thanks for getting my mind in gear ( again ) dg. i normally never comment on these types of issues but i would like to see a valid argument against what i have to say---- those who know me, know that i am an economic conservative/ libertarian ( in the classical sense) and lean to the liberal side for social issues. HOWEVER, logic leads me to side with the conservative right on the abortion issue. no one knows for sure when human life begins--- is it at conception or at the moment of birth--- who knows ?? it is because of this unknowable factor that i must side with the pro life stance. erring on the side of the possibility that the fetus may be viable human life is WAY better than erring on the other side thereby killing an innocent human life for convenience. the bobcathy argument that it is my body and i'll do what i want with it, is logically flawed. yes, i agree, do WHATEVER you want with your body. however, the fetus is not YOUR BODY. it may be a separate human life before it is born, and most definitely is after birth. this goes back to my original treatise that one must err on the side of life. if the fetus is a separate human life inside the female and it is aborted--- the blood is on your hands, baby. i look forward to hearing the other side. best, surfer
The other side? Imagine a world dominated by women, and they passed a law that men could not scratch their ass or adjust their balls, fart, masturbate, spit, or do something with their bodies the women deemed not appropriate. Imagine forced sterilization by women of men who got women pregnant out of wedlock. If women as a group, decide what can and cannot be done to their bodies, fine. However, shouldn't they be the ones to decide, and not men? It is about a woman's right to choose, not have that right dictated by men.
I wonder if the 6 of you who voted 'yes' would feel the same way if <b>you</b> made the mistake of knocking up some dumb annoying slut. The argument of 'it couldn't happen to me, I always wear a condom' is <b> not </b> valid, as those things break or slip off sometimes.
What I have yet to see in mass, and why I believe the "right to lifers" are disingenuous, is that they have not generated large pools of money to take care of bastard children born out of wedlock, when a man refuses to take responsibility for participating in the process of impregnating a woman he was not willing to marry and support financially. They are anti abortion, and at the same time very often anti welfare and other public and government means to care for poor children who are not at fault for having been born into circumstances like a 14 year old mother on crack. When I see that the right to lifers embrace the children born due to repeal of abortion laws with the same degree of love and financial support they show their own children, I might have a bit more respect for their point of view. I also cannot support the extremist "right to lifers" who bomb abortion clinics and kill doctors who perform abortion. This is just evil, to kill in the name of their cause. Barbaric.
here's my 'other side': who cares when it 'really' begins! the only reason killing is 'wrong' is because, generally, we don't like it. there's nothing about that is intrinsically wrong about it. so when it comes to killing a fetus, it's obvious that hardly anyone really sheds a tear about it. obviously nobody ever really knew the fetus, formed any attachments to it, so no one is really gonna mourn its death. hell, if its own mother is willing to go through with it, that says it all.
A lot of men live under such harsh restrictions already 777, in bad marriages. But the point is an excellent one and the others you made are important. The abortion rights issue is one that touches upon conceptions of such fundamental rights, the seemingly inviolable right to one's own body, the right to life, of a fetus, viable or not. Surf's argument is somewhat flawed. Viability was the basis for certain of the Supreme court's decision as they marked the 24 week point in gestation, the stage of viablity outside the mother as deemed by the medical establishment, as the beginning of personhood for the fetus and the protective rights so accorded it. Thus under Roe V. Wade ( I think, maybe this was decided later) the 6 month point made abortion illegal. However, this is unsatisfying to many and outrageous to some since the right to life in this case seems to be arbitrary and illogical. If the fetus can't survive ex-utero it is okay to abort but if it can survive it cannot be aborted. This counterintuitive idea compounds one of the real tragic elements to the entire issue, the lack of defense by the unborn. The other tragic element is forcing the full term pregnancy and condemning a child to be born to a mother which does not want it. There seem to be inconsistencies on both sides of the aisle. The majority of pro-lifers support capital punishment and the majority of pro-choice oppose capital punishment. If the sanctity of life is to be respected as a fundamental precept, then capital punishment must be opposed. This is the view of the Catholic church. There are fundamental rights at stake and significant social policy questions in a world of diminishing resources and extreme population growth. There are 6 billion people and in 40 years there will be 10 billion. I recall in another thread that someone noted that the Chinese have a cost effective method of dispatching with its drug dealers: they are shot in the head. The Chinese government also encourages abortion as a population control. The issues of diminishing natural resources against a growing population in my opinion will eventually prevail over the fundamental questions. Much of the heat in the abortion rights issue can be removed by harnessing and promoting the advancing medical and pharmeceutical technologies that can more safely easily and effectively prevent pregancy. The problem here is that the pro-life lobby has been effective in staving off the introduction of new birth control methods, several of which have been developed in Europe. For the pro-life movement, the issue is not just about protecting the unborn, it is about opposing lifestyle choices that threaten a sense of social order.
Hmmm. This argument is not theoretical to me. I am now past menopause, so pregnancy is not an issue now. I was taking birth control and got pregnant twice. While I was married to a good Catholic, by the man who is now my husband but then was a boyfriend. I did not hesitate to have an abortion twice within a year. And got permantently sterilized after. You see, pregnancy would have resulted in a retarded and deformed baby. So it is not wrong in my eyes. It always cracks me up when men decide what is right for women. They have no friggin clue.
And Rearden...... heaven forbid I should have a baby with a guy who thought I was a dumb annyoying slut!
Then that mother and her sexual partner are irresponsible. The only situations that deserve consideration for abortion is in the case of rape and when a fetus is likely to be born deformed. People shouldn't be having sex if they're not prepared for the possible consequences of their actions. A couple that uses birth control should be ready to accept the responsibility should the birth control fail. And let me ask this - why do healthy fetuses have to be aborted? Why can't they be carried to term and then put up for adoption? Abortion because having to carry a baby to term would be inconvenient or embarrassing or delay moving up the corporate ladder for a few months is not, in my opinion, morally justifiable. Since you brought it up, I donât care if this is the view of the Catholic church. I really donât. There is a vast difference between an innocent, unborn fetus and a criminal whose crimes have been deemed so horrific that society decided he/she no longer deserves to live. This is not an âinconsistencyâ, but common sense. So you have about a billion pro-choicers advocating capital punishment of drug dealers. So what? Is your point that the Chinese donât follow Catholic doctrine? How will it prevail? What is important to remember is that the US, like that of most developed countries, is experiencing little or slow population growth. In the case of Japan, population growth is so slow that the nation will soon face a crisis of not having enough young people to contribute taxes for and care for the burgeoning elderly ranks. It is in the poor developing nations where population growth is most rapid. You have had a situation of âdiminishing natural resourcesâ in these countries with swelling populations for decades. The poor, uneducated people there with little or no access to health centers let alone birth control methods will continue to pop out babies with the frequency they have for decades, nay centuries. As for Roe vs. Wade, it is a non-issue in regions that contribute to most of the worldâs population growth. With condom use and oral contraceptives currently available that, if used in combination with each other, are effective to a percentile in the high 90's, the margin of error is small. You seem to want a 100% effective system that will remove the burden of sexual responsibility entirely. I think you have a visceral hatred of the classic pro-lifer and want to build policy around it. You make no sense to me.
Agree that irresponsibility is rampant among both men and women in the bedroom. So your solution to the problem is to punish them by forcing an unwanted child to be born, and likely to be raised in a less than suitable environment? Great solution. Hell, as long as you are into the government deciding these important issues, why not punish the sexually irresponsible through forced sterilization? That is the kind of approach a country like Red China would take.