Kerry and Late Term Abortion

[The Voice of Reason]

Continuation of above post -

Suddenly we'll look more closely at sonograms of unborn children in the late term, and say to ourselves "That little baby sucking its thumb is the thing that has no legal right to be alive whatsoever? How many thousands of these have been silently massacred?" I've looked at sonograms of unborn children, and I have a basic familiarity with fetal development, and I feel, deep down, that these unborn children are human beings and therefore have the intrinsic right to be alive.

Again, the appeal to emotion.

Martin Luther King, Jr., a man well known for his work in human rights, argued in his "Letter from Birmingham Jail" that there are just laws, and there are unjust laws. He said that it is morally justifiable for he and his followers to oppose unjust laws and attempt to change them using nonviolent methods. He also said that "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere". That was his primary response to the criticism that he was getting the government involved where it should not be, that it was up to individual localities to decide whether or not segregation was just. Segregation was unjust, as it violated human rights, and MLK knew it. The main problem was that many people in America were ignorant/ignoring the realities of segregation.....so MLK sought to bring these realities to the attention of the public.

A fine example of human rights - and I am a fan of civil disobedience. We are still stuck on the point that our opinion of whether it is a fetus or a baby is the crux of this argument. After a baby is delivered, it is a human being (in my opinion) and deserves all of the human rights entailed therein. I understand that the next argument is "why is it a baby at one moment, when 30 seconds earlier it was not"? My answer to that is - At what point do we stop this argument? Is it a baby at the moment that the sperm fertilizes the egg? Or the woman is inseminated? When the fetus is viable? Each of these is open to debate, and still come down to opinion - thus this point cannot be resolved.

Perhaps photos of dead late term aborted babies need to be brought more effectively into the public eye.

Appeal to emotion.

In my mind, and in my gut, an unborn child in the late term is a human being just as much as a newborn is. As a human being, he/she has an inherent right to be alive. That is why I believe I am morally justified in opposing legislation and court rulings that take away that person's right to be alive--because those laws and those rulings are unjust.

And I respect your opinion. We simply do not share it.

Of course there are always exceptions, like when an abortion is necessary to save the mother's life.

Oddly enough, this is the main failing of the vast majority of prolife legislation to abolish abortion. Most legislation is drafted without the proviso that protects the mothers life (and health). This is the very reason that the most recent piece of legislation was struck down. Unfortunately, some on the prolife side of the aisle do not share your concern for the life of the mother - to the point that it is often not included in the verbage of the proposed laws (intentionally).

But when confronted with a woman's right to not have to have a baby, and that baby's right to be alive, the scales of justice tip towards the latter.

At the moment the fetus becomes a baby, we agree - but not before.

Wow...I ranted.

Nonsense - you are making the case for your side of the argument - and quite well. It is a rant when ad hominem attacks are flying, reasonable discourse is shouted down, and logic is thrown to the wind.

Most respectfully,
TVOR

 

[civilcynic]

I am deeply curious as to the justifcation for singling out one particular form of abortion and why any medical procedure used in a legal act should be challanged by law.

-pah-

Excellent question, Pah! The primary justification in singling out late term abortion is that it appeals to the emotions. I would say that most people, on both sides of the abortion issue, are uneasy about late term abortions because the fetus is so well-developed. The difference, of course, is that pro-choice individuals recognize that abortions at this late stage are sometimes necessary. On the same vein, the anti-abortion movement focuses primarily on clinical abortions spending their energies publicly opposing clinical abortions but rarely equally advertising/promoting their rabid opposition to the use of birth control methods such as the pill and IUD. Opposing the use of contraceptives as described above will not appeal to as many individuals. I have come across many individuals from both sides of the issue that were stunned to learn that anti-abortion organizations believe that using such methods are just as wrong and should be made illegal along with clinical abortions.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

TVOR-- two quick things, I'll write a more comprehensive reply later:

I think it mischaracterizes the people that are Pro-Choice to say that they are apathetic about abortion - just as it would be wrong to say that people on the Prolife side of the aisle are apathetic to the needs of the mothers.

When I first read this, I went "Ack! Good point! I shouldn't mischaracterize pro-choicers that way".

But then I started thinking that, perhaps, it is valid to say that many pro-choicers are apathetic about abortion. In the same token it may very well be valid to say that many pro-lifers are apathetic about women's rights. I think a strong case can be made for each...but I'll think about this some more.

About the appeals to emotion--in the first part of my post, I tried to establish that emotion is a valid (and ultimately the only) method of discerning what is just and unjust. So yes, pictures of dead babies are appeals to emotion. And pictures of dead civilians are appeals to emotion. And the Rodney King video was an appeal to emotion. I think it's important for people to see the truth, and if the truth stirs emotions in people, those emotions are valid indicators of what is right and wrong. Along this same line, since logic cannot tell us what we value (you and I agreed on this point), how do we decide whose emotions to follow when it comes to government action? I would argue that it depends on how strong of a majority feel that way, and how strongly they feel it. But I'll expand on this more later...it's way past my bedtime.

Thanks so much for the polite discourse by the way!

 

[The Voice of Reason]

But then I started thinking that, perhaps, it is valid to say that many pro-choicers are apathetic about abortion. In the same token it may very well be valid to say that many pro-lifers are apathetic about women's rights. I think a strong case can be made for each...but I'll think about this some more.

I don't think people on either side are apathetic. I wish no fetus were ever aborted, and I would gamble that most Prochoice people feel the same way. However, people on the Prochoice side of the argument feel that a woman's choice trumps the fetus, until the moment it is delivered.
I am also certain that very few people on the Prolife side of the aisle are apathetic toward women, or their desire to control their own bodies. Rather, it would be more accurate to say that the reverse position is true - that the rights of the unborn fetus trump the woman's rights (in their opinion). Many would alter that argument slightly, to say that if the woman's life (or health) was in jeopardy, that the woman's rights then take precedence. As I pointed out earlier, not all Prolife people would agree to the latter part of that statement (unfortunately). Either way, I wouldn't charge either side with apathy. I think that it is hard to see people on the other side of the aisle as not being callous to some degree, because of the emotions involved.

About the appeals to emotion--in the first part of my post, I tried to establish that emotion is a valid (and ultimately the only) method of discerning what is just and unjust. So yes, pictures of dead babies are appeals to emotion. And pictures of dead civilians are appeals to emotion. And the Rodney King video was an appeal to emotion. I think it's important for people to see the truth, and if the truth stirs emotions in people, those emotions are valid indicators of what is right and wrong.

You are correct. The images of all of these actions do have an impact on the emotions of anyone seeing them (except maybe a serial killer).

Let me employ this tactic for my side of the argument:
Would it be fair to find pictures of the women that have died from complications of childbirth, and exploit them through the media to strengthen my position? You would say that it is oh-so-rare for a woman to die in childbirth these days. I would agree, but we've already established that the percentage of occurence is not going to stop our appeal to emotion. What about videos or pictures of women that have died from illegal abortions - can I use those photos - show them to high school kids, run ads in the local newspaper, and pay for billboard space (where even young children are exposed to these photos) to appeal to emotion for my side of the argument? What would the reaction be if I went to orphanages around the world taking pictures of abandoned babies that suffer from Down's Syndrome, Spina Bifida, and a host of other malformities that make them virtually unadoptable? Would that not cross the line in trying to make my point and win a few votes?
Without question, you are correct in the fact that images can sway peoples opinions. In this case, one side is more than willing to use this tool - while the other side (to my knowledge) refuses to employ these tactics, considering them contemptable (at best).

Along this same line, since logic cannot tell us what we value (you and I agreed on this point), how do we decide whose emotions to follow when it comes to government action? I would argue that it depends on how strong of a majority feel that way, and how strongly they feel it.

Again, you are correct (man, I'm getting tired of saying that). That is exactly why democracy works - one man (or woman), one vote. One observation - how strongly a person feels about this (or any other subject) doesn't really matter - you still get one (and only one) vote. The truth of the matter is, that (as others have stated on this thread) for many people, the strength of their feelings on this matter won't determine their vote. For others, it is the single most important issue in any election.

Many would argue that the government has no right to take any stance in this - as it ultimately comes down to legislating morality. If you are unwilling to live in a country that has an official religion (because you don't necessarily share the morals of that religion), then you understand the argument that the government should not pass laws regarding abortion - it is also based on forcing one persons morals on another.
This is exactly Kerry's stance on abortion - he does not like it, nor is he "for" it. He simply doesn't see it as the place of government to legislate it.

Thanks so much for the polite discourse by the way!

It is my fervent hope that no debate I am engaged in ever be anything other than what we have here. Unfortunately, most people are not able to carry a position without trampling logic and reason in the mud. I cannot possibly tell you how much I respect your right to your position and your ability to defend it (very well, to, I might add).

TVOR

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The primary justification in singling out late term abortion is that it appeals to the emotions.

That may be the primary reason, but I would think that the pimary purpose is to focus the discussion on the ethics of taking a life, i.e., the very thing that the semantics of "pro-choice" seeks to avoid. In my opinion, all ethical issues are subordinate to the question of whether or not abortion is an instance of homicide.

 

[Pah]

That may be the primary reason, but I would think that the pimary purpose is to focus the discussion on the ethics of taking a life, i.e., the very thing that the semantics of "pro-choice" seeks to avoid. In my opinion, all ethical issues are subordinate to the question of whether or not abortion is an instance of homicide.

I would have thought the primary purpose was to re-impose a political method for a continuence of the subjugation of women.

-pah-

 

[The Voice of Reason]

That may be the primary reason, but I would think that the pimary purpose is to focus the discussion on the ethics of taking a life, i.e., the very thing that the semantics of "pro-choice" seeks to avoid. In my opinion, all ethical issues are subordinate to the question of whether or not abortion is an instance of homicide.

I must be a very simple man. Would it not be easier to simply state that you would like to debate the question of whether abortion is or is not an instance of homicide?
If that is your wish, I will accept the prochoice side of the argument.
I would leave it to the moderators as to whether or not that should be another thread.

Thanks,
TVOR

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I would have thought the primary purpose was to re-impose a political method for a continuence of the subjugation of women.

I must be a very simple man. Would it not be easier to simply state that you would like to debate the question ...

In fact, I deserved neither of these responses.

1. I suggest that late term abortion is a worthy focus of discussion precisely because it is late term and irrespective of the emotions evoked by the procedure. If you wish to argue that the state of the entity being aborted is irrelevant, feel free to do so. Otherwise, tilt elsewhere.
2. If I wanted to debate a particular issue I would clearly say so and, given my history on this board, I can think of no reason why anyone here, (no matter how simple) would think otherwise.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

In fact, I deserved neither of these responses.
I suggest that late term abortion is a worthy focus of discussion precisely because it is late term and irrespective of the emotions evoked by the procedure. If you wish to argue that the state of the entity being aborted is irrelevant, feel free to do so. Otherwise, tilt elsewhere.
If I wanted to debate a particular issue I would clearly say so and, given my history on this board, I can think of no reason why anyone here, (no matter how simple) would think otherwise.

Silly me, I didn't realize I was tilting. I am glad that you feel your reputation precedes you, but since I was unaware, I'd say you were wrong (at least in this instance).

The meaning of the first sentence in your reply escapes me. We are in the process of debating Late Term (or, more precisely, partial birth) abortions. That would lead me to believe that all those posting in this thread deem it to be worthy of discussion. Those of us on the prochoice side of the aisle point out the fallacy of appeal to emotion because it clouds the issue and is illogical. If you (or anyone else - on either side of the argument) insists on using a logical fallacy after it has been pointed out, you would effectively be conceding the argument.

Your words: "That may be the primary reason, but I would think that the pimary purpose is to focus the discussion on the ethics of taking a life, i.e., the very thing that the semantics of "pro-choice" seeks to avoid."
Can you help me to understand the difference between the primary reason and the primary purpose of anything?
I have no problem defending any position I hold, so, if you would like to accuse me (or the prochoice movement) of playing with semantics, please do so. Please, try to be specific, as it cuts down on the misunderstandings. For the record, I do not avoid debate (with you or anyone else), on any subject on which I take a stand. I would ask that you confine the argument to logical, rational statements (I will endeavor to do the same).

Lastly, I have received warnings twice (deservedly so, in both instances) for allowing my statements to lean toward personal attacks. So, if you wish to take shots at me personally (even using my own attempt at self deprecating humor), I will have to ask the moderators to be sure to censure both of us. I'm willing to take the hit if you are. Or, we could just keep a civil tone. Your choice.

Thanks,
TVOR

 

[Sunstone]

I think the main reason pro-choice people describe themselves as "pro-choice" is, not because they are attempting to hide homicide, but because the phrase accurately summarizes their core argument. In the same manner, I think the main reason pro-life people describe themselves as "pro-life" is, not because they are trying to hide the negation of choice, but because the phrase accurately summarizes their core argument.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I think the main reason pro-choice people describe themselves as "pro-choice" is, not because they are attempting to hide homicide, but because the phrase accurately summarizes their core argument. In the same manner, I think the main reason pro-life people describe themselves as "pro-life" is, not because they are trying to hide the negation of choice, but because the phrase accurately summarizes their core argument.

I think you are exactly correct, Sunstone. Problems arise when the one side tries to label the opposing view point (i.e. Pro-Life calls its opponents "Pro-Death" or "Anti-Life"). I'm sure that people on the Pro-Choice side have intentionally misleading labels for those that support the Pro-Life stance, but I can't think of any. Honestly - I can't. I'm not saying they don't, and I am not trying to be coy. I'm sure someone will post a few, though.

TVOR

 

[Pah]

In fact, I deserved neither of these responses...I suggest that late term abortion is a worthy focus of discussion precisely because it is late term and irrespective of the emotions evoked by the procedure. If you wish to argue that the state of the entity being aborted is irrelevant, feel free to do so. Otherwise, tilt elsewhere...

I do and I did.

-pah-

 

[linwood]

I would have thought the primary purpose was to re-impose a political method for a continuence of the subjugation of women.

-pah-

I think thats an entirely unfair statement.

In this day and age I doubt seriously it is a reason the majority of Pro Lifers would bring up if asked.

I believe the vast majority have a problem with the loss of what they percieve is human life.

 

[Pah]

I think thats an entirely unfair statement.

In this day and age I doubt seriously it is a reason the majority of Pro Lifers would bring up if asked.

I believe the vast majority have a problem with the loss of what they percieve is human life.

I would have thought the primary purpose was to re-impose a political method for a continuence of the subjugation of women.

And the tactic is to chip away at the rights of women and impose whatever burden is able to pass constitutional muster. It has the result of re-establishing control piece by piece over women that they were subjected to before Roe v Wade. I fail to see how anyone can not recognize that Pro-life has the impact of being anti-women. It is the choice Pro-lifers make to hold the "rights" of a fetus over the rights of a living human being. The strident make no consessions.

I think it is a valid assesment regardless of the concern for the fetus.

-pah-

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I think thats an entirely unfair statement.

In this day and age I doubt seriously it is a reason the majority of Pro Lifers would bring up if asked.

I believe the vast majority have a problem with the loss of what they percieve is human life.

I must say that even though I am on the Prochoice side of the aisle, I think both of you have valid points here. I don't believe that subjugation of women is the primary purpose, agreeing with Linwood. In my opinion, the overwhelming majority of Prolife people feel (just as Mr. Spinkles) that the travesty is the taking of (as they see it) a human life. Their opinion cannot be refuted, any more than mine can, and they are certainly entitled to it.

That said, I never really considered the subjugation of women as a reason for the prolife view in the abortion argument, but after thinking about it, I can see how this might be a hidden agenda for some in the prolife camp. I could see someone like a Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell that buy into the biblical position that women are subservient to men. I don't know where this is in the Bible, so I can't defend it - although I'd feel safe in saying that Deut, True Blood, Emu or Linwood could quote a few verses.

One of my best friends (a devout Christian) with a family of four lives like this. His wife does not question anything he says, his son is the focal point of the family, and his daughter has almost no standing whatsoever. His wife sees this as her lot in life, based on the teachings at their church, and does not (seemingly) have a problem with it. C'est la vie. I could see my friend having this as a secondary reason for his stance on abortion. As a matter fact, I'll make a point to ask him this very question this week when I see him.

TVOR

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

And the tactic is to chip away at the rights of women and impose whatever burden is able to pass constitutional muster.

No doubt. But to cast all those with ethical concerns about late term abortion as right-wing chauvinist fundamentalists plotting the continued subjugation of women is a classic case of hyperbole and poisoning the well.

It is the choice Pro-lifers make to hold the "rights" of a fetus over the rights of a living human being.

Perhaps, but is this choice any more arbitrary or less reasoned than your distinction between "fetus" and "living human being"?

The strident make no consessions.

Apparently this is true on both sides of the argument.

Look, pah, I've been an activist for most of my life, including heavy participation in the civil rights movement way before it was either common or cool. I vote "Pro-Choice" for precisely the same eason that I support the right of nations to self determination. This doesn't prevent me from being concerned/conflicted about the ethical issues involved in taking a life any more than it prevents me from viewing nationalism as with great concern.

Believe me, I would be far happier if I could view the topic with your level of certainty and finality. Until such time as this occurs, I will continue to distinguish between the issue and how it's used, so that I might grapple with the former as I deal politically with the latter.

 

[Pah]

When the motive is to favor the life of a fetus, then the agenda and purpose of opposing any abortion is to remove rights of bodily integrity for women. Removing -rescinding - rejecting - curtailing rights of women is a throw-back to patriarchal control.

The procedure being protested is one easily replaced. It is a simple matter to use (I'm unsure of the term) microscopic surgery procedures to first tie off the umbilical cord (causing death) and then penetrate the skull of the fetus and evacuate the brain wholly within the womb prior to abortion. What is really gained by opposing partial birth abortion?

I am pro-choice and I wish abortion would become a rarity for I love babies as much as anyone.

-pah-

 

[Mr Spinkles]

TVOR--

I don't have time now, but just so you know, I plan very soon to post further thoughts on this matter that extend directly from my first post, and your reply to it. Although I have pretty much figured out everything I am going to say already, I don't have time to say them now (unfortunately).

Basically, my main argument will be that I greatly respect your position that one should not impose one's own personal morality on others. I personally think it is immoral to lie around all day and do nothing. However, I would not want the government to make sloth illegal, because I believe we should be free to choose what is best for ourselves as long as those choices do not infringe on the rights of others. This last part is the main point of my argument.

I think we can and should impose restrictions on the actions of others when those actions infringe on basic human rights. An unborn fetus, in my opinion, is a living human being, and has the inherent right to be alive--abortion infringes on that right. Being pro-life, as far as I'm concerned, is about defending the rights of a group of human beings who cannot defend themselves. Many of you here seem to think that abortion is immoral (except when necessary to protect the life of the mother), though you think it should still be the mother's choice. I would ask that you consider why you personally think abortion is immoral/a bad thing. Is it because you personally feel that unborn baby humans have some inherent right to be alive (though you would not impose that view on others)?

I really feel that the only truly defensible argument for the pro-choice side is that the fetus is not a human being, or there is great uncertainty as to whether or not it is a human being. Though I disagree with that argument, I respect it much more than the argument that a fetus is a human being, but that it is "not our place" to "impose our morality" by defending the rights of that human being. I have as little respect for that argument as I do for the argument that it was wrong for the government to impose its morality on the South by forcing Southern states to treat black people equally, while conceding that black people's rights are being infringed upon.

Sorry I meant to summarize and once again I ranted....I plan to write a more concise and comprehensive post in the future that will deal more specifically with the points brought up between you and I, TVOR.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

When the motive is to favor the life of a fetus, then the agenda and purpose ...

Are you referring to my motive, agenda and purpose?

Removing -rescinding - rejecting - curtailing rights of women is a throw-back to patriarchal control.

I am opposed to patriarchal control.

The procedure being protested is one easily replaced.

Then perhaps it should be.

What is really gained by opposing partial birth abortion?

What is really gained by refusing to talk about it?

I am pro-choice and I wish abortion would become a rarity for I love babies as much as anyone.

So there we have it: on the one side stands pah, who loves babies as much as anyone, and on the other stands the forces of evil plotting the resubjugation of women under the iron fist of patriarchal control. I guess that pretty much lays to rest any ethical question that an honest person might contemplate.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

... because I believe we should be free to choose what is best for ourselves as long as those choices do not infringe on the rights of others. This last part is the main point of my argument.

I agree completely with the point that the rights of one person must end when they begin to infringe on the rights of others. For me, I simply view the fetus as not being human, with no rights whatsoever, until the moment it is delivered into this world. In my opinion, at that moment (and not one moment before) you have a brand new human being - with all the rights that that entails. This is the moment (for me) when the mother and (now) baby become seperate entities. For me (and remember, I may be wrong, it's just my opinion) this is the moment of potential for a whole new life.

I think we can and should impose restrictions on the actions of others when those actions infringe on basic human rights. An unborn fetus, in my opinion, is a living human being...

I fully understand this opinion. I will go to my grave defending your right to hold this opinion. I respect you as an individual (more than many others - based on a respect for your intellect). I simply hold a different opinion.

Many of you here seem to think that abortion is immoral ...

Personally, I find it regrettable, lamentable, distressful, and sad. I do not find it immoral. I would wager that many (if not most) of the women that undergo the procedure find it to be an incredibly tough decision. That said, my wishes, are immaterial to the argument. I am not a woman, will never be pregnant, will never be faced with that decision (for any reason), nor will I ever be asked to carry a baby to term. I look at the entire process as a "bad thing" purely from the standpoint of its effects on the woman. She is subjected to emotions and pressures that you and I can only imagine. My regret is that she is placed in what has to be a terrible dilemma and undergoes a medical procedure that can be characterized as anything but fun.

I really feel that the only truly defensible argument for the pro-choice side is that the fetus is not a human being...

This is exactly my position.

Sorry I meant to summarize and once again I ranted....I plan to write a more concise and comprehensive post in the future that will deal more specifically with the points brought up between you and I, TVOR.

Spinkles, my friend. I do not consider your post a rant. I am more than willing to listen to any statement you make. Through this and other posts, you have been as rational as anyone I have debated a point with (especially one that is so emotionally charged). If anyone has earned the right to rant and blow off some emotion in an argument, it is you (in my opinion).

TVOR