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.
Liberty is the right to choose. Freedom is the result of the right choice. If you take away the liberty to choose you also limit the freedom that comes from making the right choice.
Quote:
"It is error alone that needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself."
Thomas Jefferson
2. Tax money doesn't go to pay for abortions in the US. Ever heard of the Hyde Amendment?
Not directly, but every tax dollar that goes to Planned Parenthood and the like is another dollar they can afford to spend from other sources on abortions.
In previous posts, I have offered many examples of the government telling us what we can and cannot do with our bodies, from drug use to motorcycle helmets. Why is abortion different? Don't say it's federal law, either, because marijuana has been "legalized" in two states recently in direct violation of federal drug laws. The Defense of Marriage Act is federal law, yet many states have legalized same-sex marriages. What is so magical about the topic of abortion that it generates so much hatred for people who don't agree with it?
After reading back through many of the posts, I cannot help but get the feeling that regardless of the issue, there is much hatred for Mississippi out there.
In previous posts, I have offered many examples of the government telling us what we can and cannot do with our bodies, from drug use to motorcycle helmets. Why is abortion different?
From a legal standpoint, it's different because you cannot compel one person to give of their tissue, blood, etc. to sustain another person. We might think it the more moral choice, but we cannot compel them. From McFall v. Shimp, No. 78-177711 (July 26, 1978), 10th Pennsylvania District, Allegheny County:
Quote:
Originally Posted by the Court
The Plaintiff, Robert McFall, suffers from a rare bone marrow disease and the prognosis for his survival is very dim, unless he receives a bone marrow transplant from a compatible donor... After a search and certain tests, it has been determined that only the Defendant [David Shimp, a first cousin to 39-year-old McFall] is suitable as a donor. The Defendant refuses to submit to the necessary transplant, and the before the Court is a request for a preliminary injunction which seeks to compel the defendant to submit to further tests, and, eventually, the bone marrow transplant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the Court
In preserving such a society as we have it is bound to happen that great moral conflicts will arise and will appear harsh in a given instance. In this case, the chancellor is being asked to force one member of society to undergo a medical procedure which would provide that part of that individual’s body would be removed from him and given to another so that the other could live.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the Court
For our law to compel the defendant to submit to an intrusion of his body would change the very concept and principle upon which our society is founded. To do so would defeat the sanctity of the individual, and would impose a rule which would know no limits, and one could not imagine where the line would be drawn.
Similarly, in the case of a pregnant woman, we cannot compel her to incubate the fetus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by p-squared
What is so magical about the topic of abortion that it generates so much hatred for people who don't agree with it?
Forgive me as I have not read back through the whole thread to see who is hating on who, but one thing I find a woman gets angry about is having other people trying to make a medical decision for her; one which should rightly be between her and her doctor (and partner if she has one). This speaks directly to having sovereignty over one's own body.
Another thing people get angry about is if another person is saying "you shouldn't do this because my religion says it's bad". Whether we like it or not, another person's relationship (or lack therof) with God is private and we don't get to tell them what to do about it. It's not our business.
Similarly, in the case of a pregnant woman, we cannot compel her to incubate the fetus.
Forgive me as I have not read back through the whole thread to see who is hating on who, but one thing I find a woman gets angry about is having other people trying to make a medical decision for her; one which should rightly be between her and her doctor (and partner if she has one). This speaks directly to having sovereignty over one's own body.
Another thing people get angry about is if another person is saying "you shouldn't do this because my religion says it's bad". Whether we like it or not, another person's relationship (or lack therof) with God is private and we don't get to tell them what to do about it. It's not our business.
I follow your logic and I can see how you might consider these similar, but consider this: getting pregnant is (overwhelmingly) the result of a concious decision and a specific behavior. To say that the woman is the innocent party and some unreasonable demand is being placed on her by a baby through no fault of her own is a non sequitor. My real opposition is that the baby is dehumanized and placed into the category of a medical condition or affliction that can be cured by swallowing a pill or minor surgery. Sort of like eggs and ham: a day's work for a chicken, a life's work for the pig.
The best medical example I could think of for a medical example that we do not have sovereignty over our bodies for is organs. Why can't I sell a kidney to someone who wants to buy it, or a lung, or an eye? It's my body, and my right to privacy, if applied as it is on the topic of abortion, means I should be able to? No religion there, just legal inconsistency. I don't see NOW and NARAL getting all stoked about protesting against legal limitations on organ sales.
I understand the resistance to religion, but too many people associate strong faith with low intelligence or lack of culture. What they fail to remember is that the core of our legal system they proclaim to love and hold in such high esteem is based on religious ethics, and expressions of faith can be found all over our founding documents. Without that foundation, people would simply have done what they wanted, and our society would not be as developed as it is.
I know I can't change any minds on the matter, I just grow tired of people, especially outsiders, who want to dump on Mississippi because they don't agree with how we do things here.
I agree we cannot compel one person to give up their tissue, organs, etc. to sustain another. Perhaps that is why I do not agree with the entire concept of abortion. Why should a baby be forced to give up his/her life in order to further the immediate plans of the mother? No one I know has been pregnant for much longer than nine months. No baby who was aborted that I know of has come back to life ever. Hardly a fair trade.
When abortion is outlawed and we no longer permit murder as a family planning precept - we will have to do a better job of assisting women who are unwillingly pregnant for whatever reason. I strongly disagree that all women have intercourse because they just want to. There are a lot of different levels of influence operating and many women have children without ever once consenting to sex in the sense that most of us consider consent. Counseling centers, shelters, all kinds of pre-birth health services and a strong and well-organized adoption and fostering system has to be in place. Strangely Mississippi, which many consider so hopelessly backward, stands somewhere in the middle with these services. Even in the delta (Cleveland and Gville) there is a good service for women who are afraid for the future and unsure what to do. They don't offer abortions, they offer hope, and if a woman does decide to use the Jackson clinic they provide simple contact info and wish them well and are there for them in case they suffer the regret which often comes. If the woman does go ahead and deliver these services are there 100% for them for quite a period of time.
Other parts of the state also have these services. I think it behooves all of us who despise the idea of simply ' getting rid of "it" ' to find out what is available in our area and promote and support it. Many women end up aborting simply because they don't see any other way to handle the situation.
I agree we cannot compel one person to give up their tissue, organs, etc. to sustain another. Perhaps that is why I do not agree with the entire concept of abortion. Why should a baby be forced to give up his/her life in order to further the immediate plans of the mother? No one I know has been pregnant for much longer than nine months. No baby who was aborted that I know of has come back to life ever. Hardly a fair trade.
When abortion is outlawed and we no longer permit murder as a family planning precept - we will have to do a better job of assisting women who are unwillingly pregnant for whatever reason. I strongly disagree that all women have intercourse because they just want to. There are a lot of different levels of influence operating and many women have children without ever once consenting to sex in the sense that most of us consider consent. Counseling centers, shelters, all kinds of pre-birth health services and a strong and well-organized adoption and fostering system has to be in place. Strangely Mississippi, which many consider so hopelessly backward, stands somewhere in the middle with these services. Even in the delta (Cleveland and Gville) there is a good service for women who are afraid for the future and unsure what to do. They don't offer abortions, they offer hope, and if a woman does decide to use the Jackson clinic they provide simple contact info and wish them well and are there for them in case they suffer the regret which often comes. If the woman does go ahead and deliver these services are there 100% for them for quite a period of time.
Other parts of the state also have these services. I think it behooves all of us who despise the idea of simply ' getting rid of "it" ' to find out what is available in our area and promote and support it. Many women end up aborting simply because they don't see any other way to handle the situation.
These state services you mention seem to work wonders for the women and children of Mississippi.
baby through no fault of her own is a non sequitor. My real opposition is that the baby is dehumanized and placed into the category of a medical condition or affliction that can be cured by swallowing a pill or minor surgery.
As I understand it, this is why the Supreme Court said that restrictions could be placed on abortion past 24 weeks (forgive me if that is not exact). Because after the point of viability, this is a case of two people within one body; if you separate them it is likely that they both will live.
I agree that a lot of people speak in extremes on either side. Of course a pregnancy is human; it's not a unicorn or an asteroid. Embyros and zygotes are human things. The rub comes in when we judge this to be a person. Some people say at the moment of conception. Some say after viability. Some say when at birth when the newborn draws its first breath. This is basically (to me) what people are arguing about.
Quote:
The best medical example I could think of for a medical example that we do not have sovereignty over our bodies for is organs. Why can't I sell a kidney to someone who wants to buy it, or a lung, or an eye? It's my body, and my right to privacy, if applied as it is on the topic of abortion, means I should be able to? No religion there, just legal inconsistency. I don't see NOW and NARAL getting all stoked about protesting against legal limitations on organ sales.
Well, they might, if they weren't having to fight for repro rights all the time. Regarding organ donation - I'm not educated on why it is that we can't sell body parts on the open market, so I can't speak to that. We do have the right to donate, though.
Quote:
What they fail to remember is that the core of our legal system they proclaim to love and hold in such high esteem is based on religious ethics, and expressions of faith can be found all over our founding documents. Without that foundation, people would simply have done what they wanted, and our society would not be as developed as it is.
I've seen that argued up, down, and around, and I'm not convinced that our legal system is based on religious ethics. I'm not sure that's germane to abortion rights though.
Quote:
I just grow tired of people, especially outsiders, who want to dump on Mississippi because they don't agree with how we do things here.
Amen! I think we will do a lot better if we actually have reasonable discussions of things and come to mutual decisions.
I agree we cannot compel one person to give up their tissue, organs, etc. to sustain another. Perhaps that is why I do not agree with the entire concept of abortion. Why should a baby be forced to give up his/her life in order to further the immediate plans of the mother? No one I know has been pregnant for much longer than nine months.
Some would say that obtaining an abortion in the first trimester is stopping the process before there *is* a baby. That, again, is that whole personhood argument which I'd really rather not get in to. But also there are some women who have debilitating pregnancies, or could die from pregnancy. Perhaps rare but they do exist.
Quote:
When abortion is outlawed
Even if abortion is outlawed, that won't stop women from obtaining abortions. Just like drunk driving - we have laws which say it's illegal, yet people drive drunk everyday. Also, there are those life-threatening situations when an abortion is necessary to save a woman's life. A friend of mine had to go through that.
Quote:
- we will have to do a better job of assisting women who are unwillingly pregnant for whatever reason. I strongly disagree that all women have intercourse because they just want to. There are a lot of different levels of influence operating and many women have children without ever once consenting to sex in the sense that most of us consider consent. Counseling centers, shelters, all kinds of pre-birth health services and a strong and well-organized adoption and fostering system has to be in place.
I agree with you about this. I do think more women would not choose abortion if they had more social services to support them. I'd add to it comprehensive sex education for everybody. It has been demonstrated in other countries that access to contraception and a thorough education in human reproduction drastically reduces the rate of abortion. It seems to me that it needs to remain legal so that it's safe; but we can do a lot of things to reduce the necessity of it.
So just because a place has a high teen pregnancy rate means it should have more abortion clinics? C'mon, tackle the source of the problem. Don't resort to forgiving teen pregnancy by terminating pregnancies.
They also oppose sex education in the schools and they won't teach anything about sex at home either.
Honestly, I was surprised Mississippi hasn't outlawed abortion yet, and Alabama has.
Alabama has not and can not. US Supreme Court said abortion may not be outlawed. If Roe vs Wade is ever overturned, THEN Alabama may allow or disallow abortion as they wish.
What they have done is make it very, very difficult; same as Mississippi.
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.
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.
Embyros and zygotes are human things. The rub comes in when we judge this to be a person. Some people say at the moment of conception. Some say after viability. Some say when at birth when the newborn draws its first breath. This is basically (to me) what people are arguing about. 
Regarding organ donation - I'm not educated on why it is that we can't sell body parts on the open market, so I can't speak to that. We do have the right to donate, though. 
