Thinking of responding to this pro-life editorial, but not sure where to start.
 

From my school paper the Vanderbilt Hustler, available online at http://www.vanderbilthustler.com/vne.../41f56899dc4db
Wilt could probably argue for something as sensible as the existence of roads and it would still infuriate me. Aside from the tasteless title/ main analogy of the paper, anyone see anything particularly glaring?

This will probably offend people, and i dont mean to say i'm right... it's really just a guidline that i live by (as i've chosen never to have children)... but it's probably a lot worse to bring a child into a world full of child molesters, rapists, televangelists, corrupt politicians, sitcoms/TV zombie culture, wars without reason, wars without end, racists/bigots, etc. Thats a dirty thing to do to somebody. A lot of anti-abortion folks say things along the lines of "They didnt have the chance to choose to live" but if a fetus was somehow cognative and understood what they were about to go up against... fuck, i'd stay in the womb.

The term "Alive" is only relevant if you are a vegetarian. "Human" would be the term to use....

Anyone else notice the article mentioning that science says fetus' can talk? wtf is that about?

The crux of the issue is always "When does human life begin". I'd question his undocumented scientific evidence, it runs contrary to most of the findings that I've seen. For the "Life begins at conception" argument, a brief review of how birth control pills work, makes for an uncomfortable dillema. Basically, birth control pills do not prevent conception, they prevent implantation. By their definition, use of birth control pills = abortion.

It's an old argument that will never find a comfortable resolution.

He is entitled to his opinion. I believe a woman should have the right to terminate her pregnancy. I do wonder though if in the future they will look back at us and say "what barbarians, all they had to do was be a little careful but instead killed millions of innocents just because they were inconvenient". But until someone can convince me that the fetus is entitled to the same rights as the born, I'll err on the side of women controlling their own bodys.

here is what I plan to submit, I am staying away from the obvious offenses of the article and went with a different prospective



Shades of grey in the black and white abortion debate


More than 10% of the world’s babies died last year.10% is the rate of known pregnancies that are spontaneously aborted, as reported by the government funded online medical encyclopedia found at http://www.nlm.nih.gov/. This number of course is a gross underestimation of the true extent of the devastation. The same source reports that an estimated 50% percent of fertilizations are spontaneously aborted before the mother is aware that she is pregnant. People who believe life begins at the moment of conception or the beginning of pregnancy need to break out the black, because they have a lot of mourning to do.
Natural abortion aside, let’s examine another infant killer, this one engineered entirely by man. IVF or In vitro fertilization is a process by which women with fertility problems are able to conceive. IVF requires participants to ‘superovulate’ with the aid of drugs. Superovulation allows women to produce multiple viable eggs, which are removed surgically and fertilized in a test tube by a donor’s semen. Fertilization occurs in the confines of a test-tube or Petri dish. These test-tube babies face a dark and treacherous future, it is estimated that 90% of these fertilized pre-embryos will be terminated or frozen for later attempts. In virtually every procedure, at least some fertilized embryos are lost. Information on IVF can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IVF. 115,000 of these procedures have occurred in the United States.
We need to take a hard long look at when life begins before we can formulate arguments that do not lead us to hypocrisy. I will consider it a sad day when ‘pro-life’ protesters show up at the door of a fertility clinic, which is trying desperately to allow women to create the very life the protesters are trying to protect. This hypothetical makes my head spin. Clearly lines do need to be drawn, as ridiculous as I consider the notion that life begins when gametes are united, it is ludicrous to consider a baby an hour before delivery to be any less complete than the same infant two hours later when he is a kicking crying newborn. The question of when we treat potential life as life will not be resolved easily; I’m not offering any solutions. All I ask is that people cut back on the rhetoric which is subverting attempts to sift through the grey and come up with a solution we can agree on.

I would recommend using significantly smaller words in your reply.....

Those who support conception are, without question, tantamount to those who stood idly by while the Nazi regime in Germany slaughtered millions. It is no different, except our holocaust of the unborn is indiscriminate. It doesn't matter if they're black or white, male or female; any born baby -- human being -- is legally allowed to die.

I know the reaction I'm going to get from this article. Outrage. Indignation. There will be women on this campus who will probably never speak to me again. So let it be that way, I guess. I don't blame pro-conception people for the murders themselves, but they do enable it by either directly or indirectly supporting the so-called "right to procreate."

One of the most compelling arguments I've ever heard against procreation "rights" is this: in the Declaration of Independence -- you know, the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness part. What good is life, happiness or liberty going to do for you? After all, everything that lives dies. At the end of it, you have nothing. All that hapiness, liberty, means squat once you're dead.

A lot of pro-procreation advocates will say that the baby is alive. As President Reagan once said, "procreation is advocated only by persons who have themselves not died yet." What right is it of ours to say they should "live"? With the scientific evidence overwhelmingly pointing to the fact that the unborn feel pain, how can we brush this aside simply because, as disgracefully as it may sound, the procreation-minded citizens in this country see the unborn as nothing more than vessels through which they can live vicariously?

I'm not blind; I know that women will continue to get illegal pregnancies. But the point is that instead of 1,500,000 births, rather, murders a year, that number will be drastically reduced, the doctors who do break the law will go to jail, and the mothers who try to birth their child will also go to jail. In comparison, the welfare queens who have 15 children are using my tax money to, unfortunately, keep another human being alive for a geologically miniscule and cosmologically insignificant period of time.

It's not going to be easy. The powerful procreation enthusiast lobby has a stranglehold over the Democratic Party (and as we see, its views on morality and issues like procreation played so well in 2004) and they'll try to block judges who don't support procreation in the Senate. While President Bush advocates death abroad for peoples of the world who don't agree with our foriegn policy, perhaps we should also take a look inward and realize we aren't yet conducting the greatest mass murder on the entire planet. I am confident that with the help of God and the wise votes of the American people, we will end this birthing travesty once and for all.

reiii,

i'm pro-life and am staunchly in favor of making abortion illegal except in radically unusual circumstances (threatens mother's life etc.). however, i do approve of your response. it seems well written, sober, and intellectually honest. good on ya.

Try looking again how birth control PILLS work. They prevent the woman from releasing an egg.

There are many other types that prevent implantation, many of which cause horrid birth defects. I.E. the mini-razors that were intended to scrape off the lining of the uterus so the egg couldnt plant inside of it, which more often than not chopped off appendeges of the baby and ended up inside of them while still in the womb.

Personally I'm against abortion in any moderate case. Extream cases such as rape, incest, and health risk to the mother I believe should be allowed. But the whole "it's a woman's right" thing is bunk to me. If I have a 4 year old son, and I feel that he's an un-needed burden on me I cant just go to a doctor and have him "removed". Say what you want about the difference between a fetus and a 4 year old, I see them as alive and worthy of a chance. I see no difference between them outside of the difference between a 4 year old and an 8 year old.

When people speak out against abortion, I always wonder or ask, "so what do you propose to do with all these unwanted pregnancies?" Who is going to look after all of these unwanted children?

No-one ever seems to have a good answer to that one, therefore, I support the freedom of choice.

you're countering their argument after first twisting their premises. the good answer is that those people argue that sex should be reserved for a man and woman within the bonds of marriage. a society that embraces those social mores would have very little need for abortion. it's silly to think of sex as something free from responsibility or consequence... that it exists outside (but not solely for the purpose of) creation of living/breathing/thinking/feeling human beings.

society is bankrupt when the whims and passions of the powerful hold sway over the lives of undesirables.

thanks, that means alot to me

You do of course realize....that the Christian Church is becoming the "Powerful" entity in this country. And that those many of us will soon be the "undesirables".

COMBINED ORAL CONTRACEPTIVES

Your source? Mine says that you are correct 90% of the time. That means that if you and your SO use birth control pills and believe that life starts at conception, you only commit murder once a year.

The list for those waiting to adopt young children is extremely long. Hense the increasing number of people who adopt children from other countries.

StanT I concede that you are right on this one, 10% of the time.

You could pobably respond by saying, "Well that's a well written article that produces a valid argument." Something to that effect.

i like the reply reiii

personally i don't have any stake in the case of abortion nor do I take it as a case of principles or what not and simply put it as keep the government out of people's lives - while i am absolutely 100% for people being responsible and what not, I don't think its the federal government's job to tell people what they can and can't do - and lets be honest, as long as people want to do something, they'll find means to do it, and I'd rather have doctors doing abortions than back-alley operations occuring.

i always find it funny how men are always the ones at the heart of the pro-life argument...I just think men feel a bit..possibly out of control, impotent, whatever, about the only way to bring life into this world, so they try to exert some control through the courts/law system..

I just don't get it. i think that if most men had to experience childbirth, we'd give a much different perspective of abortion/childbirth/this whole concept. As i always tell people, i don't have a vagina, so why should i have control over someone who does. I honestly cannot stop any lady from aborting her child if she is driven to do so, so i would prefer a safer method for her to rely on over coat hangers or "insert hideous object here"

Sorry for rambling, it's been a long night. Suffice it to say, i find it very odd that the people who want the most restrictions on what a lady can do with her body are the ones who are always wanting the gov't out of personal lives. I also find it odd that those without a vagina wish to control those with one..ie...force an unwilling mother to give birth to a child..

Yes, there are many people just "begging" to adopt. Plus gay couples (kill two birds with one stone) who want to adopt. I am also against fertility clinics that produce septuplets when there are so many kids to be adopted. The solution seems so obvious to me. Combine all of the above.

Maybe, introduce a child tax instead of credit. Only have kids if you can AFFORD to so they don't become a burden to the state. Then, maybe people will think about the consequences of their actions BEFORE they act.

If you don't want to have kids, great, no problem. Either practice safe sex, or don't have sex, or get "fixed". Problem solved, everyone happy.

Abortion is NOT effective contraception. Condoms etc are. Also, try personal responsibility and accountability. Sex education would be good too.

I am against abortion period. Even in cases of incest, rape. The lone exception would be to save a mother's life.

I am also against the death penalty (too light of a punishment and other obvious flaws) and against pro-lifers who burn down clinics and kill people (that's just weird to me).

I also think it's a bit weird if the Church is against abortion but condemns condoms. That's not really consistent policy to me.

So at least I am consistent in my beliefs and I won't bash anyone who has a different opinion than mine. God bless America.

Good thread, good topic.

I understand about the argument regarding a "woman's control over their body" but I don't see it as relevant to abortion. I see it as different issues.

For example, if someone wants to "cut themselves" or kill themselves, (control over their own body) then why do people try and stop them? Why do the authorities get involved? It's their body, shouldn't they be allowed to do what they want? Also, if I want to take drugs, can't I do what I want to my body?

But my belief, is that the fetus is a life, which I guess, is the core of the controversy. Whereas the "right over own body" is a different issue.

I don't see it in terms of gender (but I suppose one could if they wanted to) but rather, as an issue of life ( as in when does it begin).

We could probably split the thread into different threads for clarity.

so for me, I see the argument or controversy as being framed in two different arguments.

as for the 'getting fixed' option...a freind recently came to the conclusion he did not want to have children...ok, he's known it since he was 13, but he's had time to reconsider, try again, reconsider again, and reconfirm that he did not want to have children...so, he talked to his family doctor about getting 'fixed' and the doctor questioned if he was really ready to make that decision, etc, and that he could not authorize or endorse the decision...so, my friend tried again and again at other clinics, etc, and received virtually the same response. Basically, the doctors were not going to allow this person the freedom to choose to relinquish the responsibility of having/raising children. In their eyes, he was put here to procreate and they would have no part in stopping that permanently...i just don't get why others have to be involved so deeply in a person's ability to have and raise children. i've heard of women experiencing the same problems when going to have a tubal ligation...doctors not performing on unwed/childless women bc they feel the person would have second thoguhts later on.

as for the peopel cutting/killing themselves, i'd also opt for hte gov't to stay out of that as well...and the drug issue as long as it is not in public (no driving while doing crack, etc...) about the way alcohol is now.. it is your body and you should be able to do what you wish...

and yeah, an abortion is the mother's body and possibly another life, depending on viewpoint, but if it is going to happen anyway, at least provide a safer way of doing it

which also brings up another question. The plan B pill, basically a super birth control pill that can be taken up to 72 hrs after sex, is being halted by christian groups/etc bc the FDA cannot determine how teenagers will use the drug..Personally, i'd rather see a teenager use this pill instead of an abortion clinic a month or two down the road, but apparently, people are scared that teenagers will over-use/abuse the drug..


Sorry, way off topic now.

for the pro-lifers:

if life begins at conception, and the fetus is alive, tell me what happens to a delivery that's premature at 20 weeks? or 21 weeks? or 22 weeks?

i'll supply the answer, nothing... it's too early for anything to be done. the lungs aren't developed, the brain isn't fully developed. you'd have a fetus with no to poor organ function, that would likely die in spite of aggressive management. survival for a fetus less than 24 weeks is piss poor (read: 10% at best)... would a woman who has a premature delivery at less than 24 weeks (i.e. less than 6 months) be guilty of murder? would the doctors who don't do anything also be guilty of murder(most, if not all, doctors would not do anything but comfort measures for a woman having a premature delivery at less than 24 weeks)?

in short, whether or not you think/believe/feel that life begins at conception, statistics clearly show that any fetus born earlier than 24 weeks will not survive.

We truly do live in a culture of death, life is of little value, 40 million aborted children would attest to that. Also it's pretty bunk that abortion get largely justified by a cause that accounts for only 1% of all abortions, that cause being rape.

Another funny issue is the hypocrisy of the abortion lobby. A 15 year can't get their ear's pierced without parental consent, yet it's straight if they get a life threatening surgery done w/o said notification?

And they wonder why there is problems with social security, they've successfully aborted an entire generation.

I just dont get it. I think that if most people had experience with not wanting to see someone, we'd give a much different perspective on the whole strangulation concept. As I always tell people, I haven't strangled anyone, so why should I have control over someone who does.

We're talking about a living breathing human here. I'm allowed to swing my fist as long as it doenst hit someone else. She's allowed to have her own choices as long as it doesnt kill someone else.

The Morning After pill isnt abortion. If you look on how it works it prevents the egg from accepting the sperm implantation. The reason the conservatives hate it is because they believe it'll lead to more unprotected sex.

A fetus is "a living breathing human?" Interesting.

Of course not.

I am truly sorry....but this gave me a hearty laugh.
You are joking here....right?

Nope, from the same web site I quoted above:

They do not stop the sperm from entering the egg, they either stop ovulation or they stop the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus. If you believe that human life begins when the sperm enters the egg, then the morning after pill can equate to abortion.The key to the argument is when does human life start. You can go from the "Every sperm is sacred" theory of Monty Python fame to "Life begins at first breath". Religious entities argue that life starts at conception, modern medicine goes with a prescribed level of brain activity or survivability apart from the mother.

Either medical definition works for me.

Absolutly not. Notice there is already a nice number crunch involving people paying into SS vs. people taking out. As more and more boomers come of age, the percentage of potentials aborted not paying in will become a bigger factor. Not limiting the problems solely to it, just an added kick in the balls regarding the situation.

Now I've seen everything.

there will be a 2/1 ratio....even when the baby boomers retire.
That is 2 workers for every 1 retiree.

Obviously a woman who delivers prematurely isn't guilty of murder because it's involuntary, that is, she didn't purposely try to deliver prematurely for the sake of terminating her pregnancy.

Has anyone heard of the pro-life propaganda film 'The Silent Scream'? Until I heard about this I wasn't too concerned about abortion, but was on the pro-choice side if pushed. I'm still that way inclined but I think every woman who has to confront her choice, which is already a hard enough choice to make, should be asked to watch the film. I've not seen it myself.

"A Realtime ultrasound video tape and movie of a 12- week suction abortion is commercially available as, The Silent Scream, narrated by Dr. B. Nathanson, a former abortionist. It dramatically, but factually, shows the pre-born baby dodging the suction instrument time after time, while its heartbeat doubles in rate. When finally caught, its body being dismembered, the baby’s mouth clearly opens wide — hence, the title The Silent Scream."
http://www.dogstarmusic.com/Pro_Life.html

Rape-abortion isn't how I personally justify abortion. Or where you talking about something else?

Ask the abortion lobbiests if they think 15 year olds should be allowed to get their ears pierced without parental consent, before you talk about hypocracy.

Clearly, exponential population growth is the answer to all of the world's problems.

Reflex and consciousness are two seperate things. Do you have video of a 12-week old fetus surviving outside of the mother's womb? That would be compelling.

True, but in the same way I don't pull the wings off flies I wouldn't abort a foetus at this stage of development. Neither may feel pain in the same way fully developed humans do, but to cause them any sort of injury is unjust. Having said that, I've no problem killing bacteria, algae or anything I'm going to eat or wear.

Edit: Before anyone complains, no I don't equate a 12 week old foetus with a fly. That's just an example.

So if a 3 year old had a medical problem that caused him to need a breathing machine to get enough oxygen, he doesnt classify as a human being and can be thrown in the trash and forgotten about?

Wow nice logic.

Yes, that's exactly what i said, but you seemed to have overlooked the part where i called all irishmen drunkards./sarcasm

My logic is sound, i believe it is yours that needs work.

It is funny how republicans feel they are so morally superior than us liberals. Bush thinks that promoting being celibiste will have a better effect on kids in high school than actually talking about the issues. He doesn't think passing out condoms might be a good idea in case kids to get in a sexual situation, we are still talking about kids because they still considered adults. Well no condoms, I guess I'll have unprotected sex, next thing you know the girl is pregnant. Most kids aren't going to want to keep a baby at such a young age, because they aren't able too. Looks like those condoms could've help and now the parents are forcing their kid to have an abortion. Great job President Bush, by promoting no sex.

If kids aren't ready for the consequences of their actions, more importantly sex, they aren't ready for sex.

It reminds me of the argument for giving needles to druggies. "Well they are going to do it anyways! Might as well make sure they are doing it safe and right! "

I think it would be helpful to give hypo's to drug addicts instead of having them risk aids and then spend thousands of taxpayer dollars on healthcare and treatment. hypodermics are cheap compared to that...

and really..people are stupid and unprepared for babies, yet they have them all the time. Sex is an instinct, one of the most powerful urges there is, and is not easily controlled without knowledge, which is what the republicans are trying to restrict. "Don't have sex until you'er married and ready to have children.."...yeah..that works for so many people...I'd rather have an informed population than a 'moral' population when it comes to sex and drugs...

I agree with this statement 100%, I would even remove the word "kids", and suggest that most people (including me, if you must know) aren't ready for the consequences of their actions.


As opinions go, however, I don't think it helps move the discussion forward about dealing with the problem of teen pregnancy/abortion.

As the last poster suggested, people are going to have sex. There is pretty significant evidence (to put it mildly) of that in every social/cultural/economic/geographic strata in the world.

Saying "don't do it" is tantamount to covering your ears and saying "nyah nyah nyah". I keep hearing that liberals are the pie in the sky team. It's clear I don't understand.


Can I infer, Mojo, that you are against handing out condoms in schools? What is your preferred strategy for preventing high school sex, if I may ask?

It reminds me of the argument for giving seatbelts to drivers. "Well they are going to do it anyways! Might as well make sure they are doing it safe and right!"

While the catch with that argument Coppertop is that it is not a self only action. If I'm driving and I T-bone somebody they are going to get fucked up. My passenger is not in control and the other car had no control over my driving. Thus seat belts are required for safety. They are basically innocent and have no control over the situation.

On the other hand I could give a fuck if junkies get aids or die of blood infections, they are social parasites and this is darwinism at it's finest. They are willingly injecting themselves with poison.

Also I'm mostly indifferent to handing out condoms, I just hate the liberal mentality as mentioned in my druggie post.

Control has nothing to do with it. I could easily change it to say "If people aren't ready for the consequences of being in a moving car, then they shouldn't be in one. Let alone driving."

Why should be we not provide the means and/or education for people to safely do things they are going to do anyway? People are going to have sex, period. Especially kids going through puberty. No force in the world is strong enough to defeat that.

Except an IRON CLAD FIST!!!!

Wow, I see a deeper analogy here. (SP?)

But, I am confused the argument here is that if a baby can't survive outside the womb than I should think of it less than an animal. Because I can not kick a puppy, but if I want, when I'm through with school (I'm becoming a doc) I can stick my hands in a woman's vagaina and take a baby out and kill it as long as I kill it inside. I do not see you logic.

I think that pro-choice is a very, extremly selfish stance. Well I want to go have sex, but if something happens i want to have it removed so I can go back to having sex again. If you don't want to raise a child put it up for someone else who wants a baby to raise.

And for an ealier quote that only men are pro life. Many women are pro-life. Who you may ask. How about the founding Mothers of Feminism. They spoke out against it.

the logic is what i posted before. before 24 weeks, a fetus is not viable. if a woman less than 24 weeks pregnant came in to the e.r. or the doctor's offfice in premature labor... there's not much that could be done. you could try to close the cervix (referred to as cerclage), and tell the woman to be on bedrest... all of which would really only give the woman another 4 weeks at best... i suppose that's not bad if the woman is 23 or 24 weeks pregnant (though the likelihood of disability is quite high), but at 12 weeks... the fetus would still not be viable... and thus would end up dead.




by your own admission, you feel that "junkies" are social parasites... if that's the case, why would you want a parasite to have aids... that's even more of a drain on society... hiv/aids comes with a lot of complications, these complications require medicines, prescribed by doctors, given during visits to the doctor... seems like it's worse if the "junkie" has aids.




i don't think that you should think because a fetus cannot survive out of the womb, you should think of it less than an animal. what you should realize is that's reality (which you'll learn on your ob/gyn rotation, from a.c.o.g. literature): a fetus less than 24 weeks gestation has pretty much nil chance of survival in the face of aggressive medical care.

i assume you've yet to see an abortion, as you'll realize that you don't stick your hand in the vagina... and you don't stick your hand in the vagina for a birth either... but i guess those are separate topics for another day.


both those who choose abortion, and those who choose to have a baby deal with physical and psychological consequences. both choices are selfish:

if you don't want to bring a child into the world, you're selfish because you want to do what you do (have sex) and not live with the consequences. of course that argument forgets the psychological consequence that women and men who have abortions can go through after the abortion.

if you want to bring a child into the world, you're selfish because there are plenty of children already out there for adoption. there's no "need" for more and more children. many people want children for their own selfish motives (perpetuate their genese, have something to love, be a role model, etc. etc.). and of course the consequence of pregnancy is having a child. i'll refrain from expounding upon my opinon of having children as a selfish necessity/want for purposes of staying on topic.

Another thing that bothers me about the pro-abortion crowd, the exaltion of Margaret Sanger. What you have is a racist cow, who preached Eugenics, she felt that black people should be subject to eugenics because they were inferior... She was a big fan of Hitler's eugenics movement, sickening really.

Also isn't it funny that we easily justify an action based on the lack of humanity? Read holocaust and Dred Scott/slavery.

That's a very interesting thing to say from someone who trips over himself rationalizing the "greatness" of our slave owning founding fathers. Plato was a proponent of eugenics too, yet still i bet you respect his place in the history of philosophy. In any case, you can't ascribe the exaltation to all pro-choicers, since exaltation of sanger isn't a defining characteristic of pro-choiceness.

I can't speak for slaves or holocaust victims, but i'd imagine if i were in their place i'd find your comparison laughable. I'd think if anyone was inclined to preemptively liberate their unborn child from the horrors of a human existence, it would be someone who lives in bondage.

In the context of, well proper context the Founding Fathers were great, I make no justification for slavery. Sanger helped put fourth an evil on this world that I haven't found to have been rivaled.

I don't think they would find it laughable. Those evils were pushed on the grounds that they somehow weren't human, it's the same lame duck excuse pro-aborts use.

Sez you. Everyone has ways of justifying what is "evil" to another. I've heard vegetarians use your holocaust argument against meat eaters. It all depends on your perspective.

To my mind, of all the reasons to oppose abortion, the concern for human life is the least convincing. I think murder has always been acceptable when it can be shown to have an at least tenuous benefit to society. Humanity's attitude has very often been, "We don't want to kill you, but it makes our life better if we do." How is abortion different from war in this respect?

Where exactly do you see a pro-abortion crowd? An opinion that abortion should be safe and legal, hardly makes a person pro-abortion. Neither of my daughters were planned or convienent. Both are proof that contraception isn't 100%. When it came to making a very personal and tough decision, my wife and I chose against abortion. I'm glad I made the decision that I did, but I'm also grateful that I had the ability to make that decision. I'm hopeful that my daughters never have to make that kind of decision, but it is something that ought to be available to them if they chose. I'd consider myself strongly pro-choice, I would not consider myself pro-abortion.

While we are at it, what's with the pro-life label, do you really know many people that are against life?

I just don't buy a single cell fertilized egg as human life. It comes from a belief system that I simply do not share.

You're right. I guess it's a lost cause trying to teach people personal responsibility and that actions have concequences. I mean like drunk driving, millions are spent yearly saying not to, when we should be having classes teaching people how to drive drunk. Or murder, honestly do people think that if you tell someone killing is wrong it stops anything? We need sharpshooting classes so that instead of some messy fashion, you can murder with a nice quick shot. Damn that Bush and him expecting people to have self control, damn him!

Your post almost made sense. And then one realizes that drunk driving and murder are in fact illegal. Abortion is not, and should not be. You disagree? Then don't participate in abortions, simple enough.

But don't get on your high horse and tell other people how they need to live their lives and use their bodies. But I guess you've got enough control over your own life to allow you that desire to try to control others, don't you?

I've seen a fair number of pro-choice arguments that I find intelligent and worthy of discussion, even if I don't agree with them.

This is not one of those arguments. It would only have value once more important points, points that the entire debate is hinged upon, were settled in favor of the pro-choice view. And then it wouldn't be needed.

In short, this is a useless argument.

Obviously my post was not meant to sway everyone over to the pro-choice side, as you seme to indicate. It was in reference to one very specific post, I even quoted it. You even read that post?

And thank you for your incredibly intelligent, worthy of debate argument. Bravo sir, I retire, the field in your possession. :rolleyes:

See that's where we dont see eye-to-eye. I dont CARE if it cant survive without the mother. It is a human being. You throw out these things about miscarriages, well deaths do happen, but it doesnt justify murder.

The two reasons to justify abortion dont hold up. There's the "they're going to do it anyways" argument... well murderers are going to kill anyways, lets hand out pistols to make it easier. Or the "it's a womans body and no one can tell her what to do". Well that doesnt hold up, a mother can do pretty much whatever she wants to herself, but not to another human being. She can not just throw out a 3 year old in the trash, so why should she be able to throw a 3 week old zygote?

I dont see divisions there, where the pro-abortionists do.

I did. It's still useless in that particular context. "Murder and drunk driving are illegal." "Abortion should be, too." "Don't want an abortion? Don't have one." "Don't like rape? Then don't do it."

See? Useless. The bigger points of contention, not present in these arguments, determine whether these arguments or their counterarguments hold any water.

I think you're being sarcastic.

It's been debated to death already, but ok.

The drunk driving/murder does apply as I stated, as those infringe on the civil liberties of another human. Hence being illegal. Hence we should not condone these actions. And hey, guess what? We don't. Abortion does not infringe on another human's civil liberties. Anti-abortionists will argue that a fetus is a human, and I will disagree and say that it is not. Until a settlement is reached on this topic, everyone will just be arguing in circles. The poster I was responding too did not bring this point so neither did I.

But then you already knew all this, didn't you?

But you'd need to bring it up in order for your reply to be worthwhile. "Your post doesn't make sense because abortion shouldn't be illegal." Because he doesn't share a premise that you merely stated? His argument makes plenty of sense with a different premise.

Still not seeing the usefulness. But I'm going to quit while I'm behind.

Exactly what I was saying (or trying to if I didnt get it accross).

So then, is a fetus a life or not? Or as put above, a human life?

I agree with the many others who have posted, that the key issue here is the notion of when life really begins. Personally I do not know enough about the science of it to claim one way or another if humans have conciousness and faculties of thought before birth, but I am inclined to believe that they don't.

Since there is no concrete evidence supporting this issue in either direction, I think to destroy a woman's ability to choose is an unconstitutional violation of her rights. While some may argue that abortion is a form of murder, I do not think this claim can be made with the lack of substantial scientific evidence to support this, and that there is simply too much room for interpretation with this issue as a whole.

Using your 'moral' grounds/religious beliefs to limit the actions of another is unconstitutional according to the founding fathers, and I stand by that notion.

Just my thoughts.

One of the best arguements I've heard all day.

Because it made you laugh out loud?

So you don't think the fact that the numbers paying into social security vs. the number that are taking out, that will continue to grow as the baby boomers become of age, will be affected by the fact that over 40 million babies have been aborted?

In that case we will have to agree to disagree.

I disagree that an "entire generation" has been aborted. If you think abortion is a problem for ss, imagine how much better off it would be if we outlawed birth control all together.

Where did you get 40 million? Over how long a time period is that 40 million stretched? It's been 32 years since roe v wade. 1.25 million a year is a drop in the bucket. How many of these potential humans would have been raised on welfare? How many would have been more of a drain on society than they could ever make up for by paying into social security? There is no way you can credibly attribute ss problems to abortion.

Oh you're right, if they are inconvenient they are a problem and therefore expendable.

Why do we give public money to fund retards? They are a drain on society and resources, maybe euthinise them, they have an extra chromsome right, they aren't human like me and you. Also they don't have the same mental capacity as a fully grown and "normal" human.

Hey aren't darkies predisposed to crime and rape, they make up a big drain on society, I mean what through prison population (cause they are predisposed to crime). Hell there are more naggars (hihi clayton bigsby) on welfare then other minorities, they aren't paying into SS, maybe our great Hero Margaret Sanger was right about Eugenics and black people.

Is this the thread where all of my posts get read-into way too much? I said none of those things. When you see me post something, all you have to do is read it and take all of the words at face value. I try to be as explicit as i need to be to make my position clear. I don't demand that you necessarily take everything i write and go one step further with it in the direction of your choosing. In fact, i would say that i prefer that you address what i wrote in the context of what it what it was referring to, instead of taking what i wrote completely out of context and then trying to use that out-of-context interpretation to somehow obscure the fact that you really have no answer for me that doesn't involve making a concession. In case you forgot, i was calling bullshit on your bold assertion that social security is currently threatened because of abortion. By all means, point me towards the no doubt numerous objective science-based studies that support the idea that abortion is a significant cause for the "problems with social security".

I never said it was the reason, I said it was A reason. Look at the numbers, do the math, add-subtract, people that were paying in, people that would be paying in, people that are taking out, factor in 40 million less (actually it'd be lower then that, so lets go with 25-30 million) potential people not paying into SS since Roe. v. Wade.

You attributed problems with social security as being a direct result of abortion, in fact, of aborting an entire generation. That would seem to imply that there is a twenty or so year gap where every fetus was aborted. You can't claim social security has been effected by this because its simply not true. Your assertion is vacuous, it's true only in the least meaningful way possible.

I am actually amazed that you found a way to turn abortion into an issue of social security.

Okay, folks......I am surprised that you haven't gone here yet.
A question for the pro-life advocates. Do you propose using the
power of the government to restrict women's access to abortion ?

How would you accomplish this ? Would you restrict access to abortion
nationwide ? Would you limit legal penalties to lifting the licenses of
medical practitioners who performed abortions after a cease and desist
date ? Would you arrest, prosecute and jail women who have an abortion
or practitioners who perform them ? Would there be any exceptions to
a legal ban on abortion; the life of the mother, rape, incest, diagnosed
pre-natal fetal abnormalities or hereditary diseases ? Who would you
trust to determine which abortion requests to approve, vs. determining
which performed abortions are crimes ?

Would appeals of abortion applications be allowed ? Would courts and
attorneys be involved in the application and decision process ? Would
the abortion ban or the appeal process unfairly burden or discriminate
against women with the least money and influence ?

How do you propose preventing or discouraging women who can afford
to purchase a flight out of this country with the intent of obtaining an
abortion in Paris, or in Bermuda ? When I was in college, in the early 70's,
women who wished to terminate a pregnancy simply flew to Puerto Rico
for a weekend. Unless you are willing to restrict travel by requiring
pre-flight pregnancy tests and border exit checkpoints on land routes in
and out of the U.S., do you concede that your implementation of an
outright abortion ban or severe restrictions on the procedure would have
the effect of restricting access to abortion mostly on women who can least
afford to provide post natal care to a child ?

Are the consideration of these details for the purpose of proposing an abortion ban that is comprehensive and effective, but practical and non-discriminatory, a mental exercise that you have spent much time
engaging in, or have you confined your objections to the details in your opinions and arguments that you have posted here ? Is it important to you
that all American women are equally restricted from obtaining abortion
services ?

Yes

Good question, looks like you've got the answers written down here below. yes limit, no. Include, yes You'd have to look at it case-by-case, but jail time and/or fines would be the punishment somea priest

thats a good idea. if you know courts and attorney, you bet they will. Someone will most likely complain

by restricting travel by requiring pre-flight pregnancy tests and border exit checkpoints on land routes in and out of the U.S. ok um...no.

yes yeah, but thats just about impossible. So we might as well let everyone have an abortion since we can't equally restrict all women from having an abortion. That makes a lot of sense

I am strongly pro-abortion, and am sickened by those who are trying to wrestle a woman's autonomy over her own body away from her. This is simply regressive. If conservatives are so worried about the children, why dont they pay some attention to the growing gap between public and private education, or the broken health care system.
Wasnt it revealed that the head of the anti abortionists lobby, Barr, had actually got an abortion for his wife some weeks before? This hypocrisy is telling of the 'moral values' rhetoric that secretes its way into intelligent debate.

Last time I checked, Catholicism wasn't the state religion. How about you checking with your priest and I'll check with my (non-pedophile) witch-doctor.

C'mon StanT, it's difficult enough to engage even one of the pro-lifers here
in a low key exchange without..............

stevo, would you advocate implementing a pregnancy testing requirement for
all women from 9 to 60 years of age before leaving or re-entering the U.S. if
a federal ban on abortion could be legislated?

If your answer is affirmative, I anticipate that women in signifigant numbers
would object to being limited to carrying their unplanned and unwanted
pregnancies through a full term and then delivery. How would you stop
or discourage women from using private boats and airplanes to slip out of
the U.S., obtain an abortion, and slip back into the country?

Would it be "American" to implement and execute the means necessary to
restrict exit and entry from/to the U.S. of women of child bearing age, in
an effort to protect the unborn?

Does the end justify the means, and as long as an abortion ban and border
restrictions prevent a signifigant number of abortions, you'll concede the
loss of civil liberties and the expense and inconvenience to travellers and
to the government? If the abortion ban and border restrictions result in
stopping access to abortion to all women except those with the resources
to escape U.S. jusridiction in private boats and planes, that would be
acceptable to you ?

Would U.S. Customs inspectors, when confronted with women who return to
the U.S. bearing certificates from foreign physicians who certify that they
performed abortions because of a life threatening or other medical neccessity,
simply exempt such women from arrest or investigation?

I am assuming that clergy other than priests would also be given authority
to consider applications for abortions due to special circumstances. How
would women without religious affiliation or beliefs apply for permission to obtain an abortion?

This is just foolish. In case you didn't realize it, I just cut and pasted what your suggestion was. I don't know and I don't really care. If they have the means to get out of the country then so be it, but if it can be proved that an american citizen went to a foreign country with the sole purpose of breaking an american law, then they are to be held responsible for it.

Yes, stevo. It is foolish to advocate restrictions of women's reproductive
rights, or to try to discuss the practicality of enforcing proposed restrictions,
most likely because discussion exposes how un-American and arbitrary such
restrictions would be in the real world.

For what it's worth, I agree with stevo except for his desire to punish abortions that occur in other countries. I don't believe that would be within our jurisdiction. Also, I disagree with his 'priest' answer; my pick would be 'doctor'. But I would, in addition, desire medical audits to determine whether abortion-performing doctors are not labeling any abortions falsely as 'medically necessary', with leeway towards the doctors in order to allow erring on the side of caution.

Fair enough. The point is, why should a non-Catholic subject themselves to a Catholic priest. The other point is that Catholicism really needs to clean up it's own act before acting as the world's arbiter of all that is moral.

Well...it has been a while....

Over on this thread,
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=130633
there is a discussion related to whether the circumstances of men's parental rights, and obligations, are fair, or not.

In post #33 on that thread, I wrote:
...and I got the same response as I got to the questions about procedure and implementation, as I got so long ago, on this thread?

Isn't the best way, "to be fair", to require that all women of childbearing age have weekly or bi-monthly "pregnancy screenings", with results officially certified and "on file", available to inspection, for the sake of "fairness", whether abortions in a given jurisdiction are legally permitted, or not?

If they are legally performed, the purpose of the mandatory, regular pregnancy screenings would be to satisfy the "fairness" requirement in maintianing male parental rights. All a potential father would need to keep tabs on the results of his sexual couplings, would be the full names, and maybe a pregnancy screening client reference number, of his recent partners.

Under such a mandate, a woman would be much less likely to be pregnant without her partner having an opportunity to attempt to prohibit her from terminating her pregnancy without him having his say, and hopefully a court hearing where he could attempt to convince an impartial magistrate of his fitness and financial soundness, so an intervention could be accomplished to maintain the pregnancy to allow him to become a father.

If, in a given jurisdiction, abortion was prohibited by law, this same mandatory, frequent pregnancy screening would serve to "lock down", women of considerable financial means to leave an abortion restricted jursidiction, to bring fairness to an abortion prohibition that would much more likely make legal, clinical abortion only beyond the reach of women of limited financial means. The frequent screenings would require any woman who tested pregnant, and then subsequently tested negative, to explain to enforcement authorities, how the pregnancy ended. All women would then be legally accountable.

It seems fair to me, but kind of restrictive for advocates of abortion restriction who otherwise strongly favor less government intervention and regulation, not more....

....or is all of it, either not thought completely through, or just absolutely fucking absurd, because we are in the US of A, and it is 2008?

I'd have been happy with "When a woman gets an abortion, the father is notified." or "When the father wants the child, and the mother doesn't, the father is given the option to be put on an adoption list." in the other thread. State sponsored pregnancy screenings? Heh, no thanks.

I am always perplexed about the hypocrasy of the whole pro-life/pro capital punishment and the pro-choice/anti death penalty.

Isn't life, life? If you claim it is wrong to have an abortion because it is murder is not capital punishment murder and since most people who are in this class are religious, does not the Bible say Jesus says "Vengeance is mine"?

But the case for the other side makes no sense either. Isn't death death? Aren't both in essence murder?

I don't know just an observation.

Me? I'm pro-choice, pro-capital punishment. I believe that if we allow one we must allow the other. Or if we ban one we must ban the other.

I don't know what book of the bible you're quoting but Jesus never said, "Vengence is Mine." Jesus preached in Matthew 5:39 "But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also."

Just went by the old saying "vengeance is mine, so sayeth the Lord".

Barclay Newman and Eugene Nida, in their excellent Translator's Handbook on Paul's Letter to the Romans (New York: United Bible Societies, 1973, page 242), write regarding Rom 12:19:

http://www.bibletexts.com/qa/qa057.htm

Also found at the same site is:

Shows the hypocrasy: "If you kill an unborn it's murder, but we need to fry all those that kill in society."

It has been explained to me by anti-choice/pro-death penalty folks that the rationale for this is that the death penalty is executed under the authority of government and law, and not by individuals based on personal desires, while abortion gives individual citizens the right to hold power of life and death over a fetus, which they claim to see as a person on par with any born person. The idea is that killing is not okay done by individuals, but is okay when done by the government (within the law).

Personally, I see the government, particularly in a democracy, as an extension of its citizens. Thus I see this reasoning as a form of collective evasion of responsibility. Thus I can't condone this approach to the problem.

Suicide reduces a consumer's ability to participate usefully in the economy. Unwanted children reduce the earning (read: spending and tax paying) potential of the mother (or both parents). The added spending associated with child-rearing is a non-issue because the abortion of an unwanted pregnancy does not preclude a wanted pregnancy (and associated economic activity) later in life. Further, the spending associated with a more established parent will be greater than in the outcome of an unwanted pregnancy.:orly:

The motivation behind the expansion of drug laws was also initially economic, but is now primarily political.

Economic arguments for or against abortion can be made easily enough. One can point out the fact that unwanted children, or more importantly children born to those without the capacity to properly care for them, can often pose more burden then benefit (economically). Simplistic calculations of the number of abortions times the average productivity of a citizen are meaningless. Many abortions don't cut into population at all: many women have abortions, particularly at younger ages, and then go on to have a family. Even if the numbers are the same it is true that planned families result in a greater chance the children will be more productive citizens than impromptu families.

However, I believe the motivation for both banning or allowing abortion is not primarily economic, but a more broad social motivation. The question is social stability, of which economic stability is a component but not the only major component.

I don't like that argument much, either. Nor arguments of 'justice' (read: retribution). And I'm greatly skeptical of the deterrent argument. I prefer the argument of protection.

Prison is to protect society from dangerous men. The death penalty is to protect prisoners - and guards - from dangerous men.

That's a much better argument in my opinion. Though I'm still against the death penalty myself.

Well, no, life is not life, because then you have to include all the other non-human life forms, which is practically taboo. The fact of the matter is life is a huge gray area and staking out definitive positions is bound to run into exceptions, objections, and endless argument. But wait. I like this one even better. If abortion is murder then women who have abortions have either commissioned a murder for hire or are murderers themselves. Now find me a pro-lifer who would support convicting and punishing those women appropriately. (How about the death penalty?) *crickets* Nobody does hypocrisy better than moral conservatives.

The fault of your argument is that you take Social Security to be a big pyramid scheme wherein the earlier entrants (retirees) are supported by the later entrants (young workers). But Social Security is not a pyramid scheme. Pyramid schemes can work for a while but are bound to failure when you run out of people to join them (regardless how many of them you're aborting :rolleyes: you can never have enough to support the whole pyramid). The point of Social Security is for workers to support THEMSELVES in retirement by paying into the system while they work and getting that money BACK later. The current problems with Social Security are basically due to projections that underestimated the amount of money the system would need to pay benefits. It was never intended for the workers to support the retirees, thus it's irrelevant how many workers there are since they're only paying themselves.