U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-19-2008, 09:53 PM
 
743 posts, read 1,151,525 times
Reputation: 174

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by kaykay View Post
Well, I think the reason this is such a flashpoint, devisive issue in our society is because abortion is somewhat unique from other things. From the "pro-life" standpoint, unlike with other issues, it doesn't only involve another individual, but also a second individual's life, a life who doesn't have a voice or a "choice" in the matter. This is why, I think, it's tough to relegate the issue of abortion to just a "live and let live" kind of philosophy. It involves, at least in the minds of many, a procedure that far supercedes just an individual's personal morality and decision. It involves a third party's life.
But, you admit it's a moral issue. It would be absurd to suggest that we completely ban contraception, no? So, where do we draw the line? Vasectomy? The pill? Condoms? IUD? Morning after pill? Abortion? At some point you are either likely, or inevitably stopping a life, but which of these can you consider taking a life? Now the hard part, once you've drawn the line, how do you convince someone with a different belief system that they should not only follow your beliefs, but do it or face legal consequences?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-19-2008, 10:02 PM
 
Location: Texas
8,668 posts, read 19,914,691 times
Reputation: 21277
Quote:
Originally Posted by jest721 View Post
But, you admit it's a moral issue. It would be absurd to suggest that we completely ban contraception, no? So, where do we draw the line? Vasectomy? The pill? Condoms? IUD? Morning after pill? Abortion? At some point you are either likely, or inevitably stopping a life, but which of these can you consider taking a life? Now the hard part, once you've drawn the line, how do you convince someone with a different belief system that they should not only follow your beliefs, but do it or face legal consequences?
You ask some reasonable questions....
Roe v.Wade didn't end the matter because a substantial number of people in our society still disagree with it,... and consider the issue significant enough to mount an argument...and legal challenges at whatever level available.

I think about the issue of slavery in our country. It wasn't, at least according to my 8th grade American History teacher, the sole reason for the Civil War, but it was a significant part of it. You could argue that as a personal moral issue too. Again, when a significant enough part of society deems something to be immoral, there WILL continue to be public discourse on it. Obviously, the sitting Supreme Court justices will weigh in as they did in Roe, but some legal scholars believe that Roe "made" law rather than simply "interpreting" it.

So I guess the answer to your question is that these issues will continue to be hammered out in the public arena and in the courts as long as again, a substantial amount of society is in disagreement with the prevailing law.

Last edited by kaykay; 09-19-2008 at 11:08 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-20-2008, 05:27 AM
 
19,183 posts, read 27,737,865 times
Reputation: 4000
A few selected thoughts...

For the legal-minded, how does the situation of an unwanted pregnancy stack up against the laws of trespass? If an intruder were to enter unbidden into the personal domain of my home and credibly threaten me with grave bodily harm up to and including the quite real possibility of death, I would have the right in most states to use as much as lethal force to protect myself from that intruder. Is the unwanted and otherwise comparable occupation of the personal domain of one's uterus a different matter?

Assuming a lack of biological compromise, an average woman might be expected to conceive and potentially bear as many as 20 children over her reproductive lifetime. Perhaps a few more in some cases. Is it the case that women are compelled to that biological potential or may they take steps at their individual discretion to limit it? If they may take such steps, are reasons of convenience to be seen as a sufficient and legitimate cause for them?

The right protected in Roe v Wade is not the right to an abortion per se (that is ancillary), but rather the right not to be pregnant. Under the decision, the state may not (except in valid protection of a legitimate state interest) either compel a woman to become pregnant or to continue to be pregnant against her wishes. It is an issue of personal autonomy versus state control.

Fetuses are not toddlers with the zoom-factor set to two percent. In terms of physcial structure, a toddler would have more in common with a comparably aged chimpanzee than it would with a fetus. Particularly over the time periods in which abortions are typcially elected, fetuses are incredibly primitive structures with capacities that are less than on a par with those exhibited by other primitive life forms.

What is the source of fetal rights, and what in particular elevates those rights to the level of super-rights, capable of trumping every right that the woman involved would have continuously enjoyed in herself up to the moment of conception? Are there comparable situations in which the established personal rights of any individual are automatically made wholey subservient to the rights of any other individual?

The concept of a soul is a religious one. There is no natural evidence for the existence of any, and hence no natural reason to believe that these in fact exist. In this country, matters of religion are also wrapped up in the concept of personal autonomy. None may be compelled by the state into any belief, nor may they be kept from them. Matters of religion are not germane to this argument, except as the argument may in fact be a personal one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-20-2008, 01:27 PM
 
Location: State of Being
35,885 posts, read 65,253,264 times
Reputation: 22270
Saganista: a very measured post and quite sensible in all you outlined.

I would like to take things one step further. If we allow any segment of society to decide what will and won't be allowed as far as biological and reproductive rights . . . then we are on a slippery slope that can lead to such things as the state dictating that one MUST have an abortion to limit the number of children each family is allowed to have.

Abortion must remain in the realm of a medical procedure requested by the mother, NOT a subject that involves the rights of the unborn, b/c once we start deciding who has the right to live and who does not, we have established public policy . . . we have completely changed the playing field. At that point, it would not only be religious reasons that could deny a woman the right to have an abortion - Societal issues, such as overpopulation and concern for the distribution of resources, could be the reason (and public policy) that would COMPEL women to have an abortion.

If that seems shocking or impossible to fathom, take a look at China and how their public policy evolved.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-20-2008, 06:00 PM
 
743 posts, read 1,151,525 times
Reputation: 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaykay View Post
You ask some reasonable questions....
Roe v.Wade didn't end the matter because a substantial number of people in our society still disagree with it,... and consider the issue significant enough to mount an argument...and legal challenges at whatever level available.

I think about the issue of slavery in our country. It wasn't, at least according to my 8th grade American History teacher, the sole reason for the Civil War, but it was a significant part of it. You could argue that as a personal moral issue too. Again, when a significant enough part of society deems something to be immoral, there WILL continue to be public discourse on it. Obviously, the sitting Supreme Court justices will weigh in as they did in Roe, but some legal scholars believe that Roe "made" law rather than simply "interpreting" it.

So I guess the answer to your question is that these issues will continue to be hammered out in the public arena and in the courts as long as again, a substantial amount of society is in disagreement with the prevailing law.
Ahhh, the beauty of the American system. We can change our minds and adapt our laws. Simply beautiful.
I have read the full decision, and I find the court's reasoning sound. On the other hand, the overturn of the DC gun ban was full of holes, and I am a gun owner.
It will be interesting to see how the two abortion sides continue to debate, but I think we are going to be in a stalemate for some time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-20-2008, 07:23 PM
 
Location: Texas
8,668 posts, read 19,914,691 times
Reputation: 21277
Quote:
Originally Posted by jest721 View Post
It will be interesting to see how the two abortion sides continue to debate, but I think we are going to be in a stalemate for some time.
Yep, I think that seems likely.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2008, 12:05 AM
 
Location: Not where you ever lived
11,544 posts, read 25,075,396 times
Reputation: 6183
I believe if we openly talk about abortion long enough those with differing opinions can eventually come to a meeting of minds. I think we all have to give a little bit to achieve this goal. Inflamed passions left unchecked turns civil debate into something ugly and devisive. If I could have two wishes it would be [1] to keep this thread active until every voice is heard and [2] to keep the abortion debate out of the hands of old men in positions of power,
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2008, 06:49 AM
 
19,183 posts, read 27,737,865 times
Reputation: 4000
Quote:
Originally Posted by southernmeltdown View Post
To be honest i WAS pro choice as was my wife until we went to her sonogram at 4 weeks and saw the baby's heart beating then we realized this isn't a blob this is our kid and it is alive...a very happy moment....
To be honest, sonograms are rarely performed as early as four weeks, and then typically for the purpose of confirming that the pregnancy exists and that it is safely intrauterine and not ectopic. At four weeks, an embryo (not yet a fetus) is less than a quarter-inch long and none of its structure can be detected or differentiated via sonogram. An embryo at four weeks does have a heart, but it is located where the mouth eventually will be and it performs no circulatory function at all.

This post is a) fabricated, and b) an example of the illusion that a fetus (or embryo) is simply a toddler with the zoom factor set very low.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-27-2008, 08:18 AM
 
12,842 posts, read 24,473,188 times
Reputation: 18835
To use biologically correct (but unsentimental) language, the fetus/embryo has a parasitic relationship with the woman's body until, at VERY least, 24 weeks. It cannot survive without living off of the woman's body. I believe current trimester guidelines about abortions reflect this one-way relationship. The woman is not just some carrier.
And as others have asked, what about IUDs? Or birth control pills, or anything that stops a fertlized egg from implanting?
Yes, it's a stalemate. And I wish it would be out of the political sphere and be a moral issue between a woman, her doctor and her god, if she has one.
I honestly believe that the vast majority of people who are vehemently against abortion *for other people* actually hate that women are sexually free, that woman can "play and not pay." I've heard more than a few supposedly anti-choice people talk about "women who **** around and then just have an abortion for birth control" etc. etc. They draw a blank when I ask if they'd support panels of judges to evaluate each woman's situation and see if she "deserves" an abortion by virtue of infrequent sex or contraceptive failure or rape or whatever.
Their eyes glaze over. They just can't stand that women have sex against someone's permission.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-27-2008, 02:45 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
7,091 posts, read 10,487,344 times
Reputation: 4104
I can only speak for my own family. However, some one came out and told us how to plan our family and that we could not have contraceptives...they should bear some of the responsibility and cost of that child. If they told us we had to keep the baby when we wanted an abortion, they should do the same. I don't agree with abortion, but it's other peoples families are their choice.

The people who should make that choice about their families future should be the ones who have to bear the time, cost, and choices associated with it. It's easy as hell to think what's morally acceptable to one person, but not as easy when you're spending 18 years taking care of that choice.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top