Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Public Funding and Abortions
Now that the Supreme Court has upheld a ban on late-term abortions, pro-lifers in Maine are going after Vacationland's public funding of the procedure, regardless of when in the pregnancy it occurs. From the Portland Press-Herald/Maine Sunday Telegram's account:
Abortion foes in Maine celebrated Wednesday as the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a federal prohibition on so-called "partial-birth" abortions, but they also remained focused on their next priority: defeating a state measure that would provide public financing for abortions....
[Abortion opponents] hoped the victory would inspire people opposed to the funding bill sponsored by Senate President Beth Edmonds. Edmonds, D-Freeport, said she was disappointed in the court ruling but didn't think it would affect her bill. The measure, she said, is not about whether a woman should have an abortion but about helping those who would have to suffer financial hardship to have the procedure. "It's a fairness issue," she said.
The paper reports that about 2,500 abortions get done in Maine each year. More here.
I'm pro-choice but opposed to public funding of abortions--and indeed, public funding for most things, from the arts to the zoos. That's not (simply) because I'm stingy. Public funding inherently politicizes whatever activity is in question, forcing electoral minorities to subsidize the preferences of majorities (or, more accurately, well-connected interest groups who can work the system). Apart from any and all issues raised by abortion (or anything else), that sort of thing ups the level of societal acrimony tremendously.
As with schools and so much more, I'd prefer to see the state's reach reduced to as small a share as possible, with private funding sources, including for-profits, nonprofits, and charities, doling out money donated by folks who are politically and ideologically simpatico with whatever they're funding. This wouldn't reduce arguments about what is good, moral, and effective (whether the topic is abortion, school curricula, or religion), but it would be far more preferable than, say, forcing anti-drug war types to fund DARE programs or social cons to pony up their tax dollars for sex ed programs they deem wrong.
Bonus irony in the SCOTUS decision, especially given how often conservatives rail against Roe v. Wade and, more generally, judges who create legislation via judicial fiat rather than enforce the will of the people:
The court decision accomplished what Maine abortion opponents were unable to do in the state. In 1999, Maine voters rejected a ban on the "partial-birth" procedure, with 56 percent opposed. Since then, similar proposals have been among the unsuccessful measures submitted in the Legislature to restrict abortion.
On the 30th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, I surveyed the uneasy status quo regarding abortion rights here.
Damon Root made the libertarian case for judicial activism here.
I say old man. It\'s a Moose.|4.19.07 @ 9:51AM|#
ah, yes, old bean. do you well, mightn't you be so kind as to manoeuvre over to the centre and have this delightful coloured, tiny American flag instead?
|4.19.07 @ 9:52AM|#
Regulation under the commerce clause, and "judicial activism"
come with a price. For both sides.
First the medical marijuana case and now this.
I am very curious to see what happens next now that the shoe is on
the other foot. BTW I'm pro-choice as well.
|4.19.07 @ 9:57AM|#
Can some one please explain why partial-birth abortions are being considered separately from any other late-term abortion. What functional, legal, moral difference does it make wether the fetus is still compltely inside or partialy extracted before its termindated? Why did those few inches go to the supreme court?
dejected moose|4.19.07 @ 10:00AM|#
"Why did those few inches go to the supreme court?"
cuz Enzyte is overrated and doesn't work, despite the temptation,
sweet, lovely temptation from Smilin Bob... hrumph.
/kicks ground. stoopid (sic) hockey-stick shaped growth curves.
hrumph.
|4.19.07 @ 10:00AM|#
I'm pro-choice but opposed to public funding of
abortions--and indeed, public funding for most things, from the
arts to the zoos.
You! Off the internet! Who do you think developed this, anyway?
|4.19.07 @ 10:02AM|#
I am against abortion, but if I were in favor of it, and if I found free abortions to be such a fundamental fairness issue, I would set up an endowment to pay for such things whenever financial hardship could be proven.
|4.19.07 @ 10:06AM|#
Can some one please explain why partial-birth abortions are
being considered separately from any other late-term abortion. What
functional, legal, moral difference does it make wether the fetus
is still compltely inside or partialy extracted before its
termindated? Why did those few inches go to the supreme
court?
===============================================
When people can actually see the baby in question, they naturally
have pity on it and view the doctor who kills it the same way
they'd view a cashier who would do the same thing. Human nature,
really.
|4.19.07 @ 10:11AM|#
When people can actually see the baby in question, they
naturally have pity on it and view the doctor who kills it the same
way they'd view a cashier who would do the same thing. Human
nature, really.
Allowing the mother to see the fetus in any abortion later-term or
not is just flat out sloppy bedside procedure and pretty cruel.
|4.19.07 @ 10:11AM|#
I am ambivalent about abortion.
But I think that Roe vs Wade is bogus. If the pro-choicers would
have not insisted in that, then abortion would be a thing of the
states (as it should be) and would thus be legal.
It being a thing of the Feds, and the supreme court, it becomes
legal or illegal depending on who gets to pick supreme court
justices.
I hope that this and ID in schools clues liberals that maybe choice
is better at the individual level not at the government
level.
I don't think they will get the clue though. I think they will
though.
If only we could get the right people in charge all the oppressive
laws would be good oppressive laws
|4.19.07 @ 10:12AM|#
Yeah, what Matt said. Do you know what is actually involved in a partial birth abortion procedure val? I would look into it if you don't; I'm not going to describe it here.
|4.19.07 @ 10:14AM|#
"Human nature, really."
Very true. It's the same reason we eat cows yet ban horse meat.
eb|4.19.07 @ 10:14AM|#
I'm pro choice with limits. Partial birth abortions creep me
out. I don't know when the fetus becomes a human being (who does)
but this seems to be at least skirting the edge.
It seems that both sides of this issue continually take the "all or
nothing" position. As I understand it, this prohibition does not
take into account the health of the mother. I can't imagine any law
that would force a woman to die in the effort to save her baby.
That part seems to set the law up for eventual repeal.
Or am I misunderstanding the law?
Nobody Important|4.19.07 @ 10:15AM|#
MP | April 19, 2007, 10:07am
You! Off the internet! Who do you think developed this, anyway?
Aliens?
Insert appropriate Al Gore joke here.
Disclaimer: I'm well aware that Al Gore did not claim to "invent"
the internet, only that he "took the initiative in creating"
it.
|4.19.07 @ 10:15AM|#
I am ambivalent about abortion.
But I think that Roe vs Wade is bogus. If the pro-choicers would
have not insisted in that, then abortion would be a thing of the
states (as it should be) and would thus be legal.
It would be legal in some states, but not in all. So Roe v. Wade
has served the purpose of not making women's rights subject to the
whim of the state she happens to live in.
|4.19.07 @ 10:16AM|#
Everyone here who is pro-choice: What do you mean by pro-choice? Do you think a woman should be able to have an abortion at any time before birth? If not then what is your standard for determining when an abortion is moral or not? If so why do you hate babies?(the last one's a joke)
|4.19.07 @ 10:19AM|#
Yeah, what Matt said. Do you know what is actually involved
in a partial birth abortion procedure val? I would look into it if
you don't; I'm not going to describe it here.
Yes I do know. And why would you not describe it here? Here I'll do
it for you.
The cervix is dialated, the fetus is partially extracted using
forceps, a scalpel insision is made in the skull, and a suction
device is inserted, extracting the brainmatter, the skull is the
colapsed and the fetus can be extracted with minimal discomfort to
the mother.
Im sorry to say, but no one but the doctors and nurses actually see
the fetus. The partial-birth term is a politicized term which first
appeared on a bill trying to ban the procedure. Its no different
than any other late-term abortion, except for the few inches
difference in the position of the fetus
|4.19.07 @ 10:19AM|#
As with schools and so much more, I'd prefer to see the
state's reach reduced to as small a share as possible, with private
funding sources, including for-profits, nonprofits, and charities,
doling out money donated by folks who are politically and
ideologically simpatico with whatever they're funding.
Nick, I think we'd all prefer to see that approach, but what you're
kind of saying here is that you wish people wouldn't consider
certain issues important enough to require government action. But
that would preclude having a government at all.
I. Self. Divine.|4.19.07 @ 10:20AM|#
Everyone here who is pro-choice: What do you mean by
pro-choice? Do you think a woman should be able to have an abortion
at any time before birth?
Yes.
|4.19.07 @ 10:24AM|#
Everyone here who is pro-choice: What do you mean by
pro-choice? Do you think a woman should be able to have an abortion
at any time before birth?
No. Sixth months should be the bright line cut-off point where a
woman has forsaken her right to make a choice.
|4.19.07 @ 10:26AM|#
No. Sixth months should be the bright line cut-off point
where a woman has forsaken her right to make a choice.
Why six months? Why not seven or five? Why do you feel that at six
month the woman no longer has a choice about what she does with her
body?
Would you rather she stuck to back alley abortions after six months
or what?
|4.19.07 @ 10:28AM|#
Most late term abortions are done for health reasons, not
because the mother suddenly decided she didn't want the baby
anymore.
I think that's the part that is left out of this particular debate.
It's fundamentally dishonest for "partial-birth" opponents to frame
the procedure as being a form of birth control.
|4.19.07 @ 10:30AM|#
Holly crap, what is happening with the world, Hooked on Innuendo
is making coherent arguments instead of trolling.....
The sky is falling, the sky is falling....
|4.19.07 @ 10:31AM|#
The irony hit me in the face last night when NPR played a clip
of Harry Reid denouncing the decision (no big surprise there), then
dryly pointing out that he VOTED FOR THE LEGISLATION.
I'm really comfortable knowing that the Number 2 (both literally
and figuratively) on Capitol Hill apparently votes for legislation
he believes to be both unwise and unconstitutional.
Cain\'s Ability|4.19.07 @ 10:31AM|#
Why not require an EEG? If the unborn thingamagig shows the higher brain wave activity which is characteristic of a human, then no abortion. If not, go ahead.
|4.19.07 @ 10:32AM|#
Why six months? Why not seven or five? Why do you feel that
at six month the woman no longer has a choice about what she does
with her body?
Would you rather she stuck to back alley abortions after six months
or what?
'cause a legal system requires that you draw a bright line
somewhere. Six months is typically considered the average point
where the fetus would be viable as a human outside of the
womb.
The bright line is the line that separates abortion from murder. No
one here believes that it should be legal to murder a child after
the umbilical cord has been cut. And I simply can't accept that the
bright line should be the umbilical cord severance.
|4.19.07 @ 10:34AM|#
Hooked on innuendo,
She could always jump in a car.
If she has to depend on a favorable supreme court, maybe she
wouldn't have that option.
|4.19.07 @ 10:35AM|#
Cain's Ability,
That kind of thing is not as easy as it sounds. Human fetuses show
brain stem activity at 8 weeks. That's actually the time limit that
I personally would put on what I call optional abortions (abortions
that are done not because of health risks but rather simply to end
a pregnancy), but I doubt many people will agree with me.
|4.19.07 @ 10:36AM|#
MP,
I agree that the legal system needs to draw a line somewhere, but I
hate the concept of "trimesters". I think that if we are going to
make a deterimination of when "life" begins it should be reflective
of actual fetal development and biology, not some arbritrary time
period the SC makes up.
Cain\'s Ability|4.19.07 @ 10:40AM|#
Sam B
Sounds fine to me. Although, isn't brain stem stem activity pretty
primitive? I could see an argument that instinctive and motor
functions alone do not constitute human being. Activity from the
grey, wrinkly parts of a brain do.
|4.19.07 @ 10:40AM|#
'cause a legal system requires that you draw a bright line
somewhere. .........
The bright line is the line that separates abortion from
murder.....
Right, fantastic grasp of the legal system you have there. Always
nice to see it in black and white, with a bright line in between.
So if after six months, a continued pregnancy would consitute a
real threat to the mothers health/life, an abortion would be
illegal because legally we could never murder one person to save
another.
Cain\'s Ability|4.19.07 @ 10:44AM|#
OK...can we please quit asking the question "when life begins"?
Or even "when human life begins"?
My appendix is undoubtedly alive. It is undoubtedly human. It is
undoubtedly, therefore, "human life." Yet I doubt anyone would
seriously consider it morally untenable for me to have it removed,
even if it's perfectly healthy.
The question is, and should always have been, "when does a human
being, however dependant on another, come into existence?"
|4.19.07 @ 10:46AM|#
Cain's Ability,
It is very primitive and that's not what I base the 8 week time
period on. It is also at this point that all major organs are
present including the brain. Furthermore it is after this point
that a layman could identify the embryo as a human fetus,
beforehand you probably couldn't tell the difference between a
human embryo and any other mammal.
Further, even if it is only primitive brain activity we still need
to have a basic respect for life. It's illegal to torture and kill
animals for no reason, why not a "primitive" human?
|4.19.07 @ 10:48AM|#
val,
I think we can have a clear distinction between what is life and
not and still take into consideration health risks. Those kind of
choices I think should be left to be made between the parents and a
doctor with minimal legislation involved.
|4.19.07 @ 10:49AM|#
So if after six months, a continued pregnancy would
consitute a real threat to the mothers health/life, an abortion
would be illegal because legally we could never murder one person
to save another.
I have no issue with medically necessary abortions at any time.
Arbitrary "choice" however, is not a factor in medically necessary
abortions.
I agree that the legal system needs to draw a line somewhere,
but I hate the concept of "trimesters". I think that if we are
going to make a deterimination of when "life" begins it should be
reflective of actual fetal development and biology, not some
arbritrary time period the SC makes up.
I'm not particularly concerned about the exact medical reasoning
used to draw the bright line. High probability viability outside
the womb is my determining point. I'll let the medical profession
tell me when that is.
Cain\'s Ability|4.19.07 @ 10:50AM|#
Sam B
exceptional point. I had no thought of the primitive animal vs
stupid animals point.
Jennifer|4.19.07 @ 10:52AM|#
Further, even if it is only primitive brain activity we
still need to have a basic respect for life. It's illegal to
torture and kill animals for no reason, why not a "primitive"
human?
For one thing, an animal is not dependent on a nother human's
bodily functions to stay alive. I'm pro-choice in part because I
feel I should not be legally obligated to let my body be used as a
life-support system for someone else, same way I'd oppose laws
requiring anybody to become a blood, marrow or liver donor against
their will.
And I'm shocked to say I agree with HOI; as I understand it,
partial-birth abortions are done to save the mother's life, not
because she at 8.75 months into the pregnancy changed her mind
about wanting to be a mommy.
|4.19.07 @ 10:54AM|#
Congress to repeal ban in 5... 4... 3...
I'll bet not. The Congressional majority depends on holding seats
that are in the red zone. Not to mention that partial birth
abortion polls as pretty unpopular in any event.
So Roe v. Wade has served the purpose of not making women's
rights subject to the whim of the state she happens to live
in.
This begs the question of the extent to which women have a right to
abort.
|4.19.07 @ 10:54AM|#
MP,
I had considered the "viability outside of the womb" argument but
I've rejected it as being tenuous. That date keeps getting pushed
farther and farther back by medical science. There may come a day
when a fertilized embryo can be brought to full term totally
outside of a woman's uterus. If we are going to rely on this
deterimination then when that day comes if we are intellectually
consistent we would have to make any optional abortion illegal and
not only that but testing on stem cells as well.
Cain\'s Ability|4.19.07 @ 10:55AM|#
By the way, before anyone mentions it, I do not think any
exceptions should ever be made for rape or incest. Wherever we draw
the line--if we ever draw one--and I think Sam B's brain stem
activity would be a reasonably good option--that should be
it.
However we define "human being," we should never fault a human
being for his parents' sins.
Dave W.|4.19.07 @ 10:56AM|#
But I think that Roe vs Wade is bogus.
I used to feel that way until I read Roe v. Wade carefully
in 2003. Speaking roughly, Roe v. Wade says unrestricted
abortion in the first; somewhat regulated abortion in the second
trimester (if anyone wants to regulate), and heavy regulation (eg,
near prohibition) (again assuming the state or feds want to do
this).
Roe also says that the permissible state/fed regulation can take
into account the idea that the 2d or 3d trimester fetus has some
intrinsic value, in and of itself, even though this value falls
short of making the fetus a full human being.
Frankly, I think the decision is brilliant. If applied in the
spirit in which it was written, it would lead the US to have
abortion laws a lot more like Europe's and this abortion thing
would be much less polarizing, and politicians would not be making
hay out of the issue for decades, as US politicians have.
So, to answer some of the objections:
1. Abortion is a thing of the states to a large degree. States just
have not used the Roe framework in a wise way (see next
point).
2. A wise, politically balanced state would say that: (i) first
trimester abortion is basically unrestricted; (ii) that a second
semester one requires a serious showing to a "court" that there is
a physical health issue for the mother/carrier/etc.; and (iii) that
third trimester is prohibited except in life or death situations.
This puts the responsibility on the woman to figure out she is
pregnant quicky and get that abortion when the getting is good.
responsibility like this is a healthy thing, I think.
3. Sadly, instead of doing this, pro-lifers try to draw the lines
in stupid places, part for sentimental reasons, and part because
they want the issue to remain contentious. Instead of working with
Roe's framework, using words of Roe itself,
drawing the lines where Roe explicitly encourages lines to
be draw, the pro-lifers make statutes with all kinds of latent
defects, leaving out a health of the parent exception here, making
a procedure based ban there, drawing the line at the plane of the
parent's body like it is a metaphysical endzone of some sort.
|4.19.07 @ 10:58AM|#
Jennifer,
That is an interesting point, but I find that slightly disturbing.
Women do not get pregnant by accident. If you are going to be
having sex you also need to be taking responsibilty for your
actions. And if your actions end up creating another human life
then that life also becomes your responsibility.
|4.19.07 @ 10:59AM|#
MP,
You are continuing to try and draw a 'bright line' legally. You
said six months is the difference between abortion and murder.
Obviously there are medical necessities that make your bright line
damn near invisible.
What if the actualy process of birth/c-section if life threatening
to the mother? Then its ok again to perform a abortion because of
medical necessity even if the fetus could be viable with medical
intervention?
You also havent addressed the fact that the large majority of late
term abortion happen because of medical necessity, not as a form of
birth control.
As far as viability outside the womb? What does that mean? The
extreme medical intervention that US hospitals can go through to
allow a severely premature baby to survive? What happens as
technology gets better and better, do abortions become compltely
illegal eventually?
Cain\'s Ability|4.19.07 @ 10:59AM|#
Jennifer
I understand your not wanting to become a "host." But the fact is,
a one-day-old baby is just as dependent on you as the thingamagig
inside you, one day before birth. The born child does not literally
suck life from you, but it has a legal and moral claim on you for
years and years.
The fact is, parents are hosts for parasites.
Cain\'s Ability|4.19.07 @ 11:03AM|#
Dave W.
You fail to read the Doe v. Bolton decision released with Roe. Most
people ignore it. It clarifies the conditions imposed by Roe.
Jennifer|4.19.07 @ 11:03AM|#
That is an interesting point, but I find that slightly
disturbing. Women do not get pregnant by accident. If you are going
to be having sex you also need to be taking responsibilty for your
actions. And if your actions end up creating another human life
then that life also becomes your responsibility.
Well, even ignoring the rape/incest cases, whether or not women get
pregnant "by accident" sounds like a semantic/pedantic argument,
doesn't it? Women rarely have sex by accident ("Whoops! How the
hell did that get in there?"), but "having sex" is often,
maybe even usually, completely distinct from "wanting to make a
baby."
I have never been pregnant, but if I'd ever been, it would indeed
have been an "accident" even though the actions leading up to it
were not.
Also, saying that having sex "creates a human life" begs the
question and assumes that a one-day-old fetus is indeed a human
life. I view it as a potential one. Big difference.
|4.19.07 @ 11:04AM|#
Dave W,
I think the reason many people feel as though Roe v Wade is bogus
is not because of the political nature of the decision but rather
because it is political to begin with. Do you honestly believe that
the 14th amendment guarantees a woman's right to an abortion?
|4.19.07 @ 11:04AM|#
My appendix is undoubtedly alive. It is undoubtedly human.
It is undoubtedly, therefore, "human life." Yet I doubt anyone
would seriously consider it morally untenable for me to have it
removed, even if it's perfectly healthy.
A fetus isn't the mother. Duh.
- Josh
|4.19.07 @ 11:06AM|#
"I had considered the "viability outside of the womb"
argument but I've rejected it as being tenuous. That date keeps
getting pushed farther and farther back by medical
science."
I think you have to take the advances of medical science out of the
viability argument. At some point, we'll be able to make babies in
a fake womb. At that point, all ova and sperm not going into making
babies will represent the death of a viable life. Menstruation and
bating would be a crime. Perhaps we should reference the base state
of nature in the viability argument. After all, we're discussing
issues of when life starts. It seems natural, even if you are
religious, to speak in terms of nature or God rather than medical
miracles.
|4.19.07 @ 11:06AM|#
If you are going to be having sex you also need to be taking
responsibilty for your actions
Awsome! Because women who get abortions, arent taking
responsibility at all? Those whores just fuck anything that moves
and then get the abortion cause it would leave stretch marks?
I mean no thought goes into a huge decission like getting an
abortion at all.
Cain\'s Ability|4.19.07 @ 11:06AM|#
Josh
Idiot, it is 100% human, and living, tissue. Different from mother,
but human.
Jennifer|4.19.07 @ 11:06AM|#
But the fact is, a one-day-old baby is just as dependent on
you as the thingamagig inside you, one day before birth.
Don't confuse financial with biological dependence. I agree, for
example, that parents should be legally responsible for a baby's
financial well-being. That's very different from, for example, "I
believe parents should be legally obligated to donate a kidney to
their child who needs it."
|4.19.07 @ 11:08AM|#
Jennifer,
My point is though that even if you get pregnant by accident you
are still taking that risk. Every action has risks and every
intelligent person needs to be responsible for the actions they
take. Many people here argue against drunk driving laws but I don't
think anyone would say that if you drive drunk and kill someone
that you shouldn't be responsible.
As to your last comment, I completely agree. Life most certainly
does NOT begin at conception and to say it does is to denegrate
actual human life. However, my point is that at some point that
embryo DOES become life and it is certainly not the instant it is
born either.
|4.19.07 @ 11:13AM|#
I had considered the "viability outside of the womb"
argument but I've rejected it as being tenuous. That date keeps
getting pushed farther and farther back by medical science. There
may come a day when a fertilized embryo can be brought to full term
totally outside of a woman's uterus. If we are going to rely on
this deterimination then when that day comes if we are
intellectually consistent we would have to make any optional
abortion illegal and not only that but testing on stem cells as
well.
I don't consider viability to be a function of the technological
ability to survive outside of the womb. I consider it a function of
the natural ability to survive outside of the womb with minimal
technical support. Unfortunately, that's a statistical feature. Who
knows about the viability of each individual case? So you're still
stuck creating a bright line that will satisfy everyone and no
one.
And val, I already clearly stated a medically necessary exception
at any time. I'm not sure what else I need to say.
Jennifer|4.19.07 @ 11:13AM|#
My point is though that even if you get pregnant by accident
you are still taking that risk.
Yes, and when I climb a tree I run the risk of breaking my arm, but
I doubt anyone would say that if my arm gets broken I should simply
let it grow back crooked rather than seek readily available medical
help to mitigate or even undo the damage. (And yes, I know that my
arm bone lacks the potential to become a full-fledged independent
human being, but I can't think of a perfect metaphor in this
case.)
|4.19.07 @ 11:13AM|#
Lamar,
I agree, and that is another reason why viability outside of the
womb arguments are tenuous. I am certainly not religious but I do
have a profound respect for life, and intelligent human life in
particular.
val,
I never said anything like that, please calm down. There is
certainly a time period where it is a morally responsible action
for parents to have an abortion. Also, you seem to be focused on
the woman, I'm also talking about the man involved when I talk
about responsibility.
Cain\'s Ability|4.19.07 @ 11:15AM|#
It comes down to this: when is a human being a human being a
human being? For me, it matters not what that human's condition of
independence.
Barring capital punishment...
(1)If the human requires no support from any other human, it cannot
be killed.
(2)If the human requires financial support from any other human, it
cannot be killed.
(3)If the human requires biological support from any other human,
it cannot be killed.
(4)The human's requirement of support may be unfair to the
supporter, may even be actionable, but the human cannot be
killed.
Again, when is a human a human? Answer that, and all else
follows.
|4.19.07 @ 11:17AM|#
Jennifer,
As to your tree-climbing metaphor: of course you should seek
medical attention but it would be morally repugnant if you tried to
force anyone else to pay for the operation when it was you climbing
the tree.
Cain\'s Ability|4.19.07 @ 11:18AM|#
(And--another topic altogether, so let's not get too bogged down in it--but why shouldn't a parent be obligated to donate a kidney to a child? Just a question...not sure I'd agree)
|4.19.07 @ 11:20AM|#
Jennifer, the one-day-old IS biologically
dependent!
No. It is socially dependent.
Jennifer|4.19.07 @ 11:20AM|#
(3)If the human requires biological support from any other
human, it cannot be killed.
Unless that's a typo, it sounds like it would support the notion
that one can, in fact, be forced to become a blood or liver donor
against their will. Let's say Joe Blow has some liver-destroying
problem like cirrhosis or hepatitis C. It so happens that the only
way he can survive is with a liver transplant, and furthermore I
happen to be the only person found who is compatible.
(I specifically chose the liver because it is possible for a living
donor to donate a piece of liver, by the way.) So can I be legally
forced to submit to surgery to let some of my liver be given to Joe
Blow? Bear in mind that if I don't give up a piece of it, Joe will
die. Which makes him biologically dependent on me, and according to
you, being biologically dependent on another human being is not
grounds for Joe to die.
Or let's try a less-extreme example: Joe needs monthly blood
transfusions, and I am the only one found whose blood is compatible
with his. Can I be legally forced to give blood regularly? He'll
die if I don't.
|4.19.07 @ 11:20AM|#
"the one-day-old IS biologically dependent."
If this is true, then mother's who give their babies up for
adoption are actually killing their babies, right? None of those
babies live? They all die?
|4.19.07 @ 11:21AM|#
1. A one-day baby does not have to "be taken care of" by the
mother. . It is physically separate. Anyone can feed it.
2. Many later abortions are due to gross deformities (intestines of
the fetus being outside the fetus's body) or the fact that the
fetus has in fact, died.
3. Other later abortions are due to increasing health risks to the
mother--very high blood pressure is a relatively common
complication.
4. Anyone who argues "well, you had sex, you are thus responsible
for getting pregnant" has obviously not realized the possibility of
rape. Nor has he realized that birth control sometimes fails.
Interactions between antibiotics and birth control bills may mean
that the latter is not effective. Diaphrams fail. Condoms break.
Even surgical operations such as tubal ligation is not 100%
effective.
5. Belief that "a new life is created" when the sperm and the egg
meet is a belief only of particular branches of particular
religions. Even the Catholic Church did not hold this belief until
relatively recently--"quickening", when the movements of the fetus
were felt by the pregnant woman, was considered the dividing line.
I would argue that if we wished to create a "black-white" line, we
could return to that tradition.
|4.19.07 @ 11:22AM|#
Sam B,
My appologies, but maybe you should re-read your post.
Women do not get pregnant by accident. If you are going to be
having sex you also need to be taking responsibilty for your
actions. And if your actions end up creating another human life
then that life also becomes your responsibility.
You were talking, to Jennifer (probably a woman, but never know on
the intertubes).And you refered to women having sex and taking
responsibility.
Also me thinks that saying that the male should take responsibility
is all good and well, but the level of commitement to the
forthcoming hardships, compared to that of a woman, is
negligible.
Cain\'s Ability|4.19.07 @ 11:24AM|#
MP
No, biologically. Just because our tech has evolved to the point
that we can substitute a mother's care, food, and protection, does
not change biological dependence.
Also, socially. But biologically first.
|4.19.07 @ 11:27AM|#
Where the hell is that annoying Warren when you need him?
I admit I hate the thought of abortion. I believe that life truly
begins at conception.
But I get real conflicted when thinkin about pregnant rape victims
or young incest victims or where the pregnancy has become an
iminent threat to the life of the mother due to unforeseen medical
circumstance.
Warren accused someone of being anti-abortion because they dont
like the use of abortion as birth control. I am certainly against
it as birth control.
But if pregnancy is a Gift from God, how does that jibe with the
rape/incest/mortal health threat danger pregnancy? I get where the
bible humpers are comin from as I am kinda one myself.But in a
small number of cases, abortion is a viable or maybe necessary(OMG)
medical procedure. In those cases I cant make an argument against
whatever funding the patient has at their command. I cant see where
medicaid should deny service based upon an emotional
judgement.
But as a form of birth control? nope
at some point us humans, even us Amercans, have to learn to be
responsible for our actions.
Jennifer|4.19.07 @ 11:29AM|#
Women do not get pregnant by accident. If you are going to
be having sex you also need to be taking responsibilty for your
actions.
Sounds rather punitive. How does that differ from "don't have sex
unless you're willing to undergo nine months of pregnancy?" Why
can't getting an abortion be considered taking responsibility as
well? You equate "taking responsibility" with "suffering through a
pregnancy."
Taking responsibility, in your eyes, means being unable to do my
job because I keep throwing up AND I'm too exhausted to write well
because I have to wake up every hour to go to the bathroom. Taking
responsibility means suffering backaches, developing hemorrhoids,
and having my body transform into something unrecognizable to me.
Taking responsibility means suffering through the agony of labor
(which would likely be extra-agonizing for me, given my small
size).
No--taking responsibility means always using contraception. I have
been lucky in that it's never failed me. If it did, I'll take
responsibility by getting an abortion, and if the man did not help
pay for it I can afford to do so myself. Very responsible of
me.
Jennifer|4.19.07 @ 11:30AM|#
Just because our tech has evolved to the point that we can
substitute a mother's care, food, and protection, does not change
biological dependence.
So back in the Stone Age, before we had fancy technology, only the
biological mother could care for an infant?
Cain\'s Ability|4.19.07 @ 11:30AM|#
Jennifer,
A fair parsing. The response is that the claim applies to those who
caused the dependence. (I know you'll jump on that!)
Lamar
Either you're trying to trick me into some set-up for what you
imagine is a brilliant point, or you're just brain-dead. Mothers
who give up their children for adoption are making a conscious
decision to forego biological/social/financial provision by
themselves in hopes of superior provision by others.
|4.19.07 @ 11:32AM|#
val and grumpy realist,
I feel like I should clarify my point about responsibility. Anybody
participating in vaginal sex act, male or female, is taking a risk
that a pregnancy may occur as a result. I didn't like Jennifers
reasoning that she should not be made to be a biological "slave" as
it were because it ignores this fact. This does not mean, again,
that there is not a time period where it is a perfectly moral
action to have an abortion performed, because the cells being
destroyed are not a life and only represent a potential life.
However, after that developing embryo DOES become a life then the
responsibility for it kicks in. Your actions created a life, you
can't ignore that.
As far as in cases of rape, this is very difficult and I would not
be opposed to special considerations being made for such a woman
(ie. an extension of the deadline so to speak).
Cain\'s Ability|4.19.07 @ 11:33AM|#
Jennifer
If you're so keen on the Stone Age, then abortion should be
illegal.
Sorry, babe, when all other arguments fail, I can always fall back
on "When is a Human being human?" Once human tissue becomes human
being, it has a right to life, even if it costs you pain and
money.
LarryA|4.19.07 @ 11:34AM|#
Abortion foes in Maine celebrated Wednesday as the U.S.
Supreme Court upheld a federal prohibition on so-called
"partial-birth" abortions, but they also remained focused on their
next priority:
Never satisfied. Anyone wonder where slippery slope issues come
from?
Can some one please explain why partial-birth abortions are
being considered separately from any other late-term
abortion.
PBA is icky. (You don't have to physically see the fetus, just
imagine what the procedure looks like.) Abortion foes can convince
enough people that it's murder instead of a medical procedure to
get it banned. With their foot in the door they can then move to
the next step. See above.
It's the same reason gun control folks go after "assault rifles"
and anti game folks go after GTA.
but what you're kind of saying here is that you wish people
wouldn't consider certain issues important enough to require
government action. But that would preclude having a government at
all.
Actually, such personal issues are too important
for government action. The government can be kept sufficiently busy
defending the country and printing currency without involving it in
every personal decision individuals make.
I used to feel that way until I read Roe v. Wade carefully in
2003. ... Frankly, I think the decision is brilliant.
I would say rather that you find the procedure set
up by the decision brilliant. (Not everyone does.) The reason RvW
is bogus is that the way the decision itself was
written stretched the Constitution way out of shape.
A wise, politically balanced state
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,
ha, ha, ha, ha.
Sadly, instead of doing this, pro-lifers try to draw the lines
in stupid places, part for sentimental reasons, and part because
they want the issue to remain contentious.
No. True pro-life people believe that any abortion, including most
birth control, is immoral. Therefore they want as many procedures
as they can get, prohibited. Their ultimate goal is complete
prohibition. Just like the committed pro-choice folks believe a
woman should control her body and therefore want no prohibitions
whatsoever.
The issue remains controversial because each side commands a large
minority of supporters and no compromise will satisfy both
factions.
Women do not get pregnant by accident.
Tell that to one looking at a busted rubber. Contraception can
fail. Also, sexual assault isn't an "accident," but neither is it
an intentional act on the part of the victim.
My point is though that even if you get pregnant by accident
you are still taking that risk. Every action has risks and every
intelligent person needs to be responsible for the actions they
take.
True. But this begs the current question: Should getting an
abortion be one of the responsible options, should it be
restricted, or should it be prohibited?
Dave W.|4.19.07 @ 11:34AM|#
I think the reason many people feel as though Roe v Wade is
bogus is not because of the political nature of the decision but
rather because it is political to begin with. Do you honestly
believe that the 14th amendment guarantees a woman's right to an
abortion.
Tough question. here is the moneyquote from the 14th:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor
shall any State deprive any person of life, [b]liberty, or
property, without due process of law[/b]. . ." (emphasis
added)
If the woman had a chimp, it would be property. If the woman had a
corpse it would be property.
What about a zygote? Is it property or not? I think you can argue
that it is property. What is more the text specifies liberty as
separate from property. "Liberty" is a pretty vague term, and
pretty high falutin', too. Even if the freedom to have an early
term abortion is not depriving the parent of property, I think it
is an impingement on liberty, within the meaning of the 14th.
Of course, this doesn't end the ananlysis. The fact that due
process must be given before a restriction on her abortion liberty
merely begs the question of what process is "due." There is no
all-purpose, self-evident answer to that. The law is not a brooding
omnipresence in the sky.
So the Roe decision drew up a three trimester based
compromise as to what the due process had to be. They could have
erred on the side of allowing more restrictions in the first
trimester, but they did not. they accorded a first trimester fetal
life substantially no weight against the liberty interest.
On the other hand, the allowed the state to defend fetal interests
somewhat in the 2d and 3d trimester. The balance there is less
determinate. States have significant discretion to act (or not)
there, too. In that sense, Roe is humble with federal
power and the power of the 14th amendment.
Neither a shrill advocate like Jennifer, nor a Holy Roller like my
mother, is happy with the range of compromises permitted to and (to
some extent) required by the states. Nevertheless I think it is
withing the range of places that the 14th amendment would want
SCOTUS adjudicating constitutionally. If they didn't want SCOTUS
there, they would have used less vague words than "liberty" and
"due process." The 14th amendment casts a wide net on its own
terms.
Cain\'s Ability|4.19.07 @ 11:38AM|#
An aside,
please also look at Doe V. Bolton whenever considering Roe v. Wade.
If you think the trimester criteria of Roe are reasonable, you
should reall, really look at Doe. That decision is the one which
essentially allowed "abortion-on-demand."
Jennifer|4.19.07 @ 11:39AM|#
If you're so keen on the Stone Age, then abortion should be
illegal.
When did I say I was "keen" on the Stone Age? Oh, I didn't. That's
your way of avoiding my questioning your claim that "technology" is
the only reason there's any difference between biological and
financial/social dependence.
Anybody participating in vaginal sex act, male or female, is
taking a risk that a pregnancy may occur as a result. I didn't like
Jennifers reasoning that she should not be made to be a biological
"slave" as it were because it ignores this fact.
No, it simply points out that there are safe medical options for
ending a pregnancy, yet you imply that "taking responsibility"
requires ignoring those options.
|4.19.07 @ 11:40AM|#
Anybody participating in vaginal sex act, male or female, is
taking a risk that a pregnancy may occur as a result.
Sam B,
However the woman is most likely already weighing the ability to
have an abortion in caculating the risk vs return. Jennifer, might
take all possilble precations, but she also know that if they
happen to fail, she can still get an abortion as a last
resort.
The way I see the second you start bringing up 'take responisibilty
for sex' argument, you are advancing the view of abstinence (or
only oral and anal) until you are ready to have kids.
|4.19.07 @ 11:43AM|#
Cain:
I'm just pointing out that you're making things up with no basis in
reality. A newborn baby will likely die at some point from
starvation, but it isn't dependent on it's mother for flowing blood
and a regular heart. This isn't a "brilliant" point. It's just
unvarnished fact. You have an obtuse inability to separate social,
biological and medical dependence from each other, ostensibly
because you think conflating the three supports your point.
Worse, you seem to think that the question "when does a clump of
goo become a life" automatically leads to the conclusion that
clumps of goo are viable human beings with full rights.
You don't even have to answer the question...just posing the
question seems to be enough for you.
Also, you think this Life/Liberty/Property argument is a winner.
What you are forgetting is the "due process of law" part. You are
out of touch with reality if you think this issue hasn't been
litigated to death 50 billion times over. Regardless of your boner
for Jesus, the process of law has settled on some bright lines and
filled in the rest with discretion.
Cain\'s Ability|4.19.07 @ 11:44AM|#
Jennifer
Oh, never mind.
Just never get pregnant, OK? I wouldn't want you to have to
sacrifice any of your valuable time, money, or effort.
|4.19.07 @ 11:46AM|#
Dave W,
A couple of points. I REALLY don't like the designating of a child
as "property". I think it's better to refer to it as a human life
that you are responsible for for it's first 18 years of life. A
person can do anything they wish to their property (as far as I'm
concerned), but they certainly can't do anything they wish with
their child.
Also, I tend to favor intentionalist arguments, so even if section
1 of the 14th amendment does cast a wide net that net was certainly
never meant to encompass abortion.
Cain\'s Ability|4.19.07 @ 11:46AM|#
Lamar
"Boner for Jesus"? WTF?
Go screw yourself, you asshole! Bother to read before you write
such shit!
Jennifer|4.19.07 @ 11:47AM|#
Just never get pregnant, OK?
I'm not planning to. But if I do, I promise I'll do the responsible
thing and get an abortion.
Dave W.|4.19.07 @ 11:47AM|#
please also look at Doe V. Bolton whenever considering Roe
v. Wade. If you think the trimester criteria of Roe are reasonable,
you should reall, really look at Doe. That decision is the one
which essentially allowed "abortion-on-demand."
I think they will cut it back to Roe.
Bolton has not the political resonance of Roe.
Nor the good sense.
Sometimes SCOTUS gets carried away and retreats later. Not
unusual.
Dave W.|4.19.07 @ 11:47AM|#
I'll do the responsible thing and get an
abortion.
First trimester please, if your schedule permits. Less pain all
'round that way.
Jennifer|4.19.07 @ 11:50AM|#
First trimester please, if your schedule permits. Less pain
all 'round that way.
Definitely. Otherwise I'd have to waste money buying larger-sized
clothes I'd never wear again.
Cain\'s Ability|4.19.07 @ 11:52AM|#
Wait, as a matter of fact, I want an apology from the ignorant
fucktard known as "Lamar"?
I have not ONCE mentioned anything about Jesus, or even
Christianity. Where do you get off making such an accusation?
Idiot! Are you so illiterate that you cannot read my comments? I
have taken the time to make decent comments--have argued points,
with varying degrees of success and persuasiveness--in a civilized
manner. And you just pop up with an evil assumption that I have a
"boner for Jesus"?
I think I am fully justified in called you aq shit-head for such a
remark.
|4.19.07 @ 11:54AM|#
val and Jennifer,
I don't know how many times I need to repeat this, but I'll do so
again: abortion can be a perfectly moral and responsible action if
it performed early enough in the terms of a pregnancy.
Dave W.|4.19.07 @ 11:54AM|#
A couple of points. I REALLY don't like the designating of a
child as "property". I think it's better to refer to it as a human
life that you are responsible for for it's first 18 years of life.
A person can do anything they wish to their property (as far as I'm
concerned), but they certainly can't do anything they wish with
their child.
we must never forget that this is a Constitution we are expounding.
It tries to predict and set down guidelines for disputes that will
not come up for a hundred years or more.
That is why the words are accorded somewhat bigger or different
margins than when they are set down. that is why we consider Cho to
be part of a "well-regulated" militia, even though he was not in a
militia, nor was he particularly well-regulated.
So, I guess what I am saying is that zygotes should not be
considered as property in most, or all, contexts, but perhaps in
the context of the 14th am.
Look at it this way, if I had to pick one violent act to occur out
of: (i) descration of a corpse; (ii) killing a chimp; or (iii)
flushing a zygote, then I would choose both the corpse desecration
and the zygote flush before the chimp killing. (and I don't even
like chimps!)
Still, the chimp is property.
Jennifer|4.19.07 @ 11:55AM|#
Cain, can you stop frothing at Lamar long enough to answer my question? You seem to be under the impression that in the Stone Age, before fancy technology, only a biological mother could care for a newborn infant. At what point in our history did that change, so that others could take care of babies as well? I know there existed wet nurses in ancient Rome; did the change occur as part of the Bronze Age revolution? Or was it the Iron Age that made the difference?
|4.19.07 @ 11:59AM|#
Dave W,
I'm not talking about a zygote though, I'm talking about a fetus,
and they aren't the same thing. If you want to consider a zygote
property that's all fine and well but at some point during
development it is a living human being and can therefore be no
one's property (13th Amendment).
Dave W.|4.19.07 @ 12:01PM|#
I'm not talking about a zygote though, I'm talking about a
fetus, and they aren't the same thing. If you want to consider a
zygote property that's all fine and well but at some point during
development it is a living human being and can therefore be no
one's property
Roe's explanation on that important point are part of what
makes it a good decision and something we should be proud of SCOTUS
for.
Agreed, for sure.
|4.19.07 @ 12:02PM|#
I don't know how many times I need to repeat this, but I'll
do so again: abortion can be a perfectly moral and responsible
action if it performed early enough in the terms of a
pregnancy.
We got it Sam, we got it. What we are trying to say is that
abortion can just as perfectly moral and as responsible even if its
done later in the pregnancy.
So the question for you becomes; when is 'early enough'? I for one
dont think that having all organs present (in whatever form) or
having a shape recognizable by the layman is a sufficient fence.
Nor is brain stem activity. Earlier you said its illegal to kill
animals, which is obviously wrong, we kill and eat animals, with
higher order brain activity all the time. So for me that argument
doensnt hold water.
Jennifer|4.19.07 @ 12:07PM|#
Sam, maybe it's just me but I seem to detect a disconnect
between your two statements:
I don't know how many times I need to repeat this, but I'll do
so again: abortion can be a perfectly moral and responsible action
if it performed early enough in the terms of a
pregnancy.
and your critique of my pro-choice argument that:
Anybody participating in vaginal sex act, male or female, is
taking a risk that a pregnancy may occur as a result. I didn't like
Jennifers reasoning [in favor of legalized abortion] that she
should not be made to be a biological "slave" as it were because it
ignores this fact.
So: you think early-term abortions are okay, but don't like my
argument that I should be allowed to have one in part because I
should not be forced to carry a pregnancy to term if I do not
choose to do so?
|4.19.07 @ 12:08PM|#
val,
I'm going to stick by the 8 weeks argument. The shape is not
enough, that's true, but it has all the elements of "life" as I
define it, therefore it is life.
Also, I said it was illegal to kill (and tortue) animals FOR NO
REASON (forgive the caps please, I don't know how to
italicize).
VM|4.19.07 @ 12:09PM|#
What a terrific week! We can argue gun control and abortion all
at once!
woo hoo!
ooh! and the "Pipe Test" thread! drugs, too!
this is really too much fun to pass up. oh yeah.
*reaches for the cheetos
Jennifer|4.19.07 @ 12:11PM|#
So: you think early-term abortions are okay, but don't like
my argument that I should be allowed to have one in part because I
should not be forced to carry a pregnancy to term if I do not
choose to do so?
And one more question, Sam: what IS an acceptable pro-choice
argument, do you think, if "I shouldn't be forced to carry a
pregnancy to term" doesn't sit well with you?
|4.19.07 @ 12:12PM|#
Jennifer,
I didn't like your argument because it doesn't just apply to early
term abortions but to the ending of a pregnancy at any stage
immediately before birth.
To sum up: abortions are fine, murder is not. The ending of a human
life is murder, therefore ending a pregnancy when that developing
fetus can be defined as a human life is murder.(I'm ignoring here
medical neccesity but I've covered that already).
I'm willing to debate WHEN an embryo become a human life, but not
that it is ok to end a pregnancy whenever you wish on any terms
because it is some form of biological slavery.
|4.19.07 @ 12:13PM|#
Jennifer,
The only valid pro-choice argument to me is "this developing embryo
is not a human life because..."
Jennifer|4.19.07 @ 12:15PM|#
The only valid pro-choice argument to me is "this developing
embryo is not a human life because..."
All right; I see your point but disagree with it, because I still
oppose the idea "You are REQUIRED BY LAW to allow your body to
become a life-support system for someone else."
|4.19.07 @ 12:16PM|#
"I have not ONCE mentioned anything about Jesus, or even
Christianity. Where do you get off making such an
accusation?"
Let me refer you to your own words: "The questions for
me are not why evil exists, but rather why did Lucifer succumb to
it, and why was God not more persuasive?"
I will now entertain your apology to me for the
Ftard-bomb.
Cain\'s Ability|4.19.07 @ 12:20PM|#
Jennifer
As for my frothing at that sad bastard....never. I still want an
apology.
But to address your points. They are fair. I was trying to funny
about the Stone Age. (failed) What I am trying to get at is that,
whenever that mass of tissue becomes a human being, it has a right
to continue living.
If, through no fault of its own, it must depend on someone
else--however intimate that dependence may be--however intrusive
that dependence may be, then whoever is TIED to it, no matter what
she may want, must give that support. Before birth, it must have
you. After birth, it must have you, or someone you designate. It
cannot help its dependence, and you, or your substitute, are
responsible. (I should also add that, thanks to our no longer being
in the Stone Age, we can assign equal financial and sociial
responsibility to the man involved, as we should.)
I can appreciate your not wanting to be parasitized; I wouldn't
want that either. But, if the parasite is a human being--and I'll
leave that question open--should you really be able to remove, and
therefore kill, it?
Cain\'s Ability|4.19.07 @ 12:22PM|#
Lamar
when did I say Jesus?
I quoted common Western Civ mythology.
|4.19.07 @ 12:23PM|#
Also Jennifer, I think you're better off debating Cain's Ability. He is clearly taking the opposing view from your own, while me and you are approaching the argument from different takes.
Cain\'s Ability|4.19.07 @ 12:26PM|#
I will not bother to address the idiot called "Lamar"
further.
I have been civil up until I was insulted and mischaracterized by a
fool. If anyone here disagrees, then feel free to join with this
twit.
|4.19.07 @ 12:28PM|#
All right; I see your point but disagree with it, because I
still oppose the idea "You are REQUIRED BY LAW to allow your body
to become a life-support system for someone else."
Which is why the six month bright line is so effective. The
pro-choice side can look at the six month period as an "opt out"
period, whereby afterwards, they are required by law to care for
the child except under exceptional medical circumstances. The
pro-life side can then hang their hats on the viability argument as
a compromise to "life starts at conception".
|4.19.07 @ 12:29PM|#
Cain's Ability: First, I'll disregard your lame "I never said
Jesus" defense. The vast majority of that "common Western Civ
mythology" you talk about recognizes Jesus and God as one.
I just noticed the irony of you accusing me of not reading your
posts. I read ALL of your posts, not just on this topic. By the
way, I am working under the presumption that your handle refers to
Dean Cain's acting ability.
I apologize for saying "boner for Jesus." I do not apologize for
lampooning your erratic use of the God card. As Han Solo said, "I
must have hit pretty close to the mark to get her all riled up like
that, huh, kid...."
Cain\'s Ability|4.19.07 @ 12:32PM|#
Whoa, whoa, Sam B!
I am not completely opposed to Jennifer's argument.
I am all in favor of abortion-on-demand up until a certain point. I
confess I am not sure what that point should be. 3 days pregnant?
Sure! Three weeks? sure! Three months? Not sure! 8 months! No way!
Where to draw the line in between? Don't know.
I just don't agree that, because the unborn what's-it cannot
survive by itself, it should be abortable/killable. I'm sorry if
I've not made that clear. Perhaps I've used bad examples.
Cain\'s Ability|4.19.07 @ 12:35PM|#
MP, no.
English/West European/American lit refs are invariably biblical.
Observant people might note my preference for the so-called "Old
Testament."
Duh, indeed.
Cain\'s Ability|4.19.07 @ 12:37PM|#
Sam B,
NP. I may not have written my arguments as well I would have liked.
As indeed Jennifer rightly called me--that Stone Age thing, and
all.
Cain\'s Ability|4.19.07 @ 12:39PM|#
Not that I care, but just to instruct the stupid and rude:
Cain & Able
|4.19.07 @ 12:42PM|#
Sam B, it occurs to me that when you are arguing that people
have to take responsibility for having sex and not get an abortion.
You are actually arguing that if people choose to have sex, and get
pregnant they should take responsibility for their actions and have
an abortion with in two months of conception. So that a person is
who is morally reprehensible and irresponsible to you is the person
who got an abortion after 2 months not just any
person who got an abortion.
Thay way your position would be much clearer.
I still completely disagree with you on this. We would be making
murderers out of people for missed appointments. But atleast that
way we would know where you are comming from.
One question for you. Since you havent really raised any objection
to first 2 month abortions, do you feel its moraly ok to use them
as birth control?
P.S. for italics type text here
|4.19.07 @ 12:42PM|#
FYI: I'm no biblical scholar, but Lucifer is generally a Christian construct. We can argue about Isaiah or Ezekial, but Lucifer is not really an Old Testament character. More importantly, why shouldn't the viability test at least be a part of our line drawing exercise?
|4.19.07 @ 12:44PM|#
oops, it wont let me display special characters weird, use
this
http://www.pageresource.com/html/textags.htm
Cain\'s Ability|4.19.07 @ 12:54PM|#
Abel or Able
(1) one should appreciate the pun
(2) one should understand that the order of the vowel is irrelevant
from the Hebrew
(3) one should frogiev my tpying :)
(4) as to his last question regarding viability, I will agree that
should indeed be on the table.
PS: I'm still pissed, but I am willing to engage reasoned
debate.
Cain\'s Ability|4.19.07 @ 12:55PM|#
but don't say I have a boner for Jesus. I respect him, but I don't worship him
|4.19.07 @ 12:57PM|#
val,
Yes, that is correct, excepting of course cases of medical
neccesity. Rape/incest also deserves special consideration due to
the psychological trauma involved. So yes, aborting a pregnancy as
a form of birth control is perfectly acceptable up until the embryo
can be defined as a human life.
As to your second point, I don't think that is neccesarily so. Even
in the worst case it seems to me that a woman should be able to
ascertain she is pregnant in 5 weeks. This gives her 3 weeks to
make a decision.
Anyway, I severaly dislike pragmatic arguments. What is expedient
in the range of the moment is not neccesarily what is moral. You
can make all sorts of emotional and pragmatic arguments about the
harm this would cause for young women, but I think ultimately you
must look at it objectively it is neccesary to pick a time when
"life" begins. After that time period ending that life is
murder.
That said, if you disagree with the 8 week mark I'm definitely open
to hear when you would define life as beggining and why.
italics test
Jennifer|4.19.07 @ 1:07PM|#
Not that I care, but just to instruct the stupid and rude:
Cain & Able
A-B-E-L
I oughtta know.
|4.19.07 @ 1:13PM|#
Sam B,
Legaly speaking, I would only recognize, the end of pregnancy as
the "bright line". For two reasons;
First; from what I can see so far we cannot objectively set any
other marker, we cant with certaintity say when the fetus gains
higher brain functions, or when it become self aware etc... And
because there would have to be many exceptions to the rule. And I
do not beleive in laws that would arbitrarily make someone a
murderer if they did something on the first day of the thrid
months, which was perfectly legal (yesterday) on the last day of
the second month. This is the same logic used in many 'child' sex
laws.
Second; by drawing a line any time before the end, you are
effectively negating the most basic rights of the mother up until
she give birth. I dont beleive that the most human basic rights can
just be applied and removed by matter of legal convenience.
|4.19.07 @ 1:20PM|#
After that time period ending that life is
murder.
Murder is typically defined as the "unlawful killing of a human
being."
When abortion is legal, it isn't murder, just as judicial
executions, killing in war or self-defense, etc., are not
murder.
That said, if you disagree with the 8 week mark I'm definitely
open to hear when you would define life as beggining and
why.
I've never heard anyone give any remotely credible evidence that a
new life doesn't begin when you get a new set of DNA.
Abortion, almost by definition, is killing another person, but when
it's legal it's not murder. Check out California's Newspeak-style
definition of murder regarding the killing of fetuses, which
amounts to: it's murder unless the mother wants the death, and a
(state licensed) doctor does the killing.
|4.19.07 @ 1:27PM|#
val,
Minor sticking point: no fetus is self-aware, children don't become
self aware until well after birth. As to the higher brain
functions, that is true, that is hard to determine. It is also very
hard to determine when it is that a fetus "feels pain", another
factor that could help us make a decision.
So yes, obviously 8 weeks is not EXACTLY when all those things
happen and every pregnancy is different as well. One of the
difficulties in legislating around biology is that it varies so
much. But I think it's fair say for sure that a fetus, the day
before it's born is a human life by any standard.
As to your second point, I'm not sure what rights you are reffering
to, but I would counter that no one ever has the right to murder an
innocent person.
|4.19.07 @ 1:31PM|#
Mr. F Le Mur,
I'm not talking about what the state says is murder, I'm talking
about my own personal morality. The state could say it's not murder
if the person is a black slave or Jewish and I would still argue
otherwise.
I'm not sure what you mean by a new set of DNA. It seems that you
are making a "life begins at conception" argument which I also
disagree with. To say that a clump of cells is a human life is to
denegrate actual human life. And saying that it is "potential" life
is unfulfilling. We'll soon be able to take skin cells and make
clones from them; do you want to make scratching your face
murder?
Robert|4.19.07 @ 1:33PM|#
"what is your standard for determining when an abortion is moral
or not?"
I got no gen'l objection to killing anything which:
is nobody else's property
-and-
doesn't mind dying.
Cain\'s Ability|4.19.07 @ 1:34PM|#
Because, it's true, I made a typing error. The name "Abel",
however, could just as reasonably be rendered as "Able."
So, if you "ought to know," and that is the basis of any dig at me,
then you could perhaps explain the diff?
|4.19.07 @ 1:37PM|#
Sam B, unless that person has sunk his teeth into you and is
sucking your blood and nutrients, causes you unwelcome sickness and
discomfort, repeatedly kicks you in the gut, and will soon be
forcefuly entering your vagina with out your permission. Im being
tongue-in-cheek here, but Im talking about the right of
self-determination.
From a liberatarian point of view, where many of us beleive that
its your body and life belong to you, would the said woman be still
free to take her own life? Or would that also be murder/suicide
instead of murder? Would it be now attempted murder instead of
attempted suicide? Once you've determined that the fetus is a human
life with all said rights, is the woman still free to smoke, to
drink, to stay out and party until ungodly hours?
|4.19.07 @ 1:43PM|#
It would be legal in some states, but not in all. So Roe v.
Wade has served the purpose of not making women's rights subject to
the whim of the state she happens to live in.
And made those rights subject to the whim of 8 men and 1 woman who
looks a little like a man.
Jennifer|4.19.07 @ 1:47PM|#
So, if you "ought to know," and that is the basis of any dig
at me, then you could perhaps explain the diff?
I'm pretty sure the diff is, one is the proper spelling of the name
of the first human being ever to die (according to the Bible),
while the other is the proper spelling of an adjective.
Cain\'s Ability|4.19.07 @ 1:52PM|#
Jennifer
PLEASE see my prev comments. And why "ought" you to know,
perchance?
Is there anything special about you?
Jennifer|4.19.07 @ 2:02PM|#
Heh heh heh, Cain's Ability. There's absolutely positively no
way you'll ever learn why. None. The question will haunt you to
your grave.
Really, it will.
(Damn, I'm in a fine mood today. BoingBoing doth
rock.)
Cain\'s Ability|4.19.07 @ 2:03PM|#
proper spelling
I've addressed that. I guess you think you gained some points in
your argument. Not a chance. So I made slight slip in typing. As it
turns out, that slip, although it may not conform to customary
standards of English orthography, is merely a matter of taste when
it comes to tranliterations.
I "ought to know," as a matter of fact.
|4.19.07 @ 2:13PM|#
val,
That's a really good point and I don't really have an answer on
hand. It is true that while we need to recognize life that during
pregnancy two lives are incredibly interwoven.
I'm going to say as a kneejerk that those activities you described
SHOULD be regulated during a pregnancy. It seems to me that to be
intellectually consistent I would have to take this position.
Poisoning is a crime as well as murder.
As far as suicides, maybe they shouldn't be treated as attempted
murder, but rather manslaughter. Anyway, it should not be hard to
prove a defense of insanity in these sorts of cases. How are they
treated now, do you know?
How about cases where a woman's pregnancy is terminated against her
will? Is that murder?
|4.19.07 @ 2:29PM|#
The present administration demonstrates the need for any time abortion. Too bad abortion can't be retroactive.
|4.19.07 @ 2:33PM|#
Cain: You tend to fly off the handle, then use strange justifications for things you should just let go. "Able," regardless of transliterations, is an adjective and certainly not the recognized spelling of Abel. Sometimes "oops" is the correct reponse, not some claim that "Able" is as correct as a potatoe.
Cain\'s Ability|4.19.07 @ 2:46PM|#
Lamar
I did say, oops, you ass. Then I pointed out the irrelevance of the
misspelling. Because, indeed, I--a Ph.D. in Hebrew--"ought to
know."
I am STILL waiting for your apology. I do not think it "flying off
the handle" to insist that I not be lied about. Do you have the
decency to apologize for your "boner for Jesus" comment? Or are you
just another idiot anti-Semite?
Cain\'s Ability|4.19.07 @ 3:02PM|#
highnumber
appreciate the thought & concern, but no way
I was insulted, by an ass who refused to bother to learn more about
me before offering a stupid rebuke, and I am within my rights to
insist upon an apology.
I'm sure I won't be missed from this thread or site, but I--unlike
some--have a modicum of respect for intelligent people, and I
refuse to be insulted. I have been decent. I insist others be
likewise.
|4.19.07 @ 3:13PM|#
mes ami, if you plan on engaging in discourse on the internet, you will need a thicker skin, and will have to learn to let things go. You can insits on an appolgy all you want, but due to the asynchronous and depersonalizing nature of online discussions there is very little reason for him to appologize, regardless of wether u were wronged or not
|4.19.07 @ 3:14PM|#
Lamar | April 19, 2007, 12:29pm | #
I apologize for saying "boner for Jesus."
All better?
Cain\'s Ability|4.19.07 @ 3:20PM|#
Nope. "It's the internets" is never an excuse.
"I oughtta know" from someone who clearly has no idea is never an
excuse.
I guess I'm old-fashioned, but I will not tolerate lies, nor
ignorance. Nor anyone who defends either.
You may continue to murder babies. Au revoir.
Jennifer|4.19.07 @ 3:37PM|#
"I oughtta know" from someone who clearly has no idea is
never an excuse.
What do you mean, "clearly has no idea?" I don't just have an
idea of how to properly spell the name of Cain's dead
brother, I demonstrated my knowledge for all to see.
|4.19.07 @ 3:42PM|#
I just got a shipment of Chinese ones.
Babies or forceps? Either way lets try them out.
|4.19.07 @ 3:45PM|#
Crap. Roach clips Hemostats. They screwed up the
order. I told them, "one gross of babies," dammit!
Fun With <s>Sepi</s> Haiku|4.19.07 @ 3:52PM|#
Highnumber must learn
how to fill out paperwork
got order screwed up
|4.19.07 @ 4:18PM|#
The name "Abel", however, could just as reasonably be
rendered as "Able."
I think this is true. And Jeezuss, Sockratees, Airristottle, and
Sharlamain all agree.
|4.19.07 @ 4:47PM|#
"How about cases where a woman's pregnancy is terminated against
her will? Is that murder?"
I remember several cases where a preggo woman was killed in a car
wreck and the driver at fault was charged with 2 counts of
murder/manslaughter etc. One for the mom and one for the foetus.
These cases happened in states where abortion was legal. In one
such case she was about 10 weeks pregnant.
There also has to be the discussion about frozen embryos. Divorcing
couples fight over these. I think both situations are relevant to
the abortion discussion.
|4.19.07 @ 4:48PM|#
Cain: I apologized and for the most part dropped out of
the discussion because it was clear that I was bothering you. For
all your umbrage, it has been you that has insulted me over and
over and over. I even showed you the basis for my assertion that
your ideas are overly religious. It appears that I was correct,
though admittedly an ass about it.
I personally don't mind if you go to some other forum. I can't
recall ever being called so many nasty names in such a short period
of time.
|4.19.07 @ 6:32PM|#
God gave to women
Ability to have kids
So men would need them
Close, but that's not what God gave to women that men need.
"How about cases where a woman's pregnancy is terminated
against her will? Is that murder?"
Oh yeah, in most states. It raises the interesting question as to
why it is murder for one person to kill the fetus, but not
another.
The other "privilege" to commit murder is self-defense. Having an
abortion isn't self-defense, after all, unless it is reasonably
necessary to save the mother from death or serious physical
harm.
|4.19.07 @ 6:39PM|#
I can't recall ever being called so many nasty names in such
a short period of time.
I'm sure we can correct that.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245