# Abortion compromise...what do you think?



## Xequat (Oct 16, 2004)

I've mentioned this idea briefly in another thread, but I'd like opinions from both sides on how to fix the abortion disagreement.

Currently, the law says that someone is dead when their brain waves stop; not when their heart or lungs or anything else stops, but when their brain waves stop. So why not say that when the brain waves start, human life legally begins? Conservatives say it happens at 8 weeks; liberals have said 12, so let's call it 10 and be done with it. Personally, I am not in favor of abortion; I think it devalues human life, but I am willing to compromise the idea without compromising my principles. But until it has brain waves, maybe we should consider it as something other than alive and allow the woman to decide. Once the child has brain waves, however, I think it's up to us to protect it. It's always been an issue of woman's rights versus child's rights, as I see it, so let's get consistent with the law, which will take the morality out of it and make it a legal, constitutional issue. 

What do you think?


----------



## Ceicei (Oct 16, 2004)

People have tried a similar compromise, using the "test of viability".  Even with this, people still disagree.  You will always find those people who believes life starts at conception, therefore nullifying any possibility for abortion.  My opinion regarding whether a compromise exists?  I don't think there is a compromise satisfactory to everyone on both sides of the fence (as well as those who are fence-sitters) on this issue.

- Ceicei


----------



## Melissa426 (Oct 16, 2004)

Xequat said:
			
		

> .
> 
> Currently, the law says that someone is dead when their brain waves stop; not when their heart or lungs or anything else stops, but when their brain waves stop. So why not say that when the brain waves start, human life legally begins? Conservatives say it happens at 8 weeks; liberals have said 12, so let's call it 10 and be done with it.
> What do you think?


I thought I'd heard most of the pro-choice and anti-abortion arguments, but I have honestly never heard anything about fetal brain waves.

I'd like to read up on any research being done on fetal brain waves and how they are detected. Do you know of sources (preferably medical or scientific based) that talk about this?

Thanks,
Melissa


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 16, 2004)

I think that any woman can come to an appropriate decision on this subject based on her beliefs. What occurs between a woman and her doctor is none of my business.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Oct 16, 2004)

I've heard of the fetal brain-waves argument before.  The basic idea is that we defend human rights because we are beings that are self-aware, capable of abstraction, conceptualization, feelings, etc.  For all that, we need brain waves, and something that doesn't display such brain waves would, arguably, not be deserving of human rights.  I'm not really trying to defend this position, just giving the interpretation I've heard of it.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 16, 2004)

We already HAVE a compromise. Nobody gets to impose their beliefs about when human life begins on anybody else; the State can't force you to have an abortion in the interests of something like population control or your proven parental irresponsibility; the State can't force you to remain pregnant.

We already have a compromise. There is no scientific way to tell when human life begins; it's a matter of religious belief and other kinds of belief, and nobody gets to impose their own beliefs on everybody else.

What do I think? I think it's just one more rationalization of the real desire, which is to force women to obey the commands of men, the commands of the Church, the commands of the State. I think it's just one more example of the self-appointed guardians of decency sticking their nose in everybody's private business.

Funny how we never seem to see these snoops marching against violence, or hunger, or lack of medical care, or bad pre-natal care...but boy, let somebody come up with a morning-after pill, and they's all up in our faces.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 16, 2004)

So as long as its "in the belly" its fair game huh? Where is the "fetus" safe? When the water breaks...when the head crowns....when the whole body is out...when the cord is cut???

Shouldnt there be a line drawn somewhere?


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 16, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Shouldnt there be a line drawn somewhere?


The question is who should draw the line?


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 16, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I think that any woman can come to an appropriate decision on this subject based on her beliefs. What occurs between a woman and her doctor is none of my business.


 Im impressed... 

 We are in total agreement for once.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 16, 2004)

We sure should.

When in the early 1980s, President Ronald Reagan launched a retaliatory strike against Libya, and F-111s bombed one of his summer retreats (under the theory he was there--bad intelligence AGAIN) and we killed a year-and-a-half-old baby girl, that was wrong. There's your verdammt line.

It isn't my decision, tgrace. It isn't Mr. Edwards' decision. It damn sure isn't the government's decision (funny how y'all are libertarian, until it's a matter of women's reproductive choices, eh?)--guess what? It's the woman's decision, worked out--how many times does it have to be said? between her, her doctor, and the Great Punta.

Safe, legal, and rare. You wanna militate? Militate for a world in which all children are wanted, and abortion is safe, legal, and rare. Oops, my bad---that would involve social justice. Can't have that. The Free Market, the Pledge of Allegiance, and gun ownership are far too important.

Hell, next thing, them liberals'll get Head Start fully funded. Them bastids.

Otherwise, all you're arguing is a liberal version of Talibanism.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 17, 2004)

I think the point they were trying to make, Robert, is that what actual meaningful difference is there between, say, an 7-month pre-born and a newly-born infant?? A sheet of skin and blood??

I personally adopt a more moderate/centrist position, in which I am pro-choice... to a point. My personal cut-off is around 5 months (give or take a few weeks), _or_ when the mother's life is in danger. I don't think that's particuarly unreasonable.

The arguments as to "when life begins" are silly. Single-celled organisms are "alive". The human fetus is alive from the very beginning. Hell, the cells in your semen are alive. The cells in the skin you scratch off, and subsequently kill, are "alive".

As for sentience?? Well, I suppose it could be argued that infant sentience begins when brainwave activity starts up... but, honestly?? We don't really have any way of knowing (since the pre-born can't exactly answer questions for us).

Personally, I'm just uncomfortable with abortions that occur past 5 months because of how similar the pre-born is to a human infant... the only real difference is their size.


----------



## Darksoul (Oct 17, 2004)

-I've always seen abortions as a necessary evil. Simply one that at this time in human existence, bad information, lack of education, and many other things make the situation rather difficult. If the woman wants to have the child, most won't argue with that, unless its a woman who cannot support the child or mooches off the gov't welfare. It does happen. Bringing a child into the world shouldn't be about what a person can get from the gov't and avoid work. Not that it happens all the time. Life is precious, and I believe in keeping it going on this planet. Most people want to have kids for many reasons, the joy of creation, something to pass on, to do better than they did, etc.

-Of course, if the woman doesn't want to have the child...it seems there are many things to look at. What lead up to the woman getting pregnant? Is she really young? Did she even know about the basics? (Don't worry, I'm not counting males out of the equation.) Some people think procreation happens when it happens, and thats just the way it is, and nothing should be done to stop it, and if this woman wants to have ten kids, then the rest of the world should just deal with it. Life doesn't work that way, we all know about dwindling resources and over population.

-If you can support ten kids, raise them all healthy and educated, provide for them financially as long as you see fit, and not create a burden on the rest of the world, you have my blessing. Though if my taxes are going to support your children because you don't want to work, then we have a problem. It should be the woman's decision, and the guy's decision if he is still a part of the relationship, but ultimately the woman's choice. More education about the birds and the bees, please.

A---)


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 17, 2004)

I agree with the more education call for some reason. More, I agree with the "head 'em off at the pass," approach.

Otherwise--if you're not the involved party, it ain't none of your damn business. As I wrote previously, it's just another case of guys, libertarian 'till the question of women making their own decisions comes up.


----------



## Xequat (Oct 17, 2004)

I'm sorry, but about half of the country thinks it is ourr business.  Just like it's our business when somebody climbs a clock tower and starts shooting.  Killing is killing.  All I'm saying is that we should be consistent with our laws.  The law states that human life ends when the brain waves stop, so I was just suggesting that the law state that human life begins when the brain waves start.  It can be measured whether the being is sentient or not.  If we ge consistent, then we won't need special rules like illegal partial-birth abortions and the like.  Ther can still be pro-life rallies and organizations and preventive eductaion prframs, but the law should be secular.  Some think that it's an issue between the woman and the doctor; others thnk it's an issue between the baby human life and the state.  So let's find a middle ground where neither side is happy, but neither side is upset so we can stop hearing the same arguments about it every election year.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 17, 2004)

Xequat, you need to check your math. The number "half our country" is grossly exaggerated, I think you will find a large majority are pro-choice. Many of that majority will have some reservations about termination as a pregnacy comes to term, but are not willing to surrender the first principle for the second.

I recently heard the discussion termed as 'Moral Equivilancy'; when does the fetus gain the moral equivilancy to a human being (which brings us back to the original brain wave argument). Is a fetus with brain waves, the equivilant of human being in the hospital with brain waves. I do not agree that the fetus is morally equivilant to a born child.

I am trying to understand how some can believe that a human sperm cell, fertilizing a human egg cell in a petri dish is morally equivilant to a human being? Which is the arguement against stem cell research.


----------



## Melissa426 (Oct 17, 2004)

Xequat said:
			
		

> The law states that human life ends when the brain waves stop, so I was just suggesting that the law state that human life begins when the brain waves start. It can be measured whether the being is sentient or not. If we ge consistent, then we won't need special rules like illegal partial-birth abortions and the like. Ther can still be pro-life rallies and organizations and preventive eductaion prframs, but the law should be secular. Some think that it's an issue between the woman and the doctor; others thnk it's an issue between the baby human life and the state. So let's find a middle ground where neither side is happy, but neither side is upset so we can stop hearing the same arguments about it every election year.


Regarding your original premise:

1:  I did a short web search on fetal brain waves and 95% of what I found was from anti-abortion groups. Their's is not exactly an objective opinion.

2.  What results I did find,   all the researchers mentioned how technically difficult it is to detect fetal brain waves, at first they had trouble eliminating electrical background activity from the mother's cardiac activity.  Even so, this is all very preliminary and possibly premature to state that just because a fetus has brainwaves it can be considered "alive."  How  anyone can compare this to the situation of declaring a person to be declared brain dead is beyond me.

3.  This issue is too polarizing for there ever to be an acceptable "compromise" from either side.  I  am just not sure that that is a good idea.

Peace,
Melissa


As an aside:

In Memory of Carrie: 
This past week, a former patient at the hospital I work at died from a cardiac condition. She was 27 y.o. and had 2 children , ages 3 and 6.  One year ago, she found out she was pregnant.   Her doctor told her there was an 80% chance she would die during pregnancy because  of her  cardiac problems. She agonized over it, but proceeded with the termination because of her other two children needing her.  She died awaiting a heart transplant.

Please make sure your organ donor cards are signed!


----------



## Xequat (Oct 17, 2004)

Thank you, Melissa, for a relevant response.  So far, the only things people have written have been pro-abortion advertisements, but did not address the idea of compromise.  It's the kind of one-sided, narrow-minded approach that I feel requires a compromise.  So, although we might disagree about whether a compromise makes sense, or is even reasonable or possible, I can at least respect that you addressed the question at hand.  I know, some people think it's just another example of a paranoid delusion that The Man is trying to keep a woman down ("What do I think? I think it's just one more rationalization of the real desire, which is to force women to obey the commands of men, the commands of the Church, the commands of the State. I think it's just one more example of the self-appointed guardians of decency sticking their nose in everybody's private business.") but whether you believe that or not, it doesn't apply.  The question was not "What do you thnk about abortion?"  The question was about meeting in the middle on an issue that divides the country.  The point of a compromise is not to make either side happy, but to make both sides, shall we say, content.


"When in the early 1980s, President Ronald Reagan launched a retaliatory strike against Libya, and F-111s bombed one of his summer retreats (under the theory he was there--bad intelligence AGAIN) and we killed a year-and-a-half-old baby girl, that was wrong. There's your verdammt line."
A year and a half is your line, Robert?  Stay on topic, and please do not launch into another string of anti-capitalism; it jsut doesn't fit in here on a thread about abortion, even though you might think that it's the root of all evil in the US.

So sorry to hear about Carrie.  Thanks for the reminder, though about organ donation.  I'll ask the wife if hers is signed...mine is.


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 17, 2004)

What is the current legislation on the subject?




> The question was not "What do you thnk about abortion?" The question was about meeting in the middle on an issue that divides the country. The point of a compromise is not to make either side happy, but to make both sides, shall we say, content.


How do you feel that your proposition accomplishes the "compromise of making each side content"? I don't see it.


----------



## TonyM. (Oct 17, 2004)

I think abortion rights should be retroactive. Anyone want to call John or W's mom?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 17, 2004)

1. Glad to hear the rousing chorus of, "Every Sperm Is Sacred."

2. Wrote nothing about capitalism. Wrote about so-called, "pro-lifers," who see nothing wrong about taking life when they feel it's necessary, and have no apologies about killing baby girls provided they're enemy baby girls.

3. Always enjoy the attempt to define the argument in ways that guarantee one's own side wins. Nope, sorry, it is well within the parameters of the original topic of this thread to say that we already have a compromise...it's just a compromise that one side doesn't want to live with, a compromise that's endangered by a side that wants things all its own way. How do I know? Easy. When you describe the other side as, "pro-abortion," you give the game away. I realize this'll have no effect, but let's try: NOBODY IS PRO-ABORTION. They're pro-choice--you know, in favor of deciding for themselves only, so nobody gets to impose their beliefs on anybody else?

4. Always enjoy it when folks whose argument is religious and moral try to invent scientific reasons (he must be scientific! he said, "brain waves!!!") for their positions. No, brain waves schmain waves : we cannot measure when sentient life begins, or ends, except in science fiction. This is a good strong reason that we presently have the compromise that we have: Roe v. Wade basically rests on the idea that since this is fundamentally a religious decision, one side does not get to impose its religious beliefs on everybody else. Oh and incidentally: the Harvard Criteria for death, which rely on cessation of real EEG activity, together with the disappearance of spontaneous respiration and regular heartbeat/EKG activity, are primarily legal definitions.

5. I repeat: we already HAVE a compromise. Some men (and yes, I mean men) simply want things all their own way--particularly repugnant, since it means forcing women to do what you want them to do. The guff about "science," about, "four months vs. five months," etc., it's just a smokescreen. Come clean: you don't want any sort of compromise, you want it yer own way. Always the same--there there, little lady, lemme help you with these difficult choices...oh, by the way, make sure you get a job soon, because we damn sure aren't going to be offering you any actual help. 

6. If you REALLY want to limit abortion, quit being hasty, lazy and dictatorial. Work for social justice; work for decent education; work for improved living conditions. Hell, work for Planned Parenthood, and improve women's access to contraception, as well as throwing out that ridiculous, "abstinence-only," sex education requirements forced down educators' throats by dim-wit ideologues, and do something about our current Prez's ban on family planning help worldwide.

7. But no, right? Much easier to try and force one's religious beliefs down everybody's throats. Much easier to Taliban the whole thing...and it does avoid that messy social diversity thing altogether.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 17, 2004)

Some people think that abortion is the destruction of human life and object to it....I guess that does make them evil, control freak people that are thinking of nothing but themselves......

Personally Im "against" abortion but not quite to the extreme of mandating all abortion illegal or equating a bunch of cells to a fetus that is obviously human life. I do take exception to "demonizing" pro-life supporters. I find it strange that folks who are against what they believe is the killing of life are BAD. While other people who burn down laboratories because they kill animals in tests are GOOD.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 17, 2004)

And I find it strange that PETA would be dragged in to this topic, but wotthell...just FYI, I know of no case in which PETA types have bombed labs, or ambushed scientists....

If men--and it is primarily men--impose their beliefs on women, and they do so out of religious beliefs, what would you call it?


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 17, 2004)

Robert, your floccinaucinihilipilification with regard to the relevancy of men in directing this type of policy is quite in line with my belief.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Oct 17, 2004)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> Robert, your floccinaucinihilipilification with regard to the relevancy of men in directing this type of policy is quite in line with my belief.




Just like the word floccinaucinihilipilification itself


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 17, 2004)

Rich, I just found the word, and simply HAD to use it somewhere. :rofl:  Like it?


----------



## Phoenix44 (Oct 17, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Shouldnt there be a line drawn somewhere?


Who draws the line? You? Me?

In Jewish law, human life begins at birth, that is, at the time when the child is more than halfway emerged from the mother's body. In the Jewish tradition, the adult woman ALWAYS takes precedence over a fetus. Or is Christian law the only law that's appropriate?

For the purpose of a community standard, I think viability outside the mother is reasonable, probably around 23 weeks, unless the mother's life is at stake. I also believe that by 23 weeks, the mother should have a pretty good idea that she is pregnant, and that she wants the baby.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 17, 2004)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> Who draws the line? You? Me?
> 
> In Jewish law, human life begins at birth, that is, at the time when the child is more than halfway emerged from the mother's body. In the Jewish tradition, the adult woman ALWAYS takes precedence over a fetus. Or is Christian law the only law that's appropriate?
> 
> For the purpose of a community standard, I think viability outside the mother is reasonable, probably around 23 weeks, unless the mother's life is at stake. I also believe that by 23 weeks, the mother should have a pretty good idea that she is pregnant, and that she wants the baby.


OK...you drew a line. So where do we disagree? I didnt ask "who" should draw it. Only asking if there should be one.

btw: Are there no "pro-life" women out there...or are they all under the control of religious wacko men??


----------



## Tgace (Oct 17, 2004)

If a pregnant woman is murdered...should the baby's death (fetus...whatever) compound the crime (if the baby would have been viable)?


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 17, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> If a pregnant woman is murdered...should the baby's death (fetus...whatever) compound the crime (if the baby would have been viable)?


I don't think a 'Yes' or 'No' answer is acceptable to this question. It is possible to imagine that a woman's death may occur where the killer was unaware of the woman's pregnancy, in which case, the obvious answer is 'NO'. (I'm thinking the Washington DC sniper - gunshot to the head of a woman seated in a car).

Then, there is 'Scott Peterson', who, no doubt, knew, that when he ended the life of Laci Peterson (has that been proven to verdict yet?), was also ending the life of the fetus, and was intending his action to accomplish ending both the life of the person and the life of the fetus, in which case, the obvious answer is 'YES'.

And seldom will the lines be drawn so clearly as these two examples.

I think, however, this has little to do with what decision a woman makes in the company of her conciousness and her doctor.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 17, 2004)

Why would those 2 cases be "different"? Negligent homicide is a crime...as is intentional Murder. 

The legal lines get hazy here. How do you convict Peterson of the fetus' death without making some sort of legal ruling regarding the "status" of the fetus? Is it murder only if the mother wants the child?


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 17, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Why would those 2 cases be "different"? Negligent homicide is a crime...as is intentional Murder.
> 
> The legal lines get hazy here. How do you convict Peterson of the fetus' death without making some sort of legal ruling regarding the "status" of the fetus? Is it murder only if the mother wants the child?


In the event of a sniper killing a pregnant woman, without knowing the woman was pregnant, I don't believe you can justify a negligant homicide charge.

In a case similar to that brought against Scott Peterson, it seems his intention was to end the life of Laci, and to prevent the birth of a child.

Yes, the legal lines get hazy. That is because we are taking the decision away from the woman, aren't we?


----------



## Tgace (Oct 17, 2004)

Just to repeat...I guess Im kinda "middle of the road", leaning to the pro-life side. 
Im not against abortion in all cases and I am not for making it entirely illegal.

I just find the whole issue leaves a "bad taste", so to speak, because we are talking about intentionally ending life here, either a bunch of living cells or something that looks like human life....sometimes such things are necessary though, I just dont think it should be on the same level as having ones gall bladder removed.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 17, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Yes, the legal lines get hazy. That is because we are taking the decision away from the woman, aren't we?


I dont quite understand this statement in terms of legal prosecution. Are you saying the woman, if she survives a murder attack, should be able to decide if her attacker should face a murder charge in her baby's death?


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 17, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> I dont quite understand this statement in terms of legal prosecution. Are you saying the woman, if she survives a murder attack, should be able to decide if her attacker should face a murder charge in her baby's death?


No. I am saying the choice of terminating a pregnancy belongs to a woman, her belief system, and her doctor.

If a woman survives a murder attack, and the pregnancy is ended by the attackers intention or otherwise, charge the attacker for 'attempted murder'. If a finding a guilt is made by a jury, the woman should be able to make a statement before sentencing, which may, or may not, affect the sentence received for the crime.


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 17, 2004)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> For the purpose of a community standard, I think viability outside the mother is reasonable, probably around 23 weeks, unless the mother's life is at stake. I also believe that by 23 weeks, the mother should have a pretty good idea that she is pregnant, and that she wants the baby.


This is approximately my opinion as well.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 17, 2004)

I'd be curious to know exactly where you derive your authority, gentlemen, for deciding whether or not a woman has a child.

I'd also note that much of this talk is disingenuous. We already have a compromise; at least a couple of the folks on this thread pretty clearly see any further changes as a stage on the way to complete banning of safe, legal and rare abortion.

Oh yes. Since some of you are arguing that murderers should be prosecuted for taking an "unborn," (the language, incidentally, is the language of the anti-abortion movement) child's life, you are also arguing that either a) that child is to be classified as human because it is already possessed of a soul; b) that murderer took away a potential life.

If you believe that it's a matter of a, could you explain how you know this, and why everybody should have to go along with your religious beliefs; if you believe that it's b, then logically speaking, you also must believe that we should prosecute murderers of men for all the children that their victims might have had.

Have any of you guys ever worked in a newborn ICU? I have. You should try it; it might give you a whole new insight into this topic--get acquainted with them 500-600 gram preemies! do the support for a very damaged newborn with multiple brain bleeds, RDS, RLF, and organ failure, whose parents can look down the road to a desperate attempt to raise a severely damaged child! learn new words, like compound spiral fracture, which is what you'll be seeing in abused kids whose crazy parents had them without the slightest hope of raising them decently!!!

Funny how none of these threads, and none of the hot discourse on morality we get from the likes of Phyllis Schafly, ever seem to get all wrapped up in the question of the millions of immiserated kids we have, right now. In fact, these are the types who attack Head Start and similar programs, on the theory that they're anti-family. Huh. I'll be darned.

But oh boy, can't have them women making their own choices!

Try to be less lost in theory and highfalutin' abstractions, some of ya.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Oct 17, 2004)

As a possible referent for those interested, this is what my students learn in my Developmental Psychology class - different definitions of when "life" begins.  Thought some of you might find it interesting.  If not, please skip.

1) *metabolic view* - there is no one point at which life begins.  Sperm and egg are just as alive as any other organism

2) *genetic view* - a new individual is created at fertilization

3) *embryological view* - individuals are not created before day 12 of embyrogenesis (since identical twinning can occur in humans as late as day 12 postconception)

4) *neurological view* - development or loss of cerebral EEG pattern.  Acquisition in humans at 27 weeks, postconception.  

5) *ecological/technological view* - life exists separately from the maternal environment.  (right now - preemie can survive at about 25 weeks gestation (lung maturation))

6) *immunological view* - when organism recognizes the distinction between self and non-self (about the time of birth in humans)

7) *integrated physiological view* - life begins when child is independent of mother, with own functioning curculatory system, alimentary system, and respiratory system.  (about the time of birth in humans)


----------



## raedyn (Oct 17, 2004)

On compromise:
The fact remains there currently exists a compromise. It is not satisfactory to everyone, but it's a _compromise_. I don't believe there will ever be a middle ground that will satisfy everyone. There are, and will continue to be, over-zealous uncompromising it-must-be-my-way campaigners on either end of the spectrum.

On men having a say:
I understand why a man desires to have a voice in the fate of a pregnancy he helped create. But until he is the one that has to carry a child, give birth to it, and all that comes with mothering... he gets out-voted. You can't imagine the depth of committment this requires until you've been there. It re-shapes a woman's entire being, and I whole-heartedly and emphatically believe only that woman can decide for herself if she can go through that.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Oct 17, 2004)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> Rich, I just found the word, and simply HAD to use it somewhere. :rofl:  Like it?



I liked it, for I had to look it up  :rofl:


As to the discussion at hand, I like the data that Fiesty Mouse has presented.

As to males being able to discuss the issue, I have a real hard time with this. I agree that it is the right of the woman to choose. Yet, legally males are responible for the fetus after it is born, until it becomes a legal adult, both emotionally and financially. So, here is the paradox, women can decide to get pregnant, and then men are requried to be involved against their will or voluntarily. Yet, women can also decide to abort, and men are not allowed to give their opinion, either. If a single women decides to have a child she may. If a single male decideds then he must have the co-operation of a female, and still deal with legal issues of the child, and what was the reason for havng the child. I do not have a solution. I am not saying it should be fair. I am not complaining about it specifically. I am making comments about our society as I see it.

It is ok for a single woman to be involved with children, including volunteering and such. When a single male does it, he is put under investigation to try to understand why would he do such a thing? Is the male in question a child molester, as has been the case of some/many in the past? Fair? Ntt really, yet safer for the children, even though they may loose out on interactions of some. 

As to compromise, I am not sure how to define one. If one was to make a religious jump straight to law, then I would disagree, for there would be / are different points of views on different religions including those who do not have a religous belief. If people decide to ask questions and make points of views to try to persuade public opinion, to decide what is ethical, and then the people decide from this ethical discussions to make it law. Either through referendum, or through our elected officials.


----------



## Xequat (Oct 18, 2004)

Cool, this is getting good, now.  I proposed the idea to see what people thought and I'm starting to think it might not be a very good idea.  I heard the idea on the radio when a conservative and a liberal were talking about it and both seemed to think it was a pretty good idea.  What I haven't seen, however is a definition of the compromise that we supposedly have.  Two people have stated that we already have one, but have not pointed out how we have one.  To say that men control womne's reproductive rights has nothing to do with compromise, so please clarify that for me; maybe I'm just missing something.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 18, 2004)

Xequat said:
			
		

> I heard the idea on the radio when a conservative and a liberal were talking about it and both seemed to think it was a pretty good idea.


I'm curious about the radio program. Most conservative radio programs do not allow a 'liberal' voice. Was the 'liberal' voice a caller, on whom the 'conservative' could hang up whenever he chose? Most 'conservative' radio shows are 'non-guested confrontation' ... think about it.


----------



## loki09789 (Oct 18, 2004)

Who draws the line?

Well, for individual choice, we each do for ourselves(whether morally established by your freely chosen religious values or some other standard).  

For citizenry, we still influence the legal/legistative decisions by who we vote into or out of office.  

The practical, application of 'who/what/when...' goes beyond the philosophical stance but the legal/monetary use of taxes issues, what is to be done with the aborted fetus/life - as in stem cell research....

should abortion be acceptable/legalized/justified because the stem cell harvesting mean that you have made that death/abortion meaningful and useful?

I don't really think that I have the right as a citizen to tell another citizen what to do (and can't as long as they are not violating safety and such), but if I had to look a rape victim in the face with the money in my hand for her abortion and tell her "NO" I don't think I could.  Emotional AND Social reasons for that:  

1.  Her mental welfare AND the upbringing of a child concieved like that could be VERY dysfunctional and reduce the quality of life for both.  

2.  Perpetuating a genetic pool that demonstrates a predisposition for that kind of behavior is not something I am a fan of.

I think I/we should have the right to choose on this issue.  Personally, my choice is life over abortion (adopting out the child instead of keeping it if you don't want it).

I think life is precious and should not be taken or created casually.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 18, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> should abortion be acceptable/legalized/justified because the stem cell harvesting mean that you have made that death/abortion meaningful and useful?
> 
> ...but if I had to look a rape victim ...
> 
> 2. Perpetuating a genetic pool that demonstrates a predisposition for that kind of behavior is not something I am a fan of.


Paul, usually, you are very thoughtful, but I can not allow these two items to pass unchallenged.

The process of 'stem cell harvesting', as you describe it, does not require an aborted pregnancy. The blastocyst can be created in a petri dish, by combining a human sperm cell, with a human egg cell. This is done all the time in fertility proceedures. The fertilized eggs are then frozen for future use, if required. Often fertilized eggs are discarded, if not needed for further fertility treatments.

To think that there is a genetic pre-disposition to rape is something I think you are going to have to back up with some evidence.

Come'on ... you know better.

Mike


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Oct 18, 2004)

A few comments, although I am trying to remain cool and calm and collected, this is a very passionate topic for me....

1) Please note the "neurological view" above. Cerebral EEG pattern acquistion at 27 weeks, not 10 or 12, postconception. 

2) I am interested to hear everyone's views on abortion. I think the main distinction I try to make is what I believe for myself, and what I would impose on others. If I had an "accidental" pregnancy, I would not choose to have an abortion. For me, that is just not something I would choose. Other people, however, may be very different people, or in very different circumstances (i.e. young girl from an abusive household - how will she survive/raise the baby/get prenatal care/keep from getting kicked out of her home?) One friend I know went from a difficult home situation into a very very abusive marriage, because of an accidental pregnancy. 

3) Abortions are actually not that easy to come by right now. I have to find some data on it, but I think it's only like 14% of all counties (??) have facilities for abortions. I live in a town with a mix of liberals and conservatives, in a pretty conservative state. A friend of mine was asked to help a visiting student from China who had accidentally gotten pregnant, and who wanted to get an abortion. In China, the attitudes towards abortion is much different - and, I would say, too far in the other direction from the US. Anyways, this woman needed help because the closest place that could perform the technique she needed (I don't know if her health was in danger, or if this was a second-trimester abortion) was a 6 hour drive away. A young girl who is a victim of incest or rape and pregnant may not be able to get to a place where she can have an abortion, period. And I think that is a crime, too.

ETA: And snaps to michealedward for his comments above.  Stem cell harvesting does not require abortions, nor will stem cell research mae abortions "profitable".  No woman would want to put herself through that illness, anyways.  (Abortions don't "feel good"!)  And no one has demonstrated rape is genetically-determined.  However, I can *certainly* understand why a woman would not want to bear the child of her rapist.


----------



## loki09789 (Oct 18, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Paul, usually, you are very thoughtful, but I can not allow these two items to pass unchallenged.
> 
> The process of 'stem cell harvesting', as you describe it, does not require an aborted pregnancy. The blastocyst can be created in a petri dish, by combining a human sperm cell, with a human egg cell. This is done all the time in fertility proceedures. The fertilized eggs are then frozen for future use, if required. Often fertilized eggs are discarded, if not needed for further fertility treatments.
> 
> ...


Challenge away mickey.  No, I won't provide evidence of genetic predisposition.  If you disagree with it the 'burden of proof' to discredit it is on you if you disagree with that issue - but it is a tangent that probably deserves its own thread if you do.

I don't feel like rifling through my old MP days/self defense research material in order to distract from the topic of abortion.

No, abortion is not a requirement for the process per se, BUT given the current trend of abortion/stem cell research mentioned in election debates and before, the two topics are being linked politically/scientifically as a rationale for moralizing abortion to those are sitting on the fence...

I was making an observation about WHAT people are saying/doing around the issue of abortion not a scientific analysis of the process involved.


----------



## loki09789 (Oct 18, 2004)

Xequat said:
			
		

> I've mentioned this idea briefly in another thread, but I'd like opinions from both sides on how to fix the abortion disagreement.
> 
> Currently, the law says that someone is dead when their brain waves stop; not when their heart or lungs or anything else stops, but when their brain waves stop. So why not say that when the brain waves start, human life legally begins? Conservatives say it happens at 8 weeks; liberals have said 12, so let's call it 10 and be done with it. Personally, I am not in favor of abortion; I think it devalues human life, but I am willing to compromise the idea without compromising my principles. But until it has brain waves, maybe we should consider it as something other than alive and allow the woman to decide. Once the child has brain waves, however, I think it's up to us to protect it. It's always been an issue of woman's rights versus child's rights, as I see it, so let's get consistent with the law, which will take the morality out of it and make it a legal, constitutional issue.
> 
> What do you think?


If the law is going to specify a 'human' definition to life in the womb, it is going to be for legal purposes. That does not mean that I have to agree with it, but it does mean that if I do something stupid (DWI, manslaughter/murder, assault) that leads to the injury/death of an unborn child after the 'brain wave definition' is passed that does mean that I am subject to the legal definition and can be charged for the injury/death to that child. I believe there is already a legal precedence set about that involving a football player/athlete that conspired to murder his pregnant girlfriend. Not totally sure though.

If you were to impose/support a law that makes abortion 'illegal' what would that do to the psych damage of a person who was pregnant because of incest, rape?  Or if the child was clearly going to be diabled to the point of dieing during or shortly after birth (I don't mean 'well there is always the chance' type of disability - I mean missing life sustaining organ function type of things)?  If they already feel bad enough about the predicament, isn't it more 'civil abuse/socially imposed morallity' that will add to the already existing guilt/trauma/grief of the issue?

Sorry for the back to back posts, hot button topic.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 18, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> To think that there is a genetic pre-disposition to rape is something I think you are going to have to back up with some evidence.
> 
> Come'on ... you know better.
> 
> Mike


Actually, the idea that there is a genetic disposition to rape has been a topic for a while. There is much debate over the topic, but it does have some support from some in the scientific community.

http://www.ishipress.com/rapeevol.htm
http://www.freeessays.cc/db/44/smu50.shtml
http://www.douglas.bc.ca/psychd/courses/Con%20Rea/Reading%20Assignment%203.htm
http://www.rednova.com/news/stories/2/2004/03/30/story105.html


----------



## Lisa (Oct 18, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Or if the child was clearly going to be diabled to the point of dieing during or shortly after birth (I don't mean 'well there is always the chance' type of disability - I mean missing life sustaining organ function type of things)? If they already feel bad enough about the predicament, isn't it more 'civil abuse/socially imposed morallity' that will add to the already existing guilt/trauma/grief of the issue?


A girlfriend of mine was pregnant at the same time I was with my first child. At about 5 months gestation the doctor's discovered that the fetus had no brain, just a hypothalmus (please forgive me if I am not exact, it was about 15 years ago). Anyways, the doctor's were surprised that the fetus had not aborted itself earlier in the pregnancy, which is often the case when there is something "wrong" the body sometimes takes care of that on its own. My girlfriend of course of devastated and the doctor's gave her a choice. Since the child had no chance of living after birth they would induce labour early. I watched her go through hell making that decision. Does she wait and go full term just to have the child die anyway or does she induce labor and essential terminate the pregnancy. She chose to terminate. She had other children at home to think about and consider the effect on them of going full term and then having to explain to them what happened and also she felt she could not "put on a happy face" for the next 16 weeks knowing what the end would bring. She would rather start dealing with the inevitible and start the healing process for herself and her family. Knowing how this effected her, her relationship with those around her and family I shudder to think what would have happened if she had not been given the opportunity to do what she did.


----------



## raedyn (Oct 18, 2004)

It's my understanding that when a woman gets an abortion in (this part of) Canada, part of the release she signs says that she agrees to the use of what they collect in research - including stem cell research. I'm not sure what happens if the woman has an issue with that, but still wants the abortion.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 18, 2004)

An illustration of why Im not "anti-abortion" to the extreme. Life presents too many variables to be "all or nothing".


----------



## loki09789 (Oct 18, 2004)

Nalia said:
			
		

> A girlfriend of mine was pregnant at the same time I was with my first child. At about 5 months gestation the doctor's discovered that the fetus had no brain, just a hypothalmus (please forgive me if I am not exact, it was about 15 years ago). Anyways, the doctor's were surprised that the fetus had not aborted itself earlier in the pregnancy, which is often the case when there is something "wrong" the body sometimes takes care of that on its own. My girlfriend of course of devastated and the doctor's gave her a choice. Since the child had no chance of living after birth they would induce labour early. I watched her go through hell making that decision. Does she wait and go full term just to have the child die anyway or does she induce labor and essential terminate the pregnancy. She chose to terminate. She had other children at home to think about and consider the effect on them of going full term and then having to explain to them what happened and also she felt she could not "put on a happy face" for the next 16 weeks knowing what the end would bring. She would rather start dealing with the inevitible and start the healing process for herself and her family. Knowing how this effected her, her relationship with those around her and family I shudder to think what would have happened if she had not been given the opportunity to do what she did.


That is a horrible position to be in, I know it is long after the fact, but I sympathise (though, honestly can't empathize). Think about how compounded her emotional trauma would be if it were not only socially 'wrong to kill' but considered 'illegal' by the standards of American society (even if her circumstance was an exception) for her or her doctor to take action given the circumstances.

One of the 'big issues' that I think should be developed in martial arts training (since this is a MT site ) is a clear personal understanding of the responsibility one has when they have the power to take or perserve life - which every person has even if they don't take martial arts. 

Train responsibly/intensely/accurately to ensure that you don't 'use your powers for ill/irresponsibly.' In cases like this or other abortion/life ending situations, the importance isn't that we do the 'black or white' moralizing but that we make sure we make responsible decisions about these situations by weighing out all the options and reasons and then COMMITTING to a decision.

It is interesting to me how many 'it depends on the situation' comments will come up in a 'use of force' discussion but when it comes to abortion absolutes run the roost. Change the gun to a vacuum machine and it is the same thing.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 18, 2004)

Our present compromise--as I've explained twice--is this: the government takes a, "hands off," approach (as it should), and nobody is allowed to either a) require anybody to have an abortion, or b) require anybody to carry to term an unwanted pregnancy. If you'll look at the history of reproductive rights in this country, this is a compromise among a) the government's history of such interventions, b) religious groups' history of dictating; c) the fact that  reproductive services have been extremely hard to come by for most Americans.

Incidentally, the Court of Roe v. Wade was a conservative Court, not dominated by liberals.

Missing this point repeatedly, and claiming that such arguments are off-topic, are good signs of underlying belief systems that admit of no compromise. Similarly, invoking science and then refusing to consider that the science appears to allow for late-term abortion has a symptomatic look to it.

I might add that it is often instructive to look at the constellation of ideas and images that appear together in a discussion, rather than simply attending to the overt statements and stories. As in dreams, always pay attention to the way that certain ideas--like rape, abortion, pseudo-science, in this case--are glued together in a discursive structure.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 18, 2004)

I would agree that there should be no legal repercussions for abortions. The issue is far too 'gray' (who knows when life starts?) to form legislation around it.

I disagree with abortions post-5 months, but honestly?? Its her (and the doctor's) decision. Not mine.

Of course... I also disagree with moral arguments centered around ideas like "well, if you don't agree with me, then there _must be_ something inherently, fundamentally, clearly wrong with you" --- whether that be you're a bigot or you're projecting or you're caught up in capitalist ideology or you're just uneducated. The "if you don't believe this, then I'm better than you" arguments just leave a bad taste in my mouth...

.... especially since, as sweeping generalizations, they have absolutley no logical or empirical basis whatsoever.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 18, 2004)

How about 3 days prior to the due date (minus some pressing medical reason) ???

At some point I do believe it becomes "wrong"......


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Oct 18, 2004)

Is this a hypothetical question?  I think it's impossible to get a third-trimester abortion in this country now without demonstrating risk of health to mother or fetus - or that the fetus will die soon after birth.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 18, 2004)

Yeah its a "where do you draw the line" question....some folks wont even commit to saying that killing a baby 1 hour prior to birth is wrong. If there is going to be a "line" where is it?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 18, 2004)

How 'bout the vaunted "line," is that you and I don't get to step across the line that separates us from the woman involved, her doctors, her beliefs, her family?

Again, it is useful to note that one's formulation of the question is often revealing. Here, the word, "baby," allows access to the underlying ideology.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Oct 18, 2004)

Well, I tend to prefer some of the definitions I posted a little ways back - but it's a personal preference.  

I don't know of anyone who is pro-choice and would say something like "3 days before due date is OK" or anything like that, to seek out an abortion.

I think one of the things that plays into this issue is that it is often such a delicate/taboo topic, that women (esp. young women, who may be terrified of what is happening) don't have access to walk into a women's clinic, get a pregnancy test, and be able to get a "morning after" pill or what have you.  

I believe in France there are incredibly few abortions - and you may not be able to get one in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters at all.  But you can walk into a clinic, get tested if you think you might have gotten pregnant, and get the morning-after pill to take.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 18, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> How 'bout the vaunted "line," is that you and I don't get to step across the line that separates us from the woman involved, her doctors, her beliefs, her family?
> 
> Again, it is useful to note that one's formulation of the question is often revealing. Here, the word, "baby," allows access to the underlying ideology.


So if a woman chooses to abort her "Fetus" (happy?) on her due date for no other reason than changing her mind thats OK? If thats what you believe fine...at least make a clear stand. Its just not what I believe to be right.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 18, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> Well, I tend to prefer some of the definitions I posted a little ways back - but it's a personal preference.
> 
> I don't know of anyone who is pro-choice and would say something like "3 days before due date is OK" or anything like that, to seek out an abortion.
> 
> ...


Very good points...Im just trying to determine what "pro-choice" people think about where the "too late" (again minus medical reasons) point is. Seems like there is no consensus....


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Oct 18, 2004)

I don't think there is one consensus - in part because being pro-choice is about what I think the government should give and limit women who are pregnant and thinking about terminating their pregnacy, for whatever reason. My own personal beliefs are separate for that - what would I do, myself, is pretty different than what I think should be *allowed* for other women, if they so choose it. 

(I think I tend towards the #4-6 in the list I made earlier.)

I am strongly pro-choice in part because back-alley abortions kill and sterilize women. One of my friend's relatives almost died from her back-alley abortion years (decades) ago - luckily her brother and his friends were medical students, and sewed her up and saved her life. It's a horrible, horrible thing I would not wish on anyone. 

If a woman's pregnancy is so terrible (i.e. rape, incest victims), she should be allowed to deal with it as she sees fit - the earlier, the better. We should not deny women medical care.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 18, 2004)

Again...and if that decision is made late...say days before the due date (theoretically), that should be "legal"?..lets remove the right/wrong label, and individual choice. Should late term abortion (minus medical reasons) be legal?


----------



## raedyn (Oct 18, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Again, it is useful to note that one's formulation of the question is often revealing. Here, the word, "baby," allows access to the underlying ideology.


And I've struggled with what words to use for precisely that reason. There aren't terms that don't come loaded with connotation. I'm not totally comfortable with any of the choices for words.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 18, 2004)

raedyn said:
			
		

> And I've struggled with what words to use for precisely that reason. There aren't terms that don't come loaded with connotation. I'm not totally comfortable with any of the choices for words.


Its just another cheap way to polarize people. 

You said BABY!! I knew it, youre a fundamentalist, anti-choice religious wacko who wants to control women and make them go back to back alley abortions! You said BABY there it is!! 

Sheeesh.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 18, 2004)

> I am strongly pro-choice in part because back-alley abortions kill and sterilize women. One of my friend's relatives almost died from her back-alley abortion years (decades) ago - luckily her brother and his friends were medical students, and sewed her up and saved her life. It's a horrible, horrible thing I would not wish on anyone.



This I most definately agree with.  :asian: 

I consider myself a moderate/centrist, but lean more towards pro-choice. 

Personally, my view of the 'sanctity' (if you want to call it that) is based clearly upon the relative presence of sentience and consciousness. This is my view concerning 'moral vegetarianism', as well.

Guess that makes it 27 weeks for me.  :idunno:


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Oct 18, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Its just another cheap way to polarize people.
> 
> You said BABY!! I knew it, youre a fundamentalist, anti-choice religious wacko who wants to control women and make them go back to back alley abortions! You said BABY there it is!!
> 
> Sheeesh.


I don't think so.  

Technical definitions:

fertilization to 2 weeks - zygote
2 weeks (post-fert) to 8 weeks - embryo
8 weeks to birth - fetus

After birth - baby/infant/neonate.

When someone tells a pregnant woman considering an abortion that they are a "baby-murderer", the use of words is powerful and deliberate.  We all know what babies look like, what they are, and how we are supposed to feel about them.  Likewise for murder.

Saing "you want to abort your second-trimester fetus" is more technically correct, but lacks the visceral punch of the first comment.


----------



## raedyn (Oct 18, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> So if a woman chooses to abort her "Fetus" (happy?) on her due date for no other reason than changing her mind thats OK? If thats what you believe fine...at least make a clear stand. Its just not what I believe to be right.


No doctor will abort a fetus on the due date. First, because it's illegal. If a woman "changed her mind" at that late date, she never had her mind made up in the first place. She would be steered towards the adoption option, I'm sure.


----------



## raedyn (Oct 18, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> When someone tells a pregnant woman considering an abortion that they are a "baby-murderer", the use of words is powerful and deliberate.


Yes yes and yes.

The people using those words believe that to be exactly what abortion is. And so that is why they feel so strongly. Because they can only see 'baby murder' and not the rest of the picture. Some even deny that there is more to the picture. 

There are, of course, women who only see the 'baby murder' and who could never even entertain the thought of an abortion. That is their choice. But for other women who might consider abortion - even if they never have one - there is a bigger picture. Deciding to have a baby is a major committment and will affect every facet of your life, so there is a lot to consider. But equally, for most women having an abortion is a major, difficult, and life-altering choice.


When I became pregnant unexpectedly 3 years ago, I was panicked at first. I was young, not wealthy, in a new relationship, it was unplanned.... I struggled with it for a while. I chose to carry the pregnancy to term and have that baby. And I'm glad I did. For me, it was the right choice.

But it was important that I had the choice. If I had been forced to continue with the pregnancy with no other option, I may have struggled with it and been depressed for much longer, and I believe that would have been detrimental to both me and to the development of my child. Instead, I decided that I wanted to be pregnant, I committed joyfully to it, and it was very positive for me and my fiance and we now have a terrific, healthy beautiful daughter. In a different situation, I don't know if I would have made the same choice. I can't know until I'm there.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 18, 2004)

Still no answer to the late term abortion question.... 

I believe its because people find the idea distasteful but hesitate to say so because then you have to start moving back to deciding at what point "late term" begins. Some groups will want to push it back to complete illegalization, which I disagree with. But I think there is a valid need to determine where the line should be.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 18, 2004)

raedyn said:
			
		

> No doctor will abort a fetus on the due date. First, because it's illegal. If a woman "changed her mind" at that late date, she never had her mind made up in the first place. She would be steered towards the adoption option, I'm sure.


Its a theoretical question....if its not a "baby" until birth, why not?


----------



## raedyn (Oct 18, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> I believe its because people find the idea distasteful but hesitate to say so because then you have to start moving back to deciding at what point "late term" begins. Some groups will want to push it back to complete illegalization


I have exactly the problem you describe. I find the idea of 3 days before due date horrible, but I'm incredibly hesitant to start putting my version of morality on someone else; mostly for fear of having someone try and do same to me. I don't imagine I'm the only one who feels this way.



> I think there is a valid need to determine where the line should be.


There currently is a line set in the law. Is it the right line? I don't pretend to know. Can you answer your own question?  Where do you think the line should be?


----------



## Tgace (Oct 18, 2004)

raedyn said:
			
		

> Can you answer your own question? Where do you think the line should be?


Personally. Right around the first trimester mark. However this whole issue of brain activity is new to me and I am not certain how/if that will alter my personal viewpoint.




> I find the idea of 3 days before due date horrible, but I'm incredibly hesitant to start putting my version of morality on someone else


Ultimately, isnt that what "law making" is about? We try to come to some common agreement of whats right and wrong and allow some activity and disallow others?


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Oct 18, 2004)

Personally, if I were to choose... I'd leave it up to the mother and her doctor, with strong recommendations to have an abortion before the third trimester, ideally in the first 2 weeks, before implantation.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 18, 2004)

So...is everybody pretty much saying that abortion should be "legal" right up to birth? Again Im not asking for right/wrong philosophizing, or statements about what is or isnt currently allowed, no "medical emergency" rationale either. From a pure "choice perspective" should it be "legal"?


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 18, 2004)

I think currently, the legal line is drawn at 'viability', the point where the fetus is able to live seperate from the mother, "albeit with artificial support".

Tangent warning:

During the 3rd presidential debate, President Bush mentioned the 'Dred Scott' ruling from the Supreme Court as a guideline for selecting potential Supreme Court Justices. At the time, I did not recall the specifics of the 'Dred Scott' case (I am ashamed to say).

Let's recall that the Dred Scott decision stated that the United States Government did *not* have the authority to prohibit slavery in its territories.

Yes folks - GEORGE BUSH FAVORS SLAVERY!

Well, not actually ... according to this article from the Nation, President Bush was really speaking about Supreme Court decisions that denied rights to an entire group; Dred Scott denied rights to those of African descent, Roe V Wade denied rights to fetus.



			
				excerpt from The Nation said:
			
		

> Anti-choicers, who often compare themselves to abolitionists, have referenced _Dred Scott_ virtually since _Roe_ was decided. A Google search of "Dred Scott abortion [_minus_] paperwight" turned up 3,960 hits. Both decisions, they argue, denied citizenship, human rights and legal protection to a class of human beings wrongly characterized as property; both forbade legislators from correcting this injustice; both show the need to overturn immoral precedents, _stare decisis_ be damned. That he was thinking about _Roe _explains Bush's odd characterization of _Dred Scott_ as "personal opinion," which got him tangled up when he belatedly realized that--whoops--the Constitution didn't grant "equality to all"; it permitted slavery. "Personal opinion" is what anti-choicers think _Roe_ is. "Strict construction" means overturning it.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Oct 18, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> So...is everybody pretty much saying that abortion should be "legal" right up to birth? Again Im not asking for right/wrong philosophizing, or statements about what is or isnt currently allowed, no "medical emergency" rationale either. From a pure "choice perspective" should it be "legal"?



Let me get this straight... you want people's opinions on abortion, an emotional topic wrapped in moral, scientific, religious, and personal judgment, _without_ reference to right or wrong?  

Good luck with all that.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 18, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Let me get this straight... you want people's opinions on abortion, an emotional topic wrapped in moral, scientific, religious, and personal judgment, _without_ reference to right or wrong?
> 
> Good luck with all that.


At this point Im just trying to see if anybody will make a stand on the matter without qualifying it with a "I dont want to impose my morality..." or a "...but it should be between the woman and her doctor." 

Obviously there is a visceral reaction to the thought but a hesitation to just state your opinion for fear of seeming "anti-choice". 

Personally Im not rabidly anti-abortion but I do believe late term abortion (past viability at least) is wrong and should be illegal minus a pressing medical reason. I guess I am imposing my morality there but there it is. Its what I believe.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 18, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> At this point Im just trying to see if anybody will make a stand on the matter without qualifying it with a "I dont want to impose my morality..." or a "...but it should be between the woman and her doctor."
> 
> Obviously there is a visceral reaction to the thought but a hesitation to just state your opinion for fear of seeming "anti-choice".
> 
> Personally Im not rabidly anti-abortion but I do believe late term abortion (past viability at least) is wrong and should be illegal minus a pressing medical reason. I guess I am imposing my morality there but there it is. Its what I believe.


As I am never going to get pregnant, so I really don't understand why *my* opinion matters. If a woman decides, for *whatever* reason, that the best choice is to terminate her pregnancy, and she can find a doctor willing to do so, I believe that should be her right (even post viability, which today is against the law, as I read Roe v. Wade). 

Of course, that may be why it is getting for OB-GYN's to practice their 'love' with their patience, is because if the anti-choice crowd has some wingnuts who shoot guns at them.

I believe I have taken this stand throughout this thread. There is no 'BUT' in my opinion. Please see post #4.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> I think that any woman can come to an appropriate decision on this subject based on her beliefs. What occurs between a woman and her doctor is none of my business.


Or, please see this post. (#34 in this thread)



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> No. I am saying the choice of terminating a pregnancy belongs to a woman, her belief system, and her doctor.


And then there is also this part of post #29 of this thread.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> I think, however, this has little to do with what decision a woman makes in the company of her conciousness and her doctor.


My two cents. Mike


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Oct 19, 2004)

I personally want to have an answer as to what the difference is between a newborn and a fetus, regarding moral equivalency, because I believe in a woman's right to choose, if to a point, but I need a reason to believe it.  

The question about when a fetus becomes human is a relevent one.  That question is the reason some don't think that it's only between a woman and her doctor.  If a fetus is shown to be just as human as a guy on the street, then there is an interest in preserving them.  When some guy shoots another guy on the street, it's not really any of my business, right?  I had nothing to do with them, correct?


----------



## Melissa426 (Oct 19, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Of course, that may be why it is getting for OB-GYN's to practice their 'love' with their patience, is because if the anti-choice crowd has some wingnuts who shoot guns at them.


 

Whaaat? Can you clarify or explain what that you meant by that?  I think  I agree with it, if  I am interpreting it correctly, but just want to double check! 

 

Peace, 
Melissa


----------



## loki09789 (Oct 19, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> As I am never going to get pregnant, so I really don't understand why *my* opinion matters. If a woman decides, for *whatever* reason, that the best choice is to terminate her pregnancy, and she can find a doctor willing to do so, I believe that should be her right (even post viability, which today is against the law, as I read Roe v. Wade).
> 
> My two cents. Mike


No, neither of us will get pregnant, BUT our tax dollars will be partially used for abortion procedures for some who are using state funded medical coverage and such, you/your health insurance carrier will be paying the medical community rates that are partially based on the risk/liability/'cost' that the medical community puts on procedures like abortions....imagine how expensive it would be if it was 'illegal' and therefore a very administratively scrutinized procedure....chaching!  Plus, since most of the medical procedure stuff now comes prepackaged (Appendectomy in a bag with a basic set of sterilized and sealed tools, gauze,....), the cost of such a specialized and infrequently used package would be very high to compensate for the cost of production.  All trickling down to the rest of us -whether we are capable of pregnancy or not.

The other thing to consider is that your opinion matters because this isn't just an abortion issue (as so many who love politically charged discussions are fond of saying) - it is a constitutional/precedence issue.  This issue is about 'civil liberties' and 'legal identity' establishment.  When does a person become a person to be protected by the law?

To answer Tom's clear question clearly:

Yes, I think abortion should be legal and 'normally' done within the first trimester (which I think is the standard already).  two days before and such are really ugly to think about but should/already considered and done based on the individual situation/risk involved as far as I know.

The 'brain wave' thing doesn't really affect me as much as MWard's point about survival 'outside of the mother's help' like premmies and such.

Again, ultimately, the same guidelines that dictate state use of force/deadly force policies can be translated to this topic because you are ultimately 'dealing in death' in both cases.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 19, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Of course, that may be why it is getting for OB-GYN's to practice their 'love' with their patience, is because if the anti-choice crowd has some wingnuts who shoot guns at them.





			
				Melissa426 said:
			
		

> Whaaat? Can you clarify or explain what that you meant by that? I think I agree with it, if I am interpreting it correctly, but just want to double check!


President Bush recently said, "We've got an issue in America. Too many good docs are getting out of business. Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country."

http://www.chewygravy.com/blog/mirror/ob-love.mov

Now, of course, the President was making this case as an indictment against 'frivolous' lawsuits, which, in turn, cause insurers to raise malpractice rates to the point that doctors economically determine it is not feasible to continue practicing medicine (I heard an interesting report that most new medical students are choosing to be specialists so they can maximize their income, and minimize their time commitments - good for them, bad for us - fewer GPs out there).

Anyhow, I was making a comment on a completely different tangent, that perhaps some OB-GYN's are getting out of practicing medicine because the nut-case wing of the anti-choice crowd occassionally fire weapons at them because they choose to perform abortions.

Mike


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 19, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> ...  BUT our tax dollars will be partially used for abortion procedures for some who are using state funded medical coverage and such, you/your health insurance carrier will be paying the medical community rates that are partially based on the risk/liability/'cost' that the medical community puts on procedures like abortions....imagine how expensive it would be if it was 'illegal' and therefore a very administratively scrutinized procedure....chaching! Plus, since most of the medical procedure stuff now comes prepackaged (Appendectomy in a bag with a basic set of sterilized and sealed tools, gauze,....), the cost of such a specialized and infrequently used package would be very high to compensate for the cost of production. All trickling down to the rest of us


The tax dollar argument is interesting. I think I mentioned that concerning the debate question from St. Louis. I am morally opposed the war in Iraq, yet I would not expect to demand of our government that my tax dollars be withheld from that endeavor. The anti-choice crowd makes this argument often.

Concerning costs for any medical activities, competition does not seem to be having the market effect so many wish for. Competition is supposed to drive costs down, yet that isn't happening. A single payer program would be able to apply pressure on medical providers to control costs. At that point, efficiencies in producing 'prepackaged tools' would manifest themselves easily enough, I think.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Oct 19, 2004)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> I personally want to have an answer as to what the difference is between a newborn and a fetus, regarding moral equivalency, because I believe in a woman's right to choose, if to a point, but I need a reason to believe it.
> 
> The question about when a fetus becomes human is a relevent one. That question is the reason some don't think that it's only between a woman and her doctor. If a fetus is shown to be just as human as a guy on the street, then there is an interest in preserving them. When some guy shoots another guy on the street, it's not really any of my business, right? I had nothing to do with them, correct?


Technically, the fetus becomes an infant once it leaves the mother's body.  A preemie can survive at roughly 25-27 weeks post-fertilization, due to the lung development that has occured.  Until the lungs have developed enough, the preemie will not survive - and even then, only with serious neonatal ICU might a preemie make it.

The worry with preemies is that low-birthweight babies (also full-term babies from moms who smoke heavily during pregnancy, etc.) have increased health problems for many years down the road.  We want to make sure the bun stays in the oven until the due date.  So preemies may be able to live outside of mom with extensive care, but do not do so well.


----------



## Melissa426 (Oct 19, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> President Bush recently said, "We've got an issue in America. Too many good docs are getting out of business. Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country."
> 
> 
> Anyhow, I was making a comment on a completely different tangent, that perhaps some OB-GYN's are getting out of practicing medicine because the nut-case wing of the anti-choice crowd occassionally fire weapons at them because they choose to perform abortions.
> ...


 

OK, thanks for clarifying. President Bush's quote is hilarious. 

I wonder how many, if any, OB/gyns have quit practicing medicine completely because of fear of being shot.  I am not sure if such a study has even been done.

Maybe it different  in bigger cities, but I live in a fairly rural part of the midwest and very very few Ob/Gyns around here even do abortions. If someone wants an abortion, probably have to travel  at least 1-2 hours to a clinic.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Oct 19, 2004)

Feisty, As usual, sensible, clearly-stated definitions to back up your statements, and a calm approach to a very volatile and personal topic. 

A few comments:
1) Not all ob/gyns will do abortions. Mine doesn't, and she'll tell you she doesn't because she personally doesn't believe in it. That's not to say that she doesn't refer her patients to someone who _will_ perform abortions, which are done at a clinic which has a permanent pro-life picket line in place. She warns every woman she refers there about that, and also offers information on adoption. That's why she's been my doc for the past 20. Smart woman, well-informed, and not ashamed to state where she's at.
2) Glad to see you boys are in agreement that you couldn't possibly know what a woman goes through during a pregnancy - wanted or not.
3) Stem cell research is vital - and since it doesn't interfere with 'life', as was stated above (thank you, Feisty and others), it should proceed. How many other lives will be saved or bettered by it? Parkinson's, _diabetes_, and other diseases could be _cured_.
4) The decision is between a woman and her doc. Period. Not for public debate, legislation, condemnation, deliberation, or anything else. She will have to live with that decision for the rest of her life, and if abortion is chosen, living with the thought of killing her child, of what could have been is infinitely more painful than the act itself. How can you possibly get inside someone else's head?
5) Carrying a dangerous pregnancy to term and risking the life of the mother? Absolutely not, in my opinion. One life instead of two.
6) Being raped is one of the most awful experiences a woman can suffer. Compound it by forcing her to keep a child conceived by rape? Unthinkable.

Robertson, you softie you. Just when we think you're a curmudgeon... you're really a woman's rights supporter. Who'dathunkit? (Me - I knew it all along.)


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 19, 2004)

Yeah--I've been this way for a long time, but I once saw some of the Guerilla Girls...in response to an earnest young man's asking, "What...what can we men do to help women," they snapped, "You can get the hell out of our way."

Good for them.

As for the "tax dollars," argument, well, my tax dollars go to support a lot of crap with which I don't agree--not least of which is our current pretty little war in Iraq, where we damn sure are killing innocent kids...oh wait, I forgot, it's just "collateral damage," no harm intended. 

Welcome to democratic society, where nobody should get everything that they want.


----------



## GAB (Oct 19, 2004)

Hi, 

A very intelligent person wrote me the other day, "I was going to post but you already said what I was going to say", so with that said, I will just add this...

If Robert, KT and Feisty agree on this, how can I not, especially after reading the posts?  

Yes KT, the word unthinkable is appropriate, think of all the women who have gone through that very thing, for hundreds of generations.

The right Choice is not only for the women but for eveyone to think about regarding the next president.

The choice is yours, only you and the vote ballot, hope you make the right one.

Regards, Gary


----------



## bignick (Oct 19, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> At this point Im just trying to see if anybody will make a stand on the matter without qualifying it with a "I dont want to impose my morality..." or a "...but it should be between the woman and her doctor."
> 
> Obviously there is a visceral reaction to the thought but a hesitation to just state your opinion for fear of seeming "anti-choice".


It's kind of hard to get a statement about things like this without qualifiers. If you want my opinion or my beliefs...I feel that in most cases abortion is wrong. 

But you're still going to get those qualifiers, because my beliefs have absolutely no weight in this argument since, like others have said, I'll never be pregnant and be put in a situation where I would have to choose. 

Again, more of my personal beliefs, no matter what you call an unborn child...be it zygote, embryo, fetus, or baby...the fact of the matter is that in today's world, with modern medical care most likely, the pregnancy will be carried out to term and there will be a brand new little person in the world because of it. I have no problems with birth control or other methods of preventing pregnancy...

My mom was pregnant with me at 20...my grandma gave birth to my uncle when she was 15 and my mom not too long after that...both situations where there would be a good chance of abortion today...and if either of them would have decided to take that road, bignick wouldn't be here today...

There are exceptions for me...as others have said pregnancy due to rape or if the mother's life is in danger (I guess using the word mother is prejudice because to be a mother you need a "baby") ....

In my head, theoretically, even the medical complications that endanger a woman's life are still a gray area...because to me it says that your life is more important than the life of the child...but, in reality, if my wife or girlfriend were pregnant and the doctor said that if you carry this pregnancy out, there is a good chance you will die....you better believe I wouldn't even think twice about her getting an abortion because her life would be more important to me than the child...

Like Tgace said, people try really hard to avoid labels like Pro-abortion, Anti-Choice. Am I against abortion? Yes, my beliefs say that it is wrong to take the life another human being and to me there is a very fine line between taking and merely preventing the life to be fully realized...where should that line be drawn...I have no idea. At the same time, am I pro-choice? Yes, because like others have said...I have no right to impose my beliefs upon others and personal beliefs can change, down the road something could change my perspective...I hold by my beliefs, but if I realize something needs to change it does, because that's where I feel things go wrong, when things get "set in stone" and people are unwilling to change, compromise, or even discuss the matter...I do plenty of things against other peoples beliefs...I work on sunday, I practice martial arts(which means I'm going to hell, by the way, if you missed that thread), I eat pork products (which if you read the Bible, is supposed to be against my beliefs too)...

I have muslim friends and I'll sit with them and eat a bacon cheeseburger and will they jump and beat me down because what I'm doing is against their beliefs, of course not....because, like me, they realize not everyone has the same beliefs as they do and the are willing to accept that...if I asked them about it, they would explain to me why they think it's wrong and that would be the end of it...discussion can be healthy....but they know they aren't going to convert me to Islam and I won't convert them to Christianity...so there is no real reason to discuss it further....the same goes for abortion in my case......words on the internet won't change my views...but I don't expect my words to change yours either...


----------



## loki09789 (Oct 19, 2004)

bignick said:
			
		

> I'll never be pregnant and be put in a situation where I would have to choose.
> 
> ..


Yes, and the chances of any of us being President or a military leader or a cop or a teacher or born of some other ethinicity/nationality.... or what ever are slim to none too but we seem to feel free to spout opinions about those things....

This is a lame excuse when I see it.  I might not have the same quality or perspective of opinion, but I do have every right to an opinion on this issue.


----------



## bignick (Oct 19, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Yes, and the chances of any of us being President or a military leader or a cop or a teacher or born of some other ethinicity/nationality.... or what ever are slim to none too but we seem to feel free to spout opinions about those things....
> 
> This is a lame excuse when I see it. I might not have the same quality or perspective of opinion, but I do have every right to an opinion on this issue.


I never said someone wasn't entitled to an opinion...

I don't comment on any of those situations...for the same reason I refrained from posting in this thread for such a long time, I've been lurking here since the thread started...but Tgace kept asking for opinions...so I finally gave mine...


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 19, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> I might not have the same quality or perspective of opinion, but I do have every right to an opinion on this issue.


Hey Paul, I think we can disagree on this one without having to polarize our otherwise decent MT relationship here.

I honestly think that the only time your opinion ought matter on this topic should be when some of your DNA is involved; at that point even, as an advisor, not a chooser.

For it is my opinion that were we discussing my DNA, I would not put particular relevance on the opinion of anyone else but my wife's.  I expect you would feel the same, when it came to crunch time.


----------



## loki09789 (Oct 19, 2004)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> Hey Paul, I think we can disagree on this one without having to polarize our otherwise decent MT relationship here.
> 
> I honestly think that the only time your opinion ought matter on this topic should be when some of your DNA is involved; at that point even, as an advisor, not a chooser.
> 
> For it is my opinion that were we discussing my DNA, I would not put particular relevance on the opinion of anyone else but my wife's. I expect you would feel the same, when it came to crunch time.


Actually, I think the point of discussion is when/where does a fetus become legally recognized as a 'human' that has individual rights and is separate from your wife's DNA.  The spin off topic seems to be what people (not just females) think about whether abortion should be legal.  This topic touches topics other than a woman's right to choose.  It will impact legal/constitutional/state powers issues, socialized medicine (not only is the government legalizing this but also paying for it out of tax payers money), and others...

If a baby/fetus is actual concieved by two people, what about the Father's right to protect the child/fetus from abortion?  When, how does a man who wants to have the chance to say yes or no about the life he helped create get any rights?  It is more than just a woman's body issue.

As a citizen and a thinking human being, I can have an opinion on this topic


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 19, 2004)

Ah, yes...the old, "I'm just protecting the unborn child and the mother argument."

Personally, I'm a little unclear about the idea that anybody gets to force a woman to have a child she does not wish to have.

We already have a compromise. It is, essentially, a libertarian compromise: nobody gets to decide for the woman involved but her.

Funny that there's a long list of issues men like (guns, cycle helmets, cigarettes, etc.,) where it's all personal choice--but oh boy, let it be a matter of a WOMAN'S personal choice, and abruptly there are More Important Things to Be Considered.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Oct 19, 2004)

rmcrobertson:

So essentially, you don't think any argument against abortion can have any legitimate motives?  Anybody taking such a position is just a man (and I'm further guessing a white capitalist one) trying to suppress women?


----------



## loki09789 (Oct 19, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Ah, yes...the old, "I'm just protecting the unborn child and the mother argument."
> 
> Personally, I'm a little unclear about the idea that anybody gets to force a woman to have a child she does not wish to have.
> 
> ...


I am talking about a man, serious about taking responsibility for the life he helped create, wanting the opporunity to be part of the decision making process that will impact the life he desires to preserve.  

Where are his rights as a father - if you are of the opinion that there is no need to identify a 'when' it is recongized as a human life but it is human from the moment of conception?

Would it be unreasonable for a 'compromise' of the woman agreeing to having the fertalized fetus transferred to a surrogate (if possible)?

I agree that the choice belongs to the woman as a citizen of a democratic nation, but what about the choices of the father?  If the answer is 'screw you, you have no rights', how can you then come back and then hold a father accountable with 'blame' and 'those evil men' talk?  Can't be both ways.  If you want men to step up and take responsibility as the 'right thing to do' it needs to be balanced...


----------



## loki09789 (Oct 19, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Personally, I'm a little unclear about the idea that anybody gets to force a woman to have a child she does not wish to have.


Well, I am unclear how it is fair that some 'evil man' can then forced to pay child support to 'take responsibility' for a child that he had no right/say in whether it was to be aborted or not BUT if he WANTS to act responsibly and the woman says no he has no power to be equally part of that responsibility.....gee whiz.

As a partially white male of the USA, I feel pidgeon holed, profiled, stereotyped and supressed


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 19, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> As a partially white male of the USA, I feel pidgeon holed, profiled, stereotyped and supressed


Yeah, well, guess its our turn.:ultracool


----------



## raedyn (Oct 19, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> I am talking about a man, serious about taking responsibility for the life he helped create, wanting the opporunity to be part of the decision making process that will impact the life he desires to preserve.
> 
> Where are his rights as a father?


He has rights, up to the point that they interfere with someone else's rights - like those of the mother. She has a right to not be pregnant if she cannot or willnot.



> Would it be unreasonable for a 'compromise' of the woman agreeing to having the fertalized fetus transferred to a surrogate (if possible)?


Interesting idea. I don't think medical science is yet able to perform this feat. (Correct me if I'm wrong). There are some questions that I have about this possibility. Would the mother be obligated to the baby once it was born? Or would it be like putting the child up for adoption? Perhaps this is a 'compromise' a woman who didn't want a child could agree to. But what if she didn't want this? Everyone has the right to refuse medical procedures, so couldn't a pregnant woman refuse this as well? I believe this right should be preserved.


----------



## raedyn (Oct 19, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Well, I am unclear how it is fair that some 'evil man' can then forced to pay child support to 'take responsibility' for a child that he had no right/say in whether it was to be aborted or not BUT if he WANTS to act responsibly and the woman says no he has no power to be equally part of that responsibility.....gee whiz.


He could have made the choice not to impregnante that woman in the first place. That is when he gets to make his choice.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Oct 19, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> If a baby/fetus is actual concieved by two people, what about the Father's right to protect the child/fetus from abortion? When, how does a man who wants to have the chance to say yes or no about the life he helped create get any rights? *It is more than just a woman's body issue*.
> 
> As a citizen and a thinking human being, I can have an opinion on this topic


But, primarily, that *is* the issue - what a woman has the right to do with her own body.  I realize there are more complexities to it, but that is the main issue.  I'm not so sure that, if a man could become pregnant for 38-40 weeks and carry a growing weight in, say, a testicle, or his intestinal cavity, that he would be as concerned as to what another person wanted.  Pregnancy and birth is a huge process that changes your physiology forever.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 19, 2004)

raedyn said:
			
		

> He could have made the choice not to impregnante that woman in the first place. That is when he gets to make his choice.



Ummm....except for rape, I think thats a two way street. 

The whole concept of "your opinion dosent matter" seems odd coming from a crowd that believes their opinions on anything else (war, taxes, politics etc.) does. If i were to say "your opinion on X doent matter because you arent a (LEO, Military, president)" I would get shouted down pretty quick. Granted this topic is different, but when the basic concern is the value of human life, I think all of our opinions should matter.


----------



## raedyn (Oct 19, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> But, primarily, that *is* the issue - what a woman has the right to do with her own body. I realize there are more complexities to it, but that is the main issue. I'm not so sure that, if a man could become pregnant for 38-40 weeks and carry a growing weight in, say, a testicle, or his intestinal cavity, that he would be as concerned as to what another person wanted. Pregnancy and birth is a huge process that changes your physiology forever.


yes. and not only yr psysical self, either.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Oct 19, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Ummm....except for rape, I think thats a two way street.
> 
> The whole concept of "your opinion dosent matter" seems odd coming from a crowd that believes their opinions on anything else (war, taxes, politics etc.) does. If i were to say "your opinion on X doent matter because you arent a (LEO, Military, president)" I would get shouted down pretty quick. Granted this topic is different, but when the basic concern is the value of human life, I think all of our opinions should matter.


Everyone's opinions should matter - but not everyone's opinions should be dictated by law as to what I (or someone else) can or can't do.  

I think everyone's opinions matter as to war, LEO, etc., but for certain regulations, for certain abilities, LEOs will be able to say with more more knowledge as to what they do and don't need.  it won't always be perfect, but experts have a bit of a lead on the opinions.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 19, 2004)

Well, I guess making up quotes and claims IS a lot easier than discussing issues. Please show me where I said, wrote, or implied anything about, "evil men--" and please note that this sort of made-up stuff remains the typical self-defense move in these contexts.

Personally, I think ALL the arguments against abortion are perfectly valid, in their way, and men have every right to make them in the same way anybody has the right to argue their ideas in public and in private.

I'm simply arguing that men, whatever their motives, do NOT have the right to make these choices for women. 

Again, we have a compromise now: don't want an abortion? Don't have one. And, the government doesn't get to make this choice for you. 

Funny how women are, "special," and "unique," until that tactic gets in the way. Then, it's a good quick case of, "Well, but shouldn't men have the right to be the same as women?"


----------



## GAB (Oct 19, 2004)

bignick said:
			
		

> It's kind of hard to get a statement about things like this without qualifiers. If you want my opinion or my beliefs...I feel that in most cases abortion is wrong.
> 
> But you're still going to get those qualifiers, because my beliefs have absolutely no weight in this argument since, like others have said, I'll never be pregnant and be put in a situation where I would have to choose.
> 
> ...


Hi All

If you read the whole post it is very clear....

I have asked persons not to just take a line out and quote it is not a fair way to go...

Looks more like the Presidental debate that way...

Regards, Gary


----------



## raedyn (Oct 19, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> Everyone's opinions should matter - but not everyone's opinions should be dictated by law as to what I (or someone else) can or can't do.


Well said.

When I became pregnant, I certainly consulted the other half of the equation (the man!) and I took his feelings on the metter to heart. But I still felt I had to do what was right for me. And he backed me up on that. He told me that he wanted to have the child, but would respect whatever choice I made. Fortunately, we agreed on what the right path was, and we happily parent our unplanned daughter.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Oct 19, 2004)

My husband is the only one whose opinion absolutely, positively matters when it comes to highly personal issues like this. We are together almost 30 years for a reason -- he _is_ unique, he _will_ ask _my _opinion and consider it valid, and we _share_ in all major decisions. Why? Because I know he cares about me, as I do him.

Apparently a number of you are also evolved men - Robertson included! (I am still in shock...)

Whatever the rest of you decide within your marriages or relationships is also _your_ choice - not the Federal, State or local government, not your church/synagogue - you and you alone. Certain rights should _never_ be subject to legislation.

Biggie, 
As to your contention that you would never have been born, I doubt it. Things were very different half a generation ago - _my_ half, where we marched for women's rights, fought for on-campus women's centers, fought for safe, legal abortions, and fought for equal pay (well, we still are, but you get my point). Some of those things were radical ideas back in the early 70s when I was in college. So it's safe to assume, I believe, that things were different for your grandmother, who is probably around my age or within 5 to 7 years of it. Sure, we had a choice: 1) Keep the baby, try to raise it alone; 2) Get married (horrors - how Establishment and over 30 of you!); 3) Put the baby up for adoption; or 4) Go to some butcher with a coathanger who charged an exorbitant amount of money to 'save' you the hassle. Your choice. 

Oh - great discussion, by the way. Everybody. Pulled me right out of lurking.

I am
Woman by birth.  Mother by choice.


----------



## bignick (Oct 19, 2004)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> Biggie,
> As to your contention that you would never have been born, I doubt it. Things were very different half a generation ago


i realize that...which is why my grandmother was married when she was 15...and still married today...

my comment there was more hypothetical than anything else...obviouslly...she didn't have an abortion...

by the way...this is a great discussion...i don't think many peoples minds are being changed...they usually aren't on something as contreversial as this...but on the same token...this thread has gotten pretty big and remained civil...which is unusual....especially when the topic is as contreversial as this


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 19, 2004)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> I am
> Woman by birth. Mother by choice.


Kind and reasonable by nature. :asian:


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Oct 19, 2004)

Awww, flatlander!  And it's true....

Some of the women I know (such as myself) who are vociferously and strongly pro-choice are also just as strongly convinced that they would never have an abortion themselves.  

I have to say, this has been one of the most calm discussions about abortion I've ever witnessed.  I'm impressed with everyone here.  Obviously, this is an incredibly personal, delicate, and passionate issue.

I'd also like to mention that, of the women I know who have had an abortion or have had to think about it (broke, "father" saying "take care of it, I don't want a kid", whatever), it was *agonizing*.  Almost all decided not to have an abortion, one or two decided to.  But I have not witnessed myself any woman take this issue lightly in any way.  

Interesting story - I had an argument about abortion with my ex, once.  He was ranting about how "people" (who exactly, I'm not sure) use abortion as a means of birth control.  I was pretty stunned and argued back that that is not the case.  Who *wants* to go through an abortion?  He stuck by his stance that the vast majority of abortions are unnecessary, and women should have their children if they get pregnant.  I said, So if I accidentally got pregnant, I would have the child.  And then he freaked out and said, "What?!?  Wait, I didn't say that, we're in no position to have a child, we don't have much money...." etc etc etc.  Aside from how FLATTERING that was to hear (ha ha), it was a great example of talking about issues versus living them.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Oct 19, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Well, I guess making up quotes and claims IS a lot easier than discussing issues. Please show me where I said, wrote, or implied anything about, "evil men--" and please note that this sort of made-up stuff remains the typical self-defense move in these contexts.


In your previous post, you wrote:



> Funny that there's a long list of issues men like (guns, cycle helmets, cigarettes, etc.,) where it's all personal choice--but oh boy, let it be a matter of a WOMAN'S personal choice, and abruptly there are More Important Things to Be Considered.


You refer to these issues as being liked by men--not some men, not most men, not a specified subgroup of men, but men in general, and attribute to them attempts to suppress "WOMAN'S personal choice". Furthermore, I didn't know that you were talking about any one specific argument against abortion, but any anti-abortion arguments in general. 

So, that's where I got my assessment of what you were saying. If it's innaccurate, please show me where, 'cause believe it or not, I'm genuinely curious. 



> I'm simply arguing that men, whatever their motives, do NOT have the right to make these choices for women.


I don't really think that's the issue, or at least the entirety of it. The question is whether the law (and thereby all of society, not just men) can forbid abortions in order to protect fetuses, just as it does forbid murder to protect its citizens. To show that, you'd have to show that fetuses are humans, which is where the brain waves explanation comes in. In other words, this isn't an issue of men dictating women's actions, but of the government's interest in protecting fetuses.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Oct 19, 2004)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> I don't really think that's the issue, or at least the entirety of it. The question is whether the law (and thereby all of society, not just men) can forbid abortions in order to protect fetuses, just as it does forbid murder to protect its citizens. To show that, you'd have to show that fetuses are humans, which is where the brain waves explanation comes in. In other words, this isn't an issue of men dictating women's actions, but of the government's interest in protecting fetuses.


I think that is the issue.  Is a fetus a person, with rights?  (and although the government does not allow murder all the time, how come it puts citizens to death?)  

Does brain waves = human?  I don't necessarily think so.  

This is an issue of the government - other people, both men and women (though still mostly men) telling a woman that her decisions and her rights over her own body and her reproductive choices may come second to something else that they think is a person.  Is it?  It certainly has the potential to become one.  But so does an egg, or a sperm.  

"Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great...!"  (A great Monty Python song from The Meaning of Life about not using contraception.)


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 19, 2004)

I think that that is very much the issue--the woman's right--not the State's not men's not even her husband--who get the right to make the decision.

Your "warrant," seems to be (was teaching basic Toulmin--ho-hum--tonight) that women, left to their own devices, aren't capable of reaching an informed, rational and moral decision about whether or not what they're carrying is in fact a child or not.

The practical reality of it is this: when the State intervenes, we have an considerable and indeed overwhelming majority of men telling women what to do with their bodies. I find it contradictory that a number of men are firmly opposed to the State intervening in what they consider to be their personal lives (yes, over just as serious issues--like life), have absolutely no problem in arguing that the State should intervene in women's when it comes to choice.

We already have a compromise. Men aren't allowed to force women to have, or to not have, an abortion, insofar as the law and State power are concerned. 

The problem is, a number of guys don't like the compromise. They object on religious grounds (and the State and the Law have no right to interfere with their religious beliefs, which are private and personal and sacred), and (more obscurely, they object because reproductive rights inevitably mean that men lose control over what women do.

And then there's this: if the woman you're involved with is pregnant, why exactly do you need to have the bullyboy State step in and tell her what do do? You can't present clear arguments, love and support of your own? To me, it's like saying that you NEED the law to force women to go along with what YOU want.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Oct 19, 2004)

It's not just guys who are arguing for the use of law to prevent abortion, you know.  Plenty of the fundamentalists who are arguing the "Pro-Life" stance are themselves women (ironically enough, Jane Roe from "Roe v. Wade" being one of them).  You keep framing your argument in terms of men enforcing their wants over women, but it's much more general than that.  The question isn't "Should men be allowed to override women's choices in what to do with their bodies?" but "Are unborn fetuses in fact human, and therefore deserving of the same protection that other citizens of the state receive?"


----------



## GAB (Oct 20, 2004)

Hi,

Sounds like the state is interested in the newborn for the monetary value of it in respect to have it(cost money) give it to the state and we will sell it(make money). 

More like an economics issue...take money in one hand and give it out with the other...

Hmmmmm Will they be able to write it off on their income tax.

Regards, Gary


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Oct 20, 2004)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> It's not just guys who are arguing for the use of law to prevent abortion, you know. Plenty of the fundamentalists who are arguing the "Pro-Life" stance are themselves women (ironically enough, Jane Roe from "Roe v. Wade" being one of them). You keep framing your argument in terms of men enforcing their wants over women, but it's much more general than that. The question isn't "Should men be allowed to override women's choices in what to do with their bodies?" but "Are unborn fetuses in fact human, and therefore deserving of the same protection that other citizens of the state receive?"


a) that's up to each individual's belief - how do you call a fetus at a certain stage a person vs not?  It's always "human" in terms of the species, but when is it an individual?

b) when someone/something that may or may not be considered an individual overrides a woman's rights to choose/do with her body and reproduction as she wishes, then who does the State protect?  The existing, tax-paying citizen, or her potential offspring?

Just because there are women in the pro-life movement does not make it any more right to me.  They are trying to impose *their* will on other women's bodies.  Again, not OK.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Oct 20, 2004)

Feisty Mouse:

I didn't mean to be speaking either for or against abortion.  I'm honestly not entirely sure where I stand on the issue, either of whether or not the act is right or, if that answer is no, whether it should be legislated.  Every time I start to lean towards one stance, the other becomes more appealing.  Not that it really matters; as a guy, I really wouldn't have much say in the decision.  

I wrote my previous post simply to point out that the arguments against abortion shouldn't be framed as men oppressing women's rights to choose, but as a question of whether society has an interest in protecting fetuses.


----------



## loki09789 (Oct 20, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Well, I guess making up quotes and claims IS a lot easier than discussing issues. Please show me where I said, wrote, or implied anything about, "evil men--" and please note that this sort of made-up stuff remains the typical self-defense move in these contexts.


Well, let's see.  Implying that men make up abortion laws in order to subplant women and the constant mention of white corporate/capitalist males across the MT would support that....along with the constant accusation that others (to include me) don't discuss the issues but just make stuff up or support our positions as well...


----------



## Tgace (Oct 20, 2004)

So its up to women to each decide if the fetus is a "person" or not?


----------



## loki09789 (Oct 20, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> But, primarily, that *is* the issue - what a woman has the right to do with her own body. I realize there are more complexities to it, but that is the main issue. I'm not so sure that, if a man could become pregnant for 38-40 weeks and carry a growing weight in, say, a testicle, or his intestinal cavity, that he would be as concerned as to what another person wanted. Pregnancy and birth is a huge process that changes your physiology forever.


That might be at the core of your stance on this issue, and others as well, but the idea is when/whether an unborn child is recongized as a stand alone, legally identifiable individual child that needs to be recongized by the law in order to be protected - sometimes against the mother herself.

We are at the basic division and the 'apples/oranges' point of the abortion issue.  On one side you have people who are primarily motivated by the woman's rights and on the other you have people who are primarily motivated by the preservation/recognition/legal identity of the child/fetus in an unborn state.

Until people are 'on the same sheet of music' it isn't going to be resolved - ever.  I have heard women called 'selfish' for choosing abortion.  I have heard women called 'irresponsible' for getting pregnant (if unplanned) and not aborting it.

It is amazing how simple word choice can say so much - and yet get so over looked.

IF the point is that the child has rights (at what ever recognized point), that the woman has rights AND that the father should (though we tend to get demonized or ignored for the most part on this issue) have rights...how far should the law go to 'infringe' on any of these individual civil liberties for the sake of preserving/protecting life?


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 20, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> So its up to women to each decide if the fetus is a "person" or not?


Close, but not quite there yet, I think.

It is up to each woman to decide if the fetus is the 'moral equivalent' of a "person".


----------



## Tgace (Oct 20, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Close, but not quite there yet, I think.
> 
> It is up to each woman to decide if the fetus is the 'moral equivalent' of a "person".



Where else in our society does one segment of the population have such a luxury? I meet plenty of people who I dont believe fit the definition either.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Oct 20, 2004)

There's something troubling for me of leaving the question of whether a fetus counts as a person up to each individual to decide.  When we're talking about the existence of rights, I don't think it should just be left up to whoever is involved's arbitrary distinctions.  However, that's about as clear as I can explain my dilemma for now, so with no other means of ending this sentence, I'll take a bow.  :asian:


----------



## Tgace (Oct 20, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> I have to say, this has been one of the most calm discussions about abortion I've ever witnessed.  I'm impressed with everyone here.



Too bad everybody else cant do the same. Its the only way (IMHO) people are ever going to reach mutual understanding. Once the yelling starts, the minds close.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 20, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Where else in our society does one segment of the population have such a luxury?


Church
The Governor's office


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Oct 20, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> So its up to women to each decide if the fetus is a "person" or not?


OK, this is the way I see that.  Each fetus is *potential*.  If a miscarriage happens, for example, which is a tragedy for an expectant mom/expectant couple, was there an individual that was lost?  Is mom in trouble with the state now?

Until the child is surviving outside of the mother's body, it is potential.  It is up to each pregnant woman to weigh what she believes - is it a person?  Is it an effect from some traumatic event?  Is it a responsibility she does not have the resources to handle?

But I don't think it's a decision of "is this a person or not".  If a woman believes she is carrying another person, I highly doubt she'll abort, but will choose to keep the baby or put it up for adoption.  

When the fetus starts to kind of look like a "person" is relatively late in the game, anyways.  If most abortions occur in the first trimester, what is developing inside the mother does not _look_ like a child, and I think that makes a difference for some people when engaged in a debate like this.

RP700 - Roger.


----------



## loki09789 (Oct 20, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> OK, this is the way I see that. Each fetus is *potential*. If a miscarriage happens, for example, which is a tragedy for an expectant mom/expectant couple, was there an individual that was lost? Is mom in trouble with the state now?
> 
> Until the child is surviving outside of the mother's body, it is potential. It is up to each pregnant woman to weigh what she believes - is it a person? Is it an effect from some traumatic event? Is it a responsibility she does not have the resources to handle?
> 
> ...


Does anyone know where their state or the Fed law draws the line currently?  I sure don't in any accurate detail.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Oct 20, 2004)

I suppose one could make a case for a fetus being considered a baby when it reaches the point in its development where it could survive outside of the womb.

How anyone could possibly say that a woman is being selfish when she decides to abort a pregnancy is beyond my comprehension.  Whatever brought the woman to that decision is none of anyone else's business unless she chooses to share her thought process with her husband/partner.  Is it indeed better to bring a child into a household where it can't be supported emotionally or financially?  Where do you think the abused children of this world live?  Not everyone has a nanny to care for the children they may have.  But that's another issue entirely, so...  

Men should have a say in whether a child is to come into the family to the extent that is is usually their responsibility to provide financially for the child's well-being.  They do _not_ usually stay at home with the child, care for the child when he or she becomes ill, sits with and comforts the child when she/he can't sleep, and so on.  *There are always exceptions, but I am speaking generally for the sake of discussion.*  Anyway, that is why the woman's opinion carries a bit more weight.  She's the one with the major responsibility - not to mention being class mommie, den mommie, driver, doctor, psychiatrist, teacher, disciplinarian, etc.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Oct 20, 2004)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> Kind and reasonable by nature. :asian:


Dan, You are too kind to us, as always.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 20, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> Until the child is surviving outside of the mother's body, it is potential.



How far out?


----------



## pete (Oct 20, 2004)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> Is it indeed better to bring a child into a household where it can't be supported emotionally or financially?  Where do you think the abused children of this world live?  Not everyone has a nanny to care for the children they may have.



so is this now an argument for social engineering? 



			
				kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> Men should have a say in whether a child is to come into the family to the extent that is is usually their responsibility to provide financially for the child's well-being.  They do _not_ usually stay at home with the child, care for the child when he or she becomes ill, sits with and comforts the child when she/he can't sleep, and so on.  *There are always exceptions, but I am speaking generally for the sake of discussion.*



that type of generality reeks of stereotyping... 



			
				kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> Anyway, that is why the woman's opinion carries a bit more weight.  She's the one with the major responsibility - not to mention being class mommie, den mommie, driver, doctor, psychiatrist, teacher, disciplinarian, etc.



>>>>, i know you know better than this and that you do not hold such biases based on gender, race, or religion...

pete.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Oct 20, 2004)

pete said:
			
		

> so is this now an argument for social engineering?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Pete, It's true that I normally do not hold biases. In fact, you also know how I feel about children in general (and my little kenpo angels specifically), so you should realize that my statements are for sake of discussion.

You've also brought me *out* by using my real name. Now *they* all know it... :xtrmshock


----------



## pete (Oct 20, 2004)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> You've also brought me *out* by using my real name.  Now *they* all know it... :xtrmshock



its gone, but you'll have to edit your message quoting me... so unless *they* are watching, you can resume your anonimity... sorry! pete.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Oct 20, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> How far out?


What?


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Oct 20, 2004)

pete said:
			
		

> so is this now an argument for social engineering?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Speaking for myself...

This is not a social engineering or eugenics movement.  That's why each woman gets to choose.  Some women choose to have their child even if they are in dire financial straits - and then are labelled "welfare queens" and are considered the scourge of society.  Some women in the same situation would choose not to have the child, especially if they had no access to good prenatal care.

When other people step in and say, "You should have this baby, and you (other person) should not", that is becoming something what you might be referring to by "social engineering".

Just because the majority of primary caregivers in this country - and around the world - are women, that's a stereotype?  I think KT made it clear she was making a generalization.


----------



## raedyn (Oct 20, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Does anyone know where their state or the Fed law draws the line currently? I sure don't in any accurate detail.


re: USA
"In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade, recognized abortion as a right under the United States Constitution. Specifically, the Court ruled that during the first trimester of pregnancy the state cannot bar any woman from obtaining an abortion from a licensed physician. During the second trimester, the state can regulate the abortion procedure only to protect the womans health.174 In the third trimester the state may regulate to protect fetal life, but not at the expense of the womans life or health."
from http://www.cbctrust.com/abortion.html#61

of course, although the government doesn't technically bar a woman from getting an abortion in the first trimester
- the feds won't pay for it, even if it was as a result of rape or incest
- they can't be performed at public hospitals
- minors must have the consent of their parents


----------



## kenpo tiger (Oct 20, 2004)

Feisty,

Thanks for the support *tiger hugs*.

Pete knows me well enough to realize it was a generalization.  He was just clarifying it for himself. (I think you had fish for dinner Monday...)

I think tgace's question refers to how far out from the birthdate is a fetus considered viable -- or maybe, when an embryo is considered a fetus.  As I stated earlier, I have only a general idea of when that is, and, not being a scientist, I hesitate to posit any hard and fast time.

I don't believe that that should be a deciding factor.  There are too many other things which can crop up during a pregnancy and require medical intervention.

Now _there's_ an interesting concept.  What if medical intervention is required?  How heroic should the efforts be to save the fetus?  Does 'taking' the fetus early constitute aborting a pregnancy, since it's removing the fetus from the mother's womb?


----------



## loki09789 (Oct 20, 2004)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> Feisty,
> 
> Thanks for the support *tiger hugs*.
> 
> ...


Along those lines of the 'when and where' do you draw the line, the implication of scientific development and its impact on morals/social trends is well illustrated with this discussion.  We can't ignore the influence that being able to identify the when and where the developmental indicators of 'becoming human' happen in the birth process will have on social views and morallity.  It challenges religous based values to be more codified/specified in response or adaptation to it...and even specification is an adaptation in itself...uh oh I gave myself a head ache again.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Oct 20, 2004)

- that made me smile.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 20, 2004)

In other words, as raedyn points out (and I shoulda looked up) we already have a perfectly-sound compromise, which involves EXACTLY the idea of increasing viability/increasing social concern that most of you are arguing for.

We already have that. So waddya want? My contentions are that a) the "concern," is often just code for, "I don't want women out from under men's control, because the poor dears can't make these tough intellectual and moral decisions very well;" b) the claims about "compromise," given the number of folks who make them and then, offhand, throw in the info that they're completely opposed to abortion, are really just tactics employed en route to a complete ban; c) the rational and moral thing to do is for guys to support women in their choices, making good solid contraceptive help and good solid child care available, as well as a better society, then just accept that men don't get to make this decision for women.

To me, this endless proliferation for "concerns," moral and otherwise, is just smokescreen. Guys don't want a world in which women are free, they want their religious beliefs forced on everybody, they don't wanna pony up for the costs of choice, and they don't wanna confront the reality of the world we live in or work on changing it.  

Endless nagging and presuming to the moral high ground is both easier, and cheaper. 

Hell, look at our current Administration's "faith-based," looniness about the sex ed that we know for a FACT would cut unwanted pregnancies drastically if we actually had the brains to do it--yes, and pass out condoms, too.

Safe, legal and rare, gentlemen. Safe, legal and rare. There's your compromise. But that takes time and effort, and it seems to be a lot easier to theorize against women.

Hell, you think THAT post was annoying--yell at me about it, and I promise to go off on Marx's "The Holy Family," and the connection between the denial of reproductive services to women and the maintenance of the traditional family as a unit of economic/ideological production under capitalism.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Oct 20, 2004)

Just riddle me this simple question, to anyone who cares to take it up.  

If someone should decide that they want to shoot a man who's walking down the street, we say that they can't do that because that man, as a person, has a right to life.  

If some doctor should decide that they want to kill off one woman because her vital organs could save the lives of two other people who will otherwise die, we tell the doctor no, that woman, as a person, has a right to live.  

Now, both the shooter and the doctor think that the man and the woman, respectively, for whatever selfish or morbidly noble reasons, deserve to die, but society says that they're wrong and it's not their choice.  

Now for the question: how is it that, in the case of unborn children, the question of whether they're a person is suddenly irrelevent and it's entirely up to the mother, and not society, whether the unborn child gets to live?  Society obviously was justified in imposing the right to life with the first two murderees (sorry, victims didnt sound right and I can't think of a neutral term); why not unborn children?  

Some possible answers I've thought of are that, 

1.  hey, society just plain hasn't transfered that right to them, so they don't have that right.  Well, that doesn't seem satisfying, since 

(a)black people, once upon a time, didn't have any rights in the US either, but it's been since decided that they deserve equal rights, so the lack of proscribed rights doesn't bar them ever being created, and 

(b) whether or not society should convey those rights to unborn children is the very question at bar.

2.  The mother has a closer and more personal relationship with the unborn child than either the father or society at large.  Besides, forcing the mother to raise the child on her own is far too unjust.

(a) Okay, but close and intimate relationships don't create an absolute bar against legal sanctions.  Mothers get in trouble for beating their born children; we must now ask why aborting the unborn one should be outside the law's jurisdiction.  

(b) Well, adoption is available for mothers who don't want to raise the children.  There is the situation where the mother's health is threatened by labor or pregnancy, but that's a situation where it's one life or the other.  As for making the mother go through pregnancy and labor just to send the kid to be adopted, this once again brings us back to the question of whether the unborn child deserves a right to life, because if they do, then is 9 months of admittedly excrutiating physical discomfort too much to ask of a woman in order to preserve a life?  

So, that's my reasoning as of now.  Real long post for a Quick Reply, but oh well.  Too much to delete now.  

(a)


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 20, 2004)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> Just riddle me this simple question, to anyone who cares to take it up.
> 
> If someone should decide that they want to shoot a man who's walking down the street, we say that they can't do that because that man, as a person, has a right to life.
> 
> ...


Is there a question in there somewhere? It looks like a bunch of opinions. There is no such thing as 'unborn children'. It is a fetus.


----------



## pete (Oct 20, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> Just because the majority of primary caregivers in this country - and around the world - are women, that's a stereotype?  I think KT made it clear she was making a generalization.



ms.mouse, let me be even more clear: a generalization made in reference to a particular group of people is a stereotype.  ie, men do not care for a child when it becomes ill.  this is similar to saying blacks are generally lazy, italians are generally mob-connected, and the jews have all the money.  ok.

no irish need apply,
pete


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Oct 20, 2004)

Yes, there was a question in there, if you bothered to read it.  But if you'd like a simpler format, here's the question...

"There is no such thing as 'unborn children'. It is a fetus."

WHY NOT?  What's the difference?

What the hell is the difference between a person walking down the street who someone wants to shoot for the fun of it, a woman in the hospital who a doctor is considering killing in order to save two other lives, and an as-yet-unborn kid who the mother wants to abort for whatever reasons?  Why would the first two be deserving of a right to life, while the last one isnt?  And before you ask, no, nobody mentioned the hypothetical street-walker or woman before, I came up with them on my own.  

That was the question.  The rest of the post was just a few extra stuff I'd thought of to throw in there that I thought were relevent.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 20, 2004)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> Yes, there was a question in there, if you bothered to read it. But if you'd like a simpler format, here's the question...
> 
> "There is no such thing as 'unborn children'. It is a fetus."
> 
> ...


The difference is science. 

the group of cells that create the fetus, specifically a human sperm and a human egg cell, need the support of the female host. Without the femaile host, the cells can not continue to divide and evolve.

That is why there is a difference between a child and fetus.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 20, 2004)

As a rule, the proliferation of partly-baked hypotheses and claims of repression directed against men (yes, we are so very cruelly-treated by those...those FEMINISTS and LESBIANS) are exactly the sort of smokescreen I was talking about.

We already have a compromise. Why do some of you guys find compromise intolerable, while insisting that compromise is essential?


----------



## Phoenix44 (Oct 20, 2004)

Here's what I don't understand:  How come so many anti-choice people are also anti-contraception?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 20, 2004)

I smell a rhetorical question, which I'm just stupid enough to just answer: because if women can control their own bodies, men can't control them.

Fear of the Other, plus the extent to which our economy and our culture rests on the submission of women, don't ya know.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Oct 20, 2004)

Well, maybe, because there has to be SOME reason OTHER THAN professed respect for human life. Because if you believe abortion = murder, then you have to have an ulterior motive if you are also anti-contraception.


----------



## raedyn (Oct 20, 2004)

well, duh.

It is about control. But the people behind these ideas genuinely believe they are doing it for all the 'right' reasons. I don't have to agree with them, but that is where they are coming from.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Oct 20, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> As a rule, the proliferation of partly-baked hypotheses and claims of repression directed against men (yes, we are so very cruelly-treated by those...those FEMINISTS and LESBIANS) are exactly the sort of smokescreen I was talking about.
> 
> We already have a compromise. Why do some of you guys find compromise intolerable, while insisting that compromise is essential?


Sure hope none of this was addressed at me, 'cause I haven't said anything of the sort. It would help if you'd specify which members you're referring to with ambiguous phrases like "you guys", especially when accusing them of masogeny(sp). 



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> the group of cells that create the fetus, specifically a human sperm and a human egg cell, need the support of the female host. Without the femaile host, the cells can not continue to divide and evolve.


So because the fetus requires the support of the mother to survive, it therefore isn't human? Sounds a bit arbitrary to me. Why is this relevent?


----------



## raedyn (Oct 20, 2004)

You are registered as a citizen at birth. Until then, a fetus is an event in a woman's medical file.

I'm not trying to make a big statement with that. Just something I was thinking about. I think that says something about when we confer 'personhood' status.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 20, 2004)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> So because the fetus requires the support of the mother to survive, it therefore isn't human? Sounds a bit arbitrary to me. Why is this relevent?


I didn't say it wasn't human. You asked What's the difference between the 'unborn child' and a 'fetus'. The dependancy of the fetus on the host woman for all bodily functions is what makes it different. There is nothing arbitrary about it. 

If I extract a human egg cell, and combine it in a petri dish with a human sperm cell, an ebryo is created. If we leave that embryo alone, and take not further actions on it, does anyone know how long those cells will continue to be 'life'? An hour? A day? Two weeks? Are these cells in a petri dish also considered to be an 'Unborn Child'? That is exactly what it is, isn't it?

Further, your examples ask what is the difference between a "person walking down the street ..." I point out that a fetus can not ever be "walking down the street".


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Oct 20, 2004)

This is pointless.  My apologies for taking up room on the thread.  Continue.


----------



## loki09789 (Oct 20, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> We already have that. So waddya want? My contentions are that a) the "concern," is often just code for, "I don't want women out from under men's control, because the poor dears can't make these tough intellectual and moral decisions very well;" b) the claims about "compromise," given the number of folks who make them and then, offhand, throw in the info that they're completely opposed to abortion, are really just tactics employed en route to a complete ban; c) the rational and moral thing to do is for guys to support women in their choices, making good solid contraceptive help and good solid child care available, as well as a better society, then just accept that men don't get to make this decision for women.
> 
> To me, this endless proliferation for "concerns," moral and otherwise, is just smokescreen. Guys don't want a world in which women are free, they want their religious beliefs forced on everybody, they don't wanna pony up for the costs of choice, and they don't wanna confront the reality of the world we live in or work on changing it.
> 
> ...


Gee this looks like  long winded "men are evil" post to me


----------



## raedyn (Oct 20, 2004)

I ask everyone to pause a moment and consider if we are allowing this to degenerate.


----------



## loki09789 (Oct 20, 2004)

raedyn said:
			
		

> I ask everyone to pause a moment and consider if we are allowing this to degenerate.


Sorry, trying to inject some levity (yes barbed but levity all the same).

Maybe it would be time for a summary of what has been said from the thread starter to get it back on track?


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Oct 20, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Gee this looks like long winded "men are evil" post to me


 but I don't think men are evil, and I love robertson's post.



> So because the fetus requires the support of the mother to survive, it therefore isn't human? Sounds a bit arbitrary to me. Why is this relevent?


It is tissue that is genetically human.  Humans are a species designation.  When is it an individual person?  I would say when it (can or does) survive outside of the mother's body.  



> If I extract a human egg cell, and combine it in a petri dish with a human sperm cell, an ebryo is created. If we leave that embryo alone, and take not further actions on it, does anyone know how long those cells will continue to be 'life'? An hour? A day? Two weeks? Are these cells in a petri dish also considered to be an 'Unborn Child'? That is exactly what it is, isn't it?


Good question - I'll have to find out.  A zygote is what is created at fertilization - essentially a dividing ball of cells that does not increase in mass at all for several days (cleavage).  The zygote, when in the fallopian tubes, is brushed into the upper body of the uterus by the uterine walls, and will implant about 7 days after fertilization.  At this point, it is essentially a hollow ball, with a cluster of cells (stem cells) on one end.  Then it begins to invade the mother's uterine wall lining (endometrium) - literally digesting her tissue.  

So my guess would be that, given the proper environment, you could get development into a week-old zygote (ball of omnipotent cells), and then development would halt. 

I'm curious though - I'll have to check out IVF sites when I have a mo.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Oct 20, 2004)

Random,

I understand your frustration.  You must remember that this group loves a good fight, whether it's in the sparring ring or online.

I must disagree with your characterization of the doctor feeling the woman 'deserves' to die.  As to the murder of a man walking down the street, if it is a random (sorry - too good to pass up) event which leads to his murder...  I just don't think you can say that anyone *deserves* to die.  Consider _all_ of the underlying circumstances, and perhaps that woman doesn't have a viable life left to her, therefore her organs would best serve saving two lives.  It's an untenable situation.


----------



## raedyn (Oct 20, 2004)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> This is pointless. My apologies for taking up room on the thread. Continue.


Don't despair, Random. You've only given it 1 1/2 hours from when you posed yr original question. Some people haven't even seen yr post yet, nevermind had a chance to formulate a thoughtful response.

What reply were you hoping to get? Any poster can only answer with their own best interpretation of the situation. And my interpretation might be different than yours.

I am genuinely curious what point you were hoping to get to. To change someone's mind, to show someone who their thinking erred, to clarify yr own understanding, some other possibility I haven't considered?

[I feel very limited by the medium here. Anyone could read these words as challenging & agressive, but that isn't how they are meant. In my own mind, I'm quietly asking questions, trying to be considerate. But how does one accurately reflect that in their posts? It's a constant challenge.]


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Oct 20, 2004)

The question I was trying to ask was what differentiates an unborn fetus from the two people I described regarding rights and status as a human.  This, last time I checked, was teh whole reason for the inquiry about brain waves.  Instead, I am given obvious responses such as a "fetus can't walk down the street".  That doesn't answer whether it deserves rights or not; before he died, Christopher Reeves couldn't "walk" down the street either.  

So, I guess that's it.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Oct 20, 2004)

KT:

I didnt mean to imply that either the woman or the street walker actually did deserve death.  Just using them as examples where someone decided that, for whatever reason, it was their decision that the victim die, and society stepped in to say "no, you can't do that" quite legitimately.


----------



## raedyn (Oct 20, 2004)

Well I believe Xequat's intention in posting the topic was wondering if brain waves could help resolve the conflict between the opposing sides of the abortion/rights debate. And I would suggest that this thread is evidence that no consensus will be reached anytime soon.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 20, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> It is tissue that is genetically human.  Humans are a species designation.  When is it an individual person?  I would say when it (can or does) survive outside of the mother's body.



Again...how far? Crowning, head out, body out, cord cut? Where is the "magic point" where the mother cant decide to abort anymore? Or more accurately "shouldnt" be allowed by law....theoretically, Im aware of the current law. Just trying to see where the more "pro-choice" view is on the subject.


----------



## raedyn (Oct 20, 2004)

With all due respect, I think yr being a little silly about this, tgace.

Personally, I would say once you are in labour, it's definately too late to get an abortion. You would have to deliver at that point anyways, whether the fetus is alive or not (you've heard of stillborns, right?).

Which is not to say that I believe everything up to there is free game. But it's first not-completely-arbitrary point to make the cut-off that I've heard that I can feel okay about.


----------



## raedyn (Oct 20, 2004)

And I don't think you can say there is ONE pro-choice view point on this.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 20, 2004)

raedyn said:
			
		

> With all due respect, I think yr being a little silly about this, tgace.


I do not think Tgace is being silly. He is trying to push the issue to a breaking point. He wants the 'Pro-Choice' crowd to say that a fetus may be aborted up to the point the umbilical cord separates the the two organisms. 

He wants the extreme example, to justify opposition to the less extreme examples.

He is not satisfied with allowing a woman making a decision, with the participation of her doctor, about the morality involved.

This is how the Anti-Choice people have successfully argued against 'Intact Dilation and Extraction'. It is a proceedure that can be described as barbaric and gruesome. But at times, barbaric and gruesome actions are appropriate. By the way, this particular proceedure was also very rare; reportedly 0.2% of all abortions in the United States.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Intact%20dilation%20and%20extraction


----------



## raedyn (Oct 20, 2004)

The extreme anti-abortion people often try and characterize this procedure as what all abortions are.


----------



## raedyn (Oct 20, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> He wants the extreme example, to justify opposition to the less extreme examples.


If X is not okay, then Y is not okay?
This is what we call a non-sequitur. Literallly - it does not follow.

and yeah, I'm guessing that's what tgace is getting at. But maybe we should let him speak for himself. Tgace? Are you nearby?


----------



## kenpo tiger (Oct 20, 2004)

There is a point during the final trimester of pregnancy when the fetus can live, albeit with medical/mechanical help, outside of the womb. That's what preemies do.

I believe the dilation and extraction reference is to partial-birth abortions, no? I agree it's barbaric in the extreme, and, as a mother, I cannot condone such things with my emotional side. HOWEVER. Depending upon the circumstances necessitating this be done... I cry for the women who must have this procedure.

Becoming a mother is supposed to be a wonderful experience. I sat with a friend of mine in a local luncheonette this afternoon and watched the parade of beautiful little girls and boys go by. My friend has a five year old girl who is beyond gorgeous; we both sighed watching these little ones.  I, because like my friend, I am too old to have a child any longer.  My friend, because her daughter wants a little sister or brother.

That is a major downside to aborting a pregnancy: what could be. Another is women who cannot conceive and desperately want a child. Adoption is difficult in this country. Why make it near impossible if there are people who want these children and there are pregnant women who don't want them?

I'm thinking aloud. Guys, take it. I await your answers.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Oct 20, 2004)

Adoption is NOT that difficult, if you want a baby who isn't white, or one who has disabilities, or an older child.  In fact, THAT is the question you ask the people who are anti-choice:  how many kids have you adopted?

BTW, yes, I've worked in a neonatal ICU.  I think it's absolutely disgraceful to pat ourselves on the back for doing such a great job "surviving" these babies, and then handing a new mother a child with EXTREME needs, when she may not have the resources to take care of the child.  Especially if the demands of caring for this baby prevent her from working...not that most jobs offer health insurance today anyway.  Not to imply that all premies are very damaged...but I digress.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Oct 20, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Again...how far? Crowning, head out, body out, cord cut? Where is the "magic point" where the mother cant decide to abort anymore? Or more accurately "shouldnt" be allowed by law....theoretically, Im aware of the current law. Just trying to see where the more "pro-choice" view is on the subject.


What?

I mean, what now?

Again, you are asking for me - or someone else - to dictate to all other women when an abortion is OK and when it is not.  

When a woman is in labor, she has already decided, for better or worse, to bear the child, and is really concerned with just getting through the process.  

If a woman decides/needs to have an abortion in the third trimester - into the "age of viability", where technically a preemie can survive outside of the womb with serious ICU intervention - then again, she and her doctor(s) need to have a very serious discussion about the situation.  I am not going to say when she can and cannot, because every situation is different.  Some medical concern may have developed or have been missed earlier on in the pregnancy which will affect the mother's survival, future fertility, etc.  

I'm sure you're trying to get at the "partial-birth abortion" thing, which drives me mental, because that conjures up the image of exactly what you are portraying - a fickle, silly woman, mid-labor, deciding, "Oh, wait, maybe I *don't* want this baby", which is quite frankly ridiculous.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 20, 2004)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> I believe the dilation and extraction reference is to partial-birth abortions, no?


Correct, except, I would phrase it the opposite way. 'Partial birth abortion' is the Pro-Life camp's name for dilation and extraction; also known in medical circles as D&X. The medical term is 'intact dilation and extraction'.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 20, 2004)

What I would like defined is this "the right to choose until the fetus is born/a separate entity" issue. Where is that point crossed? Its a THEORETICAL question. 

If killing a fetus/baby in the process of birth is wrong/illegal (should it be, thats what I keep asking but nobody wants to make a statement one way or the other), what about hours before birth, days, weeks? How far back do you go? The "medical emergency" point keeps being used as a screen to avoid just outright giving an opinion. There are always legal ways to do what is otherwise illegal. Like killing in self-defense, damaging property to save lives..its called exigent circumstance. As Ive previously stated, Im not entirely against abortion but I believe there should be a legal limit minus medical emergency. I know there is a current legal limit but the topic here is should that limit be changed. Do you all agree with the current limit or is that even too much governmental control.

The "that will never happen" statement is probably true, but one thing Ive learned about people is that they are capable of anything. There have been cases of people who have killed pregnant women and cut the children out of them for gods sake. Never say never when it comes to human behavior. Should Scott Peterson face 2 charges of murder? Should some psycho do the unimaginable (I wont even describe it) but leave the mother alive and otherwise unharmed...murder? Where should the legal definition of "human life" be? I dont think its an unreasonable question. If I were a rabid "pro-life" supporter I would say it begins at conception (which my church does) but I dont. Ive stated my abortion stance before and I find it odd that Im beginning to be labelled "anti-choice". Is it "all or nothing" on that issue too? We all have choices that are societaly limited by law.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 21, 2004)

I have made statements. But lets look at a definition. 
Here is a definition from the Maine Health and Welfare department, and it is as good as any to use. (This was the first hit on google).

   "Live born" and "live birth," as used in this chapter, shall mean a product of conception after *complete expulsion* or extraction from its mother, irrespective of the duration of pregnancy, *which breathes* or *shows any other evidence of life* such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord or definite movement of voluntary muscles, _whether or not the umbilical cord has been cut or the placenta is attached_. Each product of such a birth is considered live born and fully recognized as a human person under Maine law. [font=courier, fixed] [1977, c. 696, § 186 (new).][/font]

Up until the child is born, whether it is right or wrong to terminate a pregnancy, is a decision that should be left to the mother, her conciousness and her doctor. If they are in agreement that the pregnancy should be terminated in the second before birth. It is their decision.
Until that 'complete expulsion' and that 'evidence of life' is demonstrated, the moral responsibility is not society's.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Oct 21, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I have made statements. But lets look at a definition.
> Here is a definition from the Maine Health and Welfare department, and it is as good as any to use. (This was the first hit on google).
> 
> "Live born" and "live birth," as used in this chapter, shall mean a product of conception after *complete expulsion* or extraction from its mother, irrespective of the duration of pregnancy, *which breathes* or *shows any other evidence of life* such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord or definite movement of voluntary muscles, _whether or not the umbilical cord has been cut or the placenta is attached_. Each product of such a birth is considered live born and fully recognized as a human person under Maine law. [font=courier, fixed][1977, c. 696, § 186 (new).][/font]
> ...


'Complete explusion'?!  Yee gads.  What did that fetus do -- talk in class?  Not listen?  Sometimes legal terminology can be so, odd.  I don't consider the two live and one still births I've had 'expulsions', although technically the latter might be considered such.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Oct 21, 2004)

So I guess that the Maine legislature's decision that a born child is a human, as opposed to what it was the day before birth, makes the decision for all of us.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 21, 2004)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> So I guess that the Maine legislature's decision that a born child is a human, as opposed to what it was the day before birth, makes the decision for all of us.


Just for clarification RandomPhantom700, before the 'live birth', it is a fetus. This is not a designation from the state of Maine, it is the scientific term.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 21, 2004)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> 'Complete explusion'?! Yee gads. What did that fetus do -- talk in class? Not listen? Sometimes legal terminology can be so, odd. I don't consider the two live and one still births I've had 'expulsions', although technically the latter might be considered such.


Concerning the terminology, I agree, Ms. tiger ... I don't know that I would choose such language.

But some were pushing for a succint definition of where the "LINE" is.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 21, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I have made statements. But lets look at a definition.
> Here is a definition from the Maine Health and Welfare department, and it is as good as any to use. (This was the first hit on google).
> 
> "Live born" and "live birth," as used in this chapter, shall mean a product of conception after *complete expulsion* or extraction from its mother, irrespective of the duration of pregnancy, *which breathes* or *shows any other evidence of life* such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord or definite movement of voluntary muscles, _whether or not the umbilical cord has been cut or the placenta is attached_. Each product of such a birth is considered live born and fully recognized as a human person under Maine law. [font=courier, fixed] [1977, c. 696, § 186 (new).][/font]
> ...



So If the "fetus" is removed via C-Section 1 week prior to its due date and lives, its a "live birth"...if it stays inside and has to wait until natural birth its still subject to (theoretical) abortion? I just think the logic, while understandable in terms of trying to make some sort of distinction, has a flaw in it.


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 21, 2004)

Well, certainly the logic has a flaw in it, Tom.  The entire subject is flawed.  There can be no "middle compromise" here, and that is evidenced by the arguments we're reading.  Most are supportive of the woman's right to choose what happens with her body.  Most who support this agree that once the "organism" in question is external to that body, it has become an individual.  Most are in agreement that an abortion 39 weeks into gestation is abhorrent, and not something they want to really think about, however, once you have given a woman the right to her body, how can we then define some point at which it can be taken away?

The beginning of this thread was a proposition that perhaps the definition of individual entity in terms of human right to life could be revised to coincide with the emergence of brainwaves.  I respectfully submit here that this isn't logically valid, for the following reasons.

1)  Though brainwaves can be detected, this is no clear indication of self awareness.
2)  Though brainwaves are detected, the fetus still requires the uterus in order to survive.
3)  Though brainwaves are detected, there is no evidence to suggest that the activity holds any meaning; this could simply be the bits that tell other bits how to grow.
4)  In the context of these ideas, it still remains a) an arbitrary line in the sand, and b) an attempt to take the choice away from the woman, regardless of whether or not that is the intent.

So, in closing, no, I do not believe that the brainwave argument is a step forward in human rights, in defining an appropriate framework for decision making, or rigorous enough in proof to serve as a platform for a re-writing of law.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 21, 2004)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> Most who support this agree that once the "organism" in question is external to that body, it has become an individual. Most are in agreement that an abortion 39 weeks into gestation is abhorrent, and not something they want to really think about, however, once you have given a woman the right to her body, how can we then define some point at which it can be taken away?


Yeah I suppose youre right. The subject just has so many debatable issues all over it. My wife (who has had 3 so far) is my best source on the subject and we discuss it every once and a while. Shes kind of in line with my view (shes even more "pro-life" on the stance than I am). The whole "her body" statement...when is the fetus different from her liver? My wife likes to say her body never kicked her in the bladder before. Its obvious that the fetus is a separate entity that is dependant on the mothers body. What about adults on life support? They are dependant on another for life as well. Im not being flippant, philosophically I think there are a lot of things that are debateable.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 21, 2004)

I had a grand-uncle--worked hard as a blacksmith, yessiree bob--his whole life. He said--Royal was his name, Royal Erasmus Ronertson--that his liver kicked him all the time.

'Course, coulda been the Old Overholt. Grand-uncle Royal, he had him a fondness for rye whiskey.

And he allus said, he said, "Bobby, don't never let no damn guv-mint tell you what you can do with your own internal organs."

'Course, I 'spect that only applies to men...


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 21, 2004)

Yee haw. :-B


----------



## Tgace (Oct 21, 2004)

Hmmm..at least "most" of the people who disagree with me have the courtesy to actually discuss and post their points....



> Criticize Early and Often
> 
> Always make sure to be the caustic critic. Let's face it: There isn't enough complaining in this world. There's too much Pollyanna-ish cheer and frivolity. Too many people just smile and let things go. Don't go along with them. There's something wrong with everything and everyone if you look closely enough, and by golly, you have to make it your job to find it first and complain about it loudest.
> Let's take some easy examples: Your wife might look pretty good when she's setting out on her first day of work, but is every single, solitary hair in its place? Let her know that she doesn't look perfect enough. Don't let her get away with not looking her best. And maybe she's gained a bit of weight. Tell her that you've noticed those extra pounds. Make sure you point it all out. After all, you're just being constructive.
> ...


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 21, 2004)

I had this here aunt--Great Aunt Reena, she was--and she smoked that Algerian hashhish a lot....ran a psychic service, read palms...and Great Aunt Reena, she looked into that there crystal ball late one night, and she said to me, she said, "Bobby, don't let none of them uptime people throw that there damn psychobabble at ye and confuse ye none. I see in your future that you be a-disagreeing with people over women's rights, and some of them guys will completely skip over your arguments and evidence cause they ain't got none of their own. Hell, some of 'em will get all het up about Freud's insigts into the symptomatic nature of men's discourse, not to mention Neil Hertz's analysis of male hysteria under political pressure. Why, shoot, some of 'em will try to convince ye that if you argue that abortion and the whole spectrum of reproductive rights for women ought properly to be decided by women and not enforced by men, you're the one who's being self-centered. Now run along and play with this copy of Lasch's 'Culture of Narcississm' and let your tired great-aunt get prettied up. She got a date with that hottie Nostradamus later, the stars foretell."


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 21, 2004)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> Most are in agreement that an abortion 39 weeks into gestation is abhorrent, and not something they want to really think about, however, *once you have given a woman the right to her body*, how can we then define some point at which it can be taken away?


Flatlander, I am wondering if you have the premise backwards. You said ... 'once you have given a woman the right to her body' ... I kinda think a woman *has* the right to her body, and society can only act to take that right away.


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 21, 2004)

OK Mr. Pickypants.  Should have read "Given that a woman has.....blah, blah, away?"


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 21, 2004)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> OK Mr. Pickypants. Should have read "Given that a woman has.....blah, blah, away?"


Pickypants ... Pickypants  ... who are YOU callin' Pickypants 
<chuckle>


----------



## raedyn (Oct 21, 2004)

so what do we do when a MOD starts the name calling?


----------



## Rich Parsons (Oct 21, 2004)

raedyn said:
			
		

> so what do we do when a MOD starts the name calling?



If you think it is serious and not playing around, then you still hit the red triangle with "!" and report the post.

Or send a PM note to another moderator or super moderator or admin.


 :asian:


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Oct 22, 2004)

Or if you don't want to bother the moderators about it, you could just give the person bad rep points.  That's what the little scale icon is for.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Oct 22, 2004)

I think Robertson is simply too wrapped up in his work, that's all.  Channeling deceased relatives, while entertaining at times, isn't all it's cracked up to be...

Dan, Glad to see your original avatar.  Always thought it was one of the best here.

The argument about the fetus kicking got me thinking.  Could be just a reaction, like a spasm, but it does kind of pre-suppose _something_ determining that it should happen (like brain waves).  But, as Dan also pointed out, could be other things.  We could go around and around about this point as well.  Someone else (sorry - I read the posts with such interest I bolted directly to reply) stated that we've all come to a few conclusions about a woman's right to have a safe, legal abortion, but the original premise hasn't been satisfied.  Xequat, who I believe instigated all of this, is among the missing as well.  So, what's the conclusion here?  Can/should a cut-off _date_ be imposed?


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Oct 22, 2004)

As far as I understand it, quickening (when mom feels fetal movement - at first, I am told, a fluttery feeling) occurs at about 17 weeks post-fert.  Actually, the fetus begins moving in utero befor mom can detect the movements.  It's generally thought that these are reflexive movements as the muscles and nervous system differentiate and develop.  This statement is not meant to undermine the importance of quickening for an expectant mother, since I am told it is an emotional and bonding time.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 22, 2004)

That's dead IMAGINARY relatives, thank you very much.

But they're mine to have or discard, part of my private little world. Funny how folks accept that, but not a woman's right to choose: to me the interesting question, and the one that needs examining, is why that should be.

And no, I don't think it's a simple matter of, "concern for the unborn."


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 22, 2004)

> And no, I don't think it's a simple matter of, "concern for the unborn."



So, Robert, would you say that "concern for the unborn" has _nothing_ to do with the debates at all?? Or, is it solely, exclusively, completely a matter of patriarchal powerplays??

I'm inclined to the "both/and" category, not so much the "either/or".


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 22, 2004)

Pretty much. Sky-god worship, notions of him make men's mission protect weak women, fantasies of identity, projections of self-hood onto the insentient, refusal to accept compromise, etc.

See good essay by Barbara Johnson, "Metaphor, Metonymy and Abortion," available in collection, "A World of Difference."


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 22, 2004)

> Pretty much. Sky-god worship, notions of him make men's mission protect weak women, fantasies of identity, projections of self-hood onto the insentient, refusal to accept compromise, etc.



Okay.

But, what about instances where the pro-lifers are women?? Or atheists??


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 22, 2004)

Exactly the same....and I've yet to hear from somebody who was an atheist and anti-choice, though my offhand guess would be that they're probably still channelling the old sky-god worship thing...flip side of the same coin, don't ya know.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 22, 2004)

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=atheists+against+abortion&spell=1


----------



## Tgace (Oct 22, 2004)

Heres some well educated atheists discussing the issue...similar to what we had here but better written IMHO. Seem like intelligent folks.

http://strangedoctrines.typepad.com/strange_doctrines/2004/09/atheists_agains.html


----------



## Melissa426 (Oct 23, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Heres some well educated atheists = Seem like intelligent folks.


There's an Contradiction, IMHO, if I've ever heard one.:uhyeah: 
I am being sarcastic, I'm sure there could be some "intelligent" atheists somewhere.


My argument for being pro-choice comes down to this:

Making an act illegal doesn't prevent it from occurring.
Murder is illegal, but people still kill.
Theft is illegal, but people still steal.
If abortion is illegal, desperate women will still attempt to get abortions and many of them will die horrible deaths. Look at abortion mortality statistics pre-Roe v. Wade. (Know what happens when you die from tetanus? Sepsis and multi-organ failure?) Even if they don't die, there's a great potential for seriously and possible permanently damaging her reproductive organs.

No woman should be forced to choose between pregancy and the possibly suicidal act of obtaining an illegal abortion.

Right now, where I live, as far as I know, the cutoff for pregnancy termination is 24 weeks, but that may vary from state to state. Could a 24 week fetus live, and have true quality of life? Right now, it's extremely rare. As medical science progresses, the answer to that question will be "yes" more and more often, so I can see in the future the termination cutoff being lowered.

Peace,
Melissa


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 23, 2004)

> I am being sarcastic, I'm sure there could be some "intelligent" atheists somewhere.



That's very interesting....

considering most of the psychological tests I've seen have shown an inverse relationship between IQ and religiosity.

Of course, there tends to be a parallel relationship between religiosity and personal health, both physical and mental.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 23, 2004)

I defininately can see that point. From that link I posted , one of the writers said this 


> I used to be pro-choice (on utilitarian grounds). I worried that if abortion weren't legal women would maim themselves with coat-hangers, rubber mallets, Raid, etc., trying self-abort, and that a sketchy underworld of abusive "clinics" would develop. I now think the argument that underlies this position has problems. There's a serious moral issue here, and here, bad effects given ~p, does not vindicate p.



Its the typical arguement of "if" you believe abortion is wrong, how do you justify righting one wrong with another wrong?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 23, 2004)

Underneath all the fancy language, it's still guys who assume that women, the poor dears, cannot think logically and morally. I'm not sure I see a fundamental difference between the "atheist," anti-abortion position (which appears to be a coupla guys on a chat line, not the whole website), and the, "Christian," anti-abortion position in that regard.

As far as I'm concerned, all the theological and philosophical wrangling just underscores the reasons that this ain't nobody's business but the woman's, her doctor's, her friends. And why it ain't nobody's decision but hers. 

We assume, in this country, that education and social position and even intelligence have nothing to do with the right to vote, and that people will choose correctly. But I guess that's just with men, eh?


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 23, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Xequat, you need to check your math. The number "half our country" is grossly exaggerated, I think you will find a large majority are pro-choice. Many of that majority will have some reservations about termination as a pregnacy comes to term, but are not willing to surrender the first principle for the second.
> 
> I recently heard the discussion termed as 'Moral Equivilancy'; when does the fetus gain the moral equivilancy to a human being (which brings us back to the original brain wave argument). Is a fetus with brain waves, the equivilant of human being in the hospital with brain waves. I do not agree that the fetus is morally equivilant to a born child.
> 
> I am trying to understand how some can believe that a human sperm cell, fertilizing a human egg cell in a petri dish is morally equivilant to a human being? Which is the arguement against stem cell research.



According the Log Cabin Republicans, a moderate conservative faction in the GOP, 80% of the US supports abortion in some way shape or form.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 23, 2004)

> Underneath all the fancy language, it's still guys who assume that women, the poor dears, cannot think logically and morally. I'm not sure I see a fundamental difference between the "atheist," anti-abortion position (which appears to be a coupla guys on a chat line, not the whole website), and the, "Christian," anti-abortion position in that regard.



And what, praytell, happens when the pro-lifers happen to be women??


----------



## Tgace (Oct 23, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> According the Log Cabin Republicans, a moderate conservative faction in the GOP, 80% of the US supports abortion in some way shape or form.



Id believe that number...I do agree with it up to a point too.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 23, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> And what, praytell, happens when the pro-lifers happen to be women??



Thats not so easy to address. Much easier to discount all argument based on a persons sex......


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Oct 23, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> And what, praytell, happens when the pro-lifers happen to be women??


Honestly, I think then it's women who feel they are in the moral high ground, and "know better" than other women - based on religion, SES (socioeconomic status), other kind of background ("they have no morals"), etc.

I have found that it is a lot easier for women who come from wealth to be flip about this issue (even though some of them have had abortions) - since a pregnancy would not completely rock and destroy their financial world as it would a middle- or lower-class woman.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 23, 2004)

So all dissenting opinions are due to power, religon, control and snobbery?? 

I guess everybody has their pet topic where everybody who disagrees with them never has a valid point beyond some personality shortcoming. 

Of course I have my own topics where I guess I have to accept that I do the same....just comforting to see Im not alone.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Oct 23, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> So all dissenting opinions are due to power, religon, control and snobbery??
> 
> I guess everybody has their pet topic where everybody who disagrees with them never has a valid point beyond some personality shortcoming.
> 
> Of course I have my own topics where I guess I have to accept that I do the same....just comforting to see Im not alone.


I think the anti-abortion (i.e. limit abortions in ways that do not allow the pregnant woman and doctor to make the choice, but determine for a woman what she can and cannot do abotu her pregnancy) arguments are due to a number of different perspectives.  I never said these were "personality shortcomings".  They do, however, essentially say, "I feel so strongly about this that I want a law to limit what a woman can chose for herself, because she may do something I think is wrong/unethical/unnecessary/yucky" and so forth.

And that is where I have the problem, and why I am so strongly pro-choice.  Other people can be voiciferous in their opinions - and for them, it is the right opinion.  But I don't want someone else's opinion to matter more than my own, if I am deciding about my own pregnancy and health.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 23, 2004)

"Much easier to disregard all argument based on a person's sex?"

Leaving aside the fact that this is the same old same old silly reverse discrimination claptrap (now, WHITE PEOPLE are being discriminated against by affirmative action!! now, MEN are being discriminated against by feminists!!!), the remarkable thing about this comment is its symptomaticity.

Whatever women say, whatever women do, however reasonably they argue that they're perfectly capable of making this particular decision and a whole buncha others, there're always men--and women who've bought into what men are selling--who will indeed disregard everything women say on the grounds of their sex.

This happens, in part, because being against reproductive choice is NEVER an isolated opposition. It is ALWAYS tied to a constellation of religious ideas, and of ideas about what society should be like.

I say again: the denial of choice represents the ongoing attempt to keep women in their place. Without COMPLETE control over their bodies--the same level of control men take for granted--none of the other rights matter.

So, which of you guys wants to sign up for the Abortion Police? or the Sex Police? Or will you simply be leaving the dirty work to the working class?

Funny, as always,  how all the libertarianism stops dead when it comes to women.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 23, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> And that is where I have the problem, and why I am so strongly pro-choice. Other people can be voiciferous in their opinions - and for them, it is the right opinion. But I don't want someone else's opinion to matter more than my own, if I am deciding about my own pregnancy and health.


I can respect that...Im just concerned about the point where it becomes somebody deciding to, what could possibly be, killing a separate, innocent, life. Philosophically/morally and medically I dont think we have come to a conclusion (may not be able to. granted) to when that is. How being concerned about human life gets twisted into being a power hungry, woman controller.... I dont know. Im not demanding anybody do anything, just trying to discuss the issue.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 24, 2004)

Twisted, schmisted.

I'm curious: why do you feel that women cannot be trusted to make these decisions, since they're the ones who carry the baby? Why do you feel that, "hands off," this is some other competent adult's business, isn't good enough?

This, "issue," has been discussed, discussed, and discussed. I can't think when it was that I last heard a new point concerning it. 

So, why do you even consider the possibility that your beliefs should override women's?

Why isn't "free as possible to make one's own choice," good enough? Why is this choice so much more of a concern than Ronald Reagan ordering an airstrike that killed a baby girl?

Those are real questions. Can you explain why?


----------



## kenpo tiger (Oct 24, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> I can respect that...Im just concerned about the point where it becomes somebody deciding to, what could possibly be, killing a separate, innocent, life. Philosophically/morally and medically I dont think we have come to a conclusion (may not be able to. granted) to when that is. How being concerned about human life gets twisted into being a power hungry, woman controller.... I dont know. Im not demanding anybody do anything, just trying to discuss the issue.


Take it a step further.  Tgace, you _must_ work certain hours at a job we will select for you without your input.  You _will_ be paid a certain wage, overtime will be required with no compensation.  You _will_ have _only_ the following time off, no exceptions:  Christmas, Thanksgiving, because _after all_ those are _religious_ holidays and you _must_ observe them.  You get my point, I think.

Same thing with regard to telling us what we can and can't do with our bodies/lives, way I see it.


----------



## Xequat (Oct 24, 2004)

Hey, gang...I'm back for a little bit.  Yeah, those numbers are probably true to a point.  I mean, I support abortion to a point, too.  So that leaves %20 that believe it's wrong in all circumstances.  There are probably also %20 who believe that it's right in all circumstances.  But you got the idea.


Also, I am after a suitable compromise because we will never agree on the beginning of life if we do not already.  To answer Robert's question, I believe that it's my duty to "impose my beliefs" on others for the same reason you feel it's your duty to impose your beliefs that murder is illegal on others.  The problem is, we can all agree that once a person is born, he/she is alive.  But that's not so with embryos and fetuses.   We won't agree on when human life begins.  That's fine.  Quite simply, for some, it's a women's rights issue.  Not wrong.  For others, it's a children's rights issue.  Not wrong.  So let's meet in the middle and end the issue, whether it's at 10 weeks, 27 weeks, whatever.  Then we can let our conscience be our guide.


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 24, 2004)

A woman's gift of the ability to bear life is phenominal - a blessing.  

 That said - the decision that requires intestinal fortitude is whether to give life and give it to someone else (adoption), bear and raise the child yourself (no small task) or terminate the pregnancy (something one never forgets).

 I wish everyone who thumped Bible, heart, science, etcetera about when life actually begins and our responsibility to protect all life on the planet would go out and adopt one or two children who have no family. AIDS babies, Down's Syndrome babies, drug & alcohol babies, mongoloids and behaviorally challenged and mentally ill - not to mention the older, healthy, abandoned children who will probably never get adopted just because they are not brand-new, sweet-smelling, soft, gurgling infants.

 The act that brings about life is treated abominably in this nation. Look at advertising - we are supposed to want it - need it - look it - act it - gotta have it! But oh, don't you dare engage in it unless you're married, financially secure, mentally sound and fully prepared for the sacrifices required - and this term cannot even approach the depth of the demands of raising children. Further, you are not supposed to know much about it - just enough to understand that one sperm plus one egg equals baby. Let's not educate our children in a slow, progressive manner about their bodies, about disease, about reasonable manners of healthy sexual behavior, about masturbation and other ways of delaying the progress to intercourse.

 And now that intercourse can mean death, let's further insult "the most important resource to humans on the planet" - our youth - by not making barrier contraception available to them. I just cannot feel right in my gut about this AT ALL and cannot understand what some people are thinking when they deny knowledge and tools from their hormonally-charged children at an age when they mostly LIVE to defy their parents.

 As much as I love and respect all life, I cannot feel right about denying the right to a safe abortion to any woman without a better sex education system in place in this country, and with the seeming apathy towards those children most in need of a family - those who are already born.

 Women have been terminating pregnancies for almost as long as they have been getting pregnant, and it is no act to be taken lightly. Any woman I have ever known who has had an abortion felt not the slightest remorse for the act, yet felt helpless to make any other decision right for her and for the life inside of her.

 I also, again, firmly believe our country was founded on TOLERANCE. We came here hoping to find a place where we could practice our personal and religious beliefs (or lack thereof) without prejudice. Have we changed?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 24, 2004)

I'm with shesulsa, and somehow I think that she and her sisters can be trusted to make a good decision for themselves--trusted at least as much as men can be trusted to make the decision for women.

For the 14th time: we already HAVE a compromise. Roe v. Wade was a compromise. The government restrictions amount to a compromise. The production of options, advice, support, etc., offers compromises.

This ain't about compromise.
 It's...about...the...desire...of...men...to...take...the...right...to...control...one's...own...body...away...from...women.

The comparasion to the right of society to regulate murder is inaccurate, but very revealing of fundamental intent. 

C'mahn, guys, be honest: you have religious beliefs  that support these ideas, right? You have set notions about women's roles in life, right? You're uneasy about the idea of women's independence, right? You have doubts about sexual freedom and access to contraception, right? That's certainly the history of people arguing for these so-called compromises; what makes your arguments any different?

And above all, some of you folks believe that you should be empowered to impose your ideas--which cannot possibly be fundamentally grounded on science--upon everybody else, whether or not they agree. 

There's a very good reason that Margaret Sanger and so many others saw reproductive rights as fundamental for women. Without that freedom, all the other rights of women--especially including the right to be free individuals--are imperilled.

There's a very good reason that fundamentalists of all religions do not want women to have reproductive freedom. They believe that God put them here to control women (the poor, lesser dears incapable of rational and moral thought! we must Help Them!) and they do not want to risk losing their power.

There's a very good reason, too, that some folks refuse to seek their compromises over reproduction in militating for the decent treatment of the millions of hungry, abused, ill-educated, poor kids in this country. It would be militating for a decent, just society--and some of y'all are too deeply wedded to capitalism and conservatism to go for that. 

You want to help kids? Fine. As was just mentioned by shesulsa, "go out and adopt one or two children who have no family." There's your compromise: leave women the hell alone, as you would wish to be left alone, and go help people who need help. If some folks put ten percent of the energy, time and money into helping kids that they do into bitching about women's clinics, this'd be a better country.

Or, go militate for decent sex ed and access to Planned Parenthood. We know that'd drop the number of abortions pretty drastically. There's your compromise.

By the way, the other issue shesulsa correctly raises is that, guys, YOUR liberties and lives are at stake here. Growing up in a culture that has maintained prissy, stupid, regressive and infantile notions about sex, contraception, and education has not been good for any of us.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Oct 24, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> C'mahn, guys, be honest: you have religious beliefs that support these ideas, right?


No.



> You have set notions about women's roles in life, right?


Very few, most of which I'm getting over, but none of which include women not being able to decide what to do with their bodies. 




> You're uneasy about the idea of women's independence, right?


Again, no. 



> You have doubts about sexual freedom and access to contraception, right?


Haha, if only you knew how innacurately that describes me. 



> That's certainly the history of people arguing for these so-called compromises; what makes your arguments any different?


Well, that's certainly not my history. But it sure is dandy to be accused of being a sexist, bigotted control freak simply because I have questions about abortion. 

I have already said before, and I think Tgace takes the same position (please, Tgace, correct me if I'm wrong), that the only issue I'm considering in thinking that abortion should be at least limited is that of the unborn fetus' humanity. I've heard numerous arguments about whether an unborn fetus deserves to be treated as a human being, would have liked to hear more about that issue, and last time I checked, that was the entire purpose to the brain waves argument that began this thread. You know, BEFORE you hijacked it and began accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being motivated by Freudian desires to suppress women. 

I say again, the only concern I have with abortion is the question of the fetus' humanity. Not a discomfort with women having independence, or a desire to see every one of them barefoot and pregnant, or a desire to control their sexual activities, or whatever other notions you'd like to project in there so that you can conveniently disregard the actual issues raised.


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 24, 2004)

* shakes rmcrobertson's hand *


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 24, 2004)

Gee, and here I thought the topic was: "Abortion compromise....what do you think?" You think that we should change our present laws: I think they represent a pretty good compromise.

I ask AGAIN: why do you feel it's your place to consider taking the decision--about "humanity," or anything else concerning pregnancy--out of women's hands? Why don't you simply militate for doing something about all the suffering kids whose humanity is as clear as it gets?

Freud's also very good on denegation: you should take a peek.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Oct 24, 2004)

> You think that we should change our present laws



Oh I'm sorry, you got this from where?  I never said that I thought we should change the laws, just asked questions about the issue of fetus' rights.  



> why do you feel it's your place to consider taking the decision--about "humanity," or anything else concerning pregnancy--out of women's hands?



Well, IF the position that an unborn fetus does deserve rights is correct, then the mother's decision to terminate the pregnancy would be violating those rights, wouldn't it?  The fetus having rights of its own would prevent the issue of abortion from being just the mother's decision, which is why discussion of that issue is important to this thread--not just to be dismissed as a smokescreen.      



> Why don't you simply militate for doing something about all the suffering kids whose humanity is as clear as it gets?



Didn't know that I was militating against anything.  And incidentally, when did I say I wasn't for helping kids?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 25, 2004)

Well, at least you're making your argument clear: in the event that you decide, "the position that an unborn fetus does deserve rights is correct, then the mother's decision," doesn't matter. 

I ask AGAIN: why do you feel it's your place to consider taking the decision--about "humanity," or anything else concerning pregnancy--out of women's hands? Why do you feel they can't be trusted to make that decision?


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 25, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I ask AGAIN: why do you feel it's your place to consider taking the decision--about "humanity," or anything else concerning pregnancy--out of women's hands? Why do you feel they can't be trusted to make that decision?


 I'm not sure anyone is intentionally campaigning against the intelligence of women here, Robert, though I understand where you're coming from.  The suppression of women's rights has often been championed under another banner.  What's that song by John Lennon... "Woman is the N****r of the World?"  I congratulate you for wanting to champion the cause of women's rights, though I think -_ I think_ - the discussion is still on the viability of life.

 Though the topic of humanity and life is titillating.  What of persons who are severely brain-damaged but have some brain waves.  If you were that person - what would you want done?  What is the HUMANE thing to do?  Who are we to play God?  God's subjects, I suppose.  We do it all the time.

 Do we begin to protect the life of living sperm cells?  They are most definately alive - certainly upon ejaculation... what exactly are the moral implications when they go swirling down the drain?  Can women who pass living ova upon menstruation be accused of squashing human life?

 I suppose my question is.. how extreme is extreme?  We can narrow life right down to a skin cell if we really, really wanted to, especially if DNA can be extracted and a clone produced.

 *sigh*  too much thinking ... not enough doing....


----------



## Tgace (Oct 25, 2004)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> I'm not sure anyone is intentionally campaigning against the intelligence of women here, Robert, though I understand where you're coming from. The suppression of women's rights has often been championed under another banner. What's that song by John Lennon... "Woman is the N****r of the World?" I congratulate you for wanting to champion the cause of women's rights, though I think -_ I think_ - the discussion is still on the viability of life.
> 
> Though the topic of humanity and life is titillating. What of persons who are severely brain-damaged but have some brain waves. If you were that person - what would you want done? What is the HUMANE thing to do? Who are we to play God? God's subjects, I suppose. We do it all the time.
> 
> ...


Well said, and kind of my point all the long....I dont think we should go too far either. I also think we should be able to discuss how far we should go the other direction too. Unfortunately, it appears that some people take a "you are with us 100% or you are against us." stance.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Oct 25, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Well said, and kind of my point all the long....I dont think we should go too far either. I also think we should be able to discuss how far we should go the other direction too. Unfortunately, it appears that some people take a "you are with us 100% or you are against us." stance.


I hope you weren't referring to me ~ I keep trying to emphasize the difference between *my* personal choice - where I would be comfortable (or not) having an abortion, or a friend of mine having an abortion - and the law, which would dictate to all women when they could or could not have an abortion.  

If you want to continue this "if you had to pick a legal cutoff point for all women", and still think that my position is somehow waffling or not addressing the issue (although I think I have) - I think the cutoff point could be the age of viability - when, if the baby was born prematurely, it could survive outside of the mother's body.  That's in the 3rd trimester.  So 1st and 2nd trimester abortions should be OK.


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 25, 2004)

Maybe it's time that we as a species need to just say, "I don't know," and leave it be.

 Personally, my opinion is that since pregnancy permanently changes a woman's body and life - whether or not she chooses to raise a resulting baby herself or not - it is ultimately her choice - legal or not.

 I had a good friend who practiced multiple barrier contraception and STILL got pregnant.  She is a recovering addict and was using at the time.  She visited drug and alcohol babies at the hospital (there's a dose of reality for ya) while she was deciding what to do.  She was of the opinion that her addiction already destroyed the life of the child to some extent and could not feel right about bringing a compromised life into the world, as she would not have the guts to give the child up for adoption either, thereby further terrorizing (her word) the child by her addictive nature.

 All that women who have had abortions can do is pray for absolution - just as do all the people who execute others who have been convicted of taking life.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Oct 25, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Well, at least you're making your argument clear


Wow, nice attempt at a compliment. 



> I ask AGAIN: why do you feel it's your place to consider taking the decision--about "humanity," or anything else concerning pregnancy--out of women's hands? Why do you feel they can't be trusted to make that decision?


Well, it would be society's decision, just like it's society's decision that a wife has the right not to be beaten in the home, that a black person does have the right to vote, that a street walker has the right not to be shot by a passer-by, etc. 

I guess a good analogy would the rights of black people. During the time of the slave trade, blacks weren't recognized as people, at least not in the legal sense; they were property. The had no rights, were't recognized as human, for all intents and purposes, and were the business of their owners. Then, over time (and, unfortunately, through a civil war), society recognized that they were indeed deserving of rights (albeit on paper at least). 

It's the same type of question here. There's a subgroup who currently don't have rights and aren't recognized as human, and are considered the business only of the mother (much like the slave was considered property of the plantation owner). And I can imagine that, before slavery was abolished, many slave owners would respond to assertions that slaves have rights by saying "that slave is my business, and who are you to tell me what to do with them?" (although that's my own speculation, of course). 

You could argue, I suppose, that blacks, as opposed to fetus, are already humans, but the important fact is that that wasn't recognized at the time. Besides, the humanity of a fetus is the very question at issue. So using this analogy, if it was right for someone to claim that blacks might deserve rights as humans at a time when they weren't granted them, why is it suddenly a selfish grab for power over women to question whether fetus' similarly deserve rights? As far as rights and humanity are concerned, these two issues seem analogous enough.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 25, 2004)

Sorry, not a good analogy. Slavery was based upon racist and demonstrably bizarre, "science," weird readings of the Bible, and economic exploitation--this doesn't apply to "the unborn," though it most certainly does apply to the women whose power to control their own lives you apparently wish to remove.

More to the point, Roe v. Wade--for the 14th time!--ALREADY FEATURES PRECISELY THE COMPROMISE AND THE SEPARATION BETWEEN TRIMESTERS that you're arguing for. It already grounds that separation in issues of fetal development. It already identifies the State's increasing inteerest in intervention.

We already have that. That's pretty consistently what you guys have been arguing for, even while you're arguing that we don't have that. So, if the compromise you're arguing for, which we already have, isn't the compromise you're arguing for, then what is it that you want?

So--who wants to sign up for the Contraception and Abortion Police? Which of you guys--and it is guys--wants to spend their days going around and checking to make sure, every time somebody gets pregnant, that your little "compromise," is obeyed? Will you be boarding up clinics, or just bulldozing 'em? Hey, no more IUDs, no more "morning-after," pills, no nothing.

Just the endless dance of every sperm is sacred...which, come to think of it, is really what this is all about. Protecting men's precious bodily fluids...hm, interesting.


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 25, 2004)

I think what makes the debate on abortion so unique is that no other human rights argument other than the right to die has parallel consequences.

 One cannot know what the future holds, what fates are at play.  In terms of the right to die, for the sake of analogy, medical miracles are made every single day to the baffled mind of scientists and doctors everywhere, so who is to say we must take life in a merciful way?  Conscience?  Pity?  In the spiritual realm, absolutely ANYTHING is possible, so how can we say there is absolutely no way a person can recover even from brain death?  There have been humans declared dead and in the morgue, on the slab suddenly recover to breathe again.  How can THAT be?

 What is death?

 Are not these the very same reasons we might choose to take life before it begins outside the womb?

 Perhaps we attempt to understand things we cannot possible comprehend yet as a species.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Oct 25, 2004)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> Wow, nice attempt at a compliment.
> 
> Well, it would be society's decision, just like it's society's decision that a wife has the right not to be beaten in the home, that a black person does have the right to vote, that a street walker has the right not to be shot by a passer-by, etc.
> 
> ...


Holy cow.

Right to abortion = slavery?  I think not.

Could another person live without the slave master? Indeed - probably better.  Was the slave a "sub-human", as the contemporary, flawed science tried to indicate, or fully a human?

I would, and will, continue to argue that the fetus is potential.  When born, the baby has all the rights of an individual in our society.  Before that, the fetus and mother are one and the same - biologically speaking, the fetus is a very adapted parasite of the mother's body.  

And each woman's body remains in her sole possession.  Would you appreciate it if I could have anyone who drank arrested, because they were harming their liver, and I find that morally reprehensible?


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Oct 25, 2004)

Alright, this one outta be fun.  



> though it most certainly does apply to the women whose power to control their own lives you apparently wish to remove.



Yes, that's exactly it, robertson.  I don't think any women should be able to control their bodies, not at all.  They should all just stay home and cook my dinner.  While we're at it, let me go ahead and brand my name on the *** of every one of my girlfriends, so that they know their f***ing place.    

Hope the sarcasm's noticeable enough.  

As for Roe v. Wade, I never said that the compromise therein wasn't valid.  All I tried to do was say that the pro-life arguments (or at least the only ones I see as having any valid point) are based on the fetus' humanity and rights, not a desire to subordinate women.  I actually do agree with the basic ruling of Roe v. Wade.  It'd be good to point out, however, that others in the thread who've been arguing for the pro-choice perspective are claiming that the mother has the right to abort allt he way to delivery, which isn't the Roe v. Wade decision.  

And, once again, I've never said anything about getting rid of contraceptives.  I'm actually quite all for them, and use them quite often.  But, you know, glad to have the fundie Christian values imposed onto me once again, based solely on the fact that I've disagreed with you.  It's usually either fundie Christian values that I'm allegedly holding, or neo-conservative Michael Savage worship.  Seems to be the pattern, anyway.  



> Right to abortion = slavery? I think not.
> 
> Could another person live without the slave master? Indeed - probably better. Was the slave a "sub-human", as the contemporary, flawed science tried to indicate, or fully a human?



That wasn't the relationship I was trying to point out.  I was using the slavery example as one where society--legitimately, I assume you all to believe--said that a group that didnt have recognition as humans beforehand suddenly received rights, and that decision isn't some form of, let's say, them damn Yankees imposing their beliefs on us southerners.  Whether or not a fetus is a child is another issue entirely from the motives of pro-life (or should I say anti-abortion, I guess) arguments.  

As for my liver, well you said it yourself: it doesn't have the potential to become a human being.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 25, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> I hope you weren't referring to me ~ .....



No. I was kind of making a general statement about the "if you arent all in..pro-choice wise...than you are an anti" atmosphere I seem to feel. 

In general though, everybody here has been very polite and well mannered considering the subject.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Oct 25, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> No. I was kind of making a general statement about the "if you arent all in..pro-choice wise...than you are an anti" atmosphere I seem to feel.
> 
> In general though, everybody here has been very polite and well mannered considering the subject.


  I think it's, again, keeping the line firm in terms of legally, what any woman would be allowed under the law, and, personally, what each individual woman and her doctor (and partner, if he's around) would choose based on their situation.  

Once you start saying "anything after X date is just wrong and should not be allowed" (which we have, anyways), you can start moving the line in the sand.  That worries me.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 25, 2004)

One of the things that folks should think through, from time to time, is the level and origins of their unconscious commitments, however liberal they believe they are at a conscious level.

As for this, "the fetus, yes the fetus," claptrap, wellp, what makes us human is culture and history and language. It isn't simply our "brain-waves," or whatever other pseudo-science we come up with to obviate that reality.

And oh, incidentally, most cultures for much of history have allowed abortion. It's more in the modern period--as capitalism needed to control the holy family and its production of, "docile and useful bodies," and patriarchy demanded more and more close formal control over the dangerous figures of women--that abortion even became an issue.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Oct 25, 2004)

Robertson,

You mistake rational, logical human thought in those you know with that of many in our society.  Not every male thinks the way you do, unfortunately, and that's where these laws come from.  SheSulsa's argument with the example of the alleged corpse coming back to life is interesting.  But -- we all know that there's no happy medium (other than Roe v. Wade -- we know, we know) which can be reached in such an emotionally-charged issue.  Way it is.  KT


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Oct 25, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> One of the things that folks should think through, from time to time, is the level and origins of their unconscious commitments, however liberal they believe they are at a conscious level.


So "folks" should just realize that, no matter what they say, ideology is controlling them? Interesting way to completely invalidate anything they may say in response. 



> As for this, "the fetus, yes the fetus," claptrap, wellp, what makes us human is culture and history and language. It isn't simply our "brain-waves," or whatever other pseudo-science we come up with to obviate that reality.


Wouldn't this argument allow parents to kill newborns, since they arguably haven't been socialized with culture and language yet, and therefore aren't, according to these standards, human? The very few but still intriguing "wild child" cases also come to mind; I've seen two documentaries of kids who have grown up without socialization--no language, no culture, wild children. Where would they fit in? 

And it's nice to finally hear some responses to the arguments, rather than just insulting other people's psychological motives.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 25, 2004)

I am pleased to be classed as at least a fellow traveller of the girls, on the side that's opposed to all this emotion-based male irrationalism...and no, I'm not kiding, neither.

Infanticide, which has been part of many human societies, is something we don't do deliberately. I'd add that it's probably not a great idea--and, as suggested, something of a signpost for the limits of theory.

As for my irrationalism, well, guess what, was rational right from start. Was just disagreed with; rather than saying that, some folks chose to attack instead. Tone toughened subsequently.

Should know better.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Oct 25, 2004)

> Wouldn't this argument allow parents to kill newborns, since they arguably haven't been socialized with culture and language yet, and therefore aren't, according to these standards, human? The very few but still intriguing "wild child" cases also come to mind; I've seen two documentaries of kids who have grown up without socialization--no language, no culture, wild children. Where would they fit in?


No - since they are living independently outside of the mother's body - they are a living individual, and as such, are protected by the law.  

"Wild child" cases are intriguing, it's true, but still are their own existing individuals.  Of course, there was a period of time in our recent human history where people with learning disabilities, or physical disabilities, were considered "less human", but we're learning to go beyond that.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 25, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> Once you start saying "anything after X date is just wrong and should not be allowed" (which we have, anyways), you can start moving the line in the sand. That worries me.


What worries me is a system of thought that "theoretically" states a fetus should be able to be legally aborted right up to its birthdate. Minus medical emergency I would "draw a line in the sand". Where? I dont honestly know....


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 25, 2004)

This has been an excellent discussion, ladies and gents. I have learned quite a bit, and the ideas put forward have challenged my previous preconceptions about the issue (I must add that feisty mouse has probably put forward the most intriguing food for thought).

Please, keep it comin'.  :asian:  :asian:  :asian:


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Oct 25, 2004)

:xtrmshock  :asian:


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Oct 25, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> No - since they are living independently outside of the mother's body - they are a living individual, and as such, are protected by the law.
> 
> "Wild child" cases are intriguing, it's true, but still are their own existing individuals. Of course, there was a period of time in our recent human history where people with learning disabilities, or physical disabilities, were considered "less human", but we're learning to go beyond that.


Agreed, but I brought those up in the contexts of robertson's socialization standard.  I'd like to know how he explains those away...I mean, accounts for them.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Oct 25, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> What worries me is a system of thought that "theoretically" states a fetus should be able to be legally aborted right up to its birthdate. Minus medical emergency I would "draw a line in the sand". Where? I dont honestly know....


Careful, Tgace, your subconscious desire to control all women is starting to appear. :lol:


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 25, 2004)

> Agreed, but I brought those up in the contexts of robertson's socialization standard. I'd like to know how he explains those away...I mean, accounts for them.



Well, if I may interject, I don't believe Robert was referring to "language" and "culture" in the formal sense.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 25, 2004)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> Careful, Tgace, your subconscious desire to control all women is starting to appear. :lol:


Yeah..that approach has been working SOOOOO well for me up to this point...:shrug:


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 26, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> What worries me is a system of thought that "theoretically" states a fetus should be able to be legally aborted right up to its birthdate. Minus medical emergency I would "draw a line in the sand". Where? I dont honestly know....


 Could the fact that we are bothered by it be the price we must pay for the "necessary evil?"

 I want to address Robertson.  Bob, I want to say again, that I really appreciate your passion about the whole subconscious male power-over thing.  It could be that we all (myself included ) get so passionate about that which we believe so firmly.  I commend you for raising the issue in the first place - I was actually a tad worried it might be neglected here.

 However, I have read every post now on this thread and I think everyone is really trying very hard to earnestly discuss, discover, debate and ponder over this terrible puzzle.  And really, if one is spiritual by any means, it is terrible no matter which side of the fence one stakes claim.

 I really respect everyone who has posted for 1. having the guts to get involved in this discussion at all and 2. for doing your utmost to be considerate of others here.  This has been fascinating.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Oct 26, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Well, if I may interject, I don't believe Robert was referring to "language" and "culture" in the formal sense.


Well, what other meaning could there be?  Even in the most general terms, I myself can't think of any meaning to language and culture that wouldn't be lacking in the wild child examples, nor a newborn who's yet to acquire socialization.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 26, 2004)

> Well, what other meaning could there be? Even in the most general terms, I myself can't think of any meaning to language and culture that wouldn't be lacking in the wild child examples, nor a newborn who's yet to acquire socialization.



"Language" doesn't necessarily mean you speak Spanish, and "culture" doesn't necessarily mean you identify yourself as a Chinese person. Those are both rather formal, and limited, definitions of the words.

Whether we are talking biology or psychology here (and by no means are they mutually exclusive), the whole idea behind both "language" and "culture" capacities is that the organism has differentiated him or herself from "the world" to a competent enough degree that we could actually describe there being a pseudo-independent "self" or "individual". In other words, what most people generally call "sentience" or "self-awareness".

Just look at this way --- our hominid ancestors didn't just "learn" things like English and a particular cultural worldview the way we do; it wasn't just taught to them by their parents. At some point in human history, these things developed as an evolutionary adaptation (or "divine intervention", if that's your thing). What set apart those early homo sapiens from all the other bipedal primates running around the globe was not that they had language and culture, but that they had the _capacity_ or _ability_ to create and use their own language and culture.

Can you honestly say that a fetus is capable of learning any language?? Or, developing any worldview?? Can you honestly say that a fetus is truly an individual, sentience and all??


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Oct 26, 2004)

I see.  The distinction between language & culture and the capacity for them is a good point.  And these are based on the development of sentient awareness, which is the separation between human and hunk of genetic material inside a womb, I think I can buy that.


----------



## Ronald R. Harbers (Oct 26, 2004)

I cannot buy any into reason that allows a Doctor to suck the brains out of a child as his/her head emerges from the womb! Sounds like murder!


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 26, 2004)

Ronald R. Harbers said:
			
		

> I cannot buy any into reason that allows a Doctor to suck the brains out of a child as his/her head emerges from the womb! Sounds like murder!


1.  I don't really think anybody is saying this is a good idea.
2.  I don't think that you have grasped the generally accepted format of debate that we use in the Study.  Posters try to put forth an idea, supported by reasoning and logic.  Usually, should another choose to counter the proposition, they will refute using reason and logic.  References supporting any facts quoted are often a good idea as well.


----------



## Ronald R. Harbers (Oct 26, 2004)

What kind of format excuses this kind of murder?


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 26, 2004)

Ronald R. Harbers said:
			
		

> What kind of format excuses this kind of murder?


What or whom are you arguing here, Mr. Harbers?  What kind of murder?  Are you refuting any particular position or are you imagining one?


----------



## Ronald R. Harbers (Oct 26, 2004)

I cannot imagine killing a child as it is being born.  Only white people can be that cruel.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Oct 26, 2004)

Ronald R. Harbers said:
			
		

> I cannot imagine killing a child as it is being born.  Only white people can be that cruel.



Has anyone on this thread, or in fact anyone else, advocated this?


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Oct 26, 2004)

Right, let's throw the race card into this already-controvercial enough thread.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Oct 26, 2004)

Damn sure wasn't me.  I think the phrase "straw-man argument" applies here quite well.


----------



## Ronald R. Harbers (Oct 26, 2004)

What is Straw-man?


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Oct 26, 2004)

He's a little-known superhero from DC comics.  His cousin starred in The Wizard of Oz.  Big feud erupted between the two after the cousin hit it big.  Fascinating comic strip though.  His villains never seemed to appear, though he always ranted against them...


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Oct 26, 2004)

To everyone else: sorry, I had to.


----------



## Ronald R. Harbers (Oct 26, 2004)

What ever do you mean?


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 26, 2004)

Ronald R. Harbers said:
			
		

> What ever do you mean?


Mr. Harbers, when one misrepresents a position with which one disagrees in order to refute it more easily, one is committing the logical fallacy of "the straw man".  It is named such because it is very easily refuted, or "knocked down".

For example,



> I cannot buy any into reason that allows a Doctor to suck the brains out of a child as his/her head emerges from the womb! Sounds like murder!


Nobody has claimed that this type of activity should be acceptable.  You have invented it, in order to refute it.  Essentially, you are arguing with yourself on the internet.

Crazy, eh?


----------



## Ronald R. Harbers (Oct 26, 2004)

I still do not understand.  What is the compromise?


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Oct 26, 2004)

> I still do not understand.  What is the compromise?



Do they have a smiley of someone banging their head against a brick wall?


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 26, 2004)

Ronald R. Harbers said:
			
		

> I still do not understand. What is the compromise?


Mr. Harbers, let me be blunt.  Read the _entire_ thread, consider the arguments put forth, and contribute to the discussion in a positive and logical fashion, if you so choose.  That is what we do here.

Now, let's get back on topic.


----------



## Ronald R. Harbers (Oct 26, 2004)

I guess I will never understand.  My Grandfather was right.


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 26, 2004)

Apparently.


----------



## Ronald R. Harbers (Oct 26, 2004)

I wish to understand.  How do you think?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 26, 2004)

To understand both the issue, and the topic, please read the thread from the beginning.  I believe your answers are in there.  


My perspective - It's not for me to say if it should or shouldn't be available. It's not my decision to decide for others what is best for them.  I can only decide for myself, and I personally will never have to make that decision. I believe that regardless of where you look, there will be a flaw.

Only ok when the mothers life is at risk. Only in cases of rape. Only in cases of incest. Only within "X" months. Tell the parents/don't tell the parents, etc.  There are flaws at every stop point.  The key component of a compromise is give/take.  Roe vs Wade set up that compromise.  Other laws have built upon that.  It's not perfect, but it does allow women to weight things out for themselves and make a decision, a choice that they can hopefully live with and someday come to terms with.

For those who are so set in the 'against' camp, what if it is you, your sister, your mother, your loved one who will die, or was raped, etc?  If we outlaw it, who will care for all the unwanted children? What about the back alley clinics?  Will they again open shop and cause the same or worse tragedies that they did prior to Roe vs Wade?

I firmly believe in the sanctity of life...all life. Human, animal and plant.  But we all must decide what amount of death is acceptable.  I've made my decisions, and unlike most things, I will keep that one private.


----------



## Ronald R. Harbers (Oct 26, 2004)

I must be a total retard.  I read the whole thread.  Still, I am confused.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 26, 2004)

What part of it do you not understand?

The original premise is below:


> I've mentioned this idea briefly in another thread, but I'd like opinions from both sides on how to fix the abortion disagreement.
> 
> Currently, the law says that someone is dead when their brain waves stop; not when their heart or lungs or anything else stops, but when their brain waves stop. So why not say that when the brain waves start, human life legally begins? Conservatives say it happens at 8 weeks; liberals have said 12, so let's call it 10 and be done with it. Personally, I am not in favor of abortion; I think it devalues human life, but I am willing to compromise the idea without compromising my principles. But until it has brain waves, maybe we should consider it as something other than alive and allow the woman to decide. Once the child has brain waves, however, I think it's up to us to protect it. It's always been an issue of woman's rights versus child's rights, as I see it, so let's get consistent with the law, which will take the morality out of it and make it a legal, constitutional issue.
> 
> What do you think?


----------



## Ronald R. Harbers (Oct 26, 2004)

I realize that I not as smart as you folks.  Maybe I just got lost in the translation.  My clan would never kill a child.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 26, 2004)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> Do they have a smiley of someone banging their head against a brick wall?


----------



## kenpo tiger (Oct 26, 2004)

Ronald R. Harbers said:
			
		

> I cannot buy any into reason that allows a Doctor to suck the brains out of a child as his/her head emerges from the womb! Sounds like murder!


Who writes your material? Yeesh.

And I agree with HHJH - lay off the exclamation points. We're listening... for now, at least.

And -- don't paint us all with the same broad stroke.  Especially if you don't understand the premise and related arguments.  Lurking might be recommended for now.  Or are you going to accuse me of something, too?  (omg - I sound like Robertson)  Listen to Flatlander.  He's a Moderator, and trying to help you.


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 26, 2004)

Ronald R. Harbers said:
			
		

> I realize that I not as smart as you folks. Maybe I just got lost in the translation. My clan would never kill a child.


 Lost in translation?  Is English your second language?  Earnestly asking, here.

 Also - to which "clan" are you referring?


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 26, 2004)

Ronald R. Harbers said:
			
		

> Still, I am confused.


Sometimes, I'm confused too.  That's when I use www.google.com.  I'm able to better research what it is these curious people are talking about, so I can follow their discussion, and contribute if and when I can.  And sometimes when I shouldn't.  So don't sweat it.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Oct 26, 2004)

Mr. Harbers

I do not think anyone is advocating sucking the brains out of a baby as it is being born.  Although anti-abortion groups like to portray "partial-birth abortion" as such, that is not really the case.

I would be happy if there were no need for abortion.  It is a terribly decision for any woman or couple to have to make.

You refer to your "clan" - but oftentimes the women who are facing such a decision do not have a supportive family structure to help them with an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy.  Sometimes they may the victims of child abuse and rape from inside the family.  There are truly horrific things that happen that should not.  If such a young woman is alone, young, scared, and faces a life, potentially, of being homeless or beaten, what would you suggest?  Would you offer to house her, feed her, get her good prenatal care for 9-10 months (gestation = 38-40 weeks in humans), see her through the life-changing process of birth, and then care for her baby for the next, oh...lifetime?

The things we've been discussing here have been on where, if at all, one would "draw a line in the sand".  No-one here (I think I may say this with a fair amount of confidence) thinks abortion in and of itself is a good thing to have to have happen or to experience.  Most folks would agree, too, that if abortion is the decision, earlier is far better than later (near birth).  

Of course, if the late-gestation fetus has developed in such a way that the continued pregnancy and delivery would seriously harm the mother's health, and/or future fertility, should she not have the option of discussing with her doctor a pregnancy termination?

It's not pleasant, it's not "nice", but it's something that some women have been faced with.  It's a reality.


----------



## Ronald R. Harbers (Oct 26, 2004)

Do you know what Partial Birth abortion is?  As the baby's head comes out of the womb, the Doctor takes a pair of sissors and cuts into the back of it's head, inserts a suction device, and removes the brain.  It has nothing to do with the health of the mother.  Personally, I believe in free choice.  Abortion may be the only way to stem over population of the earth.


----------



## Bester (Oct 26, 2004)

You know, I've seen a few posts here that seem to indicate that it's not always fatal.

Seriously, I think we're mostly adults here, we know how to use a search engine or medical text to look up procedures if need be. http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/diagram.html  and more info here: http://www.abortionfacts.com/partial_birth/partial_birth.asp

Now, with that said, do you have anything of value to contribute to this thread?


----------



## Ronald R. Harbers (Oct 26, 2004)

I forgot to answer.  English is my first language.  Espanol, Lakota and Creek are secondary languages.

What's not always fatal?  Abortion?


----------



## Bester (Oct 26, 2004)

Having
Your
Brain
Sucked
Out.


----------



## Ronald R. Harbers (Oct 27, 2004)

I still don't comprehend.  Nevertheless, I apologize for any remark or statement that may have offended anyone.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 27, 2004)

Ronald R. Harbers said:
			
		

> Do you know what Partial Birth abortion is?


Mr. Harbers, you may have found, as you read the entire thread, that my positions appear to be the most extreme of all those posted. I have advocated that terminating a pregnancy should be the womans decision until such time as a 'live birth' has occurred. I have not advocated for this position because I wish it to happen, but rather, because I believe that what a woman does is between her own moral compass, her god, and her doctor. I remind you that current United States law does not support my position, but places restrictions on women as the pregnancy comes to term.

Additionally, 'Partial Birth abortion' is a made-up term that right-to-life crowd invented to horrify all feeling people. Earlier in this thread, I explained the correct term, the medical term is 'intact dilation and extraction', sometimes referred to as D&X. I posted a link to a relatively comprehensive explanation of the D&X proceedure, and when it is used. D&X is a rare proceedure for terminating a pregnancy. One of the examples as to why D&X might be used is 'hyrdocephylus', a disease that causes the skull to grow to 250% normal size. Think about it.

I re-post the earlier link to information about D&X.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Intact%20dilation%20and%20extraction

In the words of the pro-choice people, if you are against abortion, don't have one. Normally we don't like to step down to 'sloganeering', but, there you go.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 27, 2004)

Ronald R. Harbers said:
			
		

> Do you know what Partial Birth abortion is?  As the baby's head comes out of the womb, the Doctor takes a pair of sissors and cuts into the back of it's head, inserts a suction device, and removes the brain.  It has nothing to do with the health of the mother.  Personally, I believe in free choice.  Abortion may be the only way to stem over population of the earth.




It very well may have something to do with the health of the mother, Mr. Harbers.  When a fetus has severe hydrocephalus ("water on the brain"), the head of the child can swell up to twenty inches in diameter and contain up to two gallons of cerebro-spinal fluid.  _This is not a viable fetus._

If a normal birth is attempted, the mother will die.  The fetus will as well.  The only other option to a D&X procedure is a hysterotomy, which is more dangerous to the mother and can affect her ability to have other children in the future.  Hysterotomy, a form of C-section, is one of the most dangerous methods of performing an abortion.  Once delivered by hysterotomy, the child will die on its own.

Given that we do not have quality health benefits for the poor we find that many American women do not seek proper pre-natal care.  An indigent woman who shows up at the doctor in her third tri-mester--perhaps her first visit to the doctor since conception--might be carrying a fetus in this condition.   

What then?

As for abortion being the only way to prevent over-population...bunk.  The Indians are in Phase III trials of a method of male birth control that is effective and lasts up to ten years.  It is easily reversed, and seems to have no negative long term health effects.  The United States will likely never adopt it.

----

I'm surprised the members here let you get away with a racist remark.  I shall not. Last I checked, Mr. Harbers, caucasians hadn't cornered the market on cruelty.  You have referred negatively to "white" people twice (that I've seen) in two separate threads here on Martialtalk.  While this is illuminating in one sense by reminding us that racism goes both ways, I for one would like you to knock it off.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 27, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> I'm surprised the members here let you get away with a racist remark. I shall not. Last I checked, Mr. Harbers, caucasians hadn't cornered the market on cruelty. You have referred negatively to "white" people twice (that I've seen) in two separate threads here on Martialtalk. While this is illuminating in one sense by reminding us that racism goes both ways, I for one would like you to knock it off.


 Here, here.

 It is one thing if you cannot understand how anyone could terminate a pregnancy or if your cultural background is to perpetually state that you do not understand *insert custom here* to make a point (which we all do, by the way - e.g. I can't understand why women are treated so abominably in the east and why, oh why women tolerate it, and why a woman who works at our Girl Scout Council wears a black sheet over herself as though she were ashamed).

 But it is another to categorize persons in an inappropriate fashion such as the racist remark you made and I am offended and ashamed for all your brothers as fellow members of the human race.

 Sincerely

 She-Sulsa


----------



## loki09789 (Oct 27, 2004)

Nicely put in all ways HH.....

The issue is abortion and where to or whether there even should be a line drawn where a fetus/child is recognized as a separate person from the mother AND based on your answer to that, what rights/protections should be afforded to each party involved in the situation (Mother, Father, Child...others as specified in discussion).

I have to say that, theoretically, if I absolutely had to draw the line it would be at the end of the first trimester that the life become 'human'.  Before that the mother's body is more likely to self abort.  After that, biologically speaking (and none too accurately, only generalizing here) the body 'accepts' the fetus more often than not.  Now, 2nd/3rd trimester abortions, within my drawing of the line setting, would be techniquely Euthanization.  I think  that is about where we are now anyway.

From a woman's perspective, I think that no matter how logically you can rationalize that it isn't 'human' in the first trimester there is an emotional/personal 'human' label given to this 'thing' anyway otherwise post operation stress wouldn't be a point of discussion when the abortion issue comes up.

So, on a rational level, we can say it is or isn't 'human' but no one can reasonably dispute that there isn't  some guilt involved in exterminated a 'life' willfully.  Heck I felt bad running over a squirrel or hitting a deer and that doesn't even have to potential to be human.  Considering aborting something that is bonded to my own body and has a strong potential to develop into 'human life' must be a very hard decision to make, live with EVEN when all the rational logic says it is the reasonable/life saving thing to do.


			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> It very well may have something to do with the health of the mother, Mr. Harbers. When a fetus has severe hydrocephalus ("water on the brain"), the head of the child can swell up to twenty inches in diameter and contain up to two gallons of cerebro-spinal fluid. _This is not a viable fetus._
> 
> If a normal birth is attempted, the mother will die. The fetus will as well. The only other option to a D&X procedure is a hysterotomy, which is more dangerous to the mother and can affect her ability to have other children in the future. Hysterotomy, a form of C-section, is one of the most dangerous methods of performing an abortion. Once delivered by hysterotomy, the child will die on its own.
> 
> ...


----------



## Flatlander (Oct 27, 2004)

> I'm surprised the members here let you get away with a racist remark.


Just to add, it was being discussed, note the account status of the member.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Oct 27, 2004)

Ronald R. Harbers said:
			
		

> I realize that I not as smart as you folks.  Maybe I just got lost in the translation.  My clan would never kill a child.




Not all, but many of the Native American Indians of North America, had ways to deal with deformed babies that were a drain on their culture for survival. In some it fell to the oldest male not related, that had not gone through the right of manhood. He was still a child in the eyes of the nation, and therefore could be forgiven for his acts of mercy, as some would call it. Others would  call it otherwise.

 :asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 27, 2004)

Let me clue some of you folks into reality, on the matter of what happens when the right to decide is removed from women, their families, their doctors, their religious advisors, and handed over to a group of government snoops and moralistic, busybody men who apparently have way too much time on their hands.

In 1979-80, when I worked at a Children's Hospital in a major mid-western city (I'd rather not say which one), I worked as a respiratory tech in a NICU. During that year, new Reagan/Ed Meese-inspired regulations came down from the government. 

All newborns, regardless of condition and outcomes, had to be supported to the full extent of the hospital's resources. No more discussing things with the mom and family, bringing in the hospital chaplains and shrinks, giving the family time to deal with it and say goodbye, and shutting off the stupid machinery and letting Nature take its course.

The first time I really ran into this, it was with a term baby born completely anencephalic. That means, kids, no cerebrum, and just enough of a brain stem--the most primitive part of the brain--present to keep some, though not all, of basic housekeeping functions going. 

The parents knew it. They wanted the machinery shut off. The nurses knew it; ditto. The doctors, staff, everybody but the lawyers and the Feds agreed. 

We supported that brainless carcass for a couple of weeks, until nothing worked.

Quarter million, half a million dollars down the drain. Family torn up for weeks. Staff miserable. Brainless "baby," born dead, "died," anyway, as these unfortunates always do no matter what you do.

Oh, incidentally, kids literally across the street needing their shots, decent meals, Head Start, help for their twisted parents, etc., while we're playing Night of the Living Dead one block away.

Funny how folks who are by-god against guv'mint intervention that takes away a man's assault rifle are perfectly content with such spectacles.

Makes sense to me, though. Guv'mint takes a gun, guv'mint takes away a man's--let's just say thingy; guv'mint takes away a woman's control, well, they never lost anything anyway.

Recommended Halloween film: David Cronenberg, "Dead Ringers."


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 27, 2004)

Hey, folks, know this is a tad off-topic here...

but, if you think "white people" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean) have the corner market on cruelty --- particularly cruelty directed against infants --- 'fraid you might be a tad mistaken.

For example, might want to read up on the lovely infanticide practices of the pre-modern Japanese (there were similar practices among the Chinese). The practices found in some Native American tribes that someone cited on this thread are also somewhat common in a few African tribal groups, as well.

Its kinda the same thing with "slavery" --- again, lotta cultures were doing it. Very disingenous to peg any one culture or "race" with its exclusivity.

In the end, what this shows us is that any broad generalizations about social behavior on the basis of "race" or "nation" are kinda silly. Not to mention, un-American (y'know --- tolerance, individualism, equality, and all that jazz).

Laterz.  :asian:


----------



## Rich Parsons (Oct 27, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Hey, folks, know this is a tad off-topic here...
> 
> . . .
> 
> ...



The Chinese as recent as 1966, the year of the fire horse, had mass infant deaths of female children. It is beleived in their culture that a female child born under this sign (* a whole lunar year *) will bring disgrace upon thier family and themselves. They also practiced selective abortions when population controls were implemented, everyone wanted a son to carry on the family name. 

And yes tribal cultures the world over did have lots of similar traits, that allowed them to survive.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 27, 2004)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> Just to add, it was being discussed, note the account status of the member.




Administrative action noted.   I was thinking that others here would have responded sooner in the thread.  Perhaps they didn't notice it.  "White man" isn't really a slur...it doesn't drip the hatred of those slurs we see directed towards other groups.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 27, 2004)

I see that Random Phantom addressed it here.  I thought I had done so also, but it must have been the comment I typed in the negative rep points I gave him.


----------



## Seig (Oct 28, 2004)

Racist comments will not be tolerated regardless of who they are directed at.


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 28, 2004)

edited


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 28, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> "White man" isn't really a slur...it doesn't drip the hatred of those slurs we see directed towards other groups.


 No, but I think most of us can agree that context can dominate over content, right?  (Bobby, just nod yer head)  "White people" is not a racial slur, but saying "only white people do that" stings to those of us in pale nations who reject racism and embrace the colors.

 I'd give a more direct example of this for those of us who might not understand, but ... I can't feel right about doing it.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Oct 28, 2004)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> I'd give a more direct example of this for those of us who might not understand, but ... I can't feel right about doing it.


Ahh, c'mon, we're all adults.  And if not...well, the forum has it's disclaimer.


----------



## heretic888 (Oct 28, 2004)

> White man" isn't really a slur...it doesn't drip the hatred of those slurs we see directed towards other groups.



Yes... but "white people" -- much like "asian person" or "black person" --- is such a meaningless and arbitrary term. It refers to such a broad range of cultures and ethnic groups, easily numbering into thousands (not to mention the millions that make up their populations), that its rather pointless to use it as a qualifier.

Not to mention, the entire notion of racially-based social behavior --- or "race" in general ---- is pretty silly.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Oct 28, 2004)

Ronald R. Harbers said:
			
		

> Do you know what Partial Birth abortion is? As the baby's head comes out of the womb, the Doctor takes a pair of sissors and cuts into the back of it's head, inserts a suction device, and removes the brain. It has nothing to do with the health of the mother. Personally, I believe in free choice. Abortion may be the only way to stem over population of the earth.


How do you know this? I would doubt you've had an abortion, much less witnessed one. A fallacy if I ever heard one. Sounds like someone's been feeding you bad information.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 28, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Administrative action noted.   I was thinking that others here would have responded sooner in the thread.  Perhaps they didn't notice it.  "White man" isn't really a slur...it doesn't drip the hatred of those slurs we see directed towards other groups.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> ...


 There were other considerations as well.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Oct 28, 2004)

Glad to see you all are on the watch.  Thank you to the mods!


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 28, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> There were other considerations as well.




I'll take a guess...probably the abuse of exclamation marks.




Regards,


Steve


----------



## Flatlander (Nov 3, 2004)

From this article:





> Florida voters also approved a measure limiting the privacy rights of teenage girls seeking abortions, meaning the legislature can now pass a law requiring parents to be notified. Legislators had been stymied in efforts to pass such a law by court rulings that say they violated the privacy provision of the state constitution.


 How do we feel about this, then?


----------



## Xequat (Nov 3, 2004)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> How do you know this? I would doubt you've had an abortion, much less witnessed one. A fallacy if I ever heard one. Sounds like someone's been feeding you bad information.


I'm curious...what is it then? Seriously, just curious, not trying to get challenging, but that's about what I thought it was, too.

Secondly, I feel like it's necessary to advise parents of their teenage daughters' abortions; however, I don't necessarily think that they need to advise them of the pregnancy until medical action of some sort is taken. It should be up to parents to find out what their children are up to and up to the kids to talk to their parents; I feel that doctors telling parents what their kids are doing is kind of invasive. But if a doctor has to take action and perform a surgery, I do agree that parents should be notified.


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 3, 2004)

As a woman and as a mother, I am very, very torn on this.

 I work hard to keep communication lines open with my daughter and respect her privacy.  I can only hope and pray that she will feel that she can talk to me about such an important decision.

 But, as I said, I truly can only hope and pray.  I don't want her to think she can't talk to me and confide in me should she begin sexual activity, contract an STD, find out she is gay, find out she is pregnant.  But usually, most teens, no matter how open their parents are, don't tell.  I sure wouldn't have told my mother.

 I don't want her to delay getting an abortion if she thinks it is right for her because she and/or the med pro would have to tell me.

 On the other hand, I sure don't want any medical procedure performed on my daughter without my knowledge and consent.

 Flatlander, you do bring the ponderous questions, doncha?

 I really don't know which side of the fence I can claim on this.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Nov 3, 2004)

> How do we feel about this, then?



I feel really bad because I voted for that amendment when I meant to vote against it.  The language confused me, and I was worried about asking for clarification.  I will remember that next time.


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 3, 2004)

I live in Florida, and voted against it. Then again, I'm not a parent.


----------



## Flatlander (Nov 3, 2004)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> I feel really bad because I voted for that amendment when I meant to vote against it. The language confused me, and I was worried about asking for clarification. I will remember that next time.


The language confused you?  And you're literate to a much higher degree than many of the voters, I'm sure.  It must have been worded in a most ambiguous fashion.  Certainly, this makes me curious as to the *actual* refelction of the will of the people on some of these "democratically decided" ideas.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 3, 2004)

Xequat said:
			
		

> I'm curious...what is it then? Seriously, just curious, not trying to get challenging, but that's about what I thought it was, too.


If you are asking about the specifics of the procedure, please refer to the following link. It provides a basic overview of the procedure and when it might be an appropriate for a doctor and his patient.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Intact%20dilation%20and%20extraction

I hope you never need to have an abortion. But, if you do, and your doctor decides this is the best way to proceed, doesn't it make sense to let the doctor and patient decide what is best?


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Nov 3, 2004)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> The language confused you? And you're literate to a much higher degree than many of the voters, I'm sure. It must have been worded in a most ambiguous fashion. Certainly, this makes me curious as to the *actual* refelction of the will of the people on some of these "democratically decided" ideas.


It was actually my mistake entirely.  I'm gonna try and pull up the exact phrasing, but basically one sentence stated the current setup of the law, and the other stated the law under the change.  However, they were right next to each-other, so my dumbass confused which "Yes" referred to.  

Like I said, I'll try and find the wording so I can point it out.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 3, 2004)

Hope this helps.




> PARENTAL NOTIFICATION OF A MINORS TERMINATION OF PREGNANCY
> Reference:
> Article X, Section 22
> Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to authorize the Legislature to require by general law for notification to a parent or guardian of a minor before the termination of the minors pregnancy. The amendment provides that the Legislature shall not limit or deny the privacy rights guaranteed to minors under the United States Constitution as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court. The Legislature shall provide exceptions to such requirement for notification and shall create a process for judicial waiver of the requirement for notification.​


​


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Nov 3, 2004)

Here we go.  Found at http://election.dos.state.fl.us/initiatives/fulltext/10-59.htm 

"The legislature shall not limit or deny the privacy right guaranteed to a minor under the United States Constitution as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court."

That's what I thought "Yes" meant.  

"Notwithstanding a minor's right of privacy provided in Section 23 of Article I, the Legislature is authorized to require by general law for notification to a parent or guardian of a minor before the termination of the minor's pregnancy."

I thought this was summarizing the current law, and that the first sentence described the change.  As it turned out, AFTER I'd submitted my ballot, I had it backwards.  THIS is what "Yes" apparently confirmed. 

I'm seriously doubting my own voting capacity.


----------



## Xequat (Nov 3, 2004)

Ah, OK...thanks a lot, Mike.  Sometimes, people get paranoid and call some things propaganda when they're not; other times the propaganda is so blatant that even I, an almost total disbeliever in conspiracy theory, can't deny it.  Looks like they got me this time.  Oh well, at least I wasn't sure.


RandomPhantom700, don't worry about it.  In Kentucky, we had a referendum on gay marriage yesterday and my own Mom got confused on the wording on it and voted the wrong way on it.  Fortunately, I could not possibly care any less about the issue and I voted the way she wanted it to go (because hey, if someone I care about actually cares about that issue, I'll go with that, since I don't care in the least either way) so it cancelled her oops-vote out.  She has a college degree and works for the school board.  And I don't know if you've ever noticed from other threads how anal retentive I am about grammar and spelling and whatnot, but I get it from her.  Maybe they should give the Cliff's Notes versions of referenda for those of us who are overly analytical to the point that we actually read things _in_correctly.


----------



## Xequat (Nov 3, 2004)

Hehe, hope you didn't leave any chads hanging.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Nov 3, 2004)

LOL No, it was a scantron system, a.k.a Voting-for-Dummies.  But hey, this is Florida.


----------

