Abortion

[12th Doctor]

Malthus was wrong to an extent. He was right in the fact that species, such as Maple trees, mussels, and humans will continue to reproduce. But he is wrong in the fact that war, poverty, disease, and famine are the only things that can mitigate this trend. If people responsibly decide their future, and plan ahead with prudence, that would be unnecessary. Population would exist in a reasonable state of stability, its equilibrium punctuated only by truly revolutionary events in the life of the planet. That would be normal, of course, because the Darwinian paradigm of gradualism is being increasingly replaced by a more realistic view of change in population and the gene pool. If you risk this, you play Russian roulette with the health of everyone who lives. I do not see how you could turn your back on those already born in favor of those yet to come into existence.

Malthus was wrong on more points than just that.  First, he arrgueed that the human poplulation would over take humanities ability to make food.  He failed to take into account that great farming technology would allow us to feed far more people.  He argueed that resources would run out with an increasing human population.  He failed to take into account that technology would create and allow us to discover new resourses.  Malthus believed that increased populations would led to lower standards of living.  Reasearch shows that the standard of living ALL OVER THE WORLD has only increased with increasing populations.

The fact is that the higher the poplulation, the better it is for humanity, because that way we will have more people, MORE minds working on solutions to global problems.  Look at how far technology has advanced in the last 100 years compared to the rest of human history.  That corospondes with the rise of population.  Abortion strips us of a better future.  Think of all of the people who have come from situations "ideal" for abortion, who have made such a difference in the world.

[12th Doctor]

Also, what aspect can't you understand? I think they're fairly understandable.

What don't you understand about why I think the way I think?  This goes two ways.

[nclib]

I'm not too familiar with the origins of birth control, but I have a couple more things to say about abortion:

Partial Birth Abortion: Before you pro-lifers accuse us liberals of "baby killing", please keep in mind the following:

-"Partial Birth Abortion" is simply a political term, not a medical term
-the procedure is hardly ever done, at least not in ordinary circumstances
-Proponents of this bill intentionally made the language vague in order to ban a wide range of abortion procedures. Pro-lifers also are using this as a foot-in-the-door to get Roe v. Wade overturned.


Also, migrendel, I was wondering if you saw my post on page 14 regarding the March for Women's Lives?

[bullmoose88]

so supersoulty, where exactly (I understand you're against it, almost vehemently so) do you stand on abortion...no exceptions? exceptions for rape/incest, mother's health? What about a state's right to legislate either way without the federal government stepping in, or is the issue so grave that Washington must/and is the only vehicle to do it...

What about programs (ie education) to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place?


You may have answered these questions all over the thread...but I'd appreciate a brief review.


shrug...I remember one of the key principles of my macroeconomics course (classical economics/Solow model) that lower populations allow the capital stock to be used more efficiently. Shrug.

[Nym90]

As a candidate for president in the fantasy election, I'll espouse my position on abortion.

I am pro-choice. I support legalized abortion with no restrictions through the first 6 months of a pregnancy. I feel that counseling services and information should be very widely available for those who are having a difficult time making up their mind on this issue.

In the third trimester, I favor making abortion illegal except to save the life or health of the mother.

I also strongly support encouraging the use of contraceptives and birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancies, including programs that allow for free or reduced price distribution of condoms. I favor educating students on sex education in schools that abstinence is the best and safest method of birth control, but that condoms and other forms of birth control are absolutely necessary for those that do choose to be sexually active.

[12th Doctor]

so supersoulty, where exactly (I understand you're against it, almost vehemently so) do you stand on abortion...no exceptions? exceptions for rape/incest, mother's health? What about a state's right to legislate either way without the federal government stepping in, or is the issue so grave that Washington must/and is the only vehicle to do it...

Inspite of the fact that I myself am opposed to abortion in all cases, I would not abolish it in cases of rape, incest and life of the mother.  I would overturn RoevWade and make abortion a state-by-state issue again.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What about programs (ie education) to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think that our sex education should contain sexual education and abstinance education.

[12th Doctor]

Acctually, there are other threads that have more on them.  You could look at my convention speech, I think that I made a statement on the debate thread as well.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Malthus was wrong because he didn't see either the Industrial Revolution or the vast improvements in agriculture (eg. "Turnip" Turner) coming.
His theory is probably accurate for a subsistance farming based economy.

[Gustaf]

<<In order to believe that abortion = holocaust, you'd have to believe that:

1) The Jews killed in the Holocaust lived inside the bodies of Gentiles
2) Abortion doctors and pro-choice women want to rid the world of fetuses (or unborn babies, as you would say)
3) Women seeking abortions want to cause harm to their fetus>>

North Carolina Liberal,
I never said that abortion was the holocaust, rather I stated that to many Americans, the last 30 years has been similar to a holocaust.
Obviously the situation is different.  If I said a 18 year old basketball player was the next Micheal Jordan would that mean he would have to be 6-5, be born in New York, go to NC, and play for the Bulls?

In regards to the rest of your post, Yes, most pro-lifers are people of faith.  Yes, agnostics and athiests, are likely to favor abortion rights.  (Hitler, Mao, not meant as a cheap shot)  Human life is sacred to REAL people of faith.

The issue isn't about control.  I no more want to control women than   I'm basically a libertarian on most issues EXCEPT abortion.  It's about the protection of a future person.  Don't try to put a convicted murderer who needs to face his crime in the same category as a baby who is full of opportunity and promise.

Have you seen a modern ultrasound?  It's a child.  They kick, they hickup, they react to noise.

Abortion is the saddest part of America's history.  When will we wake up?

Regarding your point about the Holocaust, I realize that you were saying that the situation is very different from the Holocaust--I apologize if my post suggested otherwise. You were just saying that the severity was similar. Regardless, I don't think that they are at all comparable since the perpetrators of the Holocaust were evil.

I do believe that abortion is a woman's choice. Nevertheless, I would prefer that fewer abortions were necessary. I feel the way to tackle this is not to make abortion illegal, but to reduce the need through means such as family planning, sex education, and birth control.

Regarding women's rights, I didn't mean to say that you were against women's rights--only that pro-lifers in general have a poorer record on women's rights. They are much more likely to support paternalistic traditions. In a study of activist pro-lifers in Canada, 85% considered feminism and homosexuality a threat to the family.

PD considers it, along with secular humanism, to be a threat to, not just the family, but to society!

I will also make a little contribution to the typo-debate on this thread...Migrendel - I am sure you are familiar with the concept of "Freudian mistakes", or whatever they might be called in English. If Supersoulty was thinking of the fact that she was an Irish Catholic, he might have been printing that while thinking he was printing Jewish. It happens to me some times as well.

[migrendel]

I never thought about it that way Gustaf, so I guess I'll drop it. And the increase of standards in living has nothing to do with population. They are merely correllating facts. Think of how much better it would be if all this great technology could be applied to a population not spiraling out of control. Such a view that you have about Malthus fails to take into account its perfect accuracy when he wrote it, and obviously circumstances have changed. Also, Malthusian-type situations are seen in many countries in Asia and Africa, where the only things tempering the shockingly high fertility rate are conflict, disease, poverty, and famine. For its limited appeal in the developed world, Malthus is still very applicable to many countries still in existence.

[migrendel]

Also, Nym, as someone I plan to vote for, I'd be interested in knowing the Constitutional basis for your view on late-term abortion, and what other factors you considered.

[12th Doctor]

I never thought about it that way Gustaf, so I guess I'll drop it. And the increase of standards in living has nothing to do with population. They are merely correllating facts. Think of how much better it would be if all this great technology could be applied to a population not spiraling out of control. Such a view that you have about Malthus fails to take into account its perfect accuracy when he wrote it, and obviously circumstances have changed. Also, Malthusian-type situations are seen in many countries in Asia and Africa, where the only things tempering the shockingly high fertility rate are conflict, disease, poverty, and famine. For its limited appeal in the developed world, Malthus is still very applicable to many countries still in existence.

I could agree with you, except for the fact that Malthus' prediction were supposed to be for the future.  A future that he predicted inaccuratly.  In my book that makes him wrong.

As for what you said about the developing world, the fact is that we have more than enough food to feed people in starving nations, and if they could they could probably produce enough food to feed themselves.  The problem is not lack of resourses.  The problem is that most of them live under oppressive regimes like those of Charles Taylor and Kim Jong Il and the several other in Africa and Asia.

[FLGOP]

I would like to give my two cents.  First off, I am a pre-med student majoring in biochemistry.  
That said, biologist have a set of standards (seven) that must be fulfilled in order to classify something as living.  They include response to stimulus, growth, development, metabolism, and others.  The fetus, without a doubt, fulfills the requirements to be considered living.  
As to the argument of cells being capable of being humans, that is scientifically not true.  The major difference between the fertilized egg and skin cells is that the skin cells are already specialized, whereas the fertilized egg is undergoing development and the stem cells are beginning to reproduce and specialize.
Seeing as how the woman and the fetus have a different DNA structure, the fetus is not part of the woman.  Furthermore, tests performed on pregnant women show that they have two sets of brainwaves and two heartbeats.
For a philosophical argument, I ask shouldn't a right have universal application?  We all have the freedom of association, the press, and speech.  This does not depend on whether we are male or female, Jew or Gentile, black or white.  The so called right to an abortion, by its very nature already excludes half the population, as men may not have abortions.  This is further compounded by girls who have note reached puberty, which because of their inability to ovulate can not become pregnant.  Then there are the women that no longer ovulate, they may not become pregnant either.  With an increasing elderly population, this excludes about another 10%.  Then we have all the women that are sterile, those that are lesbians, and those that are celibate.
As for Roe v Wade, Roe is now staunchly opposed to abortion, as is Dr. Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of NARAL.  The legal basis for Roe v Wade was the Griswold v Pennsylvania case.  This case came up with the idea of a right to privacy in marital relationships.  If someone is not married, how can they have this right to an abortion?
FYI, abortion was practiced in the NAZI concentration camps to prevent the "undesirables" from reproducing.  There is also a group of pro-life atheists and agnostics, it's called Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League and its website is www.godlessprolifers.org.
Something that was posted on the first page truly troubles me.  The argument that letting states decide the abortion issue would force poor women to lead miserable lives is truly a troubling statement.  That is nothing more than Marx's class warfare strategy.  If you are poor, work harder and make self sacrifice.  That is what my family had to do when we first came to this country.  I can tell everyone here that hard work and sacrifice will insure an upward economic mobility.  If a person can't afford to have children, they shouldn't be having unprotected sex.  If they still have unprotected sex, they have already made their choice.
Partial birth abortion is called this in the media because of the procedure used.  The child is delivered feet first, leaving only the head inside the womb.  Scissors are used to open the skull, and then a vacuum is used to collapse the skull.  What is left of the child is then fully delivered.  I've noticed that when describing the procedure how many people that consider the fetus to be just a collection of tissues start to cringe.
I can understand making exceptions for cases when the mother's life is in peril, but can not understand why we must punish the child for the crimes of the father.  In instances of rape, the perpetrator should be captured and punished.

[12th Doctor]

I would like to give my two cents.  First off, I am a pre-med student majoring in biochemistry.  
That said, biologist have a set of standards (seven) that must be fulfilled in order to classify something as living.  They include response to stimulus, growth, development, metabolism, and others.  The fetus, without a doubt, fulfills the requirements to be considered living.  
As to the argument of cells being capable of being humans, that is scientifically not true.  The major difference between the fertilized egg and skin cells is that the skin cells are already specialized, whereas the fertilized egg is undergoing development and the stem cells are beginning to reproduce and specialize.
Seeing as how the woman and the fetus have a different DNA structure, the fetus is not part of the woman.  Furthermore, tests performed on pregnant women show that they have two sets of brainwaves and two heartbeats.
For a philosophical argument, I ask shouldn't a right have universal application?  We all have the freedom of association, the press, and speech.  This does not depend on whether we are male or female, Jew or Gentile, black or white.  The so called right to an abortion, by its very nature already excludes half the population, as men may not have abortions.  This is further compounded by girls who have note reached puberty, which because of their inability to ovulate can not become pregnant.  Then there are the women that no longer ovulate, they may not become pregnant either.  With an increasing elderly population, this excludes about another 10%.  Then we have all the women that are sterile, those that are lesbians, and those that are celibate.
As for Roe v Wade, Roe is now staunchly opposed to abortion, as is Dr. Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of NARAL.  The legal basis for Roe v Wade was the Griswold v Pennsylvania case.  This case came up with the idea of a right to privacy in marital relationships.  If someone is not married, how can they have this right to an abortion?
FYI, abortion was practiced in the NAZI concentration camps to prevent the "undesirables" from reproducing.  There is also a group of pro-life atheists and agnostics, it's called Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League and its website is www.godlessprolifers.org.
Something that was posted on the first page truly troubles me.  The argument that letting states decide the abortion issue would force poor women to lead miserable lives is truly a troubling statement.  That is nothing more than Marx's class warfare strategy.  If you are poor, work harder and make self sacrifice.  That is what my family had to do when we first came to this country.  I can tell everyone here that hard work and sacrifice will insure an upward economic mobility.  If a person can't afford to have children, they shouldn't be having unprotected sex.  If they still have unprotected sex, they have already made their choice.
Partial birth abortion is called this in the media because of the procedure used.  The child is delivered feet first, leaving only the head inside the womb.  Scissors are used to open the skull, and then a vacuum is used to collapse the skull.  What is left of the child is then fully delivered.  I've noticed that when describing the procedure how many people that consider the fetus to be just a collection of tissues start to cringe.
I can understand making exceptions for cases when the mother's life is in peril, but can not understand why we must punish the child for the crimes of the father.  In instances of rape, the perpetrator should be captured and punished.

All good points FLGOP.  I'm glad to see that you mainly used a scientific basis to prove your points as well.

[Gustaf]

I will just make another minor, general point.

Please, could we all try and avoid dragging Hitler into discussions where he doesn't really belong? That Hitler was not a man of faith is well known, and that's that. I have read several different threads where Hitler is compared with Kucinich, Dean, anti-abortionists, etc. Hitler was Hitler, and national socialism was a unique ideology which has to be understood as itself, not by trying to relate it to other ideologies with which it doesn't really has a lot in common.

Btw, FLGOP, I agree with Supersoulty that you made some good points. I will say to you what we all say to Migrendel: MAKE SPACES! then I will manage to read your entire post, not just skim and notice the main points.

[migrendel]

Your argument as to the limited applicability of abortion rights is most amusing. People cannot help if their gender, age, sexual orientation, or persuasion about the desirability of sexual intercourse prevents them from getting pregnant. Such a position shows a blind indifference to human variability, and reflects more of a tendency to clutch at straws than at a deep and reflective understanding of universalism.

Now, I must address your legal views coupled with your biological premises. I will not deny that skin cells are not pluriopotent, but since post-conception cell matter is, that is a more compelling reason to not define life as beginning at conception. If those cells can conceivably develop into anything with certain limits, why are they so unique as to merit protection? Also, hypothetically, if women conceived by parthenogenesis, then how would you define the beginning of life? I know that sounds ridiculous, and of course it is, but it shows just how untenable it is to define a point for the beginning of life before birth.

Your legal analysis is really the weakest of all however, because it shows an aloofness to the very nature of an enduring law for all. If medicine can push back the point at which a right to an abortion ends and a right to life begins, women will live in a constant grey area, where they will be left to eternally wonder whether an overzealous physician will further restrict their rights. That is why it is critical to define the Constitution as an absolute and stationary law, which will regard the right to an abortion in an identical sense fifty years from the current day.

You also overlooked key precedent. The reason why unmarried women may seek to end a pregnancy, despite the fact that Griswold v. Connecticut explicitly referred to right to privacy within the context of marriage, is because of a 1972 decision called Eisenstadt v. Baird which extended those rights to unmarried people as well.

I also think your passionate analysis of Intrauterine Cranial Decompression lacks an intellectual perspective. Rather than looking at this in a detached legal fashion, you chose to view it as an emotional issue. And let's face it, you primarily think this way because of a moral bias. Morals are not rooted in a careful calculus of various relationships between science and law, they are children of the heart. Please, please, just look at in a pragmatic light. I'm sure you'll see things you've never seen before.

[Gustaf]

Your argument as to the limited applicability of abortion rights is most amusing. People cannot help if their gender, age, sexual orientation, or persuasion about the desirability of sexual intercourse prevents them from getting pregnant. Such a position shows a blind indifference to human variability, and reflects more of a tendency to clutch at straws than at a deep and reflective understanding of universalism.

Now, I must address your legal views coupled with your biological premises. I will not deny that skin cells are not pluriopotent, but since post-conception cell matter is, that is a more compelling reason to not define life as beginning at conception. If those cells can conceivably develop into anything with certain limits, why are they so unique as to merit protection? Also, hypothetically, if women conceived by parthenogenesis, then how would you define the beginning of life? I know that sounds ridiculous, and of course it is, but it shows just how untenable it is to define a point for the beginning of life before birth.

Your legal analysis is really the weakest of all however, because it shows an aloofness to the very nature of an enduring law for all. If medicine can push back the point at which a right to an abortion ends and a right to life begins, women will live in a constant grey area, where they will be left to eternally wonder whether an overzealous physician will further restrict their rights. That is why it is critical to define the Constitution as an absolute and stationary law, which will regard the right to an abortion in an identical sense fifty years from the current day.

You also overlooked key precedent. The reason why unmarried women may seek to end a pregnancy, despite the fact that Griswold v. Connecticut explicitly referred to right to privacy within the context of marriage, is because of a 1972 decision called Eisenstadt v. Baird which extended those rights to unmarried people as well.

I also think your passionate analysis of Intrauterine Cranial Decompression lacks an intellectual perspective. Rather than looking at this in a detached legal fashion, you chose to view it as an emotional issue. And let's face it, you primarily think this way because of a moral bias. Morals are not rooted in a careful calculus of various relationships between science and law, it is a child of the heart. Please, please, just look at in a pragmatic light. I'm sure you'll see things you've never seen before.

"Moral bias"? Is it strange that one's view of life is influenced by a person's morale or faith?

[migrendel]

I think that the only way that issues of this volatility can be assessed objectively is through detached intellectual analysis.

[nclib]

I think that the only way that issues of this volatility can be assessed objectively is through detached intellectual analysis

Exactly. Since the issue of when life begins is so complex, the decision should be made by women and doctors, not federal and state governments.

I do apologize, migrendel, for hunting you down, but I was quite curious as to your response to the post below (quoted)

I admire your passion for abortion rights. On an earlier page, I mentioned the March for Women's Lives (April 25 in Washington, DC), which I believe will be the largest abortion rights demonstration in US history. Are you familiar with this? I know DC is a long way from Cambridge but it would be great if you could make it.

[migrendel]

Well, April still is awhile off. I would love to attend, but I might not be able to. I'll try my hardest to attend, because if someone like me can't find the time to make it, how can we expect those teetering in the undecided column to take up the cause?

[migrendel]

To FLGOP:
The abortion issue is in so many ways intertwined with the social understanding of the class structure. It is undeniable that poor women seek abortion more often than women of means, but viewpoints leave their coalescence there.

I am of the old school of thought. I believe the government has a duty to protect the vulnerable who cannot protect themselves. I also believe the spirit of the law neither knows nor tolerates classes amongst its citizens, be they based upon race, gender, economic status, or any other characteristic with primacy to the individual's definition of self.

The women who have abortions are often forced to do so because of financial hardships that leave them in extremis. It would be unwise, and costly, for the government to step in, deus ex machina style, and tell women "You shouldn't have had sex." Well, they had sex, and you can't change the past. You can only shape the future.

It is also undeniable that women bear the fiscal brunt of childbearing. The act of criminalizing a form of healthcare would have grossly disproportionate consequences on the genders, and would be a classical violation of gender equality.

One must also wonder how women can maintain their dignity and self determination if their circumstances are involuntarily straightened by an unwanted child. Perhaps the economic barriers to abortion erected by the Hyde Amendment, Department of Health and Human Services, et alia, have something to do with the epidemic of unwanted children being abused.

The next time you try to argue abortion from an economic vantage point, at least realize that it's more cost effective to allow it.

I can also foresee society rising to reject such sloppy thinking. The simple rule of "Thou Shalt Not Kill" was apposite for a society of a truly black and white nature, but as choices acquire more complexity and import, such simple thought is deeply unequipped to cover the most important decisions of a woman's life.

[Beet]

Hi, FLGOP, welcome to the message boards. Migrendel addresses this from a socioeconomic viewpoint, I look at it from a more philosophical viewpoint.

I would like to give my two cents.  First off, I am a pre-med student majoring in biochemistry.  
That said, biologist have a set of standards (seven) that must be fulfilled in order to classify something as living.  They include response to stimulus, growth, development, metabolism, and others.  The fetus, without a doubt, fulfills the requirements to be considered living.

I agree that it is living, but medical definitions were not designed to resolve the debate over at which point between pre-conception and birth a embryo/fetus actually becomes a human person that it would be wrong to kill. The dictionary defines human as a homo sapien per Linneaus, and an embryo has homo sapien DNA, but that does not mean it is a full person yet. Linneaus and the medical community created these definitions for other purposes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The fetus is physically attached to the woman. The fact that there is a different DNA structure than the woman's does not mean the DNA structure itself is a human moral agent. The quality of the DNA structure lies simply in the information itself.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think this is the most interesting aspect of the issue, especially with regard to brain waves. The heartbeat I think is less interesting because a heart does not make a human-- a person can get a heart transplant and still be the same person. If a brain transplant were ever possible, even just the cerebral cortex, the person would not be the same.

According to this article in the Cornell Daily Sun (http://www.cornelldailysun.com/articles/3542/), EEG waves in the fetus begin to occur in a pattern that looks like adult brain waves at around 26-28 weeks. "Adult" is the word they used and I wonder if by "adult" they mean post-age-18 human brain waves or post-birth human (baby) brain waves. According to pro-life sources, the appearance of brain waves (though not in the "adult" pattern)  begins as early as 5-6 weeks. The article argues that "consciousness" does not begin until these advanced brain waves begin to occur in sporadic bursts that resemble "adult" brain waves.

I really think there are the main problem with the debate is its too emotional and polarizing; each side seems to be talking a different language. The pro-choice is woman-centered, the pro-life is child-centered. The issue itself I believe should be child-centered due to the gravity of defining the moral boundaries of "murder", but it's very sad that the people who are pro-life are usually also the people who dislike women's lib and want women to be submissive and stay in the home.

But if we accept the question of life as the premise of the debate, consciousness should be the criteria for determining life. A "birth" morally speaking happens when the mind comes into existence, because the mind allows for human subjectivity. Secular morality, especially with regard to murder, is built around preventing harm to a subjective human being. Morality is inherently subjective if you take the subject to be the human race. I believe there is a common thing called "morality" built into human psyche, even though it is not activated for all people in the same way. Whether the mind is born with the first EEG waves at 5-6 weeks or the first "adult" spasm at 26-28 weeks, I don't know enough about how these waves work to know. But I do think the debate should move away from the separate criteria of "conception" and "viability" which are irreconcilable and towards human consciousness.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I really think this is quite a poor argument-- you were probably thinking too hard. Not everyone can walk, so that doesn't have universal application. But does that mean walking shouldn't be a right?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes but if you look at it purely from a legal perspective, Roe v Wade is now common law precedent and it has been challenged and reviewed by the Supreme Court, which upheld it. I don't think the moral issues here depend on the opinion of the court.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Once again, I think this is a poor argument. There is no mandatory abortion with any racial policies saying that certain people must have abortions. That's not the issue. I will leave the rest of the social analysis to migrendel.

[FLGOP]

First off, to answer Gustaf, I only mentioned Hitler because here in the states many are now attempting to paint him as being pro-life.

As for my moral bias, it is inherent in all humanity.  Morality was the foundation of ethics, which guide all society.

Now for women having or not having sex, I was trying to argue that they should have worn some protection, which is far more cost effective than either raising a child or having an abortion.  It is not much more effective to have the state pay for abortions.  Abortions are not cheap, and if people keep having UNPROTECTED intercourse, women will keep getting pregnant.  Where is the financial incentive for someone to use protection if the undesirable end result will either way not happen?  I could buy condoms to prevent a pregnancy, or I could not buy them and then have the state pay for the abortion.  The choice was made to have sex without the use of a condom, or other contraceptive.  Choices have consequences and people have to start taking personal responsibility for their actions.

I agree that the law should not have classes, regardless of what they may be based on.  However, I disagree that the government is responsible for people.  People must be responsible for themselves.  If, because of some disability, some may not be able to fend for themselves, then I am sure others will be charitable enough to provide for them.  It is not the role of government because government, through its taxation, forces some people to pay for goods and services that they feel are not truly necessary.  Not so long ago, the headquarters of Habitat for Humanity (based in Atlanta, Georgia) decided to open a place so that Americans can learn what poverty is truly like, they argued that the poor in America are not necessarily poor when compared to those in other parts of the world.

It is precisely because I believe in gender equality that I oppose elective abortions.  Women can require their partner to wear some sort of protection.  If her partner chooses not to, she can use her power and deny him intercourse.

To Beet, thanks for your welcome.  However, I see things somewhat differently.  Members of one species may arise only from members of the same species.  It is impossible for two humans to mate and produce a calf, or any other animal, as an offspring.  If we are humans now, it is because we have been humans at every stage of our development.

Physical attachment in and of itself does not exclude individuality.  The best visual example of this would be Siamese twins.  Yes, they are physically attached, and sometimes separation may kill one or both of the twins.  As to the debate on whether it is one individual or two, the original Siamese twins had two different personalities, each one had a wife, and each one fathered children.

I mentioned the heart and brain waves because people only have one set of each.  If any of us were to go in and get an ECG, only one set would be detected.  If a pregnant woman at the proper stage of embryological development were to go in, two sets would be detected.

As to changing the debate from viability to consciousness, this in and of itself would be even more highly debatable.  The implications would be far reaching, for instance, if someone were to become unconscious, would that imply that they are no longer able to live?  But then what if they are capable of regaining consciousness, either on their own or with the aid of medicine?

I'm not too sure we understand each other on what universality is or what can be deemed a right.  I view walking as an ability, not so much a right.  It can be classified as a right for the purposes of mobility to allow for the freedom of association, but it is not in and of itself a right.  As for women, even those that are heterosexual and fertile, they do not always have the "right" to an abortion.  A woman can not have an abortion if she is not pregnant; there is nothing to abort otherwise.

As for common law precedents, the ruling in Dred Scott was never overruled by the court.  It became a moot point only after the Civil War and the subsequent amendments to the Constitution that outlawed the practice.  The idea of stare decisis is not as solid as once it may have been.  The Courts constantly change their interpretations.  Whether it is the case of Brown v. Topeka Board of Education, which overturned the concept of separate but equal, or WV School Board of Education v. Barnette which overturned the ruling in Gobitis, the opinion of the court is in constant change.

My mention of the agnostics and atheists was only as a response to a previous entry that claimed all pro-life advocates are theists.

[Gustaf]

First off, to answer Gustaf, I only mentioned Hitler because here in the states many are now attempting to paint him as being pro-life.

As for my moral bias, it is inherent in all humanity.  Morality was the foundation of ethics, which guide all society.

Now for women having or not having sex, I was trying to argue that they should have worn some protection, which is far more cost effective than either raising a child or having an abortion.  It is not much more effective to have the state pay for abortions.  Abortions are not cheap, and if people keep having UNPROTECTED intercourse, women will keep getting pregnant.  Where is the financial incentive for someone to use protection if the undesirable end result will either way not happen?  I could buy condoms to prevent a pregnancy, or I could not buy them and then have the state pay for the abortion.  The choice was made to have sex without the use of a condom, or other contraceptive.  Choices have consequences and people have to start taking personal responsibility for their actions.

I agree that the law should not have classes, regardless of what they may be based on.  However, I disagree that the government is responsible for people.  People must be responsible for themselves.  If, because of some disability, some may not be able to fend for themselves, then I am sure others will be charitable enough to provide for them.  It is not the role of government because government, through its taxation, forces some people to pay for goods and services that they feel are not truly necessary.  Not so long ago, the headquarters of Habitat for Humanity (based in Atlanta, Georgia) decided to open a place so that Americans can learn what poverty is truly like, they argued that the poor in America are not necessarily poor when compared to those in other parts of the world.

It is precisely because I believe in gender equality that I oppose elective abortions.  Women can require their partner to wear some sort of protection.  If her partner chooses not to, she can use her power and deny him intercourse.

To Beet, thanks for your welcome.  However, I see things somewhat differently.  Members of one species may arise only from members of the same species.  It is impossible for two humans to mate and produce a calf, or any other animal, as an offspring.  If we are humans now, it is because we have been humans at every stage of our development.

Physical attachment in and of itself does not exclude individuality.  The best visual example of this would be Siamese twins.  Yes, they are physically attached, and sometimes separation may kill one or both of the twins.  As to the debate on whether it is one individual or two, the original Siamese twins had two different personalities, each one had a wife, and each one fathered children.

I mentioned the heart and brain waves because people only have one set of each.  If any of us were to go in and get an ECG, only one set would be detected.  If a pregnant woman at the proper stage of embryological development were to go in, two sets would be detected.

As to changing the debate from viability to consciousness, this in and of itself would be even more highly debatable.  The implications would be far reaching, for instance, if someone were to become unconscious, would that imply that they are no longer able to live?  But then what if they are capable of regaining consciousness, either on their own or with the aid of medicine?

I'm not too sure we understand each other on what universality is or what can be deemed a right.  I view walking as an ability, not so much a right.  It can be classified as a right for the purposes of mobility to allow for the freedom of association, but it is not in and of itself a right.  As for women, even those that are heterosexual and fertile, they do not always have the "right" to an abortion.  A woman can not have an abortion if she is not pregnant; there is nothing to abort otherwise.

As for common law precedents, the ruling in Dred Scott was never overruled by the court.  It became a moot point only after the Civil War and the subsequent amendments to the Constitution that outlawed the practice.  The idea of stare decisis is not as solid as once it may have been.  The Courts constantly change their interpretations.  Whether it is the case of Brown v. Topeka Board of Education, which overturned the concept of separate but equal, or WV School Board of Education v. Barnette which overturned the ruling in Gobitis, the opinion of the court is in constant change.

My mention of the agnostics and atheists was only as a response to a previous entry that claimed all pro-life advocates are theists.

Nice improvement with the spaces...

Again, good points. I am feeling a little left out, since I am split on abortion in an awful way, and a lot of the points here just goes straight past me...you people are just smarter I guess...

[nclib]

Hi FLGOP, welcome to this forum. I respect the thought you've put into this, but would like to respond to a couple points.

As for Roe v Wade, Roe is now staunchly opposed to abortion

In Roe, she was forced to have her child because the case took too long. I'm sure having to raise that child after all had an impact on her viewpoint on abortion. Anyway, Roe v. Wade was not about her--it was about the issue in general.

FYI, abortion was practiced in the NAZI concentration camps to prevent the "undesirables" from reproducing.

As Beet said, the issue is not pro-abortion but pro-choice. There is certainly nothing productive of mandatory abortion in any situation.

If a person can't afford to have children, they shouldn't be having unprotected sex.  If they still have unprotected sex, they have already made their choice.

Now for women having or not having sex, I was trying to argue that they should have worn some protection, which is far more cost effective than either raising a child or having an abortion.  It is not much more effective to have the state pay for abortions.  Abortions are not cheap, and if people keep having UNPROTECTED intercourse, women will keep getting pregnant.  Where is the financial incentive for someone to use protection if the undesirable end result will either way not happen?  I could buy condoms to prevent a pregnancy, or I could not buy them and then have the state pay for the abortion.  The choice was made to have sex without the use of a condom, or other contraceptive.  Choices have consequences and people have to start taking personal responsibility for their actions.

People must be responsible for themselves.  If, because of some disability, some may not be able to fend for themselves, then I am sure others will be charitable enough to provide for them.  It is not the role of government because government, through its taxation, forces some people to pay for goods and services that they feel are not truly necessary.  

It is precisely because I believe in gender equality that I oppose elective abortions.  Women can require their partner to wear some sort of protection.  If her partner chooses not to, she can use her power and deny him intercourse.

I don't support this line of reasoning because women obviously are more affected by pregnancy than men are. Both men and women should be responsible for their choices, but there certainly are fewer consequences for a man who has unprotected sex. Legalized abortion is just a way to compensate for that and help achieve gender equality.