quote:Originally posted by Zefram: That's why the criminizalization (or legalization) of abortion should be decided through elected representatives rather than through judges.
Well, there is the point that things don't generally come before the Court until the people involved feel they have been in some way abused or done a disservice by the law and, by extension, the elected representatives.
quote:The U.S. Constitution neither grants nor denies the right to an abortion, making the decision a Legislative one.
Of course it doesn't; One of the precepts of our system is that people inherently have unlimited rights and freedoms until a law specifically limits or takes them away. The Bill of Rights was added simply as additional insurance for the security of those rights and freedoms the Framers felt to be most important and necessary, a comfort to those who feared possible future manipulations of the System. (Sadly, in recent years, it looks to me like their concerns were quite warranted.)
quote:I've also noticed a strong anti-religious sentiment running through this argument...
Perhaps this is because the single greatest threat to individual freedom in America today is the religiously fundamentalist segement of the population that currently controls all three branches of the federal government. (There, Omega, that's statement of personal belief for you. )
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Omega, you ninny. You completely missed the point! Ther is no absolute morality, only individual interpretations.
No, YOU missed the point. Your saying there is no absolute morality doesn't mean there isn't, any more than my saying there is means there is.
quote:Regarding slavery, it is a perfect example of my point.
Slavery existed as an institution in the US because it was for the greater benefit of society. That didn't make it right. The greater benefit of society is NOT the sole basis for legal decisions.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Irishman: To TSN and Jason:
Jason:
Why are you showing anger and hatred towards unborn children? Whether you think you do or not, it comes through in your posts.
What are you smoking? That's like me saying you show "anger and hatred" towards women by your posts...it's stupid. I wont insult you by suggesting you hate women because you wnat to control their reproductive rights. Attacking the people making a diffrent point of view when you cant come up with a supportive argument for our own viewpoint is an act of desperation. Why answer a question when you can slander someone and duck the issue?
Besides, by trying to attribute some sinister motive to my post, you are conviently sidestepping everything I posted. Surely you can answer the question? Can you see the diffrence between your own situation and an unwanted pregnantcy? Many in the anti-abortion camp can't- they see all life as sacred....untill the child is born, that is. Then it's someone else's problem- the mother's, naturally.
If your wife were raped, and forced to carry the child to term, could you love that child? (personally, I dont think I could) Putting it up for adoption is just as bad as aborting it- worse and less responsible by my way of thinking- hoping someone else will care for it while washing your hands of all responsibility.
It's so easy to "fight for children" and then wash your hands of their actual lives after their born. Why not spend all this passion nad money on fighting for children that are already alive? Why not protect the wellfare of the millions of hopelessly poor children in America?
Because it's not as easy as fighting for an abstract cause like "rights of the unborn".
As to myself, I love children- I think they should all be raised in loving, caring families with a real chance of happiness. But they have to be wanted first for that to be remotely possible. You'll never have a healthy relationship between child and parents of that child was the result of rape or incest, yet, that's just the sort of thoughtless mentality the "pro-life" camp is all about, and this law in particular.
Pro-Choice is not "pro-abortion" or "pro-death", it's about choice. As in freedom for a woman to choose what to do with herself without outside interference from religous groups.
I wouldn't say this thread has so much an "anti-religious sentiment" as a pro-freedom sentiment.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
The American legal definition of what qualifies for murder concerns intent. There must be the intention to cause death before the act itself. Interesting then, that in some cases, shooting a pregnant woman who then dies with her unborn child can result in two murder charges.
That said, one part of the American law code attaches that personhood to an unborn child, while another part (that which allows abortion) does not. Can anyone else see a day of reckoning between those two views soon?
You provide no documentation for your definition of embryo and human being. Therefore, it can only be considered anecdotal, not scientific proof.
Ah, but you've conviently skipped that the legal system does not consider a pregnantcy in first trimester "human life" and would not result in that double murder charge.
That "personhood status" is the same same criteria for restricting abortions- the same legal and scientific developmental criteria. There is no schism between the two in need of reckoning.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Omega: Slavery existed as an institution in the US because it was for the greater benefit of society...
...until it wasn't. Then it went away, replaced by a progression of more societally beneficial yet still "morally wrong" discriminatory systems. I'm not sure what the distinction you're making is. The intent of laws doesn't change, only the definition of what's beneficial.
quote:That didn't make it right.
I agree, granted that we're acknowledging that a particular set (or two particular sets) of morals is what's determining what's "right."
quote:The greater benefit of society is NOT the sole basis for legal decisions.
The point is that laws, in order to be applicable, must reflect reality. We just went through a great example of how moral principles of right and wrong do not determine reality. It's a question of procedure, not ideals. As I said, the idealogical argument is insoluable.
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: A tad old? Eight years is a whole lotta voters coming of age...and literally millions of kids becoming adults. There are kids that were in elementary school when that survey was done that now have several kids...
quote:P.S. Zygotes are alive, they are just no more 'alive' then ameobas or cauliflower.
And yet, I feel no tears welling up at the "slaughter" of cauliflower that occurs each day.
quote:Even cripples with deranged fathers can be perfectly happy
But not adopted.
1. Are you saying that the male/female abortion support statistics have changed signifigantly as compared to each other over less then a decade? This seems like a very strange notion. I'm sure overall support has changed, but I bet the difference between the two has changed very little or not at all.
2. Yes, exactly. There is no ethical/consistancy problem with slaughtering zygotes. It is possible to be neither pro or anti abortion, but to have a well-defined position that happens to fall between those extreme views (such as mine ).
3. Huh?
quote:Originally posted by Cartman: "The fact is, those of us who are pro-life see a murder being committed in abortion."
The fact is, what you see is irrelevant if you don't back it up with scientific evidence instead of arguments from emotion.
When science is relevant, it most definitely should be used (see my earlier arguement against later pregnancy abortions).
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: However, anyone that is pro-life (usually...I suppose there could be exceptions) comes from a religious or moral background which is easy to reconcile. Lock them in a room and ask them to debate whether Jesus was really a prophet, whether the pope is God's representive on Earth, and they'll fight.
SUPPOSE? I'm right here! However, I am interested in this 'fight room' you propose and wish to learn more... -------------------------------
As for the discussion on moral systems, I prefer to use the other parties moral system and convince them via that. For example, if it were highly convienant for all parties, why not destroy newborns? They are no more advanced (and certainly not self-conscious) then late-stage fetuses (feti?).
Some other random points: Considering society as a whole, abortions are not good for most countries, especially Europe. European population is going down in many places, and the U.S. population is only going up due to immigration. The global trend is a decline in population growth, with stabilization and then fall in 2050. Increasing the number of children in first world countries will not put anything like strain on them. In fact, it will help. Children are not a burdon on society because they eventually grow up in most cases, at which point they become regular citizens and start making great contributions. True, children that would otherwise have been aborted will be less productive then other children will eventually be, but this is a statistical difference (the otherwise aborted children would still easily be worth the cost overall), and there is a full range of possibilities for both.
Another arguement is that a parent can simply put a new child up for adoption (and presumably, the adopting parents will want the child they are adopting ), thus ridding the parent of any further responsibility. If a parent forms a bond with the child, and decides to keep it, then the parent clearly ACTUALLY prefers having the child, as opposed to not (I leave out people that become mentally ill here, of course).
Also, stop accusing people of only bothering with feti before they are born. Many would certainly suppport initiatives to improve education and such. Especially eliminating the "cultural diversity" requirements in college! Think of how many suicides we could prevent if we did that!
quote:1. Are you saying that the male/female abortion support statistics have changed signifigantly as compared to each other over less then a decade? This seems like a very strange notion. I'm sure overall support has changed, but I bet the difference between the two has changed very little or not at all.
It's certainly very possible the dynamic has changed in that timeframe. Consider the radical cultural leaps between the mid- 1960's and 80's. I personally find polling data and stats hightly suspect (as leading questions can be used to attain whatever answers are desired by the pollers), much less from more than a decade ago. It's too outdated to be of use is all I'm saying.
quote: Increasing the number of children in first world countries will not put anything like strain on them. In fact, it will help.
Kidding, right? Unless you plan on forcing people to live in the badlands of Wyoming, you better curb the popultion explsion for lack of natural rescources and a place to house them all (yes immigration plays a role, but there's a biiig pool of children a few years from entering the overtaxed school/social system as it is). But it's really besides the point- population growth will never be seriously affected one way or another by the abortion issue- there would have to be literally millions of abortions more in every contry for that to be a real issue.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
It is possible to have signifigant opinion changes, but signifigant events have to take place to cause a shift of the type you speak of. These have not taken place. To look at it another way, we could be having the exact same discussion when those polling statistics were published.
As I expected, a newer poll agrees. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/abortion_poll030122.html For the main question, 58% of women support abortion in most cases compared to 54% of men. Compared with the other survay, the difference is within the margins of error. Interestingly, signifigantly more men then women support very late term abortion. I agree that polls can sometimes be distorting. I personally don't like the wording of either of the polls I found, but they should still show that the COMPARITIVE difference between men and women is extremely small, if existant at all.
The population of the United States is expected to grow to about 400 million by 2050, largely through immigration. Europe, however, will experiance very signifigant population DECLINE by then. Europe should be heavily subsidising children.
Abortion does in fact have a noticible impact on population. If the abortion I am talking about (post roughly-embryo stage) is illegalized, though, it wouldn't be enough to have much of an impact.
posted
Explain how abortion has a noticible effect on population. In South dakots (where this law is likely to be passed) there is only one such clinic in the entire state.
Reading today's paper, there was a story on the so called "morning after pill" which has so many in the anti-abortion camp riled up (and has the FDA doing the CHristian Coallition's dirty work). MOst pharmacies cant get the drug withing the 72 hours it's effective in, making the drug basicly useless.
Where do you guys stand on this drug? It prevents a fertilized cell from attaching to the uterus wall (thus preventing it from developing and allowing it to be flushed from the woman's system like the majority of fertilized eggs are unintentionally). I see it as a form of contraception, but the "life begins at conception" camp say it's murder and the FDA's illeagal blocking of the drug to over the counter sales has already led to several in the administration quitting in disgust.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Perhaps this is because the single greatest threat to individual freedom in America today is the religiously fundamentalist segement of the population that currently controls all three branches of the federal government.
You non-religious types need to be more active in government if us religious types are so easily able to stage such a political coup.
And yet the Supreme Court seems to have no real plans to reverse Roe vs. Wade, sodomy has been decided to be a constitutional right, and student-led pre-football game prayers are banned. I'm kind of upset that our cabal of fundamentalist rulers have done such a poor job of carrying out our ultra right-wing agenda. The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy just isn't what it once was.
-------------------- "Having is not so pleasing a thing, after all, as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true."
Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Omega: The Christian community is defined by our end purpose, furthering the reign of God on earth. The laws of the government simply define the environment in which we try to do that.
Not a big fan of separation of church and state Don't suppose you could just pass laws of the government that apply only to Christians, i.e. banning abortion only for Christians.
Its a kind of discrimination, but we could probably convince the courts to make an exception since the group is discriminating against itself .
quote:Originally posted Neutrino 123: As for the discussion on moral systems, I prefer to use the other parties moral system and convince them via that. For example, if it were highly convienant for all parties, why not destroy newborns? They are no more advanced (and certainly not self-conscious) then late-stage fetuses (feti?).
Some other random points: Considering society as a whole, abortions are not good for most countries, especially Europe. European population is going down in many places, and the U.S. population is only going up due to immigration. The global trend is a decline in population growth, with stabilization and then fall in 2050. Increasing the number of children in first world countries will not put anything like strain on them.
On the fight room: Too bad we don't actually have enough religious diversity on this board to actually try it. But on a related note it is one of my dreams to just dump off members of all the aggressive/evangelical religions, Christianity, Muslims, Judaism, etc. in the Middle East. Build a big wall, toss in some weapons, and ask them to fight it out. Whatever faith wins, we'll just call "religion". Then when people say that they're religious, you don't have to ask which one, so life will be much simpler. Also, no religious warfare. Plus, no one should be able to complain because a) God's "chosen" people should win, whomever it should turn out to be b) the losers will be gone anyways.
Its debatable whether we should remove the wall afterwards But I jest...mostly.
But seriously, and now to really horrify people. As I stated before, I don't particularly feel that human life has any special sacrosant status. So if someone *really* wants to kill their own child, and assuming that they came by their decision rationally (i.e. not termporary post-partum depression), and the child isn't old enough to be self-conscious....then go right ahead.
Now, personally, I would be horrified at the thought of doing it myself and no one other than the parents should be able to make that decision. But in the end, the only reason any species has children is to pass on our genetic inheritance, so if someone decides that they aren't good enough to pass that along. Then all power to them.
As for demographics, the issue is not overall numbers. There's no magical reason why there should be 6 billion people on this Earth. What is at issue is natural resources. Even if the global population declines, the amount of natural resources people will consume will still go up simply because there are 1.2 billion people in China and whatever number in India that are rapidly progressing towards, for lack of a better word, an American way of life with the associated American usage of natural resources. Hence we should do all that we can to encourage contraception and family planning. The last thing we want to do is force people to have children when they already have been convinced for whatever reason not to.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Zefram: ... sodomy has been decided to be a constitutional right...[/QB]
Really? Christians are against sodomy? But its so popular in monastaries and choirs!
With all this debate against abortion, I really miss the days when Christians were into virgin cults and when church doctrine was that the whole act of copulation was a sin. That would have solved the problem simply if they followed their own rhetoric at the time.
Again, I jest...mostly.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Perhaps this is because the single greatest threat to individual freedom in America today is the religiously fundamentalist segement of the population that currently controls all three branches of the federal government.
You non-religious types need to be more active in government if us religious types are so easily able to stage such a political coup.
And yet the Supreme Court seems to have no real plans to reverse Roe vs. Wade, sodomy has been decided to be a constitutional right, and student-led pre-football game prayers are banned. I'm kind of upset that our cabal of fundamentalist rulers have done such a poor job of carrying out our ultra right-wing agenda. The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy just isn't what it once was.
Well you've had that hurdle of 200 years of seperation of church and state to overcome, but you're making remarkable progress with that lately. Besides, prayer before a football game is hardly the point...as is sodomy. Though I'm personally opposed to any combonation of those three.
...though it gives the old "Hail Mary" play new meaning.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Well you've had that hurdle of 200 years of seperation of church and state to overcome, but you're making remarkable progress with that lately.
Your belief that the separation between church and state is weaker now than it was in the past makes me giggle.
I can only think of the days of prayer called for through the centuries by presidents and Congress during times of national emergency (such as when by Nixon called for one when the Apollo 13 crew was in danger), the saying of a prayer prior to the meeting of Congress that has been done since 1776, the essentially unquestioned addition of the phrase "under God" to the Pledge of Allegience in the '50s, the fact that Nativity scenes on public property during Christmas and crosses on public seals were never questioned until the past couple decades or so, frequent ACLU victories in courts limiting public expressions of religion, etc. I'm under the impression that it's your side that's winning.
-------------------- "Having is not so pleasing a thing, after all, as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true."
Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, we can hope. I dont think America is any less religous now (certaibky not less than ten years ago), but rather that it's both more diverse, (slightly) more tolerant and a lot more P.C.
While it's certainly true that fifty years ago, no one would question a public nativity scene, you can bet someone would have burned down a minorah. The ACLU's perspective is that if public religous displays are to be all or nothing (impossible to enforce), it's best to have nothing. Though that did not preven religous right wingers from strongarming Target and Sears into promising to use the word "Christmas" this year instead of the more inclusive "Holiday Season".
I'm cool with whatever, as long as my tax dollars are not wasted on religous dogma and as long as I can still sacrifice to Chuthlu and the Flying Spagetti Monster in my own home.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
).![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic