South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds this week signed into law a sweeping ban on all abortions, except in rare cases where it threatens the life of the mother. Not even rape and incest would be covered under this extreme — and extremely bad — law.
It’s unclear whether pro-choice groups will fight this at the state level in a referendum, which could be nasty, or at the U.S. Supreme Court, which despite its new anti-abortion majority surely would reject this reckless frontal assault on Roe v. Wade.
In fact, some pro-choice groups are regarding this law as a political gift that is likely to hand them a clear victory in the highest court. At the same time, it could energize pro-choice women by showing them what’s at stake if anti-abortion hard-liners write the laws.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Jed on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
175 Comments
Say what you will about abortion being legal or illegal, but this Gov. Mike Rounds HAS BALLS!!! Wow! I mean, a politician that puts his idea of the common good BEFORE his own political career!? I’d have thought such a politician were extinct these days. Now if only we had a PRESIDENT that would act accordingly?
CX, I respect your opinion that abortion is WRONG. That it is MURDER. That women who choose it are TERRIBLY MISGUIDED.I agree with you personally (not politically).That said, can you really, honestly thing that he’s REALLY doing this just for the unborn babies?? Can you honestly say that you believe Mike Rounds was not thinking of his political base and the prospect of the *fame* that would come with singlehandedly turning over RvW when he signed this law?
To me, political grandstanding in the name of “saving babies” is WRONG! He knows very well that the best way to overturn RvW is gradually and with viable alternatives in place first. He’s only pulling this for the votes.Sick!
The fact of the matter is that a bunch of middle aged (and older) old men raising their hands and voting to make something illegal will not stop abortions. All it does is stop medically safe abortions.
Tara and Raptor, word.
If Governor Rounds really thought abortion was murder, he’d do the obvious thing and demand jail time for the women seeking abortions. If he really was someone who put ‘his idea of the common good before his own political career,’ he’d go after anyone who qualifies as a murderer. The fact that he doesn’t shows not only that he’s inconsistent, but that he knows better than to alienate such a large single group of voters.
The fact that he doesn’t advocate jailing women who seek or receive abortion shows that he’s just playing to the nutcase base in his own state.
I do suspect that large numbers of the American Pro-Life Taliban are itching to criminalize and punish those seeking abortions as a way to get such pre-marital sex-having sluts to keep their legs shut.
That’s what this is really about.
A majority of Americans favor choice.
Bring it on . . .
CF,I resent the taliban label. Though deserved by a small group of radical activists, the majority of pro-lifes, such as myself, understand that we cannot make the choice for women, just as we cannot make people vote the way we believe on the subject. I will not force my opinion on anybody, but i will express it. If that makes me and my kind Taliban to you, then your views could certainly be taken the same way.
Nor do I see clear headed people (the present AG excepted) of wanting to criminalize pre-material sex. I would expect that the majority of americans believe in womens rights, but there is also a large percentage that think the unborn child has rights as well. This clear divide, I think, is what will eventually overturn R v W, and turn the whole thing over to the states, where in my opinion it should have been in the first place.
What most pundits are seeing, and what most critics of R v W have echoed in the past, is the abortion question should be addressed in the states, not in Washington on a national level.
I am happy to note, though, that you and Tara have the uncanny ability to read minds. Knowing what Governor Rounds was thinking when he signed the bill really interests me: What are the next powerball winning numbers? Email em to me and I will happily give each of you 5% of my winnings:-)Plus a slice of cheese cake at the picnic LOL
This issue will be in court for so many years. Oh well!
I know there is a sizable and loud anti-abortion activist out there. That’s fine, but I seriously doubt that Abortion will ever become illegal in the US.
Pre- material sex JM??
LOL
“Pre- material sex JM??”
Would that be “free love”?
Hmmmmmm”pre-material sex”
Mis-type, “happy accident”?
Freudian slip?
I’m still laughing.
Walker, that line about “can you read someone’s mind” is always your fall back position and it is stale.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…do we really need to be able to read the duck’s mind?
Kudos to you JM, kudos!
Christians who resent the taliban label should ask themselves if they resent that label or if they really resemble that label on some issues.
The fact that you said “some issues” is telling that Christians are nothing like the Taliban. Because if anybody wasn’t following their uber-radical Wahabbi-Islam, they’d simply execute them publicly.
J M Walker,
If the fetus has rights, then do these trump the mother’s, or don’t they?
If they do, she’s a murderer.
If they don’t, there’s nothing to argue over.
And if you want to see this issue monopolize the time and energy of every single state legislature, then turning it over to the states is the way to do it.
J M Walker and CrusaderX,
Back to my question: if you’re ‘Pro-Life,’ and you want abortion criminalized, then please refute my observation that the criminal penalties ought to apply to the woman seeking an abortion as well as to the doctor performing it.
If the fetus has ‘rights,’ then abortion is murder. And if abortion is murder, then the woman who plans for and receives an abortion is a murderer.
I believe that abortion should have been left as a state’s issue, not a federal “blanket” law like R v W.
Answer the question, CrusaderX.
Leaving this issue to the states is like leaving the jim crow laws to the states. Ian should be happy with that statement. I guess Brown v Topeka BOE is one of those pesky infringements on state’s rights.
People of color would still be sitting in the back of the bus if civil rights laws were left to the states. I bet if you polled most kansans, they would readily put those laws back in place.
Walker”what a moron” HaThe unborn has onlythe rights the host mother wants those rights to be.Let me post from a previous thread:The laws of natureIf our legislators had any guts at all they would define “when it is human?” and settle this never ending squabble.As many of you already know, due to nature’s metamorphosis, a caterpillar becomes a butterfly, a cut worm becomes a moth, a tadpole becomes a frog, a grub worm becomes a June bug and a sperm from a human male has a chance of becoming a human.A caterpillar is not a butterfly, a cut worm is not a moth, a tadpole is not a frog, a grub worm is not a June bug and a sperm from a human is not a human. In fact, after conception, it is nothing more then a loveable parasite in a human female’s body, sucking life from this host body. It will continue to suck life from this host body until it either dies in the womb or the umbilical cord is cut. Until that time (the cord is cut), based on the law of nature, it cannot be called human and should have no rights.
While reading DemocraticUnderground over my coffee, toast, and fried “unborn chicken babies” this a.m., I saw an article on their homepage–”Men Of S.D., You Forgot Something.”
This article points out that the big difference between the present and 1972 is that DNA testing. With DNA testing, women can prove paternity. When they prove paternity, they can make the fathers pay . . . and pay . . . and pay . . .
No more walking away from your responsibilities, boys. Now her problem is YOUR problem.
I’m still enjoying the deafening silence from J M Walker and CrusaderX as to the incontrovertible fact that if abortion is murder, the woman seeking an abortion is the murderer.
Judging by their lack of response, I believe we have a knock-down argument against not only the South Dakota law, but the Pro-Life movement in general. At least, that is, until folks like J M Walker and CrusaderX are willing to prosecute such women to the fullest extent of the law. And I ain’t holding my breath.
CF, if the father of the fetus knows about the impending murder and does nothing to stop it, isnt there some law for him to be charged as well?
Thank goodness for DNA testing.
Well, I’m buying stock in companies that produce wire coathangers. Christianity will make me a fortune!
Jed,
Please, stop with the fearmongering nonsense regarding “back alley abotions with coat hangers”; it’s getting old!
V.L.R.B!!
south dakota laws = forced birth
forced birth + dna testing = forced payments for 18 years
Prediction?
too many forced payments = repeal of this law
Once again, money will trump morals in the good ol’ u.s. of a…
Ian,Fearmongering? I remember what happened before Roe v. Wade, and to think it won’t happen again if it’s reversed is wishful thinking at best, and utter hypocracy at worst. Abortion has been around for centuries, and legal or illegal has made no difference in numbers, just in conditions.
Farm Gal,Testing or no testing, child support orders are just about impossible to enforce as it is. More deadbeat dads will just swamp an already overwhelmed system!
Well said Jed. In fact, the increased communications facilities of the internet and other advances since the last time it was banned will only INCREASE the availability of abortion that is not legal let alone safe.
Jed, I am shocked, SHOCKED I say, that you think those forced birth dads wont take responsibility for “doing to” those poor girls.
And they wonder where welfare mothers come from….
Farm Gal,Actually, they want to do away with welfare altogether so they can have a greater selection of hookers to “do it to.”
Jed,
Things now are very different. There are cheap, readily available and effective means of contraception and there is no longer any social stigma attached to their use or purchase.
It is not difficult to avoid unwanted pregnancy and women need to exercise control over their bodies before the fact!
Viva La Raze Blanco!!
Ian,If it was really that easy and effective, where do the women come from who pay $400 for abortions?
Given the silence from J M Walker and CrusaderX, I believe we can declare that the ‘if abortion is murder, then women who get abortions are murderers’ argument is kryptonite for the Pro-Life / Pro-Birth position.
Expect that I will harp on this every chance I get. I encourage others to do so as well.
Jed,
Some of these women pay $300 for air jordan’s and they often pay hundreds for weaves and hair extensions so $400 isn’t a big deal. I wonder, are these women stupid, are they lazy or do the just experience “buyer’s remorse”?
Viva La Raza Blanco!!
Guy from wayoutthere.”Walker”what a moron” Ha”When one of your caterpillars morphs into a human being, I’ll believe your ridiculous argument.
kfg,The “reading the mind” line was done in jest. Get a sense of humor.
The marital sex mispelling was a simple mistake. Ever make one? Then adain, it might have been fraudian:-)
CF, I’ll answer the question, (been gone, sick mom to take care of). Abortion is murder like capital punishment is murder. Abortion is murder like dropping a bomb on an Iraqi village is murder. It’s the intentional taking of human life. Does society consider the executioner a murderer? Does society view the pilot flying the bomber as a murderer? I guess murder is defined by a culture, but it is the same as the situations I described above, the taking of a human life. There are some who would agree that there are times when the intentional killing of human life is necessary or just, but it is what it is, the taking of a human life, there’s no way around that.
Guyupnorth, Your agruement is still stupid, no matter how many times you repeat yourself.
CF,I’ll try to write this so you can understand it:
There are two sides to the abortion question:1. That the fetus is just that, a fetus. That it has no rights.
2. That the fetus is a human being and should be afforded the same rights a the born.
I believe the second. I do NOT believe that I should subject that opinion, or belief, on people who don’t believe as I do. I DO NOT call them murderers. I DO NOT call them sluts. I DO NOT stand outside abortion clinics and yell and scream at women who decide to have abortions (I have not walked in their shoes). I DO NOT shoot doctors who perform abortions. And last but not least, I DO NOT pass judgement on people who do believe in the right of women to have abortions.
You attempting to put me in with the the fanatics who DO do all of the above jacks my jaw, son. They are the taliban of the Pro-lifers. You DO appear to call anyone who disagrees with you some nonsensical name, which really adds a lot to any argument, doesn’t it? You DO attempt to justify your arguments by denigrating other posters arguments for the simple reason they don’t agree with yours.
Your line of arguments are just that, arguments, not discussions. There is a major difference.I prefer discussion any day: it takes more intelligence to do so. I understand when someone is passionate about a subject, but that shouldn’t include insults, or preclude discussions.
PL,Great post: Hurray for DNA, Men have been let off the hook long enough without having to live up to their responsibilities. It’s more than about time they do.
Maybe with the advent of the precision with which the testing can pinpopint the fathers, less abortions will be done.
CF, By the way, it was such a nice day outside, I went and played a round of golf. Had an excellent time, and didn’t think about this blog for a second. Hence, your wait for my responses.
kfg,I was a single parent for 15 years. At times it was heaven, at times, hell. I would not trade that experience for anything. If my son had been aborted, as my ex first wanted, there would have been an empty space in my heart. Thankfully, she didn’t.
I am interested in hearing everyone’s thoughts on Robert Lipkin’s now famous argument for abortion.First we assume the premises of the prolife crowd: A fetus is a person. All persons have a right to life. Therefore, all fetuses have a right to life. A fetus’s right to life is greater (weightier) than a person’s right to make decisions about her body. Therefore, all abortions are wrong.
Now for the example: Suppose you are kidnapped by a crowd of classical music lovers. You wake up to find yourself hooked up to a concert violinist. He is unconscious, and shares your rare blood type. Your kidneys are filtering his blood, your blood is flowing through his veins. He will immediately die if you unhook yourself to him.The violinist is a person. All persons have a right to life. The violinist’s right to life is greater than your right to make decisions about your body. Therefore, it is wrong for you to unhook yourself from him.
I’ve thought of a couple of refutations, but they all involve changing the premises, and therefore aren’t TRUE refutations.
Thoughts?
CF,Answer the question? For what purpose? You will just believe your concept that abortion is justified and I will just be wasting my time explaining myself with lengthy paragraphs. I am in law school and I do have to study y’know.
I see. So, J M Walker, are you arguing that abortion should be legal, even though you disagree with it? Then we have no beef. But if you think it should be illegal, and that it is murder, then everything I said stands.
Ditto for CrusaderX who, as a law student, is smart enough to avoid answering questions that may incriminate him.
Guys, punting the question to ‘turn R v W over to the states’ isn’t an answer.
So, answer my question: if you think abortion is murder–which, as Damoon correctly defines it, is the taking of a human life–then shouldn’t it be punishable as such, for the woman who seeks it? And if not, why not?
Well I do think there are folks who are honestly deeply troubled for whatever reason by abortion. I think Damoon, CM and even Crux are such folk. I credit these folk with being people who would work to make sure that every child would be supported and loved AFTER it was born.
But I am sorry to say that such folk do not represent the mainstream of the “pro life” crowd.
Also, the “give it back to the states” issue is just another lie. It won’t end there. Many states will immediately also criminalize abortion. They will then enact statutes to criminalize travelling across state lines for purpose of getting an abortion while at large they invoke the equal protection clause in the Constitution to ultimately make abortion illegal in the United States.
Meanwhile, the funds for welfare and programs to support the lives of babies outside the womb will continue to be slashed on local and federal levels.
Robert Lipkin’s argument is hardly a valid one. Like a guy from up north’s argument that “A caterpillar is not a butterfly, a cut worm is not a moth, a tadpole is not a frog, a grub worm is not a June bug and a sperm from a human is not a human.”, it holds no basis in reality. (Incidently,, gfun, it’s DNA that differentiates a cut worm from a human sperm, ergo, a cut worm IS a june bug by the very nature that it has the DNA making it so. Science has come a long way, baby . . . catch up.)
To postulate any contrived circumstance is hardly worth exploring, unless it relates to the real world. Lipkin’s ridiculous argument hardly fits that mold.
CF,What I do is have my own beliefs. What I don’t do is judge other people by my beliefs; I judge them, when they put themselves in that position, by their beliefs. I will judge politicians by what they say versus what they do. It’s called voting.
I don’t know what the Governor of Wyoming has or had in mind when he signed the bill. Protection for the unborn? Political gain? He’s an a**hole? I can only guess.
My beliefs state an unborn child should be granted the same rights as a born human. I will state that when asked, or, in this case, blogged. Whether or not the abortion of a child is murder is something between the woman and her God, not me. If you think that incriminates me, or makes you think I’m side-stepping your question, you got a major problem, and it’s not with me, but your own convoluted sense of interpretation.
A far greater person once said, “Judge not lest ye be judged.”
I believe I stated my side clearly. Understand it or dont. It makes no difference to me. I would ask you to refrain, though, from including me in the fringe groups you detest so much.
Opps . . South Dakota;-0
OK. For the record, J M Walker continues to refuse to draw the conclusion that is implicit in his claim that unborn human fetuses be granted the same rights as human beings.
OK. How do you answer the question, CrusaderX?
CFEvidently, you have a problem understanding plain english. I answered your question, and did so in plain english. What you are digging for is not an explanation, but concurrence with your view. You apparently are missing the gene that would allow you to see the fact that other people have valid reasons for believing what they do. Which is what the Taliban does, I believe. Do you now see the connection, or is that beyond your pall?
J M Walker,
Histrionics to the contrary, you did not answer my question.
Or, to put it another way, do you think it should be legal for women to get abortions, or illegal?
CF,My guess that understanding plain english is a problem for you, “Histrionics to the contrary.”
You’re the one who’s been thumping his chest for the last six posts.
Do you support legal abortion, or don’t you?
I stated my position and beliefs earlier. If you can’t read or understand them, I can’t help you, nor do I feel a need to. I can think of no simpler terms to describe my beliefs, and to try to do so, so that you can understand them, would be redundant. I am assuming, of course, you can understand words above the “Jack and Jill” stage of reading, as your posts prove, so go back and reread my posts. All the answers to your questions are there.
J M Walker,
So you believe abortion is wrong. We get that. What we don’t get, and what you haven’t been willing to say, is what you think should be done about its wrongness. You have cagily said the following:
“I would expect that the majority of americans believe in womens rights, but there is also a large percentage that think the unborn child has rights as well. This clear divide, I think, is what will eventually overturn R v W, and turn the whole thing over to the states, where in my opinion it should have been in the first place.”
So, once turned over to the states, and not to just any particular state, which way should it go, J M Walker? Should abortion be made illegal here in Kansas or not?
That’s the question you HAVEN’T answered.
CF,Last time:”My beliefs state an unborn child should be granted the same rights as a born human. I will state that when asked, or, in this case, blogged. Whether or not the abortion of a child is murder is something between the woman and her God, not me. If you think that incriminates me, or makes you think I’m side-stepping your question, you got a major problem, and it’s not with me, but your own convoluted sense of interpretation.
A far greater person once said, “Judge not lest ye be judged.” ”
What about that do you not understand? The question is rhetorical, as I do not intend to answer any more of your obvious inflammatory questions concerning this matter.
Unborn child = same rights as born human being
(Implicit premise): taking of life of born human being = murder
Abortion of unborn child (that has same rights as born human being) = something between woman and her God
Conclusion: incoherent position, and a refusal to bite the bullet.
Frankly, one thing to appreciate about the American Taliban is that they don’t try to have it both ways. The honest ones–or maybe the dumb ones–will actually tell you that abortion is murder and that women who get abortions are murderers.
How about you, CrusaderX?
Because someone points out his beliefs, and you dont agree with them, he is “taliban.” Because someone points out his beliefs and you are too ignorant to understand them, he is “taliban.” Because you are too ignorant to understand simple english, when presented with it, you call someone “taliban.”
Cf, I have read your posts, and agree with you at times, but on this one you are way out of line and showing yout true face, which, in my opinion, is as one sided as it gets. There is no compromise, no understanding, and very little intelligence coming from your blind one-sided convictions.
Living in a world populated by people of such beliefs would be just as bad as living in the “neo-con” taliban world you so rightly dislike. Take a look in the mirror, the enemy you face is the one looking back at you. You do you party absolutly no good by your portrayal of hatred and ignorance.
You have no understanding of who I am and what I stand for even though it’s right in front of you. Nor do you appear to even try to understand others. Racists act the sane way; homophobes act the same way; neo-cons act the same way; taliban acts the same way. There is no passion in your posts, only hatred. And hatred breeds contempt, which I have for your misinterpretation of all facts presented to you.
I stood up for ya upthread a ways J M. CF is being pretty tough on you.
I am beginning to think he has a point.
You are posting, and over and over again about your own personal beliefs. I won’t pretend to channel CF here. But I think what he is trying to get at is just how far you are willing to project those beliefs onto others. And you are dancing around answering that. Crux is doing much the same. He just isn’t saying as much.
So stop the music. Simple question.
If a woman needs or wants an abortion, should she be able to get one?
Go ahead and expound on all you would do to try and help her change her mind and step forward to help her and do everything you could to provide for this woman and her baby after that baby is born.These are noble things. If more people truly acted on them abortion would be all the less “necessary”. But that is not the world we line in.
If a woman needs or wants an abortion, should she be able to get one?
JR,I am against abortion as I have stated many times I have also stated that I refuse to judge someone because they get an abortion. I refuse to fall into CF’s trap of declaring abortion murder for the simple reason that it would require me to judge them: I choose not to. That is the question, answered by me, CF can’t seem to understand.
As long as the laws of the land allow abortion, I will abide by them. I will also repeat what I will not do: “I do NOT believe that I should force that opinion, or belief, on people who don’t believe as I do. I DO NOT call them murderers. I DO NOT call them sluts. I DO NOT stand outside abortion clinics and yell and scream at women who decide to have abortions (I have not walked in their shoes). I DO NOT shoot doctors who perform abortions. And last but not least, I DO NOT pass judgement on people who do believe in the right of women to have abortions.
That. in my humble opinion, answers all of CF’s questions to a tee. It appears from his response he is unable or unwilling to understand that.
The above may put me, in some minds, in a catagory of one, but I think many other Americans believe the same way.
What I have read in this blog ARE people trying to force their opinions on others, and denigrating others for not believing as they do. In my, again, humble opinion, that makes them look more the taliban they insist on calling people like me, than I ever have been.
Is that clear enough for you?
J M
See you did it again! You got a LITTLE closer to an answer that time.
“As long as the laws of the land allow abortion, I will abide by them”
But are you actively seeking to CHANGE those laws? And if so as regards your personal beliefs…..”I DO NOT believe that I should force that opinion of belief on people who do not believe as I do”
would seem to be contradictory.
If a woman needs or wants an abortion, should she be allowed to have one?
Yes or no?
JM,Thank you for clarifying your beliefs. If more of the opponents of abortion shared your refusal to judge, we might actually work out a solution to this mess that would be acceptable to everyone but the looniest on both sides!
What JR said.
JR,There is no contradiction. I simply refuse to attempt to be the nations moral watchdog. I leave that to others of the fanatical persuasion. Because I do not believe in forcing my opinion on others, that does not perclude me from GIVING my opinion when asked, or in this case, as an answer to blogged posts. If that changes others beliefs in abortion, so be it.
” If a woman needs or wants an abortion, should she be allowed to have one?
Yes or no?”
I still can’t understand why my answer, “As long as the laws of the land allow abortion, I will abide by them.”, is so hard for you and CF to understand. You and CF’s quest for an answer that is right in front of your face, makes it easy for me to understand exactly why there is no one answer to the abortion question: People of one-sided beliefs will not afford any answer that doesn’t conform to their side.
I am not sitting on a fence post, nor am I waffling on the issue. I stated what I believe. If you and CF can’t or wont understand that, so be it.
C M
I want to join Jed in thanking you for sharing your beliefs thoughtfully on this matter. I give you credit a number of times. I think your actions in real life are likely a credit to your beliefs.
But they are YOUR BELIEFS.
“As long as the laws of the land allow abortion, I will abide by them”But J M, if you are actively seeking to change those laws, or voting for folks who make that an issue,you are directly advocating that your personal beliefs be made the standard of law for everyone else!
My sense here is that your moral sense of right and wrong is at great conflict with your legal sense of what is right and wrong. To put it more simply, you don’t want to answer that question for yourself because you don’t like the answer.
JR,I have never, nor will I ever, vote for a person solely on their stand on abortion. Nor have I EVER stated that I do so. If I agree with their politics, and they are against abortion, then I consider that a coincidence, not a requisite. I have never said that the abortion issue enters my political beliefs, other than to say I think it should be the states rights, and that is just my opinion, and not subject to argument. I WILL not use that as a standard in voting. So, your comment, “But J M, if you are actively seeking to change those laws, or voting for folks who make that an issue, you are directly advocating that your personal beliefs be made the standard of law for everyone else!” has no basis in fact.. Are we clear on that?
My moral compass is pointing in the right direction, and I am completely at peace with it. I have answered that, and every other question asked. My questions to you are: why can’t you understand a simple answer? And why do you put spin on something that has no basis in fact?
“My beliefs state an unborn child should be granted the same rights as a born human. I will state that when asked, or, in this case, blogged. Whether or not the abortion of a child is murder is something between the woman and her God, not me.”
No, sorry, J.M. That answer is wholly inconsistent. If a fetus has the same rights as a baby, then killing the fetus CANNOT be left to the discretion of the mother, any more than murdering a child by a mother can be.
When that mentally ill Smith woman in SC (I think?) drove her car into a lake and let her two young boys drown, that was a crime, everybody recognized it as a crime, and everybody treated it as a crime. Because taking human life without legal sanction (as in war or capital punishment or self-defense) is a crime–murder, homicide, manslaughter, etc.
CF and JR are right: you are willfully avoiding the huge logical contradiction you have created for yourself.
If a fetus has the rights of a baby as you say it has, then abortion is murder, pure and simple, and you must oppose it as such. You want to have it both ways–you want to say it is murder, but a woman should have the choice to commit murder.
JM: I think that we are mostly on the same page on this issue, but I’m disappointed in your answer to JR. You have stated that you believe that the unborn have the same rights as the born, yet you don’t stand up for that belief. And you apparantly don’t think that a politician’s stand on abortion is a valid factor in deciding whether to vote for them.
I guarantee you that JR and CF will stand up for their pro-choice views at the ballot box. Why wouldn’t you stand up for the rights that you say the the unborn have?
I realize that you are getting it from both sides but it is a tough act to sit on the fence with this issue.
My own view is that a fetus is not a human until complex brain function occurs. Just as in the case of Terri Schaivo, no brain equals no human life.
This information seems to be from an unbiased and authoritative source:
http://brainmind.com/FetalBrainDevelopment.html
This article is reprinted from:Developmental Review, 20, 81-98, 1999).FETAL BRAIN & COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT Rhawn Joseph, Ph.D.Brain Research Laboratory
“The human brainstem is fashioned around the 7th week of gestation and matures in a caudal to rostral arc thereby forming the medulla, pons, and midbrain. The medulla mediates arousal, breathing, heart rate, and gross movement of the body and head, and medullary functions appear prior to those of the pons which precede those of the midbrain. Hence, by the 9th gestational week the fetus will display spontaneous movements, one week later takes its first breath, and by the 25th week demonstrates stimulus-induced heart rate accelerations. As the pons, which is later to mature, mediates arousal, body movements, and vestibular and vibroacoustic perception, from around the 20th to 27th weeks the fetus responds with arousal and body movements to vibroacoustic and loud sounds delivered to the maternal abdomen. The midbrain inferior-auditory followed by the superior-visual colliculi is the last to mature, and in conjunction with the lower brainstem makes fine auditory discriminations, and reacts to sound with fetal heart rate (FHR) accelerations, head turning, and eye movements–around the 36th week . . . ”
But as we see with Terri Schaivo, reacting to stimulation is not the same as understanding or even feeling the stimulation in a normal sense.
Brain function is also closely tied to the ability of the fetus to survive outside the womb, which could also be used as a measure of when a fetus attains “human life” status as opposed to merely “life” status.
My definition of human life allows that a fetus may be classified as human depending on when one wants to draw the line on brain development and viability.
I think we can safely say by this definition that fetal life in the first trimester, when the vast majority of abortions are opted for, does not rise to the level of human life.
After that point however, cases can be made on either side.
JR,Is abortion your first choice for any unwanted pregnancy, or are you willing to do what it takes to make a woman’s life bearable enough for her to consider keeping her baby?As someone who is firmly in the pro-choice camp, I also recognize that many abortions could be prevented by giving women the economic possibility of having a decent life that includes children.For those in the anti-abortion camp, what have you done to prevent the need for abortion that is more than token aid?Laws are wonderful things when everyone agrees with them, but when a significant number don’t, they are not only ineffective, but often harmful. The pre-1973 abortion laws killed a lot of women. Nobody sane wants to return to that!At some point, we are going to have to come to some agreement that everyone can live with, and the ecalating rhetoric just gets in the way.I suggest that we find a social and economic, rather than a legal solution to the abortion question. The number of abortions could be cut significantly with an educational program that involves birth control information and availability, sexual responsibility and a comprehensive course on what parenting involves, and economic opportunities that allow women to raise children and make a decent life for them in a variety of situations. It certainly won’t eliminate abortion, but neither will laws against it. Keep it safe and legal, but make it rare!
Credit again to CM. He is doggedly still at this long after the other “pro lifers” have left the field.
I went back and looked at when you jumped into this thread CM. You took exception to comments made by CF referring to “pro-lifers” as the Taliban. Since then you have been steadfastly (again credit) maintaining that while you oppose abortion you do not seek to force that belief on others.
If I have or am about to make an assumption that is unfair I apologize. But my take is that as a bottom line you very much feel that abortion is murder and you very much want abortion to be illegal. You are not willing to personally take action to make it so or even be perceived as such. But in the world you would wish for, abortion would not happen.
I’m sorry CM, your intenton is noble. I’ve no doubt to that.
To make the world a place where abortion does not happen, you must either;
1. make the world a place where every child is supported after it leaves the womb by society as a whole.
or2. Make abortion a criminal offense with punishmentssevere enough to deter it.
I’ve no doubt that you would do your best at efforts directed at the former.
But you are willing to accept the latter.
So your answer to the question “Should a woman who needs or wants an abortion be able to get one?” is in fact, “No”.
Jed, I addressed making abortion un necessary by aiding the mother and child both before and AFTER birth. I think you and I were posting at the same time.
Notice how Outlander did not concern himself with such matters.
I have stated my case, and given answers. If you all want to spin it into some sort of waffling by me to avoid answering your questions, or not using my personal beliefs in voting politicians who believe the same, so be it. I could really give a hoot.
PL, your belief comes from a scientific approach. Mine comes from another direction entirely. And therein lies the rub, doesn’t it? You will not, and cannot agree with me, and I will not and can’t agree with you on this subject, ergo, discussion is out of the question, as it can only lead to arguments and further to the extreme actions taken by the fanatics on both sides of the issue.
Jed’s comment, “At some point, we are going to have to come to some agreement that everyone can live with, and the escalating rhetoric just gets in the way.” is something I have been trying to get across here. My belief on this is that the political side and the religious side can’t co-exist on this issue: they are at polar extremes, ergo, I choose to preclude the political debate in my choice of who I vote for. It doesn’t enter the equation.
As I said, being the moral watchdog of the nation is something I have no intention of attempting, let alone practice. However, if a woman asks my opinion on whether she should get an abortion, I will try to dissuade her, but the choice is ultimately rests with her, not me. I will not judge her. You seem to be judging me. I would remember the saying about people in glass houses.
What you say is true as far as it goes, JR.
But you still do not acknowledge that there can be NO RECONCILIATION between believing a fetus is a baby with all the rights thereof and allowing choice.
You either say the fetus is a baby (which you do), therefore abortion is murder.
Or you have to say the fetus is not a baby (which is what I basically do), therefore abortion can be legally allowed.
JR,”But my take is that as a bottom line you very much feel that abortion is murder and you very much want abortion to be illegal. You are not willing to personally take action to make it so or even be perceived as such. But in the world you would wish for, abortion would not happen.”
My take is that I would prefer to live in a world where abortion was not a consideration. We don’t live in such a world. We live in one where it happens. To condemn a woman for having an abortion is not my way. To feel for the loss of a child is.
Let me put this in perspective: I do not believe in the death penalty, I do not believe in assisted suicide, I do not believe we should send or men and women to other countries to die for some cause that doesn’t affect us here in the United State, and I do not believe in abortion. That, I think, makes me consistant in my views. I refuse to pick and choose who should die for what. Life to me is sacred. Do you all understand now?
No, I don’t understand now, because your position is as logically inconsistent now as it was at the beginning.
Give it up, or just admit it’s not consistent.
PL,There may only be two choices for a salad dressing, or what color socks you wear, or any number of things associated with the physical world. Do not attempt ot put limited choice concerning fetus/child and murder on me. I do not believe I have the right to judge whether an abortion is murder or not: I can’t read the womans mind.
Maybe your view is limited to the two, but mine is open to something a little higher than what government dictates. That is something I can live with WITHOUT passing judgement, unlike yourself, who is trying to pass your brand of judgement on me. It is a trap I refuse to fall into.
PL,Hey, lay off! The argument has deteriorated to semantics, and neither side can possibly win. Let’s start looking for areas where we can agree, and stop nitpicking definitions. The object is to find a solution that works for both sides!
Jed–
It may not be what you want to talk about, but defining when human life begins (as opposed to merely self-propogating life like cancer cells begins) is the essence of the argument.
Anything else is weaseling out dealing with the hard crux of the matter.
This is what the Supreme Court did when it ruled in favor of decriminalizing abortion on the ridiculous basis of “privacy.”
They refused to do the right thing–the hard thing–and as result we’re still arguing about it over thirty years later.
JR–
You refuse to judge Smith for murdering her children?
Okay . . .
I meant JM, my bad.
PL,Problem is, the definitions of “when life begins” are not scientific questions; they are philosophical. As such, they depend on answers to root questions that nobody can prove.You want nice, easy yes or no answers where none exist, just like the anti-abortion fanatics. Sorry about that, but we just have to muddle along without them, and come to some kind of mutually agreed solution, or take that good old traditional path and start killing each other off. Last one standing is right!
Well said Jed.
And so it goes……..
Abortion is really not an issue that can ever be solved to any real concensus.
The follks “against” abortion some of them anyway have too great a political stake in it. The continuing debate keeps certain folk voting a particular way.
The debate itself distracts from other issues. Witness the consiberable rhetoric spent here.
JR,Yeah, the politicians just love issues they don’t have to solve. Why work, and get in political trouble with one side or another, when posturing gets you the same votes?
PL,killing ones children requires one to be very mentally unbalanced. No sane mother would do that. But attempting to chain abortion and what Smith did is comparing apples and oranges. There is a philosophical difference, although based on what you lead me to be your believe on the subject, I doubt you can see that.
I do not know what went on in her mind when she killed her kids, hence, it would be very difficult for me to judge her a murderer. I wasn’t on the jury, nor do I pay alot of attention to the spin written by mainstream newspapers (no, I don’t watch fox news or listen to Rush. I probably watch more FSTV than any other.)
Jed and JR are correct that the rhetoric listed by both sides of the argument will never coincide. But there is a neutral ground that can be walked on IF both sides can agree that abortion is, or should be, the last decision that should be considered, after ALL other choices, including adoption, fail. Only then can a comprehensive vehicle for a law that could satisfy all but the most fanatic on both sides be rendered.
In countries where abortion is legal, the United States leads the way with more abortions per capita than any other nation, by a wide margin. That is a telling statistic, in my opinion, and one I would like to see change . . . because of MY beliefs. End O my input.
Just as a refresher:Susan Smith was the South Carolina woman, who in 1994, claimed that a black man had adducted her children, when in fact she had murdered them by putting them in her car and letting the car go into a lake/pond. She did this so she could be more attractive to a man she was interested in.
Andrea Yates was the Texas woman who drown 3 of her 5 children in a bath tub. She had been treated with medication for a psychotic disorder. A Texas jury rejected her not guilty by reason of insanity defense, because when the police came to her house (shortly after the killings) she seemed calm and offered them a glass of water. [definintely the act of a sane woman, right? - shaking my head]
I’m not saying anyone else confused these two case, but I did and wanted to add this backgroud.
THanks, DD, I appreciate the info. I am aware of both cases, and the normal conclusion would be that both women were far from sane when they killed their children.
I seriously doubt that Texas would find anybody guilty by reason of insanity. After all our current prez hails from there, doesn’t he?
JM,When we have no more kids permanently residing in our foster care system, then we can talk about adding to the pool of adoptive children. Until then, possible adoption is not an argument against abortion.
Andrea Yates was definitely insane at the time she committed her crime. How she could be found otherwise is a complete mystery to me.
I think Susan Smith was sane in the usual legal sense – i.e. she was not suffering from a mental disease or defect which made it impossible for her to understand or appreciate the nature of her acts. More simply put, she knew the difference between right and wrong at the time.
I think Smith suffered from a Personality Disorder, which does not qualify one for a successful NGRI plea.
I’m still not buying it. And I don’t give a damn if it hurts people’s feelings.
If you’re going to insist that life begins at conception, and that the embryo, or fetus, is a human being with rights equal to those of the mother–and I haven’t heard any Pro-Birth folks here disavow that position–than it’s just intellectually inconsistent, if not dishonest, to refuse to draw the conclusion that the woman seeking an abortion is a murderer. If a mother kills her two month-old, she’s a murderer, right? If one argues that life begins at conception, then one cannot escape penalizing the mother who receives an abortion. Period. Game, set, match.
Tough shit. If you folks want to play the abortion game, get ready. Because I, for one, am prepared to be as nasty and as consistent as possible. I will not back down on this argument. Period. I’m right. And if it hurts your feelings, well, I’m ready to make some enemies. And whether J M Walker self-identifies that way or not, the fact is that the American Taliban is gunning for abortion and women’s rights, hard core. They need to be stopped, and if they want to get ugly, they better be goddamn ready to have the ugliness, misogyny, and hatefulness of their position put on display, front and center.
You want a culture war? Get ready.
If folks want to introduce red herring objections about how there are ‘many sides to each issue’ and how I’m being simplistic, my response is that these objections are utterly irrelevant and are meant to distract attention from the fatal contradiction in which the ’soft’ version of the Pro-Life argument finds itself entangled.
P.S. I acknowledge Outlander’s honesty, which shows that he is prepared to sacrifice the palatability of his view.
You ROCK CF.
“the definitions of “when life begins” are not scientific questions; they are philosophical. As such, they depend on answers to root questions that nobody can prove”
LOL, WHAT BULLSHIT!!!!!
“You either say the fetus is a baby (which you do), therefore abortion is murder.Or you have to say the fetus is not a baby (which is what I basically do), therefore abortion can be legally allowed.”
TALK ABOUT DENIAL!!
Tell me, both of you, when a pilot drops a bomb, killing hundreds of innocent people, is he a murderer? Afterall, if the targets are human, and he intentionally drops the bomb with the intention of destroying the life below, then it’s murder, and he should be punished as a murderer, right? I mean, in your narrow ideology, he must be a murderer…. UNLESS, he believes the targets weren’t human, which means he’s not a murderer, because the targets below weren’t alive to begin with, and his dropping the bomb is just fine and dandy, am I getting this right?Or is it that murder is not murder if the killing is legally sanctioned?Tell me, what’s the difference in murdering someone and killing them?
God, why can’t you just be honest? Abortion is the willful destruction of a human life. You can call it “terminating a pregnacy”, or you can call it murder, it’s all the same. Some of us are just happen to be more honest about it than others.
YOU rock, JM!!
DamoonAre you saying the laws of nature are stupid?I didn’t write the laws, I am just the messenger.
Guy, you don’t understand the laws of nature, what’s your point?
Sigh………..
I hope everyone still posting read m earliers. I don’t want to hash it all out again.
We can talk, as I and Jed and CM (in his own way) did earlier of working to make all life welcome and wanted and supported after birth.
Jed and I reached what we thought was the best concensus; that this isssue is basically unsolvable as there is too much politics in play.
But the question here ……the South Dakota law in question….. the plain simple issue is this:
Should a woman who needs or wants an abortion be able to get one?
CM as much as I respect him, is unwilling to directly answer that question (see above)
I also respect you Damoon. But your passionate chime in above demands that I ask you the same question.
Yes or no will do. If you answer yes, I will ask no further qualification. If you say no then you needto follow that no with just how far you are willing to go to pursue legally banning abortion.
I do not like being contentious with people I usually agree with. But if we wish to address this question to any sort of meaningful conclusion, we must begin with honesty.
Guys, what’s so hard about Walker’s position? He said:
“I am against abortion as I have stated many times”.
He also said he wasn’t going to force his position on others, since the law allows abortion. I whole-heartedly agree with him.
Abortion should only be an option if the mother’s life or health are in the balance.
So If abortion is outlawed and an abortion is performed, who committed the crime? the Doctor? the mother? Both?
What will be the punishment for the mother?
DamoonI always thought metamorphosis WAS one of the laws of nature or maybe you don’t know what that means.
New case in the system. Roe v Wade for guys. I think it is relevant.
Women can choose. They can choose to abort, adopt, or birth and raise the child.
New case adressess why men do not have said say.
To whit: If a woman chooses to have the baby when the father is willing to pay for abortion, should the father be compelled to pay child support?
My answer would be no.
This is the whole rationale behind CF’s argument: If you answer yes or no to the “is abortion murder” question he will respond by saying “well, what about life-threatening situations, cases of rape / incest?” He makes you choose to answer his statement that “abortion is murder” therefore if it is murder, than it is okay for someone to murder her child because of rape / incest/ life-threatened by birth situation. That is what he will say. Consequently he also wants us to answer the “should abortion be legal / illegal” which he will respond in the same fashion. It is a trick question like, “have you stopped using drugs?” or “have you stopped beating your wife?” If you answer these with either a YES or NO, you will incriminate yourself. CF’s train of thought is strikingly obvious, he is trying to bait us into answering his trick questions. However, I am a logician and I can see right through his train of thought.
Welcome back CruX
I trust you read the whole thread. If not it might be helpful.
I ask you Crux If a woman needs or wants an abortion, should she be allowed to get one?
JR,
It depends…
Some say abortion-on-demand is the way to go, where anyone can get an abortion for ANY reason whether those reasons are frivolous or not. As for myself I don’t think abortion should totally be made illegal. There are extrenuating circumstances that exist in which a pregnant woman may find herself. Abortion of the baby (while still being a deplorable killing of a human life) should be left a viable medical option, but ONLY under “extrenuating circumstances” (I won’t stipulate what these are because that’s way too much info, however feel free to ask my opinion of them!) As for CF’s question: Is abortion murder? Well what is murder? It is when one intentionally takes the life of another, I must stress INTENTIONALLY, because causing the unintentional death of a person is manslaughter. Manslaughter is different from murder because there is no INTENT TO KILL when someone commits manslaughter. Now, let’s get back to CF’s hypothetical scenario: If a pregnant woman chooses to get an abortion for frivolous reasons (feel free to ask what I mean about “frivolous reasons”) then yes, she INTENTIONALLY causes the death of another human being. (Fetuses are human beings, aren’t they? Or maybe you pro-death guys liken them to animals? Perhaps just a clump of cells? Well I got news for you, YOU can be classified as nothing but a bunch of cells too, does that mean it’s ok for me to kill you if you’re proving to be a nuisance to me?? HAW HAW HAW!!!) This can be classified as murder, true. However under “extrenuating circumstances” (again feel free to ask me about em) I would say that an abortion would be more akin to manslaughter than murder. Does that sound far-fetched? I don’t think so. After all,we don’t prosecute cops for killing when their lives are put in a life-threatening situation do we? Not all abortion is murder, sometimes it is a necessary evil.
Thank you ladies and gents.
This may sound somewhat passe’ but I have to agree with Ian Santiago that women should have exercised the necessary amount of responsibility before opening her legs. If a woman is not mature enough to use protection when she does not desire pregnancy, then she oughtta be responsible enough to make sure ol’ Jimmy is wearing a condom. The Catholic Church is against contraception, I however disagree with them. If a woman isn’t responsible enough to use protection then she ought not to be having sex. You know what’s funny about all this? THE SAME LOGIC APPLIES TO DRIVING!!!
I await Damoons response to the question at hand.
CruX I am sure you have very passionate beliefs. But I am sorry to say that your post does not eloquently display them. Your post is the province of a slavering raving lunatic.
JR,
I’m sure you hold your pro-”choice” beliefs are superior to mine, but don’t do mudslinging just because I have a point. What portion of my previous post was incoherent? Please point them out to me so I can explain myself to you slowly! :)I believe you thought you could catch me in your little trap and that’s why you resort to name-calling. hmph! I expected more out of you.
Here’s a spiffy topic:
SHOULD MEN PAY FOR BABIES THEY DON’T WANT?
CruX,
Men need to step up to the plate as well. If a guy slips one past the goalie then he should be financially and morally responsible for that child, period!
V.L.R.B!!
Yeah yeah, I know that, what I was getting at was that pro-choicers make a big effing deal about a woman’s RIGHT TO CHOOSE however if you switch sexes, they don’t give men any right to choose; instead THEY GIVE MEN THE RIGHT TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT!!! Is that fair my little pro-choice Amazons?
Ian,
Not if Mike Richter’s in the net!LOL!
CruX,
So, you are a (st)Rangers fan, huh? lol
V.L.R.B!!
Now answer this question Pro-death pukes!!!
DO MEN HAVE A RIGHT TO CHOOSE?
Yeah, I am actually. I’ve been a goal-tender since I was 8. What are you an Avalanche fan? Blues? Doesn’t Patrick Roy play for the Avalanche? Richter retired, this new frenchman that replaced him is alright, but he’s no Ed Belfour. ;)
Da,If what I said was bullshit, then you should be able to scientifically prove me wrong. Have at it! Just keep in mind that your opinion doesn’t constitute scientific proof.
CruX,
I was born and rasied in suburban Boston and I grew up in the Garden watching Bobby Orr play. I was all American in high school and I played in college. I played the wing(right) and the point on the powerplay. We play pick up around here once in a while, you should come out.
V.L.R.B!!
CruX,
I once suggested to a pro-abortion type that both the mother and father should have to agree before an abortion could be carried out. As you would expect, the response was predictable.
V.L.R.B!!
Heh! I would but I’d have to bring my pads and the rest ofmy equipment from NY. I didn’t think I was gonna play any hockey here in KS! Still I have my reservations about playing with you, I might get hit by a bit more than your slapshot!
Ian,That’s because pro-choicers are nothing more than closet Amazons. :)
So you must be a Bruins fan…
Let’s attach clips to the vas deferens of all male babies.Then, when men decide that they want children, they can get it reversed to impregnate their partner. That might level the playing field.
Too morbid? Eh, I’d settle for a male birth control pill.
Anything to put an end to comments like in today’s opinion line, “Ladies: Sit down and keep your legs crossed, and you won’t have to worry about the father stepping up to his responsibility.”
Because the guys who refuse to wear condoms or have sex with women who aren’t on birth control are NOT AT FAULT, at all, right?
Oh, and I don’t see what all of the attacking of JM was all about. Shrill hysteria on both sides of the camp. Ugh.
Tara, boys will be boys, ya know.
I think men do have a choice. If they are not ready to have babies, they should sit down and keep their legs together, so to speak. They have the same choice as the woman in that moment.
If a man is ready to have sex, he should be ready to support the product of that union. Otherwise, keep it in your pants boys and you wont have to make the abortion/forced birth choice.
Heh heh Ian. Slip one past the goalie….
kfg,hear, hear . . . summed up in few words and dead on. I couldn’t agree more.
I almost always agree with Damoon on here and I respect her tremendously. I agree with Walker a lot too, but not always. :)
I think this just illustrates how “friends” even virtual friends, can easily be turned into adversaries on this issue. That is what makes it hard to have a “moderate” positon on abortion.
Remember the old joke “there is no such thing as being ‘kind of’ pregnant”. It is hard to compromise on a black and white issue. You either are or you arent, and weasel words dont cut it on this subject. Sometimes hair splitting is an evasion, not a search for truth. The average voter cant split ‘em that fine.
kfg,One can have a moderate position on this subject, and keep to ones values. The problem is the people who see it only in black and white can’t, or wont, understand the moderates position.
I have zero problem with my position. It is other people who do have. That is hardly MY problem then, is it? Others are trying to make a big deal about how I feel about the issue. That, to me, tells me they are not shooting for truth, but a condemnation of my position. I am certainly NOT condemning their position. I don’t agree with it, but they have a right to their beliefs, just as I have a right to mine.
I am reminde all the time of a song about a woman entering an abortion clinic and being called perverse names by sanctimonious morons. The line that always knocks me for a loop is, they havn’t walked a mile in her shoes. Truer words were never spoken. I have absolutly no idea why a woman goes in for an abortion, so how the hell can I judge whether she is murdering her child. To do so, to me, would be me playing God. And I’ll be damned if anybody posting here has that right.
If others want to see this as a black and white issue, so be it. Let them battle till all of them are dead and buried. Then the rest of us can sit down and come to a workable solution to the abortion problem, whatever the outcome may be.
So let me put this in words easily understood: I do not believe in abortion. I believe the unborn should be granted the same rights as the born. I will obey the laws of the land concerning abortion. I do not know why a woman goes in for an abortion, so I cannot and will not concede under any circunstances that she is murdering her child; that is between her and her God. I will neither force my opinion on you, nor will I condemn you for yours. I will, however, if asked, try to dissuade a woman from getting an abortion, but do so in a friendly manner. If a woman does get an abortion, and needs comforting, I will comfort her WITHOUT condemning her.
That, in my opiniom, constitutes a moderate position. And that also is my position.
CrusaderX, the self-proclaimed ‘logician’, summarizes my position thusly:
“This is the whole rationale behind CF’s argument: If you answer yes or no to the “is abortion murder” question he will respond by saying “well, what about life-threatening situations, cases of rape / incest?” He makes you choose to answer his statement that “abortion is murder” therefore if it is murder, than it is okay for someone to murder her child because of rape / incest/ life-threatened by birth situation. That is what he will say. Consequently he also wants us to answer the “should abortion be legal / illegal” which he will respond in the same fashion. It is a trick question like, “have you stopped using drugs?” or “have you stopped beating your wife?” If you answer these with either a YES or NO, you will incriminate yourself. CF’s train of thought is strikingly obvious, he is trying to bait us into answering his trick questions. However, I am a logician and I can see right through his train of thought.”
First point: you absolutely misunderstand the intention of my question. If someone says ‘no, abortion is not murder,’ then they’re off the hook. No further questions asked, your ‘interpretation’ of my position to the contrary. If, alternatively, one DOES regard abortion as murder, my point is to show that IF one regards it as murder, which is the unjustified taking of an innocent human life, then one is also committed to the proposition that whoever commits the murder needs to be punished. Including the woman seeking an abortion. You like the sound of your own voice so much that it has drowned out the obvious point that I made in my posts.
Second point: my question was in NO WAY a complex question. It doesn’t render an answer impossible as does a complex question. As I said above, if someone doesn’t think abortion is murder, then there is no problem defining the status of the woman seeking an abortion. But if one does, then one IS committed to all the subsidiary propositions concerning murder: murderers should be punished, etc. I grant that my question is designed to force Pro-Birthers like you, CrusaderX, into being logically consistent. But I don’t employ a complex question in order to achieve that result.
If that’s what they’re teaching you about logic and argumentation in Law School, you may want to do some logic at the Graduate level in Philosophy, because you obviously need some help understanding arguments and informal fallacies.
Farm Gal,If the politicians succeed in keeping everybody fighting over abortion, then they can start wars and sell off chunks of the country and steal us blind! If we don’t find a resolution soon, we won’t have a country left. Something about a country divided against itself.
Ha! Perhaps YOU need some understanding that if someone says that abortion is not murder then abortion is tantamount to nothing more than removing a clump of cells. If abortion is not murder, then there ought not to be any restrictions on abortions should there? You commit the same mistake as JR. You give a question in which there is no leeway for special circumstances. You say “should abortion be made illegal.” Well, if abortion is made illegal, then a woman would be prevented by law from having an abortion if the pregnancy threatened her life. The same can be said about JR’s “should women be able to get an abortion?” It is basically identical to the question you asked JM and myself. I also resent the forced-birther label, because if you had taken the time to read my posts AFTER the one you snipped, you would have seen that I am in no way forcing women to give birth. Perhaps you have gotten lazy?
CruX,Last summer the anti’s websites started posting that “Abortion to save the life of the mother is a fraud, since any real mother would gladly give her life for her children.” The catholic church weighed in by beatifying a woman who died after refusing cancer treatment that might have harmed her fetus. Some model those men expect women to follow!
So far, Damoon gets it. She is consistent. So does Outlander.
They both state unequivocally that abortion is murder and should be outlawed.
All you other pro-lifers are wrong in the sense that you want to say “abortion is bad” “abortion is wrong” “the number of abortions should be reduced” because a fetus has the same rights as any other human being.
That is not consistent. If the fetus is a baby, then terminating its life is murder.
Deal with the issue and stop rationalizing it. (Rationalize = rational lies)
Did someone call my name?
I gotta be leary about any arguement that starts with “HA”.
If you don’t want to answer the question as to the legality of abortion with a very simple yes or no, then let’s do this.
Ya got your wish. Abortion is now illegal. You debated and debated for years about what circumstances should be used as to just when it should be allowed to be legal.
But now it is illegal. Now it is your turn to set the standards. Because as CF and Proud lib have been working toward, this really does work its way down to a black and white issue.
Don’t go to states rights.
If a fetus is a human being the equal protection clause of the constitution is gonna wipe out all the borders. That may happen before or after the states where abortion is illegal make it also a crime to cross state lines for purposes of getting an abortion.
Abortion is illegal nationwide.
There can’t be any exceptions for rape or incest or the life of the mother. You have been teling us for years that abortion is murder. Murder is murder. Or will you make a provision for justifiable homicide?
Remember you get to make the rules. Let mne get you started.
Who is the guilty party? The Dr.? The mother? Wouldn’t anyone with any knowledge be also an accessory?
Is it more of a crime in the first trimester than the last?
I’d be interested also in the punishments you would have in mind.
Again, your misunderstanding of my position is both exquisite and complete.
You seem to want to trap me by forcing me to commit to identifying the fetus as a clump of cells, and then to force me to admit that may be aborted without any restrictions.
What makes you think this is something I wouldn’t countenance? I don’t recognize fetuses as persons. Duh. The lack of clear demarcations makes it impossible to do so. I don’t play theology games in order to invent moral persons whose ‘rights’ I can then enforce against mothers. Sorry to take away a big plank in your platform, CrusaderX, but none of the allegedly ‘moral’ arguments against abortion have any purchase beyond the faith communities who profess them.
In any situation, I refuse to take away from women the power to decide when to give birth. Because once one does THAT, the societal implications are draconian and totalitarian. Namely, women lose control over their own bodies.
So, if your ‘out’ is ‘leeway for special circumstances,’ I’ll ask what, precisely, those are. ‘Life of the mother”? You’ll probably say yes. How about rape and incest, CrusaderX? The South Dakota law doesn’t recognize those as legitimate grounds.
If you agree, and don’t recognize rape and incest as legitimate grounds for abortion, I’m tempted to put you in the misogynist column with the American Taliban–your support for legal birth control notwithstanding.
If you’ll excuse me, gotta go teach.
Sorry, should have addressed above message to CrusaderX.
PL,Even if you assume that a fetus is a citizen, with all rights attendant, You still have to prove murder.Here in Kansas, time and again our DA’s have refused to prosecute when deadly force was used by the police to further evictions, citing the necessity of preserving property rights. If a landlord can order the police to evict a person or persons from their property, regardless of consequences, why can’t a woman ask a doctor to evict an unwanted occupant from her body?
“evict an unwanted occupant”
Jed,
Illegal immigrants are “unwanted occupants”; can we use deadly force to evict them from our country?
Viva La Raza Blanco!!
Ian,Isn’t that what you do in Arizona?
I got no problem with that Ian.
CF,On the contrary, my pro-life argument has nothing to do with the Christian religion! The entire basis of your “pro-choice” argument rests on the premise that the growing child inside the womb is not a human being! Else you would be forced to admit that abortions are murder. Please enlighten us, CF. Exactly when does the fetus become a human being? When it exists entirely outside the womb? So something is a human being when it exists OUTSIDE the womb, but it is not a human being when it exists INSIDE the womb? Lord have mercy! I didn’t know that we must first be outside our mother’s wombs to be considered human beings and not be called “fetuses” to make it morally justifiable for someone else to kill us. Ididn’t know our humanity was dependent on our being outside our mother’s wombs! Do you apply the same twisted logic of yours to the animals who give live births Dr. Moreau? Does a cow only become a cow when it is outside it’s mother’s womb, yet what do you call it when it is inside it’s mother’s womb? I too began my life in my mother’s womb as an unplanned pregnancy, she was raped, and I thank God every day that she was a devout Catholic, else I would not be alive today.
Jed,Do we drill a hole through the back of those evicted person’s heads and vacuum out there brains? No. They’re still alive and well after they’re evicted, however the babies you advocate killing do end up dead. Come up with a better analogy, pal.
And you still haven’t answered my Do men have a right to choose question CF and JM. What’s the matter? Planned Parenthood didn’t come up with an acceptable response to that yet?
LOLOLOL!
I mean CF and JR.
CrusaderX,
Good for you that your mother was a Catholic. Does her decision mean that every other woman who is raped should be forced to do as she did? Even unwillingly? That seems to be cool with you.
Don’t equivocate with my words. I said ‘person,’ not ‘human being.’ There’s a difference. It’s just funny to watch your ineptitude at trying to force me into a position where you can get at me. The argument doesn’t work both ways, CrusaderX. I can accuse you of requiring the woman receiving an abortion a murderer, but you can’t logically accuse me of endorsing murder because I deny the fetus is human person.
Amateur. You’re out of your depth. And you insist on having say over what women do with their bodies. Childish. And misogynistic.
As for your ‘question’, hell fucking no I don’t have equal say. Duh. If I was going to carry an infant in MY womb for nine months and then, in all likelihood, be the primary caregiver in direct contradiction to my own material interests, I’d have final say. The fact that what you seem to consider YOUR ‘property’ exists inside the body of a woman doesn’t make her YOUR ‘property’ as well.
Get laid much, CrusaderX?
I not only addressed that Crux I beat you to posting it.
If a man offers to pay for the abortion, I do not think he has any obligation to pay child support.
And no the man cannot demand that a woman bare his child!
CF,Your conveying a human child inside it’s mother’s womb is telling that you do not believe that a fetus is little more than a nuisance, and that pregnancy is no different from any other ailment that should be “cured” by abortion. There is a difference between persons and human beings now? Please tell me which beings in God’s green earth exist as human beings and which ones exist as persons? Would I be correct at calling my bulldog a “person” and still not be roundly mocked for making such a ridiculous statement? I guess laws that include the word “person” or “persons” has absolutely nothing to do with human beings!? Hahaha!
you can’t logically accuse me of endorsing murder because I deny the fetus is human person.
Of course I can’t! Because in your mind you must reject the humanity of the fetus in order to JUSTIFY your pro-death abortion stance. So tell us CF, if the fetus isn’t human than WHAT IS IT???
Muhahahahaha!
I posited that abortion is illegal Crux. I granted you your wish. Post to that.
Maniachal laughter does not advance your credibility.
And no the man cannot demand that a woman bare his child!
Okay JR,Let’s say a married man gets his wife pregnant, the wife decides she is not ready to be pregnant for nine months yet the husband desires for the wife to have his baby. Is it fair for the state to intervene by making a law banning the husband from having any influence in the pregnancy of his wife? Hmmm.. You know what that sounds like? That sounds like the state trampling on the man’s right to choose. My point JR is that if we are a society of equals, then women must not be favored over men in the eyes of our government. By you and CF saying that a man has NO INFLUENCE over the growth of HIS CHILD inside it’s mother’s womb, then you are effectively trampling all over the man’s RIGHT TO CHOOSE!!!
yeah, suck on that, pro-death pinheads.
Gwahahahahaha!
I will laugh at you all I want! I’m just letting you know that I’m laughing at you, and there’s nothing you can do to stop me.
nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah!:)
Yes well CruX I think you should step back from this arguement. You lend it no credibility. Also, I do not enjoy watching you melt down. I refuse to be a part of it. I think you have disgraced yourself enough.
JR,Why don’t you and CF act like men and just admit that pro-choicers believe that a mother’s right to choose whether her unborn human child should live or die overrides the human child’s right to live? Do this, and I will spare you the pain of pointing out the weaknesses of your arguments and beating you over the head with them. :)
IF THE FETUS ISN’T A HUMAN PERSON THEN WHAT IS IT???
Prolifers often act as if the woman’s womb is nothing more than another location, akin to a NICU bed. If it were, we’d all be pro-life. But in your above scenario, the state certainly can’t ban a husband to ATTEMPT to influence his wife’s decision. But until we can take that little fetus out and implant it into a male’s uterus (hah), the final decision is up to her.
Yes, the mother’s right to choose whether or not to stay pregnant trumps the fetus’s right to live before viability occurs. Even if we gave the fetus the same rights as a human person, the woman’s right to bodily autonomy STILL trumps the fetus’s right to life.
The fetus is a human. I don’t deny that. RvW did a good job not trying to tackle the “When does life begin” question, because it’s purely philosophical. Some people believe it begins at conception, some believe it begins when the fetus develops brainwaves, and some believe it begins at the first breath. We can’t arbitrarily assign a “magic number” of weeks where the fetus suddenly becomes alive.
At conception, the zygote has all of the resources to develop into a baby, as long as it’s supported by the womb. I would say that life begins at conception. BUT…the value of this life should not be placed above the value of every other human’s life. Per that violinist example, no human can be legally forced to support another human being’s life. A mother cannot and should not be forced to endure the 9 months of pregnancy, complete with irreversible body changes and possible health risks.
Now, that seems to answer the prolife argument “Is a fetus a human person”. Sure, even if it is, abortion is not murder.
All of the other prolife arguments involve religion. While I believe those are good arguments, we can’t make laws over them without violating separation of C&S.
CrusaderX,
Could you really be as uncognizant as you seem to be?
Although I don’t grant human beings at the embryo and fetus stages rights–though we may have responsibilities to them–you’re trying to hold over me the first thing I admitted and repeatedly affirmed. You’re pushing against an open door. And Tara said it best: however we define preborn human beings, their right to life is trumped by the mother’s rights to self-determination. For the record, I don’t recognize a right to life so long as the embryo/fetus is part of the mother’s body.
Just for the record, it hasn’t been pretty to watch you spin out of control by injecting your own psychological damage into the abortion debate. I’m sorry for the evident pain you have experienced. And I’m not trying to be patronizing at all when I suggest, gently, that you get someone to talk to.
Having said ALL of that, I still affirm my original position. If abortion is murder, then CrusaderX has to regard the mother as a murderer or be inconsistent for pragmatic reasons that have nothing to do with the sanctity of life.
CruX,Of course men have the right to choose- when they get pregnant!
CF, I told you crux would be at the top of his cycle again soon. The “meltdown” you refer to is what always happens when he talks about gay marriage as well as abortion. I am laughing at his statement that his positions have nothing to do with his religion.
Pure logic, dontcha know?
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
ksfarmgrrl, indeed. CrusaderX = ‘American Taliban.’
1) You admit that the fetus is a human person2) You say that you do not grant said human person a right to live.
Gee, doesn’t that sound strikingly similar to that age-old Nazi argument that those whom they did not DEFINE as human beings were not entitled the right to be alive? (e.g. black American soldiers were not “fully human” in the Nazi mind therefore they were not afforded protection of the Geneva conventions in WWII.) CF, your comparing me to the Taliban is far-fetched and unwarranted, for I do not advocate the destruction of human life, much unlike yourself and that angry rabid woman with whom you have forged an unholy alliance. :)However, if I were to label you as a Nazi, it wouldn’t be as far-fetched since you only apply the fundamental right to life only to those whom you see fit with having such a right. I will refrain from calling you a Nazi, but I will let you draw your own conclusions.
Tara,Thank you for having the cajones for actually admitting that abortion is the termination of a human life. Consequently, that only solidifies my argument. :)
Under English and United States common law, personhood has long been regarded as coming into being at the moment of live birth. In England, the 1989 case of R v Tait confirmed this legal view.
Many people on the “pro-choice” side of the abortion argument believe that a fetus should achieve legal personhood only after birth, or at least after it is viable, or can live for a sustained period outside the mother with assistance from life support. A fetus is generally considered viable 24 weeks after conception. Some proponents of this point of view would argue that the fetus is no different from an appendage of the mother, because, like an organ, the fetus cannot live if removed.
Many people on the “pro-life” side of the abortion argument believe that legal personhood begins at conception. Proponents of this point of view point to the development of the fetus as evidence of its human personhood. For example, after 18 days a fetus’s heart begins to beat. After 42 days brain waves are recorded and reflexes are observed. After 8 weeks, if you poke a fetus’s hand with a sharp object, it will withdraw its hand and open its mouth. After 18 weeks it can cry.
Don’t worry CF, I don’t blame you for being incapable of breaking out of your secular Planned Parenthood psychological conditioning. After all, you can’t blame a man for being raised by Amazons. :)
Jesus, you guys wear me out!! I’ve been gone 2 days (had to put mom in a nursing home) and look at all the dialogue I have to read through to respond!
Lib, I have NEVER said that I think abortion should be outlawed. I have no desire to see women go back to the alleys to get rid of unwanted pregnancies. Women have ALWAYS found ways to terminate an unwanted pregnacy and ALWAYS will.Abortion IS the killing of human life, not just “terminating a pregnacy” or “removing a clump of cells”. Abortion is what it is and nothing else. If I had one wish, it would be that our culture would just be honest about that.Jed, life begins at conception. Ask any doctor or scientist. A fertiized ovum is alive and will develop into a human being if left in the womb. Do you think that when a person is disconnected from a respirator, the doctors call in a philosopher to determine if life exists or not? There are certain physical guidelines that determine if life exists, and that determination is made by a doctor. To say that “no one can determine when life begins” is just not true, ask a scientist or a doctor when life begins, and you’ll get a consistant answer that it starts at conception. Philosophers may ponder WHY life exists, but they don’t have the medical background to determine IF life exists.I think abortion should remain legal, but I’d like to see it more restricted. I think partial birth abortion should be outlawed, and I think 2nd trimester abortions should be limited to when there is an anomaly, rape, incest, and of course if carrying the baby to term threatens the life of the mother, then it should be done as painlessly as possible for the fetus. Of course no woman should have to give up her life to maintain a pregnancy, that’s just lunacy and I have NEVER heard of the Catholic church wanting to canonize someone for dying rather than give up her preborn baby (I have a Catholic friend who did this, unfortunatly, she AND the baby died, but no one in the church ever suggested she should be considered for sainthood).I have no patience with the “It’s my body blah, blah, blah” hype and rhetoric, because there IS another human life in this issue to consider besides the mother’s.I believe there are worse things than abortion and I have a problem with people being forced to be parents when they don’t want to be. But abortion is what it is. The taking of a human life.Like war, self defense, and capital punishment (which I believe in), abortion falls into the same category, it’s a sometimes necessary evil. It’s not the same as having a tooth pulled or a mole removed, and the emotional consequences of ending a pregnancy isn’t always easy to live with.Lastly, I find it amusing that the biggest supporters of abortion on demand, for any reason whatsoever, have often never carried a pregnancy and never will.I have a challenge for you guys: go up to any woman who is pregnant with the intention of giving birth and ask her if her fetus is alive. I doubt you’d find one that says “no”.
CF, Do I think abortion should be outlawed? NO. Do I think abortion is killing or murder? Yes.Life is not black and white and neither is the answer to your question.
PS…The little guy I was telling you about, my friend’s grandson that was born at 25 weeks, is still doing well. He’s no longer on the respirator (he breathes with the help of a CPAP now) and weighs almost 4 lbs. He has a little damage to his eyes, but he won’t be blind and he has no apparent brain damage. He still has some problems with apnea and O2 exchange, but they say that will get better as he matures (if he was still inutero, he’d be 36 weeks now), he most likely will get go home in another month.
Damoon,Excellent post.Very well said.I agree with you on just about everything. My only disagreement, and it’s a matter of belief only, is this: is abortion murder? Only if the mother thinks it is, and she is the only one who really knows.
Being brought up a catholic myself, I was taught that the sin is committed only if the sinner knows it as a sin. With regard to abortion, I have to judge it on those grounds. Hence, I cannot judge it as murder.
As you said, not a black and white issue, as so many try to force it to be.
A rose by any other name is still a rose, JM. Just because someone doesn’t know (or believe) abortion is a sin, it doesn’t diminish the fact that it’s still the taking of an innocent human life.I wish that people would examine the issue honestly and recognize abortion for what it really is, but it’s so much easier to deny the humanity of the fetus, thus saving their conscience from any pain, guilt, or responsibility.
I don’t deny the fact that the fetus is a human being, but I still refuse to call a woman getting an abortion a murderer. I am a firm believer in the saying, Judge not lest ye be judged.
My father was about as right wing as one could get. I used to argue with him over the plight of the black population. His take was: Communist organizations are using them to infiltrate the country. Why would Americans use a communist group to try and seek justice. His take was since there were communists associated with the black movement, blacks were unamerican.
I tried to explain to him that when the very government that makes the laws of the land decides blacks should sit in the back of the bus, eat in blacks only restrauants, not look at a white woman, and be hanged for doing so, who else are they going to turn to?
He couldn’t see that side of the argument. The same applies here: If a woman is told abortion is legal, and decides to proceed with one, who among us can judge why she is doing so? Is that not a matter between her God and Herself?
If she sees it as ridding herself of a fetus, is it murder if it’s legal? I can look at it as the death of a human being, but I sure can’t judge what sin, if any, she commits. Only she and God can do that.
That is NOT a copout: that is a realistic view from someone who cares. I feel pain whenever an abortion is done, and I pray for the baby, but I also pray for the mother.
“Consequently, that only solidifies my argument. :)”
I don’t know about that. For all of your insistance that the pro-choice side refuses to acknowledge the humanity of the fetus, it seems that your side refuses to acknowledge that this life dwells inside another thinking, feeling human being. That it’s wholly and completely supported by a woman’s bodily functions, and that its life ceases to exist outside of this one woman.
If I can admit that abortion is termination of a human life, can you admit that making abortion illegal will result in a government forcing a woman to gestate against her will? Then I’ll be happy as a clam :D
BTW, great post, Damoon
Tara,You think I’m all for making every abortion illegal? Perhaps you should scroll up and read my posts again, I clearly stated that I’m not an advocate for illegalizing abortion totally.
I searched for your “official position”, bu I have to admit I’m a little lazy, too.
So, are you in the camp that supports abortion only in the case of rape/incest?
Passions run high on this subject. It is the most posted thread this week. Some of our best posters have engaged here.
I hope Damoon and the late arrivals read the whole thread.
Damoon, my best hopes for your mother. Your post is beyond excellence. I’ve no doubt that you and CM and maybe even CruX use your deep passion on this issue to deal with the needs that make abortion necessary.
But the gist of the post was legislating abortion out of existence. Re the South Dakota decision.
Abortion and the need for it should not be a political issue. Making it so virtually guarantees that the issue will never be solved. I posted upthread to that and won’t do so again. I will mention again that this thread is the most discussed thread this week and by some of our very best posters. Thus proving the distraction from other issues that the political exploitation of the abortion issue is built around.Regular posters and readers know I have been on both sides in this fight. I was at the Summer of mercy. It was less than a mile from my house. Being on the other side now, I thought long and hard on just how and when a woman should not be allowed an abortion. What I came up with is this: A woman should be denied an abortion only in the 8th or 9tth month after the fetus is viable independent the mother and deemed to be in complete health. And that only in cases where the mother can be demonstrated as irrational. Such cases would be vanisihingly few……much as partial birth abortion of healthy viable babies is now. Despite the anti choice folks claims to the contrary.
Let us devote our efforts to insure that all human beings are wanted and supported by society at large, in the 8th month of inutero yes but also in the last years of aging life. Do that and you do far more to diminish abortion and support life than attempts to legislate morality will ever do.
JR,Outstanding post, and I couldn’t agree more. (what? I said that?)
Well maybe ya didn’t say it JM but you posted it and I read it. Thank you.
Damoon–Putting a loved one in a nursing home sucks. I hope it goes as well as possible for all of you and yours.
We love ya damoon, even if we dont always agree!
JR, great post, I agree. If I had one wish it would be that all children were born into this world loved and cherished. I’d love to see schools do more to teach kids about parenting, healthy relationships, and responsibility. The best way to reduce abortion is to concentrate on the underlying issues that make it necessary in the first place.
Hank is in the “Petpourri” section of the Wichita Eagle today. Ksgrl, you might want to take a look at the dog, Hank’s the one wearing the cap!Looking forward to seeing you at the picnic!
Da,”Jed, life begins at conception. Ask any doctor or scientist.”I’ve asked doctors, biologists, mathematicians, physicists and ecologists, and I’ve gotten quite a range of answers.A view that has been gaining credence in the past few years among biologists is that all life on the planet constitutes a single interdependent organism, and thus has only a single beginning some 3.5 Billion years ago. In such a system, human being is a pretty much meaningless distinction, and death (including abortion) is not the end of life, but basic and necessary housecleaning.Another view is that since we have eliminated most of the major predators that kept our population in balance, we need birth control and abortion to keep our numbers from increasing exponentially in an environment where resources are not infinite.There are a lot of views among scientists that have evidence to back them up. The “life begins at conception” idea is simply an arbitrary line that was drawn by the catholic church back in the 1860’s, and has very little science behind it.
Sorry, Jed, there is a lot of science behind it. Life starts at conception, now matter what spin you put on it, that’s a fact.
I’m just curious, why would a mathematician and an ecologist be experts on when life begins?
BTW, I asked a pastry chef, an electrician, and an engineer the other day when life begins and they all agreed it’s at conception, so there you are!
Darn, I’m going to miss you at the picnic!!!! Hope things go well for you, I’ll keep you in my thoughts and prayers.