Quote :

"-I personally don't think that either of these times define the beginning of human life, but i wonder who on here does."

My take is that life is continuous. Even the sperm and egg are alive and are human. However, individual rights come into play when the fetus becomes a viable individual. That is, when it can be disconnected from the mother's body and remain alive.

You can't have rights as an individual if you cannot sustain your individuality.

[Edited on September 18, 2008 at 9:56 PM. Reason : .]

9/18/2008 9:53:53 PM

Quote :

"You can't have rights as an individual if you cannot sustain your individuality."

a newborn baby can't survive without help despite being disconnected from the mother's body

9/18/2008 10:10:58 PM

Quote :

"You can't have rights as an individual if you cannot sustain your individuality."

Plenty of old folks need care. Does that mean we should wipe out the nursing homes?

9/19/2008 8:19:11 AM

On top of those two objections, I'll repeat that your standard seems dependent on technological advances. Modern medicine is capable of sustaining a fetus/infant disconnected from its mother much earlier than was once possible. Premature babies that would have been dead for sure a century ago can now survive with relative ease, and with the use of life-support procedures no more elaborate or invasive than many adult sick people get. Presumably in a hundred more years we'll be able to sustain them even earlier. It just seems wrong to me that an individual's rights should based on changing medical science.

9/22/2008 3:21:23 AM

There are diminishing returns. 7 month old premies can live decent lives nowadays.

I don't think it's going to get much younger than that.

That still puts you in the third trimester.

9/22/2008 8:05:26 AM

^There are plenty of kids born younger than 7 months. Besides, if we are so unsure about when life starts, shouldn't we err on the side of caution?

Quote :

"During the past several decades, neonatal care has improved with advances in medical science, and therefore the point of viability may have moved earlier.[25] As of 2006, the two youngest children to survive premature birth are thought to be James Elgin Gill (born on 20 May 1987 in Ottawa, Canada, at 21 weeks and 5 days gestational age),[26][27] and Amillia Taylor (born on 24 October 2006 in Miami, Florida, at 21 weeks and 6 days gestational age).[28][29][30] Both children were born just under 20 weeks from fertilization, or a few days past the midpoint of an average full-term pregnancy. Despite their premature births, both developed into healthy children."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus#Viability

9/22/2008 8:41:58 AM

Quote :

"a newborn baby can't survive without help despite being disconnected from the mother's body"

But that help does not have to come from the mother. In my view the mother has the fundamental right to give up a newborn child for adoption or to the care of the state with no questions asked. See more below

Quote :

"Plenty of old folks need care. Does that mean we should wipe out the nursing homes?"

No, but it does mean that no free individual could be forced to work in a nursing home. If the state wishes to pay for nursing home care for those who cannot afford it then so be it but the choice to work in a nursing home must be left to the individuals.

Quote :

"I'll repeat that your standard seems dependent on technological advances. Modern medicine is capable of sustaining a fetus/infant disconnected from its mother much earlier than was once possible. Premature babies that would have been dead for sure a century ago can now survive with relative ease, and with the use of life-support procedures no more elaborate or invasive than many adult sick people get. Presumably in a hundred more years we'll be able to sustain them even earlier. It just seems wrong to me that an individual's rights should based on changing medical science."

Except that it effects the nature of the relationship between the two parties, which is central. The mother does not have the right to kill the fetus, only to sever her relationship to it. If the fetus can survive without a mother who refuses to care for it then it has every right to. However, you cannot insist that another person use their body to support your life.

In short, I think it comes down to whether the right to life or to liberty is paramount. I argue that liberty is paramount. Not least because if it were not then we could not justly kill people to preserve liberty.

9/22/2008 1:01:22 PM

Quote :

"whether the right to life or to liberty is paramount"

liberty isn't worth much when you're dead

9/22/2008 1:07:16 PM

Just to add.

I am in no way arguing that abortion is morally right. I am simply arguing as to whether the government has to the right to force a mother to carry another person within her body.

There are many morally wrong things that our right to liberty prevents the government from justly banning. The most obvious are promoting racism or hate speech, cheating on a loving spouse, refusing to offer love to your children when they desperately need emotional support.

9/22/2008 1:09:56 PM

^^

I would argue that life is not worth much without freedom.

My take is that one of the fundamental tennents of this country is that liberty comes first. If the US government were to become completely corrupt and begin violating our rights under the constitution. Could we not justly revolt? Even if the government is not threatening to kill us. Don't we have the right to kill not only to protect our own lives but our freedom?

9/22/2008 1:14:33 PM

Life begins at conception.

Which means abortion is most definitely murder.

And I'm totally okay with it.

9/22/2008 4:17:01 PM

Quote :

"Life begins at conception. Which means abortion is most definitely murder. And I'm totally okay with it."

So you see no problem with the premeditated murder of an innocent person? Or do you use some form of Just War Theory to rationalize it? Or are you being dishonest about what you really think?

9/22/2008 4:20:45 PM

Quote :

"So you see no problem with the premeditated murder of an innocent person?"

In the case of abortion, I see no problem with the premeditated murder of an innocent person.

Quote :

"Or do you use some form of Just War Theory to rationalize it?"

No.

Quote :

"Or are you being dishonest about what you really think?"

I thought I was being honest.

9/22/2008 4:27:17 PM

Quote :

"In the case of abortion, I see no problem with the premeditated murder of an innocent person."

I'm just trying to think through your reasoning. You stated the following:

1- Life begins at conception.
2- Its wrong to murder.
3- Abortion is OK.

That just doesn't compute. Either (a)you don't REALLY think abortion is murder, (b) you believe that the benefits of legalized abortion outweigh the wrong of killing a child, (c) you are kind of fuzzy about where to draw the line, or (d) you haven't thought of your views as a series of contradictory presuppositions. Maybe you could help me out and shed some light on your thought process.

9/22/2008 4:53:14 PM

Quote :

"The mother does not have the right to kill the fetus, only to sever her relationship to it. If the fetus can survive without a mother who refuses to care for it then it has every right to. However, you cannot insist that another person use their body to support your life. "

My thoughts exactly.

Quote :

"Which means abortion is most definitely murder. And I'm totally okay with it."

LOL. Ya I could really care less about someone else's little terdball. One less screaming baby
when i go out to eat.

9/22/2008 5:44:38 PM

Quote :

"Except that it effects the nature of the relationship between the two parties, which is central. The mother does not have the right to kill the fetus, only to sever her relationship to it. If the fetus can survive without a mother who refuses to care for it then it has every right to. However, you cannot insist that another person use their body to support your life. "

This is by far the most reasonable answer I've gotten to the question. Certainly more reasonable than HUR could come up with by himself, though he'll no doubt throw a bitchfit for me saying it.

I still think it leads to some pretty goddamn important questions...

1) The woman (along with a man) set into motion a series of events that they knew full and bloody well could lead to a human being completely dependent on her. It seems a little sketchy to tell people, "Well, you can create all the people you want, but you can kill them while they require your assistance."

2) Another thing that can be done and is done in this and every other country in the world is that a person can be held accountable for their actions, even when that requires the suspension of their liberty. You say this:

Quote :

"Not least because if it were not then we could not justly kill people to preserve liberty. "

But of course it's far more common for us to deprive people of their liberty in order to preserve life. We throw people in prison all the time; we execute them far less frequently. Hell, we kill people in military action far less frequently than we deprive them of liberty in jail cells and prisons.

9/22/2008 11:59:54 PM

Quote :

"That just doesn't compute. Either (a)you don't REALLY think abortion is murder, (b) you believe that the benefits of legalized abortion outweigh the wrong of killing a child, (c) you are kind of fuzzy about where to draw the line, or (d) you haven't thought of your views as a series of contradictory presuppositions. Maybe you could help me out and shed some light on your thought process."

That position is not contradictory. He's saying that murder in certain situations is justified. IOW, rather than solely equating murder with an unimaginable sin, it's an act that is valid in certain conditions. Some would argue that capital punishment and carpet bombing are all forms of murder, but are acceptable for the greater good, likewise, this same person might also argue that abortion is murder, but acceptable for the greater good.

9/23/2008 1:08:45 AM

^ thats about how I feel about it

9/23/2008 1:21:15 AM

What it comes down to for me is the atmosphere that would be created if abortion was made illegal. How would it be enforced? What would be an appropriate punishment? Would it be treated like murder (abortion called murder is a misnomer, btw) so otherwise innocent and productive members of society would receive jail sentences? How is an abortion proved in court? Who goes to jail, the mom, or both the mom and dad? Or would it just be a misdemeanor and a fine? How much is the fine? Are we putting a monetary value on human life again? Would making abortions illegal really reduce or eliminate them, or just push them to another state or country? If it does reduce them, what about these extra millions of largely unwanted babies? Will following this principle have a positive impact on society and our quality of life?

Leaving it as a personal choice avoids this mess, and limits the impact of an abortion largely to the family.

9/23/2008 2:50:13 AM

I am now going to point out the many reasons why the above post is stupid. I realize that "stupid" is a harsh term, but frankly I'm tired of pussyfooting around it when we all know full well it's exactly what I mean.

Quote :

"What it comes down to for me is the atmosphere that would be created if abortion was made illegal. How would it be enforced? What would be an appropriate punishment?"

These are questions that have to be asked about all things that are crimes, including those crimes everybody more or less agrees on. We frequently review the question of how to enforce and punish theft, rape, murder, etc. And even these near-universally disgusting offenses being crimes creates an "atmosphere," if you will, that nobody likes

Quote :

"Would it be treated like murder (abortion called murder is a misnomer, btw) so otherwise innocent and productive members of society would receive jail sentences?"

Saying that the characterization is a "misnomer" without any sort of backing whatsoever indicates that you clearly miss the whole point of this thread. If you think that characterizing abortion as murder is flat-out wrong, you're making certain assumptions -- namely, that the entity being aborted is not a living human. That's fine -- that's the question that the thread was asking. But you could at least have the basic respect for logic and the purpose of this discussion to say as much, rather than to assume it and move onto something else.

And there are more than a few criminals who are "otherwise and productive members of society." Take the concept just a little beyond what you presented, and all criminals meet that criterion. By this genius logic it would be silly to sentence any first-time offender to jail time, because, I mean, they've never committed any crime other than the crime they have committed.

Quote :

"How is an abortion proved in court?"

Probably the same way any other crime is proved in court -- physical evidence, witness testimony, etc., etc. You could do a DNA match on fetal remains, inspect the woman's plumbing (as we do for rape cases), talk to doctors and nurses, and so on.

Quote :

"Who goes to jail, the mom, or both the mom and dad?"

Again, as with any other crime. If the dad had something to do with the operation, you could try to get him for conspiracy. You could get the doctor, too, for actually performing the act.

Quote :

"Or would it just be a misdemeanor and a fine?"

Seems like it would be up to legislators to determine this, since that's who we usually leave lawmaking up to.

Quote :

"Would making abortions illegal really reduce or eliminate them, or just push them to another state or country?"

Yet again, the same thing with a lot of other crimes. You can't fuck whores legally in NC, but you can go to Las Vegas if you really want. You can't buy a goddamn rocket propelled grenade in this country, either, but you could go to Yemen to get one. Hell, you can't even stone a rape victim to death in this country, but if you're determined enough, there's always Pakistan.

Quote :

"If it does reduce them, what about these extra millions of largely unwanted babies?"

Und vat about all zees extra Juden, mein Fuhrer? The whole fucking point of this thread is to ask, "When does life begin?" If human life begins before abortions are possible, then the whole concept of "extra" people that can be liquidated is fundamentally abhorrent. Now, if you think human life begins at birth or whatever, that's fine -- but just say that instead of adding a lot of irrelevant, inane, and idiotic bullshit to a thread already clouded with plenty of the same.

9/23/2008 3:31:34 AM

^Your post was AWESOME when I read it imagining Lewis Black's voice.

9/23/2008 3:36:29 AM

Quote :

"That position is not contradictory. He's saying that murder in certain situations is justified. IOW, rather than solely equating murder with an unimaginable sin, it's an act that is valid in certain conditions. Some would argue that capital punishment and carpet bombing are all forms of murder, but are acceptable for the greater good, likewise, this same person might also argue that abortion is murder, but acceptable for the greater good."

That would be an argument from Just War Theory, which I stated twice.

9/23/2008 8:54:38 AM

^Okay, fine. Count me down for the Just War thingamajig. ?

(I'm opposed to the death penalty, by the way.)

9/23/2008 12:17:18 PM

for reference:

Quote :

"...a conflict can and ought to meet the criteria of philosophical, religious or political justice, provided it follows certain conditions. Just War theorists combine both a moral abhorrence towards war with a readiness to accept that war may sometimes be necessary. The criteria of the just war tradition act as an aid to determining whether resorting to arms is morally preferable. Just War are attempts to distinguish between justifiable and unjustifiable uses of organized armed forces; they attempt to conceive of how the use of arms might be restrained, made more humane, and ultimately directed towards the aim of establishing lasting peace and justice."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_War

Forms of Just War Theory are often used to justify abortion, stem cell research, and use of deadly force by law enforcement.

9/23/2008 12:31:20 PM

^I already read it.

9/23/2008 12:52:39 PM

Quote :

"Saying that the characterization is a "misnomer" without any sort of backing whatsoever indicates that you clearly miss the whole point of this thread."

The dictionary and the judicial system define murder as the unlawful killing of someone with malicious intent. Murder is the word applied to the crime of killing somone with malice. Abortion is not a crime, nor is it done with malice. Hence, it is not appropriately applied here. I didn't know the point of this thread was to define words for everyone.

Quote :

"And there are more than a few criminals who are "otherwise and productive members of society." "

I didn't articulate that thought well. I was asking if it would be appropriate to treat people who have abortions as murderers. Thats a very difficult question for me, and probably many others. But lawmakers will sort it out, right?

Quote :

"Probably the same way any other crime is proved in court -- physical evidence, witness testimony, etc., etc. You could do a DNA match on fetal remains, inspect the woman's plumbing (as we do for rape cases), talk to doctors and nurses, and so on."

It sounds simple. This assumes it was done in a clinic somewhere. If it was done in a clinic, this adds more complication. How does law enforcement even find out that it happened if everyone is an accomplice?

If it wasn't done at a clinic, and say sitting on a toilet with a coat hanger, it would be pretty difficult to find evidence and charge anyone with a crime. The thing about murder is, there always a dead person around somewhere that people are going to wonder about. With abortion, its just some fetus, that doesn't have family or friends or a social security card.

Oh and what about this? If life begins at conception, do fetuses get "life" certificates and so on? Is a miscarriage considered an infant death?

How do we distinguish miscarriages from abortions. Does the mother drinking excessive caffeine to induce a miscarriage fall into the category of murder? Is taking a morning after pill or some other kind of pill to induce miscarriage murder? How would that be enforced?

Quote :

"Seems like it would be up to legislators to determine this, since that's who we usually leave lawmaking up to."

They want abortion to remain legal, like the rest of the country. So, would their laws be satisfactory?

Quote :

"Und vat about all zees extra Juden, mein Fuhrer? The whole fucking point of this thread is to ask, "When does life begin?" If human life begins before abortions are possible, then the whole concept of "extra" people that can be liquidated is fundamentally abhorrent."

I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm talking about the effects of the extra influx of children on the foster care system and on infrastructure and so on later on, and the effects on society as a whole. You're free to imagine all the possibilities here.

Quote :

"Now, if you think human life begins at birth or whatever, that's fine -- but just say that instead of adding a lot of irrelevant, inane, and idiotic bullshit to a thread already clouded with plenty of the same."

Thanks for calling my thoughts irrelevant, inane, idiotic bullshit. I thought I was bringing some insight into the practical complexities of making abortion illegal, rather than just talking about moral dilemmas. I guess you would rather have knowledge be withheld than to violate the principle of keeping an internet thread limited to its original topic.





[Edited on September 23, 2008 at 1:21 PM. Reason : .]

9/23/2008 12:53:02 PM

for some interesting takes along the lines of kwsmith2's arguments, check out:

Murray Rothbard - "Children and Rights" (excerpt from The Ethics of Liberty): http://mises.org/story/2568
Walter Block - "Stem Cell Research: The Libertarian Compromise": http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block5.html

9/23/2008 1:16:28 PM

I forgot this part:

Quote :

"Would making abortions illegal really reduce or eliminate them, or just push them to another state or country?"

Quote :

""Yet again, the same thing with a lot of other crimes." "

If the law is ineffective, then what is the point? To take a stand against something on principle? And have no results from it, while creating a huge mess? Is that worth it? Is that bettering society?

9/23/2008 2:47:55 PM

Quote :

"If the law is ineffective, then what is the point? To take a stand against something on principle? And have no results from it, while creating a huge mess? Is that worth it? Is that bettering society?"

Maybe you should look at the statistics. Abortion rates climbed DRAMATICALLY in the years after it was legalized in the US.

http://www.abortionfacts.com/statistics/us_stats_abortion.asp

Quote :

"We’ve had an example of an entire nation in recent years. It was Poland. Under Communist rule in the ’80s, there were consistently over 100,000 abortions registered each year as compared to about 600,000 births. With the establishment of some self-government in 1990, with both the Church and doctors discouraging abortion, the numbers fell to 59,400. During this time [1990-1994] the number of registered abortions declined to 176th of what it had been, and there was not a single death due to illegal abortion. All of these figures are exactly opposite of what International Planned Parenthood people in Poland predicted when the restrictive law was passed"

http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_27.asp#illegal

9/23/2008 3:02:31 PM

conception

9/23/2008 3:43:59 PM

I don't have a problem with doctors discouraging abortion. They're doctors and as long as they speak freely from their own knowledge and opinions, that's fine. I'm sure there are many of qualified doctors out there that refuse to preform or assist in the procedure at all.

But most people going in to get it done have already thought a long long long time about it and the answer of "I understand, just do it" should be expected and honored.

9/23/2008 4:22:47 PM

^nevermind, I reread your post and you already answered what I wanted to ask

[Edited on September 23, 2008 at 4:30 PM. Reason : .]

9/23/2008 4:28:44 PM

Am I the only person here who likes knocking a chick up just to shell out 300 bucks a few weeks later to have an abortion?

9/23/2008 4:52:51 PM

Quote :

"1) The woman (along with a man) set into motion a series of events that they knew full and bloody well could lead to a human being "

Unless the woman was raped.


The same opponents of abortion are probably the same people who bitch and moan about having to pay taxes in order to provide welfare, including foodstamps, to single unwed mothers. Go Figure....

9/23/2008 4:54:46 PM

Quote :

"Maybe you should look at the statistics. Abortion rates climbed DRAMATICALLY in the years after it was legalized in the US."

Your stats revolve around reported, legal abortions.

How did they determine the number of illegal abortions?

I mean, of course, the rates are going to climb from 1972 (when it was only legal in some places) to 1976 (when it was legal and being reported everywhere).

And, even if the rate of abortions (legal and otherwise) did rise, who cares? The only thing that stat says to me is that more women were exercising their right not to have to settle down with the first loser who knocks them up.

9/23/2008 6:09:08 PM

conception

9/24/2008 1:57:34 AM

Quote :

"Unless the woman was raped."

Less than 1% of abortions are performed on rape victims. The rape card is just another tactic pro-choicers use to avoid real discussion.

Quote :

"Your stats revolve around reported, legal abortions. How did they determine the number of illegal abortions? I mean, of course, the rates are going to climb from 1972 (when it was only legal in some places) to 1976 (when it was legal and being reported everywhere)."

What about the stats from Poland? I'll post some more figures from the US when I get a chance. The number of deaths from botched abortions is a much better gauge.

Quote :

"The only thing that stat says to me is that more women were exercising their right not to have to settle down with the first loser who knocks them up."

Is it too much to expect those men and women to take responsibility for their actions? Why would you advocate the use of abortion (which you admit takes a life) as a form of birth control? There are cheaper, safer methods of birth control. Why don't you expect people to exercise caution and use common sense rather than copping out and saying "oh well, at least you won't have to marry this loser now that you removed the baby from your womb."

9/24/2008 8:56:44 AM

Quote :

"my point is that there's also no way in hell you can relate to the decision until it's in front of you and you actually have to make it. That changes things.""

9/24/2008 10:58:06 AM

Quote :

"That changes things."

No, it doesn't. It may make it more emotionally trying, but it doesn't change whether something is right or wrong. That argument would never hold up in court.

"But officer, if you only knew how late I was, you would understand why I was speeding. You just have to look at it from where I am."

"I didn't mean to cause thousands of investors to lose their life savings. I just wanted to make myself look good. You've never been a CFO before, you wouldn't understand."

"Yes, I robbed the bank. But I had lost my job and I was really depressed and desperate. If you send me to prison, its because you don't know what its like to be down and out."

Its just another attempt to avoid an honest discussion of a moral issue. I don't discount the pain and anguish many people may go through. But I will not confuse the pain or difficulty of making a decision with the objective morality of it. Just because rational, non-emotive thinking is difficult, doesn't mean it is impossible.

9/24/2008 11:37:19 AM

Quote :

"What about the stats from Poland? I'll post some more figures from the US when I get a chance. The number of deaths from botched abortions is a much better gauge."

So you admit that you were dishonest about the way you interpreted the US data?

And, in terms of Poland, you're still being dishonest. Poland passed a law in 1993 making it illegal for women to get abortions unless there was risk to her life, a rape, or problem with the baby. So, of course, the number of registered, legal abortions dropped to 176th of what they were originally. However:

Quote :

"While Poland reported fewer than 200 “official” abortions last year (2005), it is estimated that between 60,000 and 200,000 Polish women obtain abortions annually, either by paying for an illegal abortion in-country or traveling to a nearby country where abortion is legal."

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/issues-action/international/abortion-poland-7659.htm

And if you wanna know where I got that info, I found it in an article about a young Polish woman who was told by three doctors that a pregnancy would cause her serious harm but also refused to sign off on an abortion. She went ahead and had her third child in 2000 against her will. She also suffered a retinal hemorrhage during labor and is now disabled and unable to work to effectively support the children that she was forced to have. That article was written in 2006, and it's worth noting that in 2007 the woman was awarded 25,000 euros by the European court of human rights.

Now, I don't trust this 200,000 figure Planned Parenthood is putting out there about the number of illegal abortions in Poland. But 60,000? 100,000? Sounds about right. Especially when you consider the fact that Poland has straight up come out and said that illegal abortion is a problem.

Quote :

"Is it too much to expect those men and women to take responsibility for their actions? Why would you advocate the use of abortion (which you admit takes a life) as a form of birth control? There are cheaper, safer methods of birth control. Why don't you expect people to exercise caution and use common sense rather than copping out and saying "oh well, at least you won't have to marry this loser now that you removed the baby from your womb.""

I think more and more women are taking control of their bodies by using birth control. It's a beautiful thing. In the meantime, legal abortions protect women who do have undesired pregnancies. And, by the way, I considered getting an abortion a perfectly acceptable way for people to "take responsibility for their actions." No woman should have to become a mother just because some dipshit didn't put his condom on properly.

[Edited on September 24, 2008 at 12:49 PM. Reason : sss]

9/24/2008 12:46:46 PM

Quote :

"And, in terms of Poland, you're still being dishonest. Poland passed a law in 1993 making it illegal for women to get abortions unless there was risk to her life, a rape, or problem with the baby. So, of course, the number of registered, legal abortions dropped to 176th of what they were originally."

Yes and the number of women's deaths connected with pregnancy declined, as did the number of infanticides.

Quote :

"And if you wanna know where I got that info, I found it in an article about a young Polish woman who was told by three doctors that a pregnancy would cause her serious harm but also refused to sign off on an abortion. She went ahead and had her third child in 2000 against her will. She also suffered a retinal hemorrhage during labor and is now disabled and unable to work to effectively support the children that she was forced to have."

Quote :

""While Poland reported fewer than 200 “official” abortions last year (2005), it is estimated that between 60,000 and 200,000 Polish women obtain abortions annually, either by paying for an illegal abortion in-country or traveling to a nearby country where abortion is legal.""

What is your point? The anecdote about the woman denied the abortion is a pretty sharp contrast to the alleged statistics. Furthermore, the Polish laws allow abortions when the mother's life is in danger. Based on the legal exceptions and the statistics, I find it hard to believe that the woman was "forced" to have this child. Maybe she couldn't get it done in 5 minutes at a clinic across the street from her home. Boo hoo. The fact is, the number of abortions dramatically decreased by even the most liberal (planned parenthood) estimates and the number of women who died due to pregnancy decreased.

Quote :

"Now, I don't trust this 200,000 figure Planned Parenthood is putting out there about the number of illegal abortions in Poland. But 60,000? 100,000? Sounds about right. Especially when you consider the fact that Poland has straight up come out and said that illegal abortion is a problem."

You're right to question Planned Parenthood's statistics. They're a registered nonprofit that rakes in an estimated $900 million - $1 billion a year (the exact number is not made public). They receive $300 million a year in tax breaks and handouts from the federal government. This is in addition to the abortions that are paid for by tax dollars in a few states (I think the number is 14). Planned Parenthood is even harshly criticized by private practitioners who perform abortions. They get tons of financial incentives to sell expensive services and they refuse to make their finances and operations transparent.

Of course Planned Parenthood has said that illegal abortion is a problem. Why wouldn't they? Now I know the issue of "safety" is about to come up. I'll go ahead and give you some stats on that.



Between 1967 and 1973, there was no sharp drop in abortion deaths. This is while the number of abortions increased. Say what you want about whether or not the increase was as large as reported. You have to agree that there was at least some significant increase.

Quote :

"And, by the way, I considered getting an abortion a perfectly acceptable way for people to "take responsibility for their actions." No womanchild should have to become a motherdie just because some dipshit didn't put his condom on properlya couple of adults insist on acting irresponsibly."

What about the responsibility of AVOIDING pregnancy, when you don't desire a child?

9/24/2008 1:17:16 PM

Quote :

"What is your point? The anecdote about the woman denied the abortion is a pretty sharp contrast to the alleged statistics. Furthermore, the Polish laws allow abortions when the mother's life is in danger. Based on the legal exceptions and the statistics, I find it hard to believe that the woman was "forced" to have this child. Maybe she couldn't get it done in 5 minutes at a clinic across the street from her home. Boo hoo."

Dude, she was straight up denied an abortion. In Poland, you have to get three doctors to sign off on your abortion in order for it to be legal. She found three doctors. They all agreed she would probably be blinded if she brought the child to term, but they refused to sign off on her abortion. An international court later determined that Poland's policy led to a violation of her human rights.

Did you seriously just fucking boo hoo at that? A blind woman who can't work to support the child that blinded her? That makes you boo hoo?

Quote :

"The fact is, the number of abortions dramatically decreased by even the most liberal (planned parenthood) estimates and the number of women who died due to pregnancy decreased."

They dramatically decreased because they were outlawed and women went elsewhere to get them. And elsewhere is a lot safer these days (still prohibitively expensive for some women though). Also, women and men got more access to better birth control, which reduced the need for abortions in general. And maybe people were a little more hopeful for the life of a child after gaining some self-government, which might also reduce the need for abortion.

Anyway, my point is that lots of factors played into this thing, and you're choosing to ignore them. You expect me to believe that the Church/doctors discouraged it so it went down. Then the government outlawed it so it went down. And now Poland only has a few hundred abortions a year! IT'S A GODDAMNED MIRACLE!

Quote :

"Of course Planned Parenthood has said that illegal abortion is a problem. Why wouldn't they?"

Reread. I didn't say Planned Parenthood claims it's a problem. I said POLAND. Poland admits illegal abortion is a problem in their country.

Quote :

"Now I know the issue of "safety" is about to come up."

No, it's not. I wouldn't suggest women are dropping like flies with coat hangers hanging out of them. There are plenty of qualified people in and outside of Poland that are willing to perform illegal abortions. The cost is prohibitive to some women though so while many, many women have safe, illegal abortions, there are still those who suffer horribly just like they did in the good, old days.

Quote :

"And, by the way, I considered getting an abortion a perfectly acceptable way for people to "take responsibility for their actions." No womanchild should have to become a motherdie just because some dipshit didn't put his condom on properlya couple of adults insist on acting irresponsibly. What about the responsibility of AVOIDING pregnancy, when you don't desire a child? "

We've already been over this. I think it's okay to take a life in the case of abortion.

In terms of responsibility in avoiding pregnancy, we've also already been over this. I believe we're getting there.

However, the responsibility of avoiding pregnancy in Poland is being greatly undermined by the same people who sought to outlaw abortion. Did you know sterilization is illegal in Poland--it's illegal to get a vasectomy or a tubal ligation. Furthermore:

Quote :

"The use of modern contraceptives is still not widespread in Poland, ‘for reasons of ignorance, unfamiliarity, unwillingness to break Church edicts, lingering embarrassment, misinformation about their effectiveness and side-effects, and supply shortages.'"

https://bora.uib.no/handle/1956/2224

Maybe you should research your points instead of just pulling them off a pro-life website. That link will take you to an archive of a pdf on contraception, abortion, and state socialism...there's a section on Poland.

[Edited on September 24, 2008 at 2:31 PM. Reason : sss]

9/24/2008 2:29:30 PM

Quote :

"Dude, she was straight up denied an abortion. In Poland, you have to get three doctors to sign off on your abortion in order for it to be legal. She found three doctors. They all agreed she would probably be blinded if she brought the child to term, but they refused to sign off on her abortion. An international court later determined that Poland's policy led to a violation of her human rights. Did you seriously just fucking boo hoo at that? A blind woman who can't work to support the child that blinded her? That makes you boo hoo?"

Did you read the numbers you posted? Supposedly 60,000+ women are getting abortions in Poland with NO PROBLEM. Quit trying to use an anecdotal sob story to prove a point that is refuted by statistics.

By the way, using profanity doesn't boost your credibility. Thanks for destroying what was a rational discussion.

Quote :

"An international court later determined that Poland's policy led to a violation of her human rights."

Yes, and when the woman took her case to court, it was determined that her pregnancy DID NOT CONTRIBUTE to her condition.

Quote :

"I think it's okay to take a life in the case of abortion."

Yes, and I'm still waiting to hear your reasoning. How do you justify taking an innocent life?

[Edited on September 24, 2008 at 2:40 PM. Reason : .]

9/24/2008 2:32:19 PM

Quote :

"Did you read the numbers you posted? Supposedly 60,000+ women are getting abortions in Poland with NO PROBLEM. Quit trying to use an anecdotal sob story to prove a point that is refuted by statistics."

She couldn't afford an illegal abortion and was denied a legal one. She didn't have the money to participate in abortion tourism.

Quote :

"Yes, and when the woman took her case to court, it was determined that her pregnancy DID NOT CONTRIBUTE to her condition."

Maybe that's true. Forgive me if I don't trust you after you've distorted statistics to support some notion that Poland is a model for us all (HA!).

But suppose you're right and that's true. Her rights were still violated when she was denied the abortion. She still should have qualified for one, but she didn't. And that's what happens when a government says, "Okay, we'll allow it in the case of threat to the mother. But you gotta get three doctors to agree there's a threat. Oh, and by the way, doctors, we're keeping an eye you. You better be one hundred percent sure this abortion is necessary or we'll take your license..."

They get to pretend to be reasonable when they really just banned abortion save for a couple hundred that managed to slip through their rigid fingers. And that's the greater point here.

Quote :

"Yes, and I'm still waiting to hear your reasoning. How do you justify taking an innocent life?"

You did that for me. The Just War thing.

Quote :

"By the way, using profanity doesn't boost your credibility. Thanks for destroying what was a rational discussion."

I pretty much always use profanity. I thought your "boo hoo" bit meant we were on the same page here.

And I want to apologize for destroying our rational discussion. I didn't know it was my profanity. I assumed it was because your laughable bullshit about Poland was all you had to add.

I don't deserve to win this argument. But you gotta come with more than some limited information about Poland from a single pro-life website... I mean, at least try to respond to some of my points about your statistics...all you're doing now is honing in on the validity of an anecdote and criticizing my word choice.

9/24/2008 3:20:15 PM

Quote :

"Abortion is not a crime, nor is it done with malice."

Not strictly speaking true. Malice isn't a necessary component; intent is. That's the thing that separates murder from, say, manslaughter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malice_aforethought

That link gives a pretty good overview of why, once again, you are wrong.

Of course, you could make the argument that, because abortion is not currently illegal in this country, the term "murder" can not be applied to it. This seems a bit silly; if all laws against murder were repealed tomorrow, we'd still fucking call it murder.

Quote :

"How does law enforcement even find out that it happened if everyone is an accomplice?"

They've managed to break some pretty close-knit groups before, I don't know why abortion clinics would be any exception. All the more so because in a clinical environment (even an illegal one) you need certain specialized equipment that seems like it could be tracked fairly easily.

Quote :

" If it wasn't done at a clinic, and say sitting on a toilet with a coat hanger, it would be pretty difficult to find evidence and charge anyone with a crime."

Sometimes, but not always. There might well be people who knew about the pregnancy and put two and two together on how it was terminated. Besides, as with most crimes, the emphasis should be on prevention: the promise of adequate natal care and immediate adoption removes all but the most disgustingly selfish rationale behind getting an abortion.

Quote :

"its just some fetus homeless guy, that doesn't have family or friends or a social security card. "

Quote :

"If life begins at conception, do fetuses get "life" certificates and so on?"

As I understand it, it can be difficult to pin down the date of conception, unless maybe you're taking a very scientific approach trying to have a baby -- in which case, you're not going to abort all that work. That's a key reason why birth date would still be the most useful figure for legal purposes, as would be the fact that it's physically and legally impossible for a fetal human to commit a crime.

Quote :

"Does the mother drinking excessive caffeine to induce a miscarriage fall into the category of murder? Is taking a morning after pill or some other kind of pill to induce miscarriage murder? How would that be enforced?"

These are all questions that would have to be asked and answered during the legislating process. We had to ask the same kinds of questions about the difference between murder and manslaughter and purely accidental death when we came up with Common Law, but I'm sure there were people then, like you are now, whining, "But this is just so hard!!!!1"

Quote :

"They want abortion to remain legal, like the rest of the country. So, would their laws be satisfactory? "

That seems like an awfully bold assertion, given the fairly large (though admittedly minority) percentage of Americans and the even higher percentage of representatives who would love to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Quote :

"I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm talking about the effects of the extra influx of children on the foster care system and on infrastructure and so on later on, and the effects on society as a whole."

And I'm talking about how taking this into account without answering some far more fundamental questions is sick. What you seem to consistently fail to grasp is that the first and most important relevant question in this debate is: When does human life begin? If it begins before abortions start happening (say, conception), then abortions are the willful extermination of human beings who have committed no crime. It's murder and should be treated as such. If it begins after abortions start happening (say, birth), then abortions are not being inflicted on human beings, so nobody cares. But until that question gets answered, talking about the surplus foster population as a relevant issue is effectively saying, "I would be willing to kill people, lots of people, to reduce the strain on this system."

Quote :

"Thanks for calling my thoughts irrelevant, inane, idiotic bullshit."

You're welcome. Somebody had to do it, and I'm glad it was me instead of some person who is just rabidly against abortions and doesn't care if his responses to you are any better thought-out than your comments.

Quote :

"I thought I was bringing some insight into the practical complexities of making abortion illegal, rather than just talking about moral dilemmas."

Once again, you're saying, "Man, making abortion illegal would be really difficult...let's just not."

Quote :

"I guess you would rather have knowledge be withheld than to violate the principle of keeping an internet thread limited to its original topic."

Well, when the OP says this:

Quote :

"i'm not interested in hearing any other beaten-to-death abortion arguments. just post if you define the beginning of human life at either of these extremes."

And when in fact you contributed no "knowledge" whatsoever, then my answer to that is "Yes, emphatically."

Quote :

"If the law is ineffective, then what is the point? To take a stand against something on principle?"

Laws against murder and theft have existed pretty much since the beginning of laws, and murder and theft have continued occurring ever since. Laws never actually eradicate anything. They just keep it under control.

You might nitpick about the acceptable level of effectiveness, of course, but it's unlikely that a law against abortion wouldn't make a substantial dent in the numbers.

9/24/2008 3:20:29 PM

Quote :

"Of course, you could make the argument that, because abortion is not currently illegal in this country, the term "murder" can not be applied to it. "

Yes, I am making that argument. Abortion is not called murder in any fashion, and it may never be, even if it becomes illegal. It is called an illegal abortion or unlawful killing of an unborn child if it is done in a way that violates the law.

Quote :

"They've managed to break some pretty close-knit groups before, I don't know why abortion clinics would be any exception. All the more so because in a clinical environment (even an illegal one) you need certain specialized equipment that seems like it could be tracked fairly easily."

Quote :

"There might well be people who knew about the pregnancy and put two and two together on how it was terminated. "

Right, because women go around telling people about their unwanted pregnancies all the time. And why would anyone be against it? Why would people snitch on their friends or family members about something they don't even see as a morally wrong thing to do?

You still aren't grasping the difficulty of enforcing this. What would even clue the cops in to it happening at clinics if everyone is sympathetic? What, are police going to be standing gaurd at entrances? If it is done out of the country, it would be impossible to find out without orwellian tactics. And you can be sure women would be going to Canada or Mexico if they had no options here.

Quote :

"Besides, as with most crimes, the emphasis should be on prevention: the promise of adequate natal care and immediate adoption removes all but the most disgustingly selfish rationale behind getting an abortion."

We already have adequate natal care and adoption and foster care options. Those would do no more to discourage abortion than they do now. By the way, everything I have suggeted is completely selfLESS. It all concerns the good of society as a whole.

Quote :

"These are all questions that would have to be asked and answered during the legislating process."

You mock me, but you dismiss the issue and say "leave it up to the legislatures, they'll figure things out." There could be some scary Big Brother oversight and huge government bureacracy created to effectively enforce and regulate abortion law, though its likely there would be something much less effective.

Quote :

"like you are now, whining, "But this is just so hard!!!!1""

I am not whining that it's too hard to ban abortion. I am making the argument that the cons of the environment that would be created and the process to create it would outweigh any and all gains, if there even would be any.

Quote :

"relevant question in this debate is: When does human life begin?"

My answer to that is not relevant because I'm willing to allow women the personal choice to sacrifice the lives of their fetuses for all of the reasons I've given.

Quote :

"[you are] effectively saying, "I would be willing to kill people, lots of people, to reduce the strain on this system.""

I'm not willing to kill anyone. See above

Quote :

"Laws never actually eradicate anything. They just keep it under control."

But wait a minute. Abortion is legal, yet abortion rates are seeming to move towards being "under control" due to people using better discretion. So since you are conceding that banning abortions would not eliminate them and would only reduce them, at what level would be satisfactory for you to call the ban a success or even worth having? And how would you truly be able to gauge that success when a great deal of abortions would be pushed underground and to other countries?

Is it really worth upholding this principle when people using their own discretion could achieve nearly the same results without it? Is it merely to punish people, then? To exact revenge? To what end, and on who's behalf? We aren't keeping dangerous people off the streets, or giving closure for a victim's family, or rehabilitating anyone like with a murderer (which you would wrongly like to equate to abortionists).

Quote :

"And when in fact you contributed no "knowledge" whatsoever"

Regardless of what the OP wants, I think I bring at least a novel argument, and it is relevant to this topic. But again, thanks for the personal attacks and the discouragment for expressing my thoughts. They're highly constructive to intellectual discourse.

By the way, this whole argument just came to me reading this thread, and I have been filling things in as I type. So I'm not sure if I really believe what I'm saying here. I'm just testing it out.




[Edited on September 25, 2008 at 1:41 AM. Reason : This post has become cumbersome]

9/25/2008 1:27:04 AM

Quote :

"Abortion is not called murder in any fashion, and it may never be, even if it becomes illegal. It is called an illegal abortion or unlawful killing of an unborn child if it is done in a way that violates the law."

This is taking semantics to the point of being completely preposterous. We break down "rape" into little subcategories too (depending on age of the victim, nature of the assault, etc.) but we still call them all "rapes." All of this "illegal abortion/unlawful killing of an unborn child" crap comes from people who pull the ultimate stupidity in this argument: being against abortions, but not being willing to commit to reduce "unborn child" to just "child."

Quote :

"Right, because women go around telling people about their unwanted pregnancies all the time. And why would anyone be against it? Why would people snitch on their friends or family members about something they don't even see as a morally wrong thing to do?"

A certain group of people do find out about unwanted pregnancies from the mother, intentionally or otherwise. That is, in her shock, fear, or despair, she might seek comfort or advice from someone; if they know the father, they're liable to tell him; aside from all of which, people close to the woman (especially other women who have been pregnant) might notice some pretty clear signs. And there are many rabid pro-lifers in this country who would rat someone out -- beforehand, to prevent the action, rather than afterwords just to see punishment.

And then, there's a fairly important option here that's being ignored, which is that you could limit the prosecution to the people who actually perform the abortions. People will be more willing to snitch on them -- hell, even some of their former customers.

Quote :

"You still aren't grasping the difficulty of enforcing this. What would even clue the cops in to it happening at clinics if everyone is sympathetic?"

And you still aren't grasping that "difficulty of enforcing" is not the fundamental concern here. You also seem to think that every abortion procedure is completely insulated by fanatical pro-choice folks.

Quote :

"What, are police going to be standing gaurd at entrances?"

I think it stands to reason that certain types of clinic would be outright closed by an abortion ban. As to what happens in more generalized clinics and hospitals . . . well, we'd have to figure it out the old fashioned way, by investigating suspicious events and circumstances, following up on witness reports, and collecting evidence.

Quote :

"If it is done out of the country, it would be impossible to find out without orwellian tactics."

If it's done out of the country there's not much about it we can or should do. If other countries want to be baby-murderers, that's their business, just like it was their business when they decided to be pot-smoking, whore-fucking hippies.

Quote :

"We already have adequate natal care and adoption and foster care options."

Perhaps we're working on different definitions of "adequate." I like the meanings I found in my quick search: "sufficient for the purpose;" "having the requisite qualities or resources to meet a task;""acceptable."

Using those definitions, let me reword that segment: "sufficient natal care and adoptive services for the purpose of making abortions largely unnecessary."

Quote :

"By the way, everything I have suggeted is completely selfLESS. It all concerns the good of society as a whole. "

Good for you! Not for being selfless, but for failing to understand at all what I said.

Quote :

"You mock me, but you dismiss the issue and say "leave it up to the legislatures, they'll figure things out.""

Not really. I expect them to hammer out details, the parliamentary and legal jargon that most people don't have much of a grasp on. I leave that to them because, frankly, I don't have much of a choice. I can't keep up to date on the technical details of every piece of legislation that passes through congress, and neither can anybody else, including the congress.

Honestly, more would be done by the courts than the legislators to hammer out the intricacies of some of these questions you've been asking -- take coffee, for instance. Sooner or later there's going to be a case where a secondhand smoking gets labeled a murder weapon, and the court is going to have to set a precedent on that. Ditto drinking coffee to induce a miscarriage.

These concerns you voice about Big Brother strike me as being a bit odd for the conversation. Nobody here is talking about creating some entirely new category of crime, suspending the Constitution, or anything of the sort.

Quote :

"I am making the argument that the cons of the environment that would be created and the process to create it would outweigh any and all gains"

And a significant component of that argument is that enforcement of the rule would be very difficult; also, there's the trouble of adjusting our foster system to handle all these new kids; etc.

Quote :

"My answer to that is not relevant because I'm willing to allow women the personal choice to sacrifice the lives of their fetuses for all of the reasons I've given."

What the hell is this? It is completely relevant. It's the difference between you saying:

"I'm willing to allow people to kill other people in order to avoid the mess that comes from dealing with complex legal and ethical issues"

and

"I'm willing to allow an outpatient medical procedure in order to avoid the mess that comes from dealing with complex legal and ethical issues."

Because if you're willing to just have people die because philosophy class made your head hurt...Jesus.

You even contradict yourself! "The lives of their fetuses." What a riot. On the one hand suggesting that they are alive, but on the other suggesting that they are part (or property) of someone else.

Quote :

"I'm not willing to kill anyone. See above"

Oh, I'm sorry. "I would be willing to turn the other way while my countrymen kill people, lots of people." You would have had your defense for the Nuremberg trials all set before the goddamn war even started.

Quote :

"Abortion is legal, yet abortion rates are seeming to move towards being "under control" due to people using better discretion. So since you are conceding that banning abortions would not eliminate them and would only reduce them, at what level would be satisfactory for you to call the ban a success or even worth having?"

And people are less likely to rob each other when they are doing alright for themselves, and maybe they're less likely to assault each other when they're in anger management classes. We've offered means and an environment that in many ways serve to prevent the act, I'll grant. More could be done, though, including making those means more appealing still by removing the alternative (or at least making it much harder to get to).

As to the second part of the question...well, assuming for the moment that fetuses are living humans and that the killing of innocent humans is generally bad, any noticeable reduction at all would pretty much suffice for me and, I should think, anybody else making those two assumptions.

Quote :

"Is it really worth upholding this principle when people using their own discretion could achieve nearly the same results without it? Is it merely to punish people, then?"

"Nearly the same goal" is pretty bold wording, and not entirely accurate. But that notwithstanding, it's not about punishment. I suppose it is about principle, though. Namely, the principle that intentionally killing innocent human beings is wrong and ought to be punished.

One thing that's sickening about some of the arguments you've used in here could be applied to homeless people just as well. Plenty of them don't have any family, or at least, none aware of them; they don't have anyone seeking closure after their violent death; they may not even have a social security card anymore. It seems like you're so willing to bring on the abortions because they can't report the crime committed against them and the only people left to mourn are the ones who committed it.

Quote :

"I think I bring at least a novel argument, and it is relevant to this topic."

You don't and it isn't. This particular comment isn't an attack on you, but rather this claim. The argument you present is not novel. Many people have made it before in this forum. And it is not relevant, because the topic was very specific and in fact went out of its way to exclude exactly the kind of post that you made. Now, to some extent this last error can be excused; by this point in the thread nobody is discussing the topic anymore and everyone is doing exactly what we're doing. But don't lie to yourself. It's not relevant.

Quote :

"By the way, this whole argument just came to me reading this thread, and I have been filling things in as I type."

Trust me, this is abundantly clear.

9/25/2008 3:17:02 AM

I hate babies abort them all

9/25/2008 7:40:25 AM

Well, that was fun. Scrapping that argument.

9/25/2008 5:11:30 PM