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.
Let's go with Gldn's premise that a pregnant woman should be held responsible for the welfare of that new little 'human'.
I think most agree that if someone has no intention or ability to care for a born child, turning it over to someone that can and will do so is a good choice.
So, as soon as science can provide a way to transplant a fetus into the womb of a willing woman perhaps then abortion can be deemed wrong.
And those so choosing can still be considered as loving and caring as those that carry to term.
If the situation isn't in balance in a woman's body then a natural abortion is done, some people say it is God's will or by the bodies own natural knowledge of a disablement, it's called a miscarriage.
So, if the balance isn't right for a fetus to continue within the first trimester outside of the womb a woman will abort. It's not that different, the fetus is terminated.
We don't die naturally anymore in many ways. If you were to stop interfering in the natural processes of life and death then you would have quite a job in front of you. Morality doesn't swing in only one direction. War is immoral to some, giving organ and blood donations, saving a fetus through medical intervention is intervening.
For people with a list of rules from a God it can and does get confusing, I understand that. You can send your child off to fight and kill or die in a war but yet you are against abortion. You can refuse food, spank, hit, or confine your child but yet you are against gay parents who might never spank their child.
You have a "set" of rules.
You can praise an offer of a child as a sacrifice to a God but cannot terminate a pregnancy. This is why you make no sense to others without the influence of those set of rules. If I don't believe in those rules you make no sense to me.
Now, there are people against abortion personally, even atheist. They have their own "set" of rules and they live by them. But, it's individual. It has to be in this country, other laws will follow if it isn't. Like the gun laws for example, it would be hard pressed to allow everyone to own a weapon yet ban abortion, etc. Think about it.
Let's go with Gldn's premise that a pregnant woman should be held responsible for the welfare of that new little 'human'.
I think most agree that if someone has no intention or ability to care for a born child, turning it over to someone that can and will do so is a good choice.
So, as soon as science can provide a way to transplant a fetus into the womb of a willing woman perhaps then abortion can be deemed wrong.
And those so choosing can still be considered as loving and caring as those that carry to term.
Aw, yes, but eventually some group would have an issue with that as well. Different set of rules. lol
Yes, relative to current law, in the United States...it's legal.
Majority Rules in the US legal system...so, that 7-2 vote in favor of Norma McCorvey (aka Jane Roe) by the S. Court in 1973 is the Rule of Law. Thus...since then...in the U.S...abortion is legal.
OTOH...I don't necessarily consider a less than 40 year old legal ruling by 7 people, in one particular jurisdiction, to be the "end all and be all" of what "the law" is. I don't see a few people agreeing to something creating the objective and definitive determination of what is "true and just".
Some other points to ponder relative to the issue:
Why just go by US law? Why not go by the law of, say, Ireland or Chile?
Why not go by what the law was BEFORE Jan 22, 1973? What makes current law a "greater truth and justice" than the law that was in place for much longer? Does it REALLY have "greater virtue" simply by it being current? Based on that: It's murder one day...but not murder the next...because 7 people said so. Is that "right" or "just"?
What is the "true and objective" basis of "the law" that governs the conduct of man? The laws of some country? The laws of some theology? What I think it should be? What you think it should be? Can any person or group actually determine what should be the law for everybody?
Laws vary, and laws change...what is legal in one place is illegal in another, or what was once illegal becomes legal, or visa-versa. So how can variable and/or changing laws EVER be used to determine "what is right" and "what is wrong", or what is "truth"?
In some places people can be legally killed by others because of perceived disrespect in "honor killings". It's legal there. So should a "who the hell cares" attitude be taken about it? After all...it's legal in those places.
Was slavery "right" in any place throughout history where "The Law" or "The Government" said it was ok?
At one time, in the U.S., Blacks and Native Americans were determined BY LAW to be "nonpersons"...and could thus be sold as property, killed, enslaved, anything you wanted to do to them. So did that make them "nonpersons", just because this government said so?
I submit: The law really is not "the bottom line".
I know right, it was totally legal to take out thousands of people Iraq for no real reason. If that's legal than laws don't always mean it's a good idea nor do they always protect life, liberty or any pursuit of happiness. They are usually put into place for other reasons. Mainly for our bottom line, $$$$$. Capitalism, doesn't go well with any other belief actually.
As an example: Not that long ago there was no such thing as "calling Child Protective Services" to report abuse, harm, and even potential harm.
I wonder how many millions of calls they've gotten so far this year?
Laws change as different classes/groups of people are given rights they didn't previously possess. The government then forms agencies to assure those rights.
But how is this some kind of revelation...or, why by your post do you seem to feel that it would be so peculiar that would happen?
People of certain races/nationalities/sexual orientation, people with disabilities, women, children, even animals, all now have rights they didn't before...and there are specific government agencies to enforce those rights and punish violators.
Unborn humans are the next group...and sooner than later....just watch.
Well, I quess in your utopia the government would control every aspect of parent's lives. Welcome to GldnRule's Nannystate of America.
If we are going to regulate every aspect of a woman's pregnancy, right down to her diet.....why should we stop there?
Why shouldn't we regulate PARENTS lives just as vigorously as we do a pregnant woman's life? Let's not forget daddy.....a child has a right to have a healthy father too.
Children depend on their parents....so..... should we allow parents to eat an unhealthy diet? Engage in potentially dangerous activities? Smoke, drink, gamble, ride motorcycles? PARENTS should be held to a higher living standard because a child's welfare depends on them.
In your new Utopia, the government will oversee parent's diets and what they feed their children. Parents will no loner be allowed to own or use motorcycles, ATV's, boats or guns. NO UNNECESSARY risks allowed. You are a parent.....and a CHILD now depends on you. Your life is no longer your own.
Overweight parents will be required to see government doctors, who will design an optimal diet and exercise program that they will be mandated to follow......or the child will be placed with adoptive parents who are in excellent physical condition.....fat, unhealthy parents will no longer be tolerated.
Oh yeah.....parents need to submit to random drug screening too. Can't have parents doing drugs.
After all..... children have a RIGHT to have two parents who are healthy..........good role models who will be there for them until they reach adulthood, don't they?
Oh wait.....let's not forget people who carry genetic defects. NO CHILDREN for them. Children have a RIGHT to be brought into this world with healthy, disease free bodies.
Welcome to parenthood in the Nannystate of America.
{BTW.... to address one of your other points....abortion has been legal in the US longer than it was illegal.}
Calm down. The way we play this game is as follows: you get to ask questions; I get to answer them. If you do not understand or believe that "someone else's decision to have an abortion" reflects, in part or in whole, society's appreciation of life, that is entirely your shortcoming.
Sorry, but you don't get to define what we are talking about.
Good grief.
I was not even referring to a discussion on the "appreciation of life."
You are the one who tried to redefine the subject.
The putdown was not only unnecessary, it was indicative of what you evidently feel is your moral superiority. Good luck with that.
Let's go with Gldn's premise that a pregnant woman should be held responsible for the welfare of that new little 'human'.
I think most agree that if someone has no intention or ability to care for a born child, turning it over to someone that can and will do so is a good choice.
So, as soon as science can provide a way to transplant a fetus into the womb of a willing woman perhaps then abortion can be deemed wrong.
And those so choosing can still be considered as loving and caring as those that carry to term.
Yes..."most agree that if someone has no intention or ability to care for a born child, turning it over to someone that can and will do so is a good choice". But, unless and until they do find some surrogate caregiver to turn it over to they are responsible for the care and safety of the child. Snuffing or neglecting the kid are not some of the options...that carries criminal penalties...BIGTIME criminal penalties.
It's just a matter of time...once the science is brought forward before the legislature proving they have determined that the unborn are, from conception on, the exact same entity as will exist after birth, just less developed...that will compel rights to be assigned. And if those rights are violated, the perpetrators will be punished accordingly. Same as with any other entity that is legally assigned rights.
You don't see people seeking to disown animals because "animal cruelty laws" were passed. Or people deciding not to start a company because they can no longer purchase people they don't have to pay to labor as slaves. Or people deciding not to open a business just because it now has to be "handicap accessible". Or lots of people deciding not to own a car because the laws and regulations that govern operating a vehicle on the road got more stringent then it was years back. I could go on and on with examples.
Of course, there will always be a few radicals...but overall people realize a society needs laws to provide protection to those that would be subject to harm by those that would otherwise be self-serving or uncaring.
I submit: The unborn are just the next group to be legally shielded from harm at the hands of the selfish and the evil...like all the other groups of oppressed and exploited before them that gained rights & protection through laws, regulations, codes, and ordinances.
I submit that there are plenty of woman that are anti-abortion that should put their 'money where their mouth is' to be.....not surrogates,BTW, that is not the correct term.....but new mommies.
I submit that there are plenty of woman that are anti-abortion that should put their 'money where their mouth is' to be.....not surrogates,BTW, that is not the correct term.....but new mommies.
People do "put their money where their mouth is".
Through their taxes...that are used to facilitate legislation and the enforcement of the laws passed through that legislation. Those laws require people to be responsible for their actions....or suffer the consequences. The "choice" to follow the law or not then becomes their "choice".
For every law, there are many that disagree with it. That's just the way it is.
Headtrips and/or theological ideologies will be put aside...it will be a scientific and legal issue. Like seatbelt laws, or the no-smoking laws enacted to protect people from the deadly effects of second-hand smoke. Once the science is irrefutable...laws are compelled based on the science. That's the way the system works in the U.S.
Thank you, my friend but I think Annie53 details just SOME of the many issues raised by your perspective on societal enforcement of membership rights for the unborn. It is not and can not be a societal issue. It truly is between the would-be child's mother and God, Gldn. We can be horrified and repulsed by many of the things others choose to do in this world . . . but we must limit the ones that we criminalize for very good reasons. Read Annie53's post again and see if you can catch the flavor for the myriad issues that would be raised by legalizing your views. Peace and God bless, my friend.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
I read it Mystic.
My prediction is it won't be long before it's not just the decision of the Mother, but new laws are enacted...like they always are.<snip>
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleroo
Here's the thing about Annie's post, though. These "myriad issues" are already raised by the things that have been criminalized concerning the care of children after birth. If we're looking to make matters less complicated, why not be consistent and decriminalize those things? (Personally, I do feel we're going overboard in our society on the issue of what constitutes neglect but that's beside the point.)
There ARE those who oppose abortion on other than religious grounds and we have seen examples of them here. But as my two friends, Gldn and Pleroo indicate (in response to my view of Annie53's posts) . . . there are additional reasons why LAWS criminalizing abortion are opposed separately. Clearly there are those like me who abhor abortion as a solution to ANY problem . . . but just as vehemently oppose any LAWS criminalizing it.
My friend Gldn would have the coercive and punitive power of the state used against women who do not want to continue their pregnancy to term and invoke all the protections of personhood for the unborn child. Annie53 posed just a few of the myriad complications this would create.
My friend Pleroo otoh would have us scale back those protections of children who are already born . . . for valid reasons I suspect. We indeed have gone overboard in legislating our lives in our supposedly free society. Bureaucrats are notoriously incompetent (and sometimes just evil) in their administration of those same laws. So I am sympathetic to Pleroo's point.
The important issue that this reveals, however, is that laws must be used judiciously. They can indeed become the "atomic bomb" of solutions to problems that are far more delicate and complex than would justify their use. When placed in the hands of usually incompetent bureaucrats, they can be almost as damaging and devastating to individual relationships and lives as a dirty bomb in the hands of fanatic terrorists. My hyperbole aside, these are not trifling issues and should neither be pursued with the zeal of Gldn toward their expansion . . . nor the dismissal of Pleroo toward their existence. I believe they are central among the reasons many people oppose abortion and abortion law that do NOT involve religion.
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.
Capitalism, doesn't go well with any other belief actually.
