[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ort888 

I don't understand why babies conceived via rape and incest should get less protection. Isn't that like saying that people conceived this way have less rights? If the goal is to protect human life, then why make these exceptions?

I would agree personally, but logically the argument is based on TRUE "choice" and can't be easily dismissed, IMO.

If you are given no choice about becoming pregnant, then the argument could be made that there should be no expectation of responsibility for it's outcome. In all other cases, a woman has a choice not to engage in what will cause her to create new life 100% of the time. Based on the moral imperative that responsibility follows choices, then there would be an instance where the person in question could not be legally forced to take responsibility.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by brassplayersrock² 

Isn't giving birth, and then putting the kid up for adoption technically the same as an abortion? You're not keeping the thing, yes you're giving birth, but since the parent didn't care about the kid, she's just letting it go anyways.

Big difference between allowing a child to live with someone else, and killing it, IMO.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Thus providing a Biblical justification for abortion in certain cases (such as rape).

Of course a women can't abort a baby by ingesting regular dust, as I said, that's not the point. Besides there are all sorts of ways that could be interpreted into something slightly more than superstitious nonsense.

The topic that is being debated, Numbers 5, is known as Sotah and has an extensive Talmudic volume devoted to it. I'd recommend looking at some of the Talmudic info about its nature and purpose to get a more complete understanding of it. The Sotah water is explicitly said to do no harm to the woman or fetus if the woman were pregnant from her husband and had not cheated. The woman also had the freedom to confess to infidelity, and in confessing she wouldn't have to drink and wouldn't be penalized aside from being divorced. We studied Sotah in one of my yeshiva classes last year, and it's a fascinating topic. As for superstitious nonsense, I suppose you can look at it like that if that's your general approach to biblical understanding.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

I am convinced that this ambiguity is so pervasive in our laws that it makes banning abortion impossible: an adult woman's right to have control over her body must take precedence over the ambiguous rights of a fetus.

A woman has the right to do whatever is necessary with her body to avoid pregnancy. That is not ambiguous in the least. Pregnancy can be avoided with 100% assuredness.

It's also not ambiguous that if a woman has taken action to remove the life signs normally attributed to "living" human beings located outside her womb that she would be charged with murder. We use these scientifically discoverable life signs to determine "death" every day.

Location of the living human in regards to whether or not a woman can be forced to suffer inconvenience due to it's existence is arbitrary, given that regardless of location a man can be forced to suffer personal and physical inconvenience for 18 years due to it's existence regardless of it's location.

What we have now are pretty arbitrary and purposely ambiguous standards, invented and legislated by the courts, in order to support a standard based on ensuring the convenience of those with power who are given preferred status, rather than to protect the helpless.

The only way to outlaw most abortions would be to introduce a Constitutional Amendment that definitively establishes the rights of the unborn. I think that has a slim chance of happening.

I think all that would be needed was for the Supreme Court to stop illegally legislating the matter in the first place. There's really nothing in the Constitution which prevents states for regulating these types of matters, except for the things that the courts have invented specifically so that they can take control.

[stupendousman]

I'd mentioned that other polls I've seen show that a majority want abortion illegal in most cases, while not outright illegal in all cases. Here are a few more polls that seem to show this. The point being, that the notion that the media and the left tries to spin that more people are "pro choice" is essentially meaningless and that in fact more people support increased restrictions on abortion than do not.

Los Angeles Times Poll:

This was taken on 2005-JAN-14 to 18. They asked 1,118 randomly selected American adults the question: "Which comes closest to your view on abortion: abortion should always be legal, or should be legal most of the time, or should be made illegal except in cases of rape, incest and to save the mother's life, or abortion should be made illegal without any exceptions?"

Results:

41% favored making abortion illegal with a few exceptions.
24% favored making abortion always legal
19% favored making abortion legal most of the time.
12% favored making abortion totally illegal.

Margin of error ±3% percentage points. It is notable that 12% of American adults would totally prohibit all abortions, including those needed to save the life of the mother.

So, here we have 43% who take the traditionally "pro choice" view that abortion should generally be legal most of the time, and 53% who take the traditionally "pro life" stand that abortion should be generally illegal with few exceptions.

-----------

CBS News Poll:

This was taken on 2005-MAR-21 & 22. They asked 737 randomly selected American adults the question: "Which of these comes closest to your view? Abortion should be generally available to those who want it. OR, Abortion should be available, but under stricter limits than it is now. OR, Abortion should not be permitted."

Results:

37% favor stricter limits. This is a decrease of one percentage point from a similar poll on 2003-JAN.
35% favor general availability. This is a decrease of 4 percentage points.
25% favor no abortion access. This is a decrease of one percentage point.
Margin of error ±4

----------------

CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll:

This was taken on 2005-MAR-21 to 23. They asked 1,001 randomly selected American adults the question: "Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?"

Results:

55% responded sometimes legal. This is an increase of 1 percentage point from a similar poll in 1975
23% always legal; this is an increase of 2 percentage points.
20% always illegal; this is reduction of 2 percentage points.
2% uncertain.
Margin of error ±3 percentage points.

-------------

May 21, 2007 GALLUP
Public Divided on "Pro-Choice" vs. "Pro-Life" Abortion Labels

"When it comes to Americans' specific attitudes about the legality of abortion, public opinion is somewhat more conservative than its attachment to these labels [pro-choice and pro-life] would suggest. Nearly 6 in 10 Americans (58%) think abortion should either be limited to only a few circumstances or illegal in all circumstances. Just 4 in 10 (41%) think it should be legal in all or most circumstances."

Public Divided on "Pro-Choice" vs. "Pro-Life" Abortion Labels

[Dork.]

The standards are not ambiguous on purpose, they are ambiguous because it's hard to get correct. In my mind, the issue isn't whether or not the Federal Government or State Governments gets to regulate it, it's whether any government at any level has the power to tell a woman that her rights are less important than the rights of the fetus.

It's more fundamental than what is written in the constitution, it's really an philosophical and existential question: at what point is a fetus alive, with all the basic inalienable rights that all people have? As far as I can tell, the general standard is when it would be viable outside the womb -- when it could be born. Being born is so important to how we define life, legally.

You say there's nothing in the Constitution, as written, that prevents regulating abortion, but I read the same document and say that there's nothing that gives government at ant level power to regulate it. That's why an amendment is so important -- it's the only way to solve this issue once and for all.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

The standards are not ambiguous on purpose, they are ambiguous because it's hard to get correct. In my mind, the issue isn't whether or not the Federal Government or State Governments gets to regulate it, it's whether any government at any level has the power to tell a woman that her rights are less important than the rights of the fetus.

We tell people every day that their right not to be inconvenienced by another human life is less important that their right to survive. There's nothing ambiguous about that unless you are trying to contrive a scenario to lessen the rights of the living based on their location.

It's more fundamental than what is written in the constitution

At the time our founders created the Constitution, did abortion exist? Was it allowed to be strictly regulated by the states?

That's really the only thing can is necessary to decide the Constitutionality of continuing that practice unless you can argue that later amendments to the document where intended to lessen that right.

You say there's nothing in the Constitution, as written, that prevents regulating abortion, but I read the same document and say that there's nothing that gives government at ant level power to regulate it.

Our founders had specific instructions for when things where not mentioned by the Constitution (and many things where left out due to them knowing this to be the case) - you could either amend it to rule one way or another, or absent that it was a issue for the states to decide. It was never intended for the courts to legislate these issues.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

At the time our founders created the Constitution, did abortion exist?

Yes, and if history is any indicator, women *will* continue to have abortions for unwanted pregnancies, especially in cases of rape and also as a result of the stigma that our society places on unwed and underage mothers. The question here is whether or not we want them to have *safe* abortions.
History of abortion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Waragainstsleep]

The error margins on those polls seem a bit large to me for what should be fairly absolute figures.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

I've given this some thought. I believe that anytime someone wants an abortion, that the Embryo or Fetus be gently removed from the patient and the Embryo or Fetus must be treated as a human and attempt to give it life saving care.

If the Embryo or Fetus survives, then great, if not it is sad. At no time should a woman be required to carry a Embryo or Fetus for one or 40 weeks. What is wrong is the courts have allowed the murder of human life. There are plenty of people that would love to adopt these young babies but don't have the chance.

I don't think women should ever be required to carry a life form, but I am against out right murder. As I mentioned previously, if the life form survives out of the womb great, if not that's sad, but it is life.

After the woman agrees to the abortion, all knowledge of the life form and where it ended would be kept 100% secret. No one who agreed to an abortion would ever find out if the life form lived or died, or where it ended up.

I have had friends that believe that on the day of delivery, that if the mother even after 9 months and after delivery, if they are not satisfied, the baby should be killed on the delivery table. I had a hard time believing anyone could have such a low value of human life, but I also didn't believe that any woman should be required to carry a life form that she did not want. I just don't believe the life form should be terminated, it should be removed, but treated as a patient not a bug.

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

w u t

Princeton Professor Peter singer and other advocate for the right to kill handicapped newborns or newborns who have not achieved "self awareness"
William Crawley meets Peter Singer (part 1)
UK columnist Virginia Ironside

If you don't want to be in the position of have to deal with an unwanted pregnancy, don't have sex.

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Because they are forced to take equal responsibility.

Maybe coughing up a check is hardly equal responsibility.

Originally Posted by ort888 

I don't understand why babies conceived via rape and incest should get less protection. Isn't that like saying that people conceived this way have less rights? If the goal is to protect human life, then why make these exceptions?

There's a difference between a human that is born, and something that is not yet a human, and there is a difference in rights afforded to each.

Then there's the example of medical complications that will kill the mother if she carries the foetus to full term. Who's rights are more important there?

Originally Posted by Chongo 

If you don't want to be in the position of have to deal with an unwanted pregnancy, don't have sex.

You should make that into a poster and then ask if you can put it up in a rape victim counselling center.

Seriously, do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

If you don't want to have a car accident, then don't drive or travel in cars.
If you don't want your house to burn down, don't cook in it or light a candle.
If you don't want to catch a cold, don't go near people.
…

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by hayesk 

You should make that into a poster and then ask if you can put it up in a rape victim counselling center.

Seriously, do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

If you don't want to have a car accident, then don't drive or travel in cars.
If you don't want your house to burn down, don't cook in it or light a candle.
If you don't want to catch a cold, don't go near people.
…

What I want to understand is what it regularly seems to be conservatives that say stuff like this, the same conservatives who are all into personal freedom and anti nanny state and stuff like that?

[subego]

It's freedom from the Feds. State and local are a different story.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Not that I'm aware of. If it happened, it was God who made it so. Same as the quotes involving women engaged in sin getting cursed. But, I don't think that anyone here is arguing based on whatever the Bible says. Sounds kind of like a red herring to me.

You wrote:

Can women normally abort a baby by ingesting some dust?

My point was that maybe this is one of those times where one gets to play the "it is a metaphor" card when it comes to the bible?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

A woman has the right to do whatever is necessary with her body to avoid pregnancy. That is not ambiguous in the least. Pregnancy can be avoided with 100% assuredness.

Aside from getting their tubes tied, how is this done?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

It's freedom from the Feds. State and local are a different story.

Yeah, I think you're right, but I still find it a little jarring how all of the freedom rhetoric that is bandied about needs to seemingly always include the caveat "unless you are a state or local government"

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Yeah, I think you're right, but I still find it a little jarring how all of the freedom rhetoric that is bandied about needs to seemingly always include the caveat "unless you are a state or local government"

It's also "not legislating from the bench" where "legislating" = deciding what cases the 14th Amendment does or does not apply to. Also known as: the Supreme Court's job.

[aristotles]

Here is what I think, the first abortion is paid for by the state but the patient is given education about proper use of birth control. The first abortion due to rape is free and does not count towards a running total but the victim must be removed from the situation to ensure it never happens again. The second optional abortion is either free but includes a forced tubal ligation operation or it is user pay and the patient is given information about birth control. The third abortion is user pay and a forced tubal ligation.

Abortion should never ever be used casually for birth control. You are given one chance to learn how to manage your reproductive health without any consequences but after that, it is no longer free or either payment or consequences.

A man should have some recourse if a woman goes for an optional abortion against his desires. He should be allowed to have a divorce without having to pay for spousal support if no he has no children already with her. There should be some consequences involved.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

It's freedom from the Feds. State and local are a different story.

Exactly. If Cali wants abortions, then they can jut pass laws and have them. If Alabama doesn't, they can do the same. There could be a federal law to cover if the mother's life is at risk, but otherwise let the states decide.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Aside from getting their tubes tied, how is this done?

hysterectomy

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Aside from getting their tubes tied, how is this done?

Hormonal birth control pill have been listed as a carcinogen since 2002, so that leaves sterilization or abstinence.


Estrogens,Steriodal - National Toxicology Program

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by hayesk 

hysterectomy

I was kind of wanting that poster to say that if a woman doesn't want to be pregnant from rape that she have one of those procedures done in advance out of precaution.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by aristotles 

Here is what I think, the first abortion is paid for by the state but the patient is given education about proper use of birth control. The first abortion due to rape is free and does not count towards a running total but the victim must be removed from the situation to ensure it never happens again. The second optional abortion is either free but includes a forced tubal ligation operation or it is user pay and the patient is given information about birth control. The third abortion is user pay and a forced tubal ligation.

Abortion should never ever be used casually for birth control. You are given one chance to learn how to manage your reproductive health without any consequences but after that, it is no longer free or either payment or consequences.

A man should have some recourse if a woman goes for an optional abortion against his desires. He should be allowed to have a divorce without having to pay for spousal support if no he has no children already with her. There should be some consequences involved.

What if the second pregnancy comes as the result of being raped?

Let the people decide, it is not the government's business - state, local, or federal. That's my take.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Let the people decide, it is not the government's business - state, local, or federal. That's my take.

But one of the parties (or potential parties) doesn't have the power to decide.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Hormonal birth control pill have been listed as a carcinogen since 2002, so that leaves sterilization or abstinence.


Estrogens,Steriodal - National Toxicology Program

Copper IUD. One wife is using one now and it's been great. No hormones and just as effective.

[subego]

Had one of those as a womb-mate.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

But one of the parties (or potential parties) doesn't have the power to decide.

Meh. I think this debate has been around long enough for us to be able to state that everybody has their own take on when a life becomes sentient, when it is morally reprehensible to cease that life during the pregnancy process, etc. Even leaving the issue of abortion aside there is also the whole debate of quality of life. Even though adoption is an option in most cases, if that baby's parents are severe drug addicts or the mother is subject to tremendous physical abuse or something, do we really need to increase the world's population by one just because?

The whole sanctity of life thing is nonsense to me, and obviously not everyone feels the same way. I, for one, would be livid if I was told that I couldn't have an abortion by any government if I was comfortable with the reasons behind doing so.

These are our decisions to make.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Meh. I think this debate has been around long enough for us to be able to state that everybody has their own take on when a life becomes sentient, when it is morally reprehensible to cease that life during the pregnancy process, etc.

I agree, I just wanted to point out that your simple formulation isn't so simple. The whole controversy is about when life deserves protection. I agree that there is probably no universal answer, which is why I find stupendousman's call for "a consistent scientific standard" so amusing. As a compromise, even with all of its subjectivity to new medical breakthroughs, "viability" (the Court's current standard) is about as consistent a standard as you are going to get.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

These are our decisions to make.

To a point. But if a woman can't decide to have an abortion, after a few months of thinking about it, then she should just be SoL and turn to adoption. There is emergency postcoital contraception and first trimester options, that's plenty of time to decide.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Yes, and if history is any indicator, women *will* continue to have abortions for unwanted pregnancies, especially in cases of rape and also as a result of the stigma that our society places on unwed and underage mothers.

Regardless of the laws, if history is any indicator, humans *will* continue to do all sorts of immoral things. Murder, theft, fraud, etc.

I'm not sure simply explaining that a law won't stop something from happening in every case is a very compelling argument to removing the laws.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

The error margins on those polls seem a bit large to me for what should be fairly absolute figures.

IMO, the fact that most polls show much the same results goes towards the credibility of their findings.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego 

Maybe coughing up a check is hardly equal responsibility.

In many cases, that's the ONLY responsibility a mother will allow the man to be burdened with even if he would like to share more. He has no real choices in this matter and therefore is being treated to unequal protection.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Aside from getting their tubes tied, how is this done?

You don't know how babies are made?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Exactly. If Cali wants abortions, then they can jut pass laws and have them. If Alabama doesn't, they can do the same. There could be a federal law to cover if the mother's life is at risk, but otherwise let the states decide.

I think that's the only standard that can truly be argued Constitutionally with any real credibility.

Playing Devil's Advocate, ROE V. Wade may have been the best policy in regards to abortion. The problem is that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to create new policy in regards to matters not covered by the Constitution. It's up to the states to create laws regarding matters not covered, or for our representatives to draft amendments to provide protections we as a majority feel are important.

Nowhere can you find evidence that our founders intended to protect a right "endowed by our creator" to kill unborn offspring via the Constitution, or any entity that added any amendments after. It was a creation of a few people who happened to have had a left-wing agenda who got picked to be a justice. Not at all the way our founders intended for important matters to be decided on and a corruption of the system.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Regardless of the laws, if history is any indicator, humans *will* continue to do all sorts of immoral things. Murder, theft, fraud, etc.

I'm not sure simply explaining that a law won't stop something from happening in every case is a very compelling argument to removing the laws.

So you feel that the government should be in the business of outlawing morals?

I would say so but only so far as your moral choices infringe upon others. If I were to kill somebody in your family that would obviously infringe upon you, whereas my having an abortion would not.

I still don't understand this whole contradiction between conservatives wanting freedoms but being selective about which freedoms they want and what role the government should play in seeing that this is so.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

To a point. But if a woman can't decide to have an abortion, after a few months of thinking about it, then she should just be SoL and turn to adoption. There is emergency postcoital contraception and first trimester options, that's plenty of time to decide.

Why? What you are saying is that you want to government to have sovereignty over the bodies of women, in a sense.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You don't know how babies are made?

Stop dodging the question. You wrote:

Pregnancy can be avoided with 100% assuredness.

I asked how this is so. How?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The problem is that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to create new policy in regards to matters not covered by the Constitution.

You can dig your head into the sand and scream about how the Court "has no jurisdiction to create new policy" all you want, but the fact is, that by applying constitutional review to existing law the Court necessarily expands or narrows the scope of available policy. That's kind of the whole point of the enterprise. Them's the breaks, sorry.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Stop dodging the question. You wrote:



I asked how this is so. How?

Jebus, the obvious answer here is "don't have sex."

[aristotles]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Let the people decide, it is not the government's business - state, local, or federal. That's my take.

Fine, then the "people" pay for it out of their own damn pocket but if the "state" as in government is paying for it then they have a right to set limits to prevent abuse.

In the end though, government has a role some enforcing some community standards. Even if you are paying for it yourself, there should be a limit to how much you can use the medical system for the same procedure before you are just cut off your found to be irresponsible requiring the state to step in and stop your recklessness.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I still don't understand this whole contradiction between conservatives wanting freedoms but being selective about which freedoms they want and what role the government should play in seeing that this is so.

It's because freedom is complicated. And depending on your opinion (there are no facts involved here) the mother's rights might not be the only rights you are concerned with. If it is someone's opinion that even a small cluster of undifferentiated cells that might—some time in the next 9 months—become a human baby is deserving of the same right to live as all other human beings then it is completely understandable and reasonable to argue that abortion should be illegal. Obviously not everyone (including myself) agrees, but this is not an unreasonable position to hold just because many of us don't agree with it.

[lpkmckenna]

Just throwing these out there:

I think pro-choice people (and especially politicians) who don't also advocate decriminalizing drugs and prostitution are sanctimonious asshats. Either you reject gov't control over people's bodies or you don't.

I also think paternity laws should be phased out. Paternity suits are already very rare and only appeal to gold-diggers. Women should have the free choice to be parents, and so should men.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Jebus, the obvious answer here is "don't have sex."

Yes, that is the obvious answer, but the obvious counter is "what about rape"?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why? What you are saying is that you want to government to have sovereignty over the bodies of women, in a sense.

I want the Constitution to rightfully protect the life of an unborn child, that's part of it's job. At a certain point, that fetus isn't just extra tissue, it's alive, moving, and thinking.

If the woman can't make up her mind in the first trimester, tough shit. I won't cry as she heads to the adoption agency.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Just throwing these out there:

I think pro-choice people (and especially politicians) who don't also advocate decriminalizing drugs and prostitution are sanctimonious asshats. Either you reject gov't control over people's bodies or you don't.

I also think paternity laws should be phased out. Paternity suits are already very rare and only appeal to gold-diggers. Women should have the free choice to be parents, and so should men.

Agreed. However, I'm iffy about decriminalizing certain kinds of drugs (namely addictive hallucinogens) if there is evidence that certain kinds can infringe upon me. Pot and any other drugs that don't have a history of making people do crazy things should be decriminalized, and I'm even fine with people taking whatever drugs they want in their private areas so long as they don't get in a car and go out and find me.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I want the Constitution to rightfully protect the life of an unborn child, that's part of it's job. At a certain point, that fetus isn't just extra tissue, it's alive, moving, and thinking.

If the woman can't make up her mind in the first trimester, tough shit. I won't cry as she heads to the adoption agency.

As long as it is inside the woman it is in the jurisdiction of that women in my books, not the government.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Yes, that is the obvious answer, but the obvious counter is "what about rape"?

Go to the doctor and get emergency contraception (if they don't already have it)?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

As long as it is inside the woman it is in the jurisdiction of that women in my books, not the government.

F**k that. Three months is enough time for anyone.