Abortion

[Nappy crier]

Only if we all spend it on Lentil Soup

You mean lenin-til soup.

[suggs]

Amazing how witty Nap is these days

[jiminski]

Only if we all spend it on Lentil Soup

You mean lenin-til soup.

salts'n eats 'im!

[suggs]

with a bit of Breadz 'n' Eggz?

[PLAYER57832]

Darn your reasonableness, Player! How am I suppose to sail close to the Flame Wind (*colossal yawn from the Mods*) if you don't give me any ammo?
*mumbles* yeah, good point.

Anyone remember the last time I won an argument in this place?
bugger

You won ... we just keep trying.

But if it makes you feel any better I can always add in a few

Suggs You "@@##%$#@ ..." but, of course, you will just have to fill in the words yourself. being the feminine creature that I am (eyelids flutter, smile daintily..) I couldn't possibly know any of "those" words !

[jiminski]

But if it makes you feel any better I can always add in a few

Suggs You "@@##%$#@ ..." but, of course, you will just have to fill in the words yourself. being the feminine creature that I am (eyelids flutter, smile daintily..) I couldn't possibly know any of "those" words !

I am fluent in WingDing Suggsy!

@@##%$#@ translates to: "..are hung like a pit-pony"

[tzor]

Call it what you like. Do the rights of the potential child outweigh the rights of the living mother? THAT is the tricky question. And, before you answer, recognize that controlling women's reproduction has been a prime source of men controlling and dominating women. "Keep her barefoot and pregnant" is not just a distasteful joke, it is still the reality for many women.

I call it that because I don't want to get involved in invisible sky fairy arguments. And before I answer I should point out why the great Susan B. Anthony was a strong anti-abortionist. Men just didn't want to keep their wives barefoot and pregnant they wanted sex but they also didn't want their non wives getting pregnant. Bastards were still an annoyance and a significant stain on the veneer of their reputation. So they often forced women into what was at the time an exceptionally unsafe operation. As you point out "controlling women's reproduction has been a prime source of men controlling and dominating women." The sword did cut both ways, both then and now.

(NB. A politician just got into boiling hot political water not just because he was cheating on his wive but because of that cheating he currently has an illegitimate 5 year old child!)

Do the rights of the potential child outweigh the rights of the living mother? Yes and No - gosh that was complicated. Why? Because there are a plethora of rights. Because the rights of the potential child are to some extent inferior to the rights of the living mother depending on that potential portion.

• Right to life of the mother vs right to live of the all stage pre-born? No contest, mother wins.
• Right to the pursuit of happiness of the mother vs the right to life of the viable pre-born? I would give it to the unborn.
• All other possible combinations? Ask Solomon.

But this is not really the right question. Rights are useless unless they can be enforced and pre-born (well frankly even post-born babies) cannot sue. So the question is when does the state's interest in protecting the rights of the unborn trump the right of privacy of the mother?

Roe V Wade drew a line in the sand (but this line was erased by subsequent decisions). Viability was when the state could reasonably step in and in the name of the rights of the yet to be born regulate the practice. Personally I think returning to this is a first and necessary step. Yet again I would go one step further. The state has a right and a moral obligation to encourage the support of the rights of the pre-viable (as opposed to the clearly non-viable one who has a reasonable chance of becoming viable if left in the womb for a few months) while understanding that the final decision in this case should be left to the mother.

But consider this carefully if you call yourself "pro-choice;" no choice is a true and free choice unless both options are both in and of themselves equally viable. Pro-choice should not be like the "choice" of the color of a model T, "You can have any color you want ... as long as the color you want is black." This requires the understanding of all options, the availability of all options, the viability of all options.

And it's not strictly a man vs woman issue. Women are currently dying because of abortions. Now in places like the United States this is more or less the same percentage as the number of women being born but in some places, especially in countries like China where there is a one child policy, women are being forced to kill their unborn because tests have indicated the unborn is female. This is also quite popular in India as well.

Yes I am a guy. But more than that I was a guy who was born with a cleft lip, almost close to a cleft palette. The reasons for this are complicated and might have been related to my Father living really close to the railroad tracks and a defoliant which was the precursor to Agent Orange but that is not the point. I required surgery at birth. I wound up getting a staff infection. I had to be fed with an eye dropper. When I see this pro-choice eugenics crap this gets dangerously close to being personal for me.

[PLAYER57832]

Call it what you like. Do the rights of the potential child outweigh the rights of the living mother? THAT is the tricky question. And, before you answer, recognize that controlling women's reproduction has been a prime source of men controlling and dominating women. "Keep her barefoot and pregnant" is not just a distasteful joke, it is still the reality for many women.

I call it that because I don't want to get involved in invisible sky fairy arguments. And before I answer I should point out why the great Susan B. Anthony was a strong anti-abortionist. Men just didn't want to keep their wives barefoot and pregnant they wanted sex but they also didn't want their non wives getting pregnant. Bastards were still an annoyance and a significant stain on the veneer of their reputation. So they often forced women into what was at the time an exceptionally unsafe operation.

Yes, this is historical truth.

As you point out "controlling women's reproduction has been a prime source of men controlling and dominating women." The sword did cut both ways, both then and now.

(NB. A politician just got into boiling hot political water not just because he was cheating on his wive but because of that cheating he currently has an illegitimate 5 year old child!)

Except a lot of things have changed a WHOLE lot... and abortion, birth control are big reasons. I Susan B. Anthony's time, a lot of women could not even own property or make many decisions about themselves OR their children. A woman who tried was as likely to end up in the insane asylum as prison. Being a mistress was once of only a very few options open to un married women. AND, I might add, usually a far more lucrative one than being a secretary, school teacher or nurse ...OOPS better strike out "secretary"... those jobs usually went to men back then. (women had not the mental capability, you see)

Now, that mistress is likely to win a book deal, rather than to be shoved into a remote corner "in shame". Are some men still forcing women to have an abortion ... yes, and some beat their wives or girlfriends and even kill them and burn their bodies in the backyard (to cite a recent infamous case). In

Do the rights of the potential child outweigh the rights of the living mother? Yes and No - gosh that was complicated. Why? Because there are a plethora of rights. Because the rights of the potential child are to some extent inferior to the rights of the living mother depending on that potential portion

.
But the aboslute complicated nature of this issue is precisely my point ... AND why it needs to be left up to the individuals involved, who can know th emany issues involved.

• Right to life of the mother vs right to live of the all stage pre-born? No contest, mother wins.

Agreed, and the law does in most states ... except that Dakota recently tried to nullify this option.

[*]Right to the pursuit of happiness of the mother vs the right to life of the viable pre-born? I would give it to the unborn.

Me, too, but again ... that is based upon MY morality. And, I won't be the one carrying or raising the child. AND, remember Depression actually kills. A woman desperate enough to jump off Niagra Falls would probably be better off having an abortion. At least then she might recover and have another child.

[*]All other possible combinations? Ask Solomon.[/list]

Agreed. But since neither the legislator nor our courts can be counted upon to have the wisdom of Solomon... that is why it must be left up to the individuals. Even if you or I find the idea distasteful

But this is not really the right question. Rights are useless unless they can be enforced and pre-born (well frankly even post-born babies) cannot sue. So the question is when does the state's interest in protecting the rights of the unborn trump the right of privacy of the mother?

Basically, only past the point of full and complete viability ... that is reasonable assurance (defined by medicine) of a healthy child.

The state has a right and a moral obligation to encourage the support of the rights of the pre-viable (as opposed to the clearly non-viable one who has a reasonable chance of becoming viable if left in the womb for a few months) while understanding that the final decision in this case should be left to the mother.

I agree. However, the primary point to do this is to ensure that everyone, NOT just girls all have a decent sexual education course (I defined this above). I would go further to say that basic child development and child-rearing, as agreed upon by the community ... the controversial should either be dealt with as controversy or left out of this second part.... that does NOT go for the first because sex education is about medical facts, not opinions (even though the goal for teenagers is abstinance, the ultimate goal is to ensure that people have the information to make the decision consistant with their own values later -- that is, to know the consequences, then let their morals decide the actions) Child rearing IS largely opinion. (pregnancy needs, nutritional needs, development milestones, maturation points ... those are facts, but how to deal with all of that best is at least partially opinion).

But consider this carefully if you call yourself "pro-choice;"

I eschew labels. The term is applied for convenience of the media and politicians, as far as I am concerned. I don't believe in absolute "pro choice" at all. In fact, I am generally against abortion other than medical need and so forth.

BUT, my personal opinion and what I think should be the laws are just two different things.

You spoke of the benefit to society. The question is how much benefit society really gets from having an unwanted child about. Granted, some kids in Juvie were raised by parents doing the best they knew, who love their children, etc. some of the kids there have mental illnesses, other issues.

BUT a fair number are also basically unwanted kids.

A good friend of our family was a social worker for many years. She SAW the kids in conditions so terrible, she (a devoute Catholic) had to move to a less stressful position after about 15 years of dealing. SHE is the one who said that she could not help but think, after all she had seen, that some kids just would have been better off not being born.

She told me that there is a window. A child needs someone to love them unconditionally (and all that includes, which means some real discipline, not abuse). It did NOT have to be the parent, but it was much harder if the parent(s) were not one. If they got that grounding, then those kids could endure a LOT and still come out "OK". BUT if they did not get that love and attention within those first five years from someone .... those kids were "lost". They would never really learn to care about others, never really be "fit" for society. There might be exceptions, of course... but that was what she saw and it was pretty invariable.

no choice is a true and free choice unless both options are both in and of themselves equally viable. Pro-choice should not be like the "choice" of the color of a model T, "You can have any color you want ... as long as the color you want is black." This requires the understanding of all options, the availability of all options, the viability of all options.

And it's not strictly a man vs woman issue.

No, but women are the ones carrying the child.... and, until medical science changes that as a normal practice, women will have a far greater stake in this.

Women are currently dying because of abortions. Now in places like the United States this is more or less the same percentage as the number of women being born but in some places, especially in countries like China where there is a one child policy, women are being forced to kill their unborn because tests have indicated the unborn is female. This is also quite popular in India as well.

Abortions for sex selection are absolutely against AMA practice AND illegal already. In China ANY second child can be aborted, but yes, women are often "encouraged" to abort females because of the strong bias towards males. In India, the most common form of "divorce" is still setting one's apartment on fire ... with the woman inside. (mostly for the dowry)

Those situations just don't really compare to the US. In fact, the AMA gives some strict guidelines about revealing sex when they even suspect this might happen here. Is the system perfect? No, but additional laws won't curb this. Education will.

Yes I am a guy. But more than that I was a guy who was born with a cleft lip, almost close to a cleft palette. The reasons for this are complicated and might have been related to my Father living really close to the railroad tracks and a defoliant which was the precursor to Agent Orange but that is not the point. I required surgery at birth. I wound up getting a staff infection. I had to be fed with an eye dropper. When I see this pro-choice eugenics crap this gets dangerously close to being personal for me.

BUT, a cleft lip is hardly one of the "grey areas" I talked about.

All I will say is that a parent who will abort a child for a cleft lip doesn't deserve to have a child ... at least today, when such won't mean a death sentance (in the past, before surgeries and such, it would have been almost impossible for parents to feed a child with a serious cleft lip .. not to mention other complications such as you had would not have been treatable)
...............
And that leads to one final argument, though one I find it rather distasteful myself. Does anyone who really does not want to have a child DESERVE to have one? If we force people to have kids, we are not only risking abuse, but might we also be encouraging the wrong people to be parents?

Bottom line.... abortion is just too complicated to be mandated by anybody other than those directly involved.

[Snorri1234]

Less government in our lives is totally compatible with more government in our lives.

[PLAYER57832]

Less government in our lives is totally compatible with more government in our lives.

Less government in some areas IS compatible with more government in other areas.

The government's place is to control those points at which individual desires/needs outweigh the overwhelming majority. (theft, murder, etc.), to extablish and regulate those things either too big (roads, military, etc.) and to regulate those things which do notfit into supply-demand economics (health care, externalities such as pollution).

Granted, "right to lifers" argue that the fetus rights should outweigh the mother's. BUT, the mere fact that there is such disagreement over this, UNLIKE murder, shows that this is not a case for government intervention, except at the margins. A woman MAY absolutely have an abortion if her life is in danger, no one can FORCE a woman to have one against her wishes legally, and at the point of full viability (as defined medically), there has to be an overwhelmingly significant reason to abort.

Attempting to narrow this, or almost any other debate to "all or nothing" is the route to fanatacism, not thinking.

[Napoleon Ier]

Granted, "right to lifers" argue that the Jew's rights should outweigh the Reichsvolksgemeinschaft's. BUT, the mere fact that there is such disagreement over this, UNLIKE murder, shows that this is not a case for government intervention, except at the margins. An Aryan MAY absolutely have a good-ol' timey Kristallnacht if his local business is in danger, no one can FORCE a German to horganise/participate in one against his wishes legally, and at the point of full economic viability (as defined when said Jew actually benefits the economy), there has to be an overwhelmingly significant reason to lynch him.)

Attempting to narrow this, or almost any other debate to "all or nothing" is the route to fanatacism, not thinking.

[Snorri1234]

Less government in our lives is totally compatible with more government in our lives.

Less government in some areas IS compatible with more government in other areas.

True. It's just that I hate people who exclaim "LESS GOVERNMENT IN OUR LIVES" all the time while they don't actually believe that to be true.

Every issue needs to be looked at seperately and then decided upon.

Attempting to narrow this, or almost any other debate to "all or nothing" is the route to fanatacism, not thinking.

I agree 100%. There are almost no issues black and white.

[Snorri1234]

Granted, "right to lifers" argue that the Jew's rights should outweigh the Reichsvolksgemeinschaft's. BUT, the mere fact that there is such disagreement over this, UNLIKE murder, shows that this is not a case for government intervention, except at the margins. An Aryan MAY absolutely have a good-ol' timey Kristallnacht if his local business is in danger, no one can FORCE a German to horganise/participate in one against his wishes legally, and at the point of full economic viability (as defined when said Jew actually benefits the economy), there has to be an overwhelmingly significant reason to lynch him.)

There is a large disagreement over the right of jews to live?

[Napoleon Ier]

Less government in our lives is totally compatible with more government in our lives.

Less government in some areas IS compatible with more government in other areas.

True. It's just that I hate people who exclaim "LESS GOVERNMENT IN OUR LIVES" all the time while they don't actually believe that to be true.

Every issue needs to be looked at seperately and then decided upon.

Attempting to narrow this, or almost any other debate to "all or nothing" is the route to fanatacism, not thinking.

I agree 100%. There are almost no issues black and white.

No, but I think we can more or less agree that something like the Holocaust was so gray as to tend toward being completely black.

[Napoleon Ier]

Interesting hypothetical exercise in thought for PLAYER1982875: in the abstract, were John Brown's actions in Kansas and at Harper's Ferry justified?

[Snorri1234]

Less government in our lives is totally compatible with more government in our lives.

Less government in some areas IS compatible with more government in other areas.

True. It's just that I hate people who exclaim "LESS GOVERNMENT IN OUR LIVES" all the time while they don't actually believe that to be true.

Every issue needs to be looked at seperately and then decided upon.

Attempting to narrow this, or almost any other debate to "all or nothing" is the route to fanatacism, not thinking.

I agree 100%. There are almost no issues black and white.

No, but I think we can more or less agree that something like the Holocaust was so gray as to tend toward being completely black.

Sure, but was every soldier from the german side a jew-hating bastard who happily killed jewish kids?

[PLAYER57832]

Less government in our lives is totally compatible with more government in our lives.

Less government in some areas IS compatible with more government in other areas.

True. It's just that I hate people who exclaim "LESS GOVERNMENT IN OUR LIVES" all the time while they don't actually believe that to be true.

Every issue needs to be looked at seperately and then decided upon.

Attempting to narrow this, or almost any other debate to "all or nothing" is the route to fanatacism, not thinking.

I agree 100%. There are almost no issues black and white.

No, but I think we can more or less agree that something like the Holocaust was so gray as to tend toward being completely black.

Only if you are a Nazis.

Or just so desperate to prove you are correct you will bring out even the most ludicrouse analogies.

I, and others have covered this quite well. You can keep your opinion, but the more you bring in such plain idiotic examples, the more you prove OUR points!

[Napoleon Ier]

Did I say they were? That said, I see no reason why, when a National, Catholic and Monarchist government is restored, we can't have a Grand Nuremberg in which Republican traitors and Abortionnists would be tried...

[Snorri1234]

Did I say they were? That said, I see no reason why, when a National, Catholic and Monarchist government is restored, we can't have a Grand Nuremberg in which Republican traitors and Abortionnists would be tried...

I see so many reasons it's almost silly to list them.

[Napoleon Ier]

Less government in our lives is totally compatible with more government in our lives.

Less government in some areas IS compatible with more government in other areas.

True. It's just that I hate people who exclaim "LESS GOVERNMENT IN OUR LIVES" all the time while they don't actually believe that to be true.

Every issue needs to be looked at seperately and then decided upon.

Attempting to narrow this, or almost any other debate to "all or nothing" is the route to fanatacism, not thinking.

I agree 100%. There are almost no issues black and white.

No, but I think we can more or less agree that something like the Holocaust was so gray as to tend toward being completely black.

Only if you are a Nazis.

Or just so desperate to prove you are correct you will bring out even the most ludicrouse analogies.

I, and others have covered this quite well. You can keep your opinion, but the more you bring in such plain idiotic examples, the more you prove OUR points!

Is it a 'ludicrouse' analogy, my sociology graduate friend? Is it? If you do nothing to oppose the premise that the foetus is a human being, then it comes down to the same thing: murder of an individual for the "common good" of society and to save "individuals" from Jewish competition/9-months of discomfort.

[Napoleon Ier]

Did I say they were? That said, I see no reason why, when a National, Catholic and Monarchist government is restored, we can't have a Grand Nuremberg in which Republican traitors and Abortionnists would be tried...

I see no reasons I can rationally justify. It would be definitely silly to list any, or the steamroller of Napoleon's superior intellect would inexorably crush them with considerable ease.

[Snorri1234]

Did I say they were? That said, I see no reason why, when a National, Catholic and Monarchist government is restored, we can't have a Grand Nuremberg in which Republican traitors and Abortionnists would be tried...

I see no reasons I can rationally justify.

Yes indeed. Rational is probably key here.

[Napoleon Ier]

Come on...snorri, PLAYER? John Brown at Harper's Ferry-justified?

[Napoleon Ier]

Right...let's wait for them to google it...

[Snorri1234]

Did I say they were? That said, I see no reason why, when a National, Catholic and Monarchist government is restored, we can't have a Grand Nuremberg in which Republican traitors and Abortionnists would be tried...

Article 18
*Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Republicans have every right to live and belief what they want. Probably the reason why even in countries such as my own who have a monarchy, republicans are not put to trial or somesuch.