Carl Sagan on abortion

"Let's consider these two absolutist positions in turn. A newborn baby is surely the same being it was just before birth. There 's good evidence that a late-term fetus responds to sound--including music, but especially its mother's voice. It can suck its thumb or do a somersault. Occasionally, it generates adult brain-wave patterns. Some people claim to remember being born, or even the uterine environment. Perhaps there is thought in the womb. It's hard to maintain that a transformation to full personhood happens abruptly at the moment of birth. Why, then, should it be murder to kill an infant the day after it was born but not the day before? "

Interesting article that goes beyond the slogans and boring hype.

http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml

You never answered my question on that thread: What does an astrophycisist's views on neurology have to do with the legal question involved?

He was a scientist who thought about and looked into this issue.

you dodge the question.

Why is Sagan's view on this issue important? Does it somehow prove something?

If I find a geologist who's all for full abortion rights, will my view be elevated?

why the fuck should we listen to what anyone has to say? I don't know, maybe cuz it they sound reasonable and have done some research and thought.

because you found a quote that reflects YOUR views.

That doesn't make him the authority on when life begins.

I don't think Sagan was anti-choice by any stretch of the imagination. Please see my post (#14) below. :)

The point is that the issue is not an all or nothing proposition - maybe there should be some regulation in the latter stages....that's it...it's reasonable...it says a lot that so many are thinking this is some kind of radical proposition.

... commonly known as Roe v. Wade.

Go read that last issue of Harper's on the subject.

Read Casey vs. Planned Parenthood.

... are not at all a common occurrence.

there is no regulation in this area. basically abortion on demand is the law of the land. all I'm saying is that maybe there should be some restrictions and accountability for abortions in the latter stages. it's reasonable. it's where we're headed anyway. the soonner we get there the better.

so fuckin' sue me.

why not go off on a rant about improper use of child car seats? They demonstrably kill living, breathing human beings. A lot more than your mythical "whimsical late-term abortion" does.

and we should also make sure that we arrive at a reasonable place in the abortion debate - some restrictions in the latter stages, none in the early stages.

for the philosophical masturbatory pleasure of it all?

The thing your railing against doesn't exist. Why waste energy on it? Why not focus on things you CAN do?

Instead of agitating here to outlaw an already outlawed imaginary practice, go raise money for car-seat awareness programs. At least then you MIGHT have a chance of accomplishing something.

being killed, even if it is a small number.

at some point that fetus is no different than a regular baby. at that point there is a societal interest.

I can't make it any clearer than that.

and it's where we as a nation are headed...

god help us if we ever allow women to control their own bodies. Next thing you know, they'll demand equal pay.

up until say five or six months, after that there will be some regulation (and I don't think it will be that extensive), there will especially be an exception for the health and life of the mother....

it's reasonable, it's not so hard to fathom or grasp such an outcome as being just...

future and/or conditional tense?

The situation you're advocating is the LAW today. Man, I've never seen anybody get so overwrought while advocating the status quo.

in the latter stages today. Read the an article in the last Harper's, it's very good and very extensive. There reality is that there is basically abortion on demand even in latter stages.

you have not presented a single quote from it, and it's not reasonable to expect me to run out NOW to buy a magazine in order to understand your point.

None of which has anything to do with my argument that the LAW today provides exactly the types of restrictions you want (unfortunately, in my opinion.)

Do you propose a federal Department of Late Term Pregnancy charged with monitoring all pregnant females for compliance?

I'm sorry it doesn't. It doesn't because the woman's right to privacy trumps even knowing what goes on in an abortion clinic pertaining to the latter stage abortions. In other words, there is no way of even really knowing what's happening to even regulate.

not a single fact, quote, line, argument, chart, detail, etc. from the article itself.

find it and read it though...

I tried to read it online - had to go to a store to read it...

And yet you claim to be pro choice.

not just the later stages - the later FUCKING stages. NOW I get your point.

State your case, offer supporting evidence, and stop being so belligerent.
Regards,
BES

cuz he was pro-life.

I'm pro-choice, but I found their put downs weak and provincial. It pissed me off.

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

Hey, not only that . . . but this is a quote from Sagan taken totally out of context in trying to twist something into Sagan's mouth that Sagan never said nor inferred. Talk about twisted shit! Sagan came down on the side of choice. Not down on the side of the government mandating that women should be forced breeders.








.

of this shit.

You're completely misrepresenting Sagan. You've said as much yourself.

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

Less than 1 percent of all tabulated abortions in the United States are listed in the last three months of pregnancy (and, on closer investigation, most such reports turn out to be due to miscarriage or miscalculation).

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

Damned few abortions are performed in that last 3 months (never mind the day before the due date) so his hysterical sentimentalizing of a fetus does not apply. The few that are performed in last 3 months attempt to deliver a live fetus, if at all possible, or are terminated for only the most tragic of reasons.

This is a smokescreen, a load of sentimental hogwash. What he is describing is what fetus fetishists always do, try to present something that is never done as the norm, and then moaning about it.

I expected better of Sagan.

If you read the entire book ("Billions and Billions". DO read it.) you'll see that's just the start of his argumentation.

In the end, he comes to the conclusion there's nothing wrong with abortions in the first six months, AND he acknowledges the rareness of late term abortions AND what current law says.

Posting just THAT paragraph and trying to pass it off as Mr. Sagan's position is... well, let me stop here, I don't want a mod warning.

And to cherry-pick that quote to make Sagan sound anti-choice... :grr: :grr: :grr:

reading that passage shows how he approaches the subject. I encourage people to read that whole damn thing for god's sake.

It's entirely wrong of you to do so.

That doesn't misrepresent JACK FUCKIN' SHIT. Got it?

Yes, swearing makes your point stronger. I now agree with you. We should imprison women until they give birth on the off-chance they'll wake up 8.8 months pregnant and decide to abort on a whim.

lost cause.

You're presented with fact after fact, yet none of it makes any impression.

http://www.democraticunderground.com//discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1443540&mesg_id=1443547&page=

Frankly, if you're trying to make the point that we need more mandatory reporting on abortion procedures performed, I don't think you're going about it very well. Could you cite the relevant passage in the Harper's article. so the rest of us can evaluate the data?

It seems to me that, in this thread at least, you've simply tossed out an inflamatory statement stripped of its context, then gotten defensive when people called you on it. I don't see where there's anything to be gained by that approach at all.

lot's more...

to bad you ignore what even you yourself call facts.

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

... do nothing to support whatever argument you're trying to make.

It's gradually becoming apparent that you favor some sort of mandatory reporting or monitoring when an abortion is performed.

Fine, make that argument. I'd be happy to discuss it. But what you've done here is simply to create a firestorm. Your method of putting forth a premise and then debating it really falls short.

Honestly, I wish you would step back for a moment and analyze how you've gone about raising this topic. How we as Democrats discuss abortion rights is indeed an important issue, but I don't think you've helped shed any light on the matter.

my position is that our counry is headed to where many European countires already are. Early stages totally private, free - latter stages some regulation always with health and welfare of mom being important. That's it that's my whole point. But a good number of people on just go ballistic to even talk about regulating anything regarding latter stage abortion.

... are regulated?

Is it that we need better stats on how many late-stage abortions are actually performed?

The privacy concerns of the mother trumps knowing anything that goes on - so you can't even keep track of what goes on regarding those latter stage abortions.


At some point the privacy issues must give way to the possibility that the fetus is more a baby than not. At like maybe five to six months or so...

should we use YOUR 5-6 month limit instead of the far-right's "at conception" limit?

Why does a fetus' rights supercede those of the woman carrying it?

You make the argument that such is reasonable - I believe it would carry a majority - that's what Democracy is all about. The issue is then defanged as a tool of the right.

Look at some point the fetus could survive outside the womb. It can even have some level of thought, etc. These are questions that science can help us answer, help us get to a consensus of reasonableness. I don't know where exactly that point is, the cut-off, but with some coming together, and the application of science and common sense we could find it - as a society.

Please see my post (#14) below. :)

:silly:

another abortion thread by a man.

n/t

:)

... titled Billions and Billions: Thoughts on Life and Death at the Brink of the Millennium.

It's a very pro-choice essay, as I read it. That quote does not give the context of his position on the issue.

Sagan says, basically, that abortions ought to be permitted early on, but not late in pregnancy in the case of a healthy fetus.

He goes on to note that this is exactly what Roe v. Wade stipulates. His argument seemed to me to be one of support for our nation's current law on abortion.

Sagan was a lucid thinker, and it's well worth picking up some of his books.

it's where we as a party should be headed...

more infants will die TODAY from improper use of car seats than ALL the late-term whimsical abortions over the next ten years.

Why not fight that issue?

How interesting.

Please, do expound on this concept.

I'd dearly love to hear about it.

Cletus

Has there been a massive run of 9 mos. pregos to abortion clinics that I missed? This is so stupid. Women have a right to make decisions about their bodies. Until the fetus leaves the body, the woman has the right to decide whether she's going to die over it or not.

Even the misnamed "partial birth abortion."

I think Carl would be rather upset with you.

It's about how you should approach the issue. That's what I'm talking about.

mind your own business.

You are not hurt in any way when a woman has an abortion AT ANY TIME.

at some point that fetus is more like a regular baby. there is a societal interst, there just is and that's where we are headed anyway, so there.

to define and specify this "societal interest". You have yet to do so.

society has an interest in keeping its members from being killed.

According to some, a fertilized egg "might be a human life". That would argue for outlawing ALL abortion.

In fact, some people claim that the "potential" for life is the same as life, and was the religious argument against male masturbation for centuries. Should we outlaw that, too?

No, you haven't explained why society has a more compelling interest in what a woman carries in her womb than the woman herself does.

a fetus can survive on its own and even has thoughts and feelings...

a majority will believe this and arrive at this point...

there will be restrictions and some accountability in the latter stages...

such an outcome is reasonable and sane...

the situation as it exists today. So why all the angst?

read the last Harpers, extensive article...not like that...

referred to this article at least 10 times, but haven't quoted a single line, fact, figure or argument from it.


The LAW today provides for the restrictions you want. If you want to go into detail about what kind of enforcement you'd like to see, go for it. But you're fighting mightily to keep the status quo at this point, and that's sort of silly.

just trust me on this one point - read that article - it's very, very informative...

I will not trust you on this one point, or any other.

alright, it's your loss more than it is mine...

with the repercussions.

Ugh.

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

You're really convincing me now.

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

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

Because I've been doing some thinking lately on the subject -- the fine line between fetuses and babies, and what makes fetuses so much more holier than thou.

I think it has to do with the Christian belief that we are all sinners. Once you are born you are a wretched sack of shit, full of sinning and evil ways, apparently. But prior to that you are some sainted, pure specimen of personhood. The ONLY time in your "life" in fact, that you qualify as a perfect, unbesmirched being.

I think that is really at the root of this anti-abortion obsession. It's considered on par with killing an angel, even to those who aren't officially religious, but have been steeped in the dogma of every person being a sinner -- simply by virtue of having been born.

I think you're right that's how a lot of the op. rescue types look at it - but they have a radical agenda that goes far beyond abortion. With those types there can be no reasonable compromise.

Possibly analogous to how many people are more infuriated by cruelty against animals than against humans because animals are "innocent." Although, on an intellectual level, nobody would advocate the former having MORE severe penalties than the latter. Equal, maybe.

Sagan was a brilliant thinker, something sorely lacking in America today. Makes me mad that someone with a mind like his died of cancer at age 63 and that morons like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are still walking around.

There is no justice.

By the way, Sagan was pro-choice.

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

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

Too many threads spreading on the same thing - repetitive