Something to ponder in the Rowe vs Wade decision:

[Sandman]

But it is not a choice, but a RESPONSIBILITY to bring the baby to term.

That is one opinion. Fortunately, the Supreme Court of the United States doesn't share it.

[Zigrat]

saying its a womans right to choose is idiotic!


if it is why cant she kill it after it has been born, its still a parasite by santas definition. a newborn cant live without its mother.

sorry but i think you pro choicers are idiots. saying its someones choice to kill someone.

[Sandman]

"If you don't agree with me, you're an idiot..."

Whoa... nice argument Zig... I think that did the trick. Everyone is changing their mind now that the name calling has begun. Bravo.

[Zigrat]

sorry i said your an idiot, but there is no way you can defend its the womans right to choose what she does with her body, since your argument also would mean laws against things like child abuse are also not valid. Do you like child abuse?


According to you, its the womans right not to work. therefore her right not to make enough money to buy food. thereore her right to malnourish her child.

a person's right to do what they want with their body ends when it inflicts harm on someone else.

[SOB]

Good lord Zig, what in the hell are you talking about.  Remove a baby from the mother's womb and chances are it won't survive.  Remove a baby from a mother's home and all it needs is another person to take care of it.  And remember, just because you may think it's a person from the moment of conception doesn't mean everyone else does.  

I must say tho', your idiot argument was pretty compelling, and I'm beginning to see the light!  


SOB

[Sandman]

Ah... now you've hit on the crux of the entire argument. Is a fetus a person and does it have the same rights as a post-birth human? If so, do those rights supercede those of the host (mother)?

I don't own a womb. I'm not about to tell a woman what she can and can't do with her womb or any other part of her body.

Oh... and Eagler, the left isn't pro-abortion. The left is pro-choice. There is a difference. The left doesn't want the government or anyone else meddling with a woman's right to make decisions regarding her body.

Let's take the pro-life argument one step further. Assume that a woman has no choice regarding abortion and all pregnancies must be taken to term. What if it was discovered that the fetus suffered from spin a bifida (or any other inutero treatable disease) just like the story posted. Would the woman have a choice about surgically treating the fetus or would she have no right to choose that either?

[ 07-01-2001: Message edited by: Sandman_SBM ]

[Zigrat]

please note what i said:

a person's right to do what they want with their body ends when it inflicts harm on someone else.

treating birth defects in utero is not inflicting harm on someone else.


Also note that I am not an opponent of "mercy killing" -- i believe in freedom of choice, as long as it doesn't harm someone else.


Since you guys (some of you) define the beginning of human life at birth, what about the mothers and doctors who have performed/had performed abortions where there was life after the fetus was removed. The fetus was then terminated. According to you, this should be a clear case of murder? Or at the very least manslaughter.


I'm not opposed to abortion in the case of the mother's life being in danger - i view this as very similar to the right to defend yourself when confronted by deadly force by an assalant. Its a similar thing. In the case of rape or incest, the woman didn't choose to have intercourse, and therefore didn't willingly expose herself to the risk of pregnancy, so I think that in these cases it should also be allowed.

[Toad]

Fellow Farmers,

Did we not plow this same field a short time ago?

 

Right to choose? I guess so. I believe you will be held accountable for what you did in life at some time after death. The Supremes said "let there be choice". And so there was.

If there's a hearafter, the ones that run that will probably have a firm idea on "when life begins". Waving Roe V Wade at the powers that be in any such afterlife may not help your case. Or it might.  

If ya just die and there's nothing.. well, no sweat then, eh?


Now, how about the Right To Pay?

I really, really think all these people that have the right to choice also have the right to pay the bills for the choice.

Want an abortion? Fine; upon your head. Oh, BTW, when they want to be paid, YOU pay them.

No need for my funding via the vehicle of Federal or State taxes. (Considering the usual exceptions.. rape, mother's health, etc.)

Bet that's not a popular idea is it? If I could, I'd choose not to support abortion for any birth control type reason with my taxes.

I am now ready to recieve your slings and arrows... but I'm probably not going to respond. I'm trying to cut down on "posts in previously plowed ground."

Enjoy!

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Zigrat:
treating birth defects in utero is not inflicting harm on someone else.

It is if you're the woman. Bet it even leaves a scar.

And... I noted what you said. here I'll say it again: Ah... now you've hit on the crux of the entire argument. Is a fetus a person and does it have the same rights as a post-birth human? If so, do those rights supercede those of the host (mother)?

 

I'm not opposed to abortion in the case of the mother's life being in danger - i view this as very similar to the right to defend yourself when confronted by deadly force by an assalant. Its a similar thing. In the case of rape or incest, the woman didn't choose to have intercourse, and therefore didn't willingly expose herself to the risk of pregnancy, so I think that in these cases it should also be allowed.

And who is going to screen these cases to make sure it's justified? The government? That's the entire point of pro-choice. Pro-choice means let the woman decide if the abortion is warranted without government involvement and all of the bureaucratic wickets that come with that.

You see, there's room for anti-abortionists in the pro-choice world. Welcome! Of course, your influence with regard to abortions doesn't extend beyond your own womb. Cool huh?

[ 07-02-2001: Message edited by: Sandman_SBM ]

[SOB]

Sounds pretty reasonable to me Toad...why should you or anyone else's taxes have to pay for a procedure that's unecessary.  Of course, that may mean we'll all be paying to help raise the kid later...d'oh!  


SOB

[StSanta]

toad:

I believe we *are* plowing some new ground  .

Earlier discussions haven't been as well articulated as this one, with a few notable exceptions.

Zigrat, I find it unfortunate that you describe pro choicers as "idiots" - I believe several pro choicers involved in this discussion have a substantial intelligence. I'm as much an idiot as I am an Einstein  .

One point brought up by llb I think is that there's a difference between being pro choice and being pro abortion. I don't think most pro choicers see abortion as a very good and healthy thing that is enjoyable and fun and should be advocated. It's a medical procedure and as such carries with it physical risks. beyond that there's a substantial mental burden to be shouldered.

Toad, you bring up an interesting aspect of this discussion; the religious one. I suspect yours is based on the western Judeo-Christian deity and you suggest that man's laws are arbitrary, and in the end we shall all be judged by the Great Arbitrator in the life to come after this one is done with.

I have no qualms with this sort of argument, as long as one remembers the basic "freedom of religion" or "freedom from religion" that's a constitutional right in the US (I do believe the US constitution is an extremely fine legal document and basis for a society).

As such it really should not be used as an argument for pro life. It could be seen as pushing your religious beliefs unto others and if done so by the government, it would quite clearly be unconstitutional. It's something to consider, however, for women with Christian beliefs.

I cannot take that argument to heart. Not so much because I'm a non theist, but because the premises on which it is based is, in my opinion, weak.

I'd argue that it's based on Pascal's Wager. for those unfamiliar with it, it goes something like:

If you are a Christian and there is a God, you go to heaven. If you are a Christian and there ain't, nothing happens.

On the other hand, if you're a non theist and there is a God, you go to hell. If there ain't, nothing happens. Therefore, it is better to bet on the odds and you have nothing to lose if you're a Christian.

There are several flaws in this argument, some logical ones. If needed I can point to a website maintained by a friend which deals with it in detail. I only need one to illustrate my point: what if the God is barney the Atheist Loving god, which sends all believers to hell, and non theists to heaven?

My point being, that despite what god's words in the bible say, even Christians admit that god's will and ways cannot be comprehended by a feeble human mind. As such, it serves no purpose second guessing him/her/it. The bible itself does not say anything directly about abortion - all passages are rather open for interpretation. I've had this discussion before and won't mind having it again  . it basically boils down to the separation of soul and matter and when ensoulment takes place.

At any rate, the religious argument is, based on the bible, not very strong because there are numerous references to abortions in the bible, some done by god or ordered by god. The bible is also very clear on when a human is granted personhood, which involved being given a soul, and that is *not* at conception.

Gotta love it; I have this guy who's a Jehova's Witness who's teaching me the bible. he probably thinks he can convert me, but I see it as very educational and I've found passages that contain some gold nuggets of wisdom.

At any rate, it's only women who're up for condemnation, since they're doing the "killing". Well, and some few male doctors.

[hblair]

Ok Pro-Choicers, Tell me the exact moment a fetus becomes a child.

Well?

You guys have probably never been around a real-life abortion clinic, or if ya have you were too stoned to figure out what you were doing. You guys are brainwashed into thinking abortion is some "right" of the mother.<american flag waving proudly in the background> I visited a clinic 11 years ago. I paid 300 bucks to have my first-born torn from its mothers womb and thrown away. And you know what really stinks? I talked her into it. My (now) wife wanted to have the baby. I knew right from wrong, but I chose the easy way. If that abortion would have been harder to get, I'd now have 4 children instead of 3. My oldest would be going itno the 5th grade. Think about what I just said. It's that simple.

Abortion is tearing a developing baby from its mothers womb. It is a sad thing that we should try to prevent.
If there is a law passed that infringes on some womens rights but saves the lives of many babies, doesn't the infringement of *rights* not get outweighed by the lives that would be saved?

The long-winded posts make you think "hmmm, yeah,  these pro-choicers have it figured out, who are WE to tell the mom what to do?!?! I mean this is the new millenium man! Get with the program!"

No thanks, you guys can have your program, I'm gonna try to help prevent others from screwing up like I did.

Don't be blinded by BS.

[ 07-02-2001: Message edited by: hblair ]

[Sandman]

Originally posted by hblair:
Ok Pro-Choicers, Tell me the exact moment a fetus becomes a child.

Here ya go:

Main Entry: vi·a·ble
Pronunciation: 'vI-&-b&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: French, from Middle French, from vie life, from Latin vita -- more at VITAL
Date: circa 1832
1 : capable of living; especially : capable of surviving outside the mother's womb without artificial support <the normal human fetus is usually viable by the end of the seventh month>

[Eagler]

<S> hblair
major courage to share such an intimate life changing and personal experience as you just did.

I had a similar experience with my oldest son, 22 years old, and one of his "girlfriends". He paid for her abortion not even knowing if it was his child, not even knowing if she was truly pregnant. Seemed she'd been down that road before. He was scared into acting irrationally after acting irresponsibly by having unprotected sex out of wedlock. His mother and I did not know of the situation until after. Makes me sick everytime I think of it..
Today's "young adults" are a real confused bunch. Makes us 70's kids look like Einstein’s...

So don't tell me abortion isn't used PRIMARILY as a last resort birth control method ... anyone else wanna get down and dirty with a personal experience of this legalized murder?? Maybe one that was a glorious experience for the mother and/or family? I doubt it!

[ 07-02-2001: Message edited by: Eagler ]

[hblair]

lol sandman. You cut and pasted the definition of "viable"  .

My point was that there are premature babies being born who live at much less gestation periods thanks to modern medicine.

[ 07-02-2001: Message edited by: hblair ]