PJM/ On Liberty and Abortion

[alexey]

But we aren't just talking about giving up some secondary rights here. I keep looking the list over trying to give those issues proper attention but here's the block I keep running up against:

Cost: Is it ok to kill a human being who will be independently viable in a few months because of costs necessary to keep it alive?

As a moral standard - no it is not ok. However, we cannot afford to implement this moral standard for all human beings. Where do we go from there?

Ability to feel and understand pain: Is it ok to kill all human beings who can not feel pain or only human beings before they're born. And if I kill them painlessly, what does it matter?

Sentience: Is it ok to kill a human being who is not sentient right now but will be in a few weeks?

I would distinguish between a being with a functioning brain and a being that is a cluster of un-specialized cells. As a moral standard - I do not think that it is moral to kill anything at all...

Morality: Is it ok to kill a human being who will be independently viable in a few months or should we impose a standard of morality on the mother (and culture as a whole) that values the life of human beings?

I do not think that it is moral to kill anything at all... It is impossible for human beings to live up to the proper moral standard.

And so on. Next to the active practice of taking a human life the list feels trivial but my guess is that you are approaching the issues differently. Are you crafting the questions differently in your mind?

I think we are on the same page about moral standards, just not what we should/could do about it.

I just do not see how outlawing abortion will reduce the number of human deaths, victims, and suffering. People are so bent on holding the line... there are so many other possible solutions to this. Could we reduce abortions by providing free birth control, for example? Could the government end up saving some money in the long run? I do not know. Let's talk about solutions.

[mardi gras skin]

I do not think that it is moral to kill anything at all... It is impossible for human beings to live up to the proper moral standard.

I think each of your responses get back to this central point. But specifically, the issue of abortion centers around the killing of human beings in their first stages of development so I think it's reasonable to sidestep the ethics of killing trees, cows, etc.

You believe that killing of human beings (abortion) is not moral but people will kill other human beings so we should focus on making those abortions happen less often. You do not see any benefit in making abortions illegal. I would also like to see us take steps to make abortions more rare but I don't think that should restrain us from taking a clear stance that we reject the rights of all our citizens to kill human beings. Whether or not making abortions illegal would make them more rare (and I'm almost certain it would) our society is not benefited by an ethos that accepts the killing of humans as a right.

We don't think its onerous to impose harsh punishments on a mother who kills a newborn infant. Instead, we find it reprehensible, legally and morally. I think we should extend this concern for human life to humans in all stages of development.

[twist]

that would be controlling interests of the medical profession....not the uterus

there is NO control of the uterus at all....keep thinking.

The ultimate reason for a law is the grounds under which it should be scrutinized.

The reason to ban abortion is to protect unborn life by seizure of the uterus.

[Thiebear]

So you don't think that the government regulating what goes on inside of someone’s body, essentially requisitioning the free use of someone’s uterus for someone else’s benefit is an infringement on them?

My position is that human or no, a child doesn’t have a right to use the mothers body (internal organs in this case) without continued consent.

The woman invited the child into her body, with her own actions 95% of the time.

The choice to remove the inconvenience is the second choice.

Your example is good for Jesus' mom when it comes to infringement?

[twa]

Seizure is forbidding access or intervention by govt regulated personnel to specifically cause death?......are you serious?

[twist]

is forbidding access or intervention by govt regulated personnel to specifically cause death?......are you serious?

Yes:

Seizure a taking possession of an item, property, or person legally or by force.

Forbidding medical procedures in an attempt to control women’s uterus's amounts to taking control of them by force.

The woman invited the child into her body, with her own actions 95% of the time.

The choice to remove the inconvenience is the second choice.

So? You are asserting it's rights to reside there and parasitically live off of her internal organs, even if she doesn’t want it to. This sort of relationship requires continuous consent.

Can you think of another case where we transfer absolute control over someone’s internal organs over to another living person for any purpose?

If we don't do it in any other comparable case then a mere sex act is not going to register as implied concent.

I would not, for instance, be required to donate my spare kidney or a piece of my liver to someone I accidentially injured in a car wreck for instance, even to save their life.

[DRSmith]

so if i flick my neighbor with a metal pen and laugh about it i couldn't have done it without meaning to kill him? btw, yes i am twisting your argument, it's about as dumb as the counter argument you have been going on about

you haven't been called any names, but your argument is completely stupid. you have already been shown why these two scenarios aren't even close to being equal yet you continue to plug your ears, lalalalalalala, and keep it up (that means your argument has been refuted, and it's spelled argument, so can it)

---------- Post added July-15th-2011 at 09:28 AM ----------

lol

I think what you have a problem with is what to defend one groups right to hold life with little or reckless disregard when them deem it is okay to end theirs but what to say that another group is horrible for having the same view.

To me there is no different between the person who walks around prepared to take the life of another in the protection of wealth and self no matter what stage they do it at.

[twa]

I think what you have a problem with is what to defend one groups right to hold life with little or reckless disregard when them deem it is okay to end theirs but what to say that another group is horrible for having the same view.

To me there is no different between the person who walks around prepared to take the life of another in the protection of wealth and self no matter what stage they do it at.

the reckless disregard part is key.....there are restraints on the use of deadly force in effect

if you wish to simply focus on the morality of the two you might be right

the law restrains people like me and perhaps I'm just jealous of mothers right to kill

[alexey]

I think each of your responses get back to this central point. But specifically, the issue of abortion centers around the killing of human beings in their first stages of development so I think it's reasonable to sidestep the ethics of killing trees, cows, etc.

You believe that killing of human beings (abortion) is not moral but people will kill other human beings so we should focus on making those abortions happen less often. You do not see any benefit in making abortions illegal. I would also like to see us take steps to make abortions more rare but I don't think that should restrain us from taking a clear stance that we reject the rights of all our citizens to kill human beings. Whether or not making abortions illegal would make them more rare (and I'm almost certain it would) our society is not benefited by an ethos that accepts the killing of humans as a right.

We don't think its onerous to impose harsh punishments on a mother who kills a newborn infant. Instead, we find it reprehensible, legally and morally. I think we should extend this concern for human life to humans in all stages of development.

I agree.

Let me clarify one thing - I do see a benefit of making abortions illiegal, but I also see a lot of legal and other problems with that.

[DRSmith]

the reckless disregard part is key.....there are restraints on the use of deadly force in effect

if you wish to simply focus on the morality of the two you might be right

the law restrains people like me and perhaps I'm just jealous of mothers right to kill

And what I was pointing under the law code the use of weapon made of iron or metal made it so one could not argue they had no intent to cause death

So you shoot a gun at someone you know it can result in death you can not say oops who would have known that would happen and you accept that fact

A woman knows what will happen also

[mardi gras skin]

Let me clarify one thing - I do see a benefit of making abortions illiegal, but I also see a lot of legal and other problems with that.

Oh, sorry I misunderstood you. I agree. Making abortions illegal will certainly create problems.

I found this article today on RCP that I thought relevant to the discussion. If the fetus isn't a human, there's no problem here. If the fetus is a human being (scientifically speaking, it is), medical advancements are creating even more complex moral issues than the right of a mother to terminate a single human life.

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/follow_the_money/

Although the United States is far bigger and more diverse than Denmark, the development of non-invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD) could make Down syndrome births a rarity there as well. Normally, they account for about 1 birth in 691. But when statistics show that when pregnant women are diagnosed with a DS child, as many as 90 percent terminate it.

Up until now, diagnostic techniques have been invasive and carried a risk of miscarrying the child. A good number of women refuse the testing and some give birth to DS children. But with non-invasive screening, the risk disappears. More women will have the test and nearly all DS children will be aborted.

Some consider this eugenics.(1) Eugenics – selecting people based on genetics out of a belief that it improves the human race – has been taboo since the compulsory sterilization laws in Germany under the Nazis. These evolved into the euthanasia of the disabled and were a precursor to the Holocaust. While no one is predicting government-mandated breeding policies, many people are worried that NIPD is ushering in an era of privatized eugenics.

[Thiebear]

What rights are being given up again:

You chose to have sex 96% of the time.

You then complain about the consequences and scream rights?

That baby is a human you voluntarily sponsored, he or she is not a parasite. Try as you might TWIST the woman created the baby, it did not invade the host as a parasite.

The second choice to remove the bad first choice is what we are discussing.

abortion should be 101% available for any mother that is in jeapordy.

but should not be the first thought in remediation of a bad decision.

[Larry]

Oh, sorry I misunderstood you. I agree. Making abortions illegal will certainly create problems.

I found this article today on RCP that I thought relevant to the discussion. If the fetus isn't a human, there's no problem here. If the fetus is a human being (scientifically speaking, it is), medical advancements are creating even more complex moral issues than the right of a mother to terminate a single human life.

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/follow_the_money/

Actually, I'd read what I think was a factual article (but my memory's vague on this, it could have been a fictional story). I think it was China, where they have a rule that couples are only permitted one child. And supposedly, there was a real rash of parents terminating female children, because they wanted their one child to be male.

Again, going from memory, the government had to make it illegal for the doctor to tell the parents whet the sex of the fetus was.

[twa]

it is happening in many places and a growing trend

http://www.asianwindow.com/society/disappearing-daughters-india-sex-selection-crisis-worsening/

In a culture that predominantly views girls as an expense rather than an asset, women are put under intense pressure to produce sons.

The trend for smaller families is also deepening the aversion to daughters, with the use of ultrasound technology now being used to plan families. This is despite the existence of laws banning prenatal sex detection and sex selective abortion.

ActionAid has also found that girls are more likely to be born but less likely to survive in areas with more limited access to public health services and modern ultrasound technology. In rural Morena and Dhaulpur, deliberate neglect of girls, including allowing the umbilical cord to become infected, is used as a way to dispose of unwanted daughters.

Such neglect ensures fewer surviving daughters, with the best chances of being born and surviving as a girl depending on the birth order in your family.

[HailGreen28]

Defending yourself with a gun = abortion for non-life-threatening situations.

And I thought the idea someone posted killing people based on their voting records, was dumb.

[Hunter44]

I find it funny that the right wants to protect the unborn but then when they're born they want to cut funding to programs to help them.

[Larry]

it is happening in many places and a growing trend

http://www.asianwindow.com/society/disappearing-daughters-india-sex-selection-crisis-worsening/

In a culture that predominantly views girls as an expense rather than an asset, women are put under intense pressure to produce sons.

The trend for smaller families is also deepening the aversion to daughters, with the use of ultrasound technology now being used to plan families. This is despite the existence of laws banning prenatal sex detection and sex selective abortion.

ActionAid has also found that girls are more likely to be born but less likely to survive in areas with more limited access to public health services and modern ultrasound technology. In rural Morena and Dhaulpur, deliberate neglect of girls, including allowing the umbilical cord to become infected, is used as a way to dispose of unwanted daughters.

Such neglect ensures fewer surviving daughters, with the best chances of being born and surviving as a girl depending on the birth order in your family.

Careful, twa. You're pointing out that when abortion is restricted, then people simply arrange for unwanted children to die after they're born.

[Thiebear]

China: Would allow another child if you could pay the bribe: Only the wealthy are worthy?

[twa]

Careful, tea. You're pointing out that when abortion is restricted, then people simply arrange for unwanted children to die after they're born.

nothing new there,but we do frown on THAT to the point of it being criminal......is there a reasonable explanation for a difference in the two?

Is the assistance from licensed medical personnel the game changer....or just breathing air?

---------- Post added July-23rd-2011 at 11:02 AM ----------

I find it funny that the right wants to protect the unborn but then when they're born they want to cut funding to programs to help them.

And the left wants to give out rewards in their little game of Survivor

unfortunately the contestants don't even enter of their free will.

What would you think if I suggested the same game for those needing assistance after they were born?....the more we kill off the bigger the pie for the lucky ones

Who's up for raising the needy's quality of life w/o their consent thru attrition?

[sportjunkie07]

This is how I view it. If you separate the embryo from the mother then it can't live, so it is not yet human. I for one would never want the women I was with to get an abortion, but I don't believe I have the right to tell another American what they can or cannot do. I am pro-life personally, but pro-choice in society.

if you seperate a baby from its mother its not going to live, that doesnt mean its not human.

[Hunter44]

Well maybe if the right was into something more than abstinence only for birth control. lol

In a perfect world we'd all be good little Christians keeping their wee-wees in their pants and then being fruitful and multiplying when we got married. Still doesn't solve the issue with having to many mouths to feed and not enough resources to support them but hey, we could always pray for some help.

[sportjunkie07]

I'm an "unborn baby is a person from conception" guy.

As a result, I am against abortion but not for religious reasons (even though I am a Christian).

My principles mandate that all individuals have very clear rights up until their rights intrude upon the rights of another individual.

I do not believe that the act of carrying a child (a result of a conscious act 99.99% of the time, rape and incest only result in a pregnancy less than one percent of all pregnancies) is an infringement on the mother's rights as an individual.

Therefore, I cannot ever agree with abortion, except in the very few instances where the unborn's life is a danger to the Mother. In that scenario, I can reluctantly provide for ending the baby's life.

i agree with this.

---------- Post added July-23rd-2011 at 11:32 AM ----------

And what I was pointing under the law code the use of weapon made of iron or metal made it so one could not argue they had no intent to cause death

So you shoot a gun at someone you know it can result in death you can not say oops who would have known that would happen and you accept that fact

A woman knows what will happen also

i missed a few pages, but isnt your argument that one should value all life the same? for example, if you are ok with shooting a burglar (with intent to kill or otherwise) than you should be ok with abortion?

i dont see the relation between the two. a burglar is not innocent, he chose to threaten you and your family. a fetus is innocent.

the comparison is on completely different spectrums.

[DRSmith]

No once society is okay with the taking of life in self interests then it you will get what we have now.

People can try to justify it all they want a person can say that another deserved it because they were a thief

Another may justify it by saying they would feel they are not ready to be a mother and they do not feel it is right to bring a person into the world and have them feel unwanted.

[SnyderShrugged]

Well maybe if the right was into something more than abstinence only for birth control. lol

In a perfect world we'd all be good little Christians keeping their wee-wees in their pants and then being fruitful and multiplying when we got married. Still doesn't solve the issue with having to many mouths to feed and not enough resources to support them but hey, we could always pray for some help.

Interesting that you somehow believe that the "Right" believes only in abstinence for birth control. Where do you get this belief from?

[Hunter44]

Interesting that you somehow believe that the "Right" believes only in abstinence for birth control. Where do you get this belief from?

Maybe I should've said "Christian right"? But really, anything about family planning from the right is about abstinence, nothing about condom use or other forms of birth control is even mentioned (rarely). Particularly when it comes to the education of the youth.