Abortion.

[Hasty Ent]

Originally Posted by Telcontar_Dunedain

If you don't believe that a fetus is life, then would you say that a fetus is dead. As I said earlier does that make someone in a coma dead to?

not dead.... simply not a human being

[Valandil]

PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT:

I'm glad we're having this talk. I'm also glad that we're able to remain civil while we do so.

You might notice that many of us who are opposed to abortion also claim to be Christians. I will presume to speak for the others as well when I say the following:

There have obviously been a great number of abortions in our society. A fairly reasonable percentage of women in our society have had abortions. While we feel this is wrong, it is never our intent to simply impose guilt on those who have done so. If we happen to cause someone to admit they made a mistake, or to change their mind about it - well, great! We Christians see some value in a small measure of guilt - only as it leads us to God to seek for forgiveness, for we ourselves are all guilty of one thing or another.

So... if this is something any of you have faced, and if any of you have had an abortion - please, do not take our comments as a personal attack on you. We care about you... we truly believe that God loves you... and if you SHOULD feel like you did something wrong, we believe that God will gladly forgive you.

gtg

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

In what way? That they are not fully formed because there are some fetuses that were forced to be born early, does that make them not human beings?

[Hasty Ent]

Originally Posted by Telcontar_Dunedain

In what way? That they are not fully formed because there are some fetuses that were forced to be born early, does that make them not human beings?

In my personal opinion, a fetus is no more a human being than an errant strand of dna floating through the cosmos is. You asked 'In what way?'. I don't understand your question. I don't believe that a fetus has the same rights as an adult, but then I don't believe children have the same rights as an adult either. I suppose it's a matter of degree. I draw my line in a different place from other people. :shrug:

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Sure, the punishment isn't exactly on target. Sometimes we make mistakes, too, and a punishment falls on someone innocent. Yet here, this is not about mistakes. Rather, it is legally saying that citizens have the right to commit murder for their own convenience.

the point I was making is that JUST like capital punishment and war, abortion is a fuzzy area not simply black or white. And everyone has different opinions on WHEN things are viable and exactly WHAT viability actually is. And anyway whats more convenient then electrocuting a person cause he might hurt you? Awful damn convenient if you ask me. And you can ask the question who are YOU to say its ok to kill someone because they have commited a crime? Is that not also arbitrary? And finally we STILL are talking about the death of a fully grown human vs. a tiny collection of cells. I think if you are going to be against abortion for the high and mighty moral reasons you refer to then you AT LEAST need to be against capital punishment for the same reason. OR… you need to see BOTH as necessary evils in an imperfect world. Evils that yes we can certainly have great anguish about. But necessary none the less.

You seem to be saying, "because we've decided that one person gets the punishment of execution, we should be allowed to execute anyone we want!" By your reasoning, I can see it being possible for us not only to convict a murderer and execute him, but since we do that, we should be able to execute his lawyer too. And let's knock off half the audience too. Heck, we can kill anyone, because we can execute a murderer! You're saying "because we can't ever have a 'right' answer, let's throw out the whole concept of right!"

you’ve lost me here. Whats this got to do with abortion exactly? Im not suggesting killing for the sake of killing. Not sure where you get that. I was simply pointing out that because no one person can pin point the very line when we shouldn’t be doing X then it immediately becomes an arbitrary decision. And that’s fine if yer talking about age of consent or voting age but when you are dealing with telling a human being (the woman involved) that they have no say in what happens with their body and their body parts well that screams double standard to me. How can you legislate this exactly? Females are not allowed to decide what to do with their own bodies? That they must be birthing vessels before they are full humans? You cant. So the horrible default is allowing women to choose.

And we shouldn’t be approaching this from the unrealistic “NO ABORTIONS EVER!� end of it. But instead we should be looking at practical ways to decrease the likelihood of CHOOSING an abortion in an imperfect human society. Most people here are disgusted with the idea of abortion for “convenience� and that seems to drive their passion against the whole practice. Im gonna go out on a limb and say no one here is in favor of the idea of abortion for “convenience�. That seems to be one end of the extreme. (Although I guess we could get into an argument over what “convenience� is exactly). So maybe instead of ranting about the evils of abortion and how it’s a black and white issue and we need to take away womens rights and such maybe we should be thinking ok how can we decrease the chances of women choosing to take abortion as a method of birth control. And that’s really a separate kind of discussion. But we would do well here to approach things from that angle and not from the all or nothing angle cause you will be simply guaranteeing more abortions not less. Because youll never reach the very women who would do such a thing to begin with. Cultural change needs to be done from the perspective of best use and not from strong arming tactics.

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

When I said 'In what way?' I meant in what way to you believe they are different from a normal child (bar the fact that they are still in their mother's womb).

[Mercutio]

Hello y'all --

Someone mentioned abortion increasing the risk of breast cancer. This is an article that discusses the documentation and reliabilty of studies about abortion's link to breast cancer. *Note: you should read the entire article to understand it all.

In the case of the mother's health and rape, you should know that this is only 7% and 1% of all abortion cases, respectively.

Here are all the %s, done by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which is very much pro-abortion.

Woman is concerned about how having a baby could change her life 76
Woman can't afford baby now 68
Woman has problems with relationship or wants to avoid single parenthood 51
Woman is unready for responsibility 31
Woman doesn't want others to know she has had sex or is pregnant 31
Woman is not mature enough or is too young to have a child 30
Woman has all the children she wanted, or has all grown-up children 26
Husband or partner wants woman to have abortion 23
Fetus has possible health problem 13
Woman has health problem 7
Woman's parents want her to have abortion 7
Woman was victim of rape or incest 1
Other 6
[source]

I believe that "that group of cells" is a human being from the moment of contraception. Nothing that is not a human being has the potential to become a human being, and nothing that has the potential to become a human being is not a human being.

Mods check this: If you deem it "inappropriate" feel free to remove my link.
For those of you who don't believe a fetus is a person until part way through the pregnancy, here is a website with pictures of aborted fetuses, from about 8 weeks on. Warning: these are graphic.

I would go as far as to call abortion genocide.

This article goes into detail on what happens to a fetus during partial birth abortion.

Also, if abortion was outlawed, back-alley abortions would continue. They are ocurring right now. However, the rate of total abortions would drastically diminish. Not all women would suddenly run off to their doctor for illegal abortions.

Studies show that fetuses feel excruciating pain when they are killed (aborted).

This is a wonderful article written by a man who married a woman who had been raped a few years before (and went through with her pregnancy, keeping the child).

EDIT: How is a fetus's dependency make it not a person (or condone abortion, I'm don't remember the specifics said earlier on this)? Elderly people become dependent on others. So are babies even after birth.

[Lief Erikson]

Thanks for submitting those links and articles, Mertucio. I argue, but frequently don't do enough hands-on research myself.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Valandil

A majority of whom? Supreme Court Justices?

and the congress... they could try to pass an anti-abortion law if they had the votes... and this would also force the supreme court to revisit the situation... it has not happened, so one has to assume that the majority of votes are not there among the representatives of the people of this country

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by azalea

But you can't mean this absolutely -- don't you think there are occasions in the past or present where the majority has thought in a way that truly was wrong? One that people have been throwing around is the Nazis. Don't you think that was wrong, even though the majority supported them?

nazi germany did not have a free press or a democracy... so you can't really make a judgement as to whether a majority knew everything that was going on or would have supported it if they had a political system in place that could stop it... we do

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

the point I was making is that JUST like capital punishment and war, abortion is a fuzzy area not simply black or white. And everyone has different opinions on WHEN things are viable and exactly WHAT viability actually is. And anyway whats more convenient then electrocuting a person cause he might hurt you? Awful damn convenient if you ask me. And you can ask the question who are YOU to say its ok to kill someone because they have commited a crime? Is that not also arbitrary?

Again, you consistently are ignoring the principles behind the different issues. With war, it is an issue of threat to life. With capital punishment, it is an issue of punishment of crime. With abortion, it is a matter of diminished well being. The other two issues involve someone trying to kill you, or someone having killed others. The child has done none of these things. The child is absolutely guiltless. It is not dropping a bomb on some guilty and some innocent. It is dropping a bomb entirely upon the innocent. Because of this, the issue isn't gray, like the guilty-and-innocent bombing. The issue is black and white.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

And finally we STILL are talking about the death of a fully grown human vs. a tiny collection of cells.

If you look at my post from earlier, you'll see that I said one reason for abortion that I will respect is that you believe it is a collection of cells that still is not close to equalling a human life. If it is only a cellular glob that we're killing, rather then a human being, then abortion is not wrong. It's no different from crushing an ant under foot, and the good that comes from the abortion is worth the "crushing the ant."

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

I think if you are going to be against abortion for the high and mighty moral reasons you refer to then you AT LEAST need to be against capital punishment for the same reason.

Capital punishment and war are totally different issues. I'm against abortion because it's slaughtering innocents, and vast numbers of them. War and capital punishment are destruction of guilty, and some innocents. Hence they are far grayer, far more complex and difficult to talk about, except in the cases of specific examples.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

OR… you need to see BOTH as necessary evils in an imperfect world. Evils that yes we can certainly have great anguish about. But necessary none the less.

Abortion is an unnecessary evil. What's necessary about it? Having an abortion does often has good consequences to the mother, in evasion of different kinds of difficulties and sacrifices. However, to evade difficulties and sacrifices you're killing a person. Perhaps you disagree with me on this, but to me, this is morally reprehensible. It's a little bit similar to the ancient Roman custom that gave the father the right to kill any infant daughters that were born to him, because they were economically worthless.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

you’ve lost me here. Whats this got to do with abortion exactly? Im not suggesting killing for the sake of killing. Not sure where you get that.

Abortion drastically changes the acceptable legal reasons for killing. Punishment of crime and elimination of threat-to-life are no longer the only reasons acceptable for killing. Now, we can kill because it's economically useful to do so. Or actually, for any reason at all. Women aren't limited in taking abortions by their reasons. They can have an abortion for whatever reason. Therefore, they can kill for whatever reason. Sure, I don't think many of them do "kill for the sake of killing". That would be extremely rare; probably unheard of. But the reasons aren't good enough. It's destroying another life who is not trying to kill others and who has not killed others. The life is allowed to be destroyed for any reason. And that's just sick. I agree with Mertucio- it amounts to genocide.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

I was simply pointing out that because no one person can pin point the very line when we shouldn’t be doing X then it immediately becomes an arbitrary decision. And that’s fine if yer talking about age of consent or voting age but when you are dealing with telling a human being (the woman involved) that they have no say in what happens with their body and their body parts well that screams double standard to me. How can you legislate this exactly? Females are not allowed to decide what to do with their own bodies? That they must be birthing vessels before they are full humans? You cant. So the horrible default is allowing women to choose.

We already do legislate what a person can and cannot do with their own body parts. People aren't allowed to strangle with their two hands, even if the person they're strangling is actively ruining their business. People shouldn't be allowed to kill the child either, even if the person they're killing will actively ruin their business. Again, the only place where to me the issue of abortion becomes a bit fuzzy is when the woman herself is at high risk of losing her life if the child is kept. Because then it's an issue of one life or another. That is a bit fuzzy. I shouldn't be allowed to slaughter my brothers because they get to the ice cream first, though.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

And we shouldn’t be approaching this from the unrealistic “NO ABORTIONS EVER!� end of it. But instead we should be looking at practical ways to decrease the likelihood of CHOOSING an abortion in an imperfect human society. Most people here are disgusted with the idea of abortion for “convenience� and that seems to drive their passion against the whole practice. Im gonna go out on a limb and say no one here is in favor of the idea of abortion for “convenience�. That seems to be one end of the extreme. (Although I guess we could get into an argument over what “convenience� is exactly).

Yes. If you look at my first two posts on this thread, on page 1, you'll find that I came up with a very different definition of "convenience" then you have.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

So maybe instead of ranting about the evils of abortion and how it’s a black and white issue and we need to take away womens rights

I'm sure glad you don't have the right to stab me for amusement. All right, fine, maybe that issue is not quite black and white . . .

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

and such maybe we should be thinking ok how can we decrease the chances of women choosing to take abortion as a method of birth control. And that’s really a separate kind of discussion.

A worthwhile discussion, though.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Here's one more thing that should be noted. The innocent child killed by the bomb was not a target. In this case, we are forced to kill innocents in order to kill the guilty, because otherwise we ourselves would be destroyed. We had little choice. We make every effort to avoid killing the innocent child. Accidents occur.

Abortions are not accidents. We are usually not taking every possible option to avoid killing the innocents. This is saying that in order to keep one person from having problems (social, economic, emotional) it is valid to kill a completely innocent person. That is different from killing a few innocents in order to get the dangerous guilty. It's quite a different issue.

the point that i was making, and rÃ*an was responding to was:

the question is not the black and white idea of whether or not it is ok to destroy "life"... but rather, when is it okay to destroy life

as you pointed out, if the reasons are good enough, we make decisions that will kill innocents (will, not might, see below * )... so when we talk about abortion it is not fair to claim that it is wrong because "we never kill", but because "we never kill without good reason"

in my mind, the lack in our society of any truely viable system for caring for unwanted children is a pretty big reason... as i stated earlier in this thread (or one of them ) i would be willing to oppose abortion if all forms of contraception were made freely available at any age, children were publically educated from puberty about sex and housing, healthcare and a decent job for expectant mothers was free and easy to obtain

i'd also like to see care facilities set up for mothers and their children that are much better and more flexible than we have today... a poor uneducated mother these days who chooses not to abort can either rough it out between welfare, bad jobs and poor state childcare... or she can give up her child entirely to adoption, maybe to never see him or her again... there is little in the way of a positive option... yes, it would take a great deal of money on society's part, but i think it would be worth it

it's very easy to sit in suburbia and say "people who get abortions are just rich housewives too lazy to use contraception"... but there is a whole other side to the picture... i knew one inner city teen i use to work with in boston who was crushed by the idea of having to abort a child she was carrying (and yes, she knew it was ultimately her fault)... but she looked at her friends and the prospect of what having that child would mean and the options were pretty hopeless

i honestly don't know if "any life is better then no life"... i've had it too easy to make that judgement on someone else

* as a side note ~ i'm also not to big on the word "accidents" for innocents killed in war... when we enter a conflict people like to say "innocents might be killed", when the true fact of the matter is innocents are always killed... i agree that we sometimes must make that choice... but we should always make it with the consequences untempered by wishful thinking

[Rían]

Good thoughtful post, brownie ... esp. your part about looking at the wider picture outside of our comfy homes with Internet access ... we don't have to change our opinions on the issue, but we can help people in other ways.

One clarification on my part (since you referred to me) - IMO, it's not even just a question of "we never kill without good reason" - to me, there is still an issue of intent and action going on, and that's absolutely critical.

With capital punishment - there was criminal intent and action on the part of the criminal, thus he/she is eligible for a penalty that society has deemed appropriate.

With war, there was intent and action for wrong on the part of the entity that we declare war on (or at least it's presented/interpreted that way, and OKed for that reason - war is never started because someone just "felt like it"), and thus the entity is eligible for an action that society has deemed appropriate. And unfortunately, those that are responsible in the entity won't all congregate into one place so we can deal with only them; often, they use innocents as shields. A side effect of evil intent and action is that innocents are hurt.

With abortion, there is NO intent or action for wrong on anyone's part, esp. the baby, so there is no REASON that the baby should have its life taken.

I can fully understand that some people think that a fetus is not a person; I do NOT agree that those that are against abortion must necessarily be against war or capital punishment to be logically consistent.

You may not agree, but do you see what I'm saying?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

as you pointed out, if the reasons are good enough, we make decisions that will kill innocents (will, not might, see below * )... so when we talk about abortion it is not fair to claim that it is wrong because "we never kill", but because "we never kill without good reason"

I agree with this, and with what you said below on the matter. I wish I could permit myself the luxury of being deluded, but your points there are valid.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

in my mind, the lack in our society of any truely viable system for caring for unwanted children is a pretty big reason... as i stated earlier in this thread (or one of them ) i would be willing to oppose abortion if all forms of contraception were made freely available at any age, children were publically educated from puberty about sex and housing, healthcare and a decent job for expectant mothers was free and easy to obtain

Do you think that a law that says someone can look at me, say, "oh, he's hungry and pretty poverty stricken," and shoot me because of this, is right? The primary difference between this and abortion (unless you believe the fetus doesn't qualify as a human being) is that I'm able to speak up in my own defense.

Or someone might say, "oh, he's got the same expertise as me, the same skills as me. If I don't kill him, I won't have a job and will be poverty stricken." Should she have the right to kill me?

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i'd also like to see care facilities set up for mothers and their children that are much better and more flexible than we have today... a poor uneducated mother these days who chooses not to abort can either rough it out between welfare, bad jobs and poor state childcare... or she can give up her child entirely to adoption, maybe to never see him or her again... there is little in the way of a positive option... yes, it would take a great deal of money on society's part, but i think it would be worth it

it's very easy to sit in suburbia and say "people who get abortions are just rich housewives too lazy to use contraception"... but there is a whole other side to the picture... i knew one inner city teen i use to work with in boston who was crushed by the idea of having to abort a child she was carrying (and yes, she knew it was ultimately her fault)... but she looked at her friends and the prospect of what having that child would mean and the options were pretty hopeless

If you look at my first post on this topic, you'll see I recognized this fact. Even so, even certainty of economic, social or emotional hardship is to me insufficient excuse for murder. Killing of innocents is murder.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

* as a side note ~ i'm also not to big on the word "accidents" for innocents killed in war... when we enter a conflict people like to say "innocents might be killed", when the true fact of the matter is innocents are always killed... i agree that we sometimes must make that choice... but we should always make it with the consequences untempered by wishful thinking

I agree with this. Accidents to me is an appropriate word because we did not intend to kill them. Killing them was a mistake. From a broad strategic perspective, we knew we would kill them, but we didn't know which ones, or where, and we planned to do our utmost to avoid it.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Again, you consistently are ignoring the principles behind the different issues. With war, it is an issue of threat to life. With capital punishment, it is an issue of punishment of crime. With abortion, it is a matter of diminished well being.

and you are consistently ignoring or missing MY point that abortion LIKE war or capital punishment involves a given level of arbitrariness. Who sets the rule of when you go to war with someone? Who sets the rules for when a convicted criminal is killed? And WHO sets the rules on when a fetus is viable and for what reasons women should or should not have an abortion? And in all cases what makes them masters of the universe over these issues? In ALL cases can you really ever have a right answer? Or is it always a sliding scale on the whims of politics and emotion where factual knowledge cant fully penetrate? Now, as to Vals assertion that well, if we cant ever be perfectly right then we shouldn’t allow abortion at all just to be safe. This argument fails to take into consideration the fate of the woman who would otherwise be getting this abortion. Again do they become a non entity with no control over their body “just to be safe�?

If you look at my post from earlier, you'll see that I said one reason for abortion that I will respect is that you believe it is a collection of cells that still is not close to equalling a human life. If it is only a cellular glob that we're killing, rather then a human being, then abortion is not wrong. It's no different from crushing an ant under foot, and the good that comes from the abortion is worth the "crushing the ant."

which is well along the lines of my reasoning. Thanks for acknowledging.

Abortion is an unnecessary evil. What's necessary about it? Having an abortion does often has good consequences to the mother, in evasion of different kinds of difficulties and sacrifices. However, to evade difficulties and sacrifices you're killing a person. Perhaps you disagree with me on this, but to me, this is morally reprehensible.

and is not equally morally reprehensible to force a woman to bring an unwanted child to term in a world that’s NOT perfect and where birthed children often slip through the cracks of our society and are subject to horrific tortures both mental and physical and invariably do not have any alternative to this nightmare of a life that many (millions by the sheer law of statistics) will have to endure? Which is worse? aborting a fetus at 3 weeks or forcing a 15 year old drug addict to have her baby which is then forgotten by the same society that insisted it had a right to live and is abused emotionally and physically all its life and tortured and twisted by the abyss of poverty it was born into? The child grows up feeling abandoned by the world and forced into selling drugs or prostituting themselves only to wind up in and out of jail by the time they are 16 until ultimately killing themselves from despair? Which death is worse would you say? The point there, is that this is NOT a perfect world. Many pro lifers have only fundamental ideals in mind when they rail against the evils of abortion but yet you hear much much fewer of them protesting loudly about child abuse or poverty or one of the many many modern plagues that destroy the lives of countless children. Id say that’s equally as morally reprehensive if you ask me. And the argument of oh well not ALL potentially aborted fetuses will end up in poverty is meaningless because MANY MANY WILL. You need to look at the numbers here. Realize how things work. YOU cant adopt EVERYONE (how many people here have adopted poor children by the way). And you cant protest against something yet offer no recourse for the consequences of not having it around. Its bad news either way unfortunately. It’s a cold mean world sometimes.

Sure, I don't think many of them do "kill for the sake of killing". That would be extremely rare; probably unheard of. But the reasons aren't good enough.

again what is good enough lief? And who gets to set that agenda exactly? and are you willing to triple your taxes to ensure a higher percentage of non aborted babies grow up in happy healthy families? Or will you, like many conservatives, resort right back to “attack the do nothing welfare class� approach to the poor and the drug addicted and the hard on their luck once these children are forced to be born by your command? I don’t personally think YOU would. Correct me if im wrong. but I DO know MANY others live their lives like this. And its pathetic. Some pro lifers are the biggest hypocrites on the face of the earth if you ask me. Youll note that’s not an accusation. Just a statement of fact.

We already do legislate what a person can and cannot do with their own body parts. People aren't allowed to strangle with their two hands

so you make the equivalence between a person actively attacking and stangling another adult that has NO dependence on the first person for their survival whatsoever, to a 15 year old aborting a 3 week old fetus which is currently residing in HER body COMPLETELY dependent on HER for its existence. In essence you are saying you think its ok to hold all these women prisoners of their own biology. I cant accept that myself. Certainly not on the level of legislation.

All right, fine, maybe that issue is not quite black and white . . .

no yer getting it.

A worthwhile discussion, though.

indeed. A sober one and a hard one but one we must undertake. The unique thing about abortion is that its one of those rare issues that for the MOST part, even the vast majority of the people who support it would really like to see it never happen. That seems a great opportunity to make things better in my opinion. To join forces and seek ways to decrease the potential that a woman will find herself in a situation where she feels abortion is her final option. That’s why being rigid and unwavering and launching horrible propaganda attacks involving fetus posters, ridiculous displays of shock tactics and screaming at people that they are sinners and killers and whores in an attempt to stop them is about the WORST thing you can do (I know they just make ME more adamant about supporting abortion rights I can tell you). Really, if you don’t want abortion then focus on sex education. And focus on contraception. Offer more programs for poor women in trouble and healthy easy safe alternatives for people who find themselves in the terrifying position of suddenly realizing they are pregnant with a child they cant possibly support. DON’T try to scare them or guilt them out of it. That’s just polarizing and ridiculous. And in the end (as you may have noted since 1972) completely useless.

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

and the congress... they could try to pass an anti-abortion law if they had the votes... and this would also force the supreme court to revisit the situation... it has not happened, so one has to assume that the majority of votes are not there among the representatives of the people of this country

GONG! Sooo-rry! Go back to American Government Class, do not pass 'Go', do not collect $200!

You really surprise me.

As I understand it, the Supreme Court ruling in Roe v Wade in January of 1973 was a broadly sweeping act which struck down state anti-abortion laws nation-wide, based on flimsy interpretation of rights afforded by the US Constitution. There are only two ways it can be changed: either a subsequent court case whose ruling reverses it, or a constitutional amendment. Before this ruling, the will of the people was largely reflected in the laws of the states in this matter. After that, it was taken out of the people's hands.

Since that time, judges have made rulings which only EXTEND rights to an abortion - or rather, further restrict laws which oppose abortion (in the original ruling, IIRC, states could not make any laws limiting abortions in the first trimester, could make laws within certain limitations for the second trimester, and could make any kind of limitation for the third trimester... since then, things have gone to where just about no restrictions can be made).

Even in the extreme case of partial-birth abortions, many state legislatures have passed laws preventing it - and the federal legislature themselves have passed two (the first vetoed by President Clinton - the second signed by President Bush), but even THOSE invariably get struck down by judges - although they obviously apply to the third trimester.

Heck - it doesn't even take a majority of the Supreme Court... find ONE federal judge somewhere who will rule your way... and an idea which was fully supported by the people, carefully crafted and enacted as the law of the land... will be struck down.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

and you are consistently ignoring or missing MY point that abortion LIKE war or capital punishment involves a given level of arbitrariness. Who sets the rule of when you go to war with someone? Who sets the rules for when a convicted criminal is killed? And WHO sets the rules on when a fetus is viable and for what reasons women should or should not have an abortion? And in all cases what makes them masters of the universe over these issues? In ALL cases can you really ever have a right answer? Or is it always a sliding scale on the whims of politics and emotion where factual knowledge cant fully penetrate? Now, as to Vals assertion that well, if we cant ever be perfectly right then we shouldn’t allow abortion at all just to be safe. This argument fails to take into consideration the fate of the woman who would otherwise be getting this abortion. Again do they become a non entity with no control over their body “just to be safe�?

Do you believe that convenience (by my definition; see my second post on Page 1) is sufficient reason to kill adult humans?

To avoid social, economic or emotional hardship, would you kill me?

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Originally Posted by Valandil

GONG! Sooo-rry! Go back to American Government Class, do not pass 'Go', do not collect $200!

Heck - it doesn't even take a majority of the Supreme Court... find ONE federal judge somewhere who will rule your way... and an idea which was fully supported by the people, carefully crafted and enacted as the law of the land... will be struck down.

Now its you who suprise me!

Federal judges are bound to the precedent of the higher court, so, as in Rowe V Wade, you appeal to the Supreme court for satisfaction.

Though I assume I am reading your point wrong, Val.

So the only place that the law will be changed is by constitutional ammendment, or if the "Supremes" (god I love that name ) rule differently on a similar case, thereby binding the hands of any lower court Justice.

And as to the majority of the people being anti-abortion, one tends to cast ones memory back to the 1840's when the majority of people were pro-slavery....

[Fenir_LacDanan]

I never had any idea how conservative the Moot is!

It looks like its only Hasty and me who are pro-choice (anti-life, pro-abortion, anti-God, whatever), grappling with the debate at hand.

[EDIT: this is not a political debate - Eärniel]

I'll just go back to non-abstaining girlfriend, have premarital sex using contraception, push for the legalisation of medicinal marajuana, push for increase social security so as to allow people to not work and get paid for it, push for Gay marriage so as to destroy the traditional family unit, raise taxes because we like to bleed middle and upper classes so as to start a workers revolution in which we, the proletariat, will rise up and impale all aristocrats in pitchforcks; all while I dodge the draft because I am a hippy communist, ect.

[BeardofPants]

I'm pro-choice as well. Didja miss the bit where me and rian were quibbling over terminology?