Abortion as a wedge

[zeemike]

I was watching C-Span this AM and the topic was Rove v Wade
And it occurred to me that Abortion is the perfect wedge issue because one side sees it as murder and the other sees it as practical justice. And the ugly truth is that both are right. And because of this no one can ever win an argument on it. And because of that there is no solution.
Or is there?
Lets say that you are constipated and you want to take a laxative to end the discomfort, and your spouse is against using drugs to artificially induce a BM. And you argue about it but in the end you take it anyway. Now both of you are pissed at each other just so that you can selfishly feel good.
But now doctor feel good comes to the rescue and asks the obvious question; “What have you been eating?”

With respect to abortion the question should be; “What have we been doing wrong as a society that causes this condition? And don’t give me that “Oh there is nothing wrong” argument because obviously there is when a natural function like procreation becomes a problem to us. In fact as a biological problem it is the most important function there is.
There are answers and solutions to this problem but we just don’t talk about them.

[Crowdance]

1. OK, I'll bite

What are your proposed answers and solutions? Let's just talk about them.

[zeemike]

4. The answer is

To discuss the solution. And do it with a logical, not emotional way.
If we look at man as just a biological being we see a very different picture of our society than if we let our emotions rule us.
Biologically women’s fertility starts to decline when she is 27, and for thousands of years before they had their children when they were in their teens. In our present society women want a career first and then children when they are in there forties when it becomes more likely that they cannot have a healthy child. Biologically this is a mistake.
If we were designing a society with biology in mind the best system would be for women to have their children when they were at the peak of fertility.
But emotionally we are attached to the idea that we should have fun while we are young and delay maturity as long as possible.

[Crowdance]

5. And, therefore........????

You've delivered the background--now if you'd present your solution(s), the discussion can begin.

[zeemike]

12. It seems simple to me

To address the above problem we should encourage our children to marry and have children right out of High School. Just the way it used to be. If we wanted to we could make it easy for this to happen by supporting them in starting and having there children.
By the time that they have finished college and have a carrier there children would be in school and would need less attention.

[Crowdance]

14. Loads of issues here

but the two that really sum it all up:

1. Early marriage would not eliminate the need for abortion, and would birth a host of other problems, besides.
2. What economy do you live in?

Perhaps you might actually gain the discussion you seek if you proposed measures that have the remotest possibility of coming to pass: Universal health care, universal child care, comparable wages for work of comparable value (until the wage gap ceases to exist), restructuring "welfare" so that it focuses on training instead of forcing women into slave-like employment situations, vastly improved public transportation, etc.

[Old and In the Way]

16. Absolutely brilliant.

Children having children. Kids having kids in HS is creates the problems that society has to deal with...like broken marriages, emotional and physical beatings, irresponsible care. While physically, we, as a species, may be on top of our game at 18; we sure as hell have not reached our emotional maturity (society wise) at this point.

So what you propose is having our daughters bring their goofy boyfriends home, have them shack up in our houses, have kids that we have to bring up, and then watch their lives deteriorate because they haven't had a chance to grow through to adulthood when they are better prepared emtionally and financially to have kids.

No, I think exactly the opposite. I had my 1st kid when I was 30 and I have absolutely no regrets. I got my playing out of my system and I was totally focused on being a father...to my kids benefit, I think. I would offer them this same advice.

[Crowdance]

18. Agreed, Old

I had my first at 30, my third at 36. I think they've benefited from the knowledge and relative financial stability we've gained. In our house, we've taught that the minimum age for marriage is 28. (For the longest time, they thought that was a legal requirement....)

[zeemike]

56. Kids do not live in a vacuum.

You forget that they have or had parents, grand parents, and a community. If an 18-year-old girl gets pregnant the family has the duty and obligation to help them out. That is how it use to be, when families were not just mother father and children. but grandparents uncles and aunts and cousins.
What is wrong with young mothers staying with the family and getting the benefits of there experiences raising children? And having the help of family members to take care of the young? Is this to much of a sacrifice for present day humanity?
And why not wait until the young one is mature to start a carrier? Would not a 28 year old make a better employee than one that is yet to reach maturity and has little experience?

[Old and In the Way]

58. Yes, there is a duty and obligation to help your child if she gets

pregnant,and, as a parent, I would be compelled to do this.

Now the real question is (my daughter is 15), if she told me today she was pregnant, would I counsel her to have an abortion? Absolutely, tootly. After much counseling and consideration if she wanted to have the child, I would have to accept that and accommodate her choice as best I could. But clearly, she would have taken on responsibilities no girl at 15 should have and will most likely regret missing the possibilities that that choice created in her life.

Can I ask how old you are? You seem to be pining for a day and a way of life that is a few generations passed and perhaps not as ideal as you seem to think it was.

If you can wait to work until you are 28, I recommend doing it. Same with having kids.

[zeemike]

75. I am sorry I missed answering your post

But you asked some fair questions that deserved an answer, and this topic is long gone but I will post it anyway

I am 60 years old but I do not pine for the good old days because they were not good days just old. I grew up in the fifties and had many experiences in the 60s that made me yearn for a future world where there was real truth and justice.

And you said that if a 15 year old had a baby that she would miss possibilities in her life and as it stands now that is true. But not because she was not capable of still going to school, or to the dance, or on a date, but because society has made it a shameful thing.

I look forward to a day when a woman having a child or an abortion has no negative consequences. And yes I know that overcoming all of the obstacles to this happening is staggering, but I feel that in the future it will happen, because it is necessary for the health of us as a species and a society.

[Ilsa]

131. I didn't meet my husband in high school.

There were only 21 boys to choose from. Only a handfull had similar goals as me: to get an education.

What planet did your spouse meet you on?

[Iris]

36. Up until the age of 46 or so, a woman has between a 99.1% and 98% chance

of giving birth to a child free of genetic defects.

My great-grandmother gave birth to 5 children in her forties and they were just as healthy all through their lives as the 3 she gave birth to in her 30s and the 1 she gave birth to in her late 20s.

40something women have the second highest rate of unplanned pregnancy (with the first, of course, being teenagers). I suspect this has always been the case as I have several friends from childhood who were "oops" babies born to mothers in their 40s.

[rppper]

134. late birth baby here....my mother was.....

40 when she gave birth to me in 1967.....unheard of in that time

[calm_blue_ocean]

20. Different answers to the abortion issue

SUGGESTION 1

New labels to facilitate dialogue. "Pro/anti-abortion" and "pro/anti-choice" are two sets of labels that are too laden down with emotional baggage at this point. My suggestion for new labels: life-at-birth, life-at-conception, life-at-three (months), life-at-six (months). These alternative labels also allow people to handily identify their position in a somewhat more precise manner.


SUGGESTION 2

Give the abortion issue back to the states. The Constitution does not address the human life or non human life status of fetuses. The issue belongs with the states for this legal reason.

On a more practical note, people could move (or take a two day abortion holiday) if they felt strongly enough about the issue and they were in the wrong type of state.

On another practical note, different states could develop nuanced approaches to partial restriction of abortion. For example, some people believe that abortion is only justified because of extreme potential hardship on the "mother," but that abortion is otherwise akin to murder or manslaughter. If this is the case, then it may make sense to decide on a case by case basis whether extreme potential hardship is present in a particular case based on circumstances (eg, rape, incest, poverty, poor health of mother, poor health of fetus). Different states, if they were so inclined, could develop these procedures so that a fair sized concensus could be happy with the balanced determinations and wouldn't need to turn to extreme positions (eg, life-at-conception, life-at-birth).




SUGGESTION 3

Make it clear that states have the right to secede from the Union so that we don't end up with another Civil War. Ya got your Red States of America, and ya got your Blue States Of America. Peace. Out.

[Old and In the Way]

24. I disagree

on your suggestion 2. That is what the anti-choice wants to see happen...much easier to browbeat the state legislatures. This is a national issue and it boils down to a simple precept. Are we going to give women the right to choose whether they want to have children or not?

I also disagree with the "life at conception" idea, too. Sure it's a progression to life, but it is still only POTENTIAL, not a viable life until the baby is born. We can't define in absolute terms when life is viable outside of the womb, so I say leave it up to the women and their doctors to decide that issue.

Keep the government outside of our bedrooms and the wombs of women.

[calm_blue_ocean]

From your posts . . .

I was pretty sure that you were not a life-at-conception person.

I had you tentatively pegged for a life-at-six or a life-at-birth person.

[Old and In the Way]

31. Definitely a life at birth person.

Anything before that is none of my business.

[KCDem]

135. NOOOOO!!!

So what... people who can't afford to cross state lines have to give birth to unwanted children? Most people don't have a choice as to where they live.

Sheesh. I think I can tell what side of the debate you're on.

[calm_blue_ocean]

137. This thread addresses the ways in which . . .

pro-choicers and anti-choicers can co-exist together in a society. Possibilities:

(1) It might be nice if increased government spending on increased sex and contraception ed substantially reduces unwanted pregnancy.

(2) It might be nice if the anti-choicers out there would just have the good sense to listen to KCDem and the rest of the people on this thread and be convinced by your arguments that *any* detriment to a pregnant woman outweighs the interests of a fetus (who should have no rights at least vis-a-vis her "carrier").

Now, if you think either or both of the above possibilities (1), (2) are really going to happen, then you are probably not going to like my "states rights" approach to the question.

My states rights proposal is only for those who are truly concerned that abortion will continue to be a wedge and that anti-choicers may someday actually get a Supreme Court majority.

In case this anti-choice S. Ct. of the future ever comes about, you may want to keep my states rights proposal tucked away in the back of your mind for future reference. It will be more attractive to you then (although it may be too late at that point).

[Old and In the Way]

2. The problem is

It's none of my neighbor's f'ing business what I and my wife choose to decide with regards to procreation. We've procreated 2X and, by God, that's good enough for us.

When the "other side" can get their own house in order, they can come and preach to me about the moral sanctity of life.

Until then, I'm not inclined to listen to what is a cynical attempt to tell me how I should live. But I promise I won't force the fundemental Christians that they must, by law, abort their life POTENTIAL (read not baby)...although that might be in the best interests of our species for survival.

Now what's so hard to understand about that?

[zeemike]

8. I am not talking about the person

but the society as a whole. I believe in freedom and as long as it is the law I would never deny you rights under it. And what I am talking about is what is best for us as a species not as an individual

[Old and In the Way]

26. You're operative phrase-

"as long as it is the law "

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. For starters

sex education should be frank and practical. Consequences to sex should be discussed as well-not only the risk of pregnancy or STDs, but the emotional damage that can be wrought when a relationship sours, and the emotional highs that can be reached by a committed couple in a long-term relationship. Counseling and emotional support as well as classes to enhance self-esteem and self-image would be very helpful as well. Finally, sexual assaults should be prosecuted fairly (using DNA to make sure you have the right person) but vigorously, and any woman who is made pregnant by a criminal act should ALWAYS have the right to choose to terminate.

[zeemike]

9. I agree

Completely

[MojoKrunch]

17. Yes!

Comprehensive, mandatory sexuality education and *free*(totally and completely, all sorts, to anyone) birth control would do more to reduce the number of abortions annually than *any* legislation could hope to accomplish.
Period.

As I've been saying for years online, if the Anti-Choice/Pro-Life crowd *really* wanted to lower the number of abortions, they'd advocate these things.

They don't because for them the argument isn't about the public health issue but about legislating their fundamentalist morality.

Some facts... abortions, while generally illegal prior to Roe were still generally practiced to the tune of 600,000 to 1.5 million per year(depending on who's numbers you use).
Making abortion illegal will not stop them from occuring, but merely make them more dangerous for the women getting them.

Increased condom awareness programs are responsible for the general decline of both teen pregnancies and abortions for the past decade.
"Abstinence Only"(AO) and "Abstinence Until Marriage"(AUM) programs *DO NOT WORK* and result in *higher* rates of teen pregnancy, STDs and abortion.

//Consequences to sex should be discussed as well-not only the risk of pregnancy or STDs, but the emotional damage that can be wrought when a relationship sours, and the emotional highs that can be reached by a committed couple in a long-term relationship.//
Yes.
I am disturbed by 15 year old girls who think that their new baby will somehow make their 3 month relationship with an 18 year old boy "stronger".

//Counseling and emotional support as well as classes to enhance self-esteem and self-image would be very helpful as well.//
For everyone... all the time.
lol
And you can't graduate until you pass with all A's.
:D

//Finally, sexual assaults should be prosecuted fairly (using DNA to make sure you have the right person) but vigorously, and any woman who is made pregnant by a criminal act should ALWAYS have the right to choose to terminate.//
Yeppers.
But that shouldn't be construed to mean that it should otherwise be limited or outlawed.
The right to reproductive choices is as fundamental a human right as speech or property.

What some folks seem to not understand is that from the Pro-Choice perspective(my understanding of it, anyway) is that if through education and resource allocation the number of elective abortions dropped to *zero*, that only abortions done for medical reasons were performed, this would be *perfectly fine*.

Just so long as it were still completely legal for *any woman* to get an abortion.

Mojo

[Old and In the Way]

29. I agree more sex education and birth control would marginalize

this whole discussion. But, it doesn't go away completely.

However, the same people who are fervantly "anti-abortion" are also anti-BC...

What they really want is a puritanical society where discussion of sex is forbidden and women and their bodies are subjugated to an external, patriarchial authority...just like their God intended.

[rock]

6. One side is engaged in terminologic misusage

They make their point by misusing the meanings of common English words. I'll let you decide which side that is. (Hint: they're hypocrites)

[RC]

7. "I was watching C-Span this AM

and the topic was Rove v Wade"???

Roe vs Wade.
Yeah, we'd all be better off if Rove had been aborted.

[THUNDER HANDS]

10. whatever dude

Abortion is only a problem to the idiots who think its their business what someone else is doing with their body.

Get off your high horse and stop thinking of abortion as a problem that needs a solution.

Abortion IS the solution...to the problem of unwanted pregnancies and women having to become mothers before they're ready to fully take care of themselves.

THE END.

[zeemike]

13. I don’t think you get what I am saying

I am not against abortion just like I am not against laxatives; they both do give relief to a biological problem.
But both are also an adoration of biology that we should avoid because it is harmful to the body and the spirit.

[Old and In the Way]

21. I assume you mean abberation....

"But both are also an adoration (abberation) of biology that we should avoid because it is harmful to the body and the spirit."

That is a your opinion...do you understand that?

I believe precisely the opposite-

Having children that are unplanned and unwanted is detrimental to the spirit of the mother/father and ultimately, the children. As far as harmful to the body, statistically, birth is a much higher risk to the mother's life as well as long term complications, than abortion. No sale here.

[zeemike]

27. Ooops

Sorry
And of course it is my opinion, but I am not against abortion. But I am saying that it is unnecessary in a society that is well thought out and functional in its approach to procreation.

Would you object to having a society where abortion was a rare medical procedure just to spite the ones that feel it is morally wrong? I would think not.

[Old and In the Way]

30. I'd have no problem and would welcome it.

As long as women have the right to an abortion.

Now explain why the "other side" has a problem with RU-487?

[THUNDER HANDS]

32. what does that mean?

what does a society that is well thought out and functional in its approach to procreation mean?

That people abstain from sex until their married and wanting children?

I'm not sure I get the gist of your point.

[zeemike]

37. The gist is

That we return to a time where young people fell in love and had children. That is what nature intended and demands if we are to have a healthy society.
As it stands now a teen-age girl that gets pregnant is shamed. And it becomes a “problem” to her and to all of society. There was a time when this was good news that people celebrated.
Now a question for you, how did this come to be? Who decided that it was shameful or wrong for the young to have children?

[Old and In the Way]

41. The moralists, of course, are the ones that shame young women

(who aren't married). The same ones picketing abortion clinics.

[THUNDER HANDS]

46. about nature

Nature demanded women get pregnant at the age of 13 or 14 because women are supposedly supposed to only live until the age of 35 or so.

Obviosly, things have changed a little.

And young people still fall in love and have children. But women today have careers they have to worry about and have lives that don't revolve around them being stay-at-home-moms.

A baby is a burden, as cruel as that sounds, to those who don't want to have them.

And the problem of teenage girls being shamed lies in those doing the shaming, not the girl herself.

And I don't know about you, but I can't remember a time when teenagers who got pregnant were celebrated. Maybe you're a lot older than I am.

[DarbyUSMC]

68. Birth control of any kind is much easier on the body and 100 times easier

on the mental stress caused by either an unwanted pregnancy or an abortion. Birth control could solve many problems from drug abuse to affordable housing. If people on drugs would stop having children who grew up to also be on drugs, there would soon be no market for drugs. At least in about 30 years it could be almost eradicated. I do not speak here of just poor people but anyone who is addicted. Whether it be alcohol or other addicting substances.

Birth control is available in drug stores. Why don't people use it? Can it be that they are selfish and have no thought of what can happen or they just don't care?

What ever happened to being responsible for your actions. If I don't go to the doctor when I think I have a strep infection, I have to face the consequences. I can't turn the clock back and get rid of the strep infection. So how stupid am I not to do the responsible thing? If you have a dog and don't care for him you can be arrested. Why would you have a dog if you are not going to take care of it? At least turn it in or give it to someone who can love and take care of it.

But no, instead of giving a baby up so some childless couple can adopt it, we selfishly get rid of it. We take no responsibility for not using birth control. We've turned into a totally self absorbed society IMO.

I have to be on a machine 3 times a week for my mistake with the Strep. There are consequences to anything we do that isn't responsible. Abortion is just an add-on for ignoring simple birth control. When I hear girls say "he says it doesn't feel as good with a condom" I'd like to slap them. I have an almost step grand daughter who is bragging she's still a virgin at 14. Woooo. Imagine that? Of course she's had oral sex but she says that doesn't count. Wonderful. Fine. Great. All it would take would be to THINK. It's your body but the consequences of what you do with it will always be with you one way or the other. BTW if it is indeed a woman's body why isn't it legal for her to sell it?

Maybe I said this in another place. In one room they are trying to save a baby born too early and in another they are getting rid of one of the same "age". Every time I hear God Bless America I think of that and want turn down the volume.

[jagguy]

11. this is why this has no business being a political issue at all

you can't legislate morality.

Not that anyone cares but if you actually look at the Judeao / Christian doctrine, its OK because that thing is not a person until its out the shoot. I asked my orthodox Jewish friends why they did not have a baby shower until after their baby was born and the explination is that one may not acknowledge it until its born. THere is no question as to when life begins, its when it hits air.

[zeemike]

15. this is why this has no business being a political issue at all

I agree, but it is and dealing with it must be done in a way to defuse the emotional argument.

[jagguy]

19. I think it would be easier to take it off the table than defuse it

but you are right to say it would be difficult.

Best bet is the dont ask don't tell one. If all pols refuse comment, it ceases to be an issue. Both sides what it to go away. Sounds like a phone call from DNC to RNC to me (or visa versa).

[Old and In the Way]

22. You do understand which side is playing the emotional argument, don't you?

Hint: It's not our side.

A fetus is a life potential, not a baby. The fact they choose to call them babies distorts and emotionalizes the discussion.

IMO, you'd be much better to discuss with the "other side" why they are so emotionally attached to their wrong headed ideas.

[calm_blue_ocean]

23. You sound so sure of yourself . . .

on this "life potential" thing. How do you know that fetuses are not human beings, just like black people are human beings and Jewish people are human beings?

[Old and In the Way]

25. fetus is a potential to life, life begins at birth.

what's so hard to understand?

Maybe a better way to look at this is: when the mother decides that the tissue that is growing in her womb is a baby, then that baby is a human being. If the mother decides that the tissue growing in her womb is growth that must be removed that it is not a human being.

I can live with that, can you?

[calm_blue_ocean]

34. Disagree

First, let me say that I am not sure whether a fetus is a human being or is not a human being. I think that is a tough metaphysical issue.

I don't think that the mother should be allowed to decide for the same reason that children should not be allowed to decide whether their ailing, elderly, burdensome parents are still human beings, even if the parents have lost most of their abilities. If these elderly folks really are people, then the adult children (who are economically burdened) are not free to decide otherwise even if they are the caretakers.

I can't think of any other context where private individuals are allowed to decide whether somebody is a human being or not. We used to handle the question of black people's humanity that way, but the law changed in 1865.

It all keeps coming back to the question of why fetuses are not human beings.

[Old and In the Way]

42. Your terms predefine your position.

"I don't think that the mother should be allowed to decide for the same reason..."

You called her a mother, she is a women first. She only chooses to become a mother if she gives birth.

And children make tough decisions everyday about their parents lives.

Case in point. My mother had ALS, in her last weeks she couldn't move, literally had no life at all. She told us what she wanted and we fufilled her wishes....all 4 of her children understood that this was not life. Have you ever been in that position? I doubt it.

[calm_blue_ocean]

50. Answers

1. I was going to put quotes around the term mother, but when I saw that you used that the term (without quotes) in your previous post (#25), then I decided that it was an okay term to use when responding to you.

2. The analogy to elderly, dying people is a useful one. Let's explore it. True, you adult children were allowed some discretion in the medical decisions and how long to keep her alive. However, things would have been different if your mother had a disease that she was likely to recover from in a couple of months. Things would have been different if your mother was moving around in a purposeful way. In that case, you adult children would not have had the same discretion on withholding medical treatments. In these other, hypothetical cases, the government would have stepped in and branded you as a criminal if you interfered with treatment in those cases (except maybe in Oregon).

Not that this provides a full answer to whether a fetus is a life or not, but it does show that the government has a pervasive role in deciding when life ends, whether you thought about that or not.

3. Have I been involved in a decision about when to increase morphine and decrease hydration to end the life of an ailing, close relative? Yes, I have, back in 1998 -- we just had the fifth anniversary of Nana's death. It was quite painful. I have much sympathy with your situation.

[Old and In the Way]

54. Fair enough....I meant mother in the 1st part, and woman in the

2nd part.

2. I agree, if she could have recovered, then our actions would have been tantamount to murder. No issues here and the State does have an interest if was the case.

Question: if someone tries to commit suicide, should the government press charges on that person for attempted murder?

3. OK, then you know that the issue is quality of life as much as it is life itself. The moral absolutists, however, would have a real problem with your actions.

[calm_blue_ocean]

57. Very encouraged by your answer in #3

Moral absolutists are one big component of the wedge problem we are dealing with in this post. In this thread DU'ers have done an excellent job delineating this part of the wedge.

The DUers seem a little less able to see that there is pro-choice absolutism. Based on your posts, I would say that you (old...Way) seem to be a pro-choice absolutist. This is the other half of the wedge. I doubt that you want to soften the wedge in any way, except by getting rid of the anti-choice absolutists who you perceive as your only opposition. I get it.

I would classify myself as more of a wedge softener. I like to look at compromise solutions: leaving it up to the states, granting late term fetuses some rights (eg, case by case determinations for late term fetuses based on quality of life), using better labels (life-at-birth, life-at-conception, life-at-six).

I am beginning to wonder if there are any other wedge softners besides the person who started this thread?

[Old and In the Way]

59. As our great pResident would say

"you are either with us or aginst us".

Of course this is an absolute position on the issue...you are either for or against choice. There is no middle ground.

But again, my point is, I fully support the right to either have or not have babies. I make no demand that the absolutist anti-abortions must abort their fetuses....so why is their position that you cannot have an abortion?

Their position is absolutist, not mine.

Your position on late term viability opens up a real legal Pandora's box....what day is life viable or not viable? Do you really think society would be served by having million's of cases potentially ending up in court and letting some judge or jury decide? Why isn't this best defined by the woman, her doctor, and whoever else she may want to help her decide?

Please comment on my post 47....really would like to read your thoughts on these.

[calm_blue_ocean]

62. It all keeps coming back to the question of whether fetuses are human bein

Nobody forced whites to own slaves in the Old South, but we stopped allowing white people that option because slaves are human beings, too.

We need to decide what human lives are involved BEFORE we can decide what "choices" are in bounds or out of bounds. Slavery is one of these out of bounds choices.

Anti-choicers believe that some or all abortions are also out of bounds choices for much the same reasons. Life-at-sixers believe that only late term fetuses are human. We can try to persuade these people to change, but a simple reference to "choice" will not be very persuasive.

I'll get back to your interesting questions under post #47 in a bit.

Gotta eat!

[iverglas]

77. dragging it back up

Just saw this thread, and must apologize for the dragging-up.

"First, let me say that I am not sure whether a fetus is a human being or is not a human being. I think that is a tough metaphysical issue."

And here I was just admiring your clear-eyed and cogent comments about the impossibility of defining some things that we nonetheless manage to categorize when we encounter them -- "human situations contain more potential relevant dimensions or axes than we could ever deal with ahead of time", here

Characterization is not a "metaphysical" pursuit. It involves the application of criteria, and a determination of whether something meets those criteria. You said, "A statute might list some factors to consider, such as similarities in characters, similarities in plot, differences in tone (eg, parodies, like Spaceballs)." Likewise, we know what the factors to be considered -- criteria to be applied -- in determining whether something is a human being are: whether it is human, whether it has been born, and whether it is alive.

The public policy on abortion is not a metaphysical issue, it is a legal one. The law does not deal in metaphysics. It deals in classifications, which are of course pre-law, made by the human group itself, in nature.
This particular combination of factors = this phenomenon.
Theft + assault = robbery
Human + born + alive = human being
-- both being, first, according to common consensus, and then reflected in law.

"I don't think that the mother should be allowed to decide for the same reason that children should not be allowed to decide whether their ailing, elderly, burdensome parents are still human beings, even if the parents have lost most of their abilities."

The WOMAN (who is this "mother"?) does NOT decide this issue -- what is a human being -- ever. Society decides it, and gives effect to that decision in law. Society does not classify a z/e/f as a human being; never has, never could, not without overthrowing our entire classification system and the consequences that flow from it.

Society *does* classify elderly parents as human beings, given that they are human, born and alive. It's quite a simple exercise to determine what just about anything is: human being or not human being. Just as it's really quite simple to determine whether just about anything is a robbery or not a robbery.

There are hard cases; there always are, since we seldom actually define anything in a way that covers all possible cases. Take "lunch"; if the meal in question is eaten not at noon but at 3:30, is it "lunch" or "supper"? Will it depend on what meal(s) were eaten before it? After it? And so on. In some cases, we do have to make arbitrary cut-offs. In some cases, we decide to "err on the side of caution" when doing that.

Of course, there are usually two sides to that caution, as well. Canadian criminal law errs on the side of caution by deeming a fetus, for the purposes of homicide law, to be a human being when it has completely proceeded in a living state from the woman's body, even if it has not breathed, the umbilical cord has not yet been cut, and/or it does not have independent circulation -- i.e., it does not meet the criterion of "born". That errs on the side of caution as regards the fetus, but not as regards a woman whose life, in some bizarre and barely imaginable situation, depended on the fetus in question being "killed" before it was completely born.

Grey areas. All classifications will have them. As long as we're not violating anyone's rights when we do it, we are free to err on the side of caution when we draw our line. But it is OUR line to draw, not some metaphysical force's.

"I can't think of any other context where private individuals are allowed to decide whether somebody is a human being or not. We used to handle the question of black people's humanity that way, but the law changed in 1865."

And I just can't believe that I am reading something written by the same person who wrote all those posts in the thread I cited above.

Abortion being legal has nothing whatsoever to do with allowing individuals to decide whether "somebody" is a human being. The fact that abortion is legal is precisely a reflection of OUR consensus that z/e/fs are NOT human beings. If they WERE human beings, how could a society that respected rights, and the rule of law, permit them to be killed??

And I can't imagine why you would say that anyone "handled the question of black people's humanity that way". I am far from persuaded that anyone in the US of the 19th century believed that black people were not human beings; with what did your Thomas Jefferson imagine he was having sexual intercourse all that time, an animal? I don't think he would have thanked you for the suggestion.

There is quite a difference between agreeing that someone is not a human being and agreeing to deny that someone the ability to exercise rights ... regardless of what rationale might be offered for that denial.

"It all keeps coming back to the question of why fetuses are not human beings."

Why is something that has three sides and three angles not "a square"? Why am I not "the mayor"? Why is someone who steals your stereo when you're not home not "a robber"?

Because we say so, that's why. Why do you imagine that the answer to your question would be any different from the answers to mine?

None of these questions -- what is a human being? what is a square? what is a robber? -- are questions to which an answer can be "discovered"; they are matters of definition, not discovery. We apply a set of agreed criteria, and then define "X" as a "Y", or not. We can't "discover" that something is a square without applying the criteria for square-ness; we can't "discover" that something is a human being without applying the criteria for human being-ness.

When we apply the criteria "is it human? is it born? is it alive?" to a z/e/f, and find that the answer to "is it born?" is "no", we categorize/define it as "not a human being". Just as we would categorize/define a duck as "not a human being" when we find that the answer to "is it human?" is "no".

We may not have an exhaustive definition of "human being", just as we don't have an exhaustive definition of "big" or "planet" or "flower". But we have criteria that we can apply to any phenomenon in order to classify it, and define it as one thing or another.

That is really what law itself is all about, as of course all human activities involving our relationships with things are all about -- classification, and a decision about the implications of the classification for those relationships -- and I'm flabbergasted that you would say that there is something different in the case of a z/e/f.

.

[calm_blue_ocean]

92. Your criticisms are intersting

In my defense:

1. CONCENSUS?: I don't think that there is a concensus that being born is necessary to be a human being in the sense of having legal rights traditionally accorded to human beings. For example, this whole thread was started to deal with the fact that the abortion issue divides the voting public and drives at least some people away from voting Democrat party. On this point, I agree with the individual who started the thread.

2. SOUNDS LIKE MY SUBSTANTIVE PROPOSALS ARE OKAY BY YOU: My actual proposal is that the abortion issue be sent back to the states and that labels be changed (see my previous post -- forgot which one, maybe #20). If there is the concensus that you assert exists, actually exists, then these proposals should cause you no worry -- your political concensus will merely shift from a Supreme Court level to a state gov't level, without any substantive changes in the law. On the other hand, if there is no concensus, then -- well, time to have a thoughtful debate (and respect our opponents in that debate).

3. "METAPHYSICS:" The question of whether a fetus gets legal rights strongly implicates the "nature of being" of the fetus. By my dictionary, any "nature of being" questions (or answers) are considered to be part of ontology. I was using "metaphysics" as a synonym for "ontology." Again, my dictionary seems to indicate that this is acceptable usage. You may think that the human-being-or-not status of a fetus is not a TOUGH metaphysical querstion, but you cannot plausibly deny that it is a METAPHYSICAL question. The question of whether a lump of coal is a human being or not is also a metaphysical question.

4. "BECAUSE WE SAY SO:" we used to say that black people were not entitled to the legal rights of other human beings. As Martin Luther King, Jr. astutely pointed out: "everything Hitler did was legal." When we are dealing with the question of who is entitled to human rights (ar partial human rights), there are answers that are simply unacceptable. These examples from history demonstrate this possibility.

[iverglas]

95. yup

"I don't think that there is a concensus that being born is necessary to be a human being in the sense of having legal rights traditionally accorded to human beings. For example, this whole thread was started to deal with the fact that the abortion issue divides the voting public and drives at least some people away from voting Democrat party."

Me, I prefer evidence to self-serving statements. I could tell you that I don't believe that the moon is made of rock. Would you believe me? Would you believe me if I refused to agree to spend my tax dollars to mine the cheese on the moon to ensure that I don't starve to death in the predicted famine?

I need more than self-serving statements that someone believes that a z/e/f is a human being. I need a coherent answer to a whole lot of questions, and I need behaviour consistent with such a belief. I've never got either.

Besides, once again, individual belief is simply not in issue. "Consensus" does not mean "universal agreement". There are undoubtedly quite a few people in our societies who do not believe that beating their children should be illegal; nonetheless, the consensus is that it should.

I am talking about societal decisions as to what is and is not a human being, not idiosyncratic (alleged) beliefs about it. "What is and is not a human being" is simply not, in any event, a matter on which individual belief is of any relevance. It is a matter that is determined by a group, the group that employs the concept. Just like "square". It really doesn't matter if I "believe" that a square has three sides.

"My actual proposal is that the abortion issue be sent back to the states and that labels be changed (see my previous post -- forgot which one, maybe #20). If there is the concensus that you assert exists, actually exists, then these proposals should cause you no worry -- your political concensus will merely shift from a Supreme Court level to a state gov't level, without any substantive changes in the law. On the other hand, if there is no concensus, then -- well, time to have a thoughtful debate (and respect our opponents in that debate)."

The specifics of your proposal don't concern me other than as an intellecual exercise. I'm Canadian, criminal law is under federal jurisdiction, and nobody is ever going to restrict Canadians' right or access to abortion. Not unless and until we elect a fascistic government that is doing a whole lot of other nasty things too.

Your problem here is that you are disregarding the real consensus in issue, the one that is set out in what we call the constitution. The consensus as to the rights that human beings have. Women being human beings, they have those rights. It doesn't matter a toss whether it is a state govt. or a federal govt. trying to interfere with the exercise of those rights, really, does it? Why do you appear to ignore the fact that the US Supreme Court decisions concerning abortion have been based on your constitution, and could no more be overridden by a state govt. than by a federal govt.? Surely you're aware that it is state laws that have been getting consistently stricken down by that Court. Does your Supreme Court not have jurisdiction to do that? What exactly does "sending it back to the states" mean that isn't the case now?

If *you* want to start "having a thoughtful debate" about whether the rights that individuals now have should be withdrawn from your constitution, go right ahead. Just don't pretend that you're doing something else.

And if *you* want to respect opponents in a debate about whether women should be stripped of their fundamental rights, well you go right ahead and do that too, but spare me the schoolmarmism.

"The question of whether a fetus gets legal rights strongly implicates the "nature of being" of the fetus. By my dictionary, any "nature of being" questions (or answers) are considered to be part of ontology. I was using "metaphysics" as a synonym for "ontology." Again, my dictionary seems to indicate that this is acceptable usage. You may think that the human-being-or-not status of a fetus is not a TOUGH metaphysical querstion, but you cannot plausibly deny that it is a METAPHYSICAL question. The question of whether a lump of coal is a human being or not is also a metaphysical question."

Of course I can -- or rather, I would say that your "metaphysical question" simply has nothing to do with what we're talking about, as I think I did say. I don't happen to recognize the existence of what you call "metaphysical questions", or by any other name.

Nobody is trying to determine the "nature" of a z/e/f. What we are doing is classifying it, and that can be done perfectly well without working up an exhaustive definition of it. You are simply starting from the wrong end of the stick, and requiring that we do something in respect of z/e/fs that we don't do in respect of anything else. When it comes to deciding what rules we will apply to our relationships with things other than ourselves, we classify those things; we don't determine their "nature". I can know full well that the thing I am burning down, contrary to the criminal law, is a "dwelling house" without anyone ever having come up with, or given me, a complete definition of "dwelling house".

I can know that a lump of coal IS NOT a human being without having a clue what it IS. It obviously isn't human, for starters. Whatever criteria you might choose to use to distinguish "human" from "not-human", it ain't human.

Metaphysics may be fun for some. It just isn't relevant to public policy.

"we used to say that black people were not entitled to the legal rights of other human beings. As Martin Luther King, Jr. astutely pointed out: "everything Hitler did was legal." When we are dealing with the question of who is entitled to human rights (ar partial human rights), there are answers that are simply unacceptable. These examples from history demonstrate this possibility."

Ah, I praise your careful wording. You're not saying that "we" used to say that black people were not human beings. I think you're right, there.

Human groups quite often deny some human beings the exercise of their rights. That does not mean that they deny the "human being-ness" of the human beings in question.

And the fact that something is "legal" does not mean that it reflects the human consensus, which really is no more the bailiwick of, say, 1930s Germany than it is of USAmerican anti-choicers. This is why we modern types have constitutions, after all -- precisely to express what that consensus is. And then we can say that while something is "legal", it is not constitutional, and therefore must be got rid of. Kinda like legislation unduly restricting access to abortion. Exactly like, eh?

What questions, exactly, are unanswerable when it comes to who is entitled to human rights? The answer right now seems quite evident: human beings are entitled to human rights.

Yup, in a few years we might encounter extra-terrestrials who, we decide, are entitled to the same rights as ours. We would then have to expand the criteria for "human being-ness" by replacing the "human" bit with something broader, for instance. If the beings in question are capable of exercising rights as we understand that concept, then they probably oughta get recognition of and respect for those rights from us.

Yup, our knowledge base can affect how we apply our criteria. We work with the knowledge base we have. If some earlier human group lacked our knowledge base and did things differently, that really has little to do with us in the here and now.

There is always a possibility that some group will decide to deny rights to some human beings. That has nothing to do with who is and is not a human being.

And a z/e/f never has been, is not, and never can be a human being, without altering our criteria for human being-ness to an extent that goes far beyond the alteration that would be required if we wanted to include the kind of extra-terrestrials we might think of as deserving to be included, to the point of completely denaturing the criteria themselves and completely failing to serve the purpose for which we now apply them.

I mean, if anybody knows of any human group (that's a term of art, and doesn't mean "the local Pentacostal congregation") that has ever actually applied criteria that resulted in z/e/fs being human beings in that group, I want to hear about it.

.

[Nederland]

98. You miss the point

Besides, once again, individual belief is simply not in issue. "Consensus" does not mean "universal agreement". There are undoubtedly quite a few people in our societies who do not believe that beating their children should be illegal; nonetheless, the consensus is that it should.

I think you are missing or delibrately ignoring the point here. In post #77 you asserted that there was a "consensus" that the definition of human being included being born. There is no such thing. Yes, you are correct in asserting that consensus does not mean universal agreement. However, you are merely trying to dodge the issue by pointing that out. Consensus, as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary means "general agreement or accord". You know as well as anyone here that there is nothing close "general agreement" on anything that has to do with abortion. Any poll you find on the abortion issue shows the country rather evenly divided on the issue, especially if the question is asked in an unbiased manner. Moreover, if we were forced to claim that there is any "consensus", it would be that you are wrong. Less than 34% of the population believes that abortion should be legal in all cases.

Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_poll2.htm

[iverglas]

109. missing points? ignoring points?

You seem to be doing one or the other when it comes to what I have already said a couple of times and received no answer to; here's the last incarnation:

"I need more than self-serving statements that someone believes that a z/e/f is a human being. I need a coherent answer to a whole lot of questions, and I need behaviour consistent with such a belief. I've never got either."

You know what "self-serving" is, I expect.

I am not lying, because I'm an honest person! I couldn't have killed my husband, because I loved him!

... There is no consensus that a human being is that which is born, human and alive, because I/lots of people believe that a z/e/f is a human being!

And you know what my response is, already: Yeah? Prove it.

If you believed that a z/e/f were a human being, you would not be proposing a system in which its right to life were violated by establishing tribunals with the power to give prior approval for "killing" them. PERIOD.

(Human beings have rights. That's one of those tautology things. The nature of "human being" is that it is rights. That's the whole purpose of the particular classification in question: human being = born, human and alive thing = that which one may not kill, enslave, etc.)

" Moreover, if we were forced to claim that there is any "consensus", it would be that you are wrong. Less than 34% of the population believes that abortion should be legal in all cases."

And presumably 100% of the population believes that women have the right to life and liberty. It must be very difficult to rationalize these two (alleged) beliefs -- what a suitcase of conflicted feelings to have to sit on all the time ... "I believe that women have a right to life" ... "I support laws that will result in the deaths of women who have been coerced into risking their lives". I wouldn't want to be the one trying to pretend that I was a decent person, that's for sure.

And you're still avoiding/evading the question. The fact that some people do not believe that abortion should be legal in all cases does not mean that anyone "believes" that a z/e/f is a human being.

I don't believe that arson should be legal. I also don't think that houses are human beings.

Some people believe that same-sex marriage should not be legal. Would they really say that gay men and lesbians are not human beings?

There can be many reasons why someone would believe that abortion should be illegal ... and there have been many reasons why it has been, and is, illegal in many times and places in human history and geography. This is not proof that any individual or group believes or has believed that a z/e/f is a human being.

There are points here. And I'm not the one not taking 'em.

.

Btw, religioustolerance.org is a fine Canadian outfit (with some inexplicable fixation on USAmerican stuff), but not authority for much of anything, let alone the answer to my question.

.

[Nederland]

110. Proof

You are the one that made the statement, so the burden of proof lies on you, not me. You said that there was a "consensus" that the definition of human being included being born. By claiming a consensus, you are making a claim that a significant number of people hold this view. I'm merely asking you to prove this claim, but you seem to be intent on avoiding an answer.

[iverglas]

115. proving the negative

The only onus on me -- to prove that there has never been a human group that has treated a z/e/f as if it were a human being -- is to cite a reasonable number of instances that are consistent with my claim and not blatantly avoid any that are inconsistent.

To "prove" that there is a consensus that a z/e/f is not a human being, I simply have to show that it has not ever, in a context remotely like our own, been treated as such.

Rather than regale you with a list (which could simply never be exhaustive, if only because not all history is recorded) of societies in which z/e/fs were NOT regarded as human beings, I'll just refer you to what your Supreme Court said in its review of that issue in Roe v. Wade. It concluded as I do: that abortion had never been regarded as homicide, that a z/e/f had never been regarded as a "person" (basically, the legal term for something with rights, which therefore includes all human beings).

I would then anticipate being presented with instances like Ireland, with its constitution saying something about a "right to life" from conception, or some other formulation of the statement that "a z/e/f is a human being". And then I would reiterate that I require something more than self-serving statements of belief, and in fact require evidence of the genuineness of that belief. Since Ireland does not define and punish abortion as if it were homicide, or do any of the myriad other things that a society would have to do if a z/e/f were a full member of that society, I conclude that there is no consensus in Ireland that a z/e/f is a human being, despite its statements to the contrary. (I won't even have to bother addressing the question of whether an aberrant society's "beliefs" affect the question of the human consensus.)

Having met my burden of "proving" a negative, I then look and see that the ball is back in your court -- to DISPROVE it. That's how it works.

"By claiming a consensus, you are making a claim that a significant number of people hold this view. I'm merely asking you to prove this claim, but you seem to be intent on avoiding an answer."

Well, I do regard the statements on this point made by quite authoritative sources such as your and my Supreme Courts, in interpreting the formal statements of our consensuses -- our constitutions -- to be very useful evidence of the nature of the consensus in our societies. Like I said, "consensus" does not require universal agreement among all members of a group at every point in time.

.

[calm_blue_ocean]

116. By your logic

If Bush appoints 3 or 4 justices and the Supreme Court goes anti-choice, then we will have an anti-choice concensus.

Under your logic, any anti-choice laws this new concensus makes will be fine because -- hey, there's a concensus.

I am not sure that everybody on this thread is willing to gamble on your logic on this issue!

[iverglas]

119. show us your work

"By your logic

If Bush appoints 3 or 4 justices and the Supreme Court goes anti-choice, then we will have an anti-choice concensus.

Under your logic, any anti-choice laws this new concensus makes will be fine because -- hey, there's a concensus."

If that's MY logic, then I am sure you are going to be able to use MY words to demonstrate your conclusion.

The work, please. You might even get partial points for it, even though your solution is completely false.

Clue:

Did I say that the consensus is what the US Supreme Court says?
I don't think so.

No individual or group of individuals DEFINES or CONTROLS the human consensus.

For someone so fond of "metaphysics", I'd think that complex concepts like this might be a little more understandable. ... Or more readily acknowledged.

Demonizing, trivializing, misrepresenting ... quite the arsenal. The usual one.

Work to do, me too. Busy day.

.

[calm_blue_ocean]

120. Using Iverglas words to demonstrate Iverglas logic

1. Proposition: Concensus is shown by what the Supreme Court thinks.

Ivergalas agrees:

"Well, I do regard the statements on this point made by quite authoritative sources such as your and my Supreme Courts, in interpreting the formal statements of our consensuses -- our constitutions -- to be very useful evidence of the nature of the consensus in our societies."


2. Proposition: The abortion issue should be determined by what the "concensus" is regarding the issue.

Iverglas agrees:

"Abortion being legal has nothing whatsoever to do with allowing individuals to decide whether 'somebody' is a human being. The fact that abortion is legal is precisely a reflection of OUR consensus that z/e/fs are NOT human beings. If they WERE human beings, how could a society that respected rights, and the rule of law, permit them to be killed??"

"I am talking about societal decisions as to what is and is not a human being, not idiosyncratic (alleged) beliefs about it. "What is and is not a human being" is simply not, in any event, a matter on which individual belief is of any relevance. It is a matter that is determined by a group, the group that employs the concept."

[iverglas]

124. like I wuz sayin'

Misrepresentation. Innocent? Intentional? Who can say?

1. Proposition: Concensus is shown by what the Supreme Court thinks.

Ivergalas agrees:

"Well, I do regard the statements on this point made by quite authoritative sources such as your and my Supreme Courts, in interpreting the formal statements of our consensuses -- our constitutions -- to be very useful evidence of the nature of the consensus in our societies."

Does "X is very useful evidence of A" = "A is shown by Y"? Not in *my* law books. And not by the word of any person examining the thing honestly and in good faith.

Anyhow, here's what you REALLY said, which is not what you are representing yourself (in that "proposition") here as having said:

"By your logic

If Bush appoints 3 or 4 justices and the Supreme Court goes anti-choice, then we will have an anti-choice concensus."

Nope, just not quite the same things. You go 'head and say they are, though.

2. Proposition: The abortion issue should be determined by what the "concensus" is regarding the issue

Yuppers. Do you have a point?

Surely your point is not that by agreeing with that proposition, I am agreeing with the other thing you said:

"Under your logic, any anti-choice laws this new concensus makes will be fine because -- hey, there's a concensus."

Surely not.

Have we really learned nothing at all about constitutionalism and all that jazz? Do you really think you can just go on ignoring everything I have said about that ... and pretending that "the issue" is not fundamental rights and justifiable interferences with the exercise thereof??

Of course ... you can, can't you? Have a picnic.

.

[Nederland]

121. Nice try

The only onus on me -- to prove that there has never been a human group that has treated a z/e/f as if it were a human being -- is to cite a reasonable number of instances that are consistent with my claim and not blatantly avoid any that are inconsistent.

That is not what I'm saying. Read very carefully this time. The onus is on you to prove there is a "consensus" that the definition of a human being includes being born. Don't try to twist the debate as if I'm asking you to prove that "has never been a human group that has treated a z/e/f as if it were a human being", I never asked for that. What I asked for is proof that there is a consensus that the definition of a human being includes being born. By "consensus", I mean (as I specified in post #98) "general agreement or accord". Please provide proof or modify your argument.

[iverglas]

125. please learn a few things

"The onus is on you to prove there is a 'consensus' that the definition of a human being includes being born."

To start with -- the fact that I have NEVER SAID that there is such a thing as a "definition of a human being".

I have said that "a human being is that which is born, human and alive" -- a PARTIAL DESCRIPTION, not a DEFINITION. A set of MINIMUM CRITERIA by which what something IS NOT may be determined. I have simply not said that these criteria may be used to achieve 100% accurate results in determining what something IS.

The consensus that exists includes the criterion that in order to be a human being, the thing under consideration must have been born.

Therefore the onus on me is to prove THAT assertion, NOT the one you attribute to me. So how 'bout YOU not "try to twist the debate" by attributing a statement to me that I did not make, and demanding that I substantiate it?

I have NO onus of substantiating statements I HAVE NOT MADE.

If I say "in order to be a square, a thing must have four sides", have I DEFINED a square? No. Can I determine, in every possible instance, whether something is a square? No. However, I have made it possible to classify some things as "not squares".

My assertion is that there is a consensus as to certain minimum criteria that things must meet in order to be classified as human beings. "Having been born" is one of those criteria.

I am therefore being asked to prove that there is a consensus that things that HAVE NOT been born ARE NOT human beings. Really.

Do you really want me to prove that there is a consensus that things that HAVE been born (and meet the other applicable criteria) ARE human beings? That shouldn't be difficult. I can very easily prove that there is a consensus that things that HAVE BEEN born, ARE alive and ARE human ARE human beings.

You are asking me to prove a negative, no matter how you phrase it:

(a) a consensus that things that ARE NOT born ARE human beings DOES NOT exist;

or

(b) a consensus that things that ARE born ARE human beings DOES exist;

pr

(c) a consensus that things that ARE NOT born ARE NOT human beings DOES EXIST.

... where (b) is plainly a positive, but plainly not what you want me to prove; and (a) is plainly a negative, and IS what you want me to prove (I assume, since I am ignoring your demand that I prove something I did not say); and the ONLY WAY I can prove (c) -- that this consensus DOES exist -- is by proving that there are NO properly so-called exceptions to the rule I state.

That is the essence of the consensus I am asserting -- it is the essence of "consensus". I am NOT talking about the "consensus" of redneck woman-hating fundamentalist USAmericans in 2003; that "consensus" has nothing to do with what I am talking about, and is NOT an exception to it. Those people are plainly in opposition to the consensus that DOES exist, as expressed in their bloody CONSTITUTION. I just don't care about any individual's, or bunch of individuals', evil-mindedness or stupidity. They are bound by the consensus of their society, and above that, of humanity.

(Or did you think that Hitler and his followers could just exempt themselves from that human consensus? And then how would you explain Nuremberg?)

Don't try to twist the debate as if I'm asking you to prove that "has never been a human group that has treated a z/e/f as if it were a human being", I never asked for that. What I asked for is proof that there is a consensus that the definition of a human being includes being born. By "consensus", I mean (as I specified in post #98) "general agreement or accord". Please provide proof or modify your argument.

Well, you please provide a statement of what you would consider acceptable "proof" ... and I'll tell you why that "proof" would be completely irrelevant to what I have said, and why I don't have to offer any such "proof" to establish the veracity and accuracy of my statement.

If I may make my own ever so polite request, please don't talk about things you don't understand.

.

[Nederland]

126. Response

To start with -- the fact that I have NEVER SAID that there is such a thing as a "definition of a human being".

In post #77 you said:

Human + born + alive = human being

Now perhaps I may be completely confused here, but that looks a lot like a definition. Certainly you can understand the confusion? I mean, usually when a person uses an equal sign like that they are implying that what is on one side of the equals sign is "equivalent" to what is one the other side. But let's not quibble, let's simply rack it up to a misunderstanding and leave it at that. In any case, you are now claiming that is was merely a partial description, not a definition. Would you therefore care to enlighten us with a full definition?

[calm_blue_ocean]

127. Please don't respond, Nederland

Iverglas is just trying to make us lose our minds with her impossible-to-follow nonsense at this point in the debate.


On Edit: Oh, my admonition comes too late, Nederland. Fare thee well in the abyss of madness.

[Nederland]

128. This is what's funny

I agree with Roe vs. Wade. What I have a problem with is people like iverglas that do such a lousy job arguing their point. I try to help them out by pointing out their mistakes, but it doesn't usually work. They continue to drone on about how a woman's right to abortion at any time whatsoever is absolute--which is utter nonsense. Its frustrating.

[iverglas]

129. @*%&

"people like iverglas ... continue to drone on about how a woman's right to abortion at any time whatsoever is absolute"

I assume that "people like" me include me. Do correct me if I've gone astray on that one.

You say that I have said something that I have never said.

You are a four-letter word beginning with "@" and ending with "&".

Go whine to a moderator, now. Go directly, do not pass go, do not address anything that I or anyone has ever actually said on the way. Nope, far more effective to tell untruths about what that was. "Effective" for some purpose that I haven't yet fathomed, but I'm sure you must have one.

.

[calm_blue_ocean]

130. I can relate

The anti-choicers that I sometimes converse with are just as bad in pursuing their opposite legal objectives.

[Cheswick2.0]

28. the question is not whether the fetus is human

The question is whether the woman is human, in which case her rights would take prededent over the fetus, which can not live without continued residence in her body.

So is the woman human or not?

[calm_blue_ocean]

35. Interesting answer, Cheswick

Further Questions for you

1. Does this means that infanticide is okay because the infant is dependent on her parents for survival?

2. What happens when technology is developed that allows a mother's fetus to be removed and gestated outside her body?

[Cheswick2.0]

48. infanticide

no that would not be okay since anyone could take care of that child and it would not longer be stressing the womans body and wellbeing.

Your other question is kind of grotesque. So would women then be forced to carry to surrender all fertilized eggs?

[calm_blue_ocean]

52. More interesting answers

I like corresponding with you, Cheswick.

I'll refine the second question to help you have enough info to answer for one specific situation:

Let's say a pregnancy got to the six month point and (after months of indecision) the woman decided that she wanted to terminate because: (1) childbirth is painful; and (2) children are expensive to raise.

Now, let's say there is technology so that this six month fetus could be removed and finish gestating outside the womb. Would the fetus have any rights to demand this?

PS: by demand rights, I mean demand rights in the way that infants and children do -- to wit, through a "friend of the court" and other similar legal procedures.

[Iris]

38. good answer Cheswick

And I think in regard to the original post, to say that people who say abortion is murder are right is a little biased because some people just don't see it that way.

[zeemike]

33. No now

Lets all be real, both sides have an emotional argument. With them it is life and with the other side it is the denial of there right to control their own bodies.
Both sides are right in their emotional arguments and that means a solution that solves both concerns.

[Old and In the Way]

40. No middle ground zeemike.

You can't be a little bit pregnant, as they say.

Me, I opt for women's choice.

[noiretextatique]

44. what's "emotional" about controlling your own body?

:shrug: seems pretty darn logical to me.

[Cheswick2.0]

49. when you are pregnant you can find what ever solution suits you

there, all solved. Ain't I fabulous? :shrug:

[calm_blue_ocean]

53. This just sounds like one side of the wedge . . .

described in the initial post. You haven't solved anything beyond proving that most DU'ers are pro-choice. You're shooting fish in a barrel.

Now I am a little disappointed in you, Cheswick.

[Old and In the Way]

55. So what solution do you or zeemike propose?????

The majority of poster here clearly believe the solution is in leaving Roe v. Wade stand.

No one is for forcing women to have abortions here. Why is the other side forcing women to have children?

[noiretextatique]

65. there are NO SIDES....

because unless you are a pregnant woman, or you can become one: it's not your business, or anyone else's. this is what years of rw propaganda has done, i.e., convince people that they have some say over women's uteruses. in reality, it should only concern those parties directly involved...the woman, her partner (if interested), and medical professionals.

[Nederland]

112. So

there are NO SIDES....because unless you are a pregnant woman, or you can become one: it's not your business, or anyone else's.

So are you saying unless a person is directly involved, they have no say in the matter? If a person is beating their child, I have no right to say that what they are doing is wrong because it doesn't directly involve me and therefore its none of my business? Brillant.

[iverglas]

132. who? where? when?

"So are you saying unless a person is directly involved, they have no say in the matter? If a person is beating their child, I have no right to say that what they are doing is wrong because it doesn't directly involve me and therefore its none of my business?"

Who said that? Who said that "unless a person is directly involved, they have no say in the matter"? Where did s/he say it? When?

Why do you ask someone who said THIS:

"there are NO SIDES....because unless you are a pregnant woman, or you can become one: it's not your business, or anyone else's."

Whether she is saying what YOU say? Why don't you just ask her whether she's saying that the moon is made of green cheese? Why do you represent whatever totally irrelevant statement that you feel like pulling out of your bum as having something to do with what someone else actually said?

The really big question is: why does ANYONE find it to be necessary / advisable / effective / moral to misrepresent what someone else has said?

You and the other one enjoy your mutual grooming activities here now, y'hear? Just be sure to leave no louse unpicked.



Here's my thought for the day; taking it to heart would be a blessing for the rest of the world:

http://commons.somewhere.com/rre/2000/RRE.the.new.jargon.html

This message was in response to my essay on the hate mail I've been getting:

so, let's see. If we disagree with your spin and erroneous conclusions, we are sending "hate mail"? my god, what hypocracy, what insular thinking (and frnakly, I worry about using that last word)

My problem with a passage like this, I repeat, is not exactly that it is nasty, but that it is nasty in a stereotyped and cultivated way. It is part of a technology of nastiness. Let's consider how it works. Start with the first sentence. In the jargon, expressions like "let me see if I've got this straight" are used to preface a distorted paraphrase of an opponent's words. This is a matter of routine; it's part of what a linguist would call the "phasal lexicon" of the new jargon. In fact, "so, let's see" does two kinds of work: it prefaces a distortion of what I said, and it pretends that the distortion is what I said. It twists reason, and projects that twisting onto me. I, of course, never said that everyone who disagrees with me is sending hate mail. Never said it, never meant it, never implied it, never presupposed it, never thought it.

But please, do read the whole thing.

If you need further instruction in the tactic you are evidently so fond of, consider this advice to someone who was in need of a rejoinder to an email s/he objected to:

She might want to open with a catchy rhetorical question, like,
"So you're saying I should only hate the rape, but not the rapist?"

Just like looking in a mirror, ain't it?

Need a hint about where that can be found? Here you are:
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39679ed7114e.htm

.

[Nederland]

136. Just thought you should know

The post was directed at noiretblu, not you.

[iverglas]

138. just thought you should know

I don't give a crap.

Of course, I could always ask why you thought it pertinent to say this to me, à propos of absolutely nothing that I can think of at the moment ... let alone why you would bother hitting keys with fingers to say it when you weren't saying anything that had anything to do with anything ... but I wouldn't waste my energy, would I?

.

[Cheswick2.0]

72. You are disapointed at the compromise position?

I don't think anyone should be forced to have an abortion for the sake of society, or because they can't really afford to raise the child, or even because the child might be born with severe disabilities and be a financial drain on the medical insurance system. I would never advocate that someone who is anti abortion be coerced into having one. My position is the compromise position...unless of course someone is of the right wing persuasion or has been brain washed every sunday in a church which likes to preach that type of thing.

My great grandmother had 10 children and then she died early leaving the oldest daughter to raise them. Women aren't going back there.

[KaraokeKarlton]

82. But that's your opinion, and not everyone else's

You call it a fetus, I call it a baby. And we're both right...we just disagree. I can hate abortion at the same time I support it being legal. Can't you likewise try to understand why a lot of people don't like abortion while you support it? Having more respect for the feelings of others goes a very, very long way. You're not showing that, so why would you expect the other side to show you the same courtesy?

[REP]

83. One Reason

I can't speak for the person to whom you were responding, but I can say I show the pro-liars the same respect I expect of them: I won't force any of them to have an abortion if they don't force anyone to remain pregnant.

A fetus is a different thing from a baby. For one thing, a baby cannot live inside the body of another; a fetus can live nowhere else.

It is not required to like a medical procedure in order to support it remaining legal. Organ harvesting, for example, from brain-dead patients whose bodies are kept alive on ventilators is a particularly disturbing and even horrific procedure, but one hears few credible calls to criminalize it.

[KaraokeKarlton]

85. tit for tat

You can't define what is inside a pregnant woman's uterus for me any more than I can define it for you.

[REP]

87. Facts Are Facts

It is pretty well known what is inside the uterus of a pregnant woman. Saying that a fetus is exactly the same as a baby is either dishonest, or an honest display of ignorance of fetal development.

But nonetheless, if you wish to refer to a pregnant woman as having a bun in the oven, I won't try to convince you that she won't give birth to pastry. All I ask that lies not be spread, and no one be forced to carry to term against her will.

[iverglas]

88. oh me oh my oh me oh my

"You can't define what is inside a pregnant woman's uterus
for me any more than I can define it for you."

Fine. Then you can't define what "a dog" is for me any more than I can define it for you.

What drivel.

No one is defining anything for anyone else. WE, the great big we, human beings, define what things are, for US.

"Defining" is not an activity properly performed by individuals. I just don't get to define "lunch" as "an extinct variety prehistoric lizard" and claim that my definition is as good as yours, dang it. What nonsense.

There are criteria that, by our own consensus, something must meet in order to be "lunch", and extinct prehistoric lizards just don't meet those criteria ... unless someone happens to eat them at noon.

There are criteria that, by our own consensus, something has to meet in order to be a "human being", or any subset of "human being" (e.g. "baby"). Things that have not been born just don't meet those criteria.

I'd ask you to tell me how the world as we know it could possibly work otherwise, but I'd be afraid of what response I might get.

As I observed below, you are obviously not "defining" what is in a pregnant woman's uterus any differently from how I "define" it. If you were, you wouldn't make statements like that one about how no decent person could object to abortion where the pregnancy woman had been raped, e.g. If you were "defining" what is in a pregnant woman's uterus as a "baby", you could hardly say that a decent person would not object to it being killed just because it was somehow bothering someone. That's just ridiculous.

.

[Kool Kitty]

104. I know I'm late to this dance and all, but-

it has no business being a political issue. That may be true. And it should be no one else's business but the woman and man involved.

[Nederland]

94. If there is one phrase I can't stand

its "you can't legislate morality."

I've never heard a more idiotic phrase escape the lips of so many otherwise intelligent people. The entire criminal code is a society's definition of morality. When a society passes a law that makes murder illegal, it is making a moral statement that murder is morally wrong. In fact, every single action that the criminal code defines as being illegal is a moral statement. Stealing, kidnapping, rape, fraud, slander, etc--every single one of these things are actions a that society deems immoral.

[gulliver]

39. Sex without abortions

The Dems could own this issue, I think. People who care about other people are natural Dems/progressives. Pro-life and pro-choice can both be Dems.

The technology for preventing abortions, perhaps cutting their number down by 95%, is widely available. It is called "contraception."

The problem with the abortion issue is that it is not easy to think about. The number of factors in the debate exceeds most people's tolerance for complexity, their Hrair limit. The solution is out of reach if one of the demands is that it be extremely simple.

The Dems could attack abortion by attacking the number of abortions and pointing out how easy it would be to reduce that number. Such a strategy would have to be multi-pronged including respect for morality, education (not just sex education), outreach, and contraception. Then abortion would fade as an issue.

Abortions would be legal but drastically more rare, and each abortion would be treated as either a necessary last resort or a failure in our control process. Failure cases would be tracked and fed back to the system so that it could improve.

[Crowdance]

43. Dems don't attack abortion

Dems support abortion as a choice for women.

Dems could, however, attack unwanted pregnancy. And a question: Which morality should Dems support? I sincerely hope it's mine......

[gulliver]

60. Morality

Perhaps I should have used the word "ethics." By morality, I mean living so as to do the most good and least harm to others and oneself. I agree that morality is a heavily freighted term. I was using it as shorthand for taking into account the ideas of abstinence, self-esteem, not preying on the emotions or vulnerability of others, etc.

[noiretextatique]

45. let me ask you what the court asked in "doe v bolton?"

would you advocate this type of scrutiny for any other medical procedure? or is it a better idea just to leave it between doctors and patients, like any other medical procedure?

[gulliver]

61. Scrutiny of medical procedures

My two cents is that I am for tracking some medical procedures. I'm generally in favor of tracking many important things, mainly speaking from a software engineering background. Audits, monitoring, feedback, logs... these things are all invaluable in processes. And that's what I'm arguing for as our answer to the abortion issue: a multi-part process.

An example of a medical procedure I would be in favor of tracking is heart surgery. Is a particular surgery being overused because of a profit motive? Are less expensive (but more effective) surgeries and alternative therapies being under-utilized because of profit motive or poor distribution of medical information?

[noiretextatique]

64. in terms of medical research...fine

but for political purposes...that's another story entirely, and of course, that's the problem with abortion vs. heart surgery.

[gulliver]

66. Even for political purposes in this case.

We are already tracking abortion rates anyway. Check the Guttmacher Institute (http://www.agi-usa.org/), widely respected by both sides.

Abortion should be tracked anonymously, but it should be tracked as part of the process of reducing abortion rates. Tracking, contraception, outreach, education...these are a small price to pay to heal the American rift on this issue.

[Cheswick2.0]

51. Democrats do support and promote contraceptives

it is the right that stands in the way there. But abortion should stay legal and as long as that right is under attack we will defend it.

[gulliver]

63. I agree with you, but we need to be smarter

I am 100% in favor of a woman's right to choose, and I absolutely agree that the right wing is the problem. That is the point I was trying to make. Purely from an intellectual and process standpoint, the optimal strategy for solving the problem of excessive abortions is within Democratic principles. We really could own this issue.

The technical solution to reducing abortions is contraception, absolutely. And we absolutely need to hold the right to choice as inviolable.

But we need to shore up the defensive posture with some process judo. That means, to me, declaring war on the abortion rate. If conservatives really want to reduce abortion by 95%, it is within their grasp, not by making abortion illegal, but by joining forces with progressives and encouraging education and outreach.

If I had to say where I think Dems are on the subject of abortion right now, I would say they are on the defensive. That's a shame, because Dems and other progressives are really pro human life. They just (by and large) don't think that driving abortion underground makes any sense at all.

Focus on attacking the abortion rate through a non-simplistic, multi-faceted approach, and we could get working and middle class pro-lifers to join the cause. Maybe?

[Old and In the Way]

47. Let's assume that the pro-life people get their way and abortions

are declared illegal and a fetus is thus defined as a human being with the full legal protection of the law.

Are you prepared to defend the unintended consequences?

(1) Would abortion be murder? For the woman? For the Doctor?
(2) Would the health/life of the women be secondary to the rights of the fetus?
(3) Would a miscarriage become a homicide, manslaughter, or negligent homicide?
(4) Would women be forced to take mandatory daily pregnancy tests to confirm that no "life" exists? Maybe the abortion clinics could be turned into Governement monitoring agencies?
(5) If a women would be considered a potential risk to have an abortion, would she be sent to a secure location to protect the womb-person? A risk might be based on political/religious grounds, I'd think.
(6) would camera's be needed in bedrooms so the government confirm that procreation is happening and be "pro-active" in supporting the rights of the yet-to-be conceived unborn?
(7) Would contraception be considered illegal?


Can't wait to hear your thoughts on these points.

[gulliver]

67. Just as the Pubbies focus on "Partial Birth" abortions...

... which are a miniscule number of terminated pregnancies, Democrats should focus on elective abortions in the first (mainly) and second trimester, IMO. Those are the motherlode of opportunity for reducing abortion rates.

Banning "partial birth" abortions does nothing to the abortion rate. Reducing (still legal) elective abortions through a combination of contraception, education, morality/wisdom leadership, and economic outreach could literally destroy the abortion rate.

I would argue that attacking the abortion rate as a simple problem of failing to use appropriate contraceptive technology and failing to reach out to the decision makers (young people) would reduce the abortion rate far better than an outright ban. An outright ban would drive the problem underground and into Mexico and Canada. Attacking the problem at its source (failure to use good judgement or contraceptives or both) would solve a political problem for our country, IMO.

[noiretextatique]

69. this is reasonable...a way to diffuse the issue

i think it makes a lot of sense. so much so, it would be hard to argue against it :thumbsup:

[iverglas]

78. as long as

"Attacking the problem at its source (failure to use good judgement or contraceptives or both) would solve a political problem for our country, IMO."

As long as the "problem" is defined as pregnancy that the woman would have preferred to prevent or would want to keep if the necessary conditions were present. Because that IS the problem.

And as long as the "political problem" is defined as people trying to make the state interfere in women's exercise of their fundamental rights. Because that IS the political problem.

When we do that, of course, we see that neither "problem" can be "solved". Both depend, for their solutions, on factors beyond our control; both solutions on people doing, or refraining from doing, something that we can't make them do.

Abortion IS NOT a "problem" (and so the rate at which it occurs can hardly be a problem). It is a solution to a problem. And defining what some people choose to do, in order to solve a problem that is theirs and theirs alone to solve (an existing unwanted pregnancy), as a "problem" is simple demonizing.

Somebody earlier attempted the usual ridiculous "responsibility" argument -- that someone who "irresponsibly" gets strep throat can't just send it back, or whatever. Nope, but s/he is also not interfered with when s/he applies the solution of his/her choice, be that antibiotics or hot compresses and chicken soup. And s/he is not demonized for choosing the most effective solution, even if s/he might be characterized as foolish for needing the solution in the first place. ("Irresponsible"? TO WHOM? and in respect of what that is anyone else's business?)

The "problem" is recognized as the getting of strep throat when one doesn't want it -- not the taking of antibiotics to cure it.

The "problem" here is the getting of a pregnancy when someone doesn't want it -- NOT the having of an abortion to terminate it.

We might well want to put a whole lot more effort into ASSISTING women who don't want to become pregnant in accomplishing that objective. Just as we might want to assist people who don't want to get strep throat in accomplishing that objective.

And we might want to offer someone who has an unwanted pregnancy and would prefer not to have an abortion some viable alternatives, just as we might want to offer someone who has strep throat and is allergic to pennicillin some viable alternatives.

But we most certainly do not apply coercive measures to people to ensure that they don't get strep throat, and we don't demonize people who fail to take what we consider to be appropriate precautions and get strep throat and then seek antibiotics. In actual fact, we recognize that getting strep throat is one of those often unavoidable hazards of living.

So is getting pregnant. There is no perfect contraception; and degrees of near-perfection vary even more by person using any method. "Living", for women, includes engaging in sexual activity and thus being exposed to sperm and the possibility of being made pregnant by it, just as it includes touching people and objects and thus being exposed to germs and the possibility of being made sick by them. We don't demand that people walk around in masks and gowns, and rebuke them for getting strep throat and seeking antibiotics. I'm not going to demand that someone use whatever method I think best for avoiding pregnancy (be that "abstinence" or condoms) and rebuke her for getting pregnant when she doesn't want to be and seeking an abortion. Not even by calling her abortion a "problem".

"I would argue that attacking the abortion rate as a simple problem of failing to use appropriate contraceptive technology and failing to reach out to the decision makers (young people) would reduce the abortion rate far better than an outright ban."

And I would agree with you if you were attacking the unwanted pregnancy rate. The "abortion rate" is only a partial indicator of the real PROBLEMS covered by the rubric of "unwanted pregnancy". A pregnancy, after all, can be "unwanted" simply because the woman does not wish to bear a child, for whatever personal reasons she may have, but can also be "unwanted" where it would be "wanted" if certain conditions were present, like universal health care, decent affordable child care and housing, and so on.

Setting about attacking the "abortion rate" is like setting about attacking the "antibiotic-taking rate". Essentially, meaningless in terms of what is really to be done, and negative value-laden in that it characterizes a rationally chosen solution to a problem as a problem, and thus necessarily characterizes the people who choose that solution as problematic. It implies that what we need to do is change the rate at which that decision is made, rather than what we really need to do, which is change the rate at which that decision needs to be made (both by reducing the number of inherently unwanted pregnancies and by providing the conditions in which someone who might otherwise want her pregnancy could continue it).

But the bottom line is that some women will not be interested in our assistance, and some women will become unwantedly pregnant despite all the assistance in the world. We can only attack the problem of "failure to use good judgement or contraceptives or both" by assisting someone who sees those things as problems to solve them; we may NOT demand that anyone agree with us that her behaviour is problematic, let alone insist that she adopt our "solutions"; her behaviour in this respect is HER business. HER pregnancy -- or HER chances of getting pregnant when she doesn't want to be, or in conditions in which she doesn't want to be -- is not OUR problem unless she agrees that it is.

And we may no more call someone's solutions to her unwanted-pregnancy problem a "problem" than we may call anyone's solution to his/her strep throat a problem. It just IS NOT our business.

And so we must be very careful, in defining our "problem", not to imply that someone whose behaviour is none of our business is causing a problem that is our business and that it is our business to solve. I suggest pregnancy that the woman would have preferred to prevent or would want to keep if the necessary conditions were present -- perhaps "unwanted pregnancy" in shorthand, keeping in mind that there are two kinds of unwanted pregnancy, both of which are problems that decent people care about helping women who want their help to prevent -- as the only formulation of the "problem" that is respectful of people who do not perceive their failure to prevent their pregnancies, or the absence of conditions in which it might be feasible to keep their pregnancies, as problems.

.

[calm_blue_ocean]

70. Answers for Old...Way

BACKGROUND
Before I can give you answers to these questions, it is important to know exactly what kind of abortion restrictions a state has imposed. therefore, I will set up a hypothetical set of restrictions. Please be clear that I am not saying that my hypothetical restrictions are good or ideal or wise. they are posited for the sake of discussion only.

HYPOTHETICAL RESTRICTIONS
In my hypothetical state, democratic processes lead to the following restrictions on abortion:
- until the six month point, no restrictions, abortion on demand
- after six months, permission is needed from a tribunal to get an abortion
- for the 6-9 month fetus, the tribunal must consider several factors including health of the woman, health of the child, financial situation of the woman, whether there is likely to be someone willing to adopt the child, rape, incest, mental illness.

ANSWERS
Against this background, I will attempt some answers:

(1) Would abortion be murder? For the woman? For the Doctor?

No.

If the fetus is less than 6 months along, or there is permission, then there is no crime at all.

If the fetus is more than 6 mos. and no permission, then the crime is fetacide.

Some suggested punishments for fetacide:

For a woman with family income over $50,000:
Her choice: sterilization or two years in jail

For a woman with family income over $15,000:
Her choice: sterilization or one year

For a woman with family income under $15,000:
Her choice: sterilization or 3 months

For doctors:
Two years per fetacide and loss of medical license



(2) Would the health/life of the women be secondary to the rights of the fetus?

These rights would be balanced in the tribunal.

Here is a suggestion of how it might work:

Level One Health Problems:
Likely death or serious disability or paralysis, and so on
Result: In this case the tribunal must grant permission to abort.

Level Two Health Problems:
Likely loss of teeth or long term incontinence or lasting kidney damage or clinical depression and so on
Result: In this case the health problem is strong evidence that permission should be granted, but determined by tribunal on case by case basis


Level Three Health Problems:
Likely discomfort from big tummy or morning sickness or pressure on bladder or temporary back pain or need for C-section or crying jags
Result: In this case the health problem is weak evidence and permission should probably not be granted, unless these routine pregnancy discomforts are unusually severe or cumulative. Again, decided on a case by case basis.


(3) Would a miscarriage become a homicide, manslaughter, or negligent homicide?

If the miscarriage is not purposely induced, then no crime at all.

If miscarriage occurs before six months, then no crime at all.

Otherwise the crime would be fetacide (see answer to #1 above).


(4) Would women be forced to take mandatory daily pregnancy tests to confirm that no "life" exists? Maybe the abortion clinics could be turned into Governement monitoring agencies?

The abortion provider would be required to determine either that the fetus was less than 6 months or that there was permission. This is not that difficult to achieve and determination of fetal age may even already be a part of standard abortion practice (for other reasons).

(5) If a women would be considered a potential risk to have an abortion, would she be sent to a secure location to protect the womb-person? A risk might be based on political/religious grounds, I'd think.

No, this sounds like a bad idea.


(6) would camera's be needed in bedrooms so the government confirm that procreation is happening and be "pro-active" in supporting the rights of the yet-to-be conceived unborn?

No, this sounds like a bad idea

(7) Would contraception be considered illegal?

As long as the abortifacient did its work before the 6 month point, then no problem.

[Cheswick2.0]

73. this is sick

you have got to be kidding me with this shit.

[calm_blue_ocean]

74. Oh, Cheswick

Your replies are making less sense.

What happened?

[Cheswick2.0]

101. what part of "I think your ideas are sick" don't you understand?

? Do we (and I mean we as in you) have a reading problem today?

[REP]

107. The Problem is Much Deeper

Wanting medical decisions to be made by tribunal is one of the sickest, nastiest things I have ever heard. Well, I'd 99% of the 'suggestions' made in post 70 are the product of no medical knowledge and even less experience with real life.

[calm_blue_ocean]

117. The part I don't understand . . .

is the "why" are my ideas sick part.

[iverglas]

79. use that fine legal mind

I haven't read Cheswick's response yet, but I'll go along with the title: this is sick. But hey, listen, all credit for answering the questions that nobody will ever answer. Now you just need to address the issues you neglected to address.

"(1) Would abortion be murder? For the woman? For the Doctor?
No."

Fine. Then on exactly WHAT BASIS would you propose that abortion be outlawed in any way, at any stage of pregnancy?

Don't bother quoting Roe v. Wade to me; I have it memorized, and I am firmly of the position that Blackmun completely failed to demonstrate any state interest in a z/e/f, let alone any compelling state interest in any z/e/f, just for starters. Start from scratch, and justify this interference in a woman's right to life and liberty and not to be deprived thereof without due process.

May the state prohibit you from killing your dog? No!! It is not a human being; it has no right to life. The state may, in the pursuit of a compelling state interest in something or other, prohibit you from torturing your dog, but *not* from killing it.

If a z/e/f is not a human being, what basis does the state have for prohibiting the termination of any pregnancy?

If a z/e/f is a human being, what basis does the state have for permitting the termination of any pregnancy?

"In my hypothetical state, democratic processes lead to the following restrictions on abortion:
- until the six month point, no restrictions, abortion on demand
- after six months, permission is needed from a tribunal to get an abortion
- for the 6-9 month fetus, the tribunal must consider several factors including health of the woman, health of the child, financial situation of the woman, whether there is likely to be someone willing to adopt the child, rape, incest, mental illness."

"Democratic processes" have nothing to do with the exercise of fundamental rights, in a liberal democracy, that respects the rule of law, in which individual rights are the subject of consensus and guarantees of those rights set out in a constitution. Nothing. Or do you think that the voters can just get together and pass a law that that short people may be put to death for murder, but not tall people? It's one of those classifications that burden the exercise of a fundamental right -- life; no, the voters may not do that. The constitution, and the constitutional scrutiny formulas applied by the courts, prohibit it. Ditto for abortion.

And oh, there is just so much more wrong with your little proposal. You might enjoy reading the Canadian counterpart of Roe v. Wade, R. v. Morgentaler: http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/1988/vol1/html/1988scr1_0030.html and what it has to say about the former Canadian "therapeutic abortion committee" system and how it stands up to scrutiny in relation to due process.

What on earth does "whether there is likely to be someone willing to adopt the child" have to do with whether someone will be denied the exercise of fundamental, constitutionally guaranteed rights?? Does your ability to exercise your right of free speech depend on whether someone is willing to listen to you? If someone wants to hear you speak, should you be compelled to speak? If someone wants his field plowed, should you be compelled to plow it? Sheesh.

"If the fetus is less than 6 months along, or there is permission, then there is no crime at all.

If the fetus is more than 6 mos. and no permission, then the crime is fetacide."

And if your dog is a Rottweiler, killing it is caninicide; if it is a poodle, there is no crime. Distinctions without a difference, I'm seeing here. Have you considered offering good reasons for the distinctions you propose -- particularly since what you are proposing is coercive, punitive law, and you're a lawyer and all??

"Some suggested punishments for fetacide:

For a woman with family income over $50,000:
Her choice: sterilization or two years in jail"

God almighty. Have you read Buck v. Bell lately? Find yourself nodding in approval? Forcible sterilization, yes sirree, that's what we need more of. Just for these wanton women -- and not for people who kill their actual children, too? Well, that'll ... "fix" ... them, I do suppose.

"For doctors:
Two years per fetacide and loss of medical license"

It's "feticide", if you must try to make up such words.

Hmm, yes. And if there actually were an emergency and just no time for all that "tribunal" tripe, a woman's life was in immediate and serious danger (it does happen), what doctor is going to risk all that by performing the necessary medical procedure and saving her life? How many dead women will be enough for you?

"(2) Would the health/life of the women be secondary to the rights of the fetus?

These rights would be balanced in the tribunal."

HOW do you "balance" two rights to LIFE?? In what other situation that you could possibly dream up would a court be called upon to give PRIOR APPROVAL to the killing of a human being WITHOUT DUE PROCESS?

I ask that particular question because I know the answer to the prior question: how could a z/e/f POSSIBLY be granted due process in this hearing of yours? What due process is there or could there ever be that could result in the granting of prior approval to kill a human being who has done no wrong??

And, just by the bye, what due process could there ever be that could result in a woman being condemned to death by being denied an abortion? Do you imagine that your tribunal will be all-knowing and all-seeing, and will never deny an abortion in a situation in which a woman subsequently dies from a complication of the pregnancy or delivery? You must like gambling ... with other people's lives.

I adore this one:

"Level Three Health Problems:
Likely discomfort from big tummy or morning sickness or pressure on bladder or temporary back pain or need for C-section or crying jags
Result: In this case the health problem is weak evidence and permission should probably not be granted, unless these routine pregnancy discomforts are unusually severe or cumulative. Again, decided on a case by case basis.

That sounds like my now-famous to DUers sister, she of the very much wanted pregnancy. Completely minor discomforts, although a touch of pregnancy diabetes, and a huge weight gain that she has never managed to reverse despite her best efforts. (You do know how obesity shortens a person's life expectancy, right? You think that people should be compelled to become obese? Only pregnant women??)

But oh, that delivery. Hour upon hour of genuine agony; morphine for pain. That giant-headed fetus (a problem not detected during careful and conscientious prenatal monitoring) just would not come out. An emergency C-section was finally decided on. (Do you think that people should be compelled to be cut open? Only pregnant women??) But at the last minute, the newfangled vacuum thingy worked, and a slightly pointy-headed fetus was successfully extracted from my sister.

Over in the next room, and unfortunately occupying quite a bit of the medical talent my sister needed in the superb medical facility in question, there was a woman trying her best to bleed to death ... from a routine epiosotomy. Blood wouldn't clot. Hours, and bags and bags of blood, went into (successfully) saving her life. (Do you think that people should be compelled to bleed to death, or even nearly bleed to death? Only pregnant women??)

A couple of years later and half a world away, far from any medical facilities at all, a friend of mine's niece died after a "successful" delivery following an uneventful pregnancy: post-partum haemorrhage. (Again: should people be compelled to bleed to death? Only pregnant women??)

All of those women had wanted pregnancies. But the plain fact is that all of those complications of delivery could as easily arise in unwanted pregnancies, following perfectly normal, uncomplicated pregnancies. And if the women had wanted to terminate their pregnancies, for whatever reason, and their lives could not be saved (in my sister's case, the fetus would also not have been born alive), and they were buried in one of those dear little double graves so common not so long ago -- would this just be an "oops"? Or would someone be responsible for their deaths?

Like ... whoever made the law that prohibited them from terminating their pregnancies, or applied the law that required them to meet certain criteria totally unrelated to the real risk to them (to all pregnant women)? How about if, in my sister's case, the only way to save her life (let's say she was in full eclampsia when it was all happening) was one of those "partial birth abortions" -- kill the fetus in order to remove it immediately -- and the doctor, fearing prosecution, refused to do it?

Damn, things get complicated when we try to burden people's exercise of their RIGHTS by making them meet irrelevant conditions ...

"(3) Would a miscarriage become a homicide, manslaughter, or negligent homicide?

If the miscarriage is not purposely induced, then no crime at all.

If miscarriage occurs before six months, then no crime at all.

Otherwise the crime would be fetacide (see answer to #1 above)."

And you are going to determine all these things ... how? Did she fall down stairs ... or jump? Was the miscarriage "caused" by her overindulgence in alcohol, or her bronco-busting at the rodeo, or not? What? -- pregnant women must be punished for bronco-busting after week 24 if they miscarry? (For "attempted feticide" if they don't? Some sort of reckless-disregard offence?) Pregnant women and who else? Bronco-busting and what else?

"(5) If a women would be considered a potential risk to have an abortion, would she be sent to a secure location to protect the womb-person? A risk might be based on political/religious grounds, I'd think.

No, this sounds like a bad idea."

Hey, no shit.

But ...

If someone else threatens to kill a human being, s/he will generally be charged with uttering death threats. Would someone who threatened to have an abortion not have to be charged with something?

If Person A has reasonable grounds to believe that Person B will do him/her harm, Person A may obtain a restraining order requiring that Person B comply with certain conditions to reduce the risk to Person A. Why would a pregnant woman whom someone (who could then get appointed guardian ad litem for the fetus) has reasonable grounds to believe will do her fetus harm not be made subject to the same kind of order? Given the vulnerability of the fetus and the obvious impossibility of requiring the pregnant woman to, say, stay 100 yards away from it at all times, would close supervision of her not be necessary?

I mean, I'd say it would be necessary if what we're actually trying to do here is protect the fetus's ability to exercise its "right to life", and not just harass and harm women. Special circumstances, special measures called for, if the "right" is to be protected.

.

I'm agape and aghast. I suggest that nobody be writing this stuff on a law school exam, either.

.

[calm_blue_ocean]

93. Answers for Iverglas

1. Under my proposals, state laws on abortion would be Constitutionally supported the same way that state laws against vote fraud and theft and animal abuse are currently supported. I am not a Constitutional scholar, but I do know that states have traditionally had the right to fashion their own criminal laws.

2. If "fetacide" were ever made a crime (and I have never said that it should be), then this new crime would share certain characteristics with othre crimes like kidnapping, murder, manslaughter, speeding, conversion, criminal copyright infringement, mayhem, loan sharking, tax evasion, slavery, statutory rape, jaywalking, treason and the like.

Specifically, this "fetacide" crime would entail difficult cases where the facts and the law would make it difficult to determine whether a crime had occurred or not. Under the hypothetical "fetacide" statutes (which I used only as a basis for discussion), there is no reason to believe that the criminal cases would be any more difficult than the cases under extant criminal statutes.

One thing that is clear under my hypothetical statutes: a woman would generally have ample opportunity to get an abortion on demand.

Furthermore, the woman would have enhanced incentive to get an abortion early in time so that: (1) the smaller fetus and its removal would be entail fewer health risks for the woman; and (2) the fetal creature would tend to be aborted before its higher faculties (eg, ability to feel pain) were developed or developed as much. Maybe, just maybe, these non-trivial factors should count in the balance AFTER the woman has had opportunity to abort the fetus in its lokking-like-a-blob-of-tissue phase.

Yet, some dare call me sick.

[iverglas]

96. Well, I'll be waiting for those answers.

I wasn't looking for platitudes and lectures. I was looking for specific answers to specific questions.

"Under my proposals, state laws on abortion would be Constitutionally supported the same way that state laws against vote fraud and theft and animal abuse are currently supported. I am not a Constitutional scholar, but I do know that states have traditionally had the right to fashion their own criminal laws."

And you do, of course, know what happens to criminal laws that don't withstand constitutional scrutiny? So why would you bother proposing such laws?

.

[bicentennial_baby]

97. Yes

Supporting hypothetical forced sterilization is sick, indeed.

[calm_blue_ocean]

103. Oh, I would never force anyone to be sterilized . . .

It would merely be a choice (see post #70, item (1)).

[REP]

108. "Lose Your Liberty or Your Fertility" - Some Fucking Choice

"Go to jail or undergo irreversable abdominal surgery with all its attendant risks (including death)."

Even though vasectomies are much, much safer than tubal ligations, would you give men this draconian "choice"? Why not?

[calm_blue_ocean]

111. Compromise in my penalty scheme, showing ability to compromise

1. I only included the choice of penalties because I tend to be pro-choice about most things. It is noted that repeat sex offenders (male) are sometimes given options of chemical castration or even outright castration, but this remains a controversial aspect of the law.

2. I have no problem withdrawing the sterilization option from the fetacide penalty scheme above. Consider it withdrawn.

3. Message for ZEEMIKE:

With all my posts and responses, I think you can see why abortion is likely to continue to be a wedge driving some voters away from voting Democrat. Pro-choice people have historically claimed that they dislike abortion and indeed have some sympathy for far-along fetuses, as creatures who can think and feel pain.

Here, on this board, we see a different kind of pro-choicer. That is people with no sympathy whatsoever for fetuses, no matter how far along. Under this view, the process of birth somehow instantly transforms a thing deserving of no rights to a person deserving full human rights under the law. Even when I hypothetically suggest a scheme where abortions must should be done within a generous six-month window (thereby preserving the vast majority of practical abortion rights), people on this board don't merely disagree -- they get all sick in their tummies.

Wedge issues are caused by absolutists, who are unwilling to negotiate or compromise. As long as the abortion debate continues to primarily be argued by anti-choice absolutists and pro-choice absolutists, there is gonna be a wedge.

If the Democratic Party is as pro-choice absolutist as the people responding on this thread are, then the party's "tent" will be limited in size and some otherwise winnable elections will be lost. I hate to break it to you folks, but there are always going to be a substantial number of voters out there with sympathy for big, brainy seven months fetuses, for fetuses who could survive outside the womb, if removed with care and forced to do so. You may feel none of this kind of sympathy, but others do -- and not just religious wacko's either.

[iverglas]

118. oooh, good one

Demonize yr opponents, that's always respectful.

"Pro-choice people have historically claimed that they dislike abortion ..."

SOME pro-choice people. One simply does not have to "dislike" abortion to be pro-choice. I'll define my ideology for myself, thank you very much.

I don't have to "dislike" antibiotics to believe that people should have a right to take them if they get strep throat. I don't have to "dislike" abortion to believe that people should have a right to have one if they get pregnant. No more than I have to "like" either one.

"... and indeed have some sympathy for far-along fetuses, as creatures who can think and feel pain.

Here, on this board, we see a different kind of pro-choicer. That is people with no sympathy whatsoever for fetuses, no matter how far along."

Really? These straw folk must be invisible. I haven't seen them, myself. Can you point them out?

"Even when I hypothetically suggest a scheme where abortions must should be done within a generous six-month window (thereby preserving the vast majority of practical abortion rights), people on this board don't merely disagree -- they get all sick in their tummies."

Ah ... trivialize your opponents. That's always good, too.

Do you think that your use of the word MUST might just have something to do with our problem? Maybe there are those who indeed believe that abortions SHOULD be done within a certain period ("generosity" having nothing to do with not denying people the exercise of their rights, after all).

Maybe they have reasons for believing that it would be justified to restrict access to abortion at a certain point -- reasons that do indeed constitute a "compelling state interest", perhaps precisely that interest in preventing suffering where suffering is possible. Maybe they just think that whether that interest is sufficiently compelling to justify the risk to some women's lives that prohibiting such abortions outright, or in any of the ways you have proposed, would entail.

"Under this view, the process of birth somehow instantly transforms a thing deserving of no rights to a person deserving full human rights under the law."

Minus the disrespectful and inaccurate language, this "view" is of course a statement of fact. Complete, successful birth finishes the process by which a z/e/f develops into a human being and therefore acquires rights.

"Wedge issues are caused by absolutists, who are unwilling to negotiate or compromise."

And if any non-absolutist can tell us which right of his/hers, or of anyone else, s/he is willing to negotiate or compromise away, I'd be just so interested. Of course, that would require an explanation of how that arrangement would be consistent with the notion of INALIENABLE rights -- you know, the rights that CANNOT be negotiated or compromised (or sold, or leased, or gambled ...) away.

"I hate to break it to you folks, but there are always going to be a substantial number of voters out there with sympathy for big, brainy seven months fetuses, for fetuses who could survive outside the womb, if removed with care and forced to do so. You may feel none of this kind of sympathy, but others do -- and not just religious wacko's either."

Hey, I feel sympathy for bunny wabbits shot by big mean hunters. I don't propose to outlaw the shooting of bunny wabbits, because to do so would violate others' fundamental rights.

I do oppose leg-hold traps, because they cause suffering -- even though bunny wabbits aren't human beings. Mind you, I also recognize the "necessity" defence in law: someone whose death from starvation could only be averted by using leghold traps to catch food could not be convicted of that offence, because to do so would violate his/her right to life.

The little problem we have with abortion is that a woman whose death could only be averted by an emergency 7-month vaginal abortion just can't do it herself. She needs the assistance of a whole team of health care professionals -- all of whom would be risking their liberty if they asserted a defence of necessity, in response to a charge of unlawfully performing an abortion, and it were rejected. They would therefore be understandably reluctant to perform the necessary act.

Me, I'm just not willing to compel women to die by making it impossible for them to obtain the medical care they require in order to live.

I'm also not willing to demonize my adversary by saying the kinds of things you do, but the inescapable conclusion from your own words is that you apparently are willing to do precisely that: compel women to die by making it impossible for them to obtain the medical care they require in order to live. And that's only the worst possible outcome of your proposals; there are lots of other negative outcomes that are equally violative of rights.

Here on this board, you might want to take your sweeping generalizations, straw people and other disrespectful rhetorical devices somewhere else.

.

[calm_blue_ocean]

122. Clearing up a couple misrepresentations

1. In the hypothetical abortion scheme I proposed on this thread, an abortion would always be permitted (under tribunal rules) to save the life of the mother.

2. While I did not address the issue of emergency medical problems, in keeping with the tone of my hypothetical scheme, there would certainly be rules regarding "emergency" abortions, written so that women did not die and doctors were not prosecuted for any bona fide emergency treatments.

3. Fun quote from Roe v. Wade (ready those air sickness bags!):

"On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive. The Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past."

[Kool Kitty]

105. I agree.

Sterilization as an option? I don't think so.

[REP]

106. Treat It As a Property Crime?

Under my proposals, state laws on abortion would be Constitutionally supported the same way that state laws against vote fraud and theft and animal abuse are currently supported.

Okay, I'll bite: why would you have abortion treated as a property crime, such as theft and animal abuse? Which is the property - the woman's body, or the pweshush pweborn poppet?

[calm_blue_ocean]

114. changing my words

I did not write "treated as." I wrote "Constitutionally supported in the same way as."

If any Constitutional scholars out there wants to explain how STATE criminal laws (eg, voter fraud laws, animal abuse laws) are Constitutionally supported, it sure would help me and REP clarify our differences.

[calm_blue_ocean]

123. More on Constitutional support

The quote from Roe v. Wade in post #122 also shows that the Roe v. Wade Court believed that there IS constitutional support for some state restrictions on abortion (although the Court did not use the "pweshush poppet" terminology in its analysis).

[Cheswick2.0]

102. Fetacide= death to cheese

Quel Fromage!

Hey Iverglas, nice to see you. :wave:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

71. The "problem" isn't abortion. The problem is pregnancy.

You want to stop abortion? Push for more sex-ed. Push for more, and free, contraception. Donate to Planned Parenthood.

The pro-preggers (aka "pro-life") aren't about saving lives, or even about stopping abortion. They're upset about sex. "God" has informed them that sex is about making cute, cuddly, little (white) babies. God, apparantly, screwed up when he also made it fun.

It should be an issue decided by the people involved, with the final choice left to the woman whose body it is.

[flyingfish]

76. Agreed, the problem lies with unwanted pregnancies

Abortion is a hot button issue.

This is one issue in which both sides are correct in their arguments.
Hard to argue when it is not so black and white.

[Cheswick2.0]

99. no both sides are not correct...the only correct side is this one

my uterus is not a ward of the state and it is not an incubator. So F-off with your (I don't mean you in particular) laws trying to make it either.

[KaraokeKarlton]

80. I don't think the solution is that difficult either

If society did more to encourage abstinence while still educating and providing birth control and just came right out and said it's time to be more responsible and stop practicing birth control after the fact when it's available beforehand...well, it would go a very long way. Encouraging adoption is another thing that would help the division on this issue. No decent person is going to be offended by someone who has been raped or molested getting an abortion. Same thing if there is a compelling medical reason for one. But let's just face it...that's not the majority of abortion cases, not by a long shot. More often than not it is just plain old irresponsible and unsafe sex, which we ALL know is BAD NEWS. Our society has become irresponsible and prone to making excuses for behavior they know they shouldn't be taking part in...like unsafe sex. That's the problem.

Okay, flame away...

[iverglas]

84. irresponsible ... irresponsible ... irresponsible

What the hell does that MEAN?

I'm not interested in "flaming"; I'm interested in you providing some rational basis for what you're saying.

"it's time to be more responsible and stop
practicing birth control after the fact when
it's available beforehand"

How is this "responsible"?? How is it *not* "responsible" to do otherwise?

It may be sensible to do it, and silly not to do it. It may be safer to do it, and risky not to do it. But "responsible"??

To whom does the person you're talking about have this alleged responsibility? Responsibility doesn't exist in a vacuum. One can only be responsible *for* something, *to* someone. If you're saying that a woman is responsible for, what, trying not to get pregnant? then to whom are you suggesting she has this responsibility?

"Encouraging adoption is another thing
that would help the division on this issue."

So? If your main concern is the "division" on the issue, you're just another practitioner of expedience.

My concern is the well-being of the women involved, within the limits of how much of my concern they might want, but very definitely including protection of their fundamental rights. I couldn't really care less who might have other concerns, or what they might be. No more than I would care about the concerns of anyone else proposing that someone else's rights be violated.

"No decent person is going to be offended by someone
who has been raped or molested getting an abortion.
Same thing if there is a compelling medical reason for one.
But let's just face it...that's not the majority of abortion
cases, not by a long shot."

So ... what? I care if someone is offended by women's reasons for having abortions? Nope.

No decent person is offended by ANY reason for anyone having an abortion. No decent person thinks that it is any of his/her business.

"More often than not it is just plain old irresponsible
and unsafe sex, which we ALL know is BAD NEWS."

Who "we", white girl? (Said Tonto to the Lone Rangerette ...) I don't know any such thing. Not to mention that I still don't even have a clue what "irresponsible sex" is. Maybe the kind where you don't do your best to make sure your partner has as good a time as you do ...

"Our society has become irresponsible and prone to
making excuses for behavior they know they shouldn't
be taking part in...like unsafe sex. That's the problem."

What on earth you talkin' about?

Who says that anybody "shouldn't be taking part in" unsafe sex? You? What business is it of yours, if the people involved haven't asked your opinion (and aren't children in need of and deserving guidance and assistance)?

What "excuse" does anyone need for doing something that is his/her business and only his/her business? Do you offer "excuses" to anyone for your choice of pizza toppings? Might you suggest to anyone who proposed that you needed an "excuse" for your choices that s/he bug off immediately?

And what excuses are you alleging are in fact offered? In other words, what are you talking about, and what has it got to do with anything?

Who needs to "flame away" when we've got things like this being said about other people already?

You aren't even trying to hang your hat on any of that "right to life" stuff. Abortion doesn't bother you at all as long as the woman has a reason that you don't find "offensive". You find it "offensive" that women would place their own needs, desires and aspirations, in relation both to their sexual activities and to their pregnancies, above your notions of what they ought to do. It's pretty plain what the basis for that kind of position is.

.

[REP]

86. Additionally, I Think It's a Load of Crap

While undoubtedly some abortions are a consequence of what some might call "irresponsible sex" - and what defines such varies from person to person - a good argument can be made for aborting a pregnancy that results from such is indeed being responsible.

As I mentioned in another post, the birth control available isn't perfect - even the Pill, when used absolutely correctly has a failure rate. There are many common medicines that lessen the effectiveness of the Pill; I doubt many can name them all. And that's for women who can tolerate the Pill; many simply can't. Same with Norplant and Depo-Provera, both of which have side effects that can be too much for some (bleeding, weight gain, migraines, etc) and flat-out dangerous for others (DVT, kidney damage); which leaves barrier methods, with a failure rate in the high 40% zone. Given the sorry state of contraceptives, it seems to me a wonder that the abortion rate in the US keeps declining! True, there are now more options, and I have no doubt that many women are trading off lessened libidoes and other unpleasant side-effects for the decreased chance of unwanted pregnancy. In fact, it seems that many, many women are being remarkably responsible about unwanted pregnancies in both preventing them and ending them.

As for "unsafe sex," I am always tempted to ask those who wring their hands over it and abotion about the increasing number of HIV infections over the last few years. Should we withhold medical assistance to those who acquire HIV, unless they can prove they were raped or received the infection from a tainted transfusion or needlestick? Isn't treating those patients tantamont to "making excuses for behavior they know they shouldn't be taking part in...like unsafe sex"?

[KaraokeKarlton]

89. So unsafe sex is a good thing?

Since when?

And obviously BOTH people are responsible for using birth control.

Let's cover the responsibility thing by using camparison arguments.

Okay, let's say you're riding a motorcycle and you aren't wearing a helmet. You know when you climb on that bike and don't put the helmet on that you're taking a risk. If you lose control of that bike, crash and get a head injury because you didn't have that helmet on...it's your own damn fault, as tragic as the accident is. Society provides us with measures to protect ourselves from risk. If we choose not to utilize that protection and the result is something we don't like, we are responsible for our own misfortune. When you don't make the responsible choice, you are being irresponsible. This is really pretty basic stuff here...it's not rocket science.

You don't want to be thrown from a car in an accident...you wear a seatbelt.
You don't want your balls crushed while playing sports...you wear a cup.
You don't want to sink to the bottom of the ocean and drown if your boat sinks...you wear a life jacket.
You don't want your brains splattered all over the pavement if you wreck your bike...you wear a helmet.
You don't want your kid hit by a car...you don't let them play in the street.
You don't want to be evicted...you pay your rent.
You don't want your power turned off...you pay your electric bill.
You don't want to be a father...you wear a condom
You don't want to be a mother...you have multiple birth control options given to you for free through Family Planning if you can't afford it.

There is no excuse not to do these things IF you want to protect yourself from undesirable risks.

[REP]

90. Another Bad Analogy

Getting into a car does not equal having an accident, whether one uses a seatbelt.

Having sex is not consenting to pregnancy, no matter how many or how few precautions are taken. If sex = pregnancy, there wouldn't be a billion dollar a year fertility industry now, would there.

Now would you like to try the deserted island with circling sharks and the famous violinist? No matter what tortured analogy you use, you will never convince me or anyone else that abortion is a not a responsible solution to an unwanted pregnancy.

Are you arguing that patients with HIV should not be treated unless they prove they met your standards for avoiding the infection? Please answer this question, and show your work.

[iverglas]

91. So What?????????

"You don't want to be thrown from a car in an accident...you wear a seatbelt."

And if you don't wear a seatbelt you might have a head injury, FOR WHICH YOU WILL SEEK AND BE GIVEN MEDICAL CARE, and you will live with any consequences or die.


"You don't want your balls crushed while playing sports...you wear a cup."

And if you don't wear a cup you might suffer an injury, FOR WHICH YOU WILL SEEK AND BE GIVEN MEDICAL CARE, and you will live with any consequences or die.


"You don't want to sink to the bottom of the ocean and drown if your boat sinks...you wear a life jacket."

And if you don't wear a life jacket you might suffer an injury (a friend of mine's sister was seriously injured by the propeller when she fell under a pontoon boat w/o a life jacket), FOR WHICH YOU WILL SEEK MEDICAL CARE and you will live with the consequences or die.


"You don't want your brains splattered all over the pavement if you wreck your bike...you wear a helmet."

And if you don't wear a helmet you might suffer an injury, FOR WHICH YOU WILL SEEK AND BE GIVEN MEDICAL CARE, and you will live with any consequences or die.


"You don't want your kid hit by a car...you don't let them play in the street."

Ah, finally!! A case that involves RESPONSIBILITY -- TO someone, FOR something. If you don't protect YOUR KID, YOUR KID might suffer an injury, FOR WHICH YOU WILL SEEK AND BE GIVEN MEDICAL CARE for your kid, and YOUR KID will live with any consequences or die. And you might be held accountable, criminally, for your neglect.


"You don't want to be evicted...you pay your rent."

And if you don't pay your rent, you may be evicted, and live with the consequences.


"You don't want your power turned off...you pay your electric bill."

And if you don't pay your electricity bill, your power may be turned off, and you will live with the consequences.


And now the silly ones:

"You don't want to be a father...you wear a condom"

OR you agree with your partner that she will have an abortion when she gets pregnant. Oh look -- YOU AREN'T A FATHER. "Being a father" is NOT an UNAVOIDABLE CONSEQUENCE of not wearing a condom.


"You don't want to be a mother...you have multiple birth control options given to you for free through Family Planning if you can't afford it."

OR you have an abortion when you get pregnant. Oh look -- YOU AREN'T A MOTHER. "Being a mother" is NOT an UNAVOIDABLE CONSEQUENCE of not using contraception.


AND, if you're a man and don't use a condom, or a woman and don't use contraception, and your partner or you gets pregnant, you LIVE WITH THE CONSEQUENCES. Pregnancy, abortion, childbirth, parenthood, whatever those consequences might be -- whatever THE PREGNANT WOMAN, who is "responsible" to no one but herself, DECIDES they will be.


What IS your point?

We mandate the wearing of seatbelts and helmets, so we should mandate the use of contraception?? You might see a few tiny differences between the two kinds of situations?

People should take every precaution to avoid consequences that YOU think should be avoided? SAYS WHO? What makes you think that it is any business of yours, IF the people in question do not want you to make it your business??

Women who get unwantedly pregnant were irresponsible (or their contraception failed, or they were assaulted or exploited ...) and so ... they should be prevented from choosing what consequence they wish to live with?? Or maybe we should allow them to choose how to solve their problem, and just call them lots of names and make a few laws to make it as difficult as possible for them to exercise that choice.


"There is no excuse not to do these things IF you want to protect yourself from undesirable risks."

PRECISELY. There is no excuse THAT YOU CAN OFFER YOURSELF not to do these things IF you want to protect yourself from risk that you prefer to avoid. YOU DO NOT NEED any excuse for anyone else. It is none of anyone else's business.

The "undesirability" of the risk is NOT up to YOU, you here, to decide.

Some people think that the risk of heatstroke from wearing a motorcycle helmet is a worse risk than the risk of head injury from not wearing one. I gather that in many US states they are permitted to make that choice for themselves.

Some people think that the risk of side effects from the available methods of contraception, or the unpleasant interference with their sexual activities, is worse than the risk of pregnancy and consciously choose the latter over the former. That is THEIR decision, stupid as anyone else might think it is. NOT anyone else's business.

Do you go on internet boards and rail about "irresponsible" people who fail to pay their electricity bills and have their power cut off?? Do you try to make their bill-paying practices your business??

We'd probably agree that high school students should be taught money management skills that will enable them not to have their power cut off when they start getting electricity bills. Of course, they might still lose their jobs and be unable to pay their bills and have their power cut off. If their power is cut off because they didn't pay their bills for whatever reason, are you suggesting that they should be, what, prevented from paying those bills and getting the power turned back on?

Ditto, absolutely, for sexual-activity skills that will enable young women not to get pregnancies they don't want once they start engaging in sexual activity, and enable their partners to avoid being partners to pregnancies they don't want. Of course, the young women's contraception might fail, or they might be sexually assaulted, or they might land up in abusive or exploitive relationships where they don't have control of their sexual activities, despite their and our best efforts. If they become unwantedly pregnant for whatever reason, WHAT ARE YOU SUGGESTING?

Why do you consider it appropriate to go public with your opinions about other people's behaviours and problems? What IS it to you?

If you're actually concerned about the welfare of women who have unwanted pregnancies, why would you think it even slightly productive to call them names??


"If we choose not to utilize that protection and the result is something we don't like, we are responsible for our own misfortune. When you don't make the responsible choice, you are being irresponsible."

SO THE HELL WHAT? How and why does this suddenly become YOUR business?


"This is really pretty basic stuff here...it's not rocket science."

It apparently is, since I have yet to hear any statement of WHAT anyone is responsible for, TO WHOM, in this situation that makes it your business.

If I don't look where I'm going and walk into a lamppost and break my nose, I have been "irresponsible". Offer me courses in how to walk around the streets safely, offer to equip me with sonar for free if you want. But if I decline your offers, or walk into a lamppost and break my nose despite all our best efforts, WHAT THEN? I get to go to the hospital and have it repaired, I think. I get to live with the consequences of not looking where I'm going when I walk around the streets, and not using whatever aids might be available to me to offset the risks I'm taking.

Where exactly do YOU and your opinion come into this?

.

[REP]

81. Abortion Isn't a Problem

It isn't an aberation of nature; most pregnancies spontaneously abort (source: Williams Obstetrics). The majority of women who have abortions feel nothing but relief.

I'm all for reducing the need - not by bribing women to bear children and abandon them to strangers, or bribing them with payoffs to keep the baby once born - but by reducing unwanted pregnancies. The birth control available today is not 100% safe or effective - yet millions of women take their chances with it rather than risk an unwanted pregnancy, which says a lot for how far women are willing to go to avoid unwanted pregnancies. Of ocurse, there are stupid women - "it won't happen to me" "a baby will make him love me forever" "a baby is a living doll who will love me" and unfortunately, you can't cure stupid. These women are the ones who are the leeast likely to abort, though they are often the least likely to be able to care for a child. Improve the safety net so these unfortunate children don't have to suffer from their parents' stupidity.

There are some women - as high as 25% of the female US population - who will never have children because they don't want to. There's nothing that will make these women consider continuing an unwanted pregnancy. Nothing. Accept that woman does not equal mother. Accept that falling in love does not equal parenthood. Bearng children and parenthood are separate decisions that deserve a lot more thought than many people give them.

To reduce the need for abortion, what is needed is: better, safer, more effective birth control; easy, uncontroversial access to birth control for everyone; make it easier for women to escape situations where they may have to submit to sex for food and shelter; easy noncontroverisal access to sterilizations for young men and women; and make first trimester abortions available and noncontroversial. Fat chance.

[Cheswick2.0]

100. Hi Rep

I knew the heavy weights would show up on the thread sooner or later. Love the way you post!

[Blue_Chill]

113. I am 100% against abortion but....

in speaking with people like Cheswick, MaineMary, and a few others I have changed my slant to Pro-Choice. I believe the best way to reduce abortion is thru education which hopefully will prevent many young people from ever having to make 'the choice'.

Don't get me wrong I still think abortion is pretty much a bad thing. I don't like the idea that men have no say, even though I accept that it is impossible to fairly give them a choice in this matter. I don't like the idea of ending a unborn childs life, especially for reasons I morally do not not approve of.

However I respect the right of women to follow their own path in life and make their own choices. I just wish them well and hope that we as a society can help to better equip them for their journey.

This is how I feel we as a society should approach this issue.

[GinaMaria]

133. This is the best post I';ve read in a while

Growth and change especially in terms of beliefs is a sisyphean effort. Been there. It';s one of the best things about DU. Exposure to different ideas and questions. I';ve changed my stance on gun control/freedom from reading people';s opinions here. -/
-/
Sending you a hug. Not just for opening yourself to other';s views, but for posting about your process. I think our answers to many of our problems aren';t really answers at all but communication.-/
-/
Take good care of yourself.-/
-/
G