Mark Shield's on Abortion

[Finch]

Here's the Link...


http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/03/catholic.campaign/index.html


...as a moderate democrat who is both a catholic and mildly pro-life (i can however see that there are several instances where an abortion would be advisable), I cant recommend this article more highly its a great unbiased view of the issues, Democrats should not see being pro-choice as a perquisite for being a "true" Democrat...

...I do not mean to pontificate or create flame bate, but i don't understand why so many democrats support the idea of unrestrained access to abortions...and yet so many people at the same time advocate banning the death penelty... I use to think along similar lines, but in the end realized that the two positions where unreconcilable...

But that was just me I guess....well post back to say what you think of the article...

PS: The Church's intervention is plain stupid in my view and i don't support it...

[trumad]

1. Old Mr. Man rears his ugly head again..

Let the women decide....

[Finch]

2. eh? Mr Man?

...I'm sure the "let the woman decides" argument can seem logical to some...but you cant take away the fact that you are allowing a person to kill another person, just as bad if not worse then capital punishment...yes there are times when an abortion is advisable even necessary but come on you can't just give someone the authority to end another's life just because they are not yet born...

[trumad]

19. Sure you can

If Mr. Man could get pregant, there'd be an abortion clinic in every Texaco across the land and if you were to sya that's not true, then you're delusional.

[Book Lover]

41. Let me restate

your position to fit what I understand to be the facts. You say, "you can't just give someone the authority to end another's life just because they are not yet born." What I read is, "You cannot recognize the authority a woman has over her own body just because she has a fetus growing in her uterus." A fetus is not yet alive; that is why we advocate for recognition of the absolute authority we have over our own selves.

[outinforce]

44. "A fetus is not yet alive"

Really?

Then, to your way of thinking, what is the difference between a fetus that is growing and one that has become a miscarriage?

If a fetus is not yet alive, what is it, exactly? Dead?

[Book Lover]

47. Yes, really

I am not being a smartass here, but I do not understand your comparison. "One that has become a miscarriage"? Are you comparing the spontaneously aborted fetus to the fetus still in the uterus? If that is so, the difference is obvious: the fetus in utero is viable and the miscarried one was not, and so was expelled from the uterus.

As for your final rhetorical question, a fetus can be neither alive nor dead. It is both being grown and growing itself but it is not fully formed. It doesn't have all the equipment needed to be a living person yet.

[outinforce]

49. "Neither Alive Not Dead"

So a fetus can be neither alive nor dead?

So what is it? A stone? We never speak of a stone as being "alive: or "dead". Can you give me another example of something that is neither alive nor dead? Stones and other such things are the only things that come to my mind.

It would seem to me that a fetus that is in utero could be either alive or dead. Those that are alive continue to grow and develop. Those that are dead -- and dead while still in utero -- are expelled -- dead -- from the uterus.

And you might want to make sure of your language -- I think I hear you suggesting that a fetus which is "still in the uterus" is "viable". Some pro-choice folks might take rather strong exception to your use of that word regarding all fetuses that are not yet dead in utero.

[Book Lover]

75. Are you asking for

an analogy or a comparison? My analogy would be to the unripe fruit on the tree - but that suffers from the flaw of the analogy, which is impreciseness. A comparison will have to wait - I'm at work.

Yes, I describe the fetus in utero as viable. That is because that is the correct language. I will not rise to your flame-bait, trying to create a division in the pro-choice camp where there is none.

[MAlibdem]

78. there is a difference between flesh and intelligent life

My arm is flesh, and is alive, but if you cut it off, it cannot think on its own or feed itself or work with my body.

I don't believe a fetus has consciousness, the ability to think and be a whole person, until the moment of birth (or perhaps (a little earlier) at the time when a mother can feel "kicks" as my religion (judaism) states).

Because a fetus is not a person, a woman is choosing to remove part of her body which she finds offensive and no longer wishes to have, like excess fat in a liposuction. Clearly the comparison does not consider the gravity of the situation, and I don't mean to make light of the seriousness that deciding to get an abortion would demand.

[outinforce]

80. I Don't Understand

If a fetus is truly not a person, then why should there be any concern for any supposed "gravity" of the situation concerning an abortion -- which, as you state, is merely the removal of a body part a woman happens to find offensive?

What am I missing here?

Is there some gravity associated with a woman's desire to have an abcessed tooth removed?

Is there some gravity associated with a woman's desire to have her tonsils taken out?

They are all, aren't they, just mere "body parts" -- just like a fetus, am I correct?

I just don't get it -- how is it that on the one hand, someone says that a fetus is a not a human being -- rather it is a mere body part -- an "offensive" body part, but then says that somehow there is a "gravity" to the "situation" when a woman decides to remove that body part.

How is an abortion different from a trip to the doctor to have an offensive tooth removed?

[RC]

3. I take exception to the last sentance...

"And that the separation of church and state does not mean the divorce of religion from politics."

Just what does this mean then?


When the anti-choice crowd recognize that there is life after birth, then there is room for discussion. Not before then.

[Finch]

5. you are promoting a characature....

not all those who are "pro-life" are conservatives, I would argue that logically someone who was "pro-life" should be anti-death penalty and even to tackle social problems such as poverty and expanding access to good schools and health care...I am...

Your final statement "When the anti-choice crowd recognize that there is life after birth" well many of them do, but when will the "pro-choice" lobby accept that there is life prior to birth, life does not begin in the birth canal! ... The logic employed by many in the "pro-choice" camp that states that the death penalty is wrong or that murder is wrong and yet abortion is right confounds me...that said the logic of some on in the "pro-life" camp that abortion is wrong but the death penalty is ok also confounds me...

[RC]

8. Where does the pregnant woman fit into your picture?

Does she not have rights and responsibilities of her own?

[ima_sinnic]

4. "unrestrained access to abortions"

is necessary simply because abortions have been happening since the dawn of humans and without safe, sanitary facilities and well-trained personnel women die from peritonitis and other complications. Legal abortions do not "condone" or "promote" abortion--they just ensure that something which is going to happen anyway is done safely and under a doctor's supervision.

The Catholic Church and others may not like or approve of abortion but it is a fact of life--ironically.

[xchrom]

6. indeed

and it has been proven again and again that women will go to extraordinary measures to rid themselves of an unwanted pregnancy -- a fact that anti-choice people all ways choose to ignore.
but one must never ever forget that a woman's body is her own. no one else's. she alone, with reasoned advise from her physician must decide what is right for her.
there is NO other argument more paramount than that.

[dsc]

10. that has always struck me as the stupidest reason to be pro choice

Hitler went to some pretty extraordinary measures to rid Europe of Jews. Many killers go to extraordinary measures to kill people. Usually we punish those people more harshly, not excuse the crime.

[Scout]

13. None of the people Hitler killed...

were inside of his uterus.
:eyes:

[dsc]

20. For some that makes no difference

[iverglas]

28. no accounting for some, is there?

For some, it makes no difference that a person is a person and a z/e/f is a z/e/f. So?

Persons do not exist inside other persons' bodies. Just by one of those definition thingies.

And when it comes to distinguishing between things that have rights and things that don't have rights, the line is drawn between persons and not-persons ("person" in this instance being the legal term for the social construct "human being").

If that weren't where the line is drawn ... well, I'm sure that for some, it makes no difference whether something has two legs and breathes air or several fins and breathes water. And if they had their way, fish would have rights.

Fortunately for us all, whether something is a human being / person just isn't a matter of personal opinion. So what makes a difference, or no difference, "for some" just isn't relevant.

.

[dsc]

30. Many people on this board

weren't humans at various times in history. Now they are. I think in the near future that at least viable fetuses will be thought of as humans too.

[iverglas]

35. really??

Many people on this board weren't humans at various times in history

Somebody here wasn't "a human" at some point?

Perhaps you meant to say that somebody here belongs to a class of people who at one time were not regarded as human beings.

I hate to keep repeating myself, but I don't think that's so.

A lot of classes of people have been denied the ability to exercise human rights. But when Thomas Jefferson and his buddies were busy interfering with their women slaves, I really just don't buy that they thought what they were doing was on a par with screwing their sheep.

I just think that a lot of people will say just about anything, and claim to believe just about anything, when there's a profit to be made.

I think in the near future that at least viable fetuses will be thought of as humans too.

Perhaps ... if the entire concept of "human being" (what I assume you mean by "human") is thrown out the window to accommodate the inclusion of things that simply do not possess the attributes of human beings and are incapable of doing what human beings do.

Dog knows how we'll distinguish between human beings and not human beings when that happens. And how we'll decide which human beings get to be enslaved to serve the interests of others the way pregnant women would be to serve the "interests" of their z/e/fs. If something can be done to pregnant women, obviously it can be done to everyone. Mandatory kidney "donation", here we come. Just for starters.

If you do know how this is going to work, please don't hesitate to explain it to me. I've been waiting a long time.

.

[dsc]

38. Read the Dred Scott decision and writings on Native Americans

and then get back to me. Hint, the word savage, isn't exactly calling people human.

[iverglas]

43. Hint? How about clue?

Read the Dred Scott decision and writings on Native Americans and then get back to me.

Maybe we could start by your telling me what the US Supreme Court said in the Dred Scott decision, that you would like me to know. I told someone else what it said in the sister thread to this one earlier today, but I'd be interested to hear hints from you.

Hint, the word savage, isn't exactly calling people human.

The word "savage" is arguably an insult. Actually, in its earlier and probably more relevant meaning, it simply means "wild" -- uncultivated: "wild rice" is "riz sauvage", in French, for instance. It wasn't actually meant as an insult when applied to colonized populations, except to the extent that it is insulting to characterize another population's civilization as "wild" -- uncivilized.

Yeah, to the extent that being "civilized" and not "wild" is regarded as the hallmark of a human being, there's an argument that "savage" peoples were not regarded as human beings. Any mistaken perception of the people who first came into contact with those populations has been corrected. And I don't buy that there was any mistaken perception behind the atrocities committed against Native Americans by the time they were happening; other societies, for instance in Canada, were busy signing treaties with similar people, and people just don't sign treaties with "non-human beings". There was naked greed and power-lust behind those atrocities, that's what there was. The fact that some people do evil things to other people really isn't evidence that they don't classify them as human beings.

And I quite fail to see what this has to do with z/e/fs, of course. Is there some mistaken perception at work?

I'd use "savage", in a different sense, to describe some elements, at least, of the anti-choice movement. But trust me, I am not by any means intending to be understood to say that they are not human beings.

I no more buy that the classes of people you refer to were not regarded by their societies as human beings than I buy that the anti-choice do regard z/e/fs as human beings. Nothing they did or do is consistent with their stated "belief", so there is absolutely no onus on me to believe what they say.

.

[THUNDER HANDS]

26. my god, that is the single greatest sentence I've ever read on DU

I gotta bookmark this thread. :thumbsup:

[xchrom]

23. mary joe average is not hitler

your statement is bizarre.
we have historically documented evidence out the ying yang the lengths one, just one dsc, not a national leader and his countrymen, that women will go to unprecedented lengths to pro cur an abortion -- and the results have sometimes been horrifying. now multiply that by hundreds and hundreds of years.
it absolutely proper to be concerned about our fellow citizens and this procedure -- especially since it about the individual and what she does with her body.

[dsc]

25. For some it is about both the woman and the fetus

I would highly doubt you would say that if a person felt gays weren't human and thus could be killed we should let him do so legally because he might harm himself if it were illegal. For some people there is no difference in those senarios. That is my point.

[sangh0]

48. There is a huge difference the personhood of gays and fetuses

and it's not just about what the law considers a person. The difference(s) between a straight person and a gay one are difference(s) that have no relation to an entity's personhood. On the other hand, the differences between a person (born) and a fetus DO have a relation to that entity's personhood, and those relations are not just ones of tradition. For example, in the first trimester, a fetus has no thoughts and thoughts are considered an inherent characteristic of persons.

[dsc]

50. what about 6 month old fetuses?

8 month old fetus?

[sangh0]

59. Huge differences

Less than an 8 WEEK old fetus, but still huge

And under the law, which I agree with, the state does have some power to limit/regulate/prohibit abortions when the fetus is in the third trimester

[dsc]

63. 6 months isn't the third trimester

[sangh0]

65. Read Roe v Wade

The law recognizes that as the fetus approaches viability, the power of the govt to regulate abortion increases.

At 6 months, the differences between a fetus and a person are huge.

[iverglas]

79. indeed

I've read it many times. And I have yet to figure out what basis your Supreme Court had for asserting that as the fetus approaches viability, the power of the govt to regulate abortion increases.

The Court neither made a finding as to what the state's interest in a woman's pregnancy (or "potential human life" or the various permutations of that meaningless phrase that it used) is, nor stated its reasons for ruling that at some point that interest outweighs the woman's interests.

It's a horrible, flawed, nonsensical judgment that just happened to state a correct conclusion in some respects. Much like saying the moon is not made of green cheese because it is made of blue cheese: the moon is indeed not made of green cheese, and women are indeed entitled to terminate their pregnancies, even if not for the weird and wonderful reasons stated.

.

[dsc]

83. tell that to my nephew and nieces

all of whom were born before the 6th month.

[iverglas]

76. now what??

"6 months isn't the third trimester"

Your question was something like "what about a 6 month old fetus?"

Now, fetuses aren't *any* "old", because the age of human beings is measured from birth. But never mind.

At roughly the completion of 6 months LMP (after the woman's last menstrual period -- the normal, standard, accepted way of determining the "age" of a pregnancy) the fetus crosses the line from 2nd to third trimester.

A pregnancy is 40 weeks. The third trimester therefore begins after 26.67 weeks.

The average month has 4.34 weeks. So the third trimester begins after 6.145 months. Yup, that's about 4 days into your average month.

So ... did you actually have a point here?


Anyhow, I'll give you my answer.

A six-month fetus is not a human being. An eight-month fetus is not a human being. A 40-week fetus an hour before delivery is not a human being. Non-human beings do not have rights. That is one of those fact things.

This does not mean that society is not entitled to take measures to prohibit certain dealings with certain z/e/fs in certain circumstances.

Giant redwoods are not human beings, and yet we prohibit the cutting of them.

Cats are not human beings, and yet we prohibit the torturing of them.

If a society has an interest in a particular z/e/f, or a class of z/e/fs, or some or all z/e/fs in particular circumstances, that outweighs a particular pregnant woman's or all pregnant women's interests in life, liberty and security of the person in some circumstances, I wish someone would just tell me what it is. It's always possible that I would agree.

But this incessant babbling about when a z/e/f becomes a person / human being. For cripes' sake: it becomes a person / human being when it meets the criteria for that, which haven't got the first thing to do with having a functioning cerebral cortex or having thoughts or any of that blah blah. Those are personal beliefs about what is right and good, and wrong and bad. Personal beliefs have nothing to do with the definition of a human being, which is a function of human beings as a group, not of individuals as individuals.

We can all make up our own definitions of anything we want. In the Twilight Zone, "dinosaur" was defined as "the meal you eat at noon". I might want to define "human being" as "anything with a face that breathes air". Why not? If it's all just a matter of personal preference, mine's as good as anybody's.

The criteria have to do with having separate existence -- being capable of the independent exercise of rights. The right to life of an infant can be exercised and protected independently; it can be enforced without violating anyone else's rights -- except to the extent that we determine is justified, which would *never* include requiring someone else to accept risks to his/her own life. The "right to life" of a fetus, no matter how clever the fetus, cannot be enforced without interfering with the pregnant woman's exercise of her rights in a manner that *does* require her to accept risks to her own life, and may indeed kill her.

No other person's / human being's exercise of its rights is conditional on this kind of violation of another person's / human being's rights.

Prohibiting you from killing me, where I am not intentionally jeopardizing your life, DOES NOT automatically violate your right to life, liberty etc. Prohibiting a pregnant woman from "killing" her z/e/f DOES automatically violate her right to life, liberty etc.

If pregnant women may be compelled to do something that puts their life at risk and takes away signficiant liberty and security of their persons, who else can this be done to? And if no one else, why the hell not? And if someone else, who is going to decide?

Big Brother, perhaps. Or just whoever has the biggest club. 'Cause that's what a society that permits, let alone mandates, this kind of systematic rights violation is going to be governed by before long.

.

[sangh0]

77. Thank you iverglas

for reminding of why some people seem to be refusing to make a point, and instead ask leading questions.

[dsc]

84. Yes I did

the third trimester, as even your own arithmatic shows, starts after, not before but after, the 6th month. So a 6 month old fetus can be aborted that is my point.

[iverglas]

86. try to keep up, now

Roe v. Wade really wasn't the end of reproductive jurisprudence in the US.

http://www.crlp.org/crt_roe_cases.html

June 29, 1992, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey
Plurality Decision
Majority: O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter
Dissenting in Part: Stevens, Blackmun, Rehnquist, White, Scalia, and Thomas

The Court replaced the strict scrutiny standard established in Roe with the less stringent "undue burden" test for analysis of pre-viability restrictions on abortion. The opinion re-affirmed Roe’s standard for evaluating restrictions on abortion after viability but eliminated the trimester framework by explicitly extending the state’s interest in protecting potential life and maternal health to apply throughout pregnancy. Regulations that further these interests are valid unless they have the "purpose or effect" of "imposing a substantial obstacle" in the woman’s path. In applying this new standard to the Pennsylvania statue, the Court upheld the requirement that a physician must provide a woman with state-scripted information 24 hours in advance of a non-emergency abortion.

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-744.ZS.html

(g) No change in Roe's factual underpinning has left its central holding obsolete, and none supports an argument for its overruling. Although subsequent maternal health care advances allow for later abortions safe to the pregnant woman, and post-Roe neonatal care developments have advanced viability to a point somewhat earlier, these facts go only to the scheme of time limits on the realization of competing interests. Thus, any later divergences from the factual premises of Roe have no bearing on the validity of its central holding, that viability marks the earliest point at which the State's interest in fetal life is constitutionally adequate to justify a legislative ban on nontherapeutic abortions. The soundness or unsoundness of that constitutional judgment in no sense turns on when viability occurs. Whenever it may occur, its attainment will continue to serve as the critical fact.

I think that 26 weeks LMP would probably qualify as "viable" (although the life of a person born at that stage of pregnancy is likely to be considerably less than pleasant, even if s/he does survive long after delivery, which is considerably less than certain).


the third trimester, as even your own arithmatic shows, starts after, not before but after, the 6th month. So a 6 month old fetus can be aborted that is my point.

Nopesy -- not "electively", not in a US state that prohibits elective abortion after viability. Looks like you didn't have a point after all.

US states are under no obligation, of course, to prohibit abortion after viability. The interest that is supposedly being protected by doing so is the state's interest, not the fetus's interest, and the state can choose to protect that interest, whatever the hell it is, or not, as it likes.

Roe v. Wade and subsequent US SC decisions merely said that US states *may* do this.

Obviously, if z/e/fs were human beings with rights, a US state would have no choice. It could not protect the right to life of some human beings and not others, by prohibiting the killing of some and permitting the killing of others. Equal protection and all that, y'know.

... Or do you? Do you actually know anything about the nature and protection of constitutional rights? Do you know what standard of scrutiny has been applied to interference in women's reproductive rights? Do you know how interferences in the exercise of constitutional rights are justified? Or do you just feel entitled to trumpet your personal "beliefs" and call for interferences with other people's rights, without having to justify what you say at all?

Hey, if you do the job well, maybe you can get together a posse, or a lynch mob. And you can all sit down and pass laws to violate women's rights, and appoint judges to approve the violations, and wipe your bums with your constitution, eh?

.

[dsc]

89. No but his post said

aborting 6 month old fetus was OK and late 5 month abortions are also OK even under Roe and its progeny.

[outinforce]

51. "Thoughts are considered an inherent characteristic of persons"

Says who?

How are "thoughts" monitored? When does a fetus -- or a born baby, for that matter, first have "thoughts"?

Do doctors monitor comatose people for "thoughts"?

[sangh0]

60. Says doctors

You do realize that while we cannot tell exactly what someone is thinking, we can tell that they are thinking?

You also do realize, I hope, that a fetus that is too young to have developed a brain, is not doing much thinking.

[outinforce]

64. Perhaps You Mean "Brain Activity"?

Is that what you mean?

"Thoughts" or "thinking" are, I think, rather unscientific terms.

"Brain activity" is, on the other hand, a term I think doctors use.

And I don't think it means, necessarily, the same thing as "thinking thoughts".

[sangh0]

66. I will not engage in a dictionary flame war with you

It's obvious you know what I mean, so don't play games with me.

[outinforce]

70. Flame War?

I would hope you would realize, sangh0, that I try to be as precise as I can in my own use of the language.

I would also hope that you would realize that I try to avoid making assumptions about what other people beleive, based only upon their posts.

Instead, I try, whenver possible, to ASK rather than assume.

I am sorry that you consider my effort to arrive at clarity -- clarity in my own mind -- regarding what you believe as being "game-playing" and an effort to initiate a "dictionary flame war".

I assure you it was neither.

[sangh0]

73. It is rather obvious

that this is not the first time you've been involved in a debate about abortion. I believe you are very familiar with the argument I am making, no matter how unclear the language I used is. And yes, that is an assumption, but I'm willing to take that risk.

[xchrom]

81. women and control over their own bodies

and gay issues are on equal footing.
in fact i don't think that gay people could be where they are today with regards to gains in acceptance in some community's if it wasn't for the struggle for women to have control over their own bodies.
fetuses are not people, women are -- and their right to privacy -- to do with their bodies as they choose is very much a concern to me as a gay man.

[Finch]

7. Without a doubt...

...clean and safe access to abortions is exceedingly important... that said I am not advocating banning abortions... I just think that the traditional liberal argument for them is very weak, especially when compared to the liberal argument against the death penalty...

...I too have read "the cider house rules" but that said I still think abortion is by an large not something that should be encouraged... birth control and contraception should be promoted as should some kind of family planning...the promotion of these measures would go a long way to decreasing the number of abortions, also the promotion of adoption plans for the children of mothers who feel they cannot cope with the child would be advisable...

...but just because abortions have always happened does not make it right... a similar argument could have been made for slavery...


...I think what ever way you package it up you cannot say a person has the right to end the life of annother...be it murder, a death sentence or abortion...and opposition to the first two and support for the third simply doesn't hold up...

...and thats my two cents...

[xchrom]

9. first of all abortion is not murder

so we are on entirely different planets if that is your premise.
second -- there can be no other option open for discussion except that the woman in question is deciding for herself what is right for her body.
anything else is coersion.
how generous of you to help a woman through 9 months of her life to deliver a baby she does not want -- an unwanted and invasive generocity i might add.
you would make truck with people who would make abortions illegal -- and there are penalties associated with that like jail time, criminal records, etc.
i can think of no other stand that is more anti-woman or even anti-human rights.
women must decide for themselves what is right for their bodies and their futures. and that is it. period.

[BurtWorm]

15. Who encourages abortion?

Seriously.

[iverglas]

17. "similar argument"?

...but just because abortions have always happened does not make it right... a similar argument could have been made for slavery...

Here is the argument in question, from the poster you were responding to:

unrestrained access to abortions
is necessary simply because abortions have been happening since the dawn of humans and without safe, sanitary facilities and well-trained personnel women die from peritonitis and other complications.

Now, exactly what argument could be made for slavery that is "similar" to this?

That particular argument is based on what is known as "harm reduction" theory: that while it might, by some standard, be advisable to prohibit a behaviour, the prohibition leads to greater harm than the harm it seeks to eliminate.

Drug prohibitions are an example. They plainly do not reduce the harm associated with drug use itself -- drug use is just as prevalent as it would be without the prohibition, and probably would be no more prevalent if there were no prohibition. And they lead to all sorts of other harms (unsafe drug use, exploitation of drug users, inability of drug users to obtain assistance or participate in society ...).

If a prohibition on abortion would not significantly reduce the numbers of abortions (a debatable question, of course -- and of course adopting the position that abortion is a "harm", which I certainly do not), and would lead to the injury and death of women (hardly debatable, and in ways other than as a direct result of unsafe abortions) and to other harms to women (loss of educational and employment opportunities as a result of unwanted childbearing and childrearing, economic and social isolation, negative health outcomes ...), then it is arguably inadvisable to prohibit abortion.

Can you set out the "similar" argument for slavery, please?


There is also a less concrete "harm" involved in both drug prohibitions and an abortion prohibition: the violation of individual rights. That violation does lead to the concrete harms outlined above, but is also seen as wrong in itself in our societies, and as something that must be well justified before it is done.

Compelling women to continue pregnancies and bear children against their will is a violation of the right to life and liberty, and the right to "security of the person" that is recognized as a fundamental human right these days, although it is not in the US constitution. It is compelling women to accept risks to their lives, limitations on their liberty, and adverse physical and mental effects on their person, that they do not wish to accept. There are simply no circumstances in which we would compel anyone else to accept such risks and limitations and effects (outside of military conscription).

Terminating a pregnancy is an exercise of those rights. Women have exercised those rights, and been entitled as human beings to exercise those rights, in all times and places in human history. And women can be expected to exercise those rights regardless of any legal prohibition on it. Just as people will continue to exercise their right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion and so on, regardless of any attempt to prohibit them from doing so.

So, now ... where exactly is this "similarity" to slavery that you refer to, if I might ask? What rights might slave-owning be an exercise of?


that said I am not advocating banning abortions... I just think that the traditional liberal argument for them is very weak, especially when compared to the liberal argument against the death penalty...

So if you're not advocating banning abortions, what's your point?

I don't know what the "traditional argument for them" might be -- I'm not aware of many people who argue "for abortions". So I'd imagine that what you are calling "weak" is actually what I'd call "straw", whatever it is.

The traditional argument for not prohibiting abortion is that there is no justification for such an interference in an individual's exercise of her rights, I'd say.

Strikes me as about the same as the "traditional argument" against the death penalty. Everyone, including convicted criminals, has a right to life, and there is no sufficient justification for violating that right by implementing the death penalty for crimes.


...I think what ever way you package it up you cannot say a person has the right to end the life of annother...be it murder, a death sentence or abortion...and opposition to the first two and support for the third simply doesn't hold up...

...and thats my two cents...

And two cents is a great deal more than it's worth. You should really pay people to listen to this sophistry.

.

[bleedingheart]

11. Why is it always the women who get picked on in this issue

and the ones who suffer the most over it.

Why can't people just keep their noses out of other people's business?

To all the pro-lifers...I respect your position but keep your hands and your laws off MY body. Be happy that you are so convinced about your position without forcing your ideals on others, can't you just be happy with that????

If people didn't like to eat oatmeal...but you loved it...would you go on a religious crusade to force people to eat something just because you loved it?

As for the Catholic Church...they need to worry about their own problems, a shortage of priests and policing the priests they have so that they aren't touching kids. (note..I am a Catholic)

[Bridget Burke]

14. Why is it always the men who have algebraically elegant....

Definitions of when they think that abortion might be permissable?

So detached from the reality of it all.....

[IrateCitizen]

16. As a pro-choice man, I say AMEN to that! (nt)

[moof]

12. Just this once as there is no debate here.

Both instances are exactly the same.

Both abortion & the death penalty are examples of the government,

getting into people's private personal lives.

The government has no business playing at being a deity.

Anyone that is ok with the government killing people has got no right to tell anyone anything about when to create life.

So just scoot the abortion issue on the back burner till your government and the rest of humankind for that matter decides to sign on to the notion that no human being ever again kills another.

By the time you get that agreed to by the population of Earth the abortion issue will in all likelyhood no longer exist.

Ok quick recap,

abortion = Government deciding when life should begin.
death penalty = Government deciding when life should end.

[outinforce]

27. Would You Prefer That The Government......

Would you seriously prefer that the Government of any Nation not decide when life begins or when life ends?

Are you seriously suggesting that the issue of when life begins should be decided by each and every individual?

Think of the implications -- one person deciding that the life within her body has begun. She goes to the local Social Secuirty office and registers the life within her, and gets a Social Security Card. If she has a miscarriage, she would need to get a death certificate, I think.

The Government of the USA, I think, says that life begins -- or at least most of the rights of a citizen begin -- at birth. Why would you suggest that that is not an appropriate thing for the Government of the US to say? And, if it can say that, then couldn't it also say that life begins at some other point?

[moof]

88. Your response is noted but considered ...

unworthy of the effort already expended.

[noonwitch]

18. It's about whose rights have precedent-the mother's or the fetus'

It's an all or nothing matter. Let's say legislation is passed only allowing abortion for rape, incest and to protect the life of the mother. Who decides which cases are rape, incest or to protect the life of the mother? Doctors? Lawyers? Courts? Every woman knows how hard and how long it can take to prove rape in a court of law.

[kiahzero]

21. The fetus doesn't have personal rights until it is a "person."

When it is a "person" is up to debate. I say at roughly 24 weeks - when the cerebral cortex is developed and functional.

[mrgorth]

22. That's your opinion

and I'm not too off on it. The problem is that everyone has their own definition.

[Az]

24. Well how should we go about determining when its a person

vs a bunch of cells. Should we leave it to dogmatic authoratative proclomations? Or perhaps investigate if there is a means to determine when there is enough structure for there to be a mind, soul, spirit, or whatever it is you think you are talking to when you address another human?

[outinforce]

32. We Already Do.

"Should we leave it to dogmatic authoratative proclomations?"

We already do that.

We dogmatically, and rather authoritatively, state that "it" becomes a "person" when "it" is born.

It's really not too much different from out authoritative and dogmatic proclamaition that a person is not an adult (for voting in federal elections and draft purposes) until he or she turns 18.

Or that a person is not an adult (for pruchase of alcohol and tobacco purchases) until he or she turns 21.

[iverglas]

31. actually, no, it isn't

It's about whose rights have precedent-the mother's or the fetus'

Women have rights. Fetuses and embryos and zygotes don't. Never have, not ever and not anywhere.

So there is absolutely no question of whose rights take precedence. The right of the person who actually has rights, to exercise her rights as she sees fit in her own interest, takes precedence over everything except a compelling public interest in restricting the ways in which she exercises her rights.

There is simply no "balancing" of rights to be done in this instance.

Unless a society can present compelling argument to establish that the society has an interest in a woman's pregnancy, and to demonstrate that it needs to protect that interest by prohibiting her from terminating the pregnancy, she may exercise her rights as she chooses.

Just as we all do in every other aspect of our life where our society does not have a sufficiently compelling interest to interfere. We may wander around freely, for instance, crossing streets as the fancy takes us -- unless our crossing a street when and as we like would interfere with traffic in such a way as to endanger other persons, or cause damage to property, or lead to the local economy coming to a standstill, or some such. Then, and only then, the state may regulate how we cross streets.

As soon as someone comes up with a sufficiently compelling societal interest in women's pregnancies to justify interfering in women's choices about them, there will be a balancing to be done. So far, they're batting zero.

.

[Lizz612]

29. I disagree with the label you have given yourself

"(i can however see that there are several instances where an abortion would be advisable)"{initial post} "but you cant take away the fact that you are allowing a person to kill another person, just as bad if not worse then capital punishment..{post #2}."

Those really doesn't sound like the statements of some one "mildly pro-life" as you put it. To be mildly pro-life implies that you are mostly pro-choice. Your view sound more like mostly pro-life and mildly pro-choice.

Since you state thats you are Catholic, I can understand the first statement, but would still disagree with the label you give yourself.
The second statement is where I did a double take. Most people for pro-choice refuse to call a fetus a person. Ever. Some will (and do) argue for hours on this point alone.

I don't see a pro-choice stance as a prerequisite for being a democrat, but I do think its a prerequisite for calling yourself pro-choice.

[outinforce]

34. Just for the Sake Of Discussion,.....

Just for the sake of discussion, would it not be possible for a person to declare him/herself "pro-choice" and to call the fetus a person?

That is, such a person could acknowledge that the fetus is a person, but also say that when the rights of two "persons" (the fetus and the woman) come into conflict, the more powerful of the two gets to decide whose rights will prevail?

[Lizz612]

37. For Discussion...

I'm up for just about any discussion; after all, thats what we're here for. :)

come into conflict, the more powerful of the two gets to decide whose rights will prevail?
The problem I see with that idea is that it could be applied to just about any situation. With corporations currently defined as
"persons" they would, by this argument, be able to trample all over the rights of landowners near polluting plants. Clearly the corporation is more powerful. This could also lead to child abuse cases being overturned because clearly the adult is more powerful. Also think of all the strange arguments that could be made in a murder case.

By maintaining the argument that the fetus is not a person we protect women and doctors from being charged with murder for having/performing an abortion.

I'm no expert on this issue, but this is how I see it.

edit spelling

[outinforce]

39. Thanks

I think I understand your point.

It is that the reason we don't define fetuses as people is so that women can get abortions without themselves or their doctors getting into legal trouble.

But couldn't a corporation argue that the reason that our legal system should be based upon power -- that is, the reason that when the rights of two persons come into conflict, the more powerful one's rights will always prevail -- is that such a legal system would mean that a corporation could "trample all over the rights of landowners near polluting plants" without the corporation getting into legal trouble?

[Lizz612]

40. I'm not sure I understand your question, but...

But couldn't a corporation argue that the reason that our legal system should be based upon power ... is that such a legal system would mean that a corporation could "trample all over the rights of landowners near polluting plants" without the corporation getting into legal trouble?
Yes corporations would love for our legal system to be based upon "might makes right." The large corporations could do as they please with little to no legal ramifications. (As opposed to now...:eyes:)


edit: How unbelievably off topic this is makes me laugh.

[outinforce]

42. Not To Worry

My observation, based upon how you responded to my question, is that you understood my questions quite well.

You said, in an earlier post, that we define fetuses as not being people so that women who get abortions do not get themselves or their doctors into legal trouble.

So, wouldn't you say that women who wish to have abortions and doctors who provide abortions would love for our legal system, at least so far as it concerns abortion, to be based upon "fetuses are not persons." The women who want abortions and the doctors who provide them could do as they please with little to no legal ramifications. And that would be simply because our legal system defines fetuses as not being persons -- so that women who get abortions do not get themselves or their doctors into trouble?

You still think that this is unbelievably off-topic??

[Lizz612]

53. "Not To Worry" Ha!

You are implying causality I assume? You are arguing that the only reason fetuses are not legally human is so that women can get abortions, correct? I do not off the top of my head know the medical arguments for the status of the fetus, but I'm sure they are out there. Sorry to disappoint. As far as I can see there is another reason for this, that is the use of embryos in stem cell research.
I wish I knew the whole battle behind the legal status of the fetus, but if I was alive when most of it took place I was probably still learning to talk properly. As I stated above, I'm not an expert.

"You still think that this is unbelievably off-topic??" No, I will concede that you have debated quite well. That said, I find it rather odd to be arguing "person-hood" on DU. I must get out of the Lounge more.

[outinforce]

67. Perhaps I Am Assuming Something.

I confess, Lizz612, that I may have made an unwarranted assumption about your beliefs.

I assumed from your first post in this thread that you were fo the opinion that we do not define fetuses as human beings so that it is legally possible for women to get abortions without getting themselves or their doctors into legal difficulties.

I thought that I made that assumption about your beliefs rather clear, but if not, and if that is not your view, then I apologize for making an assumption.

Based upon your most recent post, am I asl to assume that you believ that one reason we do not consider fetuses to be human beings is so that it would be possible for researchers to conduct stem cell reaserch on embryos or even on fetuses without getting themselves into legal difficulty?

I am not trying to be tricky here -- only to understand your argument and beliefs.

[Lizz612]

87. I have to get back to my studies...

So this will be my last post on here. I will try to be brief but clear.

We obviously disagree. Since you are using a very Socratic method, I feel very drawn in without really knowing where you stand on this issue. The Socratic method was all well and good for Socrates until he was convicted and put to death (ah death penalty! we have come full circle), I am beginning to see why. The Socratic method is not debate really. You have not presented any arguments, any facts or even presented you opinion on this issue. You have only pretended not to understand commonly accepted phrases. You have made it clear through your questions (despite the fact that they are questions!) that you know this issue and your opinions upon it.

Quit pretending to care about my beliefs, because you don't really, you're just playing. In my honest opinion you are not contributing to this discussion anymore, you're simply being passive aggressive.

[duhneece]

56. Abortion is allowing a person to kill another person? No.

In my mind, a fetus is a potential person, not the same as a person, just as an acorn is a potential oak tree not an oak tree. Biology tells me that nature provides many more opportunities for new life than is always needed..as a gardener, I have had to pull up plants so that other plants can live. Humans have evolved to the point that we no longer need to create so many babies just to assure the survival of the species, but our bodies are still in that old create babies mode.
As a woman who had an abortion nearly 30 years ago and has two children now, I want my daughter to always have the option of a safe, legal abortion

[Lizz612]

58. Thank you

Thank you for that insight. On a strictly scientific level the comparison of a fetus to a seed is dead on. Both have the correct number of chromosomes and have partially developed, but are clearly not yet the full juvenile form of the species.

[w4rma]

33. Imho, pro-life and pro-choice are not exclusive beliefs.

One can believe that abortion is wrong and even take steps, up to the point of passing a law, to convince others that it is wrong. And one can believe that this is a religious issue and therefore it should not be enforced by man's laws, but instead by God's laws.

[outinforce]

36. What About if One's Views On the Matter....

You suggest, I think, that it is permissible, if someone is pro-life, for that person to attempt to have laws passed that would convince other people that abortion is wrong.

But I thini I also hear you saying that a person who is pro-life should not insist that man should not enforce laws against abortion, but should instead rely on God's law.

That's all well and good, but what do you say to someone who arrives at a pro-life position independently of any religious point of view and who therefore cannot rely on God's laws as an enforcement device?

[sangh0]

46. I ask them "Why should the govt prohibit abortions?"

.

[outinforce]

52. And I Would Reply

"Why should the government prohibit anything?'

[sangh0]

61. A question doesn't answer a question

IN fact, it's rude. If you want to make a point, go ahead.

[outinforce]

69. Rude? Me?

Let's quickly review the bidding here.

I posed the following question:

"That's all well and good, but what do you say to someone who arrives at a pro-life position independently of any religious point of view and who therefore cannot rely on God's laws as an enforcement device?"

And the only response I received was this:

"I ask them "Why should the govt prohibit abortions?""

I suppose you are correct. It is rude to answer a question with another question.

Might I suggest that if you have a point, you just go ahead and make it.

[sangh0]

71. You're really twisting there

Think about what you wrote

That's all well and good, but what do you say to someone who arrives at a pro-life position independently of any religious point of view and who therefore cannot rely on God's laws as an enforcement device?"

So someone says "I am pro-life but my pro-life position is independent of any religious point of view" and you wanted to know what I say to them.

I responded by answering that I was ask that person (who, if you didn't notice, wasn't asking a question) why they think abortions should be banned?

Since the person was stating a position, and NOT asking a question, I did not respond to a question with a question.

And since I was NOT asking YOU a question (what I gave you was the response I would give to the person, which is what you asked for) I did not respond to your question with a question.

This is now your third response to me that is non-responsive.

[outinforce]

82. Why Do I Get The Feeling That

we are both talking past each other here?

You say that it is rude to answer a question with a question, and when I point out that it is my belief that that is what you yourself have done, you respond that I am "twisting".

You arrive at this conclusion because you re-state something I posted.

You could, I think, have also re-posted what I wrote, thus:

"I am pro-life but my pro-life position is independent of any religious point of view. You have stated that man should rely on God to enforce God's laws. Can you provide me with any reasons why, in the case of abortion, laws enacted by human beings should not be enforced?"

THAT was the question I was trying to pose.

Your response appeared to me to be a bit non-responsive, inasmuch as my question assumed that there were already in place laws against abortion.

[Snellius]

45. Please answer this: What should be the penalty for abortion?

Is abortion murder? And if it is murder, what should be the penalty? Capital punishment? Do we kill a mother for killing her child? I'm guessing you're too young to remember what it was like before Roe v. Wade.

[outinforce]

54. Were There Ever Laws That Penalized Women?

Or were the laws against abortion written to prohibit doctors from performing them???

[Snellius]

57. In the end, Roe v. Wade was not a moral decision, or legal,

or religious, or constitutional, it was a practical matter. The old laws banning abortion, threatening to punish the doctors or the women who sought them out, did not stop abortions. If you have enough money, you go to Canada or England or Sweden. If not, you go to Mexico or to a back alley butcher or try to it yourself. For those who were young in those days when abortion was illegal and those who have all the personal horror stories to tell -- and they are real -- I sometimes wonder if those who oppose the right to abortion really want to face the practical implications of their righteous intolerance or they really want the issue in order to feel morally superior to the godless "baby killers" who see the meaning of life in a different way.

If abortion is murder, then the murderer is as much the woman who instigates the killing as the one who performs the deed.

[sangh0]

62. Not true

and you don't do anyone any good by distorting the basis for Roe v Wade. By arguing that it's merely a practical matter, you've made it possible (in theory) to argue for a ban on abortions by merely arguing that a ban is practical.

[Snellius]

68. By the time of Roe v Wade, even those who opposed abortion

realized that the law against abortion just was not working. Of course, there is a moral, legal and constitutional basis, -- no one wants abortions -- but if the general public does not accept it, the law does not change. I did not say it was merely a practical matter. I'm saying that if laws against abortion are re-instituted, I'm not sure that those who support it are really prepared to deal with the real consequences when doctors, or clinics, or women who seek abortions are arrested and sent off as criminals to jail, if not worse.

[sangh0]

72. You do raise a good point

concerning how the realities of laws affect how they are perceived, particularly when it comes to the fairness and practicality of a law. I appreciate the clarification. I'd like to suggest that you make your arguments be more like the latter explanation in the hopes that that fine point not get lost.

[Snellius]

74. It's still upsetting -- some of the horrible things we had to do then

I can't even tell some of my own experiences and those of my friends. People talk about abortions being bloody and cruel and horrific. They should have been around to witness how bloody and cruel and horrific were the consequences of the laws against abortion.

[adamrsilva]

55. I agree

Liberals are going to lose the debate on abortion in America if they continue to shy away from the argument of whether a fetus is a life or not. The fact that the pro-choice rally was called the "March for Women's Lives" really shows this. The fact is, most Americans are for letting a woman decide, but they believe a fetus has value at least as some point in the pregnancy and that their should be restrictions on when they can get an abortion. It's simply not tenable to argue for unrestricted abortions. If liberals continue to do so I fear a backlash that could end abortions rights altogether.

[RetroLounge]

85. Here we go again. More Anti-Choice DU'ers

:puke::puke::puke:

:puke::puke::puke:

RL