abortion and the death penalty. [Archive]

Ntombi

Sep 23, 2008, 03:28 PM

While I too find the appellation "pro-life" to be abhorrent, to answer the OQ, I am pro-choice and anti-death penalty.

I would be more inclined to be in favor of the death penalty if it were used only in those most heinous of cases where we absolutely positively knew that the person was guilty.

Since we know that it's not fairly applied, and that there have been innocent people released from death row, how can any thinking person be in favor of the death penalty as it exists in this country? Please, those of you who are in favor of it, I would love to hear a real answer.

This is a particularly timely thread, considering this possible horror is happening:

Georgia set to execute man for officer's death

By GREG BLUESTEIN – 46 minutes ago
ATLANTA (AP) — A Georgia man convicted of killing an off-duty police officer was set to be executed Tuesday, even though witnesses have backed away from their testimony and questions remain about whether he is truly guilty.
Seven of the nine witnesses who helped put Troy Davis on death row for the 1989 murder have since recanted their testimony, and Davis' attorneys say that others claim another man pulled the trigger.
But prosecutors have labeled the witness statements "suspect" and the courts have consistently refused requests for a new trial.
Influential advocates, including former President Jimmy Carter and South Africa Archbishop Desmond Tutu, insist that there's enough doubt about his guilt to merit a new trial for 39-year-old Troy Davis. Davis' only hope for a reprieve lies with the U.S. Supreme Court.
A divided Georgia Supreme Court has twice rejected his request for a new trial, and rejected his appeal to delay the execution by a 6-1 vote Monday afternoon. The Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles also turned down his bid for clemency after a daylong hearing.
As his legal options dwindle, Davis supporters have organized a series of rallies and vigils around the state.
They are calling for the prison staff scheduled to oversee the execution to call in sick and picketed the offices of the company that provides medical staff for the execution. They also plan a demonstration at the Georgia Capitol and vigils at eight towns around the state.
Amnesty International has taken up the cause, helping organize rallies as far away as Paris. The execution site, a state prison in Jackson, Ga., is expected to attract dozens of protesters, including the Rev. Al Sharpton.
Davis was convicted of the 1989 murder of 27-year-old officer Mark MacPhail, who was working off-duty as a security guard at a bus station.
MacPhail had rushed to help a homeless man who had been pistol-whipped at a nearby parking lot, and was shot twice when he approached Davis and two other men.
Witnesses identified Davis as the shooter, and at the 1991 trial, prosecutors said he wore a "smirk on his face" as he fired the gun.
But Davis' lawyers say new evidence proves their client was a victim of mistaken identity. Besides those who have recanted their testimony, three others who did not testify have said Sylvester "Red" Coles — who testified against Davis at his trial — confessed to the killing.
He refused to talk about the case when contacted by The Associated Press during a 2007 Chatham County court appearance and he has no listed phone number.
Prosecutors have contended in court hearings the case is closed. They also say some of the witness affidavits simply repeat what a trial jury has already heard, while others are irrelevant because they come from witnesses who never testified.
Davis' attorneys asked the U.S. Supreme Court to stay the execution until it has a chance to discuss whether to hear the case at a conference next week. The court could decide within hours.
"The world is watching Georgia," said Martina Correia, Davis' sister. "Everything you do in the dark always comes back to light."

I have no idea if this man is guilty, but there seem to be enough questions about the case itself to warrant looking at without a deadline.

ucfgrad93

Sep 23, 2008, 03:30 PM

I am anti-abortion and pro death penalty. I freely admit that I am sometimes conflicted by this stance.

There are a couple of reasons that I feel this way. First, people sentenced to the death penalty have committed a heinous crime and in my opinion are deserving of this punishment. Abortion is perpetrated on an innocent person, in my opinion.

Then there is the matter of how many of each are done. First, lets look at the death penalty in the United States. Since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, there have been 1099 executions in the United States.

U.S. EXECUTIONS BY YEAR

1977 - 01 1985 - 18 1993 - 38 2001 - 66
1978 - 00 1986 - 18 1994 - 31 2002 - 71
1979 - 02 1987 - 25 1995 - 56 2003 - 65
1980 - 00 1988 - 11 1996 - 45 2004 - 59
1981 - 01 1989 - 16 1997 - 74 2005 - 60
1982 - 02 1990 - 23 1998 - 68 2006 - 53
1983 - 05 1991 - 14 1999 - 98 2007 - 42
1984 - 21 1992 - 31 2000 - 85 4/1/08 - 00

U.S. EXECUTIONS BY RACE AND GENDER

White 630 (57%) Male 1,088 (99%)
Black 377 (34%) Female 011 (01%)
Hispanic 076 (07%)
Native Am 014 (01%)
Asian 008 (01%)

http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/dpusa.htm

Now, what about the number of abortions? Since abortions were legalized in 1973, there have over 30 million abortions in the United States.

There have been more than 32.5 million abortions in the twenty one years since the U.S. Supreme Court legalized unrestricted abortion on January 22, 1973.

Except when noted, these statistics are based on research published by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, special research affiliate of Planned Parenthood Federation of America--the nation's largest provider and promoter of abortion. AGI has not published detailed figures on the total number of abortions since 1992, though it did give an estimate of 1,435,000 abortions for 1994 to USA Today in August of 1996. Estimates for 1993, 1995 and 1996 are based on trends from previous years.

In the past, AGI has estimated a possible 3-6% rate of underreporting.

http://www.euthanasia.com/usstat.html

mactastic

Sep 23, 2008, 03:34 PM

I predict this thread will not end well. Abortion threads tend to degenerate into accusation of "murderer" and "nazi" being bandied about lightly.

Maybe y'all can prove me wrong.

fivepoint

Sep 23, 2008, 03:36 PM

Now, what about the number of abortions? Since abortions were legalized in 1973, there have over 30 million abortions in the United States.

http://www.euthanasia.com/usstat.html

I don't care who you are... that is a disgusting statistic. :(

I predict this thread will not end well. Abortion threads tend to degenerate into accusation of "murderer" and "nazi" being bandied about lightly.

Maybe y'all can prove me wrong.

I share your hopes that this thread does not disintegrate into something like that. If everyone will try to have a little more patience, a little more understanding, and a little more self-control it should at least last a bit longer than usual!

scotthayes

Sep 23, 2008, 03:41 PM

I predict this thread will not end well. Abortion threads tend to degenerate into accusation of "murderer" and "nazi" being bandied about lightly.

Maybe y'all can prove me wrong.

I'm hoping (maybe very innocent of me) that this thread will not descend in to a thread of name calling.
The thought behind it is to see people's feelings abortion and the death penalty and if they can be contradicting feelings. It is not intended as a thread on abortion alone or the death penalty alone.

és:

Sep 23, 2008, 03:43 PM

I'm sure you wouldn't, 'es... but there are also people out there who think that "pro-choice" is the most offensive term around. That it should really be "pro-death" or "pro-little-helpless-baby-killing". Should the OP also make changes to suit those people's opinions? No. He uses common terms known by everybody. I suggest you respond to the IDEA and not the terminology that you apparently object to.

Surely this is just an act, you can't really be this obtuse in real life. You're taking what I've said completely out of context. You need to read what I write more carefully because you continue to come unstuck.

I'm not sure why you've gone off at a tangent about pro-choice, as it has no relevance. Despite your ranting, it's not the term that's offensive, it's the actions that are perceived to be wrong.

Pro-life, however, carries horrible connotation and insinuation. Being pro-choice doesn't necessarily mean that you're not pro-life.

You know what the OP meant

To have a decent poll, you can't leave so much grey area.

Every time I post something, you're on it like a flash and end up with an entire forum poking fun at you and your posts. I thought you might have learned your lesson by now. My suggestion is that you think and read what I've written before you pick up on everything I say, you just get egg on your face.

dukebound85

Sep 23, 2008, 03:44 PM

atszyman

Sep 23, 2008, 03:47 PM

I'm pro-choice, anti-death penalty like many here.

For the anti-abortion crowd, are you also against IVF?

If not what do you propose be done with the extra embryos created in an IVF procedure? Should we force the women to have all of the embryos implanted one at a time? Should we force women who cannot have more children due to health issues to give them up for embryo adoption?

fivepoint

Sep 23, 2008, 03:49 PM

For the record, and at the risk of getting attacked by the likes of 'es just for having a different opinion... Ill tell everyone that I voted "Pro-life and anti death penalty."

I am a firm believer in the value of human life and the depleting sense of personal responsibility in our society. I believe that a fetus is a life and that no one should have the "right" to destroy that life because it is "easier", "my body" or a 'financially sound' decision. A human life can not be weighed against an easier life or against more money. To that end, I don't think any one person should have the right to sentence an innocent to death. Unfortunately, too many young mothers don't even think this deeply about the situation and get abortions simply because it's "easier." Because they don't value life and/or personal responsibility.

I also (albeit less fervently) believe that the death penalty is a broken system. Until I see some real data which can PROVE beyond a shadow of a doubt that the death penalty SAVES lives, I can't support it. I don't believe that killing in the name of "justice" alone is a moral proposition...

At any rate, that is my opinion. These are both tricky subjects and are a whole lot less black and white than people give them credit for.

mactastic

Sep 23, 2008, 03:49 PM

I'm hoping (maybe very innocent of me) that this thread will not descend in to a thread of name calling.
The thought behind it is to see people's feelings abortion and the death penalty and if they can be contradicting feelings. It is not intended as a thread on abortion alone or the death penalty alone.
Well, as someone who is pro-choice and anti-death penalty, I can tell you that there is no conflict or contradiction because, as has been noted above, I do not consider a fetus - particularly in the first trimester - to be a person. Thus my views are intellectually consistent. To me, removal of a group of cells from the uterus at that stage is no more murder than removing cancer cells is murder.

At the same time, I understand that for people who are pro-life and pro-death penalty, they consider a fetus to be a person from the moment of conception whose life is sacred, and that a criminal to be executed has committed acts that render them to be no longer considered a person whose life is sacred.

redwarrior

Sep 23, 2008, 03:51 PM

there are also people out there who think that "pro-choice" is the most offensive term around. That it should really be "pro-death" or "pro-little-helpless-baby-killing".

You know what the OP meant
+1

was going to comment on my stance but since any view that isnt liberal here gets attacked like a swarm of killer bees, its not worth my time...

looks at poll results to confirm suspicion......*yup its confirmed*
I have decided to go ahead and comment anyway...

Pro-life, anti-death penalty. I used to support the death penalty, but I decided that it was because of the way I was raised, so I searched my heart.

és:

Sep 23, 2008, 03:55 PM

For the record, and at the risk of getting attacked by the likes of 'es just for having a different opinion...

That's disgusting, utterly disgusting. As I keep on telling you, I've no problem with anyone having a different opinion. I do have a problem with people making things up and not being able to back assertions up with facts. You can't seem to see the different between the two.

I am a firm believer in the value of human life and the depleting sense of personal responsibility in our society. I believe that a fetus is a life and that no one should have the "right" to destroy that life because it is "easier", "my body" or a 'financially sound' decision. A human life can not be weighed against an easier life or against more money. To that end, I don't think any one person should have the right to sentence an innocent to death. Unfortunately, too many young mothers don't even think this deeply about the situation and get abortions simply because it's "easier." Because they don't value life and/or personal responsibility.

I also (albeit less fervently) believe that the death penalty is a broken system. Until I see some real data which can PROVE beyond a shadow of a doubt that the death penalty SAVES lives, I can't support it. I don't believe that killing in the name of "justice" alone is a moral proposition...

At any rate, that is my opinion. These are both tricky subjects and are a whole lot less black and white than people give them credit for.

I don't disagree with any of that. Not a word. I mean, I'd add a lot of provisos and come to a different conclusion when you take the arguments further, but I don't see anything wrong with that.

wordmunger

Sep 23, 2008, 03:56 PM

Even in a "Pro-Lifer's" wet dream situation, abortions still will occur (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/12/news/12abortion.php):

Legal or not, abortion rates similar

ROME: A comprehensive global study of abortion has concluded that abortion rates are similar in countries where it is legal and those where it is not, suggesting that outlawing the procedure does little to deter women seeking it.

Moreover, the researchers found that abortion was safe in countries where it was legal, but dangerous in countries where it was outlawed and performed clandestinely. Globally, abortion accounts for 13 percent of women's deaths during pregnancy and childbirth, and there are 31 abortions for every 100 live births, the study said.

"We now have a global picture of induced abortion in the world, covering both countries where it is legal and countries where laws are very restrictive," Dr. Paul Van Look, director of the WHO Department of Reproductive Health and Research, said in a telephone interview. "What we see is that the law does not influence a woman's decision to have an abortion. If there's an unplanned pregnancy, it does not matter if the law is restrictive or liberal."

The difference, as you see, is that when abortion is illegal, more women die. Make abortion illegal, kill people. That's what "pro-life" politics gets you.

fivepoint

Sep 23, 2008, 03:57 PM

Pro-life, however, carries horrible connotation and insinuation. Being pro-choice doesn't necessarily mean that you're not pro-life.

That's my point, 'es. Pro-choice also carries a horrible connotation and insinuation. Being pro-life don't necessarily mean that you're not pro-choice. On the contrary actually... I'd venture to guess that I stick up for constitutional rights and liberties on this forum more than 90% of the people I am a HUGE advocate for personal "choice" and/or freedom... but not at the expense of a individual life!

To have a decent poll, you can't leave so much grey area.

Yes, the OP would have been better served with pro-abortion and anti-abortion. However, you have a tendency to attack people, and people's words even though you know what they meant and know their intentions. The OP went out of his way to explain himself and to make his poll clear to everyone. So quit busting his chops! You'll get a lot further in life if you stop attacking and start contributing useful commentary to the actual conversation. I'm surprised you don't ridicule people on their spelling mistakes more often... you seem like the type.

I don't disagree with any of that. Not a word. I mean, I'd add a lot of provisos and come to a different conclusion when you take the arguments further, but I don't see anything wrong with that.

I am flabbergasted. But glad to hear it. Wanna be best-friends? ;) Seriously though, I hope that I am that straight-forward with you if we find any other things in common in the future.

Iscariot

Sep 23, 2008, 03:58 PM

Scientifically speaking, what makes a fetus a human life?

Lord Blackadder

Sep 23, 2008, 03:59 PM

Pro-choice/anti-death penalty.

In my personal life, I would say that I would be very reluctant to agree for my girlfriend/wife to have an abortion for reasons other than rape/medical risk, but I would ultimately leave the final decision up to her. From a political standpoint, I can not support an attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade.

I understand pro-life viewpoint and agree with a lot of it, but when it comes to the point of legislating so that people are forced to give birth when pregnant, I can't support that - it is too much intrusion by the government into peoples' private affairs. I am also uncomfortable when we start legislating morality to that degree.

With the death penalty, I have to say that I absolutely believe that people who commit certain crimes deserve to die...but I am not comfortable killing people just because they deserve it, and the justice system is not perfect enough to trust it to know when to execute people without error.

mactastic

Sep 23, 2008, 04:03 PM

I have decided to go ahead and comment anyway...

Pro-life, anti-death penalty. I used to support the death penalty, but I decided that it was because of the way I was raised, so I searched my heart.
*Awaits swarm of killer bees...*
http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m186/Vinleaded/belushi-crazy.jpg
Oh wait, I think I see one...

és:

Sep 23, 2008, 04:04 PM

That's my point, 'es. Pro-choice also carries a horrible connotation and insinuation. Being pro-life don't necessarily mean that you're not pro-choice. On the contrary actually... I'd venture to guess that I stick up for constitutional rights and liberties on this forum more than 90% of the people I am a HUGE advocate for personal "choice" and/or freedom... but not at the expense of a individual life!

Well, you've just contradicted yourself. Well done.

You'll get a lot further in life if you stop attacking and start contributing useful commentary to the actual conversation.

This is the easily the funniest things you've ever said to me. I'll get further in life... Who the ***** do you think you are?

I'm surprised you don't ridicule people on their spelling mistakes more often... you seem like the type. ;)

The irony of someone talking about attacking... I can't say what I want to, because I'll be banned. I'm fairly sure that you know how I feel about you and your level of intellect, so I'll leave it at that.

scotthayes

Sep 23, 2008, 04:08 PM

es and fivepoint, maybe you could take the argument you are having else where.

fivepoint

Sep 23, 2008, 04:10 PM

Pro-life, anti-death penalty. I used to support the death penalty, but I decided that it was because of the way I was raised, so I searched my heart.

Red, I think your situation must have shared at least a few similarities with my own. I also grew up supporting the death penalty but began to question the logic/morality as I aged. I'm glad that you felt ok posting your personal story here... there is no reason for a "swarm of bees" to attack someone such as yourself with closely held beliefs and who has obviously poured a lot of thought into their positions.

es and fivepoint, maybe you could take the argument you are having else where.

Just wanted to make sure he wasn't attempting to dominate the conversation through personal attacks like I had seen before. I agree that it is detrimental to your thread, and will stop addressing him directly. I'm glad we're talking about the issue now, rather than how you crafted your poll. ;)

.Andy

Sep 23, 2008, 04:11 PM

Scientifically speaking, what makes a fetus a human life?
Medically and scientifically speaking the line is drawn at the development of the primative nervous system. Where the mass of cells acquires the (possibility) of sensing their environment, thought and pain. Unfortunately god doesn't draw the line there.

és:

Sep 23, 2008, 04:12 PM

I am flabbergasted.

You're flabbergasted because you assume things. That's why you and I don't get on.

Seriously though, I hope that I am that straight-forward with you if we find any other things in common in the future.

Well, dig a little deeper and see how much we really do have in common in this issue.

és:

Sep 23, 2008, 04:15 PM

Medically and scientifically speaking the line is drawn at the development of the primative nervous system. Where the mass of cells acquires the (possibility) of sensing their environment, thought and pain. Unfortunately god doesn't draw the line there.

For me, it's all about what you're destroying in the future. The foetus has a good chance of becoming a health human. In most situations, I don't agree with taking that away.

That's my personal choice and I sure as heck wouldn't want force them into living by my opinion.

BoyBach

Sep 23, 2008, 04:21 PM

For what it's worth, I'm pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia and anti-death penalty.

(Not happy with the anti-abortionists hijacking the "pro-life" moniker for their cause. The same goes for the "pro-choice" moniker. The labels serve to simplify and stifle the debate to name calling.)

scotthayes

Sep 23, 2008, 04:22 PM

was going to comment on my stance but since any view that isnt liberal here gets attacked like a swarm of killer bees, its not worth my time...

looks at poll results to confirm suspicion......*yup its confirmed*

You should comment.

Yes I'm very liberal and an atheist. However I can understand and accept that people do consider life begins at conception and therefore that is an innocent life that should not be taken. I can also accept that some people feel that a crime can be so heinous that the only option for society is to end that person's life.

From my point of view I do not believe life does begin at conception and is not a life until it is able to sustain life on it's own (yes I know that opens up a whole new issue) and the woman should be able to make that choice. If she does choose an abortion it must be free, safe and legal for her.

I do not believe the state has the right to exact revenge on somebody for a crime they have committed. I feel a full life prison term is the ultimate sentence that should be allowed.

Ntombi

Sep 23, 2008, 04:23 PM

Yes, the OP would have been better served with pro-abortion and anti-abortion.
I find that extremely offensive as well. I don't know anyone who is "pro-abortion!" I'm not pro-abortion. Who the hell wants a woman to go through an abortion? I want women to have the CHOICE when they have an unwanted pregnancy. See the difference?

I am a fervent advocate of birth control, including abstinence, but birth control isn't foolproof (not to mention the fact that rape is not uncommon), and forcing every single pregnant woman to go full-term is unconscionable in my eyes. Pregnancy is not a walk in the park, medically, financially, or socially, and not every woman is prepared to be pregnant for nine months. Therefore, I'm in favor of a woman being able to choose the option that will be best for her life.

To that end, I'm also against abstinence-only education, because those who are "taught" with that curriculum aren't given all of the information about birth control and have a higher rate of both pregnancy and STIs.

és:

Sep 23, 2008, 04:36 PM

I find that extremely offensive as well. I don't know anyone who is "pro-abortion!" I'm not pro-abortion. Who the hell wants a woman to go through an abortion? I want women to have the CHOICE when they have an unwanted pregnancy. See the difference?

I always laugh at that 'pro-abortion' - it just leads me to think of people outside maternity wards with signs saying 'say no to babies'. The way pro-lifers do at abortion clinics.

BoyBach, a poster that I have a lot of respect for and know to be an intelligent/thoughtful person, just used that term... I did wince a little.

I am a fervent advocate of birth control, including abstinence, but birth control isn't foolproof (not to mention the fact that rape is not uncommon), and forcing every single pregnant woman to go full-term is unconscionable in my eyes. Pregnancy is not a walk in the park, medically, financially, or socially, and not every woman is prepared to be pregnant for nine months. Therefore, I'm in favor of a woman being able to choose the option that will be best for her life.

Now, I'd never want abortion to be made illegal (up to a certain point, of course) because we all know what happens when it is, but in my opinion the whole 'birth control isn't 100%' is a bit of a cop out. I don't mean that aimed at what you've just said, but the argument in general. We're all big boys and girls, we know the risks of having sex and what it leads to and we know that there is a risk of pregnancy even if you're using protection - we should either be willing to take responsibility or just don't have sex.

I've now got the most amazing Son because I have those beliefs, because I decided to take responsibility.

Iscariot

Sep 23, 2008, 04:41 PM

Unfortunately god doesn't draw the line there.

Fortunately, God doesn't make the law, and He seems to be above a subpoena.
For me, it's all about what you're destroying in the future. The foetus has a good chance of becoming a health human. In most situations, I don't agree with taking that away.

That's my personal choice and I sure as heck wouldn't want force them into living by my opinion.

Yes, but you're willing to draw the line between "for és" and "for everybody". The problem is those unwilling to separate their personal choice from everyone else's.

Ntombi

Sep 23, 2008, 04:54 PM

I always laugh at that 'pro-abortion' - it just leads me to think of people outside maternity wards with signs saying 'say no to babies'. The way pro-lifers do at abortion clinics.

BoyBach, a poster that I have a lot of respect for and know to be an intelligent/thoughtful person, just used that term... I did wince a little. Me too, especially since I saw it after I posted that. :)

Now, I'd never want abortion to be made illegal (up to a certain point, of course) because we all know what happens when it is, but in my opinion the whole 'birth control isn't 100%' is a bit of a cop out. I don't mean that aimed at what you've just said, but the argument in general. We're all big boys and girls, we know the risks of having sex and what it leads to and we know that there is a risk of pregnancy even if you're using protection - we should either be willing to take responsibility or just don't have sex.

I've now got the most amazing Son because I have those beliefs, because I decided to take responsibility.
I can respect that you and your partner made that choice, and it was right for you, but what kind of sense does it make to say that any woman who has sex has to be willing to carry a baby full-term?

And I absolutely, positively believe in prevention over abortion, which is why I always use two forms of BC, but where do you draw the line? I'm not willing to be abstinent because I don't want to have a child. And the fact is that birth control isn't 100%. That's not in dispute.

BTW, I'm assuming you're only writing about consensual sex between adults in that post. Because we all know that there are many cases when a pregnancy is the result of something other than that.

BoyBach

Sep 23, 2008, 04:57 PM

BoyBach, a poster that I have a lot of respect for and know to be an intelligent/thoughtful person, just used that term... I did wince a little.

Why wince?

I'm pro-abortion. I fully support a woman's right to terminate a foetus under the relevant UK laws.

As I posted a little earlier, in my opinion using "pro-life" and "pro-choice" serve only to simplify the debate to that of a pin badge. Who this side of Stalin could argue that they are not "pro-choice" and "pro-life"? Am I to proclaim myself to be "anti-life" and that those who oppose abortion to be "anti-choice"? Such an argument would be patently absurd.

...and He seems to be above a subpoena.

Dick Cheney is god? :eek:

Iscariot

Sep 23, 2008, 05:01 PM

I always laugh at that 'pro-abortion' - it just leads me to think of people outside maternity wards with signs saying 'say no to babies'. The way pro-lifers do at abortion clinics.

The next time there is any kind of protest here, I'm going to go out with a sign that says "say no to babies". Especially if it's a Scientology protest.

Those of you who are against legal abortions, see my question "Scientifically speaking, what makes a fetus a human life?"

és:

Sep 23, 2008, 05:13 PM

I can respect that you and your partner made that choice, and it was right for you, but what kind of sense does it make to say that any woman who has sex has to be willing to carry a baby full-term?

I'm not saying they have to, I'm saying that I think they should - for the sake of that life. Whether they do or not has to be up to them.

I'm not willing to be abstinent because I don't want to have a child.

I can't reply to that without being harsh. And you're so nice, so I don't want to be harsh :D

I just think that if you're willing to have sex, knowing slim possibility of pregnancy, that you should live with it. Again, whether you do or not is nothing to do with me.

BTW, I'm assuming you're only writing about consensual sex between adults in that post. Because we all know that there are many cases when a pregnancy is the result of something other than that.

Of course, there are lots of exemptions. I think all but the most radical of people accept that there must be exemptions, even the people that want it banned (and I'm not one of those) often agree there must be some exception.

és:

Sep 23, 2008, 05:15 PM

The next time there is any kind of protest here, I'm going to go out with a sign that says "say no to babies". Especially if it's a Scientology protest.

''say no to Tom Cruise''

jplan2008

Sep 23, 2008, 05:17 PM

I find an anti- gun regulation, pro abortion regulation, pro death penalty stance hard to understand myself.

I agree with Ntombi that this is an appropriate day for this discussion. Regarding the death penalty, there's no evidence that it deters violent crimes, and there is unrefuted evidence that innocent people have been murdered by the state in the name of "justice," and that people have used up all their appeals and have been on death row for decades when new evidence, or new scientific techniques prove that they are innocent.

I'm not sure what numbers have to do with it. If the government, in my name, kills one innocent person in the name of "justice," that's one too many.

And for those that are guilty, I don't think it's teaching us anything as a society except that killing is acceptable, revenge is desirable. Telling someone up to months before, the exact date, time, and manner of death, then inviting people to watch is no better than a public hanging, and is very cruel and very unusual IMO.

The other point about the numbers, if you want to use them, is the likelihood of an African American vs. a white man of being sentenced to death. The Supreme Court basically said, when that argument was heard, "that would mean our entire judicial system is racist and unfair, so it can't be true." Gotta love that wisdom, logic, and thoughtfulness.

It looks like that may happen within an hour -- the execution of someone who is likely innocent, and about whose guilt there is a lot of reasonable doubt.

More links about Troy Davis' execution:

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/stay-georgias-tuesday-7pm-execution/story.aspx?guid=%7B00246001-715A-4945-A076-4CA102B3CB1E%7D&dist=hppr

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/23/usa

Iscariot

Sep 23, 2008, 05:26 PM

I'm not saying they have to, I'm saying that I think they should - for the sake of that life. Whether they do or not has to be up to them.

What life? What makes it a life? Scientifically/medically/rationally speaking.

és:

Sep 23, 2008, 05:36 PM

What life? What makes it a life? Scientifically/medically/rationally speaking.

I can repeat what is medically a life, if you like. Most of us know what the technical definitions are and at what age a baby can survive without mother. However, I find that all it does is to make it a little easier to end something that will likely become a health baby.

When I say end a life, I'm not talking about the stage that a foetus is in, I'm talking about stopping (or ending...) the life that has (likely) been set into motion. I think most of us can accept that it is that what is happening. So, to me at least, regardless of what the definition is at the time of termination, it's still ending a life, even if it's a future life by scientific definition.

I feel that scientific definitions come into play more when talking about legality and cut off times than when you're talking about the morality of a termination.

Again, that's my own personal take on it. I'd never try to enforce my own morals onto an entire nation of people who have different views.

Ntombi

Sep 23, 2008, 05:47 PM

I'm not saying they have to, I'm saying that I think they should - for the sake of that life. Whether they do or not has to be up to them.

I can't reply to that without being harsh. And you're so nice, so I don't want to be harsh :D

I just think that if you're willing to have sex, knowing slim possibility of pregnancy, that you should live with it. Again, whether you do or not is nothing to do with me.

Of course, there are lots of exemptions. I think all but the most radical of people accept that there must be exemptions, even the people that want it banned (and I'm not one of those) often agree there must be some exception.
Fair enough. Having a different opinion and being willing to talk about it rationally is cool with me. Having a different opinion and imposing that opinion on someone else's life and body is a different matter.

As for Troy Davis, I find it horrifying that once again, the courts are relying on the least reliable sort of "evidence" allowable in a court of law: eyewitness testimony. It has been proven every which way that stranger identification is the not at all reliable, yet the state is willing to kill someone on that evidence alone. Even after the vast majority of the witnesses retracted their identification of Davis as the shooter, and the fact that there is no physical evidence linking Davis to the crime.

Once again, I'm disgusted by the intractable nature of the "justice system."

Macaddicttt

Sep 23, 2008, 05:51 PM

I'm not willing to be abstinent because I don't want to have a child.

I never understood this. It boggles my mind. Sex exists to make babies. That's the only reason it's there (speaking form a scientific perspective). The reason you aren't "willing to be abstinent" is your body trying to make a baby so badly that you cannot give up the possibility of engaging in the activity that makes babies. Of course there's going to be the risk of pregnancy if you have sex.

Saying you're "not willing to be abstinent" just because the intended biological consequence of sex might happen is the ultimate in dodging responsibility. I know we all have weaknesses, and things happen that we don't always intend, but it makes no sense to fully embrace something without also fully embracing and accepting the consequences.

yg17

Sep 23, 2008, 05:59 PM

I'm generally pro-choice and anti-death penalty.

When there is the slightest possibility of someone's innocence, I'm against the death penalty. But I'm fine with it in cases where people openly admit to what they did, have no remorse and are proud of it.

jplan2008

Sep 23, 2008, 06:00 PM

So, to me at least, regardless of what the definition is at the time of termination, it's still ending a life, even if it's a future life by scientific definition.

.

I definitely appreciate that you're not trying to impose your views on anyone, but even talking about some "future certainty" has its problems.

And you could use the argument that if I'm ovulating, and I don't have unprotected sex, even if I abstain, then there's some possible future life that won't come about (because it is far from certain even in the case of abortion)

"A miscarriage is the loss of a baby before the 20th week of pregnancy. Many losses occur before a woman knows she is pregnant. About 15 percent of recognized pregnancies and as many as 50 percent of all pregnancies end in miscarriage."

(in other words, some object to the morning after pill, even though there is less than a 100% chance of the woman becoming pregnant, and IF she does, there's up to a 50% chance she will miscarry)

http://www.marchofdimes.com/pnhec/188_1086.asp

"The U.S. maternal mortality rate rose to 13 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2004, according to statistics released this week by the National Center for Health Statistics."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070824/dying-from-childbirth/

"Among 33 industrialized nations, the United States is tied with Hungary, Malta, Poland and Slovakia with a death rate of nearly 5 per 1,000 babies, according to a new report. Latvia's rate is 6 per 1,000."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0510-06.htm

és:

Sep 23, 2008, 06:08 PM

I definitely appreciate that you're not trying to impose your views on anyone, but even talking about some "future certainty" has its problems.

If you're going to quote me and then spend loads of time arguing against that quote, it's probably best that you get it right ;)

I never did and never would say (or type) the words that you've attributed to me. I've actually said 'likely' a number of times in this thread, for this very reason.

Lord Blackadder

Sep 23, 2008, 06:18 PM

I never understood this. It boggles my mind. Sex exists to make babies. That's the only reason it's there (speaking form a scientific perspective).

But what happens when you look at sex from a cultural perspective?

Human culture is all about operating outside the biological mechanisms that dominate the rest of the living world. The things we do often have nothing to do with "natural" behavior.

We can't judge the correctness of an activity by whether it is "natural", because humans are irreversibly linked with culture and culture is a human construct, un-"natural" by its very nature.

From an anthropological perspective, the role of sex is defined by culture, not biology. For example, a given society might utilize sex purely for pleasure, and obtain offspring by stealing infants from another society. Or maybe all babies would be created via IVF. These are extreme examples, but it demonstrates that no "natural law" dictates that humans must reproduce a certain way, or that sex must be used purely for reproduction.

It's OK if you think sex is for babies only - we don't have to all agree and I respect your way of looking at it. But I think it's wrong to pass laws that define the role of sexuality, marriage and reproduction the way that some people are seeking to do.

mactastic

Sep 23, 2008, 06:18 PM

Fortunately, God doesn't make the law, and He seems to be above a subpoena.
Dammit... I was going to say something about Karl Rove, but I got beaten to it by the Dick Cheney comment. ;)

But I'm fine with it in cases where people openly admit to what they did, have no remorse and are proud of it.
Still not good enough for me. Remember that John Mark Karr fellow? He would have been happy to admit to murder and rape of a child, even though he was excluded by DNA evidence. And then what would have happened? The case would have been closed and the real killer would have gotten away with it.

Suicide by cop is a real phenomenon, and some people are even willing to take it to this kind of extreme.

jplan2008

Sep 23, 2008, 06:18 PM

If you're going to quote me and then spend loads of time arguing against that quote, it's probably best that you get it right ;)

I never did and never would say (or type) the words that you've attributed to me. I've actually said 'likely' a number of times in this thread, for this very reason.

Yes, sorry, I realized that after posting, and didn't have time to edit.

However, the numbers I showed were that it is NOT likely. 50% chance of a miscarriage. IF there isn't a miscarriage, then small percentages that either the mother or baby would die. Then whatever percentage the baby will die the first day or week.

But whatever, I'm arguing with the idea of giving a definition based on a future possibility or probability of being a life -- that's what I spent "loads" of time arguing with.

Ntombi

Sep 23, 2008, 06:18 PM

Macaddicttt

Sep 23, 2008, 06:38 PM

It's OK if you think sex is for babies only - we don't have to all agree and I respect your way of looking at it. But I think it's wrong to pass laws that define the role of sexuality, marriage and reproduction the way that some people are seeking to do.

Good points. And for the record, I said nothing about laws. :)

Are you serious? The fact that I'm a sexually active adult is a weakness?

There are many ways to have sex, and only a couple of them could lead to pregnancy. I'm 34, straight, never been married, and not willing to have a child at this point in my life.

Did you read the my post in its entirety? I'm talking about the part where I acknowledged that I use two forms of birth control precisely because I'm taking responsibility for my actions. I'm not some flighty idiot, but I also know that I'm not ready, willing, or able (medically or otherwise) to have a child now, so I and the millions of women like me should shut up and shut our legs? That's your 21st century solution? :rolleyes:

My solution is if you seriously refuse the possibility of having a child, yes, "shut your legs" (if you prefer that phrasing; and may I also say, men should keep their pants on, too, if they aren't ready for that responsibility). I acknowledge your use of birth control, and you know that it isn't always 100% effective. Therefore, you are accepting the possibility of a child by having sex and should therefore accept that responsibility. I never said you were a flighty idiot, merely that you should be willing to take responsibility for your actions should a pregnancy occur. Being both unwilling to stop having sex and unwilling to accept pregnancy as a possibility is dodging responsibility. It's sort of, but not quite, like refusing to stop driving, but also refusing the possibility of an accident.

P.S. I wasn't referring to being a sexually active adult as a weakness. You inferred that on your own without any evidence. I put that caveat in there for the instances of people wanting to abstain from sex, but fail to, or something similar to that. I know teenagers who honestly believe in no sex before marriage, but definitely have had sex before marriage.

To be current, I'm sure Bristol Palin is a true born-again Christian, but look what happened to her. What she did was the result of a weakness. I'm not saying we should judge her for that, just wanted to put in that caveat to keep my post more in line with realism and real life. A perfect world wouldn't have teen pregnancies, but hey, they exist.

My post was not by far anti-feminist, but yous seem to have interpreted as some admonishment of women for not "keeping their legs shut."

és:

Sep 23, 2008, 06:39 PM

Yes, sorry, I realized that after posting, and didn't have time to edit. No worries.

However, the numbers I showed were that it is NOT likely. 50% chance of a miscarriage.

You're twisting that statistic, I fear. It's a BS statistic, at best. You're taking the 'as many as' statistic and ignoring the '15% of recognised pregnancies' in the same article.

http://www.amazingpregnancy.com/pregnancy-articles/337.html

Almost 20% of pregnancies end in miscarriage, with the majority occurring during the first 12 weeks

There is a 10% chance of miscarriage in weeks 3-6 and this number drops to 5% during weeks 6-12.

Although there is a much higher rate in the first week or 14 days before you ever know that you're pregnant, is that really relevant to the abortion debate?

But whatever, I'm arguing with the idea of giving a definition based on a future possibility or probability of being a life -- that's what I spent "loads" of time arguing with.

By loads, I mean you searched for a source etc.

So anyway, I stick by my 'likely'.

Ntombi

Sep 23, 2008, 06:53 PM

I never understood this. It boggles my mind. Sex exists to make babies. That's the only reason it's there (speaking form a scientific perspective). The reason you aren't "willing to be abstinent" is your body trying to make a baby so badly that you cannot give up the possibility of engaging in the activity that makes babies. Of course there's going to be the risk of pregnancy if you have sex.

Saying you're "not willing to be abstinent" just because the intended biological consequence of sex might happen is the ultimate in dodging responsibility. I know we all have weaknesses, and things happen that we don't always intend, but it makes no sense to fully embrace something without also fully embracing and accepting the consequences.

My solution is if you seriously refuse the possibility of having a child, yes, "shut your legs" (if you prefer that phrasing; and may I also say, men should keep their pants on, too, if they aren't ready for that responsibility). I acknowledge your use of birth control, and you know that it isn't always 100% effective. Therefore, you are accepting the possibility of a child by having sex and should therefore accept that responsibility. I never said you were a flighty idiot, merely that you should be willing to take responsibility for your actions should a pregnancy occur. Being both unwilling to stop having sex and unwilling to accept pregnancy as a possibility is dodging responsibility. It's sort of, but not quite, like refusing to stop driving, but also refusing the possibility of an accident.

P.S. I wasn't referring to being a sexually active adult as a weakness. You inferred that on your own without any evidence. I put that caveat in there for the instances of people wanting to abstain from sex, but fail to, or something similar to that. I know teenagers who honestly believe in no sex before marriage, but definitely have had sex before marriage.

My post was not by far anti-feminist, but yous seem to have interpreted as some admonishment of women for not "keeping their legs shut."
You may have meant that "weaknesses" comment to refer to another situation, but since you quoted only me and referred to my unwillingness to be abstinent, I think my inference was a reasonable one.

I am willing to accept that pregnancy is a remote possibility, despite my use of two forms of birth control, but that doesn't mean I have to accept that the only outcome of that pregnancy is to carry the fetus to full-term. That's where we differ. Your post implies that after a woman is pregnant due to consensual sex, the outcome should be that she hand over her life, body, and finances for the next nine months. I disagree.

Also, I said nothing about your post being anti-feminist, though I do accept that your inference was on the mark. ;) And I do acknowledge that you said nothing about shutting our legs; that was my conclusion based on your post.

If both parties choose to have sex (protected or not) and the woman becomes pregnant, but they choose not to become parents, the man may or may not have anything to do with the next nine months. I'm not talking moral obligation, which is of course a separate matter. If she cannot or does not have an abortion, she has to deal with the medical, financial, and social ramifications of being pregnant for the next nine months even if adoption is the ultimate decision. He has a choice. Under your scenario, her choices are over at the moment of conception. That inherently makes the stakes different for men and women.

I'm not at all discounting the emotional bond that most men feel with the fetus growing in their partners body, but is not a given, nor is it necessary, unlike the drain that a pregnancy usually is for women.

Dagless

Sep 23, 2008, 06:54 PM

Don't panic

Sep 23, 2008, 06:55 PM

So, to me at least, regardless of what the definition is at the time of termination, it's still ending a life, even if it's a future life by scientific definition.

It is a potential life, not a future life. It may be subtle, but to me is a very significant difference.

jplan2008

Sep 23, 2008, 07:03 PM

No worries.

You're twisting that statistic, I fear. It's a BS statistic, at best. You're taking the 'as many as' statistic and ignoring the '15% of recognised pregnancies' in the same article.

http://www.amazingpregnancy.com/pregnancy-articles/337.html

Almost 20% of pregnancies end in miscarriage, with the majority occurring during the first 12 weeks

There is a 10% chance of miscarriage in weeks 3-6 and this number drops to 5% during weeks 6-12.

Although there is a much higher rate in the first week or 14 days before you ever know that you're pregnant, is that really relevant to the abortion debate?

By loads, I mean you searched for a source etc.

So anyway, I stick by my 'likely'.

PRSI rules: II. Be willing to engage in fact-based debate, thus "loads" of time.

My point is, if you use as a basis, "likely," then you're using some measure or definition of what's "likely." So, if, according to your website (not sure who they are, but we'll go with their numbers), then miscarriage is highly likely (75%) in the first 2 weeks, and a child is highly unlikely.

So if I have a D&C within 2 weeks of unportected sex, even if I don't even know for sure if I'm pregnant, is that o.k., because it's unlikely that it would ever come to term no matter what?

That seems just as arbitrary, or more so, than using the scientific definition of whether there is a life today.

Then, for those that talk about POSSIBILITY, that doesn't seem logical either.

So then we're left with it's a life NOW, or it's not. Again, it doesn't make sense to me to say it's a life now, if it's some cells in my uterus that would have no chance outside my uterus. And it doesn't fit a scientific definition of human life, nor a spiritual one nor a moral one -- do these cells have a soul?

jplan2008

Sep 23, 2008, 07:08 PM

Sorry for double post.

I had inititally only joined this thread because of Troy Davis' pending execution, and for those watching case, the Supreme Court ordered a stay.
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/amnesty-international-praises-stay-execution/story.aspx?guid=%7B566E0FEA-F03C-437B-ADFF-392A61D80385%7D&dist=hppr

és:

Sep 23, 2008, 07:08 PM

iJohnHenry

Sep 23, 2008, 07:10 PM

I voted, but if you think I'm going to articulate that vote, in this environment, than you're all crazier than I am. :rolleyes:

bobber205

Sep 23, 2008, 07:11 PM

In a 100 years or so, there will be such a over population problem this debare will no longer exist.

Macaddicttt

Sep 23, 2008, 07:12 PM

So then we're left with it's a life NOW, or it's not. Again, it doesn't make sense to me to say it's a life now, if it's some cells in my uterus that would have no chance outside my uterus. And it doesn't fit a scientific definition of human life, nor a spiritual one nor a moral one -- do these cells have a soul?

What is the scientific definition of a human life? "Being able to exist outside the mother's body" seems very subjective. What about preemie babies who have to live for a while in those incubator things? Are they a life? Again, highly subjective.

If you're using the "scientific definition" card, I think the only real determiner of a human life is perhaps genes. Those "some cells" have a complete genetic makeup that is different than that of their mother's (and father's), and therefore are a separate life.

To me, that seems much more "scientific" and empirical.

jplan2008

Sep 23, 2008, 07:27 PM

What is the scientific definition of a human life? "Being able to exist outside the mother's body" seems very subjective. What about preemie babies who have to live for a while in those incubator things? Are they a life? Again, highly subjective.

If you're using the "scientific definition" card, I think the only real determiner of a human life is perhaps genes. Those "some cells" have a complete genetic makeup that is different than that of their mother's (and father's), and therefore are a separate life.

To me, that seems much more "scientific" and empirical.

I don't understand. You'd have to give a full definition.

A group of cells with separate genetic makeup? I think you're missing something. (or I'd better race to the nearest morgue, cemetery, etc)

MrSmith

Sep 23, 2008, 07:28 PM

Pro choice and anti death penalty. Pro-choice by default, really: I don't feel any negative emotion when I know someone had the procedure. On the other hand, I don't know where I would stand if it was my own unborn child.

és:

Sep 23, 2008, 07:47 PM

My point is, if you use as a basis, "likely," then you're using some measure or definition of what's "likely."

Of course. People that have abortions are statistically likely to have the baby, both our sources say that. There is a difference between early natural miscarriage and what would happen if you knew you were pregnant and went for an abortion, a lot of that has to do with the time frame. I don't mind trawling through the British medical association or other credible sources, if you'd like.

I don't see how natural miscarriages before the woman knows she's pregnant are in any way relevant to people that know they are pregnant (usually 4+ weeks) having an abortion.

So if I have a D&C within 2 weeks of unportected sex, even if I don't even know for sure if I'm pregnant, is that o.k., because it's unlikely that it would ever come to term no matter what?

With respect, that's such nonsense that I'm not even going to respond to it.

do these cells have a soul?

What's a soul? Is there any proof that any of us have a soul?

jplan2008

Sep 23, 2008, 08:24 PM

Of course. People that have abortions are statistically likely to have the baby, both our sources say that. There is a difference between early natural miscarriage and what would happen if you knew you were pregnant and went for an abortion, a lot of that has to do with the time frame. I don't mind trawling through the British medical association or other credible sources, if you'd like.

I don't see how natural miscarriages before the woman knows she's pregnant are in any way relevant to people that know they are pregnant (usually 4+ weeks) having an abortion.

With respect, that's such nonsense that I'm not even going to respond to it.

What's a soul? Is there any proof that any of us have a soul?

If we're making a criterion about the likelihood that the fetus will come to term, I'm not sure why it's nonsense asking for confirmation that that is really the criterion. If because of my age and physical condition, I have over a 50% chance of miscarrying, is having an abortion o.k., in your mind? (I remember you did say you wouldn't impose what you think is o.k. on anyone) If not, then I'd say your definition is "possible," and not "likely." If yes, then again I don't see how that's any less arbitrary than using an actual medical definition of life.

(I only threw in the "soul" part, because you think using a medical definition is just for legal reasons, so I'm just trying to find out what would be preferable to a medical/legal definition)

Iscariot

Sep 23, 2008, 08:56 PM

Dammit... I was going to say something about Karl Rove, but I got beaten to it by the Dick Cheney comment. ;)

Yeah, it was really asking for it :3 BoyBach for the intercept.
I'd never try to enforce my own morals onto an entire nation of people who have different views.

Absolutely, which is why while I'm challenging your perspective, I acknowledged the importance of this distinction that you're willing to make (post #48).
However, I find that all it does is to make it a little easier to end something that will likely become a health[y] baby

…is just the romanticizing what is and isn't human life. Defining human life by what is medically relevant isn't "making it easier", it's simply being correct.
What is the scientific definition of a human life? "Being able to exist outside the mother's body" seems very subjective.

The legal and medical definition of when a human life ends is when brain function is lost and unrecoverable. Similarly, a human life begins when brain function begins. A premature baby who survives does so in no small part because their brain has already begun to function — that's why there is what is nearly a definitive line of survival past the 23 weeks threshold (although 23 weeks still offers a "fat chance" rate). The brain "comes online" at about the same time that the fetus becomes viable.

Don't panic

Sep 23, 2008, 08:56 PM

an honest question:
for those who oppose abortion rights, how much of this conviction is based on religious views? and where does it stems from (other that that a pastor clsims so)?

Lord Blackadder

Sep 23, 2008, 09:10 PM

If she cannot or does not have an abortion, she has to deal with the medical, financial, and social ramifications of being pregnant for the next nine months even if adoption is the ultimate decision. He has a choice. Under your scenario, her choices are over at the moment of conception. That inherently makes the stakes different for men and women.

This is why I am pro choice. I believe that, if a pregnancy occurred, my instinct would be to keep the baby, even to the detriment of career etc etc. But the woman has to physically carry the baby - if she feels she is not up to it, it's wrong for me (or the law) to force her to do it. In that sense, I think men should feel extra responsibility in the sense that they can physically walk away from a pregnancy, while a woman can't.

Based on that logic, making laws that outlaw abortion could be said to be discriminatory against women.

BigHungry04

Sep 23, 2008, 09:19 PM

I'm pro-choice and pro-death penalty. I do not believe in unlimited abortions, though. Abortions in the first and second trimester, in the cases of rape and incest, in the case of serious mental defect of the fetus (when a positive test result occurred) and when the life of the mother is in jeopardy are ok in my opinion. Death penalty is ok if the crime is serious enough to merit it, like murder.

redwarrior

Sep 23, 2008, 09:26 PM

an honest question:
for those who oppose abortion rights, how much of this conviction is based on religious views? and where does it stems from (other that that a pastor clsims so)?
It's all about my Christian faith. God gives life and for us to take it away is only harming ourselves. This same faith allows me tolerance, but not consideration, of other views. Choosing life can never be wrong. It has nothing to do with a religious leader's views/teaching; I grew up thinking that abortion was ok. More meditation, and my going through one myself, and raising two children, has convinced me that children are a gift, and ending human life is wrong. I also have a personal relationship with my God, but that's another thread.:D

Lord Blackadder

Sep 23, 2008, 09:52 PM

It's all about my Christian faith. God gives life and for us to take it away is only harming ourselves. This same faith allows me tolerance, but not consideration, of other views. Choosing life can never be wrong. It has nothing to do with a religious leader's views/teaching; I grew up thinking that abortion was ok. More meditation, and my going through one myself, and raising two children, has convinced me that children are a gift, and ending human life is wrong. I also have a personal relationship with my God, but that's another thread.:D

But what about legislating moral choices in a secular republic with a multi-ethnic, multi-religious population?

That's the big issue, and the one where the debate gets most heated. Is abortion something that should be banned because it's sinful? Our Constitution does not deal with sin. Religion can inform morals and both indirectly affect legislation but morality and legality are not one and the same - at least, thank goodness, not in the U.S.

The single most important thing to consider when acting as a voting U.S. citizen is that people with very different beliefs need to come together and compromise for the benefit of all. This means that nobody is going to get everything they want. Under the current system, abortion is subject to certain regulation and standards, but is neither encouraged nor discouraged by the state. It is up to the individual to decide whether they will make use of it or not.

I think religious freedom is a two way street - it can also mean freedom from religion.

SMM

Sep 24, 2008, 12:04 AM

atszyman

Sep 24, 2008, 12:20 AM

I don't know where I stand on the abortion issue. I don't like it when used as a contraceptive method just because either party forgot/didn't want to use regular contraception and when the baby can be born in good health. TBH that kind of disgusts me. But if the couple split, if there are health issues for the mother or if finances go rotten then its acceptable. IMO of course.

But death penalty? Absolutely not. I'm not for that at all.

Someone once said it here in another thread and it stuck with me

Show me a woman that uses publically funded clinics and abortion as contraception... and I'll show you a serious problem that needs to end immediately.

And almost every pro-choice person on the planet would hold this view as well. Just because we're pro choice doesn't mean we encourage the use of abortion as birth control, we just recognize that removing it as an option will only result in the people who really want them risking their own lives seeking abortions from people completely unqualified to give any sort of medical care.

For the record, I have 2 kids now, a third due in late February early March, after which I will most likely get "fixed." Had I gotten any girl pregnant before my wife I most likely would have offered to pay all the medical expenses and taken full responsibility for the baby rather than have her seek an abortion, however the decision does not rest in my hands alone. While I don't like the idea behind abortion, I don't think it's my place or the government's place to force their view on any individual.

If you're using the "scientific definition" card, I think the only real determiner of a human life is perhaps genes. Those "some cells" have a complete genetic makeup that is different than that of their mother's (and father's), and therefore are a separate life.

To me, that seems much more "scientific" and empirical.

What is your stance on IVF? Are you going to require that every egg fertilized for a couple's IVF procedure be used by the couple or put up for embryo adoption?

Can we at least get some uniformity in the law if we outlaw abortion? As mentioned my wife is due early next year. Can we get a Social Security number now and write the baby off as a tax deduction for 2008? If the baby is going to be an individual life in the eyes of the government then we should be able to claim the baby as a dependent. Our second child was born in April of 2007, can we get extra money back from our 2006 taxes too?

jplan2008

Sep 24, 2008, 12:43 AM

Both of these issues produce strong positions, from those on each side. I only know of one person who had an abortion, a former coworker of my wife's. And, all I know about that is it happened. So, the issue has never been something I ever had to think about. I suppose I wish it did not happen, or if it did, it happened very early. However, I also know women want to make the choice for themselves I think they are the best to judge that for themselves, not society. And, especially not a bunch of right-wing fundamentalists, trying to shape society in their image.

As for capital punishment, my moral side opposes it, while my emotional side sees a few cases where it really challenges my moral convictions. Like many other members, I believe there are far too many flaws in our CJS to give blanket approval to CP. Did you notice how many blacks were executed? Based on population percentage, this is proportionally high. If you are black and charged with a capital crime, lord help you. It seems there are usually one or two possible outcomes; innocent or execution. The appeals process is a joke. For something as serious as execution, the case should not just be reviewed for its legal issues. It should be reviewed for whether the person is actually guilty. We should not feel joy at taking a life, regardless of the fact the guilty did the same. my heart goes out to the victim(s), but we must be certain we are executing the right person.

For cases, like the one we have been discussing, what we need is something like this;

1). A scaled-down version of a trial, located away from the convicting jurisdiction.

2.) Not jury, just a 2 person panel and a judge.

3.) The defense makes its case why a new trial is warranted.

4.) A prosecutor makes the state's case, why it is not. The judge may ask questions from defense council, prosecutor, defendant and witnesses.

5.) The court decides whether a new trial is warranted, not guilt or innocence.

6.) This is only used for situations where a defendant is sentenced to die AND it is requested by the defense AND there is plausible reason to believe a new trial may be a possible outcome.

The idea is not to make this a dog and pony show. It should have a 3-5 day target, from start to finish. This way, there is a possible opportunity to review a case for actual guilt or innocence and not simply for procedures. Taking another person's life, warrants such scrutiny.

In some places, judges are elected, in others they're appointed. Look at some of the 300 Federal Judges Bush has appointed. For example:

4. JANICE ROGERS BROWN, D.C. Circuit

Precedent: Deemed "not qualified" to sit on California's Supreme Court by a state bar association panel. (She was appointed anyway.)

Case closed: Argued that a woman coerced into having sex with her boss was not a harassment victim unless she had been punished, demoted or fired as a result.

http://www.alternet.org/rights/99053/w%27s_worst_judges/

There's no reason to expect local judges to be any better.

Or, in the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal:

"There are a number of issues pending before this court. They involve the death penalty, racism in jury selection, the racism and bias of the trial judge, Sabo, who referred to my client during the trial, to use his words—I’m quoting him—“I’m going to help them fry the ******,” referring to Mumia Abu-Jamal."

http://www.democracynow.org/2007/5/18/citing_racist_bias_attorneys_for_mumia

Again, it was after many appeals they finally overturned the death penalty for him, but won't give him a new trial, and he's still on death row.

And if you have a competent judge or jury, there are still mistakes made.

The idea is not to leave it up to one person.

I still don't think that the death penalty serves any purpose other than to our basest instincts of wanting revenge. There are people who commit such heinous acts that I want them dead, but that doesn't meant our state should actually carry that out in my name. It doesn't deter, so I don't really see the point.

Having 1% of the adult population in this country in prison, and 1 in 9 Black males in prison is enough of a disgrace.

Prof.

Sep 24, 2008, 12:46 AM

I'm pro abortion and pro death penalty.

If we make abortion illegal, we are gonna have females doing back-alley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_abortion#Method) abortions where they stick a wire coat hanger into their uterus and kill the baby that way.

jplan2008

Sep 24, 2008, 12:48 AM

however the decision does not rest in my hands alone.

No, I would say not. (smiley face?)

Agathon

Sep 24, 2008, 02:06 AM

.Andy

Sep 24, 2008, 02:08 AM

I never understood this. It boggles my mind. Sex exists to make babies. That's the only reason it's there (speaking form a scientific perspective).
Mrs macaddicttt is one lucky lady.

skunk

Sep 24, 2008, 02:30 AM

I never understood this. It boggles my mind. Sex exists to make babies. That's the only reason it's thereSo, if you are unable for any reason to bear a child, sex is utterly pointless? I'll bear that in mind.

Elective abortion should be legal, execution by the state should not.

Agathon

Sep 24, 2008, 02:30 AM

I think men should feel extra responsibility in the sense that they can physically walk away from a pregnancy, while a woman can't.

This isn't as relevant as you think. Some men experience distress if a woman they have impregnated chooses to terminate a pregnancy. Correspondingly, some women don't really experience much distress from abortion.

This is especially true since the advent of safe pharmaceutical abortifacents as an alternative to a physical abortion – the number of medical as opposed to physical abortions is constantly increasing. It is already over half in some countries IIRC.

Besides, one of the key aims of the feminist movement is to oppose psychological generalizations about what women feel about things as a basis for policy, so it's not a good road to go down.

Just to keep it equal. Men have different feelings about vasectomies (which is a pretty non-invasive procedure these days).

davidjearly

Sep 24, 2008, 02:38 AM

I firmly believe that women should have the choice to have an abortion, and I also believe that the death penalty should be used in the correct circumstances.

CorvusCamenarum

Sep 24, 2008, 03:16 AM

They are quite separate issues. One is a straight up life/death issue, the other is about the appropriateness of a certain kind of punishment.

Although I guess I'm pro choice, abortion rights arguments amuse me, since the very same arguments that are used to justify abortion can be used to demonstrate that forcing men to pay child maintenance is immoral.

If right wing people ever wanted to make some headway on the issue, they should take up that line of argument.

When a man can't/won't deal with the consequences of an unintended pregnancy, he's a deadbeat and deserves to lose his driver's license, professional licenses, have his wages garnished and be tossed into prison.

When a woman can't/won't deal with the consequences of an unintended pregnancy, she's pro-choice.

You're right. It is laughable.

Dagless

Sep 24, 2008, 05:32 AM

^
And well played sir.

an honest question:
for those who oppose abortion rights, how much of this conviction is based on religious views? and where does it stems from (other that that a pastor clsims so)?

In my case - none at all. I'm agnostic and don't really follow any religion, I've founded my own beliefs and if they happen to overlap a religion then so be it.
And IMO abortion is something that should be used so rarely, revising my earlier post (thanks to és) I think abortion should only be used when the mother is in bad health and the process of having the baby could impact her own health. Adoption is a more acceptible option.

It's kind of shocking the amount of people who don't seem to equate sex with babies. It's what its there for! So cover yourself up. Plx.

.Andy

Sep 24, 2008, 05:43 AM

When a man can't/won't deal with the consequences of an unintended pregnancy, he's a deadbeat and deserves to lose his driver's license, professional licenses, have his wages garnished and be tossed into prison.

When a woman can't/won't deal with the consequences of an unintended pregnancy, she's pro-choice.

You're right. It is laughable.
Those women are repressing you in every thread these days CC. Keep up the rage.

scotthayes

Sep 24, 2008, 06:01 AM

Adoption is a more acceptible option.

It may be more acceptable option but it is not a practical option. There are many more children waiting to be adopted than are adopted. Those who don't get adopted will either stay in foster care or a children's home.

fivepoint

Sep 24, 2008, 06:56 AM

It may be more acceptable option but it is not a practical option. There are many more children waiting to be adopted than are adopted. Those who don't get adopted will either stay in foster care or a children's home.

What are you implying here? That the child's life who grows up in an adoption agency isn't worth living? That he/she would have been better off dead?

Iscariot

Sep 24, 2008, 10:25 AM

And IMO abortion is something that should be used so rarely, revising my earlier post (thanks to és) I think abortion should only be used when the mother is in bad health and the process of having the baby could impact her own health. Adoption is a more acceptible option.

It's kind of shocking the amount of people who don't seem to equate sex with babies. It's what its there for! So cover yourself up. Plx.

I hope you're not masturbating, then. Ejaculation is for babies. You're killing the future!

BoyBach

Sep 24, 2008, 10:35 AM

I hope you're not masturbating, then. Ejaculation is for babies. You're killing the future!

Don't forget about all those girls and women whose murderous menstrual cycle kills a baby every month. The monsters!

I've got my "Stop Menstruation" placard, where do I protest?

Dagless

Sep 24, 2008, 10:47 AM

I hope you're not masturbating, then. Ejaculation is for babies. You're killing the future!

I'm a bit shocked, you know from that previous discussion that I agree on life starting when a baby has brain activity. Sperm and eggs are nothing until fertilisation. Granted I don't like the thought of killing something that could become a healthy human once the process has started, but if it's necessary then I'm for it. But once it has brain activity then that's it - ladies and gentlemen we have a little human.
It's just abortion being used as a contraceptive method that I'm dead against and of course once brain activity has begun.

Lord Blackadder

Sep 24, 2008, 10:47 AM

The law should not equate sex with reproduction only.

People should be free to do so if they wish - so long as they aren't compelling others to conform to that notion against their will.

wordmunger

Sep 24, 2008, 10:53 AM

There's a scientific definition of "life" but there's no scientific definition of "a life worth saving." Scientifically speaking, the ants that just invaded my pantry last week were alive. Should I be charged with "murder" for killing them? They have more neuronal activity than a newly-fertilized egg.

Science can never say if the fertilized egg should have more rights than an ant, which means the scientific definition of "life" is basically irrelevant.

You can use science to help you make moral and ethical decisions, but ultimately you have to rely on something besides science.

MacNut

Sep 24, 2008, 10:59 AM

Iscariot

Sep 24, 2008, 11:07 AM

Sperm and eggs are nothing until fertilisation. Granted I don't like the thought of killing something that could become a healthy human once the process has started

Fertilization is nothing until the fetus becomes viable. Referring to some "potential future" as a grounds to base an ethical decision silly. Until brain activity is present and the fetus becomes viable, it has exactly the same "potential" as an unfertilized egg or a lone spermatozoa adventurin' up fallopian tube way. Sex is "not just for babies", and human beings are far from the only species that has sex outside of the bounds of reproduction.

scotthayes

Sep 24, 2008, 11:08 AM

What are you implying here? That the child's life who grows up in an adoption agency isn't worth living? That he/she would have been better off dead?

As I grew up in children's homes I'm guess that is not what I'm saying. You have taken what I said and totally misread it, that or you purposely tried to flame what I was saying . What I'm saying is that adoption is not a practical solution to abortion. Saying banning abortion because there is adoption does not make a logical argument. Abortion should be the last option but it should be an option. Better sex education, more access to contraception is a better solution.

Oh and anyone remember why I stared this thread. the basic question was... Can you support abortion and oppose the death penalty and visa versa. Seems you all just want to talk about abortion alone and if it is right or wrong.

BoyBach

Sep 24, 2008, 11:10 AM

Let me enter this conversation from a different angle.

As the bishop said to the actress! :o

leekohler

Sep 24, 2008, 11:13 AM

I need an option for "kill 'em all, let YHWH sort 'em out".

Heehee! I love you! :D

Lord Blackadder

Sep 24, 2008, 11:14 AM

leekohler

Sep 24, 2008, 11:22 AM

^It's kind of shocking the amount of people who don't seem to equate sex with babies. It's what its there for! So cover yourself up. Plx.

Excuse me, jimmi- but WTF? I certainly as a gay man do not equate sex with babies. To make that statement is utterly ridiculous. If that were the case, this planet would have be extremely overpopulated by now. There are many other reasons people have sex.

fivepoint

Sep 24, 2008, 11:25 AM

As I grew up in children's homes I'm guess that is not what I'm saying. You have taken what I said and totally misread it, that or you purposely tried to flame what I was saying . What I'm saying is that adoption is not a practical solution to abortion. Saying banning abortion because there is adoption does not make a logical argument. Abortion should be the last option but it should be an option. Better sex education, more access to contraception is a better solution.

Oh and anyone remember why I stared this thread. the basic question was... Can you support abortion and oppose the death penalty and visa versa. Seems you all just want to talk about abortion alone and if it is right or wrong.

Being a little defensive, aren't you? That's why this forum can be so frustrating. I didn't criticize your statement, or attack you, and I didn't misread anything... in fact I quoted you directly. All I did was ASK you what you meant. I asked you to clarify for me and everyone else reading.

Anyway, now that you have elaborated a bit, I still find myself to be a bit confused on your position. You say that banning abortion because there is adoption does not make any logical argument. Why? Why doesn't it? Because adoption agencies are "full?"

As for your implication that all I'm trying to do is talk about abortion... are you serious? Go back and read my posts, man. I've laid my opinions out there for everyone to see. Black and white. I really don't even know how to respond to that, other than to say it is a lie:

For the record, and at the risk of getting attacked by the likes of 'es just for having a different opinion... Ill tell everyone that I voted "Pro-life and anti death penalty."

I am a firm believer in the value of human life and the depleting sense of personal responsibility in our society. I believe that a fetus is a life and that no one should have the "right" to destroy that life because it is "easier", "my body" or a 'financially sound' decision. A human life can not be weighed against an easier life or against more money. To that end, I don't think any one person should have the right to sentence an innocent to death. Unfortunately, too many young mothers don't even think this deeply about the situation and get abortions simply because it's "easier." Because they don't value life and/or personal responsibility.

I also (albeit less fervently) believe that the death penalty is a broken system. Until I see some real data which can PROVE beyond a shadow of a doubt that the death penalty SAVES lives, I can't support it. I don't believe that killing in the name of "justice" alone is a moral proposition...

At any rate, that is my opinion. These are both tricky subjects and are a whole lot less black and white than people give them credit for.

Peace.

jplan2008

Sep 24, 2008, 11:34 AM

It's just abortion being used as a contraceptive method that I'm dead against .

A few people have repeated that in this thread: that is just a pet propaganda phrase initiated by extremists who want their policy put into place.

Forget whether you're pro- or anti-choice. The idea of using a more costly, more dangerous, more intrusive form of "birth control" is obviously a silly "choice."

People do stupid things, people make mistakes, women are raped, and no birth control method is 100% safe and reliable. Before getting involved in women's private health decisions, I would think that the smartest move would be to educate people so fewer stupid things are done, make it easier to not make mistakes, and improve the safety and efficacy of birth control. I would certainly think that the people who want to get involved in women's health decisions would then be in favor of helping women who choose to carry their baby, and help the babies.

The fact that the people and groups that are outspoken and fighting against choice, (not each individual who is anti-choice) actively fight AGAINST reducing mistakes, AGAINST helping women who choose to carry a baby, and AGAINST helping the babies themselves (forget about the children and adults they grow up to be) ends the discussion for me with those groups of people, and with their slogans and propaganda.

When these extreme groups also promote cheap, safe, effective birth control and birth control education, and "choose" life and health for humans that we ALL agree are live humans, then we can debate the contents of women's uteruses.

Also: On another note, I meant to agree with Ntobi -- the suggestion that because the "scientific purpose" of sex is supposedly "making babies," we should restrict the sexuality of women who don't want to or can't have a baby, and that sexually active women who don't want to or can't have a baby are "weak," is outrageous.

scotthayes

Sep 24, 2008, 11:36 AM

Being a little defensive, aren't you? That's why this forum can be so frustrating. I didn't criticize your statement, or attack you, and I didn't misread anything... in fact I quoted you directly. All I did was ASK you what you meant. I asked you to clarify for me and everyone else reading.

I stated in my post about adoption that there are more waiting to be adopted that are adopted and that adoption is not the answer to abortion.

Not defensive in anyway.

Anyway, now that you have elaborated a bit, I still find myself to be a bit confused on your position. You say that banning abortion because there is adoption does not make any logical argument. Why? Why doesn't it? Because adoption agencies are "full?"

There are many many reasons why abortion should be an option. Rape, incest, health of the mother or unborn baby and personal and social issues. making every woman go to full term and then putting the child in care does not solve the issue.

As for your implication that all I'm trying to do is talk about abortion... are you serious? Go back and read my posts, man. I've laid my opinions out there for everyone to see. Black and white. I really don't even know how to respond to that, other than to say it is a lie.

Peace.

Now who is a being a little defensive? my statement about the topic in hand was not aimed at you. I will be honest, I got bored of reading your posts as they just seemed to be an argument with es.

To clear things up for you. My feelings on abortion. It is the choice of the woman if she has an abortion and if she feels it is the right thing to do then it should be a safe option.

Lord Blackadder

Sep 24, 2008, 11:52 AM

To that end, I don't think any one person should have the right to sentence an innocent to death.

I am also a firm believer in the value of human life, and it's true that some people abuse the ability to have an abortion, but I cannot support a law in which the state dictates that its female citizens must carry there pregnancies to term, regardless of their financial, emotional or psychological status and regardless of the circumstances of the conception or the whereabouts or level of commitment of the father. That. Is. Wrong.

What about banning sex purely for the purpose of pleasure? IF there was a way to reliably detect it and enforce a ban, would any of you that favor banning abortion support that? If not, why? Why should pregnancy get all the attention when sex is the cause? It isn't hard to find out who the father is. If you're going to force women to give birth you should force the father undergo an equal amount of discomfort and inconvenience...oh wait, that isn't possible. So why do we men get off scott free?

scotthayes

Sep 24, 2008, 12:00 PM

What about banning sex purely for the purpose of pleasure? IF there was a way to reliably detect it and enforce a ban, would any of you that favor banning abortion support that? If not, why? Why should pregnancy get all the attention when sex is the cause? It isn't hard to find out who the father is. If you're going to force women to give birth you should force the father undergo an equal amount of discomfort and inconvenience...oh wait, that isn't possible. So why do we men get off scott free?

NO!!!!! I like sex. however, I have never wanted children so I took the steps to ensure (as close to 100% sure) that I can't have children but can still pretend I'm making babies :D

Of course you can't ban sex for the purpose of pleasure but people have take responsibilities for their action and one of those is birth control. Plus your idea does not cover rape.

Lord Blackadder

Sep 24, 2008, 12:13 PM

Plus your idea does not cover rape.

Rape, I think we all agree, is a crime. By forcing a mother to give birth to a child conceived by rape, you are allowing the violence of the crime to continue for nine months after the initial event. I DO NOT think that the child has no right to live, but in this case I believe the woman has the right to decide whether to give birth because she has to carry the child and live for the rest of her life with the fact that the pregnancy happened and the child was created under those circumstances.

I feel that choosing to give birth is, more often than not, the right thing to do. But I am totally uncomfortable imposing that view upon other people by passing laws banning abortion.

jplan2008

Sep 24, 2008, 12:15 PM

Oh and anyone remember why I stared this thread. the basic question was... Can you support abortion and oppose the death penalty and visa versa. Seems you all just want to talk about abortion alone and if it is right or wrong.

I am pro-choice and anti- death penalty.

I don't think a fetus is a human life, so these views are consistent.

I also believe that the government's role should be the promotion of health and safety, not involvement in individual health decision and cruel, unusual punishment and murder, so that is consistent.

I am not religious, and I am pretty much on the extreme left politically, but I do have what religious people call "faith," and my moral beliefs (equal to the Christian idea of "do unto others") instruct my political beliefs of social and economic justice.

I believe that giving status as a human life to a fetus UNDERMINES our moral or religious belief of the "sanctity of human life." Expanding the definition of what it means to be "human" LESSENS the value of humanity, it doesn't increase it.

And, as a woman, my body is my own.

Iscariot

Sep 24, 2008, 12:18 PM

To that end, I don't think any one person should have the right to sentence an innocent to death.

It's interesting to note (okay, I mean interesting as in medically relevant) that many hospitals and doctors take issue with performing late-stage abortions; even those who perform abortions are firm believers in the value of a human life. Thankfully, 99% of abortions take place before 20 weeks of gestation, with the majority of abortions taking place within the first 8 weeks of gestation. Also interesting (okay, again, medically relevant) were the reasons for late-term abortions; most occurred because of a lack of education, a lack of access, or fear of reprisal. Human lives lost due to abortion could be reduced to practically zero if sexual education and medical access were made truly available.

That last point is precisely why society needs to cast off it's ridiculous and uneducated notions about the nature of sexuality, reproduction and fetal development.

as a woman

Y helo thar!

MacNut

Sep 24, 2008, 12:22 PM

Iscariot

Sep 24, 2008, 12:30 PM

As a man, who would be the other part of the child or fetus. Do I not get a say in what happens. I hear the statement my body my decision, but inside of your body is a part or my seed. So when the baby is born is it just the woman's baby or is it the fathers as well?

If you don't like what she'd do with it, don't give it to her?

(Really, that's just a good practice to uphold).

MacNut

Sep 24, 2008, 12:31 PM

If you don't like what she'd do with it, don't give it to her?

(Really, that's just a good practice to uphold).By that logic why should any man trust any woman to start a family.

jplan2008

Sep 24, 2008, 12:32 PM

To Iscariot:

Hello. I guess "my uterus" wasn't clear enough? (winking smiley face)

Lord Blackadder

Sep 24, 2008, 12:33 PM

As a man, who would be the other part of the child or fetus. Do I not get a say in what happens. I hear the statement my body my decision, but inside of your body is a part or my seed. So when the baby is born is it just the woman's baby or is it the fathers as well?

Current society and law places all the direct responsibility of childbirth on the woman, because it is a physical process for the woman. If you, as a male, choose to walk away from a pregnancy you can. Nothing you have to deal with as a consequence can be directly compared to the woman's experience.

It is fundamentally unequal.

MacNut

Sep 24, 2008, 12:38 PM

A man can not just walk away, there is a thing called child support. Now if the woman decides to truly let the man out of the relationship than child support has to go as well.

Lord Blackadder

Sep 24, 2008, 12:41 PM

A man can not just walk away, there is a thing called child support. Now if the woman decides to truly let the man out of the relationship than child support has to go as well.

Like I said, fundamentally unequal. I'll bet if you asked women whether they'd rather pay child support or give birth, they'd choose the former every time.

atszyman

Sep 24, 2008, 12:45 PM

By that logic why should any man trust any woman to start a family.

Oh, I don't know, love, trust, finding that one person that you are so compatible with that you know that you want her to be the mother of your children.

Seriously. If you're concerned about where your seed goes and how it's going to be treated there, don't plant it there. Likewise I assume that if sex is meant only for procreation then the only acceptable days to engage in intercourse are the 3-5 days of the month when a woman can conceive.

Until men can carry a baby for 9 months and give birth to it they do not get the ultimate say over what happens to their seed once they sow it. If you have questions and don't want to assume the risk keep your seed to yourself.

If you're going to tell women that pregnancy is a risk of having sex and that they have to deal with it, you also have to accept the fact that currently abortion is also a risk of having sex and if you have to deal with that. If your answer to unwanted pregnancies is to not have sex then your answer to undesired abortions on your part should be the same.

MacNut

Sep 24, 2008, 12:50 PM

You can say the same to the woman, if they don't want to carry a baby for 9 months don't have sex with the man. It goes both ways.

Lord Blackadder

Sep 24, 2008, 12:53 PM

You can say the same to the woman, if they don't want to carry a baby for 9 months don't have sex with the man. It goes both ways.

It does. But once the pregnancy happens, the woman bears an unfair proportion of the responsibility and undesirable side effects.

The only way it could be fair is if we could make it equal in terms of consequences. But we can't. So what right does society have to ask women to shoulder that extra burden?

MacNut

Sep 24, 2008, 12:57 PM

The only solution is to explain the consiquenses before hand. If you are ready for the risk than have all the sex you want. But if you don't want to take that chance keep it in your pants. It is like a game of Russian Roulette if you have 5 blanks and one bullet in the gun there is a chance that you will get shot.

atszyman

Sep 24, 2008, 12:57 PM

You can say the same to the woman, if they don't want to carry a baby for 9 months don't have sex with the man. It goes both ways.

And that's what you're trying to force on every woman in this country. As of right now the act of sex bears the possibility of an unwanted abortion, or child support as consequences for the man. If you are currently unwilling to deal with either of those legal options, then you need to just not have sex until the legality changes in a manner you find more favorable.

wordmunger

Sep 24, 2008, 12:57 PM

Let me enter this conversation from a different angle. Lets say that every person in here was aborted, we would not be having this conversation at all. So are you happier that your parents didn't have an abortion.

But this same argument can be made against birth control, or even against abstinence. If abortion is "wrong," by this logic, every woman who is not currently pregnant should be forced to have sex until she conceives.

After all, the more babies that are born, the "happier" everyone will be that their parents decided to have sex instead of, say, carrying on a debate in an online forum.

jplan2008

Sep 24, 2008, 12:59 PM

By that logic why should any man trust any woman to start a family.

People use that same logic to say that spousal rape isn't rape. She said yes before, so she has no option to say no now.

And logic clearly isn't important to you since you compared the right to choose with everyone here having been aborted. That just supports my notion that being anti-choice is undermining the value of life. You're giving the same value to dozens (?) of lives as to some sort of "what if" scenario. A human life is the same as a possible life. Human lives are the same as some sort of could've would've should've scenario.

As someone who is the result of what was probably an unplanned, and perhaps even an unwanted, pregnancy (although I can't say for sure, my mother would never have talked about such a thing), saying I'm pro-choice doesn't mean I wish I had never been born. Again, that would be equating my life with some sort of fictional, imaginary scenario.

MacNut

Sep 24, 2008, 01:00 PM

atszyman

Sep 24, 2008, 01:02 PM

MacNut

Sep 24, 2008, 01:04 PM

I live in TX, the option of shooting them after entry is quite viable...:DAnd so is the death penalty so it all comes full circle.:p

wordmunger

Sep 24, 2008, 01:06 PM

Birth control is like a locked door. You can throw what ever you want at it but nothing is getting in. Abortion is like shooting the guy once he is already in the house. Either lock the door and not let him in or shoot him once he is in.

This is another silly fantasy argument. Birth control is not like a locked door. Abortion is not like shooting a person.

Maybe we should continue this analogy: Giving birth is like having your house robbed and the burglar getting away with all your stuff?

TomsMacBook

Sep 24, 2008, 01:06 PM

Just gonna' stick my oar in, and walk off.

Pro abortion, Pro death penalty.

Why? Well, in my opinion, it is the mothers decision to do whatever she wishes to do with the featus, seeing as it is inside her own body. In some circumstances, it'd be highly improper to have a child, thus, abortion becomes necessary. Yes, I know that she should have had some sort of protection, but maybe it was a heat of the moment thing?

Anywho, yes, the featus is in the mother. Thus, it's her choice. It's not up to some long-haired, pro-life guy to tell her what she can and can't do with her own body. We have these wonderful progressions in modern science, why not take advantage of them?

As for the death penalty, I firmly stand by the 'eye for an eye' proverb. Say, hypothetically, a man killed another man. That other man aint' coming back. Yes, the killer may be 'sorry', 'mentally ill', or whatever, but that still isn't going to bring the deceased back.

I say, think before you act. If you're willing to kill someone, be willing to be killed.

A-Thankyou.

Iscariot

Sep 24, 2008, 01:12 PM

By that logic why should any man trust any woman to start a family.

No, by that logic you should communicate with your partner and trust them before you engage in something that has potential ramifications. It's all a part of that whole "education" thing I mentioned.

atszyman

Sep 24, 2008, 01:29 PM

This is another silly fantasy argument. Birth control is not like a locked door. Abortion is not like shooting a person.

Maybe we should continue this analogy: Giving birth is like having your house robbed and the burglar getting away with all your stuff?

No, it's more like having someone break into your house and live there for 9 months while you support them and then demanding more support for the next 18+ years...:D

jplan2008

Sep 24, 2008, 03:04 PM

You can say the same to the woman, if they don't want to carry a baby for 9 months don't have sex with the man. It goes both ways.

No, you say to the woman, if you are fertile and have sex with a man, you could get pregnant. If you want a ZERO possibility of pregnancy in that situation, then yes, abstinence is the only option.

Then, if she gets pregnant, it is the woman's choice to have an abortion or try to carry the fetus to term.

If she gives birth, the man accepts financial and parenting responsibility.

So, the woman knows beforehand there is a possibility of getting pregnant and she will have to take on 100% of the physical consequences of her choice about that pregnancy, and if she gives birth, she will have shared financial and parenthood responsibility.

The man knows beforehand his partner might become pregnant, he might have input into her decision, but will not have the final say, he will not have to bear any direct physical consequences, but if she delivers a baby he will have to take on the responsibilities that involves.

Again, yes, if either one is not happy with that situation, they should abstain from any sexual act that could lead to pregnancy. Yes, hopefully the couple will have discussed the possibility and the outcomes beforehand. But, in the end, the woman has the right to make the choice about her own body.

EDIT: Public comment for this proposed new Bush new rule, that could affect not only abortion, but family planning, or even access to medical care for gays (we can all guess what "objectionable" means for Bush ends tomorrow.

"It would require that any health care entity that receives federal financing — whether it’s a physician in private practice, a hospital or a state government — certify in writing that none of its employees are required to assist in any way with medical services they find objectionable."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/19/opinion/19clinton.html?ref=opinion

Dagless

Sep 24, 2008, 04:17 PM

Excuse me, jimmi- but WTF? I certainly as a gay man do not equate sex with babies. To make that statement is utterly ridiculous. If that were the case, this planet would have be extremely overpopulated by now. There are many other reasons people have sex.

But physically it's what it's all there for. It's why we're producing sperm, it's why that sperm is 'launched' in a rhythmic muscular release.

Human biology 101 - have unprotected heterosexual sex with a health partner and it will eventually lead to pregnancy.

You just have to grit your teeth and watch daytime TV to see the number of teen and early 20 year olds not working that little fact out. And thats who my point is directed at because some people do see abortions as a form of contraception.

Iscariot

Sep 24, 2008, 04:49 PM

You just have to grit your teeth and watch daytime TV to see the number of teen and early 20 year olds not working that little fact out. And thats who my point is directed at because some people do see abortions as a form of contraception.

An interesting exercise would be to tally which of those teen mothers were poor and uneducated, and which of those teen mothers were well-educated.

Human lives lost due to abortion could be reduced to practically zero if sexual education and medical access were made truly available.

Agathon

Sep 24, 2008, 10:40 PM

It does. But once the pregnancy happens, the woman bears an unfair proportion of the responsibility and undesirable side effects.

The only way it could be fair is if we could make it equal in terms of consequences. But we can't. So what right does society have to ask women to shoulder that extra burden?

This argument does not quite work. The consequences are not all divided unevenly among men and women. You are asking for a significant financial obligation over the better part of 20 years, which may stop a man from starting his own family or pursuing his own life goals.

It seems bizarre to claim that nine months of pregnancy is a comparable burden to nearly two decades of forced payments which may disrupt one's life plan. Essentially, you need to claim that or something like it in order to override male reproductive autonomy, which is what you are doing.

There's a nice scholarly article which tackles the problem head on.

http://books.google.com/books?id=6pigeicHEDIC&pg=PA211&lpg=PA211&dq=abortion+and+child+support&source=web&ots=A76zSYAeqB&sig=BV9Vc9fLul0xxRY3RAohvlZ7MaI&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA215,M1

Page 215 addresses your position.

I'm surprised Americans don't complain about this more. They are against no taxation without representation, but the current state of reproductive rights is "no say, must pay".

(The problem is of course that our way of thinking about the issue is completely wrong, but that getting it right would force massive societal changes)

Iscariot

Sep 24, 2008, 11:04 PM

(The problem is of course that our way of thinking about the issue is completely wrong, but that getting it right would force massive societal changes)

I would love to hear this solution.

jplan2008

Sep 24, 2008, 11:16 PM

. The consequences are not all divided unevenly among men and women. You are asking for a significant financial obligation over the better part of 20 years, which may stop a man from starting his own family or pursuing his own life goals.

It seems bizarre to claim that nine months of pregnancy is a comparable burden to nearly two decades of forced payments which may disrupt one's life plan.

WHAT??!!!

The woman's responsibility ends after 9 months of pregnancy??? No. Normally the woman has AT LEAST half the financial responsibility and AT LEAST HALF the physical responsibility AFTER the nine months of pregnancy. The usual is the woman bears most or all the raising of the child. And you're talking about the man's other goals?

So, you do what you can to prevent it. You use a condom correctly, you confirm another form of birth control, and the chances of pregnancy are slim. But there's still that very slim chance. Neither a forced abortion NOR the with-holding of choice of an abortion are an option to you.

CorvusCamenarum

Sep 24, 2008, 11:19 PM

This argument does not quite work. The consequences are not all divided unevenly among men and women. You are asking for a significant financial obligation over the better part of 20 years, which may stop a man from starting his own family or pursuing his own life goals.

It seems bizarre to claim that nine months of pregnancy is a comparable burden to nearly two decades of forced payments which may disrupt one's life plan. Essentially, you need to claim that or something like it in order to override male reproductive autonomy, which is what you are doing.

There's a nice scholarly article which tackles the problem head on.

http://books.google.com/books?id=6pigeicHEDIC&pg=PA211&lpg=PA211&dq=abortion+and+child+support&source=web&ots=A76zSYAeqB&sig=BV9Vc9fLul0xxRY3RAohvlZ7MaI&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA215,M1

Page 215 addresses your position.

I'm surprised Americans don't complain about this more. They are against no taxation without representation, but the current state of reproductive rights is "no say, must pay".

(The problem is of course that our way of thinking about the issue is completely wrong, but that getting it right would force massive societal changes)

More of us than you think are complaining. We just get shouted down and dragged through the mud whenever we raise the issue. A huge part of the problem is the way the family court system is set up; there's less oversight there than at the Treasury at the moment.

Agathon

Sep 25, 2008, 01:37 AM

I would love to hear this solution.

Read the paper.

Agathon

Sep 25, 2008, 01:47 AM

WHAT??!!!

The woman's responsibility ends after 9 months of pregnancy??? No. Normally the woman has AT LEAST half the financial responsibility and AT LEAST HALF the physical responsibility AFTER the nine months of pregnancy. The usual is the woman bears most or all the raising of the child. And you're talking about the man's other goals?

You are missing the point. Current law means that women have effective control over reproduction. Men have zero rights. None. Nada.

If your case is correct, then women gets a free choice on whether to take on 9 months of pregnancy and the resultant years of child raising. It is simply not true that the woman has half of the financial responsibility. If she stays home to raise the child (as many would say is her right), then it's all him. Where I come from, this can be very pricy. For both sides it is a massive burden, but the nine months of pregnancy added does not seem to make an overwhelming case for the complete bypass of male autonomy.

The point is that she gets a choice over taking on this burden and he does not. No choice at all. The pro-choice argument is that other people should not be allowed to control your reproductive decisions, yet the law allows women to control the reproductive decisions of men.

For one person's autonomy to cancel another's would require a significant asymmetry in the resulting burden. In fact, all other things being equal, the asymmetry is only slightly tipped towards women. It's not sufficient to completely bypass male reproductive autonomy as it does now.

However, one can imagine cases where it could. For example, one could imagine a case where having an abortion was medically impossible for a woman, due to extreme health risks. In such a case the woman would literally have no choice, and the burden would be so asymmetrical as to justify child support. But in general cases are not like this.

What is at issue here is the ability of one person to make major life decisions for another without their consent. Whether we like it or not, legal abortion has made reproduction a choice. Women have argued that they are entitled to this choice, but they seek to deny it to others.

So, you do what you can to prevent it. You use a condom correctly, you confirm another form of birth control, and the chances of pregnancy are slim. But there's still that very slim chance. Neither a forced abortion NOR the with-holding of choice of an abortion are an option to you.

So what?

Like I said before, we are just thinking about this the wrong way. Liberalism is stupid.

Iscariot

Sep 25, 2008, 02:01 AM

Read the paper.

Compelling [some pages are omitted from this book preview] argument.

Leareth

Sep 25, 2008, 02:07 AM

I am pro choice.
and by that I mean that everyone should be able to make their own decision on the issue .
if it is against their moral beliefs then fine, but do not force your views on my life. If I chose to have an abortion , I want to be able to safely and legally to do that. Most women do not take abortions lightly.
Even the best birth control methods fails, is it worth ruining three lives for one error?

I am also pro death penalty but not quite the way it is practiced in the US.
Some people should not be left to live even in a super max prison.
you do not let a rabid dog live. some people are like rabid dogs.

Oh an bring back corporal punishment while we are at it.

.Andy

Sep 25, 2008, 02:23 AM

you do not let a rabid dog live. some people are like rabid dogs.
Zero tolerance to all mammals with rabies.

Iscariot

Sep 25, 2008, 02:25 AM

Zero tolerance to all mammals with rabies.

Does your birdie possess a very proud chest, or is that a little bit of foam around the mouth?

.Andy

Sep 25, 2008, 02:26 AM

Compelling [some pages are omitted from this book preview] argument.
5 out of 263 people found this book preview helpful

.Andy

Sep 25, 2008, 02:27 AM

Does your birdie possess a very proud chest, or is that a little bit of foam around the mouth?
Pectus Carinum.

skunk

Sep 25, 2008, 02:27 AM

A birdie is not a mammal. Are we broadening the brush?

.Andy

Sep 25, 2008, 02:29 AM

A birdie is not a mammal. Are we broadening the brush?
That's also not how you spell pectus carinatum. This thread is going downhill fast.

Iscariot

Sep 25, 2008, 02:31 AM

That's also not how you spell pectus carinatum. This thread is going downhill fast.

As always, pleased as punch to be the sled.

jplan2008

Sep 25, 2008, 02:43 AM

You are missing the point. Current law means that women have effective control over reproduction. Men have zero rights. None. Nada.

If your case is correct, then women gets a free choice on whether to take on 9 months of pregnancy and the resultant years of child raising. It is simply not true that the woman has half of the financial responsibility. If she stays home to raise the child (as many would say is her right), then it's all him. Where I come from, this can be very pricy. For both sides it is a massive burden, but the nine months of pregnancy added does not seem to make an overwhelming case for the complete bypass of male autonomy.

The point is that she gets a choice over taking on this burden and he does not. No choice at all. The pro-choice argument is that people should not be allowed to control your reproductive decisions, yet the law allows women to control the reproductive decisions of men.

What is at issue here is the ability of one person to make major life decisions for another without their consent. Whether we like it or not, legal abortion has made reproduction a choice. Women have argued that they are entitled to this choice, but they seek to deny it to others.

So what?

Like I said before, we are just thinking about this the wrong way. Liberalism is stupid.

I don't know what you mean by "liberalism," so I won't address that.

It's surprising that with all this unfairness and lack of reproductive rights unleashed on men, that the researchers for male birth control pills can't get much interest from drug manufacturers, because they say the money's not really there (but still will be here in around 3 years supposedly). You'd think that faced with this tremendous inequality in reproductive rights that men as a group would be clamoring for it. With such extreme inequality for men, it's surprising that in the U.S., the pill is the most common method, female sterilization is the second most common method, a male condom (alone or in combination) is the third most common method, and male sterilization is the fourth most common method of birth control. You'd think that faced with such extreme unfairness and "zero rights," it would be the opposite. Especially considering the fact that female sterilization is major surgery and more dangerous than a vasectomy, and the birth control pill also has side effects -- life threatening if you're a smoker or have certain health issues.

Men and women aren't "the same" reproductively. The choice I am referring to is NOT the same for a man and a woman, so you can't pretend it is, and to compare choice for a woman with choice for a man is ridiculous.

I have not heard of any court case (we're talking about the law, here, not individual agreements amongst couples) that requires the man to provide all the financial support for 18 years, while the woman stays at home to raise the baby. If there are such cases, they are the exception, not the norm.

Like I said, there is a way to have a zero possibility of a pregnancy. That is to abstain from any sexual act with a fertile woman that can cause pregnancy. On that, I am in agreement with the right. It's simple biology. That is your choice, to weigh the options, discuss possible outcomes with your partner, etc. You could also have a vasectomy.

The possibility is small, but above zero, with one or two birth control methods. I'm not sure why the woman should bear the burden of that small possibility? (now, of course, the likelihood goes up with no birth control, but the man DOES have control over at least one form)

I only read the one page you linked, and I have trouble reading Google books, so I didn't see any proposed solution. Giving the man any final say in the pregnancy to me means forced abortions or a forced nine months of pregnancy. Surely, then, whatever "unfairness" you think the man supposedly has now would be shifted to the woman, since it's her body, in addition to the other consequences.

The only other option is for society to help, but I don't suppose that's the solution you propose from your "liberalism is stupid" statement, though I don't know what "liberalism" means.

Iscariot

Sep 25, 2008, 02:53 AM

You'd think that faced with this tremendous inequality in reproductive rights that men as a group would be clamoring for it.

While I agree with you, I must admit that I am clamoring for a male pill. I desperately want to take control of my reproductive rights in that fashion, and I have been considering the fourth option for a number of years.

so I didn't see any proposed solution.

The solution wa[some pages are omitted from this book preview] which I think makes a good deal of sense.

davidjearly

Sep 25, 2008, 02:54 AM

Human lives lost due to abortion could be reduced to practically zero if sexual education and medical access were made truly available.

So, explain to me how exactly sexual education and improved medical access would prevent rape?

Iscariot

Sep 25, 2008, 03:36 AM

So, explain to me how exactly sexual education and improved medical access would prevent rape?

It wouldn't, but I don't see how that's relevant. Improved access and sexual education would allow women to abort fetuses from rape prior to viability.

Agathon

Sep 25, 2008, 05:21 AM

Compelling [some pages are omitted from this book preview] argument.

Are you mad? The paper I was referring to is there in it's entirety. It starts on p. 211 and when I click my link it takes you straight to it.

Agathon

Sep 25, 2008, 05:34 AM

It's surprising that with all this unfairness and lack of reproductive rights unleashed on men, that the researchers for male birth control pills can't get much interest from drug manufacturers, because they say the money's not really there (but still will be here in around 3 years supposedly). You'd think that faced with this tremendous inequality in reproductive rights that men as a group would be clamoring for it. With such extreme inequality for men, it's surprising that in the U.S., the pill is the most common method, female sterilization is the second most common method, a male condom (alone or in combination) is the third most common method, and male sterilization is the fourth most common method of birth control. You'd think that faced with such extreme unfairness and "zero rights," it would be the opposite. Especially considering the fact that female sterilization is major surgery and more dangerous than a vasectomy, and the birth control pill also has side effects -- life threatening if you're a smoker or have certain health issues.

None of this has the slightest relevance to whether the argument is a sound one.

cf. in the distant past, no-one really argued about slavery, so it wasn't a moral issue.

Men and women aren't "the same" reproductively. The choice I am referring to is NOT the same for a man and a woman, so you can't pretend it is, and to compare choice for a woman with choice for a man is ridiculous.

I guess I have to repeat myself. You have to show that there is a significant enough moral difference to justify different treatment.

Being responsible for the raising of a child is a significant burden on almost anyone, male or female.

Again, you have to show that the burden on women is so much greater than that on men as to justify a complete violation of male autonomy.

If you want to argue your side, that's what you have to do. So do it, or admit you were wrong.

I have not heard of any court case (we're talking about the law, here, not individual agreements amongst couples) that requires the man to provide all the financial support for 18 years, while the woman stays at home to raise the baby. If there are such cases, they are the exception, not the norm.

Men have to provide financial support for their children until they reach the age of majority. If the woman cannot work, generally he pays for all of it, or the state stumps up a small amount and he pays for the most of it.

But that's a red herring. It makes no difference to the argument which is that it is unjust to force him to pay no matter how much it is.

Like I said, there is a way to have a zero possibility of a pregnancy. That is to abstain from any sexual act with a fertile woman that can cause pregnancy. On that, I am in agreement with the right. It's simple biology. That is your choice, to weigh the options, discuss possible outcomes with your partner, etc. You could also have a vasectomy.

That's insane. The whole ground of the pro-choice position is that one should not be bound by the unforeseen consequences of something that you took all reasonable protections against. This is the same whether it is a man or a woman.

The possibility is small, but above zero, with one or two birth control methods. I'm not sure why the woman should bear the burden of that small possibility?

Because she has all the control. That's why.

I only read the one page you linked, and I have trouble reading Google books, so I didn't see any proposed solution. Giving the man any final say in the pregnancy to me means forced abortions or a forced nine months of pregnancy. Surely, then, whatever "unfairness" you think the man supposedly has now would be shifted to the woman, since it's her body, in addition to the other consequences.

The solution is to stop treating childbearing as an individual matter. That is what liberalism means in this context, since the liberal position is that abortion rights are individual rights and depend only on the parties involved.

In general, liberal political theory is pretty hopeless at dealing with dependents (e.g. children or those with disabilities) and women. Smart feminists have been pointing this out for 40 years now. Liberalism tends to treat our obligations as being wholly comprised of the general obligations we have to society and the voluntary obligations we undertake to others. There is very little room for things in the middle like family or community obligations (which historically have never been voluntary). Women and children tend to be more involved in and rely more on such networks than men, so liberalism is inherently discriminatory against them (conservatives can actually see this very clearly in their own muddled way).

The only other option is for society to help,

There you go. We need to rethink the social value of pregnancy at the same time we rethink the value of other forms of female labour, like domestic labour.

atszyman

Sep 25, 2008, 06:51 AM

If your case is correct, then women gets a free choice on whether to take on 9 months of pregnancy and the resultant years of child raising. It is simply not true that the woman has half of the financial responsibility. If she stays home to raise the child (as many would say is her right), then it's all him. Where I come from, this can be very pricy. For both sides it is a massive burden, but the nine months of pregnancy added does not seem to make an overwhelming case for the complete bypass of male autonomy.

The point is that she gets a choice over taking on this burden and he does not. No choice at all. The pro-choice argument is that other people should not be allowed to control your reproductive decisions, yet the law allows women to control the reproductive decisions of men.

Again, you have to show that the burden on women is so much greater than that on men as to justify a complete violation of male autonomy.

Men have to provide financial support for their children until they reach the age of majority. If the woman cannot work, generally he pays for all of it, or the state stumps up a small amount and he pays for the most of it.

But that's a red herring. It makes no difference to the argument which is that it is unjust to force him to pay no matter how much it is.

I was putting together a whole reply about female autonomy and her shouldering most of the physical and emotional burden when I realized that your argument about unfairness only applies in a situation where the male did not want the child and the female did. I assume we can all agree that it would be a complete moral and social tragedy if we allowed the male to force an abortion or adoption of a child that he didn't want when the female wants to keep the child. The unfairness only exists as long as the choice for an abortion exists, once we start forcing women to have the children, men then lose the right to complain about child support. Sure men may pay more than half of the expense but generally they shoulder less than half of the physical and emotional burden of actually raising the child. It may place a burden on his social life and prospects for starting a future family but the same could be said for an unwed mother's dating scene since many men won't consider dating women who have kids.

Since this thread is about the pro-live versus pro-choice opinion the unfairness of child support ends up in a completely different thread. Any pro-life male has to accept the current unfairness since if they get their way they get to force women to be incubators for an unwanted pregnancy at which point they waive their right to complain about child support.

That's insane. The whole ground of the pro-choice position is that one should not be bound by the unforeseen consequences of something that you took all reasonable protections against. This is the same whether it is a man or a woman.

And the whole point of the pro-life argument is that if you don't want a kid, don't have sex. If they are going to try to remove the option of choice from having the baby, then the penalty of child support must be considered as well before sex is engaged in.

There are four options in an unwanted pregnancy that stem from where the two parties are in their desire.

If both want the child, there is no conflict. If both don't want the child, there may be slight conflict about abortion versus adoption but child support is not an issue here.

The two biggest controversies would be when the two parties disagree. If she doesn't want the child and he does then I can see issues arising but there's always the option for him to shoulder the 9 months of medical expenses and take custody (and she would be responsible for child support). Of course in this situation she has more control due to the abortion option and could avoid child support by not having the child.

In the opposite side is when he doesn't want the child but she does and he is then forced into child support. I would find poetic justice if there were a way to force child support unconditionally on pro-life males who find themselves in this predicament but proving that they are pro-life could be burdensome.

I can see some unfairness in these scenarios, but the relevance of these arguments in this thread is negligible since in order for the massive injustice to exist then abortion would need to remain a legal option, which is what the debate in this thread is about.

Agathon

Sep 25, 2008, 07:23 AM

I was putting together a whole reply about female autonomy and her shouldering most of the physical and emotional burden when I realized that your argument about unfairness only applies in a situation where the male did not want the child and the female did. I assume we can all agree that it would be a complete moral and social tragedy if we allowed the male to force an abortion or adoption of a child that he didn't want when the female wants to keep the child.

Absolutely. Such a decision would be unconscionable.

The unfairness only exists as long as the choice for an abortion exists, once we start forcing women to have the children, men then lose the right to complain about child support. Sure men may pay more than half of the expense but generally they shoulder less than half of the physical and emotional burden of actually raising the child. It may place a burden on his social life and prospects for starting a future family but the same could be said for an unwed mother's dating scene since many men won't consider dating women who have kids.

The point is that this is under the woman's control. The man has zero control. What if you used contraception and slept with someone who claimed they were using contraception, but who wanted to become pregnant and sabotaged yours? Or what if a woman performed some other sex act on a man, and then used his sperm to impregnate herself, or perhaps even another woman, with whom the man had never had sexual contact? As the law stands, he would be up for child support.

The general claim that the pro-choice side make is that women at the very least have the right to engage in protected consensual sex without having to bear the responsibility for unwanted children. Yet they at the same time deny men the very same right.

Since this thread is about the pro-live versus pro-choice opinion the unfairness of child support ends up in a completely different thread. Any pro-life male has to accept the current unfairness since if they get their way they get to force women to be incubators for an unwanted pregnancy at which point they waive their right to complain about child support.

Sure, but I bet they'd take that exchange.

I can see some unfairness in these scenarios, but the relevance of these arguments in this thread is negligible since in order for the massive injustice to exist then abortion would need to remain a legal option, which is what the debate in this thread is about.

Not really, since those who hold the pro-choice position and don't want to radically change our society will have to give up child support or give up abortion rights. The argument forces them into a dilemma, which is a legitimate argumentative tactic.

atszyman

Sep 25, 2008, 07:52 AM

The point is that this is under the woman's control. The man has zero control. What if you used contraception and slept with someone who claimed they were using contraception, but who wanted to become pregnant and sabotaged yours? Or what if a woman performed some other sex act on a man, and then used his sperm to impregnate herself, or perhaps even another woman, with whom the man had never had sexual contact? As the law stands, he would be up for child support.

These scenarios are designed to elicit a specific response. When there was deception involved and the woman was actively seeking pregnancy while the man thought she was preventing most sane people will agree that the man should not be on the hook for child support. Of course this also highlights the disparity in birth control methods. Why do we not have a male pill/patch/implant that would allow us to render ourselves temporarily sterile along with the use of a condom?

If you think that the scenarios described are likely and possible with the women you choose to have sex with maybe it's time to consider a vasectomy?

The general claim that the pro-choice side make is that women at the very least have the right to engage in protected consensual sex without having to bear the responsibility for unwanted children. Yet they at the same time deny men the very same right.

Maybe we need to stick the drug/contraceptive companies with the child support bill when at least one method of birth control was used? How long before we had a 100% foolproof method of contraception then?

Not really, since those who hold the pro-choice position and don't want to radically change our society will have to give up child support or give up abortion rights. The argument forces them into a dilemma, which is a legitimate argumentative tactic.

Of course as you said you bet they'd take the "if the women have to deal with the consequences, so do the men" compromise in which case you're not really forcing the pro-lifers into much of a corner.