[quote]DPH wrote:
I know this would never fly with most but I would like to see every non-married female whos body has begun menstrating be put on mandatory depro vera shots…
[/quote]
Oh no ya didn’!
Actually, if we’re going that route, I think all men of reproductive age should undergo a mandatory vasectomies that can be reversed upon marriage. A quick little tie-off and the man can recover and go about his horny ways (protected, nonetheless) like nothing is wrong. Putting women on strong hormonal modifying medication? Not such a good idea, bud. You think we’re hard to understand and cranky now? Try crankin’ us full of progesterone all the time.
If everyone could just learn to keep themselves to, um, themselves, until they can accept responsibilty for their actions, this might solve the whole thing. Or, God forbid, we could teach about birth control in schools. (GASP! Heathens!)
I can see your point, BB, but I beg to differ. There is nothing magical about life. By that, I mean that moral values and beliefs don’t have to come into play because there is an obvious answer to all of this. Is a fetus alive? Yes. From the moment it is conceived, cell division rapidly takes place, and development continues until the organism’s death. Is the fetus an individual? This is easily answered, too. Like I said before, it isn’t an individual until it’s able to survive independent of its mother. This is defined loosely by the level of technological advancement we have achieved. Right now, the fetus needs to be quite a bit down the road to maturity before it is viable outside of the womb.
So, the question of abortion, at least in my mind, doesn’t seem so mysterious. The woman can do whatever she wants with herself until the baby becomes an individual. Then, it’s time to be mom or give the child up for adoption. What’s so tough about this? There doesn’t have to be an appeal to religious or moral thought at all.
When someone dies painlessly, who gets hurt by all this? The people who know and enjoy that person. The person doesn’t know he’s dead. You don’t want to die, and neither do I, but if I do I will have no idea, assuming it’s painless. So it is hard for us to get over the fact that we inately don’t want to die. Humans inately want to survive. If we didn’t, humans with our characteristics wouldn’t have reproduced and evolved. Something tells us we don’t want to die, however, it doesn’t matter to us if we actually do. The only people that know the baby are the parents, and they don’t even really know the baby; they haven’t even interacted with the baby when it is unborn, so they only like the idea of having a baby and the potential to get to know the baby/person. If the parents don’t want the baby, it’s advantageous for the greater good to get rid of that unborn baby. Whereas killing a person will be very hurtful to his friends and family.
The question really isn’t whether it’s alive, which is answered easily, as you indicated. The question is when it becomes “human,” which is much more metaphysical.
[ADDENDUM: To put it into the terms you used, the moral question comes in determining when the fetus attains the status of “individual.” Science will give you markers, but the interpretation of those markers isn’t science, it’s morals and ethics.]
[quote]kevtrice wrote:
When someone dies painlessly, who gets hurt by all this? The people who know and enjoy that person. The person doesn’t know he’s dead. You don’t want to die, and neither do I, but if I do I will have no idea, assuming it’s painless. So it is hard for us to get over the fact that we inately don’t want to die. Humans inately want to survive. If we didn’t, humans with our characteristics wouldn’t have reproduced and evolved. Something tells us we don’t want to die, however, it doesn’t matter to us if we actually do. The only people that know the baby are the parents, and they don’t even really know the baby; they haven’t even interacted with the baby when it is unborn, so they only like the idea of having a baby and the potential to get to know the baby/person. If the parents don’t want the baby, it’s advantageous for the greater good to get rid of that unborn baby. Whereas killing a person will be very hurtful to his friends and family.[/quote]
Kev:
What’s the difference here between an 8 1/2 month old fetus and a 1-day-old baby? Is there one?
BostonBarrister: About the same as the difference between a 8 month old fetus and a 8 1/2 month old fetus, but maybe a little more because the baby can have much more life shaping experiences outside the mother’s body (which I don’t know if I think that matters on whether it can be killed yet) and it interacts with the mother and father much more outside the womb.
[quote]kevtrice wrote:
BostonBarrister: About the same as the difference between a 8 month old fetus and a 8 1/2 month old fetus, but maybe a little more because the baby can have much more life shaping experiences outside the mother’s body (which I don’t know if I think that matters on whether it can be killed yet) and it interacts with the mother and father much more outside the womb.[/quote]
I think that’s right, scientifically – but there’s a huge legal difference between the two. Once a baby is delivered, it’s a person, entitled to all rights and privileges.
W/r/t your reasoning above, there wouldn’t seem to be any difference at all between a baby about to be born and one already born – from a strictly utilitatarian view, which I think is the position from where you’re coming, if the parents didn’t want a newborn, it would be the same calculus as if they didn’t want a fetus.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
I can see your point, BB, but I beg to differ. There is nothing magical about life. By that, I mean that moral values and beliefs don’t have to come into play because there is an obvious answer to all of this. Is a fetus alive? Yes. From the moment it is conceived, cell division rapidly takes place, and development continues until the organism’s death. Is the fetus an individual? This is easily answered, too. Like I said before, it isn’t an individual until it’s able to survive independent of its mother. This is defined loosely by the level of technological advancement we have achieved. Right now, the fetus needs to be quite a bit down the road to maturity before it is viable outside of the womb.
So, the question of abortion, at least in my mind, doesn’t seem so mysterious. The woman can do whatever she wants with herself until the baby becomes an individual. Then, it’s time to be mom or give the child up for adoption. What’s so tough about this? There doesn’t have to be an appeal to religious or moral thought at all.[/quote]
Given your argument, would you say that it is okay to kill a person on life support? I know a 35 year old man that is being kept alive by a machine. Does anyone have the right to kill the person just because he can’t survive on his own? What about those smokers that survive by carrying around an air tank? Should we be able to bust a cap in their ass because they can’t live independently? What about severly disabled folks that required help from another person? Should that person, responsible for their care, possess the right to terminate them?
I won’t go any deeper, but I’m sure that we could blow all kinds of holes through your argument.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
So, the question of abortion, at least in my mind, doesn’t seem so mysterious. The woman can do whatever she wants with herself until the baby becomes an individual. Then, it’s time to be mom or give the child up for adoption. What’s so tough about this? There doesn’t have to be an appeal to religious or moral thought at all.[/quote]
I’m just going to venture a guess, here - You don’t have kids. Do you?
My wife and I are expecting our first child together. I have an 8 year old stepson. My wife gave birth to him when she was 17 years old and “Daddy” never took responsibility. Had she done what most girls her age would have done, I would have missed out on one of the biggest blessings in my life as well as one of my best friends.
I am whole heartedly against abortion and disagree with abortion on many levels, all ranging from religious beliefs to responsibility for my own actions. I knew every time that I dropped my trousers from puberty to now, that there was a chance that I could have to take responsibility for that action. Had it happened in High School or College, I would have done the right thing and grown up quickly to become a provider.
Before you all start to think I’m 110% pro life, let me finish.
I will go on a religious angle that seems left out on this topic. The Bible tells us not to judge and to let God be the judge. If someone gets an abortion, they WILL answer to their maker IN DUE TIME.
I’m so sick of society feeling the need to make laws to “protect” stupid people from themselves (this part goes deeper than just abortion- i.e. prohormone ban, etc). True, there IS a life that is created that should be protected AT SOME POINT, but even if abortion is illegal, it WILL take place (albeit not as rampantly) and not only will the unborn child be endangered, but the empregnated person will be endagered by unsafe practices. Remember, before it was legal, there were coathangers-in-bus-station-bathroom abortions performed every day that killed or injured many of the “patients”. Also, think of the birth defects that would result from lifestyle habits of someone “forced” to have a baby that resents the very existance of the baby (i.e drugs, alcohol, attempted “miscarriage”). Beyond that, if they aren’t given up for adoption, what kind of child rearing will come from a mother that wanted to abort? do you not think there will be a vicious cycle of life, as the apple never falls too far from the tree?
Just $.01 of my $.02…
I think abortion beyond the first trimester should be banned (barring danger to the mother’s life), however it should be legal after the 18th year.
Think about it- they had their chance and blew it. Abortion. No more slack-assed delinquents running around with their pants half off of their ass and causing trouble…
[quote]jackzepplin wrote:
lothario1132 wrote:
I can see your point, BB, but I beg to differ. There is nothing magical about life. By that, I mean that moral values and beliefs don’t have to come into play because there is an obvious answer to all of this. Is a fetus alive? Yes. From the moment it is conceived, cell division rapidly takes place, and development continues until the organism’s death. Is the fetus an individual? This is easily answered, too. Like I said before, it isn’t an individual until it’s able to survive independent of its mother. This is defined loosely by the level of technological advancement we have achieved. Right now, the fetus needs to be quite a bit down the road to maturity before it is viable outside of the womb.
So, the question of abortion, at least in my mind, doesn’t seem so mysterious. The woman can do whatever she wants with herself until the baby becomes an individual. Then, it’s time to be mom or give the child up for adoption. What’s so tough about this? There doesn’t have to be an appeal to religious or moral thought at all.
Given your argument, would you say that it is okay to kill a person on life support? I know a 35 year old man that is being kept alive by a machine. Does anyone have the right to kill the person just because he can’t survive on his own? What about those smokers that survive by carrying around an air tank? Should we be able to bust a cap in their ass because they can’t live independently? What about severly disabled folks that required help from another person? Should that person, responsible for their care, possess the right to terminate them?
I won’t go any deeper, but I’m sure that we could blow all kinds of holes through your argument.[/quote]
although in both examples you gave, the subjects were undeniably individuals before circumstance intervened. The same could not be said for a being in utero who has never been an individual, never had experience outside the womb.
In Sweden you can have an abortion if you want but only up to the 18th week. Any later than that you have to have VERY strong reasons, health of the mother etc…
[quote]rainjack wrote:
I’m just going to venture a guess, here - You don’t have kids. Do you?
You’re a young single guy, aren’t you?
Just wondering
[/quote]
Sorry to disappoint you, RJ. I think that both of my kids are older than ZEB’s. My son started middle school this year. I’m also 33. I hope that’s still young.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Sorry to disappoint you, RJ. I think that both of my kids are older than ZEB’s. My son started middle school this year. I’m also 33. I hope that’s still young.
[/quote]
You’re but a young whipper-snapper.
At least you have a dog in this fight. Your arguments just sound as if they are coming from someone far younger, and with no children.
[quote]Mr. Moose wrote:
Why don’t you get the law changed??
In Sweden you can have an abortion if you want but only up to the 18th week. Any later than that you have to have VERY strong reasons, health of the mother etc…[/quote]
I haven’t really been following this thread, but the answer is that the “law” in question has been written in to the Constitution by the Supreme Court.
Roe v. Wade ( ROE v. WADE | FindLaw ) required that abortion not be made illegal at any time before viability (limiting government regulation to that related to protecting “maternal health”, which was not well defined); the Court said viability would be at about six or seven months (though over time, the line has moved up a bit, as the 1992 Casey v. Planned Parenthood ( http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/505/833.html ) decision recognized).
Basically, you had judges read their own specific values into the Constitution, which makes changing the details an arduous process.
It’s not illegal after 18 weeks, it’s just that you have to have very good reasons to insist on an abortion.
18 weeks is enough time to make a decision if you want the baby or not.
“Basically, you had judges read their own specific values into the Constitution, which makes changing the details an arduous process.”
Was the Constitution written for the judges or the people??? When was the part regarding abortions written? If a looooong time ago, maybe it’s time for an “update”?
Ardous process or not, it’s for the good of the people.
But what do I know, we are/think quite a bit different in Sweden, THANK GOD.
States aren’t allowed to require “good reason” here until post-viability – now that would probably be around 6 months, and at least 5 months.
As for the Constitution, I agree with you that it’s for the people. Hopefully getting rid of activist judges in the appellate courts will help to cure the problem of rule via judicial fiat.
I’ve read about two thirds of this discussion and I’ve come to a point where I want to give out my opinion on the controversy about abortion in the US. I’ve spent ten months in the States as an exchange student at a catholic highschool and I believe I know about pretty much every reason people have argued for and against abortion. There are some very convincing arguments on both sides, and I honestly don’t know if I would consider myself pro-choice or pro-life.
What I find amazing about the American culture is how people stand up for their beliefs. I just haven’t seen this done in any comparable way before, which makes politics in the States very unique. I can see why one would want to argue for their point. What I can’t see is how one can demand that their will be fulfilled and freedoms other people see as their personal rights should be taken away. I understand that anyone who finds having a child an inconvenience may still say they’re having the child, because it’s the right thing to do according to their beliefs. But how can you force someone who does not believe the things you do to still act upon these things? And please don’t tell me the “fetuses can’t argue for themselves” because I’ve heard it enough and it is, above all, tiring. If they could argue for themselves, I\m pretty damn sure no American judge would rule that the mother has to carry out her pregnancy. Now this is just my belief on how I think it would be, could be different. Back to my argument, I know no one can have absolute freedom, some freedoms have to be given up in order to live in and establish a society. I don’t see how abortion should be one of them. And that’s not because I don’t care about the children, but because I care about the other persons involved.
Some other things I’d like to clarify are: I don’t see “fucking” as a bad or sinful thing. In my book, everyone has the right to do so, everyone has the right to deal with the consequenses the way they want to. Also, after I’ve been in the US for several months, as I said, I don’t think that Americans are the free people everyone thinks they are. There’s a lot of shit going on over there, and I’m pretty damn glad that I got to know both sides. It has braodened my understanding of such things as freedom.
One last thing I have to add: I don’t see any of the “pro-life voters” (in my book, voting “pro-life” is the stupidest way of throwing away your vote) defend or support Bush. Now that was changing the subject fast, and we don’t want to do that as I’ve read in an earlier post…
I hope I didn’t bore you, it’s just that I never seem to read an opinion that I can share as my own…