This is one of those conversations that always fascinates me for our inability to speak the same language, even though part of the language component is the same category but different angle. Many of the opponents speak in terms of religious morality, rejecting any other perspective. Many of the proponents speak in terms of legalisic morality and often explicitly reject the religious perspective. It makes it fascinating because really, those are the only two avenues for this discussion. Oh sure, both sides will rope science in at some point but this is not a question science can answer, it is entirely a philosophical/legal discussion. While there are some facts that science can supply, the importance or meaning of those items are open for either side to interpret or assign value to.
To make it a legal discussion is an insult to humanity.
This is one of those conversations that always fascinates me for our inability to speak the same language, even though part of the language component is the same category but different angle. Many of the opponents speak in terms of religious morality, rejecting any other perspective. Many of the proponents speak in terms of legalisic morality and often explicitly reject the religious perspective. It makes it fascinating because really, those are the only two avenues for this discussion. Oh sure, both sides will rope science in at some point but this is not a question science can answer, it is entirely a philosophical/legal discussion. While there are some facts that science can supply, the importance or meaning of those items are open for either side to interpret or assign value to.
To make it a legal discussion is an insult to humanity.
Proved my point.
And yet we are a nation of laws, they are all that separate us from the chaos seen in Yugoslavia, the middle east or Africa.
Perk is actually 100% correct about it Beat. You are free to disagree, youre free to not have an abortion, and youre free to peacefully gather to show your displeasure-------but because you don't like the law as it is written doesn't make it a bad law or one to be overturned. As a nation of laws we cannot, or at least should not, pick and choose which should be obeyed based on our own personal feelings. Again what amazes me is how govt. should be involved in these things, but so many others people want govt. out of.
First, again with this "small govt" thing. Like you said anti abortionists usually are on this "small govt" ride however only when it suits their needs. So allowing a woman to control her own body (either through birth control pills or abortions) is wrong thus govt needs to say YOU can't. But the govt say, keeping people from buying assault weapons is over stepping? So guns are out of the pervu of the govt to control but the govt can control a woman's body? Also the same crowed seems to either be fine with or keep voting for people who love war and thus allow hundreds of thousands of people to die as well as kill our economic structure. Also they love pollutants as they keep allowing these dangerous toxins to seep into our air, land, and water (I'll give you that the democratic party isn't exactly clean on this). They also want to push a govt ID card on anyone who wants to vote although in a lot of areas it is hard to get because of the way the dmv's are handled and or people don't have the time or means to get one.
The difference being if my wife and I decide to terminate a pregnancy it is her choice first and mine second. Mainly because, she's deciding or her doctor advises it for what ever reason. I personally do not think a fetus is a baby, however my wife does. Now if she was attacked and the fetus would be destroyed then I would want vengeance as not only was my wife attacked but she now has had an unwanted termination of her fetus. So there is a huge difference there.
Now I do know plenty of people who are against abortion (my wife is one of them) however saying that just because you don't like it everyone should have to follow your beliefs is non-sense. I think that anyone that can't support a child should be unable to have kids or if they do they are either given to people who want them and can support them or they be aborted. Now many do not share my view but none the less I believe in it so should I if elected try to make everyone do it my way? NO, because it is not for the greater good. Govt is usually suppose to act in the best interest of the population.
I also get a kick out of people who want a woman to keep a pregnancy no matter what even though they want to destroy our social safety net, or they keep saying that people on food stamps, medicaid, welfare, assistance (you name it) are dragging down our system. Well if abortions were illegal then not only would there be more woman being hurt and going to the ER's, you would have a even larger portion of the country on these programs. So that means even more money being used to support them. Now it is proven than woman who are more educated have less children, than people who are not. So now you are taking away a woman's right to decide when they can have a family and when not too, which leads to many other problems. Basically the only people who should have any say in legality of abortions should be woman. Men shouldn't be in the equation.
You make many excellent points concerning the hypocrisy of the so-called small government crowd. It's always struck me that the type of people you're referring to want government small, but extremely powerful.
I have stated my feelings and thoughts on the subject in general, it is complex for me because of the fact that when abortion is outlawed, the end results are worse. No fewer abortions, many more complications. That said, I don't feel that I should be forced to participate in paying for it, and currently and in the forseeable future, I am. And any stipulations attached, cause outrageous problems. A 13 year olds parents should damn well know if their daughters having an abortion. Period.
My principal objection to your arguement is where you leave the father out. If the father doesn't have a binding say in the process, whichever way it goes, then there are no fathers. Children are the provence of females only, under your view. Is this the accepted view? Judging by how many "fathers" out there seem to feel no responsibility toward "their" offspring, this seems to be the way much of society has come to view the situation.
Is this view producing an enlightened culture? Or, is society unravelling, children brought up by their grandparents because neither of their birth parents have been taught that they have any responsibility? "It's not a child, it's a choice". Hmm, I don't think that's working out to our best interests.
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
I will again bring up the practical and rather blunt perspective. If people are having an abortion, its cause the kid is unwanted. If an unwanted child is brought into the world, it stands to reason they would be at a greater chance for abuse or neglect by the unwanting parents, or become a child to be adopted which there is already too many of in the system. If the kid is unwanted also, it would stand to reason this kid would get less love from others and less guidance and then more likely to become an adult that is not productive, more uneducated, less able to adjust, and more likely to commit crimes due to all of the issues. Even if they do not have these issues, they would certainly be more likely to be welfare adults because of their 2nd class life and associated psychological and socioeconomic issues, and we all know that people are against free money and food stamps to said "lazy people".......so why does this same bunch not see the benefit of bringing less or these "non-desireables" into the society. Again, I maintain you cant have it every which way.
Perk is actually 100% correct about it Beat. You are free to disagree, youre free to not have an abortion, and youre free to peacefully gather to show your displeasure-------but because you don't like the law as it is written doesn't make it a bad law or one to be overturned. As a nation of laws we cannot, or at least should not, pick and choose which should be obeyed based on our own personal feelings. Again what amazes me is how govt. should be involved in these things, but so many others people want govt. out of.
We are a nation of laws. I like that. But laws change at the whims of those in control. Our current administration has decided that it will only prosecute the laws that it agrees with. Presently, we're discussing the laws of abortion, which is legal. But some one to write new laws that say abortion is legal until the baby is born, or after (Dr. Gosnell. sp.) And others want to write new laws that say that I have to pay for someone else's abortion. I don't agree with that. I can't tell a woman what to do with her body, but I can be forced to subsidize her decisions? Over and over again??
I will again bring up the practical and rather blunt perspective. If people are having an abortion, its cause the kid is unwanted. If an unwanted child is brought into the world, it stands to reason they would be at a greater chance for abuse or neglect by the unwanting parents, or become a child to be adopted which there is already too many of in the system. If the kid is unwanted also, it would stand to reason this kid would get less love from others and less guidance and then more likely to become an adult that is not productive, more uneducated, less able to adjust, and more likely to commit crimes due to all of the issues. Even if they do not have these issues, they would certainly be more likely to be welfare adults because of their 2nd class life and associated psychological and socioeconomic issues, and we all know that people are against free money and food stamps to said "lazy people".......so why does this same bunch not see the benefit of bringing less or these "non-desireables" into the society. Again, I maintain you cant have it every which way.
Eugenics? That's Margaret Sanger type stuff. Don't try to argue the other side, Vulch.
Perk is actually 100% correct about it Beat. You are free to disagree, youre free to not have an abortion, and youre free to peacefully gather to show your displeasure-------but because you don't like the law as it is written doesn't make it a bad law or one to be overturned. As a nation of laws we cannot, or at least should not, pick and choose which should be obeyed based on our own personal feelings. Again what amazes me is how govt. should be involved in these things, but so many others people want govt. out of.
We are a nation of laws. I like that. But laws change at the whims of those in control. Our current administration has decided that it will only prosecute the laws that it agrees with. Presently, we're discussing the laws of abortion, which is legal. But some one to write new laws that say abortion is legal until the baby is born, or after (Dr. Gosnell. sp.) And others want to write new laws that say that I have to pay for someone else's abortion. I don't agree with that. I can't tell a woman what to do with her body, but I can be forced to subsidize her decisions? Over and over again??
I sympathize with this argument, but again, it is part of the compromises necessary to make a society work. I don't like, for the most part, that my taxes go to pay certain farmers NOT to grow things, I don't like that my taxes go to cover the tax-exempt status of religious organizations, I don't like that my taxes are used to subsidize corporations with profits in the billions, but those are compromises that are made to support the things I do approve of. It is unfortunate that the rise of extremism, on both sides, has prevented this country from working the way it is supposed to.
There are some compromises that can be reasonably made in this particular situation. I agree there should be a point where abortions are not allowed, I agree it should not be allowed based on gender or possible disability (though that second one is more difficult to me). I'm less approving of the parental notice simply due to my experience working with victims of sexual abuse by a parent which is much more common than most people want to think. And the abject cruelty of forcing a woman who was pregnant from incest or rape to carry a child from that action to term just astounds me. The answers of "put it up for adoption" or even worse "you will/should learn to love it, it's not the baby's fault" are no better.
I don't like abortion as birth control but, as Amos pointed out, the results from a complete ban are much worse and there is no way to write a law to take into account the necessary exemptions.
I will again bring up the practical and rather blunt perspective. If people are having an abortion, its cause the kid is unwanted. If an unwanted child is brought into the world, it stands to reason they would be at a greater chance for abuse or neglect by the unwanting parents, or become a child to be adopted which there is already too many of in the system. If the kid is unwanted also, it would stand to reason this kid would get less love from others and less guidance and then more likely to become an adult that is not productive, more uneducated, less able to adjust, and more likely to commit crimes due to all of the issues. Even if they do not have these issues, they would certainly be more likely to be welfare adults because of their 2nd class life and associated psychological and socioeconomic issues, and we all know that people are against free money and food stamps to said "lazy people".......so why does this same bunch not see the benefit of bringing less or these "non-desireables" into the society. Again, I maintain you cant have it every which way.
Eugenics? That's Margaret Sanger type stuff. Don't try to argue the other side, Vulch.
Not trying to argue for any side. But it would seem this would be a desired benefit. Less unwanted people, less trouble they would create. This certainly holds true for the right and their hated of Medicaid or welfare of any kind.....why would they then want more leaches off the system?
I will again bring up the practical and rather blunt perspective. If people are having an abortion, its cause the kid is unwanted. If an unwanted child is brought into the world, it stands to reason they would be at a greater chance for abuse or neglect by the unwanting parents, or become a child to be adopted which there is already too many of in the system. If the kid is unwanted also, it would stand to reason this kid would get less love from others and less guidance and then more likely to become an adult that is not productive, more uneducated, less able to adjust, and more likely to commit crimes due to all of the issues. Even if they do not have these issues, they would certainly be more likely to be welfare adults because of their 2nd class life and associated psychological and socioeconomic issues, and we all know that people are against free money and food stamps to said "lazy people".......so why does this same bunch not see the benefit of bringing less or these "non-desireables" into the society. Again, I maintain you cant have it every which way.
Eugenics? That's Margaret Sanger type stuff. Don't try to argue the other side, Vulch.
Not trying to argue for any side. But it would seem this would be a desired benefit. Less unwanted people, less trouble they would create. This certainly holds true for the right and their hated of Medicaid or welfare of any kind.....why would they then want more leaches off the system?
Unbelievable that you would think that. You seem to have a corrupted view of how conservatives think. No one hates welfare. But, having 4 - 5 generations of families living off the public dole doesn't do our nation any good. Wouldn't you rather educate the poor so they they can stand on their own, free to do what THEY want. Education(real) is what's needed. In other words, teach a man to fish, rather then giving him a fish. Its' so basic and simple.
I'm reminded of a line from "The Shawshank Redemption" where one fellow killed himself after getting out. Morgan Freemen said he had been "institutionalized" because the long time he spent in the jail. It seems we have a whole underclass of folks that are institutionalized.
I agree Beat....so when generations of these undesirables want to abort a fetus and in turn break the cycle.....shouldn't we applaud the decision? Sounds like education in a way...they are getting smart enough to know not to bring more burdens on the "haves" of society.
I will again bring up the practical and rather blunt perspective. If people are having an abortion, its cause the kid is unwanted. If an unwanted child is brought into the world, it stands to reason they would be at a greater chance for abuse or neglect by the unwanting parents, or become a child to be adopted which there is already too many of in the system. If the kid is unwanted also, it would stand to reason this kid would get less love from others and less guidance and then more likely to become an adult that is not productive, more uneducated, less able to adjust, and more likely to commit crimes due to all of the issues. Even if they do not have these issues, they would certainly be more likely to be welfare adults because of their 2nd class life and associated psychological and socioeconomic issues, and we all know that people are against free money and food stamps to said "lazy people".......so why does this same bunch not see the benefit of bringing less or these "non-desireables" into the society. Again, I maintain you cant have it every which way.
While I agree that outlawing abortion would bring a larger number of 'unwanted' and 'unadoptable' children into the world, I'm a little queasy of socioeconomic arguments in favor of it. Stephen Frears made such an argument in Freakanomics, saying that that the overall drop in crime rates over the past few decades is partly caused by the readily available of abortions post Roe vs. Wade. In a sense he was saying that because the poor aborted fetuses instead of givng birth out of wedlock, thousands of thousands of future criminals never existed. I find this a rather offensive argument that one that can't be possibly be made. How do we know that perhaps some of those who might have lived wouldn't have eventually become, say, the scientist who found a cure for cancer, the next Martin Luther King Jr., a future president of the United States, or other notables? Even amongst the poorest and most disadvantaged, there are always those who escape the cycle of poverty and achieve greatness.
I am aware of the book and his argument on that topic Raisin as we discussed it in depth in my Crime and Violence class.....I find the idea quite compelling and a very possible (to probable) conclusion that could be drawn.
I mean until it actually breaths for itself it's really not alive.
I hope I never end up choking on something near you. :P
Should we do the heimlich?
No, he's dead to me.
What does breathing have to do with it. There's brain activity and a beating heart. Pro choice ends when she chooses to have sex. Now in cases of rape or when her life is threatened then its her choice.
As far back as we can trace, the way it works is, men kill men and babies kill women. For all that time, as far as we can tell, men try to kill the other men first and women often kill their babies first. This has lasted forever, and it ain't about to stop now. Those of us who can remember back before abortion was legal can testify there were plenty of them then. Girls had to use a coat hanger in the bathroom instead of a curette in a clinic, but it didn't stop them. A popular method when my sisters were that age was a coca-cola douche. You want to go back to that? Trying to legislate this away is about as dumb as advising "just say no". It's like that humus chomping vegan nitwit with a "think peace" sticker on the back of his VW mini van. Yeah, that oughtta do it. Might as well declare a hurricane free beach or a drug free zone. It's gonna happen. You can debate and carry on until the cows come home and you won't have accomplished a thing. Period.
Thing that irks me most, though, is this constant drumbeat calling it "pro choice" or "a woman's body". It's not about women having choices and you damn well know it. It's about babies having a life. This fascination with re-naming things to avoid looking them in the eye is a verbal ostrich. Trying to pick up a terd by the clean end. Look, I was born in 48. WWII had just wrapped up. In 49, the War department was re-named Dept. of Defense. The very next year, Truman plunged right into another war; and we've had one war after another ever since. Re-naming the thing Defense did not stop war. Men still kill men. Likewise, re-naming abortion pro-choice has not saved a single infant's life. Women still kill babies. Hey, it's not the choice of the baby getting murdered, is it? Look, if you can't even pronounce the name of the act honestly for what it is, then don't pretend that you don't find the act disgusting.
Meanwhile: Guys, I'm telling you, knock it off. Not a one of you will ever be in a position where it is any of your business at all. Leave it to girls and their mothers. You don't even need to know. Butt the hell out.
“It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)
Not a one of you will ever be in a position where it is any of your business at all. Leave it to girls and their mothers. You don't even need to know. Butt the hell out.
That's true it is none of my business. But I've known 2 girls who have had abortions. One couldn't live with her decision and committed suicide over it. The other even after 30 years have gone by still regrets it and occasionally breaks down crying over it. This is a decision that affects more than just the girl. And it's one that last a life time and is not forgotten.
As far back as we can trace, the way it works is, men kill men and babies kill women. For all that time, as far as we can tell, men try to kill the other men first and women often kill their babies first. This has lasted forever, and it ain't about to stop now. Those of us who can remember back before abortion was legal can testify there were plenty of them then. Girls had to use a coat hanger in the bathroom instead of a curette in a clinic, but it didn't stop them. A popular method when my sisters were that age was a coca-cola douche. You want to go back to that? Trying to legislate this away is about as dumb as advising "just say no". It's like that humus chomping vegan nitwit with a "think peace" sticker on the back of his VW mini van. Yeah, that oughtta do it. Might as well declare a hurricane free beach or a drug free zone. It's gonna happen. You can debate and carry on until the cows come home and you won't have accomplished a thing. Period.
Thing that irks me most, though, is this constant drumbeat calling it "pro choice" or "a woman's body". It's not about women having choices and you damn well know it. It's about babies having a life. This fascination with re-naming things to avoid looking them in the eye is a verbal ostrich. Trying to pick up a terd by the clean end. Look, I was born in 48. WWII had just wrapped up. In 49, the War department was re-named Dept. of Defense. The very next year, Truman plunged right into another war; and we've had one war after another ever since. Re-naming the thing Defense did not stop war. Men still kill men. Likewise, re-naming abortion pro-choice has not saved a single infant's life. Women still kill babies. Hey, it's not the choice of the baby getting murdered, is it? Look, if you can't even pronounce the name of the act honestly for what it is, then don't pretend that you don't find the act disgusting.
Meanwhile: Guys, I'm telling you, knock it off. Not a one of you will ever be in a position where it is any of your business at all. Leave it to girls and their mothers. You don't even need to know. Butt the hell out.
While I respect most of what you have written here let me point out one thing. It is ALL of our business whether or not a child is murdered and I for one will not hesitate to voice my opinion! Also is not a man involved in the act of conception? Surely HE should have a say in what happens to they're BABY! Leave it to the girls and they're mothers my as*!
Comments
And yet we are a nation of laws, they are all that separate us from the chaos seen in Yugoslavia, the middle east or Africa.
I have stated my feelings and thoughts on the subject in general, it is complex for me because of the fact that when abortion is outlawed, the end results are worse. No fewer abortions, many more complications. That said, I don't feel that I should be forced to participate in paying for it, and currently and in the forseeable future, I am. And any stipulations attached, cause outrageous problems. A 13 year olds parents should damn well know if their daughters having an abortion. Period.
My principal objection to your arguement is where you leave the father out. If the father doesn't have a binding say in the process, whichever way it goes, then there are no fathers. Children are the provence of females only, under your view. Is this the accepted view? Judging by how many "fathers" out there seem to feel no responsibility toward "their" offspring, this seems to be the way much of society has come to view the situation.
Is this view producing an enlightened culture? Or, is society unravelling, children brought up by their grandparents because neither of their birth parents have been taught that they have any responsibility? "It's not a child, it's a choice". Hmm, I don't think that's working out to our best interests.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
There are some compromises that can be reasonably made in this particular situation. I agree there should be a point where abortions are not allowed, I agree it should not be allowed based on gender or possible disability (though that second one is more difficult to me). I'm less approving of the parental notice simply due to my experience working with victims of sexual abuse by a parent which is much more common than most people want to think. And the abject cruelty of forcing a woman who was pregnant from incest or rape to carry a child from that action to term just astounds me. The answers of "put it up for adoption" or even worse "you will/should learn to love it, it's not the baby's fault" are no better.
I don't like abortion as birth control but, as Amos pointed out, the results from a complete ban are much worse and there is no way to write a law to take into account the necessary exemptions.
I'm reminded of a line from "The Shawshank Redemption" where one fellow killed himself after getting out. Morgan Freemen said he had been "institutionalized" because the long time he spent in the jail. It seems we have a whole underclass of folks that are institutionalized.
Thing that irks me most, though, is this constant drumbeat calling it "pro choice" or "a woman's body". It's not about women having choices and you damn well know it. It's about babies having a life. This fascination with re-naming things to avoid looking them in the eye is a verbal ostrich. Trying to pick up a terd by the clean end. Look, I was born in 48. WWII had just wrapped up. In 49, the War department was re-named Dept. of Defense. The very next year, Truman plunged right into another war; and we've had one war after another ever since. Re-naming the thing Defense did not stop war. Men still kill men. Likewise, re-naming abortion pro-choice has not saved a single infant's life. Women still kill babies. Hey, it's not the choice of the baby getting murdered, is it? Look, if you can't even pronounce the name of the act honestly for what it is, then don't pretend that you don't find the act disgusting.
Meanwhile: Guys, I'm telling you, knock it off. Not a one of you will ever be in a position where it is any of your business at all. Leave it to girls and their mothers. You don't even need to know. Butt the hell out.
While I respect most of what you have written here let me point out one thing.
It is ALL of our business whether or not a child is murdered and I for one will not hesitate to voice my opinion!
Also is not a man involved in the act of conception?
Surely HE should have a say in what happens to they're BABY!
Leave it to the girls and they're mothers my as*!