Unbreaking American Hearts

[MD]

I this case, the pro-choice law protects freedoms, as laws often do. It does not impose obligations, as other laws often do. So to hear it described as "pushing rules on society " is rather jarring. If you think abortion is immoral, you don't have to have one. The law will support you.

It depends on how you define life. Since we dont' have a definition for when life begins is it not safer to accept a limited pro choice/pro life position? If I believe the fetus is a life after a certain point, then isn't abortion murder if it's done after that point? If I am against murder and you are for it, am I not limiting your choice to kill someone? Aren't some things more important than freedom and choice?

 

[Sunstone]

...isn't abortion murder if it's done after that point?

So, if abortion really is murder when done after a certain point, what crime would you charge a women with when she has a spontaneous abortion after that point? Involuntary manslaughter? And if you would not charge her with a crime, are you really being consistent in your belief that "abortion is murder after a certain point"?

 

[LuisDantas]

It depends on how you define life. Since we dont' have a definition for when life begins is it not safer to accept a limited pro choice/pro life position?

By some criteria of safety that would be true. But those criteria do not take into account much beyond a strictly numerical understanding of what "life" should be.

Quality of life matters.

If I believe the fetus is a life after a certain point, then isn't abortion murder if it's done after that point?

Of course. It does not automatically follow that the alternatives are worse, though. Nor does it follow that your belief is right, or that anything that lives must be protected at any cost - if that is even possible.

If I am against murder and you are for it, am I not limiting your choice to kill someone? Aren't some things more important than freedom and choice?

True, but seeing how both stances regarding abortion are ultimately limitations to freedom and choice, that does not really clarify much on the matter.

 

[MD]

By some criteria of safety that would be true. But those criteria do not take into account much beyond a strictly numerical understanding of what "life" should be.

Quality of life matters.

If quality of life matters why feed the poor? Why try to uplift them? Why give them medicine and education? Why not just let them die off? The same argument can be applied to an unwanted unborn fetus.

Of course. It does not automatically follow that the alternatives are worse, though. Nor does it follow that your belief is right, or that anything that lives must be protected at any cost - if that is even possible.

So instead of rising to the challenge of bettering the lives of unwanted fetuses and protecting their rights to life, we take the shortcut and allow them to be terminated for the sake of 'freedom'? Instead of accepting the consequences of our actions through sexual freedom, we purposely get rid of them and call it 'choice'?

True, but seeing how both stances regarding abortion are ultimately limitations to freedom and choice, that does not really clarify much on the matter.

Actually the pro choice stance isn't really a limitation to choice and freedom, it is a limitation to the most basic right we assign all human beings and that is the right to life.

 

[Alceste]

It depends on how you define life. Since we dont' have a definition for when life begins is it not safer to accept a limited pro choice/pro life position? If I believe the fetus is a life after a certain point, then isn't abortion murder if it's done after that point? If I am against murder and you are for it, am I not limiting your choice to kill someone? Aren't some things more important than freedom and choice?

Everyone's comfort level with various methods of birth control varies. On one end of the spectrum, there are those who believe any sexual release that isn't intended to cause a pregnancy is immoral. On the other end, there are those who believe even a viable fetus can be killed in the womb if the mother so chooses.

The law as it stands allows everyone to act in accordance with their own conscience. And in practice, viable fetuses are almost never aborted, since doctors have consciences too.

The law you purpose would force everyone to behave the way YOUR conscience dictates, not their own. That is why it is being described as fascist. We don't seek to impose any behavior that violates your conscience on you, but you don't wish to allow us the same courtesy.

Honestly, the fact that you personally think it's murder is not interesting or relevant to others. It's just your opinion. It's not enough to justify legally restricting the freedoms of others.

If you wish to persuade others to adopt your opinion and behave accordingly, that's one thing. Seeking to impose your personal opinion on the rest of us by coercion, through regressive laws and enforcement, is never going to be met with any enthusiasm by a large majority of people. Particularly unmarried women, who essentially handed Obama the last election. They voted against Romney by a huge margin, largely because of the GOP's regressive attitudes on female reproductive choice.

 

[Alceste]

So, if abortion really is murder when done after a certain point, what crime would you charge a women with when she has a spontaneous abortion after that point? Involuntary manslaughter? And if you would not charge her with a crime, are you really being consistent in your belief that "abortion is murder after a certain point"?

I wanna see some funerals for miscarriages before I take the notion that abortion is the same thing as murder seriously. Preferably open casket.

 

[MD]

The law as it stands allows everyone to act in accordance with their own conscience. And in practice, viable fetuses are almost never aborted, since doctors have consciences too.

My definition of life isn't the viability of a fetus, it's when do we define the beginning of life.

The law you purpose would force everyone to behave the way YOUR conscience dictates, not their own. That is why it is being described as fascist. We don't seek to impose any behavior that violates your conscience on you, but you don't wish to allow us the same courtesy.

Well the whole point of a law is the represent the values of the majority of the people in that country. Some people believe within their own moral compass that certain ethnicities should be segregated or deported, would you grant them the 'freedom' to pursue that course of action. But that's illegal. Aren't we forcing the views of some on the views of others?

Honestly, the fact that you personally think it's murder is not interesting or relevant to others. It's just your opinion. It's not enough to justify legally restricting the freedoms of others.

It's your opinion that freedom trumps the basic human right to life. 200 years ago slavery wasn't seen as morally reprehensible as it is today and those who spoke out against it were probably painted with the same brush as pro lifers are today. I'm sure someone back then would argue that slavery isn't wrong and by abolishing it you are limiting the 'freedom' of those who earn a living through it.

If you wish to persuade others to adopt your opinion and behave accordingly, that's one thing. Seeking to impose your personal opinion on the rest of us by coercion, through regressive laws and enforcement, is never going to be met with any enthusiasm by a large majority of people. Particularly unmarried women, who essentially handed Obama the last election. They voted against Romney by a huge margin, largely because of the GOP's regressive attitudes on female reproductive choice.

I don't wish to persuade anything, I am just saying we need to limit abortions because the definition of life is unknown. And Romeny lost because of hispanic voters, not unmarried women. The republican party caters to an aging, dying christian WASP population stuck in the 1960s and hasn't adapted to the realities of the country or the times. The majority of hispanics have conservative values and are probably pro life although I'm not too sure on the latter part.

 

[Revoltingest]

Actually the pro choice stance isn't really a limitation to choice and freedom, it is a limitation to the most basic right we assign all human beings and that is the right to life.

Yours is a reasonable view. But even if we presume that life has already begun for the fetus, & further that it deserves the protections of a human being, I still have a problem with banning abortion. The libertarian view would be that no person should have to undergo forced labor (in both senses of the word), costs, & medical difficulties/risks for the benefit of another person in need. (By analogy, no one could be forced to donate renewable things like bone marrow, blood, or a portion of one's liver.) The host (aka the mother) of the fetus would have enuf body autonomy to decide that she doesn't want to carry the baby to term IMO.
Interestingly, this argument was presented to me by a fellow who was opposed to abortion, but was troubled by this way of looking at things. I was impressed that he thoughtfully considered arguments against his beliefs.

 

[Alceste]

I am just saying we need to limit abortions....

"We" is you. What gives you the right to impose your moral opinions on me by state coercion?

 

[metis]

First of all, abortion, if performed within the set guidelines that the SCOTUS established, is not "murder" since "murder" is a term that involves illegality.

Secondly, if one is opposed to abortion then I recommend they not have one.

Thirdly, I personally oppose abortions in the vast majority of circumstances, but I am unwilling to try and force my belief on others, particularly since it would be unconstitutional if I even tried to do as such.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I wanna see some funerals for miscarriages before I take the notion that abortion is the same thing as murder seriously. Preferably open casket.

God is allowed to kill whomever he chooses, and it's not counted as murder.

 

[Alceste]

God is allowed to kill whomever he chooses, and it's not counted as murder.

Yeah, God aborts way more fetuses than all the unintentionally knocked up women on earth put together.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

You know the lyrics.

[youtube]fUspLVStPbk[/youtube]

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It depends on how you define life. Since we dont' have a definition for when life begins is it not safer to accept a limited pro choice/pro life position? If I believe the fetus is a life after a certain point, then isn't abortion murder if it's done after that point? If I am against murder and you are for it, am I not limiting your choice to kill someone? Aren't some things more important than freedom and choice?

Put your position in context for a moment: when it comes to organ donation, our society puts the bodily security of a *corpse* ahead of the life of a potential organ recipient. Not only that, but it's been a major fight to switch to "opt out" donation rules: in many places, even the mere possibility that you might not want your organs removed after death is enough to deny life to someone whose organs are failing.

Is a pregnant woman LESS worthy of rights than a dead body? Is a fetus MORE entitled to life than a conscious, intelligent adult with a bad heart or lungs who wants to live and can express this clearly?

Why value a fetus MORE than a thinking, feeling person? Because that's what you're suggesting we do.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I wanna see some funerals for miscarriages before I take the notion that abortion is the same thing as murder seriously. Preferably open casket.

I think I've mentioned this before, but my ex had several first-trimester miscarriages. Not one of her Catholic family members reacted to the news the way someone would react to hearing about the death of a child.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I find it interesting that in all the anti-abortion rhetoric coming out of the US, I've never heard anyone suggest Canadian-style parental leave (a full year of paid time off, with job protection on your return) or government-run free child care like they're doing in Quebec.

I think it would do wonders to reduce the abortion rate if women knew that they could have a baby but still keep their job and not end up destitute with another mouth to feed.

 

[columbus]

I wanna see some funerals for miscarriages before I take the notion that abortion is the same thing as murder seriously. Preferably open casket.

I can tell you a couple of true stories about this.
My friend Dana lost her baby at about 6 months. She wanted and got a church funeral. Both sides of the family and all her friends knew how much she wanted that child.
My partner's oldest daughter died in a car wreck two weeks before giving birth to her first son. She actually gave birth in a helicopter racing to the hospital, but they both died.
Little Troy was in his mother's arms in the open casket. They were both being grieved.

Tom

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I can tell you a couple of true stories about this.
My friend Dana lost her baby at about 6 months. She wanted and got a church funeral. Both sides of the family and all her friends knew how much she wanted that child.
My partner's oldest daughter died in a car wreck two weeks before giving birth to her first son. She actually gave birth in a helicopter racing to the hospital, but they both died.
Little Troy was in his mother's arms in the open casket. They were both being grieved.

Tom

My heart goes out to your family. :flower2:

 

[Wirey]

I find it interesting that in all the anti-abortion rhetoric coming out of the US, I've never heard anyone suggest Canadian-style parental leave (a full year of paid time off, with job protection on your return) or government-run free child care like they're doing in Quebec.

I think it would do wonders to reduce the abortion rate if women knew that they could have a baby but still keep their job and not end up destitute with another mouth to feed.

That's commie! Have that kid and work those three jobs!

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Yours is a reasonable view. But even if we presume that life has already begun for the fetus, & further that it deserves the protections of a human being, I still have a problem with banning abortion. The libertarian view would be that no person should have to undergo forced labor (in both senses of the word), costs, & medical difficulties/risks for the benefit of another person in need. (By analogy, no one could be forced to donate renewable things like bone marrow, blood, or a portion of one's liver.) The host (aka the mother) of the fetus would have enuf body autonomy to decide that she doesn't want to carry the baby to term IMO.
Interestingly, this argument was presented to me by a fellow who was opposed to abortion, but was troubled by this way of looking at things. I was impressed that he thoughtfully considered arguments against his beliefs.

I'm pro-life but I don't think banning abortion across the board would necessarily be the answer to the problem. In a perfect world, it would but it's tied into various social problems. We need to work on reducing abortions by focusing on the situations that lead to them happening.