Abortion's paradoxical politics

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Townhall.com :: Columns :: Abortion's paradoxical politics by Jeff Jacoby (http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/jeffjacoby/2005/12/05/177722.html)
Dec 5, 2005

The abortion case taken up by the Supreme Court last week didn't involve a challenge to Roe v. Wade, and there is no chance the court will use it to topple that 1973 landmark. Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood dealt only with the terms of a narrow abortion regulation -- a New Hampshire law requiring that a parent be notified before an abortion is performed on a minor.

Nonetheless, the air was heavy with the usual absolutism. On the day of the oral argument, protesters outside the Supreme Court building carried signs reading "Keep Abortion Legal" and "Stop Abortion Now" -- the slogans, respectively, of those who want no retrenchment from the virtually unlimited right to abortion that Roe created, and of those who want virtually all abortions banned.

But those aren't the only two choices, and they aren't the choices most Americans would make. As poll after poll makes clear, the public is ambivalent on this subject. Most people believe that abortion is a great evil, but most also believe that abortion decisions should be left to a woman and her doctor. At the same time, a large majority also supports regulating abortion in specific ways -- by mandating waiting periods or preabortion counseling, for example, or by requiring parental notice or consent for a minor's abortion.

No rational abortion policy can encompass all those stands.

Okay, not for a MINUTE to I even remotely believe the bolded above. IF this country REALLY wants abortion, PUT IT TO A VOTE.

[markus3622]

HSRS - you're inviting referundums (or referenda?) here.
I'm not sure this is a good way to resolve the issue.

If your side (by that, I assume banning all abortions, except if the life of the mother were at risk) were to lose, would you accept the result?

Anyway, the matter would still come down to the constitution, which could overrule the referendum result if the SCOTUS still upheld (rightly or wrongly) Roe v Wade. The referendum result would be worthless, unless it changed the constitution.

Secondly, I'm not so sure the Democrat position is an extreme one. The two extreme ends of the debate are either
1) Banning abortions completely and making it equal to murder, with no exceptions
2) Making abortions legally available up to as close to birth as possible

The Democrat position is while accepting Abortion is a traumatic event, women should have the choice within limits. That seems a fairly centrist position

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

HSRS - you're inviting referundums (or referenda?) here.
I'm not sure this is a good way to resolve the issue.

If your side (by that, I assume banning all abortions, except if the life of the mother were at risk) were to lose, would you accept the result?

Anyway, the matter would still come down to the constitution, which could overrule the referendum result if the SCOTUS still upheld (rightly or wrongly) Roe v Wade. The referendum result would be worthless, unless it changed the constitution.

Secondly, I'm not so sure the Democrat position is an extreme one. The two extreme ends of the debate are either
1) Banning abortions completely and making it equal to murder, with no exceptions
2) Making abortions legally available up to as close to birth as possible

The Democrat position is while accepting Abortion is a traumatic event, women should have the choice within limits. That seems a fairly centrist position

This country was founded on the principles of the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Constitution came AFTER the Declaration of Independence, ergo everything coming after is predicated BY the DoI. There is no need to CHANGE anything. Abortion, by the very nature of the beginnings of this country, already IS against the first principle (right to life) and so, IS illegal (if one is adhering to the foundation principles.)

It wasn't until the "me" generation, when moral principles and values were abandoned, that abortion even BECAME an issue. Were there abortions before then? Yes, but certiainly not on the wide extreme there is today. If the option is not there, MOST people who are law abiding citizens won't break the law, won't engage in behavior contrary to moral conscience -- either because of fear of what others would think, lack of funds to seek an illegal procedure, or fear of injury/death from the procedure.

I would accept steps on a path to the end of abortion. I would not, however, ever stop seeking the complete erradication of the procedure and making it illegal.

The problem is, unless definitive knowledge of when human life begins is determined -- when it becomes "life" -- this issue will be impossible to be dealt with in any certainty. Until we KNOW when life begins (not when we announce it or perceive it or say it begins), we are RISKING the death of those lives ... those lives are (if their parents are) American citizens (unless we KNOW otherwise) and to me that is just too big a risk to take. When there is doubt, and in this issue there IS doubt, human life should ALWAYS be given the benefit of the doubt -- do the LEAST amount of harm, and death (by abortion) is potentially FATAL harm.

[markus3622]

You didn't answer whether you would respect the results of a referendum if it went against you. I suspect you wouldn't, and neither would the pro-choice lobby. I think we can agree referenda on abortions would be silly.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

You didn't answer whether you would respect the results of a referendum if it went against you. I suspect you wouldn't, and neither would the pro-choice lobby. I think we can agree referenda on abortions would be silly.

I would not, however, ever stop seeking the complete erradication of the procedure and making it illegal.

THAT didn't answer your question?

No, I don't want a referenda on abortion - I want it completely outlawed in the United States of America. Again, I was pretty sure I was pretty clear about what I want.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

HomeschoolrsRUs:
IF this country REALLY wants abortion, PUT IT TO A VOTE.

:unsmile: I'll be succinct here. "Florida 2000". If you think the liberals pulled out all the stops to steal the White House, you ain't seen nuthin', yet. If it was a referendum on abortion, the election would be TOTALLY rigged from the get-go.

[markus3622]

HSRS, I didn't see your answer, but at least we agree on abortion - it's not best to "put it to a vote"

[Wolfcounsel]

Human life begins at the moment of the sperm fertilizing the egg. If the baby dies on his own, he dies. If he is aborted, he is murdered.

Wjy would anyone want to vote on whether murder should be legal or illegal? That's like voting whether we should breathe or not breathe.

[markus3622]

Begging the question!

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

[Wolfcounsel]

PFFFFT! on begging the question. Abortion IS murder. Only morons or complete imbeciles would put an unalienable right to a vote.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Begging the question!

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

Begging the questions:

Do you not believe that human life deserves the benefit of the doubt?

Is it not so precious and valuable that we had better be dog-gone SURE that it's NOT human life before we go killing it?

Or are you of the mind that human life has no inherent, intrinsic, innate value and worth in and of itself?

[Wolfcounsel]

I'm waiting for markus' answer while I hold my breath.

[markus3622]

Begging the questions:

Do you ... believe that human life deserves the benefit of the doubt?

Yes, do you? In all cases?

Is it not so precious and valuable that we had better be dog-gone SURE that it's NOT human life before we go killing it?

Yes it is precious and valuable. Do you agree? In all cases?

Or are you of the mind that human life has no inherent, intrinsic, innate value and worth in and of itself?

No

HSRS, we're not going to change each other's opinions on this. I only entered this thread to challenge your (rhetorical?) call for a referendum on abortion.

[Wolfcounsel]

GASP! PUFF! PUFF!

Abortion is murder, plain and simple.

[markus3622]

Maybe I should have waited longer to reply

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Yes, do you? In all cases?

Innocent human life, yes (I can feel the momentum building, hear the drum roll starting ...).



Yes it is precious and valuable. Do you agree? In all cases?

Yes, innocent human life ... you're working up to an argument against the death penalty, I'll bet. (Doesn't matter, we aren't discussing the death penalty, we are discussing abortion -- but I'll stop this line, and wait for the other shoe to drop, :smirky: )

HSRS, we're not going to change each other's opinions on this. I only entered this thread to challenge your (rhetorical?) call for a referendum on abortion.

markus, I didn't really believe I would change your opinion on this, and I don't really care why you entered this thread. I only answer to counter your posts.

[markus3622]

So what do you mean by innocent then? What do you mean by human life?

[Wolfcounsel]

I believe that is what you are trying to get at, markus, the life of murderers versus the life of the innocent unborn? I apologize if I'm wrong.

[markus3622]

I was just trying to get HSRS to define her stance, so that I wouldn't be making any false assumptions (although the morality of the death penalty is related to that of abortion)

[Wolfcounsel]

"...(although the morality of the death penalty is related to that of abortion)" --markus3622

Taking out the trash is the highest form of public service, but there's no need to get moral about it.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

So what do you mean by innocent then?

Well surely the preborn at it's most earliest stage is DEFINITELY innocent, wouldn't you agree?

What do you mean by human life?

That which is alive, and contains all the necessary ingredients to make it human (DNA & whatever that "spark" is that makes us different than any other living creature -- of course, I believe the "spark" to be a soul, you may disagree -- etc.)

We're back to square one, WHEN human life begins, and AGAIN, until it is CERTAIN, human life deserves the benefit of the doubt.

I was just trying to get HSRS to define her stance, so that I wouldn't be making any false assumptions (although the morality of the death penalty is related to that of abortion)

I do not believe those convicted of criminal offenses worthy of the death penalty, are innocent. I do not believe they should be spared while true innocents, the preborn, are killed.

Regardless, it's not an either or proposition -- we are discussing abortion, and until such time as it is proven definitively otherwise, it most definitely IS the murder of the innocent. If you wish to discuss the death penalty, I suggest you start another thread, I will waste no more time chasing that rabbit in this one.

[markus3622]

Well surely the preborn at it's most earliest stage is DEFINITELY innocent, wouldn't you agree?

Depends what you mean by "innocent".


That which is alive, and contains all the necessary ingredients to make it human (DNA & whatever that "spark" is that makes us different than any other living creature -- of course, I believe the "spark" to be a soul, you may disagree -- etc.)

I'm sure before the discovery of DNA you would have opposed abortion (anti-abortion laws appeared in the US in the 1820s I believe), so that can't be the key.

Let's assume it is the presence of a soul, unless you can suggest something else. What right do you have to tell a woman what to do with her own body, on the basis of what is a matter of faith, and for which there is no evidence?

We're back to square one, WHEN human life begins, and AGAIN, until it is CERTAIN, human life deserves the benefit of the doubt.

I'm not sure, this is a very good argument. We often have to make decisions based on uncertainty. We live in a world bathed in uncertainty. Doctors make decisions on uncertain data. Soldiers have to make similar decisions. If they were to follow your edict, they wouldn't get anything done.


I do not believe those convicted of criminal offenses worthy of the death penalty, are innocent. I do not believe they should be spared while true innocents, the preborn, are killed.



Nope. Your argument isn't going to fly. In the Declaration of Independence three unique UNALIENABLE rights are recognized: "life", "liberty", and "the pursuit of happiness". "Liberty" and "the pursuit of happiness" both refer to the inherent "qualities of life" that you refer to in your paragraph above. But "life" means a RIGHT TO LIVE (exist). There can be no other interpretation. AND "life" comes FIRST in the order -- it is of first importance. We have the right to life, then we are extended rights as to HOW we live it -- liberty & pursuit of happiness.

Therefore, if we, as Americans,
1 - were granted by our CREATOR with an unalienable right to life,
2 - said right is recognized and acknowledged in the founding document of our country and all others (documents, proclamations, etc.) are preceeded and based upon it,
then Terri has a right to life, and no judge, state or federal government, or physician should be allowed to take it from her (murder).

By the way do you KNOW what unalienable MEANS???

http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showpost.php?p=235530&postcount=41

I'm not trying to argue the death penalty, but I'm just raising the point that there is a clear contradiction in your positions here.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Depends what you mean by "innocent".

Then how do YOU define it (innocent)?




I'm sure before the discovery of DNA you would have opposed abortion (anti-abortion laws appeared in the US in the 1820s I believe), so that can't be the key.

I didn't say it was the key, you asked me to define human life, and I did. If an animal has a soul it doesn't make it human. If a being contains all the material which marks it as human AND the "spark," which we are calling "soul," THEN it is human. That was my full answer, not parsed.

Let's assume it is the presence of a soul, unless you can suggest something else. What right do you have to tell a woman what to do with her own body, on the basis of what is a matter of faith, and for which there is no evidence?

UNTIL a definitive answer can be had as to WHEN human life begins, there is doubt (on BOTH sides), where there is doubt, human life should ALWAYS get the benefit of the doubt, and supersede the supposed "right" that woman has to do with her own body as she sees fit, BECAUSE human life has an innate, intrinsic, inherent value and worth -- not to mention that right, the right to life, is recognized in the founding document of this country.



I'm not sure, this is a very good argument.

Well, I am.

We often have to make decisions based on uncertainty. We live in a world bathed in uncertainty. Doctors make decisions on uncertain data. Soldiers have to make similar decisions. If they were to follow your edict, they wouldn't get anything done.

Quit offering up strawmen. We are speaking of abortion, and it is a decision with LIFE or DEATH implications. I do believe that to be a high enough reason to make dog-gone sure what is being "eliminated" is NOT human life.






http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showpost.php?p=235530&postcount=41

I'm not trying to argue the death penalty, but I'm just raising the point that there is a clear contradiction in your positions here.

Very well, you believe there to be a clear contradiction in my positions, I do not.

Pre-born individuals cannot commit murder. Criminals do. Pre-born individuals cannot be tried for crimes. Criminals are. Pre-born individuals are given no due-process. Criminals are. Pre-born individuals do nothing to forfeit their "right to life." Criminals (those that commit murder and are sentenced to death) do. Pre-born individuals have no control over their conception and creation AS human life. Criminals have control over their actions, and are responsible for them, therefore they have control over retaining their right to life by NOT takling another's. The "right" of the mother ends, when ANOTHER'S life begins (the pre-born). The "right to life" of the criminal ends when s/he infringes on the "right to life" of another by taking it (their life). That is the only fitting punishment for such a crime.

And with that I am through, and I mean it this time, discussing the death penalty. If you wish to pursue this avenue further, start a thread.

[TechnoPrincess]

What right do you have to tell a woman what to do with her own body, on the basis of what is a matter of faith, and for which there is no evidence?

I realize that I'm taking one part of what you said, and that it was aimed at HMS, but I find this argument tired and worn out. I have a few

A. She's not just doing it to her own body, she is doing it to the body of the tiny person inside of her.

B. We tell people they can't do drugs, or drink above a certain limit...heck it's against the law to try and kill yourself...but killing an unborn child is okay?! See the inequity here? I can't do heroin, but I can kill an unborn child...hmmm...

C. For some it's not just based on faith. I was pro-choice till I got pregnant and at 7 weeks pregnant could see my tiny child's body. I could see his beating heart. I could see him move. Looking at the grainy pictures on the monitor proved that the tiny thing in me was a tiny CHILD, not a "blob of tissue".

What would you consider evidence??
Here...http://virtualhumanembryo.lsuhsc.edu/HEIRLOOM/Stages/HEP.htm
Tell me at which point does it become human?

[markus3622]

Then how do YOU define it (innocent)?

Well, one has to be innocent of some crime that is undefined. However, I don't believe innocence has anything to do with abortion.

I didn't say it was the key, you asked me to define human life, and I did. If an animal has a soul it doesn't make it human. If a being contains all the material which marks it as human AND the "spark," which we are calling "soul," THEN it is human. That was my full answer, not parsed.

Ok, what conditions other than a (unverifiable) soul makes a human then?



UNTIL a definitive answer can be had as to WHEN human life begins, there is doubt (on BOTH sides), where there is doubt, human life should ALWAYS get the benefit of the doubt, and supersede the supposed "right" that woman has to do with her own body as she sees fit, BECAUSE human life has an innate, intrinsic, inherent value and worth -- not to mention that right, the right to life, is recognized in the founding document of this country.

You keep on bringing up this "inalienable right to life", which you freely admit, you don't believe in. If you don't believe in it, you can't really use it in this abortion debate.


Quit offering up strawmen. We are speaking of abortion, and it is a decision with LIFE or DEATH implications. I do believe that to be a high enough reason to make dog-gone sure what is being "eliminated" is NOT human life.

It's not a strawman. You agree medical science regarding anything to do with life and death is uncertain. Any surgical procedure is uncertain. Surgery to take a tooth out could kill you - but you take that risk.





The "right to life" of the criminal ends when s/he infringes on the "right to life" of another by taking it (their life). That is the only fitting punishment for such a crime.


That's the point I'm trying to make. You don't believe in the inalienable right to life.

[markus3622]

B. We tell people they can't do drugs, or drink above a certain limit...heck it's against the law to try and kill yourself...but killing an unborn child is okay?! See the inequity here? I can't do heroin, but I can kill an unborn child...hmmm...



The point I'm making is that we don't tell people not to take drugs because of the presence of a soul (that we can't prove). We do it because of medical evidence. I was trying to get to the point of what it is that gives a fetus the inalienable right to life that adults don't appear to have. This brings me back to point A. If you've no evidence other than the soul, then it just is the woman's body.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

I don't believe innocence has anything to do with abortion.

Why not?


Quote:
I didn't say it was the key, you asked me to define human life, and I did. If an animal has a soul it doesn't make it human. If a being contains all the material which marks it as human AND the "spark," which we are calling "soul," THEN it is human. That was my full answer, not parsed.


Ok, what conditions other than a (unverifiable) soul makes a human then?

How many times did you read my post and still miss it?

HomeschoolrsRUs said: "If a being contains all the material which marks it as human AND the "spark," which we are calling "soul," THEN it is human. That was my full answer, not parsed."





Quote:
UNTIL a definitive answer can be had as to WHEN human life begins, there is doubt (on BOTH sides), where there is doubt, human life should ALWAYS get the benefit of the doubt, and supersede the supposed "right" that woman has to do with her own body as she sees fit, BECAUSE human life has an innate, intrinsic, inherent value and worth -- not to mention that right, the right to life, is recognized in the founding document of this country.


You keep on bringing up this "inalienable right to life", which you freely admit, you don't believe in. If you don't believe in it, you can't really use it in this abortion debate.

I believe in the unalienable right of the preborn to life.

un·al·ien·a·ble http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/JPG/pron.jpg (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fsearch%3 Fq%3Dunalienable) ( P ) Pronunciation Key (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html) (http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/ubreve.gifn-http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/amacr.giflhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.gifyhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gif-nhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gif-bhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gifl, -http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/amacr.gifhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/prime.giflhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/emacr.gif-http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/schwa.gif-)
adj.
Not to be separated, given away, or taken away; inalienable

I believe the unalienable right of the duly convicted and sentenced criminal to be forfeited by his/her own actions -- ergo S/HE is responsible for the termination of his own right to life because of his action that took another's right to life. There can be no other just punishment for such an action, as S/HE breached the unalienable right FIRST, by taking another thereby allowing for the forfeiture of his/her own.

for·feit·ed, for·feit·ing, for·feits

To surrender, be deprived of, or give up the right to on account of a crime, an offense, an error, or a breach of contract.Quote:
Quit offering up strawmen. We are speaking of abortion, and it is a decision with LIFE or DEATH implications. I do believe that to be a high enough reason to make dog-gone sure what is being "eliminated" is NOT human life.


It's not a strawman. You agree medical science regarding anything to do with life and death is uncertain. Any surgical procedure is uncertain. Surgery to take a tooth out could kill you - but you take that risk.

Yes, for myself I do, but not for another. Abortion makes a decision for another's life, a fatal one -- but if it doesn't, we should be certain before allowing it.







Quote:
The "right to life" of the criminal ends when s/he infringes on the "right to life" of another by taking it (their life). That is the only fitting punishment for such a crime.
Quote:


That's the point I'm trying to make. You don't believe in the inalienable right to life.

I believe in the unalienable right of the preborn to life.

[jag]

[/color][/size][/font]

However, I don't believe innocence has anything to do with abortion.





That is so sad. I actually feel sorry for you

[TechnoPrincess]

The point I'm making is that we don't tell people not to take drugs because of the presence of a soul (that we can't prove). We do it because of medical evidence. I was trying to get to the point of what it is that gives a fetus the inalienable right to life that adults don't appear to have. This brings me back to point A. If you've no evidence other than the soul, then it just is the woman's body.

Where did I mention a soul. I believe life begins at conception. Why, because at conception the DNA is set at that time. As stated previously, I used to be pro-choice, till I actually SAW the little human floating around in there. Due to certain medical conditions that are none of your business, I had to have very precise and very expensive scans during my pregnancy. Even at 7 weeks it was recognizable as a baby. That is when most women find out they are pregnant.

Other than a human child, what else could the zygote develop into if allowed to develop unencumbered? That is why I am now pro-life.

My religious views on the subject came much, much later.

[markus3622]

How many times did you read my post and still miss it?

HomeschoolrsRUs said: "If a being contains all the material which marks it as human AND the "spark," which we are calling "soul," THEN it is human. That was my full answer, not parsed."

You keep on repeating that what makes a human life is that which "has the material that makes it human" and this spark (which you call the soul). I'm asking you what that material is, and you haven't answered it.

If I tell you a cat is something that has cat-like properties, it doesn't get us very far. It's circular, without telling me what those properties are.

Going back to the soul idea. An argument could be made that I believed animals had souls, and that it was wrong to eat meat, as it was murder. Would it be right to stop you eating meat, because of my belief in the souls of animals?

What you're basically saying is that babies have an inalienable right to life and then they lose it. When do they get it? At conception? Do they lose this inalienable right to life when they're born? When they turn 18? If a murderer forfeits his "inalienable right to life" when he commits murder, it isn't an inalienable right to life. Clearly adults don't have this inalienable right to life. Why do we not have this inalienable right to life, but fetuses do?

I agree I could have been clearer about the case of surgery. Say a child has an accident that requires surgery, you may get to make the choice over whether the child has surgery, that may be life threatening. You take that risk to affect another. The Doctor takes the risk that affects another in performing that surgery. All the time, doctors have to make choices in life and death matters based un uncertainty.

TechnoPrincess, I didn't say you mentioned a soul. I was referring to something written by HSRS, in which she mentioned it was the soul that made something human.


All throughout this debate, I haven't actually stated my position. Essentially, I believe abortions should be available within fairly strict limits, and that abortions are a necessary evil. I wouldn't want my partner to have an abortion.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

You keep on repeating that what makes a human life is that which "has the material that makes it human" and this spark (which you call the soul). I'm asking you what that material is, and you haven't answered it.

If I tell you a cat is something that has cat-like properties, it doesn't get us very far. It's circular, without telling me what those properties are.

Well I apologize ... I assumed (something I should never have done, I know the parsing of that word ) that you were aware of the "other material" that makes us human. The genetic make up -- the code that tells the cells to create a unique individual human life ... color hair, eyes, hands, upright backbone allowing for bipedal motion, teeth without fangs, epidermis predominantly without hair (fur), a human brain capable of reason, ingenuity, focus, automony, etc. There is all the "physical" stuffs which identify us as human (i.e. if you lined up a bunch of animals and a human, could you pick out which one WAS human?), and the metaphysical stuffs (spark, soul, sentience, etc.)

Going back to the soul idea. An argument could be made that I believed animals had souls, and that it was wrong to eat meat, as it was murder. Would it be right to stop you eating meat, because of my belief in the souls of animals?

Man, for the most part, has always considered animals as food for consumption. I'm not aware of a time in history when animals were cropping or cultivating humans for consumption. I know of no animals who have established governments, works of literature or art, philosophized on the meaning of life and orated great speechs moving hundreds, thousands, or millions to revolt, rebuild, or revitalize the animal heart. I don't believe there is a credible source with enough of a evidentiary trail to consider the premise that animals have "souls." Besides, I know of no movement to promote the eating of the preborn, only their murder based on inconvenience, unwant, and no loving/personal emotional attatchment.

What you're basically saying is that babies have an inalienable right to life and then they lose it.

When did I say babies lose the inalienable right to life? I said it was taken from them, by the preemptory destruction of their life through abortion. They are prevented from ever living it, through growth and development inside the womb and through life on the outside of the womb.

When do they get it? At conception? Do they lose this inalienable right to life when they're born? When they turn 18? If a murderer forfeits his "inalienable right to life" when he commits murder, it isn't an inalienable right to life. Clearly adults don't have this inalienable right to life. Why do we not have this inalienable right to life, but fetuses do?

You are confusing and muddling issues here. An individual from creation (conception) through to the end of their life (by natural cause) has an unalienable right to life. A preborn human life, a full grown killer, and that killer's victim (at whatever age) has that unalienable right to life, BUT when that killer BREACHES the recognition of the victim's unalienable right to life (by KILLING the victim, i.e. terminating his/her right to life) the killer then FORFEITS his right to life in punishment for the one he took. There is absolutely NO OTHER acknowledgement, punishment, or recourse that will fulfill the requirement for justice -- to imprison him for his natural life is to FURTHER impose infringement on the rights of yet OTHERS to provide for his well-being in keeping him alive (food, shelter, medical attention) and to RISK the termination of the right to life of MORE individuals (even if they are the lives of those behind bars). The preborn human life, however, CANNOT DO anything, HAS DONE NOTHING to justify the termination of their right to life, other than BE conceived, which again, was beyond their control.

I agree I could have been clearer about the case of surgery. Say a child has an accident that requires surgery, you may get to make the choice over whether the child has surgery, that may be life threatening. You take that risk to affect another. The Doctor takes the risk that affects another in performing that surgery. All the time, doctors have to make choices in life and death matters based un uncertainty.

The surgery is undertaken to HELP the child, not kill it, and the purpose of the surgery is not to kill one so another can live. The purpose behind every abortion attempt (whether successful or not) is to TERMINATE THE LIFE of the preborn human life. In your surgery analogy, no other individual had to die so that the child might live. Furthermore, the majority of abortions are NOT performed for either/or scenarios (the unborn human's life must be forfeited so that the mother can live) -- they are for convenience purposes (the pregnancy is not wanted, the pregnancy is inconvenient, the pregnancy will result in an upheaval to one's life, the pregnancy was unplanned, etc.)

All throughout this debate, I haven't actually stated my position. Essentially, I believe abortions should be available within fairly strict limits, and that abortions are a necessary evil. I wouldn't want my partner to have an abortion.

How can "evil" be necessary?

In what cases do you believe abortions should be allowed (for what purpose)?

What strict limits would you think appropriate to apply to abortion?

[markus3622]

HomeschoolrsRUs, I have to admit, I'm enjoying this debate. There are no flamers and we're being very civil, over what is a very emotional issue

Well I apologize ... I assumed (something I should never have done, I know the parsing of that word ) that you were aware of the "other material" that makes us human. The genetic make up -- the code that tells the cells to create a unique individual human life ... color hair, eyes, hands, upright backbone allowing for bipedal motion, teeth without fangs, epidermis predominantly without hair (fur), a human brain capable of reason, ingenuity, focus, automony, etc. There is all the "physical" stuffs which identify us as human (i.e. if you lined up a bunch of animals and a human, could you pick out which one WAS human?), and the metaphysical stuffs (spark, soul, sentience, etc.)


I'll agree with you on DNA (but I don't think the knowledge of the presence of DNA has altered the abortion debate, seeing that the first abortion laws were passed in the US in the 19th century). However, most of what you've described are adult human features. Fetuses don't have teeth, they don't have brains capable of reason, autonomy, etc. Could you pick out a human fetus from a chimpanzee fetus at 8 weeks?


Man, for the most part, has always considered animals as food for consumption.

Women have always praticed abortion. Does it make it right?

I know of no animals who have established governments, works of literature or art, philosophized on the meaning of life and orated great speechs moving hundreds, thousands, or millions to revolt, rebuild, or revitalize the animal heart.

This will sound facetious, but I know of no fetuses that have created great works of art or literature. Of course human adults have, but is it right to treat potential X as if it were X?

I don't believe there is a credible source with enough of a evidentiary trail to consider the premise that animals have "souls." Besides, I know of no movement to promote the eating of the preborn, only their murder based on inconvenience, unwant, and no loving/personal emotional attatchment.

The thing about animals is that it's a thought experiment. I'm sure there is an anti-meat eating movement (radical vegetarians), but there aren't many of them. The question is whether if I said to you that animals had a soul, and that meat was murder, and that as we couldn't be sure, we had to keep them alive (give them the benefit of the doubt), whether I should be able to stop you eating meat.

When did I say babies lose the inalienable right to life? I said it was taken from them, by the preemptory destruction of their life through abortion. They are prevented from ever living it, through growth and development inside the womb and through life on the outside of the womb.

Essentially, I'm extrapolating from what you've written. If humans have an alienable right to life, by definition, it cannot be taken away or forfeited. Therefore, adults cannot have an inalienable right to life. You say babies do. Either you're wrong, or they have to lose this inalienable right at some point.

The surgery is undertaken to HELP the child, not kill it, and the purpose of the surgery is not to kill one so another can live. The purpose behind every abortion attempt (whether successful or not) is to TERMINATE THE LIFE of the preborn human life.

I agree with you there, my surgery analogy isn't a very good one.

How can "evil" be necessary?

In the same way, that it is evil to kill innocent civilians, but sometimes in war, that evil is necessary for the greater good. If you believe in war, you must believe that evil is sometimes necessary.

In what cases do you believe abortions should be allowed (for what purpose)? What strict limits would you think appropriate to apply to abortion?

Essentially, I'd say for whatever reason, but I would put the limit at 20 weeks and make sure that proper medical and psychological advice was given. Personally, I'd favor adoption for unwanted children than termination

[Republican_Legion]

Essentially, I'd say for whatever reason, but I would put the limit at 20 weeks and make sure that proper medical and psychological advice was given. Personally, I'd favor adoption for unwanted children than termination

So your saying your 50% Pro-Life . Well at least thats better then what most of the Senate Democrats Believe . :claps:

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

HomeschoolrsRUs, I have to admit, I'm enjoying this debate. There are no flamers and we're being very civil, over what is a very emotional issue.

This is more than just a very emotional issue to me, it's personal. I cannot remember, have we had discussions before? If so, were any of them about abortion? If not, let me give a bit of history -- I am an adoptee. I met my biological mother. She was raped. She told me, had abortion been legal in 1963 instead of 1973, I would not be here. When I was 15 years old I was raped. I had an abortion -- I killed my own child -- and the abortion was botched. I was told I would never, ever have children again. I was blessed, I now have a son and a daughter, but I have had to live with the knowledge of what I did, looking into the eyes of my children every day. I am intimately familiar with this subject.

I'll agree with you on DNA (but I don't think the knowledge of the presence of DNA has altered the abortion debate, seeing that the first abortion laws were passed in the US in the 19th century). However, most of what you've described are adult human features. Fetuses don't have teeth, they don't have brains capable of reason, autonomy, etc. Could you pick out a human fetus from a chimpanzee fetus at 8 weeks?

Regardless of whether you believe the presence of DNA has altered the abortion debate, I do not stipulate to them. If human DNA at conception does NOT indicate human life, what does it indicate? I've never seen a case where a woman conceived (from human sperm) and gave birth to a giraffe, a goldfish, or a penguin. An unborn human life is STILL unborn human life, it is not a separate entity. Just because we (and I'm not acknowledging that I do, but I guess medical science and those who do not want to admit that all human life IS human life) call different stages of human life by different names, in no way means they are different beings -- a human fertilized cell, a zygote, a fetus, a baby, an infant, a toddler, a child, a youth, a teenager, an adult, a middle-aged adult, a senior citizen, they are ALL human life ... merely different stages of said being.

Women have always praticed abortion. Does it make it right?

No. And mankind has always committed murders ... they're still illegal too.

This will sound facetious, but I know of no fetuses that have created great works of art or literature. Of course human adults have, but is it right to treat potential X as if it were X?

Yes, it is right to treat potential X as if it were X, because they are BOTH X. I don't see potentiality as a determining factor to whether it's okay to kill. You are differentiating human life based upon its various stages, I say ALL human life has an innate, inherent, intrinsic value, and only the human itself controls the determination of his/her termination (prior to natural cause) of their own right to life.

The thing about animals is that it's a thought experiment. I'm sure there is an anti-meat eating movement (radical vegetarians), but there aren't many of them. The question is whether if I said to you that animals had a soul, and that meat was murder, and that as we couldn't be sure, we had to keep them alive (give them the benefit of the doubt), whether I should be able to stop you eating meat.

Are you asking, based upon a word whether I should stop eating meat? No. Based upon any credible evidence, perhaps so. But to follow along this line, we are now chasing a strawman because no such evidence exists, and it's not true -- it is a nonrelevant hypothetical. I do not believe animals to have an innate, intrinisic, inherent value ... only the value that we as humans assign them.


Essentially, I'm extrapolating from what you've written. If humans have an alienable right to life, by definition, it cannot be taken away or forfeited. Therefore, adults cannot have an inalienable right to life. You say babies do. Either you're wrong, or they have to lose this inalienable right at some point.

Well, each of us based upon some kind of a personal value system, assign value to the world and all the things of the world around us. I believe human life, regardless of stage of development, all have an equal value. The inalienable right to life is just that for each and every life regardless of stage ... HOWEVER, I guess we've come to what you would call a necessary "evil." When an individual (we'll call him Killer) refuses to acknowledge and appreciate another individual's (we'll call him Victim) right to life by TAKING it (i.e. killing him), then Killer has devalued Victim's right to life, ergo devaluing his OWN right to life. In other words, Killer didn't LOSE his right to life, he FORFEITED it. Killer made a conscious decision and by his decision to kill Victim he altered not only Victim's right to life, but his own as well. Now if Killer NEVER kills, Killer retains his right to life just as preborn human life (we'll call him Fetus, in deference to you) retains his. But in all honestly, a baby-killer (we'll call him Abortionist) does the very same thing Killer (above) does ... he invalidates Fetus's right to life. They are EQUALLY wrong -- regardless of stage of human life. The difference being, when Killer murders Victim, we incarcerate him (and hopefully he receives the death penalty), but when Abortionist kills Fetus, he gets paid handsomely and moves on to invalidate the right to life of others.

I agree with you there, my surgery analogy isn't a very good one.

No, it was not. :smirky:


In the same way, that it is evil to kill innocent civilians, but sometimes in war, that evil is necessary for the greater good. If you believe in war, you must believe that evil is sometimes necessary.

Hmmm, again I guess we get into a value system here. I don't think killing an enemy is "evil." I don't think killing an innocent in war, UNENTENTIONALLY is "evil" -- it is SUPREMELY unfortunate, sad, horrible, horrific, and would be hard to live with, I would think, but intrinsically "evil" I do not think it is. However, if we are going to categorize "war" as evil, for it is the "punishment" for the evil of the enemy, then the death penalty is much the same necessary evil. However, if we are comapring the necessary evil of war with what you say is the necessary evil of abortion the two are NOT comparable. War and the Death Penalty are applied as a result of some evil that has been done first -- (elminating cases of rape, we'll talk about those later) conception is not an evil perpetrated, so the child shouldn't be punished for what the parents did. They KNEW what could happen ... pregnancy.

In the case of rape, this would very much be like your scenario of the innocent civilian in war, however it is not a by-product of the evil action (rape) it is a conscious decision to punish, by death, the child for it having been concieved ... again through no fault of its own. So abortion is STILL the wrong answer, imho.

Essentially, I'd say for whatever reason,

So, according to you, any reason for abortion, up to the 20 week point is acceptable?

but I would put the limit at 20 weeks

Why an arbitrary 20 weeks? Do you know what the fetus is like at the age of 20 weeks?

and make sure that proper medical and psychological advice was given.

Who determines what is the proper medical and psychological advice, and it's measure?

Do you advocate medical and psychological treatment for post-abortion?

I have seen secular psychologists, pastors, counselors, and even have gone through a post abortion group, to help me deal with what I have done. My abortion was over 20 years ago, and I'm still dealing with the after effects.

Personally, I'd favor adoption for unwanted children than termination.

Yes, it is a much better solution all the way around -- it certainly was for my parents and me, and a much better solution than I provided for my own daughter (I know my child was a girl).