Dubya pushing for abortion ban - Supreme Court may hear abortion case

E-Z-B

E-Z-B

CAGiversary!
Supreme Court May Hear Abortion Case

Monday, September 26, 2005

(09-26) 09:34 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --

The Bush administration is asking the Supreme Court to reinstate a national ban on a type of late-term abortion, a case that could thrust the president's first court picks into an early tie-breaking role on a divisive and emotional issue.

The appeal follows a two-year, cross-country legal fight over the law and highlights the power that Bush's nominees will have. Just a few months ago, there would have been five votes to strike down the law, which bars what critics call partial birth abortion.

The outcome is now uncertain, with moderate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor retiring and her replacement still unnamed.

"This no longer puts the abortion issue in the abstract with the Supreme Court. This is as live a controversy as you can get," Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the conservative American Center for Law and Justice, said Monday.

Abortion was already expected to be a major subject in the next round of confirmation hearings, just as it was with the hearings of John Roberts to be chief justice. The Senate began debating Roberts' nomination on Monday, with confirmation expected later this week.

President Bush had supported the 2003 law outlawing what he termed an "abhorrent practice." President Clinton twice vetoed similar bills, arguing that they lacked an exception to protect the health of the mother, something the Supreme Court has said is required in abortion laws.

The law Bush signed was challenged even before it took effect and has never been enforced. Challengers won rulings in New York, California and Nebraska that the law was unconstitutional because of the lack of a health exception.

The Supreme Court is already dealing with a similar issue, in a test of New Hampshire's parental notification statute. That case turns on whether the state law is unconstitutional because it lacks an exception allowing a minor to have an abortion to protect her health in the event of a medical emergency.

The court should review both cases, Solicitor General Paul Clement said in the appeal, filed Friday and released Monday.

"This case involves the constitutionality of a significant act of Congress that has been invalidated and permanently enjoined by the lower courts," wrote Clement, the government's top Supreme Court lawyer.

The federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act prohibits a type of abortion, generally carried out in the second or third trimester, in which a fetus is partially delivered before being killed.

The earliest that justices could hear arguments on the law is next spring. By then, the court should have two new members.

"It will tell us something about the new justices. I don't think it will tell us everything people would like to know about them," said Jonathan Entin, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University.

In its last major abortion ruling, the Supreme Court on a 5-4 vote struck down Nebraska's partial-birth abortion law in 2000. O'Connor, who voted with the majority, said a similar law could pass muster if it were limited to that particular procedure and included an exception to preserve the mother's life and health.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who died earlier this month, had voted to uphold the Nebraska law. It is likely, but not certain, that Roberts would vote similarly.

In the government's appeal, Clement noted the 2000 decision, Stenberg v. Carhart, but said Congress determined that type of late-term abortion is not needed to preserve a woman's health.

The case comes to the Supreme Court from Nebraska, where the federal law was challenged on behalf of physicians. Doctors who perform the procedure contend it is the safest method of abortion when the mother's health is threatened by heart disease, high blood pressure or cancer.

A judge in Lincoln, Neb., ruled the law was unconstitutional, and the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis agreed in July. Federal judges in New York and San Francisco also declared the law unconstitutional and hearings are planned in October before appeals courts.

The high court could delay taking up the case for months while it settles the New Hampshire appeal.

The case is Gonzales v. Carhart, 05-380.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/09/26/national/w093427D95.DTL

Most people don't want the government making decisions for them about which medical procedures they may or may not have.

Most people believe in a right to privacy, and that the right to privacy extends to decisions about fertility and reproductive choice.

The Bush administration is asking for the authority to dictate that a woman must bear a child even if her health will be ruined by the pregnancy and birth, and even if that child will die moments after the birth.

Once again, Republicans are trying to get in between you and your doctor.
 
Most people don't want the government making decisions for them about which medical procedures they may or may not have.

Most people believe in a right to privacy, and that the right to privacy extends to decisions about fertility and reproductive choice.

The Bush administration is asking for the authority to dictate that a woman must bear a child even if her health will be ruined by the pregnancy and birth, and even if that child will die moments after the birth.
Click to expand...

Most americans oppose late term abortion and support outlawing them. I'm not one of them, but most do.
 
Most people also don't realize that this is the beginning of the erosion of the right to abortion either. The next argument is "if abortion is illegal at the 3rd tri-mester, then why not the 2nd?" And so on.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']Most people also don't realize that this is the beginning of the erosion of the right to abortion either. The next argument is "if abortion is illegal at the 3rd tri-mester, then why not the 2nd?" And so on.[/QUOTE]

Many european countries have restriction on late term abortions.
 
But most european countries don't have the religious fanatics dominate within their right-wing as our country does. I doubt that it will stop there in this country.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']But most european countries don't have the religious fanatics dominate within their right-wing as our country does. I doubt that it will stop there in this country.[/QUOTE]

While I agree about the conservatives, abortion limitation usually requires the courts. I think abortion is just as likely to be struck down, whether or not late term abortions are limited.
 
Which is why it's vital for the democrats to scrutinize O'Conner's replacement more carefully, and if necessary, fillabuster.
 
Most people don't realize that there is no true Constitutional 'right to privacy' or 'right to abortion' at the federal level, and if anything, would support a STATE's right to choose. For the federal government to either support or ban any sort of abortion, is actually outside its purview, not that that has ever stopped it, especially in this era of activist judges 'interpreting' the Constitution and looking in 'penumbras'.

The only constitutionally relevant phrase would be 'right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness', and ironically, that would help *ban* abortion, if it is stipulated that an unborn baby is a 'life' which I and many others believe.

The government already has lots of laws about what I can do to/with my body. I can't try to kill myself, there are hundreds of substances I'm not allowed to put in my body, etc. Many of those decisions would affect only me, and only temporarily.

The right to decide about fertility and reproductive choice ends where someone else, a living being, would be physically harmed by that choice, ie, the baby being killed.
Of course, those people also have the right to, you know, get their tubes tied, or get a vasectomy, or engage in non-penetration sex, or use various prophylactic methods, or, god forbid, *not have sex* until they're ready for the emotional and physical possible consequences. Old-fashioned, I know. Sue me.

The 2003 law? From what I know of it, it wasn't a very well-written law. They rushed it through and didn't think of all the details [mothers life, clear definition of PBA, etc]. The spirit of the law, I support, I just wish it had been a more professional bill.

And, once again, you're oversimplifying things.

"Most people don't want the government making decisions for them about which medical procedures they may or may not have.

Most people believe in a right to privacy, and that the right to privacy extends to decisions about fertility and reproductive choice."

Assuming you're trying to imply "most people support the "right" to abortion", that's not quite correct.

Latest polls show that "most" people, a bare majority of those polled, say they are "prochoice".
However, 42% of people want abortion to be harder to get vs 47 who say it's okay now, and only 28% say abortion should be ok 'whenever', the rest are in favor of various restrictions on when it can be performed.

And more evidence of the self-centered egocentric society we live in, even though lots of
people do support the option of abortion in at least some cases, 70% of people believe abortion is sometimes or always 'morally wrong', while 26% don't think it's a moral issue at all.
So they admit it's a moral issue, and is at least sometimes morally wrong, but what the hell, do it anyway. To me that says more about the values of many of these people than their support of abortion; that they apparently have morals, and think some things are wrong, but that they support it anyway.

Filibuster? Supreme Court nominations? Filibustering is the obstructionist tactics of someone who knows he can't win. The filibuster does have a place, but it should be a very last resort. And part of democracy is realizing that you can't always win. Get up, state your opinion, state your case, show why your option is better or in the case of a judicial nominee why that nominee isn't a good choice, then vote. But we've seen recently that many Democrats have come to rely on the judicial branch to write their laws, to overturn duly-voted-on policies and laws, even though there is no constitutional reasoning to do so.
 
[quote name='dtcarson'] Most people don't realize that there is no true Constitutional 'right to privacy' or 'right to abortion' at the federal level, and if anything, would support a STATE's right to choose. For the federal government to either support or ban any sort of abortion, is actually outside its purview, not that that has ever stopped it, especially in this era of activist judges 'interpreting' the Constitution and looking in 'penumbras'.[/quote]

It's not stated outright, but I'm glad the constitutional experts disagree with you.


The government already has lots of laws about what I can do to/with my body. I can't try to kill myself
Click to expand...

That's a state issue, and whether terminally ill patients have that right, well there hasn't been a decision on that:

U.S. Supreme Court decision - 1997:

The Supreme Court rendered its decision on the New York and Washington cases, on 1997-JUN-26. They found that the average American has no constitutional right to a physician assisted suicide. The vote was 9 to 0, an unusual, unanimous decision. Thus, the New York and Washington laws which ban such suicides are constitutional. On the other hand, the court implied that there is no constitutional bar that would prevent a state from passing a law permitting physician assisted suicide. Oregon has done exactly this. So, the battle must be fought on a state by state basis. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote:....

The Supreme Court decision was very narrow in scope. It only ruled on whether the public had a general right to assisted suicide. The case was originally brought by six terminally ill individuals in intractable pain who wanted access to assisted suicide. But by the time that the court heard legal arguments, all six had died. Thus, the court was unable to rule on whether terminally ill individuals should have a right to assisted suicide. Instead, they made a decision on whether citizens generally had that right.

Many of the justices indicated that certain groups within society might have a constitutional right to access to suicide (e.g., individuals who are terminally ill and in intractable pain). If a case were brought by such a person, then the court might find in their favor. The trick will be to find a person who can survive a terminal illness long enough for their case to wander through the judicial system and reach the Supreme Court. If even one of the original six patients had been able to survive, the court's decision might have been very different. They might have ruled that people generally had no legal right to obtain assistance in dying, but that terminally ill patients in pain did have.
Click to expand...

http://www.religioustolerance.org/euth_us3.htm


The right to decide about fertility and reproductive choice ends where someone else, a living being, would be physically harmed by that choice, ie, the baby being killed.
Click to expand...

It's kind of pointless

or, god forbid, *not have sex* until they're ready for the emotional and physical possible consequences. Old-fashioned, I know. Sue me.
Click to expand...

It happens, work from there.

Assuming you're trying to imply "most people support the "right" to abortion", that's not quite correct.

Latest polls show that "most" people, a bare majority of those polled, say they are "prochoice".
However, 42% of people want abortion to be harder to get vs 47 who say it's okay now, and only 28% say abortion should be ok 'whenever', the rest are in favor of various restrictions on when it can be performed.
Click to expand...

But people wanting it to be harder to get does not mean they want it outlawed. That's a different argument.

Gallup polls show:

54% pro choice
38% pro life

The above one failed to take into account the difference between personally pro life and wanting to legislate pro life beliefs.

And a poll done about a month earlier showed opinions on roe vs wade:

good thing- 60%
bad thing- 35%

Would people like to see roe vs wade overturned?

yes- 29%
no- 65%

Overal opinion on legality:

generally available- 35%
stricter limits- 23%
rape/incest/womans life- 31%
not permitted at all- 9%

And personal moral opinion:

nearly always morally wrong- 29%
sometimes morally wrong- 41%
not an issue- 26%

http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm


And more evidence of the self-centered egocentric society we live in, even though lots of
people do support the option of abortion in at least some cases, 70% of people believe abortion is sometimes or always 'morally wrong', while 26% don't think it's a moral issue at all.
So they admit it's a moral issue, and is at least sometimes morally wrong, but what the hell, do it anyway. To me that says more about the values of many of these people than their support of abortion; that they apparently have morals, and think some things are wrong, but that they support it anyway.
Click to expand...

It means many don't support the legislation of morals. It also means that 70% something or always thinks it's morally wrong. It lumped two positions into one. But, again, what one finds morally wrong for themselves doesn't necessarily mean it has no place or should not be legal for someone else. I think it's immoral to burn a cross while dancing around it in white sheets, but I don't think it should be illegal on private property.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Most americans oppose late term abortion and support outlawing them. I'm not one of them, but most do.[/QUOTE]

I see no problem with a law preventing late-term, or third-trimester abortions. You've carried the baby for six months, why not see it through? Unless it's an issue of mother's health. I would be amenable to considering it a life after six months.

I personally find abortions somewhat distasteful, however, It's not the fed's job to mandate mine, or anyone else's morality. If you want an abortion, you should get one early (first trimester, possibly second).

So place me in that 70% who don't like it, but don't want to force my opinion on anyone else.
 
[quote name='dtcarson']



The right to decide about fertility and reproductive choice ends where someone else, a living being, would be physically harmed by that choice, ie, the baby being killed.

.[/QUOTE]

except that it is not a "baby"

just as a boy is not a man..a fetus is not a baby.



The third trimester issue is almost moot. There are very very few abortions that occur then that are not mother's life related. A while it may be a slippery slope, it is possible to ban it w/o going full tilt.


the more interesting part is Bush tipping his hand on his nominees. Why would he do this if he were unsure about Roberts?
 
What I hate about these types of laws is that they don't take circumstances into account, such as women who will die birthing a horribly crippled baby.
 
[quote name='Quillion']In the third trimester, you could consider it that.[/QUOTE]

you could (which is why I almost qualtified it) but IMO, as long as it is "inside" it is not a baby (and I say this with my wife about to give birth to our second any day now). Any parent knows there is a HUGE difference from being in the womb and being out.

right now, I don't have to change diapers, feed it, rock it sleep, clean up it's spit up, we can go to movies, we can go to dinner, etc.
 
If there was as much work put into preventing unwanted pregnacies as there is with overturning bans on abortion, maybe there wouldn't be a need for abortion. Of course, the Bush administration believes that abstinence is the only method that should be allowed to prevent pregnancy, and we all know how good that works.
 
Not to be redundant, and not to be insulting, but can you show me more than one case where abstinence, properly applied, *didn't* work? And that one case is debatable. The issue isn't abstinence, it's getting people to mean what they say, and do what they mean, and know and *understand* that consequences have actions, even though the past twenty years of lowering standards has really shown they *don't*. Burn yourself on coffee? Sue the restaurant. Kid shoots someone to death? Sue the gun manufacturer. You're obese? McDonald's fault. Get knocked up at thirteen because everything you've seen from Hollywood and Madison Avenue says 'Hey, to be accepted you gotta have sex!', or you're so weakwilled and weakminded that your self-worth is tied up with how Bobby and the football think of you [or for guys, that 'scoring' on the 'hos' makes you a man]? Just abort the thing.

A baby in the womb *is* a baby. Ironically, it's even *more* dependent on the mother than it would be after it is born. Everything the mother does or consumes can have an effect on that baby. The mother could always give it up for adoption [and yes, there are some bad foster parents and orphanages, just like there are some bad real parents]. If you're using the 'live on its own' argument, that is fatally flawed, and leads directly to the slippery slope of eugenics. And of course your choice of phrasing regarding in the womb/out of the womb is very revealing: "I don't have to change diapers, we can go out to eat, my responsibility is not increased", while not realizing that it is still incredibly dependent on you and the mother.

Personally, my boy became a 'real baby' to me at the first ultrasound, when I saw his little body in there. And it was solidified when I felt him kick the first time. Not that I would ever have considered aborting him...man, it's even hard to type that...except in the case of his mother's life being threatened, and even then, it would have been an incredibly difficult decision.

As I have said before, especially in the case of laws like this, they do need to be very indepth and try to take into account as many permutations as possible, while being adaptable to unforeseen situations; this was not done with the current ban.
 
A baby in the womb *is* a baby. Ironically, it's even *more* dependent on the mother than it would be after it is born. Everything the mother does or consumes can have an effect on that baby. The mother could always give it up for adoption [and yes, there are some bad foster parents and orphanages, just like there are some bad real parents]. If you're using the 'live on its own' argument, that is fatally flawed, and leads directly to the slippery slope of eugenics.
Click to expand...

Live on its own can only lead to anything remotely similar to eugenics if it is musenderstood. It simply means survive outside of the womb, without being connected to another human being, without having to force someone elses body to keep them alive.

But your reason that it is a baby, even if it lacks all the characteristics (outside of appearance) of humanity or otherwise sentient organisms.

Personally, my boy became a 'real baby' to me at the first ultrasound, when I saw his little body in there
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I'm saying, it was a real baby to you. The thing is, if the baby is not alive to itself, if you can see it, but it is not aware of itself or its surroundings, then it isn't a baby in the special sense, it's only what you see it as.
 
[quote name='dtcarson']Personally, my boy became a 'real baby' to me at the first ultrasound, when I saw his little body in there. And it was solidified when I felt him kick the first time. Not that I would ever have considered aborting him...man, it's even hard to type that...except in the case of his mother's life being threatened, and even then, it would have been an incredibly difficult decision.[/QUOTE]

Thats nice - and U2K thinks that Noah's ark actually happened word-for-word as it says in the Christian bible.

You're free to believe that, but don't shove it down the rest of the population's throat.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']This is exactly what I'm saying, it was a real baby to you. The thing is, if the baby is not alive to itself, if you can see it, but it is not aware of itself or its surroundings, then it isn't a baby in the special sense, it's only what you see it as.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, right. You go on believing that when you put your hand on a mother's stomach and feel a baby kick that it's some involuntary reflex of the mother and not another person acting by him or herself.

You must agree he or she is a baby when he or she is born. When do we draw the line? A baby's brain and body are still developing after they are born. Heck, even after a baby is born he or she is still connected to the mother via the umbilical cord until it is cut. Your magical line where you say a fetus becomes a baby is so vague it seems put in place just to justify those who would allow the infantacide of abortion. After a baby starts development, the cycle is continuous and it also varies from baby to baby as to the speed. Drawing arbitrary lines like you suggest (when studies show the baby is "aware" or similiar terminology) just don't work here.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Live on its own can only lead to anything remotely similar to eugenics if it is musenderstood. It simply means survive outside of the womb, without being connected to another human being, without having to force someone elses body to keep them alive.
[/QUOTE]

What about Chang and Eng Bunker, or other Siamese--whoops, conjoined--twins?
Is being 'connected' to another body the only criteria? What about being 'dependent' on another body, say, blood transfusions, organ transplants? Preemies who go in an incubator immediately after being born? Old smokers in iron lungs? Test tube babies, since that tube is their 'womb'--can we flush all of them?

But your reason that it is a baby, even if it lacks all the characteristics (outside of appearance) of humanity or otherwise sentient organisms.
Click to expand...

You lost me here. My reason is indeed that it is a baby, or if you don't want to use that term, 'new life form' or whatever. Fetus. The instant sperm and ova combined, a new entity was created, with entirely brand new DNA. It is no longer a 'part' of the mother, though it is 'contained' within her. Every cell in your body has the same DNA, so if you want to cut off your arm or your head, hey, it's your body. *That's* where 'choice' comes in. But that fetus is a new living being, with a new genetic identity; yes, dependent on the mother--just like it is dependent on someone immediately after being born as well. At the moment that new genetic entity is created, it is no longer 'you', though it is dependent on you.

This is exactly what I'm saying, it was a real baby to you. The thing is, if the baby is not alive to itself, if you can see it, but it is not aware of itself or its surroundings, then it isn't a baby in the special sense, it's only what you see it as.
Click to expand...

Ah. So we can also kill severely retarded or brain damaged children, or hell, adults, since they aren't "alive to itself". Good to know. I'm sure Helen Keller's parents would have liked to know that, since she had no idea about 'herself' or 'her surroundings'--that is, until Anne Sullivan worked to reach the person inside that shell.
This is more Clinton-esque semantic weaseling, "it's only what you see it as". No it's not. As I said above, scientifically it is a brand new, unique entity the moment that new DNA chain is created, regardless of what I "see it as".

I know we're an era of 'everyone is somewhat right', and 'personal, not universal, morals', etc, but some things just *are*. This is one of those things that scientifically just *is*: Mom + Dad = new being, one that most people who don't think the universe revolves around them would realize is now their responsibility.
 
[quote name='camoor']Thats nice - and U2K thinks that Noah's ark actually happened word-for-word as it says in the Christian bible.

You're free to believe that, but don't shove it down the rest of the population's throat.[/QUOTE]

I'm free to believe my own opinion? Wow, thank you very much. Notice the word 'personally' in there? And lots of 'I's? And absolutely no "you"s or "everyone else" or "everyone needs to believe just like I do"?
Do you have anything to actually add, or are you just trolling, seeing as how nothing in the portion of my post that you quoted could be construed as 'shoving it down the rest of the populations throat' by any but the most paranoid and self-centered.
I'm guessing, given the non sequitur mention of the "Christian Bible", when I don't recall mentioning anything about that in any of my posts, it's the latter.
 
[quote name='dtcarson']What about Chang and Eng Bunker, or other Siamese--whoops, conjoined--twins?
Is being 'connected' to another body the only criteria? What about being 'dependent' on another body, say, blood transfusions, organ transplants? Preemies who go in an incubator immediately after being born? Old smokers in iron lungs? Test tube babies, since that tube is their 'womb'--can we flush all of them?[/quote]

Since when are iron lungs, uncubators etc. human beings? And, as you may notice in that paragraph and my other arguments against pro life positions, the belief that the essential part is being aware or having some mental capacity. A siamese twin definately meets this criteria. If one twin was brain dead, or had minimal brain activity, and was connected to the other, then yes I believe that, since it is essentially dead in terms of awareness and intelligence, the brain dead, or near brain dead one, could be euthanized if the other twin wanted it to be.



You lost me here. My reason is indeed that it is a baby, or if you don't want to use that term, 'new life form' or whatever. Fetus. The instant sperm and ova combined, a new entity was created, with entirely brand new DNA. It is no longer a 'part' of the mother, though it is 'contained' within her. Every cell in your body has the same DNA, so if you want to cut off your arm or your head, hey, it's your body. *That's* where 'choice' comes in. But that fetus is a new living being, with a new genetic identity; yes, dependent on the mother--just like it is dependent on someone immediately after being born as well. At the moment that new genetic entity is created, it is no longer 'you', though it is dependent on you.
Click to expand...

It is connected to the mother, and, for varying lengths of time, it gets its nutrients from the mother, its blood come from the mother, it breathes through the mother. It is part of the mother. As the potential baby grows inside the mother, it become more and more of a being in and of itself. It never equals the mother, but once it gains mental awareness, or at least can feel pain, then it starts to take on a life of its own, and starts to have worth in and of itself. As it become more mentally developed, more human, it has more value, but it is always lesser than the mother until it is out of her womb.



Ah. So we can also kill severely retarded or brain damaged children, or hell, adults, since they aren't "alive to itself". Good to know. I'm sure Helen Keller's parents would have liked to know that, since she had no idea about 'herself' or 'her surroundings'--that is, until Anne Sullivan worked to reach the person inside that shell.
Click to expand...

Umm........ helen keller was very much alive, she was a thinking being, she had emotions, she just knew little of her surrounding. She was a being entirely to herself in many aspects.

The first part you need to think of more carefully, can we euthanize a severely brain damaged baby or adult? No. But it is a valid position. Terry schiavo is an example of when it would be acceptable, and she had much greater mental capacities than unborn babies do at conception. If a being has no awareness, and never had, then it is acceptable to euthanize it. When it had awareness previously, but currently does not and has no chance of regaining that awareness (ie. schiavo), then it is acceptable to euthanize that person.

This is more Clinton-esque semantic weaseling, "it's only what you see it as". No it's not. As I said above, scientifically it is a brand new, unique entity the moment that new DNA chain is created, regardless of what I "see it as".

I know we're an era of 'everyone is somewhat right', and 'personal, not universal, morals', etc, but some things just *are*. This is one of those things that scientifically just *is*: Mom + Dad = new being, one that most people who don't think the universe revolves around them would realize is now their responsibility.
Click to expand...

What makes a mass of cells in human form, but lacking any human mental characteristics, any more valuable than a frog (I'm sorry if I'm belittling frogs here)?
 
[quote name='dtcarson']I'm free to believe my own opinion? Wow, thank you very much. [/QUOTE]

You are welcome, thanks for joining the "right to choose" side.
 
I'm in the right to choose side. Not that I particularly like abortion, but it's really not my decision. Abstinence is a choice, but once someone is pregnant, there's really no point in talking about abstinence. To be honest, some people need to have abortions. I see all these fucked up people having kids, and you know that they don't stand a chance.
 
Helen Keller lost her senses due to a disease(im not sure which) which she got while hse was a baby and was not born that way.
 
[quote name='docvinh']I'm in the right to choose side. Not that I particularly like abortion, but it's really not my decision. Abstinence is a choice, but once someone is pregnant, there's really no point in talking about abstinence. To be honest, some people need to have abortions. I see all these fucked up people having kids, and you know that they don't stand a chance.[/QUOTE]

Your logic is severely lacking.

First of all, it's "not your decision." Evidently you would feel that someone killing someone else should not involve you or the rest of society because it is "not your decision." Just to fill you in on why that statement is meaningless.

Secondly, your justification of murder because of "fucked up people having kids" is truly disgusting and morally repugnant.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Your logic is severely lacking.

First of all, it's "not your decision." Evidently you would feel that someone killing someone else should not involve you or the rest of society because it is "not your decision." Just to fill you in on why that statement is meaningless.

Secondly, your justification of murder because of "fucked up people having kids" is truly disgusting and morally repugnant.[/QUOTE]

The issue is your failure to accept (to clarify, failure to accept, not agree with) that someone can 100% honestly, using their best logic and understanding, not agree that an unborn child is a full human being in all that the word human implies. I'm not saying you should accept that opinion, or think abortion should be legal. But it does severely hinder any possible argument when you automatically assume that, and argue as, everyone in their heart agrees that you are essentially murdering a baby.

Making a comparison between abortion and randomly murdering a guy walking down the street is pointless as it only works if everyone agrees with your basic understanding of an unborn child, which they don't.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Secondly, your justification of murder because of "fucked up people having kids" is truly disgusting and morally repugnant.[/QUOTE]
Not really. Most of the "pro-life" people I've interacted with seem to base their beliefs around the ideas that:
-when anybody has a child, they automatically become a responsible parent.
-The environment around you during your childhood is of minimal influence.
-Every person in the world has an equal chance of being a "bad person". That is to say, anybody from any background has just as much chance as being a bank robber as anybody else (this relates to the previous point).
-These problem people will eventually just go away, for some reason.
-The physical signs of life are far more important than the quality of life. (this last point isn't directly connected to the previous points, which are all interrelated).

Here's the thing, I don't think there are many "pro-choice" people that are "pro-abortion". Do you think that we all get together an have abortion parties, where we all watch video tapes of abortions and sing abortion folk songs?

Abortion needs to be around today because society isn't holding up its part of the bargain.

All the criminals you see out there today? They don't come from nice homes or loving parents, they come from the pregnant 16 year old girls and their deadbeat 23 year old boyfriends. And when those crackbabies grow up from these non-parents, they produce another version of themself. It's a continuing and exponentially growing cycle, and the problem is only getting worse as the generations go on.

You could succinctly say that 95% of the problems in our society stem from the fact that "people who SHOULDN'T be having children are having the most children", it all comes from that one root.

If we had birth-control and emergency contraception readily available and easy to get, this wouldn't be as big of an issue (and we could eliminate the need for abortion all together, which I would love to see happen). As a government, we should look at the statistics and act accordingly. For example, if you're under the age of 20 and already have 2 kids, then you get free birth control. Do you make under a certain amount of money a year? Free birth control.

Of course, we would need to start educating the populous on birth control, instead of holding our ears and pretending that an abstinance-only stance is working.

So I agree with you elprincipe, abortion is a horrible thing. I don't believe it's murder per say, but it's something I wish we could live without in society. But before we do anything about that, society needs to start being responsible and owning up to it's part of the deal. To help that along, our government needs to change certain things, start certain programs, and attack the problem at the root.

Until then, the band-aid solution that is abortion needs stick around.
 
If the primary reason for abortion is limitting the reproduction of the supposed "bad" elements of the country. If the reason for promoting pro choice arguments is only to stop people who you think may be bad parents (without track records to go by this is dangerous, such as the suggestion of promoting it among those who are simply poor), then you are skirting dangerously close to the arguments used in eugenics. I'm not saying there aren't some areas you could focus on (ie. underage parents, drug addicts, those in dangerous situations etc.), but viewing abortion as a cure all, or as a significant weapon against crime is overly simplistic at best, dangerous at worst.

All the criminals you see out there today? They don't come from nice homes or loving parents, they come from the pregnant 16 year old girls and their deadbeat 23 year old boyfriends.
Click to expand...

I think this is a dangerous overgeneralization. It also ignores many other forms of criminals, such as those involved in white collar crime.
 
[quote name='evilmax17']All the criminals you see out there today? They don't come from nice homes or loving parents, they come from the pregnant 16 year old girls and their deadbeat 23 year old boyfriends. And when those crackbabies grow up from these non-parents, they produce another version of themself. It's a continuing and exponentially growing cycle, and the problem is only getting worse as the generations go on.

You could succinctly say that 95% of the problems in our society stem from the fact that "people who SHOULDN'T be having children are having the most children", it all comes from that one root.[/QUOTE]

I think you are making the mistake of assuming that those same 16 year-old girls want to get an abortion - the sad truth is that many of these inner city girls want to start a family first, and they are thinking of getting a husband, job, nice living arrangement, etc. as a secondary concern that will magically fall into place.

Also - even if your assumption was correct, it is a defence of a woman's right to choose via eugenics, and I think the decision must be made on whether the combination of a sperm and egg after a few weeks can actually be considered as a human being.

Don't get me wrong - I agree with you on the contraception part, and I don't think your arguement was "disgusting and morally repugnant" (a comment that some close-minded dogmatic bigots may scream at you), I just think that it is an unjustified position to take when fighting for the right to choose.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I think this is a dangerous overgeneralization. It also ignores many other forms of criminals, such as those involved in white collar crime.[/QUOTE]

This is so true. Every so often, the rich offer up one of their more dull-witted criminal elements to be put on trial and condemned (much as the Eloi would offer up a memeber of their race to the Morlocks now and again) however the amount of destruction wreaked by white collar crime is never portrayed as poignantly or repititously as the sensational coverage of the daily liquor store robbery or the scourge of intoxicants.

When you look at the air of scandal descending on the white house, it is amazing that people are more upset about a few f-bombs on TV, or a few sports players who inject themselves with steroids. The middle-class are like a baby who is distracted by a shiny object while The Man steals their lollipop.

[/rant]
 
[quote name='U2K Tha Greate$t']Abortion = murder, very simple to understand.[/QUOTE]

2 +2 = 5 is just as easy to understand and equally as incorrect.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']If the primary reason for abortion is limitting the reproduction of the supposed "bad" elements of the country. If the reason for promoting pro choice arguments is only to stop people who you think may be bad parents (without track records to go by this is dangerous, such as the suggestion of promoting it among those who are simply poor), then you are skirting dangerously close to the arguments used in eugenics. I'm not saying there aren't some areas you could focus on (ie. underage parents, drug addicts, those in dangerous situations etc.), but viewing abortion as a cure all, or as a significant weapon against crime is overly simplistic at best, dangerous at worst.[/QUOTE]

What he's arguing is very dangerous. His is the argument that we should selectively kill people because they have a better genetic/environmental chance of becoming "bad" people. As much as some would deny it, this is truly morally outrageous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top