to pro life people:

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

Real choice, real liberty can only come when citizens are able to choose whether to be pregnant in the first place. Accidental pregnancy is the largest factor in whether you spend the rest of your life in poverty. You have to have a license to drive a car, to catch fish -- I think we could effectively require that you have to apply to have children.

They do have a choice. Legs open, or legs closed.

 

[user]

A lot of hyperbole in that article but I think we can all agree the law is inconsistent.

 

[thisisgiparti]

They do have a choice. Legs open, or legs closed.

men suck.

 

[literatim]

I think equating it to murder is a bit extreme.

I actually very much like the Biblical version of how it works.

In the levitical laws, if you attack a pregnant woman and she dies, you're put to death. If you attack her and the baby dies, you must pay her restitution.

My mistake, wasn't the levitical laws. It's found in exodus.

Exodus 21: 22-24

22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [a] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

Footnotes:

Exodus 21:22 Or she has a miscarriage

So are you still fond of doing it the Biblical way?

I don't think killing a fetus should be classified as murder, I do think it should be a crime though.
The penalty should vary depending on how far along the pregnancy is. Very early on, little or no penalty. Close to birth, the penalty should approach that of murder. Of course, a court should look at the facts of each case and try to judge it fairly.

Human life is human life. The age of that human life does not determine the value of its life.

 

[Chicago Joe]

I'm one of the Pro-Choice people that supports Paul. I just happen to fundamentally disagree that an unborn fetus is the full embodiment of human life. If you keep stretching that rational, then you are interfering in the creation of life every time you wear a condom, every time a woman uses the day-after pill, etc... I think it just go's too far on that one strain of logic. If the womb & fetus are conduits of human life, then so are a male's sperm, and a woman's ovaries, and then those should also be protected, in the same fashion as certain folk protect embryonic stem cells.

I'd be interested in legislation that prohibits abortions & has consequences for those involved with injuring/killing fetus' past a certain amount of time in the pregnancy - for arguments sake, I'd probably say "No abortions past 3 months".

But then how do you win such an argument? I can understand why people want to charge lawbreakers who kill/harm an unborn fetus, but at the same time I can understand the view that is held about a fetus not being human life, and that it should be a private matter between woman & doctor.


I actually find the Pro-Life argument somewhat confusing, since one of the main tennets, at least what appears to be so, with the Paul campaign is that we should stop making things illegal - such as drugs when the only person at harm is the user. When something is made illegal, the activity is only pushed underground, and as a result they become more expensive, dangerous, and in the case of abortion, less cleanly. Obviously the difference here with Abortions vs. Drugs is that "In an abortion you are harming/killing an innocent human life", but again, I think that is the main crux of the abortion argument:

"An innocent human life"

Unless such a criteria that explains exactly what human life is arises, I have trouble fully endorsing either Pro-Choice or Pro-Life. The main reason I lean towards Pro-Choice at the moment is because, simply put, a fetus during the bulk of the pregancy is unable to sustain human life outside the womb - and as such, can not be viewed as an living, human individual.

 

[literatim]

I'm one of the Pro-Choice people that supports Paul. I just happen to fundamentally disagree that an unborn fetus is the full embodiment of human life. If you keep stretching that rational, then you are interfering in the creation of life every time you wear a condom, every time a woman uses the day-after pill, etc... I think it just go's too far on that one strain of logic. If the womb & fetus are conduits of human life, then so are a male's sperm, and a woman's ovaries, and then those should also be protected, in the same fashion as certain folk protect embryonic stem cells.

I'd be interested in legislation that prohibits abortions & has consequences for those involved with injuring/killing fetus' past a certain amount of time in the pregnancy - for arguments sake, I'd probably say "No abortions past 3 months".

But then how do you win such an argument? I can understand why people want to charge lawbreakers who kill/harm an unborn fetus, but at the same time I can understand the view that is held about a fetus not being human life, and that it should be a private matter between woman & doctor.


I actually find the Pro-Life argument somewhat confusing, since one of the main tennets, at least what appears to be so, with the Paul campaign is that we should stop making things illegal - such as drugs when the only person at harm is the user. When something is made illegal, the activity is only pushed underground, and as a result they become more expensive, dangerous, and in the case of abortion, less cleanly. Obviously the difference here with Abortions vs. Drugs is that "In an abortion you are harming/killing an innocent human life", but again, I think that is the main crux of the abortion argument:

"An innocent human life"

Unless such a criteria that explains exactly what human life is arises, I have trouble fully endorsing either Pro-Choice or Pro-Life. The main reason I lean towards Pro-Choice at the moment is because, simply put, a fetus during the bulk of the pregancy is unable to sustain human life outside the womb - and as such, can not be viewed as an living, human individual.

What makes a human a human? It's genetic coding. Upon fertilization, human life is created. That human life has all the genetic information needed to be defined as a separate human entity and to continue to grow as a human.

http://www.l4l.org/library/index.html

 

[Chicago Joe]

What makes a human a human? It's genetic coding. Upon fertilization, human life is created. That human life has all the genetic information needed to be defined as a separate human entity and to continue to grow as a human.

http://www.l4l.org/library/index.html

Ok... But that isn't really what I'm irking at. I'm willing to accept the position that any and all fetal life is human. However, I think I would still have a strong disagreement that a fetus is an individual who has rights. The site you listed, though I just skimmed it, seems to mainly point out the argument that a fetus is as human as a human being, nothing more.

I'd disagree that unborn fetus' have 14th amendment rights - or any rights for that matter as they are unborn persons and furthermore not individuals. In that respect I'd go so far as to say on a constitutional basis, a woman's body is her own temple and property, to do with as she so pleases, regardless of my moral objections, because she is not harming or causing the loss of liberty to another person (individual).

I'm curious, as a slight aside, on how you would feel about criminalizing certain behaviors & actions among pregnant women. For example, making it illegal to use hard narcotics, alcohol, tobacco, etc while carrying a fetus.

 

[axiomata]

Joe, you are right that the question essentially boils down to "when does personhood begin?" And that's the problem with this debate. There is no definitive, scientific answer. I try respect any position on abortion that was logically reasoned based upon a starting definition of the beginning of personhood. (Though I have seen people argue for infanticide based upon infants not having reasoning ability which, according to this person's definition of personhood, is the requirement. I find that hard to respect.)

The problem is that when it comes to law, we need to draw lines in the sand somewhere. Not because that line is necessarily in exactly the right place, but simply because lines are needed for a lawful society. There is nothing magical about turning 18 and being allowed to vote.

You claim that 3 months is a good artificial line for protection of the babies rights to begin. Thus, by your argument, its personhood begins at 3 months. Now who is be arbitrary?

You could decide that personhood begins at first heartbeat, as you could define it at some level of brain activity, or at its time of viability. These are logical positions. The problem is even these lines are fuzzy depending on the individual baby. This is therefore much like how a 17 year old might be more mature than a 19 year old the 19 year old gets to vote while the 17 year old doesn't. It's not fair, it's not ideal, but it truly is the only way to do it.

So now we are back to defining life at conception. This line is not dependent on individual circumstances. The baby is either conceived, or it is not. There would be no way for law to prove whether an emergency contraceptive prevented fertilization or implantation so such couldn't be banned. Therefore, an abortion only occurs if a woman and her doctor know that she is pregnant, and then carry it out. The doctor would be charged for murder and the woman (and husband if he was involved) would be accomplices. This is of course how I would want my state to do it. Each state may decide differently.

Also, abortions will still be legal in the case of rape, or to save the life of the mother. I also have a unique view that they should remain legal for minors with parent consent. I will explain my reasoning for these positions if you would like.

 

[enjerth]

Also, abortions will still be legal in the case of rape, or to save the life of the mother. I also have a unique view that they should remain legal for minors with parent consent. I will explain my reasoning for these positions if you would like.

Could you explain how having a C-section is somehow insufficient, and that it has to be an abortion?

The difference between the two is often nothing more than whether the doctor is trying to save the life of the child or the doctor is trying to destroy the life of the child.

Life should be respected.

 

[kry0nik]

They do have a choice. Legs open, or legs closed.

Thats my pro-choice stance. Choice begins with act of conception. Those who choose unwisely should not be judge, jury and executioner for a child/fetus/baby who did nothing wrong other than have two horny knuckle-heads for bio-parents. Should we clog our local gulags with teenage mothers, probably not. Should a doctor lose a license to practice for violating their Hippocratic oath, yes they should. I think that punishment would deter most doctors from performing the procedure without burdening our courts with trials of fetal-murder.

 

[Chicago Joe]

Thanks for the interesting response Axiomata,

Joe, you are right that the question essentially boils down to "when does personhood begin?" And that's the problem with this debate. There is no definitive, scientific answer.

Aye, that is my main qualm with the Abortion Issue. It boils down to personal supposition of what individual people believe. What I think gets on the nerves of a lot of people, is the idea of the personal baggage of a president appointing supreme court judges ruling their minds on an issue that has no true logical or constitutional answer. (at least as I see it)

I try respect any position on abortion that was logically reasoned based upon a starting definition of the beginning of personhood. (Though I have seen people argue for infanticide based upon infants not having reasoning ability which, according to this person's definition of personhood, is the requirement. I find that hard to respect.)

Yes, this is the basis for my argument more or less. For me, I like to think of the idea of "personhood" or "individuality" is the ability to sustain oneself - in essence, the ability to exist, breath air without aid, if you will. I suppose the problem with my definition comes into play with such arguments as "But newborns can't feed themselves", etc...

And those are good points... so I'm not 100% on my stance, heh.

You claim that 3 months is a good artificial line for protection of the babies rights to begin. Thus, by your argument, its personhood begins at 3 months. Now who is be arbitrary?

Aye, I understand the arbitrary nature of my suggestion. I guess what I was ultimately trying to suggest was that the choice should be given for a short amount of time, or rather, that (because I don't actual know this) whenever a fetus is able to survive out of the womb (early birth), even if the odds are very low, that should be the cutoff point for abortions.

You could decide that personhood begins at first heartbeat, as you could define it at some level of brain activity, or at its time of viability. These are logical positions. The problem is even these lines are fuzzy depending on the individual baby. This is therefore much like how a 17 year old might be more mature than a 19 year old the 19 year old gets to vote while the 17 year old doesn't. It's not fair, it's not ideal, but it truly is the only way to do it.

Aye, it has a lot to do with context and individual cases. But I disagree that it could be compared similarly to voting, since maturity is wildly varied, whereas pregnancy & fetal development, is, but not to such extents. Reiterating, my idea was that individuality or personhood was the ability to exist in this world without a womb - or carrier.

Also, abortions will still be legal in the case of rape.

Now this I find particularly interesting. I've known one person who was raped and had a child from it, ended up loving her daughter despite the horrible tragedy that spawned her. I suspect there are similar stories across the country.

Now obviously rape is horrible and totally wrong, but why make an exception there?

Why should a child (if we want to define it as "life at conception") born from rape be murdered for the sins of the bastard criminal?

If you can provide for the exception of rape, then I'd argue on that principle, you should also be tolerant of abortions based on mistakes, broken condoms, etc...

 

[axiomata]

Now this I find particularly interesting. I've known one person who was raped and had a child from it, ended up loving her daughter despite the horrible tragedy that spawned her. I suspect there are similar stories across the country.

Now obviously rape is horrible and totally wrong, but why make an exception there?

Why should a child (if we want to define it as "life at conception") born from rape be murdered for the sins of the bastard criminal?

If you can provide for the exception of rape, then I'd argue on that principle, you should also be tolerant of abortions based on mistakes, broken condoms, etc...

You'll notice that I did not argue that abortion was morally right in the case of rape, just that it shouldn't legally be banned. If you google "judith jarvis thompson famous violinist" you'll find a famous paper arguing the right to an abortion in the case of rape. Basically, the story goes, you wake up one day to find yourself in a hospital bed with tubes hooked up to some "famous violinist." The Dr. informs you that you are the only person in the world that has the blood that can save this violinist but it requires that you stay hooked up to him for 9 months. This is all against your will ie. rape.

Now, she asks whether you should be required by law to stay hooked up to him, her answer being no. She notes that such an answer is independent of the personhood of the violinist (he is obviously a person) and she also points out that a Good Samaritan would choose to stay hooked up. I'd like to think I would. But can law force you to stay hooked up, probably no. If you agree to be hooked up, or even agree to accept the possibility that you might be hooked up, then you must live with the consequences. This is why this weird analogy only applies to rape.

As evident from the person you know born as the result of a rape, a fetus conceived from rape is in my opinion, just as much a person as one conceived from voluntary intercourse but law can't force us to be good people.

Dr. Paul says, and I believe him, that he has never seen a case where an abortion was needed to save the life of the mother, but I'm sure it happens once in a blue moon and I'd hate to deny the right of the mother to defend herself at all. Again, a Good Samaritan mother would sacrifice her life for her child's, but you can't force a mother to do that.

And as far as minors getting abortions goes, again, I think it is immoral, but my position here is a legal one. If a minor cannot legally consent to sex, legally speaking, what is the difference from rape?

With broken condoms my position is and will always be, if you are not ready to risk the chance of pregnancy, no matter how small the chance, don't have sex.

 

[Chicago Joe]

You'll notice that I did not argue that abortion was morally right in the case of rape, just that it shouldn't legally be banned. If you google "judith jarvis thompson famous violinist" you'll find a famous paper arguing the right to an abortion in the case of rape. Basically, the story goes, you wake up one day to find yourself in a hospital bed with tubes hooked up to some "famous violinist." The Dr. informs you that you are the only person in the world that has the blood that can save this violinist but it requires that you stay hooked up to him for 9 months. This is all against your will ie. rape.

That is a fundamentally flawed argument because a fetus created from rape is in no immediate danger of not surviving - it is simply put - already on cruise control.

And as far as minors getting abortions goes, again, I think it is immoral, but my position here is a legal one. If a minor cannot legally consent to sex, legally speaking, what is the difference from rape?

But why discount the LIFE of the unborn child based on the mistakes/legality of the mother in question? You are basically endorsing the ideal of pro-choice. The child (fetus) in every circumstance, be it rape, consent, mistake is still innocent regardless of the sitation. Punishing the fetus (murdering it) in certain cases for the actions of the parent and mandating by law that it be allowed to live in other cases is beyond hypocritical.

 

[Perry]

My mistake, wasn't the levitical laws. It's found in exodus.

Exodus 21: 22-24

22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [a] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

Footnotes:

Exodus 21:22 Or she has a miscarriage

That is a very different interpretation from your original quote.
This verse says that if there is a death then it is murder. I can't see anything here to interpret it in such a way that if only the baby dies it is somehow not murder. If there is serious injury to the baby then it's an eye for an eye. I can't see how this can be interpreted any other way.

 

[axiomata]

That is a fundamentally flawed argument because a fetus created from rape is in no immediate danger of not surviving - it is simply put - already on cruise control.

I'm sure mothers will love pregnancies being called a cruise control. The only reason a baby is not in immediate danger of not surviving is because of the mother.

But why discount the LIFE of the unborn child based on the mistakes/legality of the mother in question? You are basically endorsing the ideal of pro-choice. The child (fetus) in every circumstance, be it rape, consent, mistake is still innocent regardless of the sitation. Punishing the fetus (murdering it) in certain cases for the actions of the parent and mandating by law that it be allowed to live in other cases is beyond hypocritical.

When innocent bystanders are killed in war it is not considered murder. Tragic - yes; should be minimized - of course; immoral - quite possibly, but murder - no. To not classify such a death as a murder does not discount the life of the innocent killed, rather the unfortunate circumstances around the death.

 

[fluoridatedbrainsoup]

Excerpt from “The Pre-Persons“, by Philip K. Dick, as published in The Golden Man

Past the grove of cypress trees Walter -- he had been playing king of the mountain -- saw the white truck, and he knew it for what it was. He thought, That’s the abortion truck. Come to take some kid in for a postpartum down at the abortion place.
And he thought, Maybe my folks called it. For me.
He ran and hid among the blackberries, feeling the scratching of the thorns but thinking, It’s better than having the air sucked out of your lungs. That’s how they do it; they perform all the P.P.s on all the kids there at the same time. They have a big room for it. For all the kids nobody wants.
Burrowing deeper into the blackberries, he listened to hear if the truck stopped; he heard its motor.
“I am invisible,” he said to himself, a line he had learned at the fifth-grade play of Midsummer Night’s Dream, a line Oberon, whom he had played, had said. And after that no one could see him. Maybe that was true now. Maybe the magic saying worked in real life; so he said it again to himself, “I am invisible.” But he knew he was not. He could still see his arms and legs and shoes, and he knew they -- everyone, the abortion truck man especially, and his mom and dad -- they could see him too. If they looked.
If it was him they were after this time.
He wished he was a king; he wished he had magic dust all over him and a shining crown that glistened, and ruled fairyland and had the Puck to confide to. To ask for advice from, even. Advice even if he himself was a king and bickered with Titania, his wife.
I guess, he thought, saying something doesn’t make it true.
Sun burned down on him and he squinted, but mostly he listened to the abortion truck motor; it kept making its sound, and his heart gathered hope as the sound went on and on. Some other kid, turned over to the abortion clinic, not him; someone up the road.
He made his difficult exit from the berry brambles shaking and in many places scratched and moved step by step in the direction of his house. And as he trudged he began to cry, mostly from the pain of the scratches but also from fear and relief.
“Oh good lord,” his mother exclaimed, on seeing him.
“What in the name of God have you been doing?”
He said, stammering, “I -- saw -- the abortion -- truck.”
“And you thought it was for you?”
Mutely, he nodded.
“Listen, Walter,” Cynthia Best said, kneeling down and taking hold of his trembling hands, “I promise, your dad and I both promise, you’ll never be sent to the County Facility. Anyhow you’re too old. They only take children up to twelve.”
“But Jeff Vogel -- “
“His parents got him in just before the new law went into effect. They couldn’t take him now, legally. They couldn’t take you now. Look -- you have a soul; the law says a twelve-year old boy has a soul. So he can’t go to the County Facility. See? You’re safe. Whenever you see the abortion truck, it’s for someone else, not you. Never for you. Is that clear? It’s come for another younger child who doesn’t have a soul yet, a pre-person.”
Staring down, not meeting his mother’s gaze, he said, “I don’t feel like I got a soul’ I feel like I always did.”
“It’s a legal matter,” his mother said briskly. “Strictly according to age. And you’ve past the age. The Church of Watchers got Congress to pass the law -- actually they, those church people, wanted a lower age; they claimed the soul entered the body at three years old, but a compromise bill was put through. The important thing for you is that you are legally safe, however you feel inside; do you see?”
“Okay,” he said, nodding.
“You knew that.”
He burst out with anger and grief, “What do you think it’s like, maybe waiting every day for someone to come and put you in a wire cage in a truck and --”
“Your fear is irrational,” his mother said.
“I saw them take Jeff Vogel that day. He was crying, and the man just opened the back of the truck and put him in and shut the back of the truck.”
“That was two years ago. You’re weak.” His mother glared at him. “Your grandfather would whip you if he saw you now and heard you talk this way. Not your father. He’d just grin and say something stupid. Two years later, and intellectually you know you’re past the legal maximum age! How --” She struggled for the word.
“You are being depraved.”
“And he never came back.”
“Perhaps someone who wanted a child went inside the County Facility and found him and adopted him. Maybe he’s got a better set of parents who really care for him. They keep them thirty days before they destroy them.”
She corrected herself. “Put them to sleep, I mean.”
He was not reassured. Because he knew “put him to sleep” or “put them to sleep” was a Mafia term. He drew away from his mother, no longer wanting her comfort. She had blown it, as far as he was concerned; she had shown something about herself or, anyhow, the source of what she believed and thought and perhaps did. What all of them did. I know I’m no different, he thought, than two years ago when I was just a little kid; if I have a soul now like the law says, then I had a soul then, or else we have no souls -- the only real thing is just a horrible metallic-painted truck with wire over its windows carrying off kids their parents no longer want, parents using an extension of the old abortion law that let them kill an unwanted child before it came out: because it had no “soul” or “identity,” it could be sucked out by a vacuum system in less than two minutes. A doctor could do a hundred a day, and it was legal because the unborn child wasn’t “human.”
He was a pre-person. Just like this truck now; they merely set the date forward as to when the soul entered.
Congress had inaugurated a simple test to determine the approximate age at which the soul entered the body: the ability to formulate higher math like algebra. Up to then, it was only body, animal instincts and body, animal reflexes and responses to stimuli. Like Pavlov’s dogs when they saw a little water seep in under the door of the Leningrad laboratory; they “knew” but were not human.
I guess I’m human, Walter thought, and he looked up into the gray, severe face of his mother, with her hard eyes and rational grimness. I guess I’m like you, he thought. Hey, it’s neat to be a human, he thought; then you don’t have to be afraid of the truck coming.

 

[Wendi]

In answer to the original question:

That depends. Is it a human life, or not?

 

[Chicago Joe]

(Not trying to troll here or anything, this is pretty interesting)

I'm sure mothers will love pregnancies being called a cruise control. The only reason a baby is not in immediate danger of not surviving is because of the mother.

That is my point. One has to specifically engage in an attempt to have an abortion or purposeful miscarrige - you can't have these things happen accidentally or naturally. If left alone, the fetus will continue to grow as long as the mother is alive.

When innocent bystanders are killed in war it is not considered murder. Tragic - yes; should be minimized - of course; immoral - quite possibly, but murder - no. To not classify such a death as a murder does not discount the life of the innocent killed, rather the unfortunate circumstances around the death.

Again that is a leap in logic. Innocent bystandars are not directly targeted as enemies. An abortion specifically seeks to murder a particular person. In other words, the death of the unborn would not occur without the aid and direct focus of a murderer. If a soldier targets a civilian and shoots said civilian in the head, it is murder, not collateral damage. "The war of the abortion" is not really a war at all, it is a skirmish with one simple goal: to destroy the fetus. There are no bystanders to compare.


So consider three cases. All three women had abortions.


A: John rapes Lucy. She becomes pregnant. They are both adults

B: Peter has consensual sexual intercourse with Maria, she becomes pregnant. They are both adults.

C: Mark has consensual sexual intercourse with Jane. They are both 16 years old; Jane becomes pregnant.


Assuming the cavet that a fetus at conception is sanctified human life, how can you justify killing A & C without not also allowing for B? And how can you downplay each scenario? Charge B's doctor with murder and C's with "putting down an innocent bystander in a war not specifically targeting said bystander"!?!?

Or, are you trying to concede that fetus' created from rape or underage sex are somehow less human and thus the option for abortion should be left on the table?

 

[noxagol]

Excerpt from “The Pre-Persons“, by Philip K. Dick, as published in The Golden Man

Past the grove of cypress trees Walter -- he had been playing king of the mountain -- saw the white truck, and he knew it for what it was. He thought, That’s the abortion truck. Come to take some kid in for a postpartum down at the abortion place...


...Hey, it’s neat to be a human, he thought; then you don’t have to be afraid of the truck coming.

That's scary stuff there.

 

[Brennon]

That is a very different interpretation from your original quote.
This verse says that if there is a death then it is murder. I can't see anything here to interpret it in such a way that if only the baby dies it is somehow not murder. If there is serious injury to the baby then it's an eye for an eye. I can't see how this can be interpreted any other way.

I think you're not reading it correctly..footnote is key

Exodus 21: 22-24

22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [or has a miscarriage] but there is no serious injury[to the mother], the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury[to the mother], you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

Footnotes:

Exodus 21:22 Or she has a miscarriage