the same people that are against abortion the same ones screaming about welfare moms, AFDC, and all the rest of the programs to help the needy/poor?
Questiom: for those people that are against abortiom, how much money have you donated to an unwed mothers home? Orphans? How many children have you adopted? Answer please. I need to know who is going to take care of these unwanted children. Can't be the government under your policies. The government is not allowed to pick up the bill for abortion, I'm sure you will really scream when you get the bill for raising a child to the age of 18. Inquiring minds want to know

 

[Sparky Kronkite]

I'll take it to the next level......why not?

Morals, Schmorals. Religion? Hah.

Let's pretend that I find all that shit to be worthless societal baggage - irrelevant to our time - that time would be now.

So, I would say, "If you want to call it murder - so be it."

Murder the cute little fetuses - better'n killin'em once they take a breath of fresh air. Or better'nem dyeing junkies at age 13. Or better'nem dyeing in the electric chair at age 30 and damn sure better'nem not dyeing and sucking of the system their entire dependant fucking lives.

For me it's all logic - math - it's the math of life to me. Religion plays no rational role in the purity of species survival. Morals play no rational role. So, if you can't elevate the intellect of the masses so they can responsibly fend for themselves - thus not endangering or dragging down the rest of society - fuck'em - kill'em. Soilent Green'em.

Yep - that sounds very harsh to the ears of those who hold the human existence at impractical levels of near God-like loftiness. But, but, but - we are just a singular species of animal that luckily has rational, thoughtful, self-aware capabilities. Too bad many of us are lost in such selfishness of self-importance. Many of us think our measly existence actually "means" something.

I mean nothing. You mean nothing. We mean nothing.

So, my motto would be -

Think. Procreate. Survive. And aid all other's of your ilk in doing so. (And nothing more.)

And that my fellow humans - is the only rationale that makes any logical sense what-so-ever.

Yes the reality is harsh. Survival is harsh.

And if you wish to dream on - if that's what makes you feel better (Godlike?) then go ahead. But remember your selfishness means that someone else is paying the price - price in the pain of survival lost.

So, you see - that would not be a very popular opinion in our world today - pity. I pity the fools that drown in their own self import. The more that do - the more probable is slow, agonizing suicide for the human species.

Hail to the great and self righteous Lemming - downfall of all humanity.

 

[Sparky Kronkite]

PS -

I'd eat Fetuses (Feti?) for breakfast - if it helped secure the future of mankind on this planet.

Yes - I'm a giver. Pass the eggs.

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

Laurel, we could go back and forth rebutting each other's arguments for a long time on this subject, but in actuality we agree on a lot. Our ideals regarding the relationship of government to the individual are very similar. In your vision of utopia, the government stays out of people's lives as much as possible. My vision of utopia is similar. You said it this way:

That, to me, is the Utopian ideal - a government in which we are free to create, free to worship (or not), free to speak our minds, free to make choices about our bodies.

I couldn't agree more. Like you, I believe in a government that shouldn't impose on our choices about our bodies. (Do you sense a "but" coming?) What we disagree on, of course, is who exactly is included in the "we" that you speak of. For you, "we" obviously can not include unborn children or else you would logically apply the same standard of protection of freedom to make choices about their bodies that you apply to those of us who have been born. Obviously, a fetus is unable to make any kind of choice for himself, but no more so is an infant, which enjoys the full protection of the law. Infanticide is considered almost universally to be one of the most abhorrent acts humanly possible.

Does it not seem incongruous that a person who kills a child minutes after birth is a heinous criminal, while one who delivers the baby breech, allowing only the head to remain inside the uterus before inserting a sharp instrument into the baby's head and scrambling the brain, is performing a valued service to the community? (That's what happens in so-called "partial birth abortion" by the way)

I don't mean to "wave the bloody shirt" gratuitously here. However, I believe if the majority of the American population was required to witness abortion as it really is - to see it done, to see a chopped-up developing human being - it would not tolerate the practice.

I understand your distinction between personal distaste or disapproval of abortion and the belief in the legal right of others to have it done, but if one believes that the unborn are human beings and that as human beings they possess a right to life (as I believe they do), I don't understand how one could possibly oppose the criminalization of abortion. The former belief logically requires the latter.

My mention of the Constitution was meant not to put words in your mouth. You have your vision of how America should be. I have mine. In the end, though, the only vision that matters is a the one held by the US Supreme Court. Every law passed by a state or by Congress must meet Constitutional muster. Abortion is legal today for this very reason: the Supreme Court struck down the law based on a right to privacy the justices interpreted to be found "in the penumbra of the bill of rights" and because they refused to extend Constitutional protections to the unborn.

If you've read biographies of the founding fathers, you know that while they deeply mistrusted the intrusion of the church into government, they would have found your expressed desire for laws to be free of moral judgement of right and wrong to be bizarre and undesirable. Judgements of "right and wrong" are inevitably woven into the law. Even the values of your utopian society you list above - freedom to create, speak, and worship, and the tolerance of others' choices - are themselves moral values, and you and I routinely "inflict" them on those who believe in authoritarian government and collectivism.

What about other traditional American ideas like self-determination and opposition to taxation without representation. Are these not subjective ideas in which we place our belief that they are better than others. If they're not, what's the objective data to support them?

For society to exist, certain guidelines have to be set. Laws against rape, robbery, murder, and other crimes in which one person interferes with the liberty of another - those are necessary to keep society cohesive.

Certainly true. But is this all laws are? Does this mean the laws are arbitrary? That is, if it were somehow possible to maintain societal cohesiveness without the prohibition of murder, rape, and robbery would these behaviors become permissible? Would we no longer find them "wrong"? Would bulletin board webmistresses argue fervently in their favor?

Your most compelling argument (and the one I grapple with the most on the issue) is that abortion will indeed continue, legally or otherwise, and if not legally the number of terrible outcomes will certainly rise. It's for this reason that I'm not more strident in my objections than I am. It's definitely true that reasonable people can disagree on this issue for this and other reasons.

But murder? You define murder very oddly to suggest those in favor of prohibiting abortion would be committing (or even contributing to) murder. Murder is a legal term and it implies result (death), responsibility and intent (and all must be proven in order to convict). The intent of abortion prohibition is to save lives, not take them. The inevitable lives lost are my only serious reservation to prohibiting abortion because I could not honestly deny prohibition a share of responsibility for those deaths. But to believe in the humanity of the unborn and to refuse to protect them would be even worse, because while women have other options (to keep the child or give it up for adoption), the fetus has no options.

Now I've gone and done what I didn't want to do... rebut point by point. Oh, well. Beats studying. All of us who argue on this issue have been afforded the opportunity at life. Of course I also had a prosperous upbringing (I can only assume you did too, Laurel, since you're bright, articulate, and educated), but it bears stating that neither of our mothers ended our lives before we had a chance to see world.

That chance is the least we owe to future generations.

[Edited by Oliver Clozoff on 01-24-2001 at 01:15 PM]

 

[CreamyLady]

Gee, Sparky. Ever read Swift's A Modest Proposal?