Abortion

Remove all ads!

Well, I was giving the benefit of the doubt I suppose. A quorum is the minimum number of people necessary for a valid business transaction and probably is most closely associated with legislative matters. A referendum is usually a submission of a proposed public measure for a vote.

I took what you were saying as being a challenge to the idea that the pro-choice faction could win such a vote. I took Scaramp to mean that the pro-life faction wouldn't win a majority. Now, I've noticed that when people don't like the results of statistics they tend to reject them but any reputable polling data shows that the nation is pretty well split on the issue. You might demean this as merely "spewing" stats but the fact is that unless everyone is involved in a conspiracy to mislead you and the world about public opinion that a vote would likely be down the middle with no clear majority barring one sides ability to get out the vote in much higer proportions than the other.

 

You did not provide the origin of the polls. For all I know, they may have been conducted by NOW. I am not only suspicious of statistics that disagree with my beliefs, as you implied. I am suspicious of all statistics until I know how the sample was formed. This is called critical thinking.
I don't know what the result of a referendum on the legality (not morality) of abortion would be. I am sure that neither side is eager to put it to a vote, because it may not turn out well for their side.

You are probably right. But we don't know that do we? That was all I was trying to say.

[ December 13, 2002, 21:20: Message edited by: Jack Funk ]

 

I think all the polling data pretty much shows it'll go down the middle. I think we do know that. Simply because something hasn't been put to vote doesn't mean we don't have a pretty good idea how that vote would go. A good example is the way many criticized polling data following the last presidential election. Well, that polling data had the race within the margin of error. Turns out, the election really was within the margin of error. Mistakes made with counting the ballots could have swung the election either way -- that is within the margin of error not just from a polling standpoint but in reality.

You're right though in that I was sloppy and forgot to provide a link. The data come from the Public Agenda polling data group. They poll on numerous issues. Gallup also verifies the data in the sense that their polling data is in line with Public Agendas. However, you must register and search the Gallup site to get their data while Public Agendas is easy to access. They have a ton of polling data surrounding many issues and go fairly in depth with regards to abortion:

http://www.publicagenda.org/

[ December 13, 2002, 21:30: Message edited by: Laches ]

 

What Shura said about leaving religion out of this is right, leave you dieties at the door, they have no place in this debate where no everyone is of the same faith as you.
And those statistics are of polled Americans only, which would mean very little if half of one side decided not to bother voting or never heard of it.

 

Laches, I don't think I expressed myself clearly, but I see where you're coming from. No, of course legitimising abortion does not inevitably lead to forced abortions, but there are a whole slough of unpleasant legal ramifications if a baby, no matter how wanted, is not considered any more than a lump of cells. Essentially, if legally an unborn child is not a human being, you can't prosecute or punish someone for hurting that child against the wishes of his/her mother. For example: say I were to kick a pregnant woman in the belly and the baby died. Or I was an unscrupulous man who gave my girlfriend a dose of RU486 to prevent her from making me a father against my will. If that baby is just a lump of cells (even if it were due to be born the next day) then I am guilty only of a minor assault on the mother- not of murder. That's not a "slippery slope" extrapolation but an inevitable conclusion. Most pregnant women would *not* feel that her baby was just a lump of cells if someone else's actions brought about a miscarriage. The "I'm her mother and it's my choice to kill her" argument, no matter how distasteful many of us may find it, at least has the advantage that it allows happily pregnant women to retain protection in law for their beloved unborn.

Another situation (in Canada) resulted in a legal case which has already proven my fears are not unfounded: a pregnant woman had already had three severely brain-damaged children because she kept sniffing glue during her pregnancies. The father of the fourth child tried to have her put into rehab for the duration of the pregnancy in the hopes of keeping the child safe and healthy. No dice- the judge invoked the "lump of cells" argument in ruling that it was not illegal to take action that inevitably crippled a human being for life. Isn't that nice?

 

OK Funk, you are right. I have let myself rant and my emotions are a tad high on this issue. I have good reason to feel passionate about this as I am a female. Being a feminist has nothing to do with it. I will say this again, I have a problem with any law that is directed solely at a specific gender. How about we make up a law that says it's illegal to impregnate a woman if she doesn't want to bear children. I like that one. Let's see... do you think that would actually affect anything? Do you think men would all start wearing condoms ALL the time? Doesn't take long to see how futile a ridiculous law like that would be. Why is it so difficult to see how futile illegalizing abortion is? If you disagree with abortion DON'T GET ONE.

"The right to bear arms is the right to defend yourself. You know this and are smarter than this."

The right to choose is simply the right for a woman to make her own medical decisions. You know this and are smarter than this.

"I am also paying for women to have abortions because they cannot take responsibility for themselves. This sickens me."

Your own words prove my point exactly. Women are the ones aren't they? We are the ones who are responsible. Just like I said, this topic is full of sexism. And Eve gave Adam the apple...Poor guy, it wasn't his fault. Eve was responsible.

"You appear to be a typical reactionary liberal. You can't argue intelligently about the topic at hand, which is abortion, so you bring in all kinds of other issues to try to paint the opposition in a way that demonizes them to try to achieve some sort of moral high ground. Pathetic."

I have made many valid arguments. Interesting you have merely responded to my emotional comments. Your lame attack questioning my use of the word 'referendum' is a ridiculous way to circumnavigate the fact there is a distinct division in this country over this issue, which was my point in the first place. Get real. You have trouble seeing the forest for the trees I imagine. If I bring in other issues it is because this topic of abortion is a complex one, full of many other issues. That is precisely why 'we the people' have a hard time resolving it.

BTW, I find it's pathetic to have to listen to you constantly call people pathetic. Feeling superior are we?

"Finally, if you are so comfortable in your "choice" and your position, why do you become shrill when the other side speaks? Do you have doubts?"

Excuse me, but did I say anywhere I was comfortable? Are you putting words in my mouth? You sure love to taunt people, you've tried to do that to me before. Won't work, I don't have trouble with the other sides opinions. Everyone is welcome to their opinion, as well as their feelings. I have trouble with sexists and religious extremists trying to control the lives of women; using the courts like some Wolf dressed up as Granny..

Thank you Rallymama and Sprite for you sensitive, kind words. After my last post I only expected to come here and find Jack tearing me up and down.

All I want is for people to be allowed to hold different beliefs. Especially if they are in any way moral or religious. The US was created as a way to protect any group from being forced to comply with the religious views/rules of another.

 

sorry scampy, but this does not work. The anti-abortion people tend to view abortion as murder, so to them, that statement is equivalent to "if you disagree with murder, just don't commit one. Don't worry about whether other people kill. Just yourself." You cannot expect people to think that way.

 

Sorry, Amaster, maybe you have not read the entire thread (it is rather lengthy at this point).
Abortion is NOT equivalent to murder: I mean that quantitatively.
If it were, we would not be having an issue over it.
That is one of the points I made earlier.
Murder is something we as a society deem unacceptable. It is safe to say the overwhelming majority of people agree on this. The idea abortion is murder is NOT held by an overwhelming majority of people. Therefore it is not equivalent.
I don't expect the people who view it as such to believe anything I say to the contrary. Go ahead and view it as murder. If you can convince people it is, fine, be my guest.

Conscientous objectors view war as murder; shall we then make war illegal? Shall we force all the rest of society to conform to those beliefs? I mean, war really IS murder after all. Not much debate there is there? If life is sacred, life is sacred, no if and's or but's.

[ December 14, 2002, 08:12: Message edited by: scarampella ]

 

Scarampella,

Your repeated characterizations of me and my position speak for themselves. You are not interested in debate, only defense. If you can't leave emotion out of it, that is your problem. I have succeeded, despite the fact that the murder of the unborn is an extremely emotional issue for me. Did that ever occur to you?

While your life has been touched by abortion, mine has been touched by murder (of the born). I have discussed the murder of my brother in other topics and will not describe it in this thread.

Paint me as a zealot, a sexist, or a fool. Your opinion means nothing to me. Based on your reactions, it seems my opinion has an effect on you. That is your problem.

I will not waste my time dissecting your latest rant. You will only post another one. This thread had remained in the realm of debate until you entered it. Surprise. Maybe you could take a page out of Laches book. While I don't agree with his opinion, he at least approaches this as a debate, not self defense.

This is my last post in this topic. I have said what I wanted to say and see no point in continuing to respond to rants.

It is also my last response to Scamparella on any topic. This, Scamparella, is my gift to you. I hope you have a nice holiday season and hope that you find some peace.

[ December 14, 2002, 18:33: Message edited by: Jack Funk ]

 

I thank you for your gift, however tackily it is wrapped.

 

Aikanaro and for whomever else it may concern -- I'd check out the site I gave before criticizing the results of polling data without some thought. The site has an entire section dedicated to the limitations of polling, 20 questions you should ask to judge the legitimacy of the poll etc.:
http://www.publicagenda.org/aboutpubopinion/aboutpubop.htm

Just my pet-peeve perhaps, we can learn a lot from polling data and while it shouldn't be taken as gospel neither should it be disimissed. Again, look at the last presidential election, wasn't that polling data eerily correct, at least the major reputable polls?

Sprite, I don't think that the concerns you list aren't that dangerous. I understand where you are coming from as it makes logical sense to say that if a fetus doesn't have legal rights and particularly no right to life then another can't be held responsible for murdering it even against the woman's will. However, logical or not, currently a fetus in the U.S. has virtually none of the legal rights a person has but at the same time many states have laws on the books making the killing of a woman's fetus a murder and in some states a capital offense:
http://www.nrlc.org/news/1999/NRL1099/ark.html
http://html.channel3000.com/news/stories/news-20000927-175455.html

[ December 14, 2002, 20:21: Message edited by: Laches ]

 

really. What exactly are you trying to tell me with this sentence?

true

also true

I never said abortion is murder. I never said most people think abortion is murder. I said that most ANTI-ABORTION people view it as murder

I think you missed the point of my post, so I'll restate it: ANTI-ABORTION people usually view abortion as murder. Therefore, telling to simply not get one themself has no impact; they will campaign against abortion just as they would campaign against legalized homicide, because to them it is the same thing. So your argument was a pointless one to use against the pro-lifers.

I was poking holes in your argument, not in you, and not in abortion. Oh, and you seem to have assumed that I am pro-life; in fact, I am undecided.

[ December 15, 2002, 08:37: Message edited by: AMaster ]

 

It looks like this is dying down so here is a side that I feel is often overlooked in this debate.

Where is my choice in all this.As a male I have no say in whether or not my child will get a chance at life.Why do we leave it up to the women.

If I want the child and she does not I have no recourse to keep my child,even if I am willing to raise the child on my own with no help help from the women.

On the other side if she wants the child and I do not I will be held responsiable for this child for my entire life.The courts will order me to pay child support untill the kid is eighteen.

Now I would never want anyone I got pregnant to have an abortion but I have no choice in the matter.Until the law recognizes my right as part of this process I dont see how fair this right to chose is.

 

Just let the woman choose. And make the abortion painless to the child.

 

If it is my child as well why should the women be the only one to decide if the child will live or not?

 

Because it's not your body.

 

Sorry Laches that argument does not work for me.
If I am willing to raise the child without her help after the birth nine months is a small price to pay to give my child a chance at life.
It is my blood my dna my legacy to the world.

If it was at all possiable I would be more than willing to carry the baby myself but that is impossiable.Does this mean I have to give up my rights as a parent to decide the fate of my child.

What I am getting at here is we as men have let ourselves be put in a position where we have no rights to decide about the fate of our child.However if the women decides to keep the child we are still held accountable to raise and support the child even if we wanted the pregancy termanited.

I am not trying to take away the right of people to have abortions(even though I believe them to be wrong)I just am pointing out that men have no choice.

The it's not your body argument is a little sad.It may not be my body but it sure is hell is my child.I guess the bottom line is I would do whatever it took to protect my children and I believe that begins with conception.

 

I admit it, I wrote that to get a rise. I also did it to make a point though.

The point is that you say you want a choice too. What choice is it that you want? The choice to tell someone they must have an abortion? The choice to tell someone they can't have an abortion? What if you and the woman disagree? Do you get the veto power? See, you say you want some choice too but exactly how does that work?

Keep in mind when answering that the most that you'll ever be necessarily responsible for from a legal aspect is paying a couple hundred a month in child support (for many anyways.) Also, keep in mind that a very large number of men skip out on child support. Also, keep in mind that it is the woman who will be pregnant for the better part of a year. Also, keep in mind that most women who give birth to a child (particularly in cases out of wedlock) bear the brunt of the responsiblity of raising that child.

So, please keep the above in mind when elaborating on what choice you want. Also, please tell me who gets to make a decision in the case the man and woman disagree. Do you imagine a court battle?

 

I am aware that one of the main reasons women have the right to chose and men do not is the simple fact that any court battle would last to long to make abortion a viable option.

I also am painfully aware of how many men skip out on child support(my own father did this to my family).The laws in the state where I live are making this harder to do however.

Did you miss the parts where I said I would raise the child without help from the mother?

As for who gets the veto power I agree that this is where things get tricky.You do not have time to take the case to the courts.What I am saying is and beleive me I know how rare this would be,
is if the father is willing to raise the child without help from the mother I believe he should have a say in whether or not that child is born.

On the other side of the coin I believe if the mother wants the child and the father does not why should he be held to child support?He was not given the choice that the women was.

Believe me I realize these would be rare cases.
I am suprised their is no case law on this(at least that I am aware of).What I am proposing is a situation where the father is willing to raise the child without help from the mother.

I cant do much about the fact the women would still have to carry the child.Thats just biology.
But I fail to see why I should just surrender my child to a women who does not want it.

I know their are no easy answers for what I am proposing here and it creates more angles for an already incinderary topic.However I believe it is important to explore and see what we can dig up.The lives of children rest in our hands.

 

I'm pretty sure there actually was such a court battle a few years ago here in the UK. Can't for the life of me remember the names so can't provide a quick link. If I can find it I will.

I'm not certain of the outcome, but I believe the case was found for the woman to have the final say regardless, for exactly the reasons you mention Laches. Although it is sad when a couple do not agree on this, but personally I would have to agree with "the woman's choice".