PJM/ On Liberty and Abortion

[alexey]

Humans have been placed above animals,trying to group fetuses with them goes against science

We don't allow killing those humans you claim we let die now do we?( doing so w/o excess justification is a crime both here and internationally)

Yes I find it strange when people advocate forcing people to take care of others with their bodies but not with their incomes.

[nonniey]

.......

I also have nothing but respect for pro-choice people (and over time, have moved to that position myself). I know that the beliefs of pro-choice people are also sincere, and that from their point of view, and in the way they view the world and define "individual autonomy", the only reasonable ethical decision is being pro-choice.

.......QUOTE]

Even SoCalSkins position as outlined in the last two or three pages? What shocks me is that the pro-choice crowd in this forum hasn't come out forcefully condemning what he is espousing.

[Tweedr01]

Also, those who are supposedly so staunchly pro-life are hypocrites when faced with their own decisions. According to studies, over 90% of prenatal cases that are diagnosed with Down's Syndrome end in elective abortion. I am sure that 90% includes a huge chunk of pro life people, unless God only gives pro-abortion couples kids with Down's Syndrome so they can abort them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome#Abortion_rates

There's so much wrong with this ASSUMPTION it's not even worth the time.

[Predicto]

I certainly agree resolution is more likely through educating and enlightening the individuals.

the first step is recognizing what they truly are

What they truly are from your point of view, of course.

To a pro-choice person, the idea that a few cells attached to the lining of a woman's uterus has rights that trump the rights of the woman herself is simply preposterous. To a pro-life person, the idea that a "person" can be murdered in the womb is preposterous. How you define the question provides the inevitable answer.

---------- Post added March-7th-2013 at 12:01 PM ----------

.......

Even SoCalSkins position as outlined in the last two or three pages? What shocks me is that the pro-choice crowd in this forum hasn't come out forcefully condemning what he is espousing.

Sorry, I haven't been tracking the thread until now. I think SoCalSkins is pissed off and is on the attack, and it isn't helping. Nor does it help when someone compares pro-choice position to Nazi Germany.

The thing is, I don't know what helps. I have never seen a discussion on this issue that doesn't devolve into fingerpointing "you're a misogynist" "you're a murderer" etc. It is inevitable. Both sides are sure they are correct, and both sides think the other side is hypocritical or worse. :whoknows:

[twa]

Yes I find it strange when people advocate forcing people to take care of others with their bodies but not with their incomes.

every taxpayer here is forced to take care of others with a portion of their income

I will settle for sciences point of view in this matter Predicto, what is commonly aborted is no mere clump of cells

as to the trumping of rights,it seems a deceptive track when one right is survival of a innocent individual

deny them humanity,personhood and right to life if you wish....but at least drop the clump of cells and equating them to beasts lines.

[SoCalSkins]

Sorry, I haven't been tracking the thread until now. I think SoCalSkins is pissed off and is on the attack, and it isn't helping. Nor does it help when someone compares pro-choice position to Nazi Germany.

I am not pissed off and not on the attack. Pretending that the clump of cells is not an early human life is only done to make everyone feel better about it. I believe it is justifiable to end a human life in the womb for any reason prior to the child being able to breathe on it's own without severe risk of mental injury which is around 26 weeks. I also think it is reasonable to give the option to parents of children that have genetic abnormalities that severely restrict the quality of life to terminate anytime until the end of pregnancy and I am advocating legalizing euthanasia for the same decision to be made after birth with the guidance of physicians.

Reality is that people will limit the number of children they have and it benefits the families and society to bring the most likely to prosper into the world to take advantage of the limited resources and opportunities or at least provide that choice to those who want to make that decision.

[nonniey]

---------- Post added March-7th-2013 at 12:01 PM ----------

[/color]

Sorry, I haven't been tracking the thread until now. I think SoCalSkins is pissed off and is on the attack, and it isn't helping. Nor does it help when someone compares pro-choice position to Nazi Germany.

The thing is, I don't know what helps. I have never seen a discussion on this issue that doesn't devolve into fingerpointing "you're a misogynist" "you're a murderer" etc. It is inevitable. Both sides are sure they are correct, and both sides think the other side is hypocritical or worse. :whoknows:

Unfortunately for what he is espousing Nazi Germany is good comparison. Read what he posted.

[Predicto]

every taxpayer here is forced to take care of others with a portion of their income

I will settle for sciences point of view in this matter Predicto, what is commonly aborted is no mere clump of cells

as to the trumping of rights,it seems a deceptive track when one right is survival of a innocent individual

deny them humanity,personhood and right to life if you wish....but at least drop the clump of cells and equating them to beasts lines.

I'm sorry, but this is exactly the kind of thing I am talking about. You can't just claim that "science" is on your side. Science doesn't decide when something becomes a "person." "Science" doesn't decide when something becomes an "innocent individual" as opposed to a dependent clump of cells. Those aren't scientific questions.

I know you are sincere in your views, but sometimes I doubt if you understand that pro-choice people are just as sincere in their own views.

---------- Post added March-7th-2013 at 12:26 PM ----------

Unfortunately for what he is espousing Nazi Germany is good comparison. Read what he posted.

I read what he posted. I've read it a hundred times, in one form or another.

[twa]

I'm sorry, but this is exactly the kind of thing I am talking about. You can't just claim that "science" is on your side. Science doesn't decide when something becomes a "person." "Science" doesn't decide when something becomes an "innocent individual" as opposed to a dependent clump of cells. Those aren't scientific questions.

it does determine human and individual.....in most cases the innocent and person is a naturally a accepted fact w/o evidence to the contrary.

why should they be a exception to the rule?

[nonniey]

[/color]

I read what he posted. I've read it a hundred times, in one form or another.

Sooooo? How can you not see that espousing the killing of people, that have been already born, because they likely will be a burden on society is similar to Nazi policy. How do you dismiss his support of Eugenics?

[alexey]

every taxpayer here is forced to take care of others with a portion of their income

I will settle for sciences point of view in this matter Predicto, what is commonly aborted is no mere clump of cells

as to the trumping of rights,it seems a deceptive track when one right is survival of a innocent individual

deny them humanity,personhood and right to life if you wish....but at least drop the clump of cells and equating them to beasts lines.

From science's point of view, we are all just clumps of cells...if that's the "scientific" view you want to take. Science can provide support for many different points of view.

Good luck trying to make progress with a complex moral issue by framing it with simplistic language.

I see abortion as a wedge issue created by some religious and political groups to gain influence. It takes focus away from real suffering experienced by humans with developed nervous systems. Allowing this shift of focus is a moral failure.

[talk show host]

I don't believe it is morally nor ethically abhorrent and those that do should be free to make their own choices when they are faced with them and not impose their beliefs on others.

The consequences of having sex are taking a gamble on which sperm fertilizes that particular egg. In the future for those who want to mitigate the risk, that will likely happen in a petri dish and the parents will choose the best genetic candidate from a dozen or so embryos to implant.

Ending an unwanted human life in its early stages in the womb is a an option that should be available to those who want that choice, whether it's for genetic abnormalities or simply an unwanted child. Those that don't believe it is moral, don't have to make that choice for themselves or their own offspring.

If a parent knowingly brings a child with disabilities into the world that are prenatally diagnosed, I absolutely think it is selfish. They are likely only going to have 1 to 4 kids and they should afford the limited resources and opportunities to those who will make the most out of it. It is literally a gamble on the sperm and the egg and if you can fold your hand and get another one dealt, more power to them for those that want to make that choice. For those that don't, they are straining the resources of society by leaving that child on society to provide medical care and sustenance for the entire life of the child. I think that is selfish, but it's their choice to make.

---------- Post added March-7th-2013 at 08:43 AM ----------

Also, those who are supposedly so staunchly pro-life are hypocrites when faced with their own decisions. According to studies, over 90% of prenatal cases that are diagnosed with Down's Syndrome end in elective abortion. I am sure that 90% includes a huge chunk of pro life people, unless God only gives pro-abortion couples kids with Down's Syndrome so they can abort them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome#Abortion_rates

The basis of civilized society is rule of law. Laws are there to protect our rights and there is no more fundamental right than the right to life.

We all have freedoms, but they all have limits. I am not free to go shoot my wife because she has MS and i dont want to have to deal with her anymore, because that is murder. If a unborn child is considered human (which is the entire basis for this thread), than its life is just as valuable as my wife with MS, and taking that life is also murder. It should not be up to each person to decide what to do with their wife with MS. It should not up to each person to decide what to do with their unborn child, or 1 month old, or 5 year old, to decide whether that life should go on living.

So yes, i do feel its the place of the Law to impose protection of life on others. You should not get to decide to murder a human being because its inconvenient for you, or you try to rationalize that its for the common good so you can sleep at night. And you bring God into the equation, i dont see how its relevant. If youre talking about the God of the Bible, He also condemns sex outside of marriage, but 90 percent of people who claim the beleive in God engage in that. So why should it be shocking that a large percentage of people who claim to be pro-life for religious reasons also get abortions when it suits them? Religion or not, the taking of innocent human life is considered immoral and unethical in all laws.

The crux of the matter is whether or not an unborn child should be considered human. If your answer is Yes, then all abortion is immoral. If your answer is No, then the question becomes "What scientific basis can you establish to draw a line" when the fetus becomes human or not?" It cant be based on an arbitrary law because laws change. It cant be based on viability outside the womb because medical enhancements change that. So, at what point does, life which starts as a fertlized egg, become human?

[alexey]

No the crux of the issue is whether that human with the right to life also has the right to use another person's body.

This is about a conflict of rights.

Let me also clarify in that I am not talking about morality of abortion but legality of it. I agree that abortion is immoral.

[nonniey]

No the crux of the issue is whether that human with the right to life also has the right to use another person's body.

This is about a conflict of rights.

No, other dimensions have been introduced in this thread such as euthanasia after a birth when the child is deemed to be a likely burden on society. And no one from the rest of the pro-choice crowd in this forum seems to be condeming or even challenging that position (on the contrary seems like there has been some defense of the poster for his position).

[DjTj]

What they truly are from your point of view, of course.

To a pro-choice person, the idea that a few cells attached to the lining of a woman's uterus has rights that trump the rights of the woman herself is simply preposterous. To a pro-life person, the idea that a "person" can be murdered in the womb is preposterous. How you define the question provides the inevitable answer.

I don't think you can categorize every "pro-choice person" as someone who believes that a fetus is just a "clump of cells." Clearly, SoCalSkins is not arguing from that perspective, and I have personally have come away from that perspective as well. Maybe it's just getting older, maybe it's knowing people who have had miscarriages, or just being around more babies these days, but I can't really look at a fetus as something less than human anymore.

But I still believe that pro-choice is the right legal framework. The pro-choice umbrella does not make a moral judgment about whether abortion is right or wrong. To be pro-life you must believe that abortion is wrong, but to be pro-choice, you only need to believe that women should have control over their bodies. Pro-choice is just believing that the government's power is limited in controlling an individual's choices about his/her own body. It doesn't matter whether you believe the fetus is alive or not, but there is a period of time when the fetus is inside a woman's body and completely under her control. And the government's power just doesn't extend to that space.

So I think that I can believe that abortion is wrong, and I can try to promote contraception or encourage women to consider adoption rather than advocate for outlawing it. I can believe that government is limited in its ability to limit the choices of individuals, and that the best way to enforce certain moral judgments is through religious groups or other private means.

No the crux of the issue is whether that human with the right to life also has the right to use another person's body.

This is about a conflict of rights.

Let me also clarify in that I am not talking about morality of abortion but legality of it. I agree that abortion is immoral.

There is a moral question that weighs the rights of the child against the rights of the mother. But the legal question is not between mother and child. The legal (constitutional) question is only between the mother and the government. And on that question, the rights of the mother limit the power of the government.

No, other dimensions have been introduced in this thread such as euthanasia after a birth when the child is deemed to be a likely burden on society. And no one from the rest of the pro-choice crowd in this forum seems to be condeming or even challenging that position (on the contrary seems like there has been some defense of the poster for his position).

And I think that a pro-choice position based on the Constitution, rather than moral questions, resolves the differences between abortion and the euthansia scenarios that SoCalSkins has brought up. After birth (and really after the second trimester when the baby is viable), the government can take custody of an unwanted child and make it available for adoption. At that point, it is clearly within the government's power to act. A parent might want to euthanize a suffering child, but we can make laws against that. But we can't make laws about the mother's choices prior to viability.

During the time that a mother is pregnant and the fetus cannot survive on its own, the rights of the woman trump the rights of the government. But once the fetus is viable, government can take the child and can thus outlaw abortion (or euthanasia) from that point forward.

[twa]

From science's point of view, we are all just clumps of cells...if that's the "scientific" view you want to take. Science can provide support for many different points of view.

Good luck trying to make progress with a complex moral issue by framing it with simplistic language.

I see abortion as a wedge issue created by some religious and political groups to gain influence. It takes focus away from real suffering experienced by humans with developed nervous systems. Allowing this shift of focus is a moral failure.

simplistic like comparing them to animals?

Simplistic like we are just a clump of cells?

Denying them right to endure the suffering you complain about is simplistic....as is denying them the right to end their own suffering

[alexey]

No, other dimensions have been introduced in this thread such as euthanasia after a birth when the child is deemed to be a likely burden on society. And no one from the rest of the pro-choice crowd in this forum seems to be condeming or even challenging that position (on the contrary seems like there has been some defense of the poster for his position).

I see questions of taking drastic action to limit individual suffering or questions of resource allocation as fundamentally different questions because they do not involve usage of another person's body.

[SoCalSkins]

The basis of civilized society is rule of law. Laws are there to protect our rights and there is no more fundamental right than the right to life.

Religion or not, the taking of innocent human life is considered immoral and unethical in all laws.

The crux of the matter is whether or not an unborn child should be considered human. If your answer is Yes, then all abortion is immoral. If your answer is No, then the question becomes "What scientific basis can you establish to draw a line" when the fetus becomes human or not?" It cant be based on an arbitrary law because laws change. It cant be based on viability outside the womb because medical enhancements change that. So, at what point does, life which starts as a fertlized egg, become human?

Immoral by whose standards? I pointed to the fact that euthanasia is legal in an advanced Western society in the Netherlands and the fact that despite what people say their political or moral view is, that in reality when given the option to abort a child with Down's Syndrome, over 90% of the people in the USA make that choice. The late development of the lungs will prohibit viability without severe mental damage prior to the 22 to 26 week timeframe regardless of scientific advancements for the foreseeable future.

No, other dimensions have been introduced in this thread such as euthanasia after a birth when the child is deemed to be a likely burden on society. And no one from the rest of the pro-choice crowd in this forum seems to be condeming or even challenging that position (on the contrary seems like there has been some defense of the poster for his position).

My position is based on reality without sugar coating it. Most people would want to at least have those choices available if faced with the reality of having a severely disabled child. The abortion rate of those cases support my position.

[Predicto]

Sooooo? How can you not see that espousing the killing of people, that have been already born, because they likely will be a burden on society is similar to Nazi policy. How do you dismiss his support of Eugenics?

I don't. I don't agree with him. I haven't been talking to him. I made a general statement about how I see both sides of this issue and most people really don't try to do that, because it is really hard. You want to convince the other guy to see it from your side, because you are sure that your side is correct and he just doesn't understand yet. Both sides do that, and they assume the worst of the other side because of it.

It's the hardest ethical dilemma we face, because there really is no mutually acceptable middle ground.

Other than that, I've just been responding to people who spoke directly to me. But to clarify, I don't agree with eugenics.

[alexey]

simplistic like comparing them to animals?

Simplistic like we are just a clump of cells?

Denying them right to endure the suffering you complain about is simplistic....as is denying them the right to end their own suffering

Yes i think there are a lot of simplistic ways of framing this issue.

[Predicto]

simplistic like comparing them to animals?

Simplistic like we are just a clump of cells?

Denying them right to endure the suffering you complain about is simplistic....as is denying them the right to end their own suffering

I expressed the pro-choice position from the pro-choice point of view. I expressed the pro-life position from the pro-life point of view. I respect and understand both of them as absolutely sincere if you begin from the starting point of the person expressing them. I am attacking neither of them.

[twa]

The legal (constitutional) question is only between the mother and the government. And on that question, the rights of the mother limit the power of the government.

....

During the time that a mother is pregnant and the fetus cannot survive on its own, the rights of the woman trump the rights of the government. But once the fetus is viable, government can take the child and can thus outlaw abortion (or euthanasia) from that point forward.

It only becomes simply between the mother and govt because we deny rights.....just as we did with slaves

in that case with got tired of the slave owners asserting their rights and our ignoring the results.

The govt couldn't take what was under their control either....legally

The govt does not take the fetus after viability....it grants it rights to protect it

add

I was wrong above

It finally officially recognizes the childs right to life and fulfills it's legal obligation

[nonniey]

I don't. I don't agree with him. I haven't been talking to him. I made a general statement about how I see both sides of this issue and most people really don't try to do that, because it is really hard. You want to convince the other guy to see it from your side, because you are sure that your side is correct and he just doesn't understand yet. Both sides do that, and they assume the worst of the other side because of it.

It's the hardest ethical dilemma we face, because there really is no mutually acceptable middle ground.

Other than that, I've just been responding to people who spoke directly to me. But to clarify, I don't agree with eugenics.

OK I was worried there for a while. My wife who is prochoice erupted when she saw his comments (Her second son is moderately retarded but works and owns his own house ). According to SoCal she should have had the right to euthanize him and would have been "selffish" not to have excercised that right.

[DjTj]

It only becomes simply between the mother and govt because we deny rights.....just as we did with slaves

in that case with got tired of the slave owners asserting their rights and our ignoring the results.

The govt couldn't take what was under their control either....legally

The govt does not take the fetus after viability....it grants it rights to protect it

The government doesn't grant rights. We have inherent rights. The Constitution restricts the government's ability to infringe those rights.

[nonniey]

I expressed the pro-choice position from the pro-choice point of view. I expressed the pro-life position from the pro-life point of view. I respect and understand both of them as absolutely sincere if you begin from the starting point of the person expressing them. I am attacking neither of them.

What are the Pro Choice and Pro Life positions? DJ who argues from the Pro-choice side pointed out his position earlier, I who argue from the pro-life side have the same position (We both would ban abortions once a fetus is viable). Although, I don't think DJ knows he's backing the wrong side given what he stated earlier and I'd wager most prochoicers don't understand that either. I believe most "prochoicers, want limits on abortion but don't know that currently there are no limits and the side they are supporting wants no limits.