aliali

You can kick me out of the house, but you don't get to crush my skull, kill me, and then flush me out through the sewer. That's not life, its death.

I'm just trying to figure it out, really I am. Are you saying that the baby/fetus is worthy of protection, but that the mother's decision supercedes the baby/fetus' status? Some argue that the baby/fetus is simply not worthy of protection at all.

If the 13th Amendment applies, then all prohibitions on abortion are prohibited by the constitution up to the very minute of birth. Do you agree.

daswig

frankly, I think that retroactive abortion should be legal until the fetus is 21 years old. OK, I'm kidding. Sort of. As long as the baby is inside the mother and hasn't taken it's first breath, it's still just tissue in my book. And I have a 4 month old daughter.

Kicking you out of the house has the same effects as crushing skulls, et cetera, when referring to a fetus.

Actually, my position is that the MOTHER deserves extra protection because she's in a particularly vulnerable state with being pregnant and all.

Oh yeah, I also support government funded abortion...and think the government should offer a small bounty (like $50-200 per abortion) to women that have abortions. Why? Because it's a lot cheaper to pay for an abortion and give the woman some cash than to incarcerate the unwanted and abused child later, or simply to pay for the kid's medical coverage on welfare. I also support cash payments for voluntary sterilization.

Lebell

I did not adress the issue of "rights". I was specifically addressing someone saying that a fetus wasn't a living thing.

To address your point, neither will a tumor ever turn into an automonous human being.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

aliali

Kicking a fetus/baby out of the house does kill the fetus, but you can kick me out of your house, you don't get to kill me first.

O.K., the mother gets extra protection. Does the baby/fetus get any? Is it o.k. to prosecute third parties for murder of the baby/fetus if it is just tissue untill first breath?

Manx

Beyond that being a poor caricature of an extreme left wing social initiative ("let's get you pregnant so you can get paid for an abortion and then we can afford some more crack" ... I can almost hear Limbaugh complaining about the idea already), why stop there? Government cash for organs! Government cash for votes! It'll cut costs.

daswig

Kicking a fetus out of the womb normally results in the death of the fetus, yes? The baby gets protection as soon as the fetus starts breathing.

If somebody causes a woman to miscarry against her will, what is the appropriate thing to charge the attacker with? Because assault and battery doesn't cut it.

daswig

Somehow, I doubt even the most crack-addicted person would try to get knocked up to get crack months later. An abortion is a traumatic procedure, that can be very hard on the mother. Wouldn't they be more likely to steal stuff from wal-mart to get crack right then than try to get pregnant, which would get them paid months later? And it wasn't meant as a caricature, it's a serious proposal.

hannukah harry

it's called an analogy... hello...

why should the fetus get protection of any sort? until it is viable, it is completely dependent on the mother. yes, it may one day become an autonomous being, but there is no gauruntee until it takes its first breath. if the woman wants to bring the fetus to term, that's her right. but if she doesn't want to house a parasite, that should also be her right. it may one day be an independent human being, but until born, it is nothing more than an intruder in the womans body (assuming she doesn't want it... it could also be a welcomed guest). the point is that it's up to her to decide. if she doesn't want to house it, then she should be free to terminate it. unfortunatly there aren't other options like sending the fetus to a halfway house like we could do with someone that's been evicted from their home (rather than letting them freeze/starve in the street)... but when it comes to abortion there are only 2 extremes, and i have to side with the already viable human being over the fetus.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

Tarl Cabot

I haven't seen anyone debating whether or not cancer is a "person."


I've got a sonogram of my son sucking his thumb in utero.

Know what? He sucked his thumb the day he was born, and for years afterward. Other than his lungs inflating, I don't think he changed a whole lot in the ten minutes or so it took him to get out (C-section).

He's 19 now, and as far as I can tell, his oral habits now involve human female breasts of a similar vintage.

Tarl Cabot

So what changes on day one of life? Why can't she pay someone to suck its brains out of its skull if it cries a lot that first day? It's just an intruder in her house at that point, and it certainly isn't "autonomous."


Or she could allow the fetus to live, and put it up for adoption the instant it's born, if she wants to.

Stompy

I don't know why people think they know when a life begins.

I really don't.

You don't know. I don't know. None of us do.

Until then, the fact remains: it is legal to get an abortion. It is illegal to forcfully kill a mother's baby. The two are very different and very obvious to the point where it doesn't really need explaining. These things were considered by the supreme court as well as any other judge who has made a decision against a third party killing a fetus of a pregnant mother.

I don't know why exactly that's so hard to grasp.

Yes, people have wonderful children all the time. We all know what a fetus can grow into.. but until it is at that stage where it can live outside of the host, it's fair game to the mother if she makes a choice to abort it. I know it's not something that everyone agrees with, but you can't really tell someone what they can or cannot do with their bodies. That's ultimately what this boils down to.

It's NOT fair game for some random person to decide, "I don't want you to have this baby." That decision is NOT the same as a mother who doesn't want to carry and nurture a fetus.

__________________
I love lamp.

SecretMethod70

From my perspective, this discussion has gotten a bit off topic. Stompy is correct: it's futile to debate when human life begins. And, really, for the sake of this debate, it doesn't matter. I don't care if you're pro-life or pro-choice. What I'm seeking is consistancy - in opinion and in the law. The former must occur before the latter is able. I do not believe what the laws SAYS right now has any bearing on the discussion. I am approaching this from a theoretical viewpoint seeking to create a BETTER concept of law that is not defined by our own emotions and interests, but in logical extrapolations of our worldly assessments. The law once said that blacks were 3/5 of a human as well, however we can all agree (except art I suppose, who doesn't recognize the concept of rights) that it was the LAW that was wrong and inconsistant in that instance.

There are essentially two possible outlooks here:

The pro-life outlook: the clump of cells is a HUMAN life and, thus, has rights of its own. One unalienable human right which all civilized societies recognize is the right to life. If the clump of cells is a HUMAN life, then it is necessary to recognize that the clump of cells has this unalienable right. In a consistant outlook, abortion is illegal except in cases where it can be considered self-defense or accidental.

The pro-choice outlook: the clump of cells is ALIVE (which is what Lebell was getting at) but not a HUMAN life. Since it is not a human life, it does not have an unalienable right to life. Also, since it is not a human life, it is an extension of the mother's biological being. Thus, the mother has every right to terminite the life of the clump of cells. It is then necessary, from a legal standpoint, to decide a point after which the clump of cells becomes a HUMAN life and gains the unalienable rights referred to in the pro-life position. For the sake of this discussion, I don't care when that point is. What I'm interested in is that the point which we consider the clump of cells to become a human life does not conveniently change depending on the circumstances and how it suits us. That is a legal definition not based on science, but our own selfish interests - no different than not recognizing blacks as full persons. Presently, with regards to abortion, the point at which the clump of cells is legally considered to become a HUMAN life and thereby gains the unalienable right to life is no earlier than 24 weeks. I am not interested in debating whether or not this is the proper point in time.

We can all agree - no matter which perspective one looks at the situation from - that it is wrong for a third party, without permission, to forcibly terminate the life - human or not - of the clump of cells in the mother's womb. The question, then, becomes how do we describe the offense. If one looks at the situation from the pro-life perspective, it is simple: the termination of the clump of cells is murder, for it terminates a human life. However, the law is not pro-life (in the popular sense of the term), so this perspective is a moot point. So, we look at the termination from a pro-choice perspective. The next question we must ask is at what stage of existence was the clump of cells? If the clump of cells was older than 24 weeks then it is still simple: the act is, again, murder. The clump of cells is legally considered a human life after 24 weeks, generally speaking. If the clump of cells was YOUNGER than 24 weeks, though, it becomes a different story. We have already determined, in allowing the mother free choice of abortion under any and all circumstances during this time period, that the clump of cells is not a human life and does not have an unalienable right to life. It is an extension of the mother's biological being. So, since the clump of cells is not a HUMAN life, the termination of the life of those cells cannot be considered murder: it is plain and simple. This does not preclude us from identifying the act as being wrong, but it does require us to consider the act, in and of itself, differently than murder.

(P.S. I know the history of the three-fifths compromise. The reasons behind it, being an ingenious power play between the free and slave states, have little bearing on the end result that it did not count blacks as full persons based on convenient interpretations of circumstances.)

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

hannukah harry

the first statement is obviously rediculous. once it's been born it is autonomous. it is a seperate entity. if the parents can't or don't want to care for it, then they can put it up for adoption. but until it's been born, it isn't.

and she could let the fetus live, but i'm not going to force a woman through nine months of pregnancy so she can put the kid up for adoption where it may or may not get adopted and lead a good life just because it will make you sleep better at night.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

smooth

Essentializing positions polarizes oppositional viewpoints and silences people the categories purport to represent.

There is at least one more viewpoint (without precluding others from voicing their stance): that human beings do not have inaliable rights to life. That, as far as our law is concerned, only US citizens have inaliable rights. Or, more accurately, our law only must concern itself with the rights of its citizens, and quite possibly when the rights of citizens conflict with the rights of a non-citizen, the former takes precedence.

Thus, a coherent argument could be made that a baby, irrespective of the issue of life, does not deserve or have standing to certain inaliable rights that its mother has--until it comes out of the birth canal and becomes a citizen.


Similarly, the government can make a case that it has an interest in preventing its own citizens from murdering anything--citizen or not. The interest does not hinge on protecting the rights of an unborn fetus, citizen or not, but rather on protecting the citizen from committing an act of violence against another entity without state sanction.

We must recognize a few legal precepts, I think, to fully grasp how this might play out.

First: The state claims full monopoly of violence over its citizenry and those within its borders. We can trace the geneology of anti-violence laws to this concept.

Second: The capitalist state has a self-serving interest in protecting personal rights of ownership. The results of this have far greater implications than I want to explain in this minor posting. But suffice it to say that the concept of individual rights is essential to creating a belief and economic system that reproduces the asymetric interactions between capitalists and workers.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

SecretMethod70

That position has a major roadblock: namely, the fact that in the US, ALL humans have a right to life. This is evidenced by the fact that I would be charged with murder were I to murder an illegal alien. Indeed, the concept that all human beings share the right to life is one of the founding principles of this nation, for "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

smooth

that's a peculiarly ahistorical standpoint.

We know for a fact that the founders did not hold all men, much less persons, to have inaliable rights.

I also already covered your objection. The state has an interest in stopping you from committing murder, not in protecting the non-citizen from being murdered.

I also note that in our current events we had this very discussion as to whether our nation's protections extend to all humans or just citizens. On this board, and in the public discourse, the answer was clearly that they only apply to US citizens.


EDIT: perhaps you can clear this up for me:

how does a libertarian come to the conclusion that a government entity has an obligation or even standing to protect non-citizens?

such a position would presuppose the government entity has authority over non-citizens, whereas the libertarian position presupposes that government entities ought to have the most limited authority over its own citizenry; much less, if any at all, over people not within its pervue.

2nd Edit: sorry I missed this notion.

If you subscribe to the notion that our nation holds dear a concept that all human life is inaliable, then you must square that with the concept that the state has no right to put its citizens to death.

Notwithstanding the fact that you quoted the Declaration of Independence, a political rallying call and not what our laws are based upon, inalianable rights can not be taken away by anything, not even the person who holds them, as they hinge upon natural law.

This is straight from Locke. Maybe a closer representation of the view you are espousing here, that rights are secured (and can subsequently be taken) by a sovereign entity, would be in Hobbes.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

SecretMethod70

Something which I would disagree with when concerning basic principles such as the right to life. As for the founders, regardless of what they intended, we know what those words mean to us today.


First, presupposing that because a person has a particular general political leaning that they hold all of that group's beliefs is quite disingenuous. This can easily be seen in real life by the fact there are many Libertarians who support the war in Iraq.

In short though, I believe a human being's right to life transcends any governmental considerations and is only rivalled by that of another human being.

Again, you are applying beliefs to me which I have never stated. Never once in my life have I spoken out in support of the death penalty and never will I.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

smooth

SM, I'm not applying beliefs to you. I just asked you a question. A simple response that you don't belief in that would have sufficed.

I'm pointing out that your understanding of human rights doesn't square with the historical record, the current record, and not even that of the political platform you subscribe to.

Anyway, I've answered the questions and set up a third alternative to the two you stated. I've also covered the objections you raised to the logical consistency within the argument.

I also would prefer that human rights protections extended to all humans, but our society and law does not agree. My personal beliefs on the matter do not prevent me from presenting an alternate view to the two you proposed.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

SecretMethod70

Yes, alternatives are always of interest. I have a basic problem with using historical record, etc. in the debate though, as I don't believe inconsistant or flawed actions of the past are of interest in determining an objective yet fair approach to the future. Whether or not our society, in the past or now, considers that the right to life extends to all human beings equally is of no concern to me. Others are, of course, free to take that into consideration, but I view it as counterproductive when dealing with a society which has shown a propensity to repeatedly manipulate its interpretations of scientific data in order to support its own biases.

In this instance, I see that we, as a society, have a bias towards revenge against murderers and sympathy towards mothers who wish to have their children that clouds our judgement and prevents us from an objective viewpoint. Despite how the law may choose to write its own loopholes, the core of the matter lies in the fact most people who are pro-choice are so because they believe the life to be not "human" (expressed popularly as a belief that it is not a life). However, there are also the popular emotional interests I previously mentioned. The result is a legal explanation that does not match the popular explanation so that it can attempt to make up for the inconsistancies in the popular viewpoint. I'd prefer to have laws which match the popular explanations while also taking consistancy into account.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

smooth

Since you brought up the issue of historical viewpoint on the sanctity of human life, if you would rather not embark down that path any longer, it's fine with me.

Similarly, if you'd prefer to drop the notion that our current understanding of those words of our nation's framers may or may not have changed since the time they were written, as I did not bring that up either, I do not object.

I have offered a sensible and logically coherent explanation for how murder of a fetus can be illegal and abortion by a citizen of an unborn fetus to be simultaneously legal:

If we draw the line at citizenship rather than viability or whatever value we historically or currently place on human life (having agreed that there is no room for it in this discussion), then we will arrive at a coherent perspective on how the law should operate in this domain.


EDIT: Allow me to recap:

1. The government has no obligation to preserve rights of non-citizens.

2. A fetus is not a citizen.

3. The government has no obligation to protect the rights of a fetus.

4. The government has an obligation to control the behavior of its citizens; particularly in the use of violence, which a "state" asserts monopoly over its use.

5. The state has not asserted a compelling reason to prevent women citizens from exercising rights over their bodies.

6. The state can allow women to exercise control over their bodies while simultaneously preventing other citizens from inflicting violence on citizens, non-citizens, and property.


(alternately, if the state found a compelling reason to control women from exercising this right over their bodies, such as it felt that women should not conduct violence on themselves, then it could criminalize abortion without too much (or any) realigning of the logical underpinnings to this standpoint)

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

SecretMethod70

My main objection to this is that it is not even remotely based on the popular explanations for the law. In other words, it is a law that has little to no relation to those whom it applies.

As for the state monopoly on violence, I do not subscribe to that belief either. The state, in my opinion, only has the authority to preserve and protect rights. If any violence does not directly affect the rights of another, the state has no authority over that violence, notwithstanding precedence. Similarly, I do not believe the state can allow or disallow anything that does not directly affect the rights of another. As such, I do not believe the state "allows" women to exert control over their bodies. Besides, a woman's actions to her self and a person's actions to a seperate person, or another person's property, are completely different issues.

Your final point is precisely why your porposed alternative cannot work in conjunction with public thought: it is essentially representative of a totalitarian state. Women may have abortions because the state "allows" them to. The state may, at any time, after self-defining a "compelling reason," then criminalize one's private actions. Personally, I do not want laws based on logic that allows such a state to exist.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

smooth

Dude, I can't keep going back and forth if you keep shifting your position.

You said you wanted an objective reason for the law. You specifically wanted to exclude what the public thought about the matter. Yet, now, you say my explanation violates public sentiment (it doesn't, what I wrote actually forms the core of how our law operates in the courts, but that is neiter here nor there at this point).

Regardless of how you feel about the notion of a state claiming full monopoly over violence, that is the recognized definition of a state. It is also how our law operates. You hold a lot of positions counter to our legal system. That's fine, so do I, but your objections are based on your personal preferences, not how our system is set up and actually operates.

You specifically stated that you wanted a position from outside personal perspective, so I can't help you much further in this regard.

The notion that what a woman does to her own body being quite different from what an external actor does to it are quite different notions, indeed. I'm glad you finally came around to see the logic in that. Seems to me you answered your own question about whether our current law is incoherent.

My last statement is in no way representative of a totalitarian government (and it doesn't help to understand something by essentializing the position). It's exactly the position our government is currently in. Furthermore, both examples of the positions you already gave hinge on whether the state should allow or not allow a woman to have an abortion.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

SecretMethod70

Let me reword myself to make it more clear - that's probably my fault - I think the law should not reflect BIASES in public sentiment. Law *should* of course be based on the fundamentals of public sentiment, however, being that all power of the state and, thereby, all laws, come from the public.

So, then, the basic public opinion is one that human life is important, notwithstanding the minority who hold an opinion such as art's. The BIAS in public opinion is, in regards to an unborn child, to define life dependant on the situation in which it is being considered. What I mean when I refer to an objective reason for the law is that the definition for life is not dependant on the situation under which it is being considered, however the bias in public opinion has led to a law which, in effect, treats it that way in order to please the public masses.

Let's consider, for example, why such a law is put into place. Lawmakers did not say "Gee, the state loses something when an unborn child is killed by an outside force, so we're going to make it illegal." No, lawmakers were responding to pressures from the public to create a situation which recognized that a person who terminates a pregnancy without the mother's consent is doing something wrong.

I have always recognized that a woman choosing to have an abortion and a third party making the choice for her are two different things. What I object to is not that it is illegal, it is how we define the crime. I'm looking at the situation more from a philosophical perspective than a political one.

Let's look at it this way:

If you were to ask a person who is pro-choice why they are pro-choice, most would tell you that they are so because they do not believe the thing inside the mother is a human life and therefore it is a private decision for the mother (defining privacy as that which does not affect other, non-choosing persons).

If you were to ask someone why, then, they believe it is wrong for a third party to terminate a pregnancy without the mother's consent, it would not be that the third party is taking a human life, but that the third party is denying the mother her right to choose. In effect, they are saying that the third party is committing an invasion of privacy, not murder. Emotional biases, however, lead most to wish for severe punishment for third parties who commit such an act, and in order to accomodate this the law has chosen to define murder in a convenient sense, acting as if second degree and first degree murder are somehow also related to "how human" the life was.

My point is not that it should not be wrong for a third party to commit such an act or that it should not carry a strict penalty. It is simply that it is not murder if you do not believe abortion is murder. Most people who are for abortion do not.

So, I believe that such an act requires a newly defined crime because it does not fit into the category of murder. In fact, I would say that for those who do not believe abortion is murder, the act of a third party terminating a pregnancy without the mother's consent is more closely aligned with rape in that rape can be considered a Grand Invasion of Privacy. So, much like there is theft and GRAND theft, I would prefer to create seperate categories for invasions of privacy. In other words, a peeping tom is invading privacy; a rapist or someone who strips a mother of such an intimate choice is committing a GRAND invasion of privacy. This allows for a law which is severe against those who terminate a pregnancy without the mother's consent, but is not inconsistant with the public framework that the laws are based on. (Another possible way to look at it is Assault and Grand Assault.)

To share a bit of how I came to this conclusion, I've been discussing this matter with my roommate who is soon to be a graduate student in philosophy. We both had watched the debates over this law on C-Span when they were taking place last year, so we are both familiar with the fact pro-choice lawmakers have long seen this inconsistancy and objected to it. What discussing this with him brought to my attention was a way to define the paradox that we see in regards to defining life. The paradox is not so much in that we CHOOSE to define life in convenient terms, it is that we do not publically define life in objective terms at all. Our attitudes towards life, as seen in our attitudes towards abortion and third party non-consentual abortions, do not really change at all. We are, realistically speaking, defining life not based on the biological status of the being, but on the INTENT of the mother. Clearly, this is a wrong definition for something as scientific for life, but it is not necessarily something that should not be considered. Thus, the wording of the laws should reflect the basis on maternal intent and not on personhood.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

smooth

SM,

I'm interested in the discussions you have with your philosophy roomate. However, remember that I am a graduate student in Criminology, Law & Society.

I'm working from a different set of assumptions than you are, informed by the literature within my discipline. Perhaps we can not have further productive discussion until I send you some of that literature, because our initial assumptions are at an empasse.

For example, you keep linking murder statutes to what occurs to the victim. I tried to point out that our laws are more accurately understood in terms of how the perpetrator acts.

The state is not interested in preventing people from being killed. In fact, it does it quite frequently in varieties of ways itself.

The state is, however, interested in restricting that perogative to itself and, hence, murder perpetrators go on trial. The victim is the state, not the person or non-person who is dead.

You disagree with that analysis of the state. I can't do anything about that other than to send you articles from the top scholars in this field. I respect philosophers, and I respect political-scientists (I think that is you, correct?), but our discplines query the role of the state in different ways and, obviously I have a vested interest here, I'm going to go with mine


I also pointed out that public sentiment does not hold human life to be as important as you believe (along with myself, I might add). You then construct an argument that appears to work: given the objective truth of sanctity of human live, it must be bias that veers our laws off course. I'm pointing out that while bias may occur in the public discourse, the laws are flowing from a different set of assumptions--maintenance of capitalism.

According to the articles I have read and would like to share with you, the logical inconsistencies you are uncovering are mirroring the logical inconsistencies within capitalism itself.

Given that, I am tempted to write an article based on our discussion, but not so desirous of helping our legal structure become more robust Hope you understand, me being anti-capitalist and all that!

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

SecretMethod70

I completely understand. It is one of the reasons I mentioned my discussion, to illustrate that we are, indeed, approaching the situation from very different perspectives.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

flstf

While I think I understand the approach pointed out in the above quotes I also do not think it helps the maintenance of capitalism to have laws that do not take into consideration most citizen's common sense. I believe that most of us consider the abortion and murder laws in regards to the fetus to be inconsistant. When laws are inconsistant people will start to loose respect for them eventually putting the government (maintainers of capitalism) in jeopardy.

I agree that a woman should have the right to abort and also that another party killing the fetus without her consent should be held accountable and charged with a serious offense. But as long as we consider the fetus an entity that can be legally terminated by the mother than the charge probably should not be murder.

You know as I write this I just remembered that my wife and I have an agreement that if either one of us is very ill beyond reasonable hope and hooked up to machines that the other party should unplug them and let them die in peace. Yet I would want anyone who would kill us otherwise to be charged with murder. Maybe I'll rethink this whole thing again, LOL.

SecretMethod70

I don't think this poses a problem. Like the popular view of abortion, it is a third party acting on the consent of the affected party. There are legal ways to establish such consent for situations as you describe so as to avoid any problems such as charging the partner with murder.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

hannukah harry

off topic: make sure you have a living will!!! in the event that were to ever happen, it would allow things to go much smoother. otherwise you might end up with a terry schiavo thing going on (brain-dead lady in florida).

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

flstf

Thanks for the advice. You never know riding around on my Harley, I'm liable to get flattened one of these days.

Kalibah

I disagree with Partial Birth abortions though- 9/10ths outta the body, and its abortion, fully out and its murder...

Maybe a step forward would be if the vagina is dialated ( ie the baby is being delivered) you cant have an abortion?????


And im tired of people using the fallback of " what about in cases of rape"
In this day and age, if a woman goes about receiving proper medical attention, then the chances of her getting pregnant are slim to none....


The problem is, raped women dont come forward- and why it is more acceptable to have an abortion in our society than to come forward for a simple pill, is beyond me- and it shows us where we have headed as a species.


The other thing is, you state you'd for abortions 'bounties' ttoo help keep people off of welfare- but the truth is some people - have kids - to get the welfare checks. When we dole out money for kids, and as long as we do that, people will have kids- why not? You see that they arent propely taken care of, dying in fires while moms out partying, etc, do you think that money we, hte taxpayers pay, is going towards the baby or the mother? Obviously... the answer is the mother in said cases.


No, after 2 children, if your on welfare, and you have more, you get steralized. Why should we pay because you cant WORK or keep your you legs shut....




On the legal side of things what Congress SHOULD do is prevent courts from hearing Abortion cases. Then we can go back to letting the people deicide- via voting- if abortion should be legal on a state by state basis, as it was BEFORE roe v wade.

Courts cannot make laws, they intepret them....

I would not be surprised if this happens, and in fact i expect it.

smooth

Courts never make laws. They never initiate hearings over current laws, but they do interpret presentations of two opposing opinions regarding current laws.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Kalibah

Thats a fallacious argument though - by that reasoning I can kill illegal aliens without punishment because they are not citizens, and thus have no rights- and thus the goverment has no obligation to protect the aliens.

The problem still boils down to- when does life begin.


Personally, Im pro-life and I take it on a matter of Faith to some extent, but I disagree with other aspects of it- but hey Im human ( church is against contraceptives, etc).

there is often used a "but the baby wont survive outside the mothers " reasoning to say that life has not yet begun, and thus abortion is not murder. With medical advances though- babies can be born under a pound and still live, grow, and become healthy infants. That argument needs to be rethought in the context of allowing ALL abortions.


That said, I believe the most fair way to come to a agreement on this matter would be, when there is a heartbeat- maybe its down to our premordial instincts, maybe Im just really tired now, but heartbeats convey life. As said above, the idea that a baby cant live outside the mother, is being crushed day by day with advancements in medical technology, and within our lifetimes i believe it will be possible to have- as Sci-Fi has often said " vat grown " babies. - Toss in an egg, sperm, shake - wait 9 monthes- tada!

But back the the point- Heartbeat conveys life in my mind. If thats the best that can be done- so be it.


Then the question though- with aucostic technology, will be hearing the mothers heartbeat or the babies *sigh*

We cant win that one, but lets just say- hypotehtically- we could...

What say you to heartbeat=life?



And PS: this is one of the better threads in politics, because *MOST* of us have been able to remain fairly civil without attacking eachothers beliefs

smooth

I've explained this twice already in this thread.

You can not kill an illegal alien because the state has an interest in protecting its monopoly over the use of violence.

The state will be the victim, and you will be charged with murder.
Nothing in that statement needs the state to be concerned with the status of the rights, or lack of rights, of anything, let alone an illegal alien.


EDIT: does everyone understand that there are no victims in criminal law other than the government?

I'm not just making that up. There are groups that advocate for the rights of victims of crimes (as understood in the public discourse, the person who the crime was committed against), but that is not how people are charged nor are they convicted on that basis. In every criminal case, the government claims harms while the victim is merely a witness to the crime--whatever rule was broken by the actions toward that other private person.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

hannukah harry

i'd say no. it may have a heartbeat, but if we were to take it out of the mother and hook it up to machines, would it live? could it breath?

there seem to me to be two issues in the whole thing. one is the mothers rights and the other is at what point does a zygote/fetus have rights?

as long as one of them may not live through to the birth (you don't know the baby will live until its' born), i say you have to err on the side of the mother. it's her body. you may not agree with it (so don't have one yourself!) but you can't tell others what to do with theirs.

if the baby is an accident, a life that wasn't supposed to start, then whats the harm in having an abortion? no life was intended, no life ends up.

one last thought... if we give rights to an embryo (that's what's formed by the merging of the sperm and egg...) (correct me if i'm using the wrong terms, it's been a while since bio)... why are we stopping there? the argument pro-life movement uses is that it is alive. well, so is sperm. and the egg. and i know i murder millions of sperm daily. in essence, i'm aborting one or two babies a day because i'm killing living cells that would otherwise grow into one if given the opportunity. same thing with a womans period.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

aliali

It seems that any bright line rule, whether birth, first breath, first heartbeat, viability, conception, etc. can be argued away depending on your viewpoint.

If first breath is the bright line rule when the killing is done at the mother's consent, what is the bright line rule for when the killing is done with only the father's consent or by accident such as a car wreck (and civil damages are sought)?

Kalibah

Pro-Life argument isnt deeming the embryo alive- its deeming the fetus alive. It has begun developing into a human being, and will develop into a human being, whereas sperm will never develop into a human being (by itself).



The idea is you started a chain reaction... that will lead to life. The church is against contraceptives, which I am sorta stunned at, and disagree with, but yet again the question is When does live begun? The moment the sperm and egg meet? The church's stance is "sometime after contreception, but before birth life begins" - i believe that is their standing atleast.


Anyway my point is - It will never get to sperm being alive, because sperm will never develop into a human being.

SecretMethod70

Yes. Something being alive (such as sperm) is not the basis for the pro-life argument. Most who are pro-life do not just believe that the unborn child is a life, but that it is a HUMAN life.

Well, the church's decision on contraception is a particularly interesting one and one which I frankly would ignore. There is an interesting book about how the decision came to be - one which I do not remember the title to at the moment unfortunately, and it is at home - but it's worth the read. The most telling point is the fact that before the decision was made, a panel of bishops was put together to look into the theological implications of contraception. I forget how large the panel was, but almost all of them found that contraception was NOT against church teaching. Three found that it was. The pope at the time sided with the three because their reasoning had something to do with the other stance effectively reducing papal power. Keep in mind that what the pope says is NOT infallible. He has only made two statements that are considered infallible in all of history, and this one was decidedly not one of them. In fact, when the decision was made, it was made in such a way as to make it clear that it may change at a later time. I suspect that the church's stance on contraceptives will change with the next pope or two.
As for when life begins, I'm pretty sure the church believes that it begins at conception. Interesting thing is that, while information about the reasoning behind the church's stance on contraception makes it pretty clear to me that condoms AREN'T bad (that, and common sense), this does not address the birth control pill. Greytone posted in another thread on TFP the interesting piece of info that the birth control pill does not prevent ovulation but that it prevent eggs from attaching to the uteran lining. This of course can allow for conception and then deny what some who consider to be a human life the chance to develop. So, in short, there's not much of an argument against condoms and such, but there is an argument against the birth control pill.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

Cryptic

Ya, that's complete crap how the system is set up.
Kind of makes you wonder why ol' stabby stabby didn't use that point in his defense.

hannukah harry

actually, the pro-life argument does claim the embryo, not just the fetus. the pro-life movement claims that life begins at conception.

so why not take it one step back? (i realize that's just being super extreme and unrealistic, but at the same time, why not?)

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

SecretMethod70

Because sperm and the egg are not genetically individuals. After conception, however, what is created is a genetically unique individual.

It's fine to be of the belief that that genetically unique being is not a human life, but there's really no scientific basis to draw a similarity between the nature of sperm and the nature of a newly conceived life.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling