“Take out the part of when life actually begins, and you come down to it being an individual’s choice.”
Nate, you’re really coming up with some doozies lately.
Take out when life really ends, and murder isn’t such a bad thing either, right?
Nate, what did you mean by “take out the part where life begins”? Or rather, why did you say that? Do you believe that that’s not a consideration in the debate of the legality of abortion, or are you just setting it aside for the moment?
It seems to me to be quite an important factor in determining whether abortion is killing another person or not. I’m not taking a side here, I just thought you might want to clarify, as that kind of comment could be taken quite poorly by some.
To go back to a point that was brought up earlier in the thread, before we got into the pro-choice vs. pro-life debate, both Democrats and Republicans can and will use any chance to help their relection campaign. As a Democrat I can not blame or be ashamed of GWB for landing on the aircraft carrier. It makes a great visual and sound bite for the uneducated voters of America. The Dems are just pissed because there is nothing that they can do that would top that.
What scares me is the Democratic candidates that are running for second runner up in 2004. They need to find a message to focus on, such as the economy, and keep talking about that. The American voter is not going to vote for a candidate or party that campaigns against the war effort, pure and simple. As the first Clinton/Gore campaign said “It is the economy stupid.”
Sound bites and photo ops are everywhere and all candidates use them. Get over it and move on and as a candidate of the past, local level, and the future again someday, I will tell you this, you are running for reelection from the moment you get elected.
Nobody is actually “pro-abortion”, at least nobody sane. An abortion is always a tragedy, and I think everyone would agree to that. A woman who has an abortion will live with that difficult decision.
I think the point is that if it is anyone’s decision to terminate or not terminate a pregnancy, it is the parents’ decision (primarily the woman, in my view) and NOT the decision of the U.S. government. A woman must be in control of her own uterus, even though there may be irresponsible people out there. Just like you can’t legislate gun control based on the actions of a few criminals, the vast majority of women are not getting abortions on a casual basis.
I agree that the Democrats are in a sad state, and could easily blow the next election no matter what Bush does domestically.
Half (or more) of the Democratic candidates seem un-electable, either because they are too far from the mainstream, or too incredibly boring. The ones who seem mainstream do not offer enough of a contrast to Bush, to make people want to switch… I call them the “Republicrats”.
The challenge for the Democrats will be to contrast their ideas against the Bush administration, while always maintaining a positive message of hope, renewal and unity. They need to challenge Bush without seeming “negative”. That is a difficult balancing act.
[quote]Nobody is actually “pro-abortion”, at least nobody sane. An abortion is always a tragedy, and I think everyone would agree to that. A woman who has an abortion will live with that difficult decision.
I think the point is that if it is anyone’s decision to terminate or not terminate a pregnancy, it is the parents’ decision (primarily the woman, in my view) and NOT the decision of the U.S. government. A woman must be in control of her own uterus, even though there may be irresponsible people out there. Just like you can’t legislate gun control based on the actions of a few criminals, the vast majority of women are not getting abortions on a casual basis.[/quote]
This is what I was trying to say!!! I apologize for not making my point in this manner. I cannot say it any better than this.
I am interested that Nate Dogg now has the wisdom to figure out when life begins…when exactly is it during the development of life in a womans body that you can say that its a NONPERSON…then moves to PERSONHOOD?..who makes that call?..the DNA is set for developement pretty rapidly on. When is the soul intact with the DNA?..How big is a soul?..a few ounces…a few pounds?..just a clump of cells? Is it tangible and measurable? Who except God can make that call bud???
You have a horrible delimma…because you have to admit it is indeed a person(human) there…vs a rat…dog…cat…horse…and then you have to say if it is human…its a non person without a soul. And that soul is expendable.
A woman who miscarries is different that one who chooses to have the child murdered; so don’t evn go there. And the rape and incest thing is less than 1%…besides…lots of people want to adopt!
Trying to support abortion is like trying to row a leaky boat…too many holes to float.
Lumpy…that was the best…most reasonable post I have read of yours!
Thanks PtrDr
I am not the lunatic some would like to portray me as. I just strongly disagree with some of the key philosophies of the current administration.
Regarding abortion, I know several women who have had them. They always portray it as a last resort, a black mark, something they regret but also felt like it was necessary. It was a death in the family, not something they took lightly in any way. I wouldn’t doubt that many women who have had an abortion also feel it is wrong, but it was the better choice out of two negative possibilities.
I agree that there are probably “too many” abortions occurring in the US, but I do not think it is the role of the government to regulate that, it is an idividual decision. Giving the decision to the government would give them too much power over our own bodies. I think there should be hard limits on the power we give our government.
If we want to see the number of abortions reduced, we should consider improving the sex education that students get in our public schools. I believe there is a direct correlation between poor sex education (or in many parts of the US “no sex education”) and high rates of teen pregnancies. In my opinion, it is ironic that conservatives are often opposed to sex education in public schools, and also against the woman’s right to choose. I see these two issues being closely tied. Certainly not for every case, but there is a general connection.
I don’t know how young people can avoid pregnancy when many of them don’t even really understand how it happens, and how to avoid it.
If a mother were to withold milk, or care in general, from her infant, she’d be convicted of murder. But providing care is a function of her own body, isn’t it? The child should get its own food… after all, you can’t tell a woman what to do with her body!
Wrong.
Children have different rights (legally and ethically) from the rest of us. They are not recognized as being capable of caring for themselves, and so we give them additional protections from mistreatment, negligence, etc. The fact is that the law compels us to act in the interests of our offspring; whether that action is to feed the child ourselves or to give the child to someone who will is up to us. I do not see why this shouldn’t extend prenatally.
For all you pro-“choicers” out there… how about choosing before you have sex? Frankly, I don’t see that there’s any good reason for abortions any longer, given the invention of the morning-after pill and effective hospital attention to rape victims.
I don’t normally get involved in debates like this, but I do have a couple of points to make. First, to all who argue about the rights of government to regulate what we do with our bodies: Government does regulate that. Anything that we do with our bodies that can harm another person is prohibited. Driving while drunk, rape, murder, all these things that we do with our bodies, they are illegal because they harm others. So in my opinion, the abortion issue comes down to whether or not you consider the fetus an actual person. Second; sex education. This may be way off base, but instead of just teaching them how not to get pregnant, we might want ot consider teaching them the value of not having sex at such an early age. I have taught teenagers for 8 years, and I can tell you, they are not emotionally able to handle it. I have lost count of the girls I taught who had ovarian cysts, or cervical cancer, or uterine problems, stemming from the fact that they had been having sex since they were 13. One last thing: I work in a very well to-do area. We have a pretty good sex-ed program. We teach all the methods of birth control. We try to encourage abstinence, and believe me, with teenagers, that is quite a cross to bear. Want to know their method of keeping their virginity and being “safe”? Anal sex. They learned that they can’t get pregnant that way, and in their minds, they’re still virgins.
LUMPU,I understand alot of what you are saying. Conservatives are not against sex education in the schools. As a matter of fact, most are STRONG proponents of abstinence; which is the BEST for of birth control for teenagers and the ONLY sure fire way of preventing the spread of disease. Sex in marriage is the ONLY positive way of preventing disease.
Condoms are NOT 100% at all and most of the kids know about them and don’t use them anyway! Teaching them abstinence and the consequences of unprotected sex are the best bets. I know in most areas of life…facing unpleasant or negative consequences are a driving factor in shaping our behavior! Like it or not…us humans will do our best when there is a threat of punishment or consequences that are negative! They have been showing condoms on TV and certainly in other forms of media now long enough for teenagers to know. If they are encouraged that sex is ok if they use condoms…there are several problems: 1. they may not use the condom 2. the condom may break or be defective 3. sexual activity in the teenage years is HARMFUL emotionally to teenagers. Its a proven fact. It makes them grow up WAAYY to quickly! They are not equipped to handle the emotions that come with it. Even I know this has happened to me in my twenties and thirties when I have been guilty of fornication (sex outside of marriage). If its screwed up my brain when it comes to some women…can you imagine a teenager or even younger kid?
Anyhow…I just believe the evidence shows that it should be illegal…outside of medical emergency…to have an abortion. And certainly, underage children should have to get the parents consent to have an abortion…and I am telling you right here and now that plenty of abortion clinics let it slide dude!!! That is irresponsible medicine! and I am appalled as a health care provider that it happens!
Now, you may think abortion may be a logical choice. But, God says murder is a sin. What is murder? Taking an innocent life. At what point of the DNA sequencing is a baby a person or non person? when is the soul attached to the DNA? How big is a soul? Can it be measured with techological equipment?
If you know a woman who miscarries and sees the intact baby beginning to form…have you heard them deny that this was a human with a soul? My friend…I have seen this in PERSON in the medical field! I have seen women grieve over the inadvertant loss of the human life just like if they baby was delivered full term and sucked air into its lungs. You CANT tell her or me that that is NOT a person! who just died!
The bottom line is this:
everything that is legal and that
you are capable of doing is NOT the RIGHT thing to do…and vice versa. Since people in our government don’t see it as it REALLY IS…MURDER…then the laws and our society will not change. If society doesn’t see it as MURDER…which clearly it is (scott peterson case for example) then we are screwed and a millions of souls have gone to be with the Lord waaay to early. And some people ARE going to be held responsible. God is holy and true and loving…AND He is just. HE will judge and punish accordingly. And this we all know in our hearts. Just think of a situation where maybe someone stole from you or murdered your family member or friend? Don’t you pray that God will serve justice on them? Of course you do!!!..we all do!!!
Hello everyone, I cannot believe I am getting involved in this discussion (which has really gone off topic.) Lumpy is actually sounding more intelligent on this issue.
Abortion is a complex issue where I have found both sides to be completely off. Lumpy is right that conservatives are against abortion, and then are against sex education. Sex ed should be taught, although abstinence should be part of the curriculum. Some of the classes seem to encourage sex instead of trying to get kids to at least wait until they graduate. It is foolish to assume that teenagers have no self-control. It is also stupid to assume that ignorance on the issue will prevent sex from occurring.
I dislike the “easy way out” that abortion provides. I knew a girl who has had 5 of them. Now she is incapable of having children, and she has not told her husband who wants a big family. People treat it as though it is a form of birth control, and not the medical procedure it is.
I am surprised that people on the pill will be against the emergency contraceptive, or day after pill. It works the same way the pill does by not allowing the fertilized cell to attach to the uterus wall. If you are for the pill then it is no different being for this.
One of the big arguments is that “it is my body.” This is technically incorrect. There are two genetically separate life forms here. Ok I know people keep talking about when life begins. But the basic description of life is that it eats (supplied by the mother.) it grows, and it reproduces (technically the same thing considering it is reproducing on a cellular level.) I presume that what people mean is intelligent life. (This might exclude most personal trainers.)
I have read about researchers who create human embryos in the lab and use them for experiments. The policy was to destroy it by the end of the second week because that is when the nervous system starts developing. Apparently (and this is the most important to me) the fetal brain produces brainwaves at about 30 days. A doctor will consider a nonfunctioning brain as dead, and a functioning one as living. I would believe that to accept abortion it must occur before the brain functions. That takes it to 29 days, although an extra day should be subtracted just in case. Which means I would accept abortion only to the 28th day (four weeks). Practically all abortions occur after 6 weeks. Now realize that it takes 4 weeks and two days to develop a functioning brain. How much more development occurs in the two weeks or more by the time the abortion occurs?
Another problem is that abortion is fully legal during the entire pregnancy. Not everyone is aware of this fact. Now there are a lot fewer late term abortions then first term abortions, but they do occur. One story is of a woman who decided at the eighth month of her pregnancy to go through an abortion. Apparently she was conscious during the procedure because the doctor pulled out an arm, which shocked the woman to the point that she freaked out, and got up, and took off to a hospital and gave birth. The child survived and is missing an arm. (She might be a teen now.)
Another problem I have with abortion is simply that if you don’t want to have children then put the damn condom on, or pop that diaphragm in, shove in the sponge, take the pill, or just swallow. People keep talking about choice, but by not taking the proper actions before then the choice was already made. As long as abortions are easy to get, people won’t worry about not getting pregnant in the first place.
I do understand that everyone who has an opinion on this issue has it because they care. One side cares about the fetus, and the other cares about the pregnant woman. I believe that the one who was responsible for getting pregnant in the first place should accept the responsibility, and not the other way around.
“A woman must be in control of her own uterus…”
If it were only that easy, I’d agree with you, but we’re not talking about a tumor here, nor are we merely talking about the woman’s uterus. She doesn’t have fibroids or endometriosis. She doesn’t have cancer of her uterus or cervix. She has a living being in there.
I’m not trying to force my will on anybody. If you choose to smoke, drink alcohol, freebase cocaine, jump off second story buildings for pleasure, that’s perfectly fine with me. Don’t tell me, however, that killing a living being is simply “terminating a pregnancy” as I just don’t buy it.
The government has its place in telling people not to kill other people outside of the womb, so what makes inside the womb so different?
Abortions would indeed be an exceptional procedure…if people were responsible and respected the others (whoah! dream on!).
People should not ‘practice’ copulation if they don’t have the mental equipment (100% self-responsibility and 100% respect of the other) to play the risks of that ‘game’. Honesty (of your views and real goals) is a prerequisite too.
(For all the problems I see in today’s society, having children should be a regulated process (like in Starship Troopers, you have to prove your worth by becoming a citizen before having the right to vote and have a family). RAISE THE BAR. If you don’t have what it takes to be a parent, you don’t have children. Why should a child be the price of your raging hormones? Adoptive parents are put through screening. Why should it be different for the average joe? )
Let’s face it. If you don’t want a child at all and you have sex with somebody who wants one eventually, you are playing a birth time bomb. The only factor offsetting the final tick (conception) is when the other finally decides to ‘cut loose’ (usually unbeknownst to you). Good luck on the birth version of the russian roulette. If that’s how you like gambling, what can I say?
You want to play the sex game? Fine. You know the risks? Good. Do you have the strenght of mind and values/character to resist dangerous situations ? Only you know it. Are you willing to pay the price if something goes out of your control or unexpected(either the birth control method or your partner willingly chooses to get pregnant)? If not, consider other options (like-minded partner would be the best choice, or somebody who has proven to you time and time again that she respects you, your values and your wishes).
Abortion is a big deal. For real accidents (no partner wants to have the baby at start), do it quick.
BOTTOM LINE: You write your own ticket in these matters, like all of the rest of life. That includes where your sperm flies and lands.
DanC, this is off topic, but I don’t remember anywhere in Starship Troopers where it said that you had to become a citizen before you could have children. The voting thing I remember, but not the family thing. Was that in the movie? I’m much more familiar with the book, and like I sadi, I don’t recall it anywhere there.
I have no problem with abstinence being taught in schools, in fact I think it is a good idea. I agree that many young people are not ready for sex. However nobody should assume that teenagers or anyone else will necessarily practice it. They still need to teach sex-ed as if abstinence is a choice and realize that is not everyone’s choice.
The other issue with sex ed is it is starting way too late. By the time students are in high school, they are already screwing. Sex ed needs to be taught in grade school (responsibly taught, obviously) and work your way up. Schools are starting too late.
The Mage
You made some interesting comments and did not come off like a nutjob in this thread. Hmm. Sound familiar? Is that comment helping forward the discussion? Know what an ad hominem attack is?
Getting back to the discussion…
“People treat it as though it is a form of birth control, and not the medical procedure it is.”
Again, I compare it to the gun issue. We can’t legislate abortion based on the most irresponsible cases, any more than we can legislate gun control on the most irresponsible cases. I believe most women are taking their resonsibility seriously when it comes to abortion and do not do it frivolously. When you say “People treat it as a form of birth control” I don’t know who it is you are referring to, but it is an oversimplification and a generalization that I don’t agree with
“I do understand that everyone who has an opinion on this issue has it because they care. One side cares about the fetus, and the other cares about the pregnant woman.” BOTH sides care about the woman AND the fetus. Your comment is not factual degrades the debate. Everything is not so black and white. Abortion is bad and it may even be wrong. But in my opinion the ultimate responsibility must rest with the mother… unless you think that women are too irresponsible to handle the responsibility? Then let “good old Uncle Sam” decide? Making abortion illegal or harder to get will not stop it from happening, we all should have learned that from the pre-Roe vs Wade days, when women used coathangers and there were underground networks of back-alley abortion providers. Making abortion illegal only makes it less safe. Abortion is an unpleasant reality and you cannot legislate it away. The suggestions on how to reduce the number of abortions are more to the point, in my opinion.
To the person who said abortion is murder and murder is a sin… War is also murder.
One more comment… when does the fetus become a person… the answer to that question has been different, at different times in our history. At one point (if i recall correctly) people believed that children didn’t get a soul until age 3. This was due to the incredibly high infant mortality rate, perhaps… It was easier not to think of them as people, perhaps. Morality is a moving target, it changes with the times and is to a large extent a matter of opinion. Many people think morality is something that people need to establish for themselves, and it is not the role of the government to set the parameters. I mention these last points as a way to add to the discussion.
I think we can all agree that abortion is tragic and there are far too many of them.
“We can’t legislate abortion based on the most irresponsible cases…”
snip snip “unless you think that women are too irresponsible to handle the responsibility?”
Uh, no. So if we make a law, we’re saying that people are too ‘irresponsible’ to just ‘do the right thing’ on their own? No. Without getting into Hobbesian/Lockean political theory, here, I think it’s plain enough to see that the reason we legislate is because of the outliers. Most people probably won’t kill other people, even if there weren’t a law against it. But we make a law anyway, because some people are going to kill. We also have laws against neglect, not because the government feels that parents are irresponsible in general, but because children need protection in the particular.
Finally, the argument “it’s going to happen anyway” is hackneyed and impotent. There are laws against robbery, murder, and jaywalking. Certainly, the criminals involved would live a happier life if no one stopped them. The robber, for instance, wouldn’t have to worry about being shot by the police. But arguing that robbery should be legal because it’s such a shame to see a wounded robber is folly.
Paul: Too off-topic indeed. Point taken. Give me some time to find a video club that has a DVD version of it. My vague recall is something like ‘I want to become a citizen to have the right to vote and have children’ (loose translation on a far memory). In the meantime, in the Starship Troopers mindset, it would be logical to assume that if someone can’t have the right (stuff) to vote (once in a while), why would that person have the right to procreate, which impacts the whole life of some newborn (full-time, lifelong commitment) ?
This is a really interesting debate, and the last point you bring up is even more poignant. This subject really has me on the fence.
On the one hand, being a father of three, I think that all life is precious, and I would personally NEVER choose to eliminate a life once it has been concieved. In my mind, it is a life from the moment my sperm meets with the egg and the spark of life is generated. Two of my three children were accidents, but I would never take them back, nor even regret bringing them into this world.
On the OTHER hand, I have worked in the past in social work, and seen the results of people having children who should not have had children. At that time I was so shocked and disgusted that I felt nothing short of draconian measures would be a fair way to manage this problem. Unwanted children are not treated well, and they often grow up to create more unwanted children. They also are more likely to be abused, neglected, and more likely to become criminals. I began to believe that if you were on welfare and had at least one child that you should have to have your tubes tied by law, and that abortions for any violators would be mandatory. You don’t know how cynicle you can become working in that field. I didn’t last long. A year of that crap had me totally depressed. Point is, if you ever want to change your views on the legality of abortion, go work in some at-risk programs in inner cities and you will want the federal government to fund sterilization of every one of those people. Like I said, sounds draconian. I have mellowed out a little in recent years, but I still struggle with that issue. I would never choose to abort anything that I was responsible for because to me it is precious life, but it would be hard for me to tell someone else whether they could or not. After meeting hundreds of people who were dead inside, who would just as soon kill you as look at you if they could get anything out of it, there is a pretty strong argument for abortion. They weren’t as lucky as my children to be born in a family that took the responsibility so seriously. If someone is cold enough to kill the fetus, the child would probably be better off to not get a chance at all than to be raised by that person.
Roy: Since we’re living in fantasy land anyway (by saying that abortion should be illegal), we might as well say that there “should” be some way to restrict childbearing to those who can afford it. But then, I’ve always felt that way. It seems to me that once you are on public assistance, you ought to give up a certain amount of your right to live as you like. I don’t think mandatory sterilization would be tolerated, but how about mandatory adoption… and a reform of the whole adoption process so children actually get a chance to be adopted.