Abortion

well how can god hate fags if god loves sinners (but hates sin)? mustn't there be something extra evil about fags that must be cleansed from the earth?

Bravo, Chiroptera. I agree--and I wish more pro-choice people would be as forthright.Attempts to nuance choice inevitably destroy it. "My body, my choice" is a fundamental sovereignty; once that is infringed, every liberty is up for grabs. The freedom meant to be limited by anti-choice legislation is sexual: abortion, like birth control, is bad because you may be able to have sex without the punitive consequences of pregnancy, disease, or death.I'm waiting for the opposition to the HPV vaccine to gin up. I note that Ms. Miers insists that she has in fact not agreed (as recently reports suggest she had) with the SCOTUS decision that pushed the state out of a married couple's contraceptive decisions. I am perpetually shaking my head over conservatives' insistence that there is no right to privacy in the Constitution--are their supporters listening? Do they understand the import? Do they truly want legislators determining God's laws, and the state enforcing them?The evangelicals I speak with are honored to have their children in uniform sacrificed on Bush's altar to famlilial vengeance, oil, and WMD myths, and, if their daughters have "illicit" sex, they want the penalties of AIDS, pregnancy without safe abortion, and shame to be real hazards.Like the fanatic who does what God would do if He were in possession of all the facts, they strive to keep those girls from thwarting God's justice. It's amazing how much assistance they feel He needs down here.

quite.i love how people think women should be punished for doing what men can do with no reprocussions. note: many stds don't show symptoms in men. fab.

Well, sure.It's like Rome's position on the taking of human life: totally opposed. Just as opposed to execution as abortion...well, the taking of innocent human life is esp. awful, even though none of us are innocent since we are all born in sin, and, gee, we're so focused on innocent not-innocents that we don't really have time to say much about prisons and fatal injections for guilty non-innocents, some of which are certainly innocent not-innocents convicted by fallible human courts.It does get complicated, trying to be both Godly and consistent; it's easier to just hate as directed.Maybe, if prison authorities let the condemned have a last night of sex, the right-to-(pre)life activists would get more active.Edit for shockingly bad grammar and a typo.This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 10-19-2005 02:52 PMThis message has been edited by Omnivorous, 10-19-2005 02:53 PM

no no. if the man says they did it, they must have. besides. they're black. that makes them criminals.heh yeah maybe.This message has been edited by brennakimi, 10-19-2005 02:59 PM

quote:

---

Views on life and abortion are not fundamentally based on logic.

---

Right.One time I asked a user of this board to explain to me at what point a person has "rights". His answer was that a person has "rights" when they acquire language. That means we can "abort" children up until what age?In ancient Rome, fathers had complete control over their children until the age of fifteen. They could murder them and it wouldn't be a crime, though selling them into slavery was much more profitable. As Nuggin would put it, government's authority ended at the door.I doubt anybody can come up with a logical argument against ancient Roman law.

quote:

---

For example, what about an abortion tax? Discourage people from being stupid by putting a monetary fine on it. That's a way to compromise. If people can't afford to pay the tax, throw them in jail.

---

I don't want that. If abortion is a "right" you can't tax it. If it's murder, then it has no meaning as a compromise.The only way you can legally do that would be to establish that an "abortion tax" would not violate the right to privacy, and that would overturn Roe.I have a different suggestion.Overturn Roe v. Wade, but don't enact Federal taxes. Or any Federal controls at all.Then, individual States would get to decide. Alabama can regulate their abortions and Oregon can pay for theirs with tax money if they want to. Then, instead of legislating from the courtroom you could let the voters "choose" on their own.If you want a compromise, I think that would be best.

quote:

---

I doubt anybody can come up with a logical argument against ancient Roman law.

---

It depends on the context. Given a set of basic principles that each party agrees on, it may be possible to argue that a particular law or ethical principle is in contradiction to those basic principles. Therefore, either the proposed law or principle is morally wrong, or one may argue that we need to examine the basic principles more closely.One can also use reason in logic in making a case for what one considers to be the basic, most fundamental principles upon which one wants to base one's moral and ethical code. But ultimately there is going to be a degree of arbitrariness in the final choice.Edited to fix a minor typo.This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 19-Oct-2005 09:18 PM

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Hi Gene,I'm glad you're up for compromise. I think there's two ways that a compromise can happen:

• Avoid making any decision as WHAT abortion is (is it killing? is it a right? don't answer), and just make a policy that compromises based on the effective positions (none vs. anytime)
• Define abortion as the termination of pregnancy before a fetus becomes a "person", and compromise on exactly what "personhood" means, and when it comes around.

I think choice #1 is better; the state shouldn't have to define a philosophical position. But people are so ideological, that #1 may not work at all. Then again, that's a criticism for #2 as well. Who's willing to compromise on a philosophical (read: ideological) position?That's why I think an "abortion tax" or removal of reproductive rights from mother and father is the way to go (i.e. #1). You don't try to mess with the ideological boundaries that exist. You simply say, they're irrelevant. The state is in the business of creating law, and neither side has information that clearly shows the other position is incorrect. I'm fine with that, but... each state will be faced with the same question that we're asking here--what are legitimate compromises to make, and how do you approach it?Ben

quote:

---

I note that Ms. Miers insists that she has in fact not agreed (as recently reports suggest she had) with the SCOTUS decision that pushed the state out of a married couple's contraceptive decisions.

---

What? She's against Griswold vs. Connecticut? I would have thought that would be the least contentious of the Warren Court's decisions. I realize that I am a fanatical, rabid left-wing terrorist (and probably a pedophile to boot), but I cannot conceive how anyone could disagree with Griswold.Edited to change subtitle. (So don't get mad, Nosy!)This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 19-Oct-2005 09:34 PM

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

quote:

---

I'm fine with that, but... each state will be faced with the same question that we're asking here

---

True...but most pro-choicers will already live in states where abortion remains legal, and most pro-lifers will tend to occupy states where they can regulate abortion as they please.In both cases, law on this matter will be dictated by the voter rather than by the courts. Not everyone will be happy but it should reduce some of the contention since it wouldn't be a Federal issue and then we wouldn't have to please both Vermont and Mississippi simultaneously with the same cookie-cutter laws. Since the cultures in these states are very different on this matter, I think it would make life easier.I think a problem with a compromise on issues like this, by the way, is that if somebody proposed one, they would be stoned from both directions.I don't know a way out except through defining a philosophical position--either abortion is murder or it isn't. Either people have a right to privacy or they don't. I think taxing abortion would be impossible because of the right to privacy, and the only way to get that would be to go through Roe.This message has been edited by gene90, 10-19-2005 05:53 PM

OK, so then I was wrong about compromise. You're basically proposing that we break things down regionally, and we don't compromise--but at the regional level.Probably the most believable solution. I agree that compromise is tough to imagine being successful. Because of just what you said--we don't divorce (in our heads) law from our philosophical ideaologies.I'll have to think if there's any way to bring this about. My gut says there probably isn't.Ben

That was the direction we were heading before Roe v. Wade. I think New York had allowed abortion, or was getting close. It was still a few years away in other states. Roe v. Wade short circuited the political process, and was probably a mistake. It would have been better if this had been worked out through the political system.But I think we can't go back to the status before Roe v. Wade. Too much has changed since then.

Actually in this country in this day and age parents have the right to refuse medical treatment for a child under the age of majority (in whatever state).This means that they can allow their children to die of a disease that is treatable, curable.And some do. It is legal.It is their legal right to decide that, their decision is based on their religious beliefs.Abortion is no different: people chose different levels of what is proper according to their beliefs, and no one set of beliefs can suit all people.Therefor the legal system must allow the best solution: let the people involved decide, based on the historical legal precedent.Outlawing abortion based on the interpretation of any one specific religious view would be no different than outlawing the medical treatment of all children based on the above noted beliefs.It restricts unecessarily the rights of others to accomplish something that does not involve the people making the restriction.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

quote:

---

Roe v. Wade short circuited the political process, and was probably a mistake. It would have been better if this had been worked out through the political system.

---

I have heard this before, and I don't quite understand it.If a person feels that her rights are being violated, then it is perfectly reasonable for her to seek relief through the judicial system -- one responsibility of the judicial system is to prevent the violation of rights guaranteed by the Constitution.When a judicial decision is appealed to a higher court, it is the responsibility for that court to hear the case if they feel that the case has merit and is important.When the court hears a decision, it is the responsibility of the judges to make their decision based upon their sincere reading of the laws and the Constitution.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

quote:

---

Actually in this country in this day and age parents have the right to refuse medical treatment for a child under the age of majority (in whatever state).

​

This means that they can allow their children to die of a disease that is treatable, curable.

---

This is not true. I don't know about all states, must most states require that the protection of children outweighs religious concerns. In fact, in regards to blood transfusions and Jehovah's Witnesses (from Wikipedia):

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt