POLL: Roberts and Roe v. Wade: The beginning of the End

Remove all ads!

For the record I do know several women who have had abortions, including my wife who had one just before we met. She was 6 weeks along at the most, and she states that she still has guilt issues about it, but that she would probably make the same choice again. She also believes that she was not adequately prepared for what happened to her, and that she was unaware of the risks of the procedure. This was before the rise of the Internet, and when she asked the doctor for information he rattled off a bunch of medical terms that she didn't understand, and then actually pressured her to go through with the procedure.

In a world where people are considered too ignorant to calculate the actual interest rate that they are being charged/paid and the gov't mandates that the APR/APY be provided so that they can make an informed decision, I don't think it is too much to ask that adequate information be provided to women wishing to end the life of their unborn child. Additionally, we do not allow those under the age of 18 to enter into contractual agreements (with a few rare exceptions), yet many oppose parental/guardian consent?

 

Condoms and birth control aren't 100% effective. Abstinence is the most effective method of preventing pregnancy. If you don't want to become pregnant you should make the smart choice and don't take the risk at all - just don't have sex.

On a personal level I strongly oppose abortion but on a reality level I realize that it is sometimes necessary. On a weird level I'd almost say that the aborted children are the lucky ones.

Bear with me as I make my point. In Christianity it's believed that children unborn or otherwise (well... up to a certain age) are NOT accountable for their sins and go directly to heaven. They also avoid living through the stupidity of this world. While many probably believe this is a horrible thing for someone to say - especially a Christian - I believe that they're avoiding an arguably crappy world to live in.

Beat me and flog me if you want for being a "heartless narrow-minded idiot" but this is what I believe.

 

Umm, I've tried to avoid religion in as much as that is possible given the subject matter, and have argued for the rights o the unborn child to live. I have no right to blow your brains out if you inconvenience me, Why should a woman have the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy?

Granted! Let's decriminalize murder too. Why stop at birth when you can kill them when ever they piss you off? It's about right to life, which is intended in the Declaration of Independence, and that should not be denied to the unborn.

They decide to kill their baby, I have no sympathy for them. In fact the risks to the mother is yet another reason to outlaw them and ENFORCE the law!.

Perhaps because they don't want to take responsibility for what they've done? The conservatives push personal responsibility, the mother's have a responsibility to the child once conceived.

Pregnancy that results from consentual sex ought to be brought to birth. Life begins at conception, and as such ending that life is an act of murder.

Remember that some states have the death penalty, but yes, that's right.

Technically, Religion pushed chastity--no sex outside of legal and lawful marriage. But What you proposed would help--if the counsel is obeyed. If not, then the child must be brought to birth.

Yes, I have, and the father of the child never forgave her for it. The father wanted to have the baby, but let her make the decision, and all she could say was about her, nothing about him or the baby. I have no sympathy for someone that selfish that they would end a human life for such reasons.

But Adoption may have been the lesser evil in that situation...

If she would end the life of her own child, then I have no sympathy for her. If she deprives the child the right to life, then any complications are her consequences.

Conversely, I think that Americans need to consider what they are fighting for in this battle--the extention of the right to life to those that haven't been born yet.

Well said. If you have sex, there's a chance that she'll get pregnant. If you have sex, be prepared to bring a child into the world...

I can't argue about how bad the world is. but id don't believe we have the right to deny the child the right to life. There is always the possibility of joy, and to me it's worse to deny them that opportunity. Am I right or is Life Liberthy and the Pursuit of Happiness just a bunch of flowery bull****? That's what this is really about. Many people here weep for the mother and her sob story, but few give a damn about the innocent child here. That should have Thomas Jefferson rolling in his grave...

 

@ Gnarfflinger,

Once again: this is about advancing a wider agenda by using emotional issues to curtail liberties. It is only indirectly about abortion, as it is being used as a means to promote an ideologically-desired end which has little to do with freedom, liberty or good and proper governance.

Gnarf, I'd like to take you seriously - but this comment is an insult to everyone on this board.

Every civilisation in recorded history has had taboos against killing - it is hardly an article of Christian faith alone. I can see you're trying to counter my argument with a reductio ad absurdium, but please don't insult everyone's intelligence by suggesting that Christianity is the sole reason why murder is a crime. While most Anglo nations have a strongly Judeo-Christian influence in their laws, I don't think you'll find anything to support such an implied comment.

And as Chandos has said, that's a valid line of argument - extending the right to life and liberty to the unborn. Of course, that is not in the document's text. It requires you to interpret the intention of the authors of that document, which gives such a position no greater moral authority than any other.

Of course, certain legislators are pushing a personal religious agenda into policy, which should be of concern for anyone who believes in the concept of freedom. If you can't extend freedom of belief to the lowliest or reviled in your society, you might as well forget the whole concept.

 

Keep Gnarf away from the bell towers.

First off, don't even presume to talk about Thomas Jefferson or the Constitution as if you even know what they're about.

As for the rest of it (and I'm sorry if I'm getting into AoDA material here, but...) how do you know that God (or whatever) doesn't just call a do-over for the soul of the child and put them back at the front of the line to go down to Earth? How do you even know that the soul is in the child yet? Heck, we don't remember anything until a few years after our birth, so maybe we don't even get a soul until then.

You're assuming that we can do irreparable damage to the child's being simply by killing the shell it inhabits. If that's true, then you should be really frickin' scared of dying, because there won't be a heaven, for you or anyone else. *shudder*

 

This is abortion. How can emotion and religion be left out of this debate? But both sides are using emotion on their side. Pro life uses the horror of what it does to the child, pro choice uses it to show the torment that the woman undergoes...

About as insulting as ignoring some of my points. I have yet to hear anyone explain why the right to life should apply to the born, but not the unborn, but they bombard me with stories of how the mother suffers. Give it a rest. Nothing that a woman would normally go through (not discussing rape, incest or jeopardy to mother's physical health) could justify murdering an innocent child.

Then why draw the line at birth? That's really the question I want answers on and am not getting. You want Christianity out of the arguement? You just gave me all the ammo I need to keep the fight for those rights too.

And one that most of you don't want to touch with a ten foot pole...

If you want to get technical, isn't the exact wording in the Declaration of Independence that MAN should have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness? That doesn't specifically say women. It has been extrapolated to include women. I ask that it be further extrapolated to include the unborn.

But what's the alternative? Deny legislators the freedom of religion? Separation of Church and State cannot be fully achieved. All they can do is treat all religions fairly, and take heed to their counsels. As long as their faithful vote, the churches cannot be ignored...

I'm sorry, there was no sign saying that only Americans could participate in topics of American politics. Maybe I should go back to my bell tower (_!_)

I'm going back to religion here, because this is where I get my understanding of these things. In the early chapters of the book of Luke, Elizabeth, mother of John the Baptist, was expecting the baby to be born, and she went to see Mary while she was awaiting the birth of Jesus Christ. The account is that John the Baptist leapt in his womb in recognition of the baby in Mary's womb. Further, there is a passage in the Old Testament that stated "Before I formed thee in the womb I knew thee." These both tell us that the soul is united with the body in the womb, likely at conception. and that when the child is aborted, that life is ended.

The point of coming her on Earth is to live a life and learn for ourselves good from evil, right from wrong. To abort a pregnancy is to deny a child that opportunity. You deny them the right to learn for themselves, forcing them to rely on what they are taught in the after life...

 

A very good point (assuming one believes it). Very well, that topic can be considered closed for the moment.

However, I still wonder how you think that we can permanently end a soul's chances of living this life. Do you really think God (or whatever) would be so cruel as to send a soul down into a fetus that He/She knew would be terminated? IMHO, it's simply absurd to think that we even could deny a supreme being's will.

 

@ Gnarf,

A fair comment; I am contemptuous of a resort to either tactic rather than relying on sustained argument. My point is that emotion, religion and personal socio-political convictions should be left out of the debate as far as possible, as blind emotion or dogma do nothing to address the very real and temporal issues that surround abortion.

Which again, brings us back to the original issue.

No, I haven't. I was merely stating that adopting such a legislative stance is to enforce a particular set of religious values on a society which, correct me if I'm wrong, has an entrenched freedom of religion enshrined in a Bill of Rights.

Don't get me wrong, Gnarf; I'm not anti-religion (despite my tirade against organised religion in another thread). What I am opposed to is anyone with a religious agenda trying to force me or anyone else to live according to their rules and standards when it has absolutely nothing at all to do with them. Even if I agreed with them, I am opposed to such an action on principle as it denies other people liberty.

For example: people have the freedom to use contraceptive devices, but abortion is outlawed. Being male, if someone I had sex with became pregnant, I could theoretically just walk away (I don't think I would, but hey, work with me). The pregnant woman, however, cannot do the same. The end result is that I enjoy greater freedom on the basis of the fact that I cannot carry a child - formal equality, substantive inequality. That I'd be neck-deep in child support payments is secondary to the basic problems of inequality and sexually-differentiated freedom, even if it's not the expressed intent of such policy.

That such a shift in policy could be predicated on the basis of religious beliefs which neither person involved in the matter shares is completely unjust. Freedom to live by and believe in a religion is only worth anything if you have the freedom to not live by or believe in it as well.

That's because I have been trying to keep this thread on track as much as possible. But fine, I'll address it. I find the concept of awareness and sentience from conception to be, well, ludicrous - sorry if that offends anybody, but it's where I stand. I can't bring myself to believe in a sort of "spiritual alchemy" that occurs at conception. For me to do so would mean that I'd be only a short step from thinking that onanism or the use of contraceptives is mass murder.

To turn that question back around on you, Gnarf: why do you make any exceptions? Surely the same jeopardy exists to a child's immortal soul through abortion regardless of whether it was conceived out of love, lust, incest or rape? That is, unless there's some qualitative element involved in the creation or housing of a soul.

EDIT: Corrected.

[ August 05, 2005, 02:22: Message edited by: NonSequitur ]

 

Problem with this is that abstinence doesn't work. One does not even need to look at recent studies, just think from a historical point of view. For 2000 years, the Curch(es) have pushed abstinence. And for most of this perios most people believed in heaven and hell, not like in this age. If it did not work so far, I do not believe that miraculously is going to start working now

And even if condoms are not 100% effective... the reasonable approach is to try to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, not completely eliminate them. And a 98% reduction sounds pretty good to me .

(of course we all know that condoms are not 100% effective is just a straw-man argument)

Again, because it is the woman who is supposed to bring the 'unborn' child from embryo stage to birth. Which is not such a simple thing. And bringing the child to birth is just the beginning; the hard stuff (bringing him up) just starts from there. And I ask, if she did not want him in the first place, how good are the chances that she will do a reasonable job of it?

Of course, one can argue that once you have sex, you agree to take this responsability upon you. However, the arguments for this approach are mostly based on religious beliefs. From a purely objective point of view, is hard to argue that life starts at conception. What is there is just a couple of cells. Which have the potential to become life, once the mother nourishes them, granted.

As I said above, this stance is based on religious beliefs. While I have no problem with a person who choses to live by them, I do not find it advisable to try to impose this on everybody.

'Unborn' is just an abstraction. This covers the stage of developement from a few cells to a well developed fetus (able to survive by himself if taken out of the womb). While it might be desirable to grant rights to a fetus in the later stages of developement (abortions in the last trimester are exceedingly rare, and happen only for medical reasons, I think), going all the way to the moment of conception seems like a stretch to me.

 

I'll take a stab at it. (No pun intended.) First of all, I think that we have to agree on certain things. First, yes, an embryo or fetus does represent a future life. More importantly, it represents a future human life. The difference here is that a future life (a life in potentia if you will) is not considered as important as a very real present-day life.

Embryos/fetuses/etc are not citizens. They do not count in the U.S. Census, they do not get counted in the population, and they have no representation. I think at the very least, if you argue that the unborn are citizens on equal level with everyone else, then we have to make other accomodations - they should be counted in the population and get representation in Congress. Of course, most people will find this line of reasoning ludicrous. That's simply because embryos/fetuses aren't human beings - at least not yet.

 

Ah, but now you raise the question of when does it stop being a fetus and become a baby?

 

Well, the current legal position is that happens when he is born. This is not perfect, but I think it more acceptable than starting calling him a baby (and giving him rights) at conception.

 

True, getting a fixed date when the fetus can be considered "human" borders on absurdity, but might become necessary for the purpose of this debate, if we are ever going to have a solution.

As far as I'm concerned, having an abortion or carrying out the baby is a moral dilemma, and in general the state should not interfere with such. The whole debate about "right to live" has many strange points. Take death punishment, for example: after all, if a state is able to judge someone (a citizen) unfit to live for its own good, one can possibly argue that a woman has the power to make such a decision about her unborn child. I bring this up merely to illustrate the "right to life" argument, and to show how sometimes other institutions judge someone's right to life with even less, what I would call, natural life than the abortion case. This might sound insulting for some, but I would make the case that only if you have given life, you can take it away - and no court has or could ever "sentence" someone to life.

All in all, I would probably go with abortion being allowed until something like the 10th week (I need to brush up on my anatomy to be sure), also in cases of rape or incest and when a pregnancy would endanger the life of the mother. It should not be allowed when the abortion is likely to endanger the mother's life regardless of the quality of the staff and clinic.
Then again, I am not a woman, so my opinion is merely theoretical.

 

Which I think will inevitably be a highly personal decision, DW. I take the position that it becomes a baby when it is capable of viability outside the womb - which is a very indistinct definition, to be sure, but one which excludes the earlier months of gestation. After that point, I'd go so far as to call abortion child destruction; it's far too late to have done nothing about it by then.

Of course, we're sliding away from the topic with that, and I can guess what Gnarfflinger's response will be. One of those "agree to disagree" situations, and which I feel shouldn't be allowed to derail the topic.

 

I don't follow your line of reasoning here... are you saying that people who abstained miraculously got pregnant without ever having sex? The only person in history that I know of that this occurred with was Mary, Jesus' earthly mother.

Please clear this up because I don't understand how you can say abistinence doesn't work. If you're saying that some people just outright disregard abstinence I can understand... but for someone to have a child without ever having sex seems like a ludicrous claim to me.

 

Sin is the defiance of the will of God. God sends spirits to inhabit the bodies that are created through reproduction. When someone terminates a pregnency, that life is ended, and the spirit experiences death before it is born.

To some, Religion teaches them certain things relevent to the topic at hand. I have cited the two references in the Bible that address Life in the womb. That alone plants the Religious right behind changing the Abortion laws...

But you want to say that Religion doesn't own the Sanctity of Life principle. Therefore it is legitimate that that is included in the laws of the land without violating the objection you have stated or the separation of church and state. Those that believe that life begins with conception would there fore find abortion a grave offense...

That's a problem. The man ought to be found and required to pay up. He would be responsible for a portion (I'd say half) of related medical bills, related legal bills and other related expenses. Further, if the woman keeps the child, as opposed to placing the child for adoption, the father should be required to pay support fo the child. Therefore the man wouldn't be able to walk away either...

I didn't ask about sentience or awareness, I asked about life. Sorry, no skirting the issues here...

This is the statement from the first presidency. As such, I am not privy to those answers. Further, abortions under these circumstances are not always automatic either. It's just that the mother won't have to answer to Church authority for an abortion under those circumstances...

If the woman still doesn't want the child after birth, then there's always adoption. I just don't want to see the children murdered...

But the woman had to know the possibility of pregnancy when she had sex. She knew the risks, therefore, then she shouldn't be allowed to murder the child.

Once conception occurs, the cells are of a different DNA, thus making them distinct from the mother, and not a part of her body. Since once this occurs, the cels divide, therefore the child is alive. Therefore, by these two points, the child is alive at conception.

As I have discussed earlier, the child is alive once conceived. Granting the unborn child is not that much of a stretch by that logic...

At one time, under United States law, Blacks did not count as citizens either. That has been changed. I ask that this definition be changed again...

Humans do not gain the vote until the age of 18 years. but it's also illegal to kill them. Can this not be extended to the unborn?

But the assumption behind Capital punishment is that the condemned is guilty of some offence. An unborn child cannot possibly be guilty of anything...

But in reviewing Roe versus Wade (remember the topic of this thread?), the Supreme Court will have to rule on precicelyt that question. I'm simply making the case for the decision that I'd like to see.

Cryo Mantis: I think that khaavern was saying that people will have sex even when religions tell them that they shouldn't. It doesn't absolve them of the moral responsibility for the life of the child should they disregard that counsel...

 

If that's true, then God obviously doesn't care about the spirits He/She is sending down, so why should we? If He/She can afford to just waste them like that, then they must not be worth much at all.

What happened to the infinite mercy of God, hmm? Why would He/She punish the innocent spirit for something we screwed up? Especially when His/Her intervention would go completely unnoticed by us mortals (God obviously values secrecy). It just doesn't make sense.

 

True. However, that does nothing to actually address the issue, except to deem it a sin and condemn its practitioners. If religious groups wanted to be involved in such issues, they need to realise that firebrand populism is only going to anger everyone who doesn't subscribe to their beliefs. Of course, I highly doubt that politicians drawing on such a support base will be willing to go against it on the grounds of addressing a real issue, instead of doing their job properly. Self-interest (re-election) over the public interest (discussion and determination of the best path to take, which meets the needs of people rather than religious fervour).

This issue is too important, with the capacity to affect too many lives, to be left to naked emotionalism or doctrine. That is why I am so offended when people resort to such arguments and refuse to be moved.

Ah, but what that "sanctity of life" principle means to different people will vary immensely and will possibly be an artefact of any religious convictions they have. Hence, we're back where we started. Government is not about bludgeoning the population with the views of the majority; it is about running the country first, and (at least in the US) staying out of the private affairs of citizens unless they violate criminal law or the freedoms of others.

Those who find abortion offensive are not going to have it thrust upon them or waved in their faces. I can't imagine a woman celebrating the fact that she had an abortion. What gives the anti-abortionists any authority to override the right to self-determination of any other group, based on the grounds that they find it offensive? It's not going to affect them, so it's none of their business.

I addressed this in my last post on this thread, so won't go into it again here. Good work on avoiding the substantive part of that paragraph, though. Which leads us nicely to...

With all due respect, Gnarf, I was asking your opinion, your justification. You can't claim a case and then refuse to justify or defend your position when asked. I don't have all the answers and freely admit that: my position is that emotive and zealous responses to such an issue do nothing to address the real problem. I am too young to remember the era of backyard abortions: personally, I am exceptionally glad for this.

True, but only as a consequence of the shift in the bench, influenced by the nomination of a judge with attitudes inclined towards the current administration's ideologies.

So far, Gnarf, your case has been rooted solely in spiritualism and a personal perspective on when life is formed, with a passing reference to the well-being of the mother when it is gravely threatened. You've stated your principles, fine; what you haven't done is justify why they and their consequences should be applied to the whole of society, even non-believers, outside of extending the Right To Life position to a zygote.

You'll pardon me if I'm less than convinced.

 

@Cryo Mantis: I was talking about abstinence as policy to reduce unwanted pregnancies. I mean, trying to convince people to abstain from sex. Obviously, if they practice abstinence, it will work . Problem is, they mostly wont. And note that what is required is not only abstinence before marriage, but even after (that is, unless you are confortable with having about 20 children). Kind of a tough proposition ...

Now, I am not saying that one should not mention abstinence at all. By all means. But in a reasonable sex ed policy, one should emphasize preventive measures (condoms, pills, whatever).

Anyhow, I guess we strayed a bit from the topic of this thread, which was the politics of Roe vs Wade. I don't think this decision is in any danger (yet). And if it gets closer (let's say, passing some laws which restrict reproductive freedom), we will see a backlash. The republicans will not be happy.

OTOH, looks like Judge Roberts has been involved in a case about gays' rights (on gay's side). Apparently it was pro-bono work, too. Who woulda thunk

 

What's so surprising about that, Khaavern? Even lawyers can do something unexpected. The ACLU was part of the attempt to stop the Florida dems from illegally viewing Rush Limbaugh's medical records.