Points on abortion and the crutch of supporters

Tell what you just told me to frog. I am not much of a politician to read and interpret all that mess. I was simply providing a link to those 2 amendments.You already know my stance on abortion. As far as the legality of it goes, I don't really know that much about law to debate with you.

---

The Laminator

​

Before Gene90 leaves, I hope he/she/it will read my considered opinion of all the comments posed here ----Gene90, I have NEVER witnessed a more disgusting exhibition from a hate-ful, sophomoric SNOT.Goodbye, Gene90, and good riddance.Sincerely.

You can just go ahead and add me to that list. I'm not inclined to sit through the ignorance of a person who can't even address the other side without invoking images of Nazis and torture, or even be bothered to understand their argument.I find that creepy.

quote:

---

Reply deleted due to my policy of ignoring Schrafinator. I think she's creepy.

---

Translation:"I, gene, am afraid of strong women."I'M the creepy one? That's rich.Tell me, gene, which one of us has fantasies of setting up hidden surveillance cameras to "get" women seeking legal reproductive services?Creepy, indeed, and kind of facist in flavor, I'd say.You aren't interested in preventing unwanted pregnancy at all, and I daresay you would be miserable if there was never another abortion needed or performed.You would no longer feel as justified in wanting to punish women, would you, and I think you enjoy that a little too much.

gene, since you now believe that a human killing another human is morally wrong, are you now an anti-war pacifist, contrary to your past support of much militarty action, including the US military's use of land mines and cluster bombs, which kill many innocent civilians?

(Sorry if this ends up jumbled and confusing - I had to write it quickly. Will delve deeper into the aspects my view later if anyone wishes me to do so; as it is now, I'll just summarize.)gene90:Although I do agree with a few of your points, it seems to me that your arguments are not in any way aided by the use of such attacks as in Message 155, or more especially Message 187. In fact, they only really serve to distract from what people might consider your more valid points. If you have issues with a poster, it seems that it would better serve your purposes to contact them outside of a debate on the issue, rather than incorporating opponents' characters into your argument and thus painting your argument as evasive, argumentative, and fallacious (ad hominem).Not that gene is the only one - only the most noticeable. Both sides have been guilty of it several times in this post. It just seems to me that whenever you have to resort to attacking your opponent rather than his or her views, it makes it appear that you've lost sight of the issue whether that be the case or not.***That being said, in the actual debate I take a view quite similar to what I think Lam was saying. I'm personally against abortion but I recognize that it's not a black and white issue and that the right to it should be preserved, even despite those who abuse it.Note that the following is all simply opinion - as in much of the abortion debate, such as when humans first become humans, there's no clear-cut facts that can explain it. That's probably why it's so unusual for anyone to change their mind on the issue in such debates - neither side can simply be proved wrong. ..Not that it always (or even usually) stops people when they are. To understand my view, you must first understand one simple principle of mine: I don't believe in taking the easy way out in cases where it is not the best choice (in other words, I follow my conscience; consequently, it bothers me to no end when people characterize atheists as by definition immoral). The whole issue is one of responsibility to me. I believe that men and women who have made the choice to have sex should be ready to face the consequences, or else abstain until they are. This is a simple aspect of the issue for me; man+woman-clothes=baby, or a chance of one. It disappoints me that so many would take the easy way out and use abortion to end such a pregnancy; after all, they made the choice, they should be willing to face the consequences. (Inversely, in the case of rape, I don't believe that a woman should have to face the consequences of that which she had no power over in the first place.)...Or so I would feel about it if the world were more ideal. But that view only goes so far in the real world. What about those who don't understand the consequences, those who have had inadequate education, those that don't have access to birth control? To me the latter are still responsible for their actions, but I can sympathize more with the first two. Likewise, I can understand that people make mistakes and have reasons, financial or psychological, to wish to avoid having to have a baby. In such cases I strongly encourage adoption - and if I were to ever get someone pregnant under such circumstances, I would do all I could to at least convince her to carry it, if not raise it together. Unless there is an actual danger to the life of the mother or the child, adoption is the ideal choice to me.The only time I see abortion as completely detestable is for people who know better but still have sex freely just to fit their lifestyles, people like those mentioned earlier who have had four or five abortions and never change. (Perhaps a form of "Limit one per customer" would be fitting. ) For me, if an abortion can be avoided, it should be.However, I'm not going to be the one to limit the rights of many just because of a few bad apples. Even if I oppose abortion in all but a few rare cases, it is for those cases that I am pro-choice.

quote:

---

I fail to understand how you can go against what you concede to be "common sense" and what you "feel in your heart" about abortion because of logic that I personally find questionable.

---

The closest thing I can think of to explain it is the view on gay marriage of many Christians whom I would consider enlightened: even if they oppose it personally, they recognize that not everyone feels the same way, and that the rights of many should not be restricted by the opinions of few.(For the record, I don't have a clear definition of when I believe a fetus becomes human; I simply see both sides in such arguments and so often have conflicting feelings on the issue. In the end, though, either way, I still am pro-choice just for that percentage of women, no matter how small, who really need the option.)

I'm pro choice, I'm not pro abortion either. There is no line.It is desirable that a couple not get pregnant when they don't want to. Some form of birth control is preferred. If that isn't successfull or isn't used then an abortion should be available.It is an undesirable thing but no big deal to me to use a morning after pill. It is a little less desirable to have an early first trimester abortion. It is a lot less desirable for there to be a second trimester abortion. I'd allow but discourage third trimester abortions. I would still allow or even cause the death of some babies after birth but only under really unusual circumstances (such as Anencephaly)see Page not found - ORDO PRAEDICATORUM | OFFICIAL for someone who disagrees with me.That is -- no line. Not desirable at any time with a gradually ratcheting up of the resistance to it. The question is only simple to those who can't tolerate more complex answers.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 05-15-2004 03:44 AM

quote:

---

There is no line.

---

Thank you! That's exactly what was trying to say in the last paragraph, just couldn't quite find the right words. Even though abortion is undesirable to many (most?) in so many cases, there is no definitive line where it becomes wrong to me. In most cases I listed before as undesirable, there are still always exceptions - there are simply too many factors of the woman's life to sweepingly declare all abortions wrong.The problem I personally have with the pro-life position is that it assumes that there is a line, and that it doesn't provide for exceptions. My view is not so much based on right and wrong as it is on those exceptions and ensuring that their rights, at least, is provided for.

I don't think this is just a simple assumption. What underlies this is the idea of a soul. If one believes we have a soul then there is a point in time when it "inhabits" the body. I'm guessing that the majority believe this is at the point of conception.However, when trying to argue with those who don't believe in a soul they have to define "human" somewhere. This is easy if you take a 6 or 7 month fetus as your example. This is a bit difficult when the fetus is 2 or 3 cm long. It is really hard when it is a single fertilized cell.Myself watching movies of the fertilization of a human egg don't see it suddenly change into a human. Nor do I see this at implantation.I guess I have a concept that would be analogous to "soul". I just don't think it is present in all human bodies at any stage of development. To me it is that emergant property that we stuggle to label. Consciousness perhaps? It can only be there when enough complexity of the brain and mind has arisen. It never arises in some brains (anencephaly being my extreme case to make my argument simpler) and may be lost in a brain before the body (or even the brain) is "dead".When is there "enough" of this? We do and should set the line for that moderatly low. We set it low enough I think that some other animals cross that line too. This "line" is pretty fuzzy of course. We don't have a consciousness tester that says Yes or No. We have some scales used by the medical profession to give a rough indication of the amount present.The anti choice folks can point to the confusion in socitie's rules. We set the line defining "enough" very low in the case of someone who has been a fully conscious human in the past. We require pretty extensive brain damage (or even death ) before we declare the line crossed when coming from above it.Going the other way from below the line we set the line fairly high. If we could measure it a fetus at 6 or 7 months is probably above the line set when determining "irreversible brain damage" (or whatever term is appropriate).I don't like things is complex and contentious any more than anyone else. The florida case where Jeb Bush is trying to stop a husband from letting his (IIRC) vegitative wife die is the kind of thing that comes up when things aren't simple. I will not be so arrogant as to attempt to interfere in such cases any more than I will in abortions. I had to be part of such a decision about the person I loved more than any in my life and then watch.

Just to clarify, I don't believe that the soul/humanity is implanted immediately at conception. What I meant when I said pro-life or anti-choice is the position that it is, and therefore that any abortion is murder; this, as far as I can tell, is what gene has been trying to say all along - that since the fetus has the potential to become human/perhaps is human already, it should be treated as human.So when I say that the pro-life position assumes there is a line, I mean that based on the assumption that its proponents do take this position, which isn't necessarily true. Sorry for the confusion.

quote:

---

I don't like things is complex and contentious any more than anyone else.

---

Neither do I, really - I like my own views to be consistent, clear, and decisive, and in this issue they simply aren't; I really do see both sides, at different times. The upside is that I may reply to myself in a couple of days refuting something I've said, which would make for an amusing debate. ***At the risk of going off-topic, I am very curious as to what people thought of the Woman's Right to Know Act passed by Texas (and perhaps a few other states - I didn't follow the issue very closely) a few months ago. It can be seen here and some of the common protests against it can be seen here. (Should I make another topic for this?)

i have two reasons i've been considering for the legalization of unrestricted abortion. read this knowing that i probably would not seek an abortion.1.
assuming the law of the land is abortion only when ppregnancy endangers the permanent physical health of the mother.there are many more factors to life than physical health in america. i will discuss this in parable form.
julie becomes pregnant because the condom she and her boyfriend were using broke and her birth control pills were only 99% effective and she was that unlucky 1%. julie's boyfriend, bill works full time but hardly makes enough to support himself. julie is a full time student who works part time to pay for school and hardly makes ends meet herself. neither can afford a child, neither can afford the medical expences of a pregnancy (for you adoption instead people... pregnancy is VERY expensive.). the pregnancy does not endanger julie's health, but by bringing her baby to term, she may not be able to continue her education and will thus be forced into a life of dead end jobs (until she rids herself of the child by adoption). further, she might lose her job if she has to take a maternity leave.by requiring risk of physical harm, these laws proclaim that the only purpose in a woman's life is to bring children into the world. based on anthropological and biological evidence (jared diamond - the third chimpanzee for instance), human sex is not for the sole purpose of procreation. therefore these laws lewssen the sexual rights of women as compared to men. further, i absolutely refuse to believe that my only purpose is to pop out puppies.2.
assuming the same laws.this requires, upon offering of objection, a woman's medical history and status to be opened to public scrutiny. this is a direct affront to privacy rights. this means that women are inherently less deserving of medical privacy than men simply because they are the sex which bears young. that is unconstitutional.the biggest thing to remember is that the 'right to life' is a mostly religious concept. not all people are religious and not all people hold this view. as abortion laws infringe on the rights of women, and there is no guarantee that that child will safely reach term anyways (only 15% of conceptions result in live births), there is no reason to force religious-based beliefs on people for whom liberty is guaranteed. liberty and justice for all... not just those liberties that the religious reicht thinks are acceptable.
__________
on the texas law.it is unconstitutional. at least in part.A doctor must tell the woman that benefits may be available ...and'the doctor shall give her a copy [of abortion information] at least 24 hours before the abortion is scheduled'andGovernment and private agencies can counsel the woman in preventing pregnancythese are informed consent clauses. this type of law has been ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court in that they support outdated ideas that women are less able to make decisions than men... this ties into the outlawing of women being required to receive the father's consent (or rather, their husband's) before they can have an abortion (several precedents).
Akron v. Akron Center For Reproductive Health 462 U.S. 416 (1983)
there are others (i think...) but i can't find them and i'm too lazy to keep looking.Planned Parenthood v. Casey 505 U.S. 833 (1992) broke precedence and legalized informed consent, but based on the fact that it is considered to have been affected by shifting politics, it is generally ignored.the third of those also draws in the precedence that pro-life groups must keep a distance from women seeking abortions.
Hill v. Colorado 530 U.S. 703 (2000)
Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York 519 U.S. 357 (1997)The father is required to help support the child whether or not he has offered to pay for an abortion.this seems like an extension of informing the mother... another attempt to dissuade her choice. there is much precedence for child support though sometimes it seems that it is not right (vindictive woman seeking to get lots of money from some rich guy) but then that is hard to prove.sorry for the novel.

Just before this thread reaches the magic 300, I'd like to note that not one poster supported the RC position that all abortions are wrong, even when the mother's life is endangered and the fetus could not survive anyway.Similarly there seemed to be general agreement the late term abortions were, at the least, very disturbing and should be avoided if possible.When and under what circumstances an abortion becomes "wrong" thus becomes something which can be discussed and possibly even resolved.And it is difficult to see how availability of even-handed information and birth control, rather than intervention after pregnancy and when an abortion has been decided upon, can be dismissed as unhelpful.

only about 15% of conceptions result in live births, actually.

quote:

---

And how do you propose to make sure no one's taking advantage of those exceptions? How do you investigate the claim that a pregnancy was the result of rape when rape is the most underreported crime?

---

If a law was passed like the one I alluded to with the exceptions, it could be easy. The pregnant woman applies for an abortion, "the cells" are tested for DNA of the family member, if it is validated then she can have an abortion.In the case of rape, (which I'm not even sure there should be an abortion) she lists the people she has had sex with within the time period she got pregnant, they validate that claim. they check "the cells" for those people's DNA then the parent/guardian(s) validates if she has been raped and she's able to get an abortion. This can definitely be abused. However there is a less chance of abortion abuse, pregnant women that were responsible for their own pregnancy.With incest this can be foolproof, with rape it can never be, relying on word of mouth more, and one could abuse it.

quote:

---

The point is, though, that its the mother that has to take the risk, and only she can determine if she's willing to accept that level of risk or not. You don't have any place to tell a woman what risks she has to accept or not.

---

Is giving something life worth the risk?

---

-porcelain

Chris, who controls a woman's body?