Please tell me that I am not a pro-lifer! (CONTINUED)

This is in response to a thread that I began several days back, here is the link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1477989

After reading basically all the comments I felt the need that it was important to clarify at least my side of the debate to avoid the outcry and misrepresentations of my position.

First to give some background of why I felt that my belief on the issue (that abortions should only be legal in situations of rape, incest, and in circumstances where the mother's life is in danger) was logical from my other long standing beliefs. First I am entirely against the death penalty in all circumstances, I am of the belief that spending a life behind bars is a much worse penalty than death. I am against war in almost all cases except direct defense from attack. Also I consider myself to be agnostic in my religious beliefs leaning towards atheism, therefore religious doctrine does not shape my opinion other than in cultural ways. Finally, I am a supporter of stem cell research for the direct benefit of humanity.

Firstly, I want to assert that indeed there are abortions of "convienence". This is indeed not the only type as some will have you believe but it does make up a fairly substaintal portion. If you are "not in the situation of being able to support a child" or "bearing a child would ruin your career" abortions in situations like these are all of convienence. I am not seeking to diminish the actual pain and strife caused by the decision-making process, merely making an assertion.

Secondly, I reject any assertion that this is a "women's only" issue and that men do not have a seat at the table in this debate. Upon last glance it does take two sexes to create a fetus, therefore both should be equally involved in the idea of its destruction. I am ashamed to see a position like this, was not reasoning along these lines exactly the cause of the plight of women in the past? My reasoning would still follow if it was the male sex that had to carry the fetus, my position stands regardless of sex. I believe that choice is only an option where choice would be involved in other decisions of life or death. A six month year old child cannot be just killed because he/she is disrupting your career. You cannot have your boss killed because they decide to fire you from your job. But if a robber enters your house you have the right to use deadly force, if your life is in danger you have the right to protect it.

Once two people join in consentual sex then all bets are off. It does not matter if twenty types of birth control were used, the implications of the action had to be understood in advance. Myself and my fiance have decided to take the difficult path of remaining abstinent, after we faced a "scare" while in college. We have made the adult decision to be responsible until we feel like we are ready for a child. Once the decision is made to seemingly tempt fate, then all must live with the consequences. We (both women and men) do not deserve a "get out of jail free card" when it comes to creating a life.

The politics of the situation are not of consequence in the debate. It does not matter if repugs are hypocritical in their treatment of pre-birth life vs children. Would this not put democrats and liberals in a better position to argue for the rights of the unborn? Is it not equally hypocritical to preach about providing for school age children and such and not for the unborn? What I am looking for is why does it make it okay to choose death in this situation, against the stipulations killing faces in other law. What makes the lack of responsibility excusable in this situation in society, but if I "accidently" discharge a gun I am responsible for the after effects of that action, regardless of my intentions. Most of us would fight for the life of a dog that has been abused but at what point is the unborn child regarded at least on this level? I am hoping to discover this point, for this is the objective of this discussion, not to readdress the points I touched on above.

if doesn't matter what you are.
the problem with this debate is believing your beliefs should apply to anyone else's life...that's not even "pro-life": it's pro-control.
as long as there is CHOICE, you always have the option to choose whatever option suits YOUR beliefs...that includes not having an abortion, believing abortion is murder, and so on.
you have no right to decide what is right for anyone else.

It's privacy, privacy, PRIVACY!!!

It is nobody else's business what a woman chooses to do with her body. Your beliefs should apply to your life. Your beliefs have no business controlling any part of my life.

Enslaving women to unwanted pregnancy threatens their lives, their health, their financial stability, their sanity, and has a host of social concerns. It is not an entirely benign medical condition. It is a very risky condition for many women, and it must be a voluntary one. Any woman who does not wish to risk her health, her financial stability and her life in going to term with an unwanted pregnancy will defend herself with abortion, whether or not stupid men make stupid laws against it.

Abortion will be a mens' issue when men start facing the very real concequences of being pregnant against their will. Until then, their opinions are largely irrelevant, coming from people who are anatomically exempt from ever having to consider this very real threat to themselves.

You will not stop this with stupid laws. You will only drive it underground, as women desperate to protect what they have will risk their lives for the chance at keeping what they have in this world intact. The biggest cause of death for women in countries where stupid men have outlawed abortion is death from illegal abortion.

Antiabortion laws kill women. They "save" no one.

Most people aren't aware that, even under the best of circumstances, the chances of dying in childbirth are 1 in 25. It used to be 1 in 4 (25 years ago).
And no one seems to be discussing the chances today (because of medical advances) of keeping severely disabled babies alive, which means either a life sentence for the mother or the guilt associated with abandoning an infant she can't possibly care for.
If every pro-control (I like that term!) person adopted at least one of those severely disabled babies and not just the beautiful blond ones, I might reconsider my stance on the issue.
Naaaaaaaa... it's still her body and her choice. It's not a baby until she says it's a baby.

Are you talking solely about the United States? (You should be, since the U.S. only makes laws regarding American citizens).

Do you mean each individual birth? If so, these statistics certainly aren't correct. Or do you mean that 1 in every 25 women will die of childbirth? This can't be right either.

I am pro-choice, but tossing around incorrect statistics weakens your argument and makes you seem less credible.

The link below is taken from WHO stats, and states 1996 maternal mortality rates: Slightly less than 1 in 100 for African mothers (the highest worldwide), and 1 in 8333 for American women.

http://www.gentlebirth.org/archives/matmrtlt.html

The CDC's data (for American women):


Year Odds of mother dying during pregnancy or up to 42 days after
1982-1996 1 in 13,333
1930 1 in 149

http://www.cdc.gov/epo/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00054602.htm

for family planning services aboard. our laws and policies regarding abortion DO have an impact on women in other countries. reinsituting it was one of bush, inc's first heinous acts after stealing the white house.

But the U.S. does not legislate other countries' abortion laws.

That's not even the point of my post. The point is that when giving statistics one needs to be accurate, and not pull them out of thin air.

ergo, just looking a preganancy statistics on american women is not exactly accurate either.
but i agree that the poster should cite a reference for such alarming statistics.

outside the U.S. That's why I included the maternal mortality rate for the worst geographical region in the world. The impact on foreign policies on a country's maternal mortality rate would be impossible to compute, IMO, so that's why I suggested U.S. data.

:hi:

:hi: i guess i should check out your data :7

we regulate other countries' abortion and medical practices with funding and the withholding of funds.

There's no doubt that American policies influence other countries' abortion practices, but it doesn't legislate their laws. That was not my point, anyway. My point is that statistics need to be accurate if they are to be presented.

And there is no funding to countries if they plan on discussing the abortion option.

Therefore, they toe the line so they can get the money.

it restricts funding to international NGOs, not the governments themselves. I understand that there is an influence. My basic point was that if statistics are quoted, they need to be accurate. Look at my reply, where I give maternal mortality rates for the geographical region where this rate is the highest: Sub-Saharan Africa.

But I now see why it is that some believe that abortions are never done for "convenience".

The decision to have an abortion can always be cast as a health decision.

When one argues that abortions are necessary in order that women not be "enslaved" by unwanted pregnancy that "threaten" not just their lives and their health, but also their financial stability, then it is just not possible to ever argue that abortions are ever done for "convenience".

A woman whose pregancy might end her very life is threatened, as I understand this argument, just as much as a woman whose pregnancy might mean that she will have to postpone entry into law school for a year.

That, as I understand it, is why abortions are never "for convenience", but always for the health -- including the financial health -- of the mother.

particularly for an uneducated person with no job skills.
let's not pretend that we treat the poor, particularly poor children, well in this country.

1.) I will rob a bank for my financial health
2.) I will kill my dog for my financial health (too expensive)
3.) I will attempt to kill all those who cause stress in my life

The list can go on and on...either conventual morality is skewed or reasoning along the lines you speak of is fallicious.

Reproductive freedom would be an important component of that.

I only said that it took my some time to understand it.

I think that you, too, truhavoc, understand the reasoning -- and its implications -- perfectly well.

In my mind, I call it the Scarlett O'Hara argument for heath-justified abortion. After all, the limitations on Scarlett's freedom (no slaves to do your work) did hurt her financial health and thereby even indirectly threatened her physiological well-being. (Recall the regurgitation scene in the movie.) Your hypothetical 1st year law student is something of a Scarlett O'Hara in this sense.

That said, we both need to realize that many (probably most) abortion candidates are not Scarlett O'Hara and not yet accepted at good, accredited law schools. For women in true poverty, there may be a more *real* confluence of physiological and financial health than your post might suggest.

This leads me to a conclusion that surprises me. Specifically, if abortion law can be re-written so that potential health concerns dictate the extent of one's abortion rights, then it seems like there would have to be a means test. In other words: poor women would get abortion without any scrutiny. Rich women have to plead their case to (maybe) be entitled. If one truly believes that abortion should be health-justified on a case-by-case basis, then I think this is the kind of law you have to have -- even though it does favor the poor. All this makes me uncomfortable in a Swiftian kind of way.

As I understand Roe v. Wade, this case guarantees that all women are *always* entitled to have abortions and that (good) health is never an obstacle to removal of fetal matter from your womb if that's what you want. By leaving difficult balancing of conflicting concerns out of the law (for example, women's health versus zygote rights), abortion law is much easier to understand and administer.

Maybe our discussion on this health-justification point is kind of marginal because the only way I could ever see Democrats arguing for health justification of abortion is if they thought this was the only way to save abortion from being restricted in more drastic ways by the Right Wing.

Thank you for being so eloquent and succinct.:yourock:

I am pro choice. That does not mean I am pro abortion. I am 100% for the right of an individual to decide what they will do or won't do with their body. I am completely against ANYONE OR ANYTHING dictating to any woman whether or not she has to bear a child, no matter what the circumstances. Once we cross that bridge, we have relegated women to "brood mare" status. This is completely unthinkable. Please try approaching your dilemma and questioning from that angle.

And remember, if you or your whatever don't believe in abortion, then don't have one. If you don't believe in birth control, then don't use it. If you don't want to have sex, then don't. These are your choices. You get to choose. That's pro choice, get it?

On edit: And I hope that this is the end of your "Am I prolife thread." I think this one has run its course. Make up your mind and move on.

i see with this. you say except rape incest and mothers health. my father doesnt agree with the mother health issue just rape and incest

so i ask, what is the hypocrisy in this. if it is murder then it is murder for all condition. this is the part that bothers me. it is ok for the pro life to decide when it is ok to do this, and condemn when it isnt. this cannot ever work. either it is murder or it is not. others dont get to decide when it can be done and it cannot be done

so if you hold this position, i feel you have to clearly say and be able to look into a 12 year old childs eye, doesnt matter if your father raped you, you must go thru 10 months of pregnancy and have this baby.

and if you are not willing to do that, then you cannot make this arguement

i am glad you are seriously reflecting on this because at a democrat to do it said aye or nay to abortion. i am offended by abortion and hurt my ears hearing it, and hurt me to say aye.........but i am not willing to decide for another these choices. it has to be theirs. as god gives us free will to make the choice, i have to give it to my fellow man

please justify for me the rape, incest, mother health

In the eyes of the law if someone is threatening your life you have the right to protect it and it is not considered "murder". The rape and incest arguement are on the grounds of a lack of fundimental choice. There are three exceptions but each do not follow the same moral justification.

how can you dismiss this said fetus so easily cause it is in rape.

what about the girl that is with a male friend and the are petting heavy and she isnt sure she wants sex, ah the petting goes on, no she really thinks she will wait, the petting goes on, penetration, no no no i dont want to do this....................

is this rape. do we eliminate the fetus. does she go to court to say rape, do we arrest and put in jail the boy.

you cant do it. it is all or nothing. that has to be in your consideration. either abortion is illegal or it is not.

and on the moral issue, either abortion is illegal or it isnt, cause isnt your place to judge the ok or not, it is not your place to say it is murder here to the fetus who is innocent or not, it is not your place

it is all or nothing.

so, are you willing to say abortion is wrong period and there is no exception

you dont get to condition it. if anti abortion gets some barred, i stand up and say all abortion no conditioning. it is yours to decide. do you decide the 12 year old girl raped by her father has the baby. on your shoulders it is yours to decide. what is the answer


i see you answered me below. lol and i answered back. thank you for taking the time to respond

...on abortion? I wasn't in on your previous thread, so I don't know if the essay was already mentioned. If not, it can be found here: http://www.ukpoliticsmisc.org.uk/usenet_evidence/abortion_carl_sagan.htm

I don't see where your confusion about that fact comes from.

You also suffer from a lack of logic in your reasoning when you take the position that a fertalized egg is a human life, but you don't mind terminating that fertalized egg for rape or incest victims. What difference does that make (following your logic)?

For your next thread, I suggest you be more direct and title it, "I'm anti-choice and I want to discuss". At least that would be genuine.

Edit: terminology

Here is my logic and I do not feel that it is flawed. The choice aspect that I respect, is the choice to have an abortion when the "choice" of having or not having a child has been removed from the hands of the mother. The health of the mother exception follows from the fundimental law statute that protecting your own life by taking the life of another is not "murder".

I am not anti-choice in the least bit, you are confused to where the choice actually lays. Is not having sex a choice? Your method of contraception is a choice. Taking life because it doesn't fit your plan, what sort of right is that?

You define a fertilized egg as life if the sex that produced it was consensual, but it's not life if the sex that fertilized the egg was not consensual.

Much like a fascist, you are more concerned with the sexual activities of others than the "rights" of the unborn.

Just for kicks and giggles, do you give any consideration to the viability of the fertilized egg? Where does the "morning after" pill factor in your view?

They aren't the fault of the fetus. Why should it die for the sins of its parents? Inconsistency here....

You don't mention birth defects. Major ones that mean the child will have a short & painful life? You see no problem there?

Live your own life. But you support laws to limit abortion & many will disagree with you.

The debate is in the public realm and therefore up for discussion. I'm just looking for some type of consistency with the laws of the nation, I would be willing to debate the morality of murder in general outside the realm of modern society. I'm just saying that if you are going to send someone to jail for killing a child because it cried too much or something like that, then killing an unborn child because it's going to screw up your life plans should be equally measured. We are considering the wrong individual, the mother made her choice, it is time to protect the unprotected.

"I'm just saying that if you are going to send someone to jail for killing a child because it cried too much or something like that, then killing an unborn child because it's going to screw up your life plans should be equally measured. We are considering the wrong individual, the mother made her choice, it is time to protect the unprotected."

Yep, you're anti-choice alright...why did you need to ask?

*

Especially hypothetical quotes with no basis behind them.

Men die in war, but peace is not considered as a sacrament.
Anyway, the abortion issue is notable for how similar the opinions are across gender, not how dissimilar they are.

On a related note: men die disproportionately in wars (at least they used to), but we still had lots of wars when men were exclusively in political control.

I bring up these 2 points to show that men seem to be more complicated than Ms. Kennedy would have us believe. I know I haven't figured them out yet!

that it is not already?

Are you male? If so, in my book your opinion doesn't count on this issue.

I answer this refutation, until females obtain the ability to produce sperm I have a perfectly suited position in the debate. Using your logic you should not involve yourself in any situation, for you are different than every other person on the planet.

A one-time shot of sperm in no way compares to a pregnancy. Women have the last word on this. Period.

post 4, 7, and 8 and a few others ask specific question on your reasoning. and like all prolifers you wont adress these contradictions in your arguement as a vote for president is made off this one issue.

why wont you answer these questions on hypocrisy if you are being sincere in bringing up this subject

my thought is going to you are just creating a campaign for your issue here and really arent in thought on it

why wont you answer

i want one pro life, to answer this, not a one will

will you say to a 12 year old girl raped by her father, brother, uncle, that she has to have 10 months of pregnancy

i want to know

apparently, this would be one of those 'convenience' abortions that would be allowable :eyes:

I posted this before heading to class, i've been working on answered to questions, sorry for the delay.

then you cant say no abortion. you dont get to condition murder. if you are opposed for murder then that means self defense, that means death penalty that means war.

truhavoc, the 14 year old that gets preg, and cannot go to parents and decides to kill themselves before facing parents, that persons life is at risk.

we cannot make these things illegal, they have to be handed to the individual person. as much as we may not like them.

you are going to school, and i apologize the assumption i made in my posts that you werent seriously looking at issue. totally apologize for my assumption. assumptions arent good, cause it is conclusions on things i dont have information

what i would say is good for you, i am assuming in youth, lol that you take the time to play with this in your brain and heart. i dont care what you conclude, what i do value is your concern and exploration. thank you

have been strongly on the pro-choice side of the argument, let me explain the situation.

I am a philosophy major and I am currently taking an environmental ethics course. I came to the conclusion, seemingly against the entire class, that we should as humans go out of our way to protect other species. I do not care if this included insects, or trees, or whatever...I wanted to include all. What was my exception, the direct life of a human, due to our frame of reference in the situation. I believe that never should the pleasures of one be put above the life of another. I am open to debate about my reasoning on this issue, I am just attempting to not be hypocritical in my viewpoints. I am anti war, anti death penalty, and so on and so forth and I feel my new holdings support these viewpoints more logically. As for the situation of self defense, it goes back to frame of reference, if it is me or him it is going to be me.

I am open to any thing to bring me back closer to the views of my fellow liberal brothers and sisters, it really isn't fun being so strongly against all of you. Again I am just looking for consistency, that which I feel none truly hold right now, it may be a Utopian aim but at least I am going to attempt it.

as the subject of a sentence. "Myself" is a reflexive pronoun, NOT a subject pronoun.

Edit: "Myself and my fiance have decided to take the difficult path of remaining abstinent, after we faced a "scare" while in college."

That one always gets me.

edit:

Here's the link for ya:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1496689&mesg_id=1498021&page=

It isn't an attack on the messenger.

"This is indeed not the only type as some will have you believe but it does make up a fairly substantial portion."

No it doesn't. No it really doesn't. I mean you show me your proof to support that statement and we'll talk. But until then, of the numerous people I directly know who have confronted the abortion question personally - coming to different decisions, I should add - exactly ZERO of them were thinking about the possibility out of "convenience."

The "convenience" lie is the biggest fucking bullshit LIE of the radical right. They brainwash people into believing the propaganda that there are these crazy women out there going around treating and extremely difficult, invasive and un-enjoyable medical procedure like getting one's hair done. But what makes me most angry about your statement is that you actually try to state matter of factly that it makes up a "fairly substantial portion." BULLSHIT. I'm calling BS, I want to see you defend that statement with some hard evidence, and then I'll read on.

I would say that an abortion of "convenience" is indeed not a lighthearted decision, as I say in my post.

Along the same lines I could challenge you to substantiate a case where an abortion is not a matter of "convenience" which does not include rape, incest, or threat to the mother's life.

I consider an abortion of convenience as any abortion outside of those lines. If a baby would destroy you financially, its an issue of convenience. If the father is no where to be found and you would have to quit your career, an issue of convenience here as well. All of these situations are ones which could be overcome, it would be difficult, but it could be done.

My idea here is that the choice was made by choosing to take the risk in the first place, there are not absolute safeguards and this should be understood by all. In the cases of incest and rape the choice has been removed, therefore I support abortion in those cases. As for the life of the mother, I feel it goes along the same lines of having the right of self-defense.

Instead of discounting the post automatically please read it through.

someone to commit murder.

The fact that you think the big issues for a woman facing this choice is "career" or "money" only reflects how desperately clueless you are on this issue I'm sad to say, and most likely male, and probably under 35.

You also also assume that all pregnancies outside of something criminal are the result of free, and unfettered choice. Any woman knows this is not always the case. In a society were young girls are conditioned through sexism and our patriarchal society to do for men, where huge coercive pressures are put on teens to have sex, when teens suicide rate is disturbingly high - reflecting how great and overwhelming the pressures are for many teams, smugly and flippantly saying "well woman made their choice when they 'chose' to have sex" is laughable at best, and despicable at worst.

Sure, I am for responsibility as well as rights. Personally I believe sex should be private, committed, monogamous and based on loving, open relationship - I'm old fashioned that way. But you know what, I don't get to make those judgments for other people, nor do I get to evaluate whether or not any other woman's pregnancy was the result of free, accountable choice or coerced, manipulated, circumstances that can only mockingly be refereed to as actual "choice."

The bottom line is very simple: I don't think you've ever personally faced the question of abortion yourself, becuase I don't think you're a woma. That doesn't mean you have no place in the discussion, but it does mean you should have a healthy respect for the ways in which you will ever directly empathise or understand.) So having no personal experience with the issue (meaning not facing the abortion question directly yourself) you make generalized assumptions that reflect the fact that, you've never been through any of it, you make generic overly-simplistic statements calling all abortions "conveniences" outside of rape and speaking so authoritatively about womens' free, empowered, uncoerced, responsible "choice" to have sex for which they should be accountable. And when you do that, you only underscore the fact of how little you actually know about anything you're talking about.

The fact of the matter is, it is easier for you to defend your anti-choice position if you paint a false picture of the situation, labeling abortions as "convenience" tools, and speaking of women as though in all circumstances they have equal freedom and make free and uncoerced choices in the same way that men do.

By the way, I am a man. The only difference is, I have lived with a woman facing the question of abortion. I have counseled women facing the question. I have had deep close personal friends who have faced the question. And all I can tell you is your overly generalized nonsense that "it is all for convenience" is ridiculous. For most of these woman, the question was a question of life or death. I can tell already by your writing that you will never understand this, or at last just don't get it now. But its true just the same - it wasn't some easy out, it wasn't some kind of trivial "convenience" like you stupidly suggest: for some woman its a matter of life of death.

But you know something else, aside from all of this? It's not YOUR decision to make in the first place. Don't feel like abortion is the right choice for you? Great. Don't have an abortion then. But this is a question of policies, philosophy, ethics, sociality, and for some people religion - it is one of the most complicated questions out there, and people on all sides make reasonable points - all sides. So I don't feel like this deep and personal question of conviction should be handed over to a bunch of old white Washington men with no understanding of the contexts or specifics of individual circumstance. This is a persona, private decision that should remain personal and private.

An excellent response.

...your compassion and empathy is obvious.

You write, "I don't get to make those judgments for other people, nor do I get to evaluate whether or not any other woman's pregnancy was the result of free, accountable choice or coerced, manipulated, circumstances that can only mockingly be refereed to as actual "choice.""

Under my beliefs I would hold that a pregnacy that was not determined "freely", an abortion should be protected under the law. When I talk of "convienence" I am only talking about matters that concern quality or ease of life. I faced this situation with my soon to be wife two years back, we faced a "scare" where all options were considered very closely. Why were we considering these options? Because we had yet graduated from college, we were not financially stable, reactions of parents, and many more. As I reflect these are all situations of "convienence". Our life could have went on with a baby, not as we planned, but it would have went on.

You speak of these so-called "life or death" situations which I do not see being a reality. I would be interested in hearing an actual situation, by no means have I heard all cases or sides to this issue. But of course in situations of real "life or death" not "lifestyle" choices, I leave recourse in my ideal. My objective is to be consistent with my other moral holdings, and perhaps wrongly (the philosopher in me) attempt to persuade others in my reasoning.

The ability to feed, clothe, and put a roof over your heads is a convenience? That, to me, is absurd. I would hardly call having control of one's own destiny and ability to provide for themselves "convenient". That is ludicrous.

What is also absurd is the notion that some get to judge when it is okay, and when it is not okay, for a woman to have control over her reproductive system. That some get force others to carry a pregnancy to term because, in their OPINION, they shouldn't have had sex. See how judgmental and controlling that is? That is the heart of the debate, right there. That women, because they ovulate on a regular basis, don't have complete control over what happens to their bodies because they chose to have sex.

It ultimately comes down to what YOU have decided is "convenient" or not. It appears to me that you want that to be the basis for laws in this country (correct me if I'm wrong) If that is the case, you, are Pro-Life/Anti-choice/self appointed dictator of others lives and bodies. I'm sorry if that hurts, and if that is harsh.

but why do you believe life begins at conception and that abortion is therefore murder? Do you base this on your religious believes? If so, then do you realize that God/Allah/Mother Nature/etc. is the producer of the largest number of abortions? Less than 50% of all zygotes implant in the uterine wall and become embryos (zgote = 8 cell fertilized egg). Only 65% of embryos lead to live births (rest are loss to natural miscarriage). That means that less than a third of all 'fertilized eggs' are carried to term. Then there are stillbirths to be considered. If the RW would remove their blockades against RU-486 and the 'morning after pill', earlier 'abortions' could be had by preventing the implantation. There is no way, in my mind, I can equate a mass of cells as a human being. Therefore, I see no 'killing' taking place.

when you say that it does?

Why is your own particular belief about the beginning of life (whenever you think that it happens) any more or any less valid than anyone else's?

If I should say, for instance, that "life" does not really begin until a fetus leave the birth canal, begins to breathe, AND develops the capacity to utter the following sentence (in any langauge): "Mother, I am thristy, and I want a drink of cold water", who are you to say that I am wrong? Or that I am any more wrong than someone who insists that "life" begins at conception?

and should MY beliefs should apply to my life.
WHEN you are pregnant, your beliefs will determine what you decide about that preganancy :eyes: likewise, if i became pregnant, my beliefs would determine what i decide.
so...it really doesn't matter what you believe if i am pregnant, since my decision about my pregnancy, like other aspects of MY LIFE, is absolutely none of your business and doesn't have anything to do with YOU.

And without one single use of the word "myself"!

MYSELF, and I! LOL..couldn't resist :evilgrin:

And usually I overlook that stuff but I see the pompous misuse of langauge particuarly insulting when it's used in a discussion like this one. "I, myself, am so important and so right that laws should be made based on whatever I think!"

and it gave me a good laugh also :7 "the pompous misuse of language" LOL...I love it :hi:

You are pretty cool with that?

Once somebody decides that a helpless being, deserving of rights, is in the picture, then what happens is everbody's business. That is why crimes like manslaughter, slavery, kidnapping and rape are *crimes* and not merely torts (that is, civil actions).

I am not saying that life begins at conception, because I don't think that. However, it should go without saying that a given human life should be considered to started at some point in the development. After that "some point," what happens to the new life is society's business for the same reasons that manslaughter, slavery, kidnapping and rape are society's business.

That said, birth is a very convenient time to set as the start of life because it is easy to tell if fetal matter is in the womb or out and because it means that we don't have to try to perform surreal, non-sequitur-like balances (like: balancing the rights of a pregnant woman against the interests of a zygote). Hopefully, we can all just agree on birth as the starting point.

We, as society, decide who is human and not -- that is our power, privilege and *right*. Life starts whenever we decide it starts and we have overwhelmingly decided that the starting point is birth -- no sooner. I am not sure why outinforce is trying to get us to doubt our firm conclusion about this. It seems kind of counterproductive to get all mixed up in moral quagmire over this over-and-done-with with issue. We won, they lost, get over it!

You might just want to ask outinforce as to why.

Your post contains a number of things that are true. Among them is this: "We, as society, decide who is human and not -- that is our power, privilege and *right*"

Especially the part about it is our power" to decide.

That means, I think, that the powerful are the ones who get to decide when the less powerful -- the weak and the vulnerable -- get to be called "human". Isn't that what you are saying?

Do you have any problem with that notion? The notion that it is the powerful who get to decide when the powerless and the completely vulnerable get to be called human?

The people in power do get to decide who is human and who is not. That was true in 1789, true in 1860, true in 1938, true in 1973 and true today. That is exactly what I am saying.

Do I have a problem with this scheme?

Not really, because the progressives are on the winning side of this one. If the Supreme Court decisions began to take away abortion rights, then we could complain about power imbalances. But, please, not now while we have won a rare victory for progressive causes.

I think the power we women over our bodies and those of our zygotes has a positive impact on my self-esteem and, from what I have seen, that of my daughter. Since you are male, you probably don't really appreciate how much this reservoir of self-worth means to us.

the discussion at hand was about abortion, not "killing a newborn"...that would be MURDER, now wouldn't it? :eyes:
if outinforce believes in killing newborns, he would be guilty of murder, of course.
the point i was making: outinforce's (and the orginal poster, and gw bush's and ashcroft's and falwell's and any other pro-controller) "beliefs" about ABORTION should govern his behavior...not mine or yours.
MY beliefs about ABORTION should determine how i behave if i am ever faced with an unwanted preganancy, and your beliefs should determine what choices you make.
roe vs. wade gives the original poster, outinforce, gw, and other pro-controllers all the choice they need to NOT TO HAVE ABORTIONS...which most of them don't need anyway, since they will never be faced with the decision (because most are men).
which is why i have no respect for people who insist that their beliefs ABOUT ABORTION :eyes: should trump mine, yours, and everyone else's. it's simple, imho: don't like abortion? don't have one.

outinforce decided that the newborn was not yet human. In this hypothetical, is or is not the fate of the newborn any business of society or its criminal law?

I mean, if you have some kind of problem with dead newborns, then you still have the satisfaction of knowing that you personally didn't terminate the newborn. Is that good enough for you? Does it make you inclined to allow outinforce (and the mother) to secure an accredited medical doctor to perform the termination procedure on his unwanted newborn?

I can't tell from your previous post how you feel about these particular questions.

There is a professor, Peter Singer is his name, if I recall correctly, who suggests (and I admit that I may be over-simplifying his message) that it should be legal for parents to "terminate" their newborn infants up until one year after birth.

He proposes changing the law so that such terminations would not be murder. Part of his rationale is that newborn infants h ave not yet acquired a facility that he considers necessary in order for true "humanness" or "personhood" to exist.

If the definition of "human being" or "person" or "life" is simply what the more powerful say that it is, then are you saying that you would have no problem living in a society in which the powerful ones had decided that infants -- or "post-born fetues" -- could be killed simply as a matter of choice eleven months after birth?

it is not a hypothetical about MURDERING a newborn.

It would only be murder if outinforce felt his newborn was developed enough to be considered human. He doesn't consider the newborn human. The newborn has nothing meaningful to say on the issue. The doctor is cool as long as she gets paid. So no murder after all?

If you still want to file the murder charges, then why do you accept (and even approve of!) society restricting hypothetical-outinforce's freedom to abort in this case?

Remember, the newborn is costing hypothetical-outinforce big money and he is living in poverty, like many Americans. Also, if he had to give the newborn up for adoption, this would be emotionally devastating for him. Yet for some reason you would go in there and impose your beliefs on him and his newborn during this difficult time?

Surely you can see that the m-word is entirely inappropriate in outinforce's hypothetical. there is no room for the m-word when matters of *choice* and *control* are involved.

you and outinforce should continue this. you seem to be on the same wavelength :dunce:

If you have nothing constructive to say then go hang out in the Lounge -- that's what it is for.

and take outinforce with you. i understand you two like to wax poetic on these hypotheticals, but i'm more of a realist.
"what if" with regards to abortion is outinforce's and other pro-control types wetdream. frankly...i have no patience for their "what ifs"...it's just a way to hijack the discussion.
i just want women to be able to make the choices they need to make...if that's ok with outinforce :eyes:

the correct word there is "participating."

Thank you for particiapting again. Insults tend to diminish the people who do the insulting.

By the way, the hide thread button works for both realists and dreamy philosophers. Next time you feel temptation to engage in personal insult you might better try out this neat function.

and if you don't like being insulted, then don't insult. hint: 'hypotheticals' are little more than mental masturbation on this issues that involve real people and real situations.

you have oif to do that with...as i mentioned before...you two seem well-suited for the type of mindfucking you both enjoy.
discuss...

it is not a hypothetical about MURDERING a newborn.

I suppose that if Professor Peter Singer"s position were ever to become the law of the land, through the concerted efforts of powerful people who really did wish to say that "life" does not begin until one year after birth, there would no doubt be those who would be terribly troubled by the notion that it would be perfectly legal to kill an infant six or seven or even eleven months after birth.

To which the response should, I think, be:

"Don't Like Killing an Infant? Fine, Don't Do It"

That would make a GREAT bumper sticker, don't you agree?

and you are one twisted fuck.

No I have no religious beliefs that shape my idea, as I say in my post I am agnostic leaning toward atheist.

I guess my problem with this is where does the distinction take place, at what EXACT point does the mass of cells become something more? I support the use of drugs like RU-486, I feel this goes along with my support for stem cell research. I have a problem of making the distinction, when is the mass of cells human, or when is the equivalent mass of cells as valuable as any common animal we may aim to protect?

My post was never meant to be an unmovable position, the reason I posted was not to get "flamed" but to gain from valuable debate and I thank you for your comments.

I mean, you got a lot of thoughtful responses last time, but it's almost as if you didn't consider or answer them but took another opportunity to state your views. There is nothing new in this post -it's not really a "clarification" it's just more of your position. Several folks - including myself - have raised questions you need to ask yourself and you don't bother. To be clear, I'll ask mine again (as other have)and throw in a few more.

1. What is it about rape and incest that makes it okay to have an abortion? The resulting fetus is the same, regardless of the circumstances that created it.

2. Do you advocate the repeal of Roe V Wade? And what happens the next day? Again, what happens the next day? Should all abortions be immediately illegal? Is it legal one day and murder the next? If only those that result from rape and incest are legal, will there have to be proof of the rape or incest or will the woman's word be enough? Must the rapist be caught in order for it to give a greenlight to the abortion?

3. What kind of penalty should be imposed on a woman and her doctor for an illegal abortion? Is it the same as murder? If it's not murder what is it? Since abortions of convenience are the target, will there be levels of punishment related to the circumstances. Should a poor woman whose husband died after getting her pregnant, leaving her a widow with 4 other small children get the same punishment as the woman who wanted a boy baby so she aborted her baby after finding out it was a girl? If the punishments are NOT the same, does that mean that one baby was more of a life than the other?

I'm serious about all these questions. If you're serious you should answer them. If you just want to post your own position over and over again, that's fine, too. But please change your title - you know the answer.

eileen from OH

Eileen, I feel that I have implied at least my response to your questions but I will attempt to be more clear.

#1.) Here is were my feelings on "choice" come into play. The mother is left without a choice in both scenarios. It is a valid position to question "what about the fetus?", I am however of the school that values "intentions" as a moral criterion. Once taking the risk of sex, it implies all possible implications of the act, be it STD's or a child. If this is not understood beforehand it should be, this is where the RW'ers are extremely wrong with their approach to sex ed.

#2.) As long as killing of another outside of the realm of self defense is considered a crime, then I would support the repeal of RvW. It of course can be argued that such should not be a crime as well which is a topic I would be interested in listening to.

#3.) I would impose a degree of murder on the mother, and an accessory to murder on the doctor. This law would not be meant to be a plight on the poor. If a rich woman went to Mexico for an abortion she would be held to the same laws as if she went to Mexico and committed a murder. I do not want to make my ideas seem sexist in the least bit, for example if a soon-to-be father was to strike a woman and cause a miscarriage he too should be held to some charge of murder. Intentions in all of these cases need to me evaluated.

As for your hypothetical mother, yes the same stipulations would apply. There is always the option of adoption.

I've never heard of a main stream pro-lifer advocating punishment of a woman who has an abortion. It is always the doctor they target for prosecution.

if "yourself" and your fiance or girlfriend or whatever decided to terminate the pregnancy you thought you had started, what would YOUR punishment be?

And if abortions were illegal, what would be the punishment for the hypothetical man who left the woman who had to give up her career and, I assume, any means of financial support?

And, I'd also like to know, if abortion is illegel except in the cases you approve of, how will this country deal with the children that come of pregnancies that are currently terminated due to genetic and birth defects? Should we start new asylums where they are shut away from society? Or, will taxpayers be willing to provide free and appropriate education, job training and shelter?

Or, since financial ruin is merely an inconvience, will the parents of these children be expected to "cowboy up" and take care of these matters themselves?

Not in public, especially if running for any sort of political office it would be suicide to do so. I am not trying to be politically correct, only consistent! You cannot hold strong anti-abortion beliefs without advocating the punishment of those who perform it. If you only punish doctors the process is immediately forced to underground conditions, whereas if both are punished it is meant to serve as a deterrent.

try to get a non-white baby or a crack baby adopted into a loving, safe, nurturing home in america. most children given up for adoption end up in the system. foster care. and the majority of THOSE children are abused, mistreated, ignored and cast aside. i DO wish that the anti-choice, pro-control crowd would care as much about the BORN as they allegedly do about the unborn...

First, please do not infer conservative/republican holdings into my position. I care very much about the child after birth, I am just of the opinion that ANY life regardless of social status or whatever is better than no life in general. I reflect on my position on this planet and how much of a cosmic accident it is that I am how I am. I have complete respect of the importance of life in general, which carries to my anti-war, anti-death penalty, environmentalist, pro health care, ect ect ect beliefs that I hold. I am just trying to be consistent with my positions.

...I thought this was an interesting question and something I've actually been thinking about lately.

Although I am Pro-Choice, I think overruling Roe v. Wade would be good for the Democratic Party in the long run...

The day after Roe v. Wade is overruled, the Texas legislature and many other legislatures across the south would pass laws criminalizing abortion. There would be no such movement in California, New York, and many northeastern states.

In the border states there would be a major struggle in the legislatures, and I believe the Democrats would win. Roe v. Wade actually kind of allowed the feminist movement to become complacent, but there are a lot of Pro-Choice people out there, as evidenced by the recent march on Washington.

I think the questions you asked would be great questions to pose to state legislatures, and I think they would expose the problems with the Pro-Life movement. For one thing, it would fracture their side because I'm sure many will have different opinions on how much abortion could be restricted. Candidates would be forced to take a real position on the issue rather than simply Pro-Roe or Anti-Roe, and we could have a real debate about it.

I think the Democratic Party could win the abortion battle state by state. We'll see how many people can stay Pro-Life when they see poor girls in Texas being thrown in jail after back-alley abortions. The penalties would be lessened over time and the law probably wouldn't even be enforced after a while. Abortion has become a distant issue that we only discuss in the judicial nominations process, and it's really something that hits closer to home. A vast majority of the states dropped their own sodomy laws before Lawrence was decided, and I believe the same thing would happen with abortion.

...Unfortunately, that process is a little too painful to actually contemplate, but I think no matter what happens, Pro-Choice will win in the end because, well, we're right.

they define all political judgements by it.

Here's a copy I stumbled on today. http://www.priestsforlife.org/government/supremecourt/7301roevwade.htm

I thought it was pretty interesting.

I can't believe you abandoned this thread. :eyes:

When you do decide to respond, please start with #14. Selwynn has nailed your argument (for many of us).

Are you a pro-lifer? No, you're anti-choice.

Well, I've had "truhavoc is a pro-lifer" in my head ever since this 2nd thread started!

Punk something is right.

(If that's the Ramones tune...I think it's "Sheena is a ...") :hi:

Punk punk, punk rocker
Punk punk, punk rocker
Punk punk, punk rocker

(2 chord guitar riff... :D)

Sheila is a punk rocker!

Ok, I'm going to go look it up somewhere now!

Glad I can make you and MYSELF laugh because this shit ain't that funny!

Famous Ramones tune.

Thanks for responding.

best for you.

But that does not say anything about legality, or morality.

I think of it as any issue concerning the mother except for my stated exceptions is a convenience issue, otherwise we should be concerned with the life.

I liken my argument to common environmentalist ideals that hold secondary "pleasures" should always come second to considerations about life.

i am not an incubater i am a woman who actually has a life unlike a fetus.

At what point was the fetus become a life? At what point is that life worth protecting? At what point is the fetus "on par" with other lifeforms that we would protect the life of. I am not seeking to diminish the role of women in the least bit.

which is totally unacceptable

Are you equally as pissed when people call murder wrong? Or rape? Or robbery? The list could go on and on, all strong beliefs which are enforced on all.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Society has no business nosing into my medical records. Should I decide to abort, it is not required that I justify myself to strangers. You don't get to know why I'm aborting or even if I'm aborting, or even whether or not I'm pregnant. If I see the doc at my favorite clinic, it may (gasp) be for a completely non-reproductive reason.

Tell that to the demonstrators who got in my face back when I had health insurance.

Will you take my word that an abortion was because of the reasons you deem acceptable? But I still don't have to justify myself to you any more than you have to justify getting a blood transfusion. And I know some Jehovah's Witnesses who would find that utterly reprehensible. So shall we outlaw blood transfusions except in certain cases that my friend would adjudicate.

But wait a minute. It's not my friend's business.

Bingo!

we all probably know someone who's had one. Maybe a tattoo of the letter "A" on one hand would be a good way for us to recognize women who've had abortions? Or, should we simply just ask all the women we meet what their reproductive history is?

what on earth will we do with all of the women tatooed with the scarlet "A?" there is no statue of limitations on murder, so a lot of women would get that tatoo.
perhaps we will be like the "unwomen" in "The Handmaiden's Tale"...

Although, I don't know how you could prove who was the other participant in a terminated pregnancy.

My goal is not to be sexist, I would maintain that men should be responsible for any actions that endanger the life of the fetus as well. The position I hold is not due to the fact that it is women that carry the fetus, my position would hold in all cases as a moral truth not a relative truth.

If something is legal today and you perform it, it is considered legal even if the law changes.

And it never ceases to piss me off.

And the scary thing is that someone somewhere would think that a scarlet letter would be a good idea.

But never would anyone consider branding a rapist despite tons of evidence that rapists continue raping until they're stopped.

But oh no! Boys will be boys and all that.

but of course, they wouldn't use that as a new way to discriminate...perish the thought! remember: it's not about punishing women...it's about protecting the 'unborn.' :eyes:

:grr: nothing pisses me off more than this entire "debate." it's misogynistic to the core...i don't care how anyone justifies it.
if you claim some devine right to control women's bodies, decisions, and lives means that means you don't value women as human beings.

We're a big party; representatives Kucinich and Bonior are two notable examples of pro-life Dems.

One can be pro-life and not support laws enforcing your beliefs onto others.

she said "I've had 6 abortions myself, I consider it a form of birth control".

Irresponsible.

undermining her supposed cause by saying silly things like this?

when dealing with someone as flaky as O'Connor has been.

I am not sure why you think she is hurting the cause: abortion is perfectly acceptable as birth control under Roe v Wade and things are going to stay that way as long as we win in November.

What does hurt our cause is people who think it is their business if somebody else is using abortion in a good way or in a bad way. There is no bad way.

Abortion is an absolute right so there is absolutely no need for justification or evasion. For once, Sinead is making a bit of sense.

If you believed that a woman that uses birth control to prevent a pregnancy is going to hell then would you lobby that all girls be locked up until marriage to make you feel better?

Abortion is a personal decision. You have made the decision to be abstinent and that is your decision.

I have never had an abortion and most likely never will but I will not deny other women that right. Until you walk in someone's shoes you can't pretend to know what they are feeling.

First I never made a comment about birth control, I actually strongly support the use of all types of birth control including RU-486 if necessary. I do believe there is a point when the fetus is just a mass of cells, but once a brain, heart, ect are formed it is a living thing. I hope that this point remains consistent with my support for stem cell research, what I am looking for is logical consistency.

My overall concern is why should abortion be considered a "right" in the face of our other laws. What makes abortion so unique versus crimes like child endangerment or murder? If murder was not something that people were punished for then obviously there would be no calls to end abortions, again it is about maintaining consistency within society. I am for protecting the rights and choice of women, hence my exceptions to the rule, but there has to be an instance where the fetus is something beyond a piece of the woman's body, it is a seperate entity all together.

I am strongly in favor of having a backup plan just in case things go wrong.

It's not anyone's business whether I use that backup plan. Especially it's none of their business to approve my decision or to prevent me if they don't like that decision.

If you make an exception for rape, incest, and life of mother, who makes the ultimate decision? If you say it's the woman, then what's the point? She isn't going to let you into her medical records and police reports to make sure you think she's making the right decision in your eyes.

Does every woman have to stand in front of a judge and convince said judge that a rape took place, incest took place, or that the risk of death is enough that the judge would OK it?

Maybe we should open up this medical care by committee and have Jehovah's Witnesses approve all blood transfusions. Sound fair to you? After all nothing is a guarantee and that blood transfusion grants a better chance at living than not having one, but there's only a 60% chance of dying without one.

Because of flaws in practice, which could most likely be worked out, does not diminish the overall objective and theory behind the idea. I feel you do have a backup plan, and it happens to be adoption. Wouldn't it me nice to have a legal backup plan for everything though? Why should we want to teach our children that something like pregnancy can be reversed if an accident happens? There are certain things which as human beings in a civilized world need to be responsible for, if reproduction isn't one I don't know what is.

Lose your job? Unemployment benefits are a backup plan. Good thing we have that backup plan or there would be a lot of people inconvenienced by losing their homes and having to live on the street.

Get injured or sick? Gee, that medical insurance plan is a backup plan that allows you to get the meds and treatment you need without inconveniencing you by rendering you unable to function without disability. Back when I had medical insurance, I had a knee injury. Without that backup plan known as medical insurance, I'd be inconvenienced by not being able to walk.

Did someone break a window in your car? And are the police too overwhelmed by more serious crimes to spend any effort finding the destructive person? Good thing you have auto insurance or you'd be forking over a ton of money to get that windshield fixed. How utterly incovenient to have no windshield on your car.

Did you have your house burn down? Oh how terribly inconvenient! Now you have no place to live and all your stuff is destroyed--but wait! You have homeowners insurance. Nice backup plan, that.

Yes, it's better not to lose your job, have an illness, suffer and injury, have your car or home broken into, or have a fire burn down your house. But it's a good thing we are civilized, because if we weren't, it would be tough luck on all of these things.

Abortion past the 20 week mark is illegal in many states unless the health of the mother is at risk or the fetus is seriously damaged.

Didn't you know this? (I am being serious not sarcastic)

Abortion has been practiced for eons, it is not going to stop and I would prefer that women have a safe method of ending a pregnancy then resorting to back alley abortions, drinking binges, and internet-based schemes to do so. Hell I have an herb in my garden that will abort a fetus, pregnant women can't even handle the leaves without danger....but if not administered properly it will kill.

If we really make it illegal shouldn't we imprison both the women and the doctors that peform abortions? We may just end up imprisoning a hell of a lot of women...and wouldn't that be quaint.. young women who aborted an unwanted pregnancy with criminal records so that they can't find jobs that will take them or perhaps it can be used against them. Why not just brand them with scarlet letters...

People make mistakes and as I get older I become more liberal and more forgiving of people and their choices and I try not to be judgemental because I am not god.

Morality is subjective, what is right for some is not right for all. If your are uncomfortable with abortion that is fine but you can't force people to believe what you do.

The question your posed about punishments does not bother me, no more than it does to see other people put in jail for a would be crime. Your "scarlet letter" comment is just a way to frame the argument, if it could only be so simple. I am not targeting women, I would prosecute doctors, and men that cause a miscarriage as well.

Accidents happen in many cases, this not not change the argument.

I leave plenty of room in my theory (or idealized law) for the protection of the mother, and the protection of her choice in the matter (of risking pregnancy). What is so wrong about adoption? I guess my belief is that a life of any sort is better than no life at all. Maybe this is where we differ?

sons to death and got away with it. She gave her "God told me to do it" defense and she is now getting counseling.

While I think she is mentally ill, she murdered children that she bore, nurtured and raised....she will be free to walk among us...

Men beat their wives to death. Women shoot their lovers or drive over them with their cars....children kill parents, grandparents murder children....and juries sometimes let them go based on the situation ...it is all subjective...so even in the legal system there are shades of gray.

Perhaps you have some need to have everything either black or white....but life isn't that way, there are many shades of gray and morality of abortion is like that. For some it is wrong, for others it is sometimes wrong and sometimes right....

I got into this in some posts that asked me about punishments I would institute. If you believe that murder is subjective, then abortion should be subjective as well. If murder was legal, then abortion should be legal as well. Again I am trying to reach a point of equal moral considerations within society, not a inherent correctness of the situation anymore. I am fighting against hypocrisy in the way we handle our laws.

to be completely scientifically correct and remove all emotion from the issue, it's technically a parasite. it feeds off the host (the pregnant woman) and cannot survive without the host. i maintain, that only a viable fetus (i.e. third trimester) can really be considered a person. besides, if i understand responsible abortion procedure correctly, doctors will perform abortions in the first trimester in the main, and only in the second trimester if the mother's health is in jeopardy. i have never heard of a third trimester abortion. this is not to say that one has never happened, just that i've never heard of any responsible doctor performing one.

at any rate, the choice is the woman's. it is HER body and SHE has to make any choices regarding it.

you know, if men could get pregnant, this debate would never have existed...

This means, I think, that everyone one of us was, at one point in our lives (oops, I can't say that, because for some saying that "our lives" began before we were born is a sure sign of a contrl freak!), at one point before we even existed (how's THAT for some twisted logic), we were no different from tapeworms -- disgusting little parasites that sucked the very life out of our "hosts" -- who later, when we were born and began our lives, became our mothers.

I suggest that everyone who actually feels this way begin an effort to correct anyone who says something like "My wife is pregnant with my first baby". It seems to me that for someone to say something like that reflects a defininte pro-life point of view -- a point of view that is most dangerous to women's reproductive rights. Such a statement suggests that there is a baby -- not a fetus, and not a parasite -- witin a woman's womb.

That is why I think anyone who is truly pro-choice, and certainly anyone who really does feel that fetuses are not babies, but only parasites, would absolutely insist that statements announcingf a pregnancy be something like this: "My wife is playing host to her first fetal parasite". Of "I am the proud host of a parsite, and I do hope it becomes a girl".

some pregnancy books do compare the fetus to a parasite.

In fact, the fetus will take whatever it needs from the mother's body first and whatever's left, the mother gets.

Far be it from me to question the veracity of "some pregnancy books". I would never ever want to question such noted sources as that.

From what you have said, it seems to me that any woman would be justified in taking any and all steps necessary to rid herself of such a dangerous parasite.

In fact, it appears as though a woman would have to be a damned fool to play host to such a nasty parasite -- worse, it appears, than either a tapeworm or a bad case of athlete's foot.

Does the Public Health Service know about all these nasty little parasites infecting women and the effects they have on women? If so, then why aren't they doing something to cure every woman who is infected with one of those nasty, lofe-sucking little worms?

but have read many and many of them refer to the child as a "border" and "parasite" - the authors silly up the definitions to make it sound all fun and light-hearted, but the fact remains that the baby will take whatever it needs from the woman's body, including sucking calcium from her bones, which is one reason why good nutrition is a must for pregnant woman.

Could not have said it better myself.

who has attached the negative connotation to the word 'parasite'. i have simply used the word in its proper context and with its fundamental meaning, with no connotation either negative or positive.

you would notice that i said 'scientifically and all emotion aside'. emotionally, you can call anything anything you want.

i'm sorry, you can do whatever the hell you want when it comes to the abortion decision for yourself, if you're a woman. but the day you tell any woman what to do with her womb and/or the contents thereof, you have crossed the line.

I think I am making a real honest effort to get rid of all that stupid and silly emotional attachment that some people have to life (or whatever it is) is the womb.

It just must irritate some people when they hear others say things like "My wife is pregnant with our first child", or "My wife is pregnant with a baby girl". Such stupid statements show what is no doubt a extremely patriarchial view towards the role of women.

How much better, how much more accurate, and how much less emotion is reflected is statements such as:

"My wife is host to her first fetal parasite. No wonder she has morning sickness. Damned parasite!"

or

"I wish we could join you at the beach, but my wife's parasite is making her sick."

or

"My husband and I are hoping for a girl. I do hope that the ultrasound shows that the parasite is a potential female."

or

"I hate being a host. I do hope the parasite hurries up so that I can give birth."

Couldn't we write to the newspapers and TV networks and insist that start using language like this.

It's certainly much more reflective, isn't it? - of a pro-choice point of view.

introducing a ridiculous 'argument' does little to help push your point of view. just as i am against trying to control women's right of control over their bodies, i am against controlling people's right to refer to their little visitors as whatever the hell they want to. THAT is 'reflective of a pro-choice point of view', not your prepostrous straw man argument.

It does seem as though I have been misread and misinterpreted here.

It seems, silverpatronus, that you think that I am trying to "push" a particular point of view.

Far from it.

It seems that you think that I am trying to control people's right to refer to "their little visitors" as whatever the hell they want to.

FAR, FAR from it.

I am merely trying to point out the many subtle ways in which our paternalistic culture tries to get people to think in ways that run ocunter to the notion that fetuses are something other than parasites.

I would think that anyone who truly feels that a fetus is just a mere parasite -- with the same status, really, as a tapeworm or a bad case of athlete's foot -- would welcome my efforts to point out these things, and to encourage all right-thinking people to be precise in their u se of our language.

Certainly, in a debate, if oneof those evil, anti-choice zealots refers to a fetus as a "baby", all hell breaks loose. I think ('thought I am not really sure) that you would agree that it is just wrong for any right-thinking person to ever refer to a life-sucking parasitic fetus as a "baby".

That is, of course, not the same thing as saying that people can not or should not refer to their "little visitors" however they want to.

I am quite sure that there are many backward-thinking (and most likely latent pro-lifers who are either paternalistic males whose highest desire is to control the reproductive options open to women or are women who live in fear under the domination of such brutes) who still refer to fetuses as "babies" (as in "My wife is pregnant with our first baby").

But they are, I think you will agree, quite wrong to do so -- and it is in everyone's best interest to point out the severity of their error and to unmaks their efforts to subtly undermine Roe v. Wade.

go right ahead. i've said my piece, and i think it stands up.

you're piece stands up.

Did you come to that conclusion based upon:

1. Focus Groups
2. Poll Research
3. People you happen to know
4. Your Own Opinion

????

Perhaps, Iris, since you seem to represent "most reasonable people", yo could explain something to me.

It would seem to me that, based upon your comments regarding the exchange of posts between silverpatronus and myself, that you yourself feel that I have a particular viewpoint that I an trying to convince people to see things from.

Please do point out where, exactly, in any of the posts that I sent to silverpatronus, I disagree with the position that a fetus is a parasite.

you don't have to be explicit. At the very least, your choice of questions and hypotheticals do show some evidence of your viewpoint.

One example: when you talk about fetus as parasite, you always choose something harmful like a tapeworm rather than a neutral or helpful parasite. The "tapeworms" makes it difficult for discussion participants to advocate parasite arguments and we all know this and we all know it is intentional.

In isolation, these kind of word and question choices don't mean much. However, after a few hundred posts a viewpoint tends to emerge and it is a bit disingenuous to deny this.

I am not criticiizing your technique (I think it is healthy debate), but, hey, even Socrates had a viewpoint -- and you do too.

I do confess that my own viewpoint was that pro-choice folks who refer to fetuses as "parasites" did not view them as "netural" or even "helpful" parasites.

Perhaps you could enlighten me. Is it your own view that the "pregnancy books" which Iris mentions earlier -- the ones which say that fetuses are parasites -- view fetuses as being harmful to women, netural to women, or helpful to women?

My own reading, I confess, of what Iris said is that any parasite that "gets what it wants" and then leaves whatever is left for its host is hardly either neutral of helpful.

But perhaps I am mistaken.

Would you care to enlighten me?

ON EDIT -- When I wrote the comments above, I thought I was responding to a post from Iris -- the person who I had asked to point out certain things regarding my exchange of posts with silverpatronus. Only later did I realize that I was posting to something from Tina H.

many points to cover briefly:

1. acording to a strict biology definition there are no helpful parasites, just bad and neutral ones -- the phrase one encounters is "without benefitting the host."

2. there does not seem to be a handy noun form for "helpful parasite." However, "helpful parasite" relationships do exist in nature and are called "symbiotic relationships."

3. Example of helpful human parasites: the bacteria in human intestines and stomach.

4. I don't know why the health book used the parasite metaphor.

5. I venture to guess that your choice of tapeworms in your hypothetical came more out of your political viewpoint than a burning desire to stay as close to the health book wording as possible.

6. I don't like the parasite metaphor, don't think it is helpful or apt with respect to the abortion issue. The parasite metaphor also suggests a certain Dr.-Strangelove-esque callousness that makes me uncomfortable. If you did have a viewpoint, I bet our viewpoints would converge (at least) on this.

that the use of the term "parasite" to describe a fetus might just possibly not be motivaterd by a desire to be scientifically accurate?

There are times when I have described fetuses as "unborn babies", but I do now try not to do that here. I understand how someone might conclude that I am trying, by the use of that term, to advance a particular point of view.

But just as the use of that particular term could lead someone to conclude that I had a particular viewpoint that I was trying to advance, so, I think, any person who says, in a discussion of this nature, that a fetus is a "parasite" does so not so much to be scientifically accurate. Rather my own observation is that the person is trying to advacne the argument that a fetus is not human.

To wit -- the first post in this thread where the a fetus was compared to a parasite. The poster's headline was, if memory serves, "A fetus is not human". The poster's proof of that statement? The scientific "fact" that a fetus is a parasite.

My own unsderstanding of parasites is that they are usually harmful to the host. And, I would venture to guess, that is precisely how many who use that term when referring to fetuses, intend to have that term perceived.

What I object to more, however, is the attempt that some are inclined to make to "dress up" their arguments with "scientific facts" that, in reality are little more than the use of hot-button phrases in scientific garb.

How have I twisted what you said?

I do believe you were the one, weren't you, who said that fetuses are parasites.

Either you really think that or you do not.

If you do not, then I do apologize for mis-charaterizing what I thought wa syour position.

is irrelevant, except in making decisions which only affect my own life. it is a scientific fact that a fetus cannot support itself outside of the womb until some point past the 5 or 6 month mark (i'm not sure which it is). therefore, scientifically, until that point, the organisms it shares the most behaviour with are parasites.

i also notice that you have either ignored or failed to argue with iris, who has stated, and i quote, 'some pregnancy books do compare the fetus to a parasite. In fact, the fetus will take whatever it needs from the mother's body first and whatever's left, the mother gets.' that is scientifically proven parasitic behaviour. therefore, what i think is irrelevant.

Is it your contention, then, that it is a scientifically proven fact that a fetus is no different from a tapeworm or a really bad case of athlete's foot?

And I am also confused by the first paragraph of your most recent post. When you say "it is a scientific fact that a fetus cannot support itself outside of the womb until some point past the 5 or 6 month mark (i'm not sure which it is), are you suggesting that a fetus remains a parasite five or six months after it is born? At what point do you suggest science says that a fetus stops being the equivalent of a tapeworm?

you know that i mean the 5th or 6th month of gestation. you've now crossed over into being deliberately obtuse.

One of the problems with communicating only by writing is that one misses the facial expressions and intonations that accompany spoken, face-to-face communication.

You may indeed think that I was being deliberately obtuse.

I was not.

I had a question about what the words you had written meant. If you look at the words you wrote, you may see that there really are two different ways that they could be read.

Instead of jumping to a conclusion that may not have been what you intended, I asked you what you meant -- I gave you the opportunity to clarify.

THAT, I think, is the polite and considerate thing to do on discussion boards such as this. For my money, it surely beats jumping to a wrong conclusion.

In any event, that you for your own observation that indicates that YOU know what I know.

Had you asked, instead of simply telling me what "I know", you would have discovered that you were incorrect in your assessment of what I know.

Dr. George Tiller.

He operates an abortion clinic in Wichita, Kansas. I understand that he also spoke this past Sunday at the march here in DC.

I think he performs abortions in the third trimester, and I think he even has a website.

YOu can judge for yourself whether or not you think he is "responsible".

I guess maybe here is our difference in reasoning, you see a fetus as a parasite which is inherently burdensome on the host. There are many ways of interpreting the term, none insinuate that all parasites are on equal moral consideration levels. A if you want to place a fetus on the same level as a virus, or a single celled organism, go ahead...you just have a rather skewed view of life. When a fetus is on the level as these organism I support the use on any methods available to abort it (RU-486). Once tissues in the fetus become specialized, then it is an entirely different question. I am not talking about the woman making choices about her body, I clearly state her right to protect herself, but the fetus is not a "part" of her body, a separate entity which deserves its own consideration.

because only men (and it is mostly men on the pro-life bandwagon) would argue that the state has some interest (beyond patronizing and patriarchial control) in snooping around in women's crotches. this is OFFENSIVE to many women, hence the "emotion" you sense...it's ANGER :argh:

Issues that were not considered to be the business of women in the past lead to their exploitation. Roles in power were considered the roles of men soley and women had no place in the realm. If you want to use the same sort of reasoning in reverse go ahead, you are only diminishing the struggle. It is not an issue of "snooping", sodomy laws are "snooping", abortion is as public as anything else.

Why is it necessary to start a new thread on this? So that everyone who responded to the first would have to make their argument again? Or so that all the sensible posts that were already made would simply go away, and hopefully those who've already responded who be simply too busy with other more important things to learn?

Just curious.

It's quite apparent...get over it.

Is this man defending his unborn child?


http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/news/042904_nw_shooting_clinic.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=519420&mesg_id=519420

I think the morality of abortion when the life of the mother is not in jeopardy is a complex issue. Specifically, many of us agree that 1st (and possibly 2nd) trimester abortions are acceptable, but 3rd trimester abortions are not. To put it another way, abortion is completely moral at one minute after conception, but it is completely immoral one minute before birth. The point is we can't identify the precise moment that abortion switches from moral to immoral. This fact alone complicates the issue for me.

Anyway, I'm curious how you'd respond to this hypothetical question:

Imagine 20 years from now, women no longer went through pregnancy, rather the entire process of gestation took place inside an incubator, from conception to birth. At what point does abortion switch from moral to immoral in this scenario? Does this moment differ from that of a normal pregnancy?

creating a test-tube baby, they would have a vested interest in seeing that gestation period through?

I would think at that point the question would really be would it be ok to turn off the incubator if the child had an obvious physical defect.

Yes, I would imagine they'd have a vested interest, but imagine they changed their mind. At what point in the process is turning off the incubator immoral?

3rd trimester abortions are considered unacceptable because 1. they are unsafe and 2. by the third trimester, most fetuses, if removed from the womb, would be able to survive. their vital organs would be developed enough to sustain them.

just a sidenote, in your hypothetical, you use the word 'birth' which i don't think would apply to the end of a gestation period undergone in an incubator. i think the matrix-term 'harvest' would apply...

We are speaking purely hypothetically here, right?

If so, then I would suggest that it is all together possible for a society as advanced as the one you suggest to say that abortion is entirely moral any time during incubation.

But I would also suggest that an advanced society might also say that it is moral to engage in "post-birth" or "post-harvest" abortions -- what some now refer to as infanticide.

It all depends, ultimately, on where the most powerful elements of a society decide that "human being-ness" begins.

You seem to suggest that this quality begins at some point during gestation.

But there are people in the academic world right now who suggest that that notion is folly. They suggest that true "human-being-ness" does not being until full self-awareness is achieved -- one year after birth.

Before that time, an infant, they say, is not really much different from a fetus.

They do acknowledge that there are no doubt some in society even now whose religious beliefs would cause them to oppose such a notion of the beginning of "human-being-ness".

But they insist that those people should not be permitted to shove their religious views on the more enlightened, and the more powerful elements of society.

the real drain on society's limited resources isn't the young people.

It is the old and the retired and the disabled. Liberalized abortion may or may not put us on a slippery slope on the issue of of defining human life. But if we do end up on that slope somehow, it is not the infants who will feel the needle first.

a perception that society is moving more and more toward wanting only the "perfect".

You are no doubt correct that a culture which devalues life will very quickly become a culture in which the powerful try to eliminate all drains on society'e scarce resources.

But, I think, it is also the case that a society that devalues life (or rather, a society in which the powerful can decide for themselves the value of the most vulenrable) can easily become a society in which the powerful decide that some lives, since they are not quite "perfect" or "good enough" should just not be lived at all.

power is good as long as it is wielded by a Democratic president, congress and/or Supreme Court. By definition, the Democratic party wields the power of the laws in a responsible way.

Since *we* have set the abortion law in Roe v Wade, I do not understand the utility of your questions and doubts.

I'm not quite sure who it is, exactly, that you mean when you say "we".

Do you include, within your "we" life-long Democrats who some might label as being "pro-life"? Do you include Democrats who have serious reservations about Roe v. Wade -- or about the way in which is was decided?

Just who do you mean by "we"?

is the party of choice. Whoever the people are who gave rise to that popular perception are the "we" I refer to.

However, if the republicans do manage to outlaw abortion, I hope I can use some of your arguments about the corruptive influence of power. Your arguments on this point are somewhat persuasive -- just categorically misdirected when aimed at Democrats and core Democratic issues.

deleting

as a 'post-birth' abortion. that is an oxymoron.

But that is only because there are religious bigots who successfully ram their own twisted view of morality (a morality which says that human life begins at birth, rather than at one year after birth) down the throats of the rest of us.

In so doing, these anti-parent zealots deny good, decent, parents total reproductive freedom -- the right to decide whether or not parents want to have children.

It is these religious nuts who insist that parents cannot simply exercise "choice" when it comes to fetuses that have been born but have not acquired self-awareness.

They should simply understand that they are free to choose not to terminate their own post-birth fetuses, but I do so wish they would just let those who wish to exercise their own choices do so.

In fact, I have thought of a great bumper sticker -- "If you don't want to kill an infact, then don't".

Pretty catchy, huh?

What passes your morality test (not what passes society's or society's most powerful element's or the academic world's test)? Do you think that it's moral to abort a fetus at any time during gestation in an incubator? Do you think it's moral to kill a 6 month old child because he or she hasn't reached self-awareness?

I don't agree with your suggestion that an advanced society would think that it's moral to kill an infant. I would hope an advanced society, by it's definition, would become more compassionate, not less.

that in a more advanced society there would be less reproductive choice?

Please.

To answer your question: No, I do not think it is moral to abort a fetus at any time during gestation in an incubator. (Please read that very carefully.)

But, then, you need to understand that I am a gay male, so I will never have to face the hard decision women who confront unwanted pregnancies have to confront.

My own views on the morality of killing a fetus who has been outside the womb for six months and who has not yet achieve self-awareness would, I think, have to be very much conditioned upon the individual circumstances.

As a gay male, I will never have to confront that situation, so I think the most moral thing for me to do is to support those who might find themselves in a situation in which they felt that exercising a choice to kill such a "post-birth" fetus might be their only option in whatever way I could.

I certainly would not want to impost my own morality, whatever it might happen to be, on them. I would most likely never decide to kill a six-month old "post-birth" fetus myself, but I would never want to tell another person that they could not. THAT woulsd be really, really wrong and immoral.

say they are against abortion EXCEPT in cases of rape or incest. IF the sanctity of the child makes abortion wrong, does rape or incest cause the child to be worth LESS?
I am PRO-CHOICE, but if anyone is pro-life they should be PRO-LIFE in all situations!

Since you insist that someone who is pro-life should be pro-life in all situations, then let me ask you this:

Do you think that it should be perfectly legal for a healthy woman, whose life is not in any way in danger, and whose health is in no way jeopardized, to abort a perfectly healthy fetus in the eighth month of her pregnancy?

please. if you can't do that, this is nothing more than an HYSTERICAL anti-choice fantasy. so put up, or...you know what.

Why is it that those who want to pose all the elegant yet far-fetched hypotheses about abortion are males?

They know that they will never actually have to face the situation themselves.

since he doesn't seem to be very well-informed. it's a rather under-handed/hysterical tactic...to say the least. it certainly does nothing to strengthen his argument...but it DOES tell you a lot about HIM.

Someone posts something that attempts to say that in order to be pro-life one should or must be pro-life in all situations.

My only question to the person who made that statement was to see whether s/he also believes that in order to be pro-choice one must be equally pro-choice.

By the way, what is your own view on this? Just how pro-choice are you?

Do you think women should or should not have complete control over thier bodies at all stages of their pregnancies -- even if it means that a perfectly healthy woman would be able to abort a perfectly healthy fetus during the eighth month of her pregnancy?

I did not say that it was legal -- in fact, it is most likely illegal in most states. Do you think that such a restriction is anti-women, inasmuch as it denies a woman complete autonomy over her own body?

Just how pro-choice are you?

First ....... your last paragraph on the hypothetical 8th month ELECTIVE abortion is a fallacy to begin with , period .......... the FACTS ARE .... they are NO ELECTIVE 8th month termination of pregnancies just because the woman wants one, PERIOD ........ you are blatantly guilty of false premise just in order to be inflammatory and demonizing those who disagree with you on the broader issue, this particular case you cite has no merit in REALITY ...... the FACT is ALL terminations in the 3rd trimester are because of health considerations, serious ones, on behalf of the pregnant woman, PERIOD.
You will be foolish to even think about disagreeing on these FACTS, because my daughter is a graduate of the 2nd ranked medical school in the whole country (look it up) Washington University in St Louis, and her specialty is OB-GYN ..... if you want to be disabused of your ignorance of your 8th month premise, do some research, dont just blabber the "makes you feel good, you love babies" garble of the anti-choice crowd.

So you are advised whenever you try to argue with the 8th month elective abortion premise, you are simply being the victim of the most inflammatory demagogue-positioning of the most despicable type.

and your first paragraph begins with an error in premise also ..... stating that I "insist" .... i just find it INCONSISTENT, i do not insist you believe any paricular thing, but i do insist it seems to be to be inconsistent, your position about rape and incest........ i do not insist that yOu carry a pregnancy to term, i do not insist that you use or not use birth control of my choosing , i do not insist that you make personal choices about this issue other than by your own conscience ....... and i DO insist that you grant me the same freedom of choices which i just granted to you .......

BUT, if one chooses to believe that a human life begins with conception, then that seems to me to be an exclusatory position of any modifications, such as rape and incest ...... a life is a life, if one believes human beingness begins at the fertilization of a human egg.

it would seem to be asking to have it both ways, feeling good about protecting the unborn, and then not wanting rapists violating women to experience fatherhood thru their crime ..... of which the fertlized egg had no part (the crime) and is as innocent as the product of a conception of loving sex.


REPEATING: there are in fact NO ELECTIVE 8th month terminations performed by the legitimate medical community, and any statement claiming such is propaganda from the radical religious anti-choice rightwing.

I am not clear on this from your post.

such abortions are NOT performed electively by legitimate medical professionals. Any claim otherwise is right wing propaganda.

really reflects what most other DUers think.

Thank you for the candid (and helpful) response. I would offer my views on this, but I am yet undecided on 8 month elective terminations.

there is NO "elective" 8th month pregnancy terminations for convenience sake by the legitimate medical community. Such terminations are EXTREMELY RARE let me stress "EXTREMELY RARE" would ONLY be performed in cases of a SEVERELY deformed fetus. NOONE is advocating elective abortions in third trimester pregnancies. "CHOICE" does NOT mean deciding at the last moment.

permits all abortions in all circumstances. Maybe I am wrong about this.

Are you saying that a licensed medical doctor could be brought up on criminal charges for performing an abortion that the pregnant woman desired (but didn't absolutely need)?

That is surprising!

How many people in this thread have even read that opinion?

Under Roe, States can ban abortion during the 3rd trimester unless the health of the mother is at risk:

3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol=113

You said that my leaving an opening for abortion (rape, incest, life endangerment of the mother) was false reasoning, that I should be pro-life in all situations?? Now you go ahead and place stipulations on the pro-choice argument? If you would force me to accept a pro-life stance in all circumstances you force yourself to maintain a pro-choice stance in all circumstances. So if someone was to decide to have an 8th month abortion you would have to be supportive of that regardless of the reason.

You can have it one way or another, but do not force others to hold a stance that you would not hold yourself.

(there are at least 27 serious questions raised in the editorial copied below to which any pro-lifer needs to provide detailed answers ..... answer all of them ...... Numbers have been added before the questions you are to answer if you wish to be taken seriously by me since pro-lifers are the ones desiring to change the status quo and therefore THEY must provide a plan for the contingencies of their beliefs becoming law for all of us.... surely you do not want to be like invading Iraq with no plan for after the success of your immediate goal - occupation of Iraq, deposing saddam being similar to the short term goal of reversing Roe V Wade or adopting a human life amendment)


"Open Pandora's box but accept the responsibility"
by Lee Swain (originally published in the NASHVILLE CITY PAPER)

We merchants like police officers to be seen in our places of business —— the more often the better, in fact. There is some truth to the old joke “When was the last time you heard of a doughnut shop being robbed?”

I don’t like that joke if it is told in a mean spirit, because many of the officers who visit our store are personal friends. We know the human beings inside the blue uniforms. In today’s world, the
simplest traffic stop can explode into a life-threatening situation. Imagine if your spouse or child needed to wear body armor to go to work. No wonder it is so difficult to recruit and retain quality
police officers.

(1)Will it be as difficult to recruit as many Pregnancy Police as President George W. Bush will need if he appoints enough Supreme Court justices to overturn Roe v. Wade? Or if the Hyde Human
Life Amendment is passed, thus legally declaring a fertilized human ovum to be a human being.

I realize the positions of pro-life advocates are based upon their sincere, personal, religious and moral convictions, and I acknowledge their right to non-violently promote them in the public arena.

But what if the pro-life position becomes law? Then unborn human beings will rightfully demand our Constitution’s 14th Amendment equal protection by the state’s police power. This alone will open a Pandora’s Box of legal issues demanding clarification, from means of enforcement to prescribed punishment for violators.

Think about it. Under a a pro-life government, the only way to know if an unborn human being has been murdered is for every pregnancy to be registered and monitored by Pregnancy Police until it results in a documented live birth, miscarriage or stillbirth. Otherwise, the state would be denying equal protection to its unborn citizens, able only to prosecute those caught in the act of murdering the unborn or reported to have done so by informants.

(2)Since the Supreme Court applied its concerns over equal protection having to do with the different methods used to count votes in its decision that made George W. president, how could pro-life and Bush supporters tolerate a lesser standard of equal protection for human life?

Human beings already born can be reported missing, so the police can investigate for foul play. (3)But will not an unborn human being have to be registered from conception for it to have a legal identity whose life deserves equal protection by the state? (4)Otherwise, undocumented pregnancies could be secretly terminated with impunity —— would not this be a clear violation of the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause, and obviously a circumstance repugnant and unacceptable to pro-life advocates?

(5)Since conservative courts have upheld the constitutionality of workplace drug testing to prove an employee has not used drugs, when the issue is human life, must we not require every woman be
tested each month to prove she is not pregnant and therefore has not secretly murdered an unborn human being? (6)And should not a pregnant woman be required to carry documentation proving her pregnancy is registered and the life of her unborn child is receiving its constitutional right of equal protection?

It will fall upon pro-life advocates and their legislative allies to provide answers to many questions which will arise as a consequence of their position becoming law. They will have opened a Pandora’s Box of legalisms, and they must be responsible for the consequences.

(7)How will the Pregnancy Police be funded? (8)Which agency of the states’ or federal government will have jurisdiction over assuring equal protection for the unborn?

(9)Will abortion be murder in the first degree, punishable by death, since it is pre-meditated killing of a minor? (10)Is the more heinous offender the mother who has her unborn child killed or the person
who performs the abortion? (11)Is a person who accompanies the mother to the abortion site an accomplice to murder? (12)If a third party pays for the abortion, is that murder for hire?

(13)If a pregnant woman travels to a country where abortion is legal, and returns not pregnant, has she committed a crime? (14)If not, then is not murdering one’s own child legal for those wealthy enough to travel overseas. The lives of unborn inside sufficiently wealthy wombs are not equally protected. (15)Or must passport laws be changed to say a pregnant woman is responsible for the safe return of the unborn citizen in her womb or will there be an outright ban on pregnant women going overseas? (16)Will travel to a country where abortion is legal be considered child endangerment if the woman is known to have pro-choice sympathies? (17)Could the state or biological father get an injunction to keep the pregnant woman from traveling to a country where abortion is legal?

(18)Can the biological father of the unborn sue the mother and her abortion doctor in civil court for the wrongful death of his child? (19)Must doctors report a pregnant woman to the Pregnancy Police
as they now must report gunshot or child abuse cases? (20)Will smoking, improper diet, drinking alcohol and drug use, or extreme sports activities which could cause miscarriage by a pregnant woman constitute child abuse? (21)Will home pregnancy tests become illegal since they could be used to facilitate a decision to get a quick illegal abortion before the woman goes for her monthly check by the Pregnancy Police?

(22)Will the Federal Drug Enforcement Agency police the RU-486 abortion pill smuggling trade, which will surely proliferate? What will be the punishment for selling RU-486? (23)Will the sale of RU-486 constitute accessory to murder? (24)Should a pro-life Congress or White House impose trade sanctions on countries where abortion is legal or where companies produce and distribute RU-486? (25)Should George W. apply his doctrine of pre-emptive war on countries that produce RU-486 since it could be considered a weapon of mass destruction since surely the numbers of abortions now in this country would quality as mass destruction of what the pro-life movement considers to be human beings?

If you think these possibilities are beyond reasonable concern, then I know you are not a true conservative or a person who worries about the growth of intrusive government power.

The National Rifle Association opposes gun control because it fears the government’s tendency to expand its regulatory power in any area where it gets a foothold. Conservative opponents of a Tennessee income tax fear it will grow like a cancer, draining the life from its taxpayer host.

Conservatives preach that if the government gets an inch, it takes a mile —— this is the immutable nature of the bureaucratic beast.

If the government bans anything, much less what had previously been a constitutional right of reproductive choice, conservative theory asserts the government will expand its authority to enforce that ban. And history demonstrates the resulting expansion of government will be driven by the issue’s most zealous and radical proponents.

You doubt this? Take a moment to think about issues like gun control, gay rights, the environment, endangered species, tobacco, gender and age discrimination, disciplining your own child, political correctness, or civil rights. (26)And when the issue is precious human life, why would the expansion of government control be less than for mere taxation, gun control or the protection of the spotted owl?

Perhaps a benefit of pro-life advocates getting what they wish for is they will be compelled to enact federally funded national prenatal and childbirth healthcare to make it easier to monitor all
pregnancies to ensure no unborn humans are murdered. Or maybe they will enact universal free birth control and meaningful mandatory sex education to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Kiss your tax cuts good-bye.

And please ... remember the success of Prohibition? (27)That worked so well, did it not?

that you need to minimize what happens to women facing an unwanted pregnancy in order to justify your position. That is the part of your post that sticks in my craw. Although I am pro-choice, I can understand why those who are pro-life are against it, from the standpoint of protecting the fetus.

An unwanted pregnancy is NEVER a matter of convenience, whatever your opinions about when life begins, or whether abortion is murder or not. That is where many pro-lifers lose me. I think it is a judgmental, sanctimonious position to take that any woman, let alone a significant portion, has an abortion out of convenience. I think it is disgusting that a woman loses control of her body merely because the sex resulting in a pregnancy was consensual. That is one of the worst arguments against choice out there. It disgusts me.

Doctors alone (no criminal law)

or

doctors plus criminal law?

some of the earlier posts say that there is criminal law regarding the subject of late term convenience abortions, but I don't think that is true or legally possible. Do you have any opinion on this?

Personally, I am not sure how much I trust doctors (or any other professional), at least in the absence of legal penalties for doing a naughty. However, under Roe v. Wade, I think it is basically up to the doctor and her patient to make the medical decision, such as an 8th month elective, without criminal law looming in the background.

That is where I stand on the issue. As long as a doctor is liscensed, and a woman is of sound mind to make her own decisions, it ends there.