Roe vs. Wade II

[blueapplepaste]

How many pro-abortion folks have read and can defend the court's conclusions in Roe v. Wade?

After all, the non-existent "Right to Privacy" was created by Justice William O. Douglas' bizarre "emanations from penumbras" -




Link

Emphasis mine.

Ok, not to go OT, but I don't think that one single person is "pro-abortion." People are pro-choice, meaning they believe that the government has no right to tell a woman what to do with their body. And it's safe to assume that those from both sides (even the pro-choicers) want to see the abortion rate go down.

But the way to do this isn't by outlawing abortions, it's through education. Emphasize abstinence and monogamy, however we need to be realistic and realize that people are going to have sex and teach about proper and safe birth control. Scare tactics and making abortions illegal won't do a damn thing to curb the abortion rates.

 

[Woodsy]

Ok, not to go OT, but I don't think that one single person is "pro-abortion." People are pro-choice, meaning they believe that the government has no right to tell a woman what to do with their body. And it's safe to assume that those from both sides (even the pro-choicers) want to see the abortion rate go down.

1.) The unborn child is genetically distinct from the mother, it even frequently has a different bloodtype. It's not part of a woman's body.
2.) Even if you somehow, contrary to biology and common sense, insist that a prebirth child is part of a woman's body, you must see that every time you put on a seatbelt you are acknowledging that the government, for the greater good, is actually able to tell us what to do with our bodies. The government tells us also that we are not allowed to ingest certain substances and that we are only allowed to ingest others after a certain age.

But the way to do this isn't by outlawing abortions, it's through education. Emphasize abstinence and monogamy, however we need to be realistic and realize that people are going to have sex and teach about proper and safe birth control. Scare tactics and making abortions illegal won't do a damn thing to curb the abortion rates.

So, I assume that you are consistent in your philosophy and must therefore conclude that the way to do away with rape is not by having laws against it; the way to do away with rape is through sensitivity training. After all, using scare tactics against rapists won't make the incidence of rapes decline.
Indeed, your line of reasoning indicates that we should not be unrealistic - we need to just accept that some people will rape others anyway, so making rape illegal won't do a dang thing to curb the rape rates.


If a society doesn't recognize that killing innocent humans is intrinsically wrong, it has no soul.


P.S. - for those who have trouble discerning such things, I do not in any way advocate, suggest, or support the decriminalization of rape or sexual assault in any form.

 

[arnegrim]

And it's safe to assume that those from both sides (even the pro-choicers) want to see the abortion rate go down.

But the way to do this isn't by outlawing abortions, it's through education. Emphasize abstinence and monogamy, however we need to be realistic and realize that people are going to have sex and teach about proper and safe birth control. Scare tactics and making abortions illegal won't do a damn thing to curb the abortion rates.

If that is the case, why not make the laws so that it 'discourages' abortion as birth control? Exceptions to the law can be made for the mothers safety as well as incest and rape...

 

[nvxplorer]

Roe was ambiguous on prenatal personhood. On the opposite side, the Unborn Vicitims of Violence Act and many state laws are very specific about prenatal personhood. If you kill a fetus while commiting a federal offense you are guilty of a second murder. The unborn are given equivalent 14th amendment protection to the mother. Sorry, it's the law.

How does declaring the unborn "human beings" violate biology? It is because of biology that such a declaration is made. Please tell me what biology textbook you are reading that describes the unborn at any stage in development as anything other than unique living members of the species homo sapiens.

Once you have done that, show me where God says that the unborn aren't human beings.

God doesn’t say the unborn aren’t human, but Exodus 21:22-25 clearly states that the unborn and the woman are not equals. This passage contradicts the law you cite. In God’s eyes, killing the unborn in the commission of a crime is not murder. If it were, the penalty would be life for life, but it is not.

 

[humuhumunukunukuapua'a]

My definition of a human being, is a being which is viable outside the womb.

Ok everybody we can go home now. Argument settled. Human being has just been defined, someone better go change the wikipedia entry.

 

[humuhumunukunukuapua'a]

Oh for the love of blue blazes. Any fertilized egg of any mammal, fish or reptile is genetically distinct. When we eat a fertilized egg of a chicken, we don't call it a chicken, do we? And don't try to slide out of this by telling me that the eggs we eat are dead. Then do we call it a dead chicken?

What has "genetically distinct" to do with the difference between a fetus which is a potential human being, and a human being that has actualized that potential?

Not fair taking away my chance to used the dead argument...

 

[Prawnik]

Emphasis mine.

Ok, not to go OT, but I don't think that one single person is "pro-abortion." People are pro-choice, meaning they believe that the government has no right to tell a woman what to do with their body. And it's safe to assume that those from both sides (even the pro-choicers) want to see the abortion rate go down.

Nonsense. Abortion mills such as Planned Parenthood have quotas of abortions to be performed each month. If a pregnant woman asks for counselling there, the "counselling" she will receive is for an abortion.

Besides the obvious money-making aspect of abortion (and exterminators are quite well-provided for), there is the political aspect. Planned Parenthood logic is as follows: a woman who has had an abortion is much more likely to defend that decision to the end, to rationalize, rationalize, rationalize, and to vote in accordance with her rationalizations.

To speak of rationalizing, Angela's attempts to create a new category of "potential" persons is a pretty transparent attempt at re-defining humanity in order protect the practice of abortion.

After all, a person on life-support isn't terribly "viable", and some people will be on life support (or dialysis) for the rest of their lives. Noone calls them "potential" persons, even if they were born that way. A newborn doesn't have much of a life expectancy without care, but who will justify infanticide? Oh, wait, it's already begun! Just Google up "Peter Singer" if you do not believe me, and read the adulatory press coverage this psychopath receives.

The slippery slope is real, folks.

 

[Asimov]

What do you think?

It's just one fight in a long fight against women's procreative rights.

 

[Asimov]

The slippery slope is real, folks.

If by real, you mean imaginative, then yes.

 

[k]

Sorry - the law and biology disagree.

So pro-life people who use the Rythm Method or any contraception are not really pro-life, just anti-abortion?

 

[nvxplorer]

To speak of rationalizing, Angela's attempts to create a new category of "potential" persons is a pretty transparent attempt at re-defining humanity in order protect the practice of abortion.

After all, a person on life-support isn't terribly "viable", and some people will be on life support (or dialysis) for the rest of their lives. Noone calls them "potential" persons, even if they were born that way. A newborn doesn't have much of a life expectancy without care, but who will justify infanticide? Oh, wait, it's already begun! Just Google up "Peter Singer" if you do not believe me, and read the adulatory press coverage this psychopath receives.

As a matter of biology, before a certain point of development, the zygote/embryo/fetus is fully dependent on the mother’s body. Much like your finger will die if amputated, the unborn at this stage of development will die as well. This is why it can be viewed as a potential human. The definition of when the unborn become fully human is difficult to pin down. It is basically a matter of opinion. Genetic uniqueness is one argument, but identical twins are genetically identical but still individuals. At the earliest stages, an embryo is nothing more than a clump of cells. No heart, no brain, no organs at all. These cells will further divide and become a human body. This is the definition of potentiality. You may hold to your opinion that such potentiality is a person, and should be legally treated as such, but it is still a matter of potential.

The life support argument is a non sequitur. If life support required the commission of one’s bodily functions, then it would be valid. The woman’s rights are at issue here as well. If we develop technology which allows the pre-viable embryo/fetus to be brought to “term,” then perhaps there would be an argument for doing so. Until then, the unborn is fully and directly dependent on the mother’s body.

 

[gengwall]

OK, I'm back. Don't have much to say though.

burrow_owl, I am sure you are familiar with the other statements regarding personhood in Roe. But we should continue in Law and Legal Systems: South Dakota makes abortion illegal...

angela 2, I had dead chicken embryo for breakfast yesterday. It was quite good. I'll have to try it with blue blazes sauce. None of that will change the fact that biologically it was a chicken, albiet at a particularly early, and tasty, point of development.

blueapplepaste and Domi_Adsum_05, you should join us here: Abortion - can there ever be peace?

Anybody want to talk about the potential political fallout and impact on the '06 and '08 elections this and other laws like it might have? I know that is a lot to ask in a General Political Discussion Forum, but I thought I'd give it a try.

(p.s. Neverstop - you still crack me up)

 

[k]

(p.s. Neverstop - you still crack me up)

Good!

 

[angela 2]

Nonsense. Abortion mills such as Planned Parenthood have quotas of abortions to be performed each month. If a pregnant woman asks for counselling there, the "counselling" she will receive is for an abortion.

Besides the obvious money-making aspect of abortion (and exterminators are quite well-provided for), there is the political aspect. Planned Parenthood logic is as follows: a woman who has had an abortion is much more likely to defend that decision to the end, to rationalize, rationalize, rationalize, and to vote in accordance with her rationalizations.

Do you have any unbiased evidence for these claims?

After all, a person on life-support isn't terribly "viable", and some people will be on life support (or dialysis) for the rest of their lives. Noone calls them "potential" persons, even if they were born that way. A newborn doesn't have much of a life expectancy without care, but who will justify infanticide?

In all the examples you give above, the individual is viable outside the womb. If they need medical assistance to remain alive, that fact is beside the point.

 

[angela 2]

angela 2, I had dead chicken embryo for breakfast yesterday. It was quite good. I'll have to try it with blue blazes sauce. None of that will change the fact that biologically it was a chicken, albiet at a particularly early, and tasty, point of development.

Do other anti-abortion people have difficulty distinguishing between an egg and a chicken? Is that inability a genetic characteristic that you all share?

 

[k]

Do other anti-abortion people have difficulty distinguishing between an egg and a chicken? Is that inability a genetic characteristic that you all share?

C'mon, that wasn't nice or necessary.

 

[gengwall]

Do you have any unbiased evidence for these claims?

In all the examples you give above, the individual is viable outside the womb. If they need medical assistance to remain alive, that fact is beside the point.

viability outside the womb is your definition angela. It is not an objective biological definition of a human being.

 

[k]

viability outside the womb is your definition angela. It is not an objective biological definition of a human being.

To me, any and all definitions concerning a "person" or "human" are completely irrelevent because it is still inside the woman's body.

There is absolutely nothing in a man comparable to pregnancy and I have NO doubt if men could get pregnant as well the "abortion" debate would be non-existent.

 

[gengwall]

To me, any and all definitions concerning a "person" or "human" are completely irrelevent because it is still inside the woman's body.

There is absolutely nothing in a man comparable to pregnancy and I have NO doubt if men could get pregnant as well the "abortion" debate would be non-existent.

This is a very good point and possibly the only valid reasoning to justify what we on the pro-life side consider a homicide. The reality is that pregnancy is a very unique human condition that differs significantly from any other homicide (and personhood) scenarios. Sure, we can draw some parallels about people who kill under stress and are still guilty, and we can argue against justifications by pointing out similar post birth situations that are not justifiable, but the comparisons go only so far. So I could envision (even though I'm not there personally), legal and even moral reasoning why the state of pregnancy is so unique it requires a completely different way of thinking about homicide. Of course, to even begin that discussion, I would require an acknowledgement that it is homicide. The pro-choice camp, despite the winds of change, seems very unwilling to go there (I know there are very significant strategic reasons for even that.)

 

[k]

This is a very good point and possibly the only valid reasoning to justify what we on the pro-life side consider a homicide. The reality is that pregnancy is a very unique human condition that differs significantly from any other homicide (and personhood) scenarios. Sure, we can draw some parallels about people who kill under stress and are still guilty, and we can argue against justifications by pointing out similar post birth situations that are not justifiable, but the comparisons go only so far. So I could envision (even though I'm not there personally), legal and even moral reasoning why the state of pregnancy is so unique it requires a completely different way of thinking about homicide. Of course, to even begin that discussion, I would require an acknowledgement that it is homicide. The pro-choice camp, despite the winds of change, seems very unwilling to go there (I know there are very significant strategic reasons for even that.)

I have NO problem admitting the grotesque reality of what abortion is: to end a human life before it can even begin living.

However, and this is the challenging part, I must respect the boundaries as they have been handed down by God. I know I know...VERY loaded statement.

Let me try to explain: God could have created us so both sexes could get pregnant and God could have created us to lay eggs, which would ultimately and infinitely complicate the abortion debate. For whatever reasons, God made pro-creation as we know it to be. Within that structure I am extremely humbled and limited by the fact I can NEVER know what it is like to be impregnated, carry, and deliver a baby into this world. In the same stretch, I am wholly unable to know what it is like to choose to end a life, and all that accompanies such a wrenching decision.

Because less than half of our population is strictly forbidden from walking in women's shoes (well, except for some Hoover people ) we must respect womens' inherent, and even God given, ability to decide what is done with her pregnancy.

While I would never support anti-abortion legislature I do oppose the practice of abortion, but my reasons and extrapolations do not trump the boundaries of bodily respect we should have for one another.

What a woman does w/ her body is STRICTLY between her and her God.