Why do republicans find abortion wrong and the death penalty great?

[ringmastery]

Isn't life, life? I never got this inconsistency.

[elfwitch]

1. Because...

The death penalty doesn't have anything to do with subjugating women. As soon as you control a woman's reproductive options, you control the woman.

[MrPrax]

24. Bravo...

And a testament to the good people at DU that this response was first and foremost.

Imagine those folks approving of the Gubbermint dictating what medical procedures a person can and can't have--

Imagine the STATE telling you what doctor you can or can't see...

Imagine Buearucrats perusing your private medical data...

Imagine a society telling a individual what they HAVE to do based entirely on moral whim...

They are an inconsistent bunch to be sure...and ultimately misogyist because of it

[outinforce]

38. Doesn't This Already Happen

"Imagine the STATE telling you what doctor you can or can't see...
"

I'm not sure what you have in mind here, MrPrax, but let me suggest that this is already the case.

If you want to be able to obtain some medication that can bring relief to your pain or can cure your condition, and if the government requires a doctor's prescription in order to obtain that medication, then I think I am correct when I say that the government also says who is and who is not a "legitimate" doctor.

And I think I am also correct when I say that if you want to collect benefits from Medicare or Medicaid, the doctor you must see must have a license from the government.

"Imagine Buearucrats perusing your private medical data..."

If you have a medical insurance policy, then there are "bureaucrats" -- employees of your insurance company -- who peruse your private medical data.

If you have ever filed a claim for worker's compensation, I think I am correct when I say that there are non-medical "bureaucrats" who peruse your private medical data.

If you have filed a claim with the Social Security Administration for disability benefits, I think that bureaucrats review and even peruse your medical data.

[MrPrax]

67. Might be a slight difference...

But regulating 'prescriptions' for health reasons is slightly different than regulating them for 'moral' concerns...

Ditto on the regulating medical professionals (although I think the licsensing is sanction by the 'College' which itself is approved by the State)

Your second point--I concur.

There does need to be much tougher medical privacy laws to ensure that your information is not held to the scrutiny of disinterested thrid parties that are simply there to administer the 'insurance'--

(There is lawsuit by widows' of Wal-Mart managers that accuse Wal-mart of using their spouses medical data through their company plan and, knowing they had health related problems, nevertheless overworked them to death, so Wal-Mart could collect on the mandatory life insurance policies Wal-Mart takes out on all of it's managers--mindboggling if true)

But my original point was more a parody of the 'don't tread on me' individualism that is exhibited by extremists on the Right...it always struck me as odd that when it comes to 'socialized' health care (or gun buying or employer arrangements for that matter) they will trot out these Big Brother excuses, but when it comes to the Right of a woman to consult with her doctor on ANY procedure she and her doctor decide upon--then the State/them have a duty to go charging right in there and 'protect' the unborn!!!

I love the way they slither from natural rights to moral principles without missing a beat.

BTW I am in Canada
Your health care results may vary. Please consult your doctor if you have an adverse reaction to 'free market' medicine; burning chaffing, redness, ...

[outinforce]

80. Yes

It is always amusing to see people slither, as you say, from moral principles to natural rights without missing a beat.

By the way, why is it a good thing to regulate prescriptions for health reasons?

[MrPrax]

115. Why...

Well because I am not a doctor or sufficiently educated enough to read medical monographs

I am familiar with the 'pre-regulatory' regime of snakeoil and opiates that were regularly handed out by medicine men--it is good to have some keeping track.

--mind you I am aware this system have broken down under the weight the Big Pharm's 'full court press' and many of the 'drugs' approved are unreliable to say the least. Can you say "This program was brought to you by the letter R - childrens' chewable Ritalin"?

I don't have a problem with government providing a level playing field so I don't get taken to the cleaners or poisoned or have to restore to 'law of the jungle' solutions to seek redress

[SharonAnn]

218. Bingo! You got it!

That's the absolutely, totally, REAL and only reason.

Same as the desire to forbid birth control but not hold fathers accountable.

[Carl Spackler]

2. Well because the death penalty is applied to convicted murders and such

while abortin is applied to babies.

[stopthegop]

3. bingo...a slight but significant difference eom

[SemperEadem]

116. Forget, even the death penalty arguement for a minute

what about cutting back Medicare to the elderly living on fixed incomes? Turning them loose in the HMO shark tank.... What about the slow adjustments to the social security which the government told them way back when was going to be available to them once they needed it? What about the effect of Bush's tax cuts on the elderly? They have no right to maintain their health the way they see fit, but they have a right to live.

Seems to me that they need to figure out how to structure Social Security and Medicare so that grandma doesn't have to choose between eating (cat food), paying utilities or buying her necessary medicine, since they've got something to say, also, if she's dying of a painful, terminal disease and wants to end her suffering.

"Bad" people can be dispatched. "Good" people can't.

[Djinn]

122. not not actually

Well because the death penalty is applied to convicted murders and such while abortin is applied to babies.


Given most anti-abortion folks take a "god says so" line then there is no diference because it does not say anywhere in the 10 commandments "thou shalt not kill except if the person in question has been found guilty in an extremely skewed legal process"

when confronted with blood lust fundie types screaming for the death penalty (not in force here but plenty would like it to be) I like to spout a choice bible quote:

“Vengeance is Mine” (Deuteronomy 32:35 and Romans 12:19). and then ask them if they think that they or the legal system are above God

On edit: Also abortion is "applied" to fetus' not babies - another "slight but significant" difference

[Carl Spackler]

176. Read Genesis 6

If the Bible is your authority

[Carl Spackler]

183. Oops, Genesis 9

This was all explained to me once. After the flood God delegated to mankind the authority to take "life for life" - i.e. human justice administered by some kind of structured authority. Same argument in more detail in Romans 13. So the commandment "Thou Shall Not Kill" should be understood within that context - it's not OK for individuals to kill others, but it is OK in the context of justice administered by government.

And to be fair, this is clearly how the Jews have understood the commandment as well - they did not see it as prohibiting capital punishment. In fact, they saw (and many still see) it as the justification for capital punishment.

[Djinn]

223. fables written

2000 years ago, based on pagan rites and translated from a dead language...no I dont use the bible as "my authority" but even if I did the State isn't supposed to.

[elfwitch]

6. babies?

Are you using their language?

The whole pro-life mantra is that every life is sacred. They cry because God imbues each four celled "baby" with a soul only seconds after it has been created.

If every life is sacred, what makes four cells more worth saving than a convicted murderer?

It is hypocrisy and pure Bullshit.

[izzie]

29. I was taught that God could only do revenge.

I do not like the state having rights to kill someone. Top of that why is not the governor doing it and not having people do it for him or us or who ever it is done for.Better he spend the years thinking about what he did.I went through this before, There is no logic to it all.By the way it used to be death for rape also, that is a black man got death and whites did not.

[outinforce]

41. Is It Your View, Then,....

Is it your view, then, Izzie, that if the state executes a person who has committed a capital crime, that the state is merely engaged in an act of revenge?

If that is the case, then is the state also engaged in an act of revenge when it punishes someone who has broken the speed limit laws? Or when it punishes someone who has violated the laws against spousal abuse?

[Mandate My Ass]

43. Yes, merely revenge

The justice system is supposed to accomplish two things: to keep the public safe, and to punish with the intent to rehabilitate. The death penalty exceeds the former and ignores the latter.

[outinforce]

60. Let Me Make Sure I Understand....

You begin with the premise, MonicaL, that a justice system is supposed to accomplish two things -- keep the public sage and punish with the intent to rehabilitate. Does that mean that if both of those things are done, Justice is accomplished?

You suggest that the death penalty ignores the intent to rehabilitate. How, then, would you suggest the justice system deal with a completely unrepentant murderer -- someone who not only admits his/her guilt in committing a capital crime, but also says that s/he is glad s/he did it, and would do it again, if given the opportunity to do so? It would be clear, it seems to me, in such a circumstance, that rehablitiation is implossible. That being the case, a lifetime sentence would, it seems to me, be a terribly cruel punishment for a person who is beyond rehabilitation. Wouldn't simply putting such a person out of her/his misery be preferable?

[Mandate My Ass]

62. Nope

The state has no right to take the life of one of its citizens under any circumstances particularly not under the dubious and patently ridiculous guise of "saving" him. Nice try though.

[outinforce]

74. Why?

Why do you say that the state has "no right" to take the life of one of its citizens?

I thought I understood you to say that the justice system serves two purposes -- to keep the population safe and to "rehabilitate" offenders.

The question I posed to you was what does a justice system do with someone who commits a capital offense (like premediated mass murder), and who is completely "un-rehabilitatable"?

Are you suggesting that a person who cannot and will not be rehabilitated should be put into prison for the rest of his/her life?

What is the point of that?

[LeahMira]

100. Yes.

Are you suggesting that a person who cannot and will not be rehabilitated should be put into prison for the rest of his/her life?

What is the point of that?

The point is that life is a pretty long time. Given that time, someone may very well choose to make a change in attitude. Unfortunately, Americans are an impatient people.

[outinforce]

108. I would suggest

that putting a person into jail for the rest of his/her life on the totally unfounded expectation that "someone may very well choose to make a change in attitude" is most cruel and little more than the act of a government that is concerned about revenge.

[Mandate My Ass]

111. Do the crime, do the time

Unrepentant killers should be locked up for natural life if they are beyond rehabilitation. That is not revenge. The public is best served by having admitted predators removed from their midst.

You say that it is an "unfounded expectation" that a murderer would have a change of heart. It's not something that just materializes out of thin air, there has to be an conscious, ongoing effort to bring about that epiphany and an even more sustained one to change violent behavior and render a criminal fit to live in society again.

I'd like to see a show of hands on any death row in the country in which the condemned would choose - 1) being paraded into a death chamber and publicly murdered, or 2) having their sentences commuted to life without the possibility of parole. I wonder which they would consider cruel and vengeful. Methinks they might reach a different conclusion than you have.

[Djinn]

124. who decides "unrehabitable"

people often take a long time to admit to their own actions, there is no chemical test we can do to see if someone really is repetant.

[anti-NAFTA]

179. I've studied the Torah extensively (i.e. The Old Testament)

and if you want to get technical there are many instances in the Torah where it says the death penalty should be used for certain crimes. Take Chapters 19 and 20 of Leviticus for example.

For the record: I oppose the death penalty, and I support abortion. Abortion should even be ENCOURAGED for people who can't possibly support a family.

[Bandit]

11. Life is life ~ You are "PRO-LIFE or you aren't.

These Republican hypocrites are for the sale of tobacco products also and yet it is proved beyond any doubt that if used as directed tobacco causes death. They also are huge supporters of the gun industry. What are guns designed to do? Kill ~ that is what. They are the fartherest thing in the world from Pro-Life they are Anti-Abortion and that is all.

[Nadienne]

87. Excellent points

(n/t)

[outinforce]

92. "Either You're Pro-LIfe or You Aren't"??

I'm confused here.

I thought it was only pro-life folks who saw things in black and white and never in gray.

Are you saying, Bandit, that it is not possible for someone to be pro-life and to discern differences in innocence between and among human lives?

Are you really saying that one must be 100% for all ilfe no matter hwat or they are not really pro-life?

That sounds (to me, any way) awfully much like something a personm who sees only blacks and whites -- but not grays -- would say.

I'm sure I must be misunderstanding you, though.

[Toots]

94. ?

Pro-life means just that. Not in selected circumstances. Words have meanings no matter how we like to twist them.

[outinforce]

102. !

Then what does "pro-choice" mean?

[Toots]

104. Mabe that women can burn their bras

People like to make some choices on their own and wish government would just let them do it, especially when it comes to their own bodies or in protesting their government.

[outinforce]

107. Permit Me to Be More Precise

Three women.

One says that she is of the opinion that women should be able to choose -- on their own -- to have an abortion, but only until the end of the third month of pregnancy. This woman feels that after that it would be appropriate for their to be some limited regulation of abortion.

The second says that she is of the opinion that women should be able to choose -- on their own -- to have an abortion, but only until the end of the sixth month of pregnancy. This woman feels that after the end of the sixth month, there should be some rather stringent regulation of abortion.

The third woman says that abortio should be completely legal up until the time the umbilical cord is cut.

Which, if any, of these women is "pro-choice"?

[Jane Roe]

198. DUers never seem to be able to answer this . . .

question with a clear, understandable answer.

Thanks for putting the question so clearly, in any event.

[Nadienne]

99. I think he's saying

some "pro-life" people are not really pro-life.

How can you be pro-life and support the death penalty, or be protective of our right to own military-grade guns...

[outinforce]

103. I Might Suggest

that some "pro-choice" people are not really pro-choice.

[Bandit]

146. Okay so what is your real point?

Some people who say they are pro-choice sometimes like others to make their choices for them. You seem to be confusing people who say they are something with people who actually are. Would you like to deny a person the right to make a choice? Say if I wanted to burn the American flag. You may not like the choice I made but would you want to deny me the right to make that choice. It doesn't matter in which month I burn the flag in fact the actual act of flag burning is quite un-important. It is the fact that I have the choice. That seems to be where you are getting confused. You try and blur some imagined line by saying third month or sixth month or any time at all. The point is not the act itself but the person having a right to make a choice in the matter.

[outinforce]

148. Here's the Point

Some folks on this thread have suggested that it is impossible to be pro-life unless one takes the position that absolutely all human life is somehow "sacred" and that it is totally inconsistent for someone to say that fetal life deserves some sort of protection while at the same time suggesting that a convicted murderer be put to death.

This, I think, goes to the definition of what it means to be "pro-life".

Some here have said that you either are or are nto "pro-life" -- that it is impossible for there to be any nuance when it comes to being pro-life.

OK. Fair Enough.

Then I ask this question: If someone supports -- completely -- Roe v. Wade, which says, in effect, that states may impose restrictions on the right of a woman to choose abortion during the final trimester of pregnancy, is that person pro-choice or not?

It would seem to me that that person is most definitely not pro-choice. Because, it seems to me, a truly pro-choice person would say that the woman ought to have a completely unfettered right to an abortion at any time -- and for any reason -- during her pregnancy, right up to and until the umbilical cord is severed.

If fdolks want to say that one is only "pro-life" if one supports all human life all the time, then it seems to me perfectly OK for me to say "Then YOU are not pro-choice until you meet my own (admittedly rather narrow) view of what it means to be pro-choice."

[lapislzi]

28. Fetuses, not babies

It's not a baby until it shoots the tube.

Are you arguing that some lives are worth more than others? Who are you to judge?

[Carl Spackler]

32. For the sake of argument

I would say that some lives are worth more than others. I would certainly say my life is worth less than, say, Martin Luther King's. He did things with his life that elevated it high above my own under any reasonable measure of worth. If one of us had to run into a burning building it should be me, as I would be the lesser loss to humanity.

So by the time you're comparing a baby to a convicted murderer I'd say you could make a worth judgement.

When does it become a baby? I have no idea. In my completely unqualified judgement it' got to be sometime before it's breathing air, as my nephew was "born" early in the third trimester.

Now, that said, I believe our justice system is way too screwed up to administer the death penalty fairly (or, for that matter, imprisonment for life without parole).

[lapislzi]

42. My whole problem with it is the the judgemental aspect

What qualifies you, or me, or any fallible, frail human, to judge another?

How does one assign value to a human life? You might say MLK's life is "worth" more than yours...then try asking your kid the same question.

I would prefer to stay out of the judgement game altogether.

Abortion is a wholly different matter. It is about privacy and it is wholly none of my business. Or yours, unless you are involved in a decision to have one. And it is certainly not the state's.

If people don't trust the state with their money (i.e. taxes), why ever would you trust them to make medical decisions, or decisions about who should be killed?

[Carl Spackler]

89. But that's just silly

The only thing separating the death penalty from a prison term is a matter of degree. Between a life term and the death penalty it's a pretty slim degree. Ever contemplate spending every day for the rest of your life deprived of every liberty except of for life itself?

If it's necessary to judge people's right to liberty, it follows it may be necessary to judge people's right to life. I'll go out on a limb and say that there are some people who, in the words of the Enforcer, "need killing."

[drdigi420]

155. when did they legalize killing babies?

i thought we were talking about abortion, which doesn't involve any babies

i get so sick of you anti-choice ppl calling these cell clusters 'babies'

grow up

[outinforce]

169. You Are Entitled To Your Opinion

"i get so sick of you anti-choice ppl calling these cell clusters 'babies'"

And I know of some pro-life people who get really tired of hearing some walking, talking cell clusters telling people to grow up.

[stepnw1f]

4. Good vs. Bad

Republicans like thingsthis way: black and white. The grey issue that you bring up disturbs them. Uncertainty is their #1 fear.

[PretzelWarrior]

5. uh..because fetuses aren't accused of double homicides?

I'm not for the death penalty, and while I personally would not encourage a young woman to get an abortion, I would support her right to choose. Still, you can't draw lines like that which are obviously making false dichotomies. It's not like you can say Abortion = death penalty from the perspective of victims/society/morality.

Those people who are severely anti-abortion truly believe they are speaking up for innocent lives. Just like people who protest the killing of a guy who raped and killed boys and girls in cold blood and shows no remorse believe they are opposing government's right to take another life no matter how despicable a life it may be.

[Nadienne]

8. Look at it this way then:

How can you be pro-life and pro-death penalty?

Doesn't pro-life protect the sanctity of life?

It's not splitting hairs. The attitude of the extremists is this: punish a woman by burdening her with a baby, and punish criminals with death.

[elfwitch]

19. and it is punishment...

Especially when you get in to the whole original sin thing. Women are responsible for the expulsion from Eden so they deserve to be punished. The pain of pregnancy and childbirth is our punishment for sinning.

The want women out of the workplace and out of decision making. Just look at the Promise Keepers to see what they want the world to be like for women.

[outinforce]

40. Are You Really Suggesting .....

I'm not sure I am hearing you correctly. Are you really suggesting that having a baby is punishment?

Are you agreeing with the fundy argument?

[elfwitch]

49. Hell no!

I don't believe in the whole original sin dogma. I think that blaming women for the downfall of mankind is just a bunch of patriarchal clap-trap invented by men who were afraid of matriarchal faith systems.

Fundies, however, are all over that blaming women for everything thing. They devise all sorts of methods to shut out women.

I'm Jewish. The role of the woman and the mother in Judaism is held in the highest regard. Judaism views women as more spiritually attuned than men. Women have no age limit on Kabbalah study. Jewish lineage is matralineal. If the mother is Jewish, regardless of what the fatter is, the baby is Jewish too.

Fundies want to oppress women. Apparently they are scared of the vagina in some way because they sure like to control where it can go and what it can do.

[Mandate My Ass]

59. Vagina-phobia

Yes, it makes perfect sense and explains much of their erratic behavior. Ashcroft has an alarmingly acute case!

[veganwitch]

75. fear my vagina!!!

or cunt if you prefer.

[elfwitch]

88. I am Pro-Vagina

I'm going to make bumper stickers that say things like:

Got Vagina?
What Would Vagina Do?
My Vagina made the honor roll at Gyno Elementary.
Hows my Vagina? Call 1-800-MMM-PUSS
I vote Pro-Vagina

and many many more...

[Jane Roe]

215. so abortion should be illegal

after the point at which a fetus develops a vagina?

[SemperEadem]

117. Anesthesia is Eve's revenge.

[DevilsAdvocate2]

21. Say what?

"...punish a woman by burdening her with a baby..."

Uh, I think the mother made the decision to burden HERSELF with the baby when she elected to have sex. It's not like someone held her down and gave her a fetus implant. (Except in the rare case that rape results in pregnancy, of course)

[Nadienne]

26. That's not the point

It's the attitude of punishment, of retribution, of superiority, of "I am the judge and you got what you deserved"

(Besides, I object to life - a baby - being considered a punishment. It should be a joy. But the radicals make it motherhood a punishment.)

Sure, it was the consequence of her actions. If she didn't want the consequence, she shouldn't've done the actions. But do teenagers fully grasp what they are doing when they give in to peer pressure? Should they be judged for their ignorance? Should they and their kids be punished for life for this?

No.

Therefore, not until some social inequities are rectified should abortion be illegalized. Fix everything else; then there will be no problem fixing this.

By the way, I am not pro-abortion. I am the real pro-life.

[outinforce]

44. Are You Also Suggesting

I think I understand the point you are making, Nadienne.

I think I hear you saying that it is unfair to expect a teenager to fully grasp what s/he is doing when s/he gives into peer pressure? And it is unfair for anyone to judge a teenager for her/his ignorance. And I think I hear you saying that it is really unfair to punish a teenager because of an action that s/he took that resulted in a pregnancy.

I want to be certain I understand you here. Are you also saying that it would be unfair to punish a teenage boy who gives into peer pressure and impregnates a girl by requiring him to assume all or part of the responsibilities of fatherhood?

[Nadienne]

63. The sword swings both ways, of course.

The ignorance of teenagers can create life, and that's a pretty hefty thing.

I am merely saying that creating life should not be a mistake that has to cost a life. Or cost the quality of life. Is a life of slavery, of being stuck - due to one mistake - is it fair? Is it right? I don't think so.

As to your question... If a mother keeps her child, it would be nice of the father to help out. After all, he enjoyed the making of the child. But, to make him help or to not make him help... I really don't know. My first instinct is to say that that should be determined case by case...

[outinforce]

77. I Don't Know if I Agree With You....

Thanks for your response, Nadienne.

I certainly do agree with you when you say "If a mother keeps her child, it would be nice of the father to help out.". I would say that it would be nice of him to do so not only because he enjoyed the making of the child, but because the child is the child of two people -- the mother and the father. It is just as much his child as it is her child. BOTH parents should be involved in "helping out" in the raising of that child, in my view.

And I think I might agree (although I'm not really to sure about this) that "to make him help or to not make him help... I really don't know. My first instinct is to say that that should be determined case by case"

I know that there are some people who suggest that the father should have the same opportunity to exercise reproductive rights that the woman does. That is, they think that the father should be able to say, before the fetus becomes viable, that he rejects -- totally and completely -- his responsibilities and obligations of becoming a parent -- sort of a male form of abortion.

I would be more inclined to say, though, that the male has no reproductive rights after he has had sex. The problem, course, is that that then punishes the man for simply having sex, and denies him his right to reproductive freedom.

[Nadienne]

93. Good points

Sometimes, the frustrated, angry little girl inside me says that if they won't help out, we should brand their foreheads with a "P".

"Now, now, little girl, we are aiming for a civilized society..."

[Yupster]

123. I agree that

no one should be forced to be a mother or a father against his/her will.

Since abortion can only be one person's decision, the father should have the ability to either embrace or decline a father's responsibilities. That should be done in writing and early enough for the mother to make her decision with complete knowledge of whether she can expect any help from the father or not.

The final call on whether to have the baby or not should be the mother's of course.

[Jane Roe]

199. Sort of agree

I don't think a biological father should be able to opt out of support responsibilities.

But I do think there should be early (way before birth) notification requirements, if child support is going to be claimed later. Some children would suffer under this proposed law, but, in my utilitarian calculus, there would be less aggregate suffering.

Specifically, there would be a lot less suffering of the type that happens when the father (or potential father) is not informed of potential financial responsibilities in a timely manner.

[DevilsAdvocate2]

48. With all due respect

Your views of pregnancy are dramatically skewed compared to the view of people who are pro-life. They view pregnancy as a gift, not a burden, and one of, if not the greatest, gifts of all.

"But the radicals make it motherhood a punishment."

I don't understand how they make motherhood a punishment.

"Sure, it was the consequence of her actions. If she didn't want the consequence, she shouldn't've done the actions. But do teenagers fully grasp what they are doing when they give in to peer pressure? Should they be judged for their ignorance?"

Yes, teenagers know full well that having sex can lead to pregnancy. They just don't think it will happen to them. It's the kind of thing, like dying, that only happens to other people, in their minds.

I am not an opponent of abortion per se, but my view, which is strictly my opinion, is that abortion should not be allowed after the first trimester, except in cases where the physical health of the mother is in jeopardy. If one is going to choose to have an abortion, 3 months is plenty enough time to make the decision and have the procedure. Why 3 months? It's just my view, that's all. I have a problem with people who use abortion as a means of birth control. Try buying a condom, pill, sponge, or spermicide next time.

[Nadienne]

70. There's pro-life

and then there's pro-life

Have you looked into a radical's eyes when they talk about abortion? They say, "That slut got what she deserved." If you've never heard it, if you've never seen it, you've never seen a radical. Try playing Devil's advocate with them. Suggest a few what ifs.

My views actually closely match yours. I certainly don't agree with using abortion as a means of birth control. But even if you make that illegal, how do you "fix" teenage pregnancies?

You're right; it doesn't occur to teenagers that this could happen to them. Therefore, a ban on abortion in order to prevent teenage pregnancies won't work.

[Lindacooks]

212. "Try buying a condom, pill, sponge, or spermicide next time."

No birth control method is 100% effective. Many pregnancies occur WITH birth control methods correctly used.

[outinforce]

72. I'm Curious (Again)

I'm curious about something you say, Nadienne.

You make a point of saying that you are not pro-abortion.

Why?

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that you are not pro-abortion, or why you would make a point of saying that you are not pro-abortion.

I'd really like to understand this.....can you help me out?

[Nadienne]

84. Certainly

This whole issue gets lumped into extremes: pro-choice and pro-life. Pro-choice is spun into "anti-life" and pro-life is spun into "anti-abortion"

Well, I have problems with the extremes. Furthermore, I think it is dangerous for us Democrats to define ourselves in such polarized, Conservative ways. Things are not just black and white.

I suspect you want to insist that I want to have it both ways. Well, I do. (Either that or I just can't make up my mind...lol) I understand the desire to make some abortions illegal. I understand the desire to keep some abortions legal. Therefore, I say that I am pro-life, but I'm not anti-abortion. Life is sacred to me, but it's hard to find a balance between the life and well-being of the mother (and her child) on one hand and the life of a baby.

That's just my perspective. And yes, it's subject to change if someone points out a new way to look at things.

[outinforce]

106. Your Perspective on this Issue

and mine are not too far apart.

Human life is very special to me (I would personally not say that it is "sacred" -- just very, very special). And, like you, I find it hard to find a balance between the life and well-being of the mother and her child (on the one hand) and the life of the unborn child.

Thank you for your very thoughtful and sensitive post.

ps -- I really have no desire to insist about anything regarding you. Your opinions and views are your own. I merely asked in order to help me understand your views. Thanks again for sharing.

[veganwitch]

52. cause it doesnt take two to create a fetus

:eyes:

[Fred Duke]

132. If you have no faith...

...no belief in God, 100% secular life then your position makes perfect sense. America is still a very God-fearing country. This allows many to believe abortion is murder and the death penalty is just.

[RT Atlanta]

7. good one

I have wondered about that one myself many times. I believe Elfwitch has a good point in her response (look no further than to the famous picture of * enacting the most recent legistlation, surrounded by his goon squad - not a woman to be found). It may also have to do with their frighteningly literal reading of some passages of the bible.

[HFishbine]

9. What about the lefts inconsistencies?

Why are democrats opposed to the dealth penalty but not abortion?

[Selwynn]

57. Well, for one we're not saying to two consitute the same dillemma---

Republicans however, in making the issue "life" right to "life" etc - are.

[leesa]

128. Because what you are aborting is not a human being. What you are

executing is. Many, many mistakes are made on death row.

[outinforce]

136. I think what you mean to say is...

With all due respect, leesa, I think what you mean to say is this:

"Because it is my opinion that what you are aborting is not a human being. What you are executing is. Many, many mistakes are made on death row."

People differ about what is or is not a "human being", and at what stage of development a z/e/f changes from "not human being" to "human being".

You are certainly entitled to your own opinion regarding that issue.

But please do understand that other people have other opinions other than your own regarding that issue.

And, since the question of who is and who is not a "human being" is really just a matter of opinion, your opinion is no more and no less valid than anyone else's.

[drdigi420]

158. simple

abortion is not the taking of a human life

the death penalty is

[MercutioATC]

10. Actually , they make the same arguement about us (in reverse).

I can see both sides of both issues. I'm against the death penalty mostly because I have seen abuses in the past where innocent people were executed. I'm pro-chioce because a woman has a right to reasonable control of her own body without facing criminal charges (I am torn about pregnant women being charged for child abuse for smoking crack (etc) while pregnant).

I believe what I believe, but that doesn't mean there aren't other sides to the issues.

Hint: The right-wing views are VERY consistant with religious views...

[Kusala]

12. I could play devil's advocate

and throw out the "Why do liberals find the death penalty wrong but abortion is ok"..Of course, it scoots right past reality but hey who's counting?

Personally, as a buddhist, I believe both are wrong, and the person that has the abortion(as well as the doctor) inherits the karmic toll of the act.

But the bigger irony is how republicans want all these babies to be born, but they don't want any social programs to take care of all these new mouths to feed. Basically, it's "You have to give birth but don't expect any help from us to care for the kid"...

Less talk, more action...

[GreenPartyVoter]

17. Yep

Funny how they fight for the right of the fetus, but the second that kid is born he better pull himself up by his bootstraps and stand on his own two feet like any good, self-sufficient 'Murican. :eyes:

[Bandit]

25. I doubt you will find liberals saying that

They say, I guess I should say I say, it isn't abortion it is Choice. If the woman wants to make that choice it is her decision not mine. I support her right to make a choice but not necessarily the outcome.

[Nadienne]

33. That's not the only way to look at it.

That's not the only explanation.

Without social programs and the like, a "sinner" gets "punished" - and that's what many of the extreme pro-"life" people want. To punish. To judge. To impose their dominance on sinners.

They don't want to help women who make mistakes.

Of course, not all pro-lifers are status-quo defenders and punishment freaks. Some genuinely do care about the life of the baby. But there is more to it than that. It really is not that simple.

Oh, and, I don't recomend letting the views of the party determine your own personal views. I don't like abortion, either, even if it is the liberal position. I don't think many of us liberals are "pro-abortion" in the sense that subtle conservatives use.

[outinforce]

45. I'm Curious

You say, Bandit, that you support the right of someone to make a choice, but not necessarily the outcome.

I don't understand.

Why would you have any problems with what the outcome of another person's choice?

[Toots]

51. I can't answer for Bandit but for me I support Choice

I support a person's right to make a choice to burn the American flag although I don't agree with their decision I agree they have the right to make it. I agree in the exact same manner about abortion. The woman has the right to make a choice. It really doesn't matter what I think of that decision it is her's to make.

[WhereIsMyFreedom]

230. This is what pro-choice is all about

Pro-choice is about letting people make the decisions themselves, not imposing our own values on them. You don't have to be pro-abortion to be pro-choice. I think a lot of Republicans don't understand this distinction. One of my friends is a staunch Republican. Her opinion is that abortion is wrong and consequently she would never have an abortion herself. However, she also does not believe that she has the right to impose her moral belief on other people. If they want to have an abortion then that is their choice. This is completely a pro-choice position, however she vehemently argues that she is pro-life and not pro-choice.

[mac56]

37. "We love the babies UNTIL they're born!"

nm

[Nadienne]

39. This is what we should be saying to them, about them

Put them on the defensive, and maybe we'll get some real, fair, equal social justice out of the deal.

[veganwitch]

46. and republicans dont have karmic debt

for constantly cutting social programs? for constantly blaming welfare recipients/teenage moms for societies ills?

then again one is responsible for their own karmic debt and what is karmic debt to you may not be karmic debt to me.

and if one believes in the imperminance of things, ultimately, our actions only have the weight we give them.

i remember a story i was told. a teacher and his student are walking and buddhist monks are not supposed to touch women. they come by a river and there is a woman drowning. the teacher walks into the river, picks her up and takes her to the other side. the student is shocked but he doesnt say anything and they continue on their way. later that night the student, in a rush, says "teacher! i thought monks where not allowed to touch women, how could you do that!" the teacher replied "i set the woman down by the edge of the river. why are you still carrying her?"

[GreenPartyVoter]

13. Fetuses are innocent, convicts aren't

You'd think Repubs would be bigger on the ability of people to reform their lives, but somewhere along the way that aspect of Chrisitanity seems to have dropped right out of their paltform.

[veganwitch]

14. the majority of abortions are middle class white women

and the death penalty is disproportionately given to minorities (where as a white person will get live in prison for the same crime)?

[RUexperienced]

15. I think it has something to do with the taking of an innocent life

[NuckinFutz]

16. at the risk of being flamed...

Because babies are innocent, they deserve to live, and because criminals are corrupt, they do not. Since the innocent deserve to live, and the baby must be more innocent than the mother, obviously, they favor the baby over the mother. A woman who would choose to abort, is, by this logic, also a criminal.

For the record, I'm very pro-choice, and undecided on the death penalty.

[Skittles]

18. because the abortion issue is about controlling women

NOT about "saving lives". The "pro-life" stuff is all utter bullshit.

[DevilsAdvocate2]

68. How so?

You sound rather certain of this, Skittles. On what do you base your assumption?

[DevilsAdvocate2]

69. How so?

You sound rather certain of this, Skittles. On what do you base your assumption?

[benddem]

20. There are so many inconsistencies

in the Republican ideation. They want all these babies born but then don't have any interest in helping them and their mothers to make sure the children have health care, food and a good education.
There is no inconsistency in dems supporting abortion rights and being against capital punishment. Abortion rights are the rights of the woman...the fetus carrier to make decisions about her life. The death penalty 1) has been shown to unfairly be given to people of color. 2) to be given to people who are completely innocent. 3) Doesn't prevent crime....and I could go on and on.

:grr:

[Gin]

22. does the word hypocrisy ring a bell?

gin

[FlaGranny]

27. I will agree totally with capital punishment when

every executed criminal is 100% proven to be guilty. Some people deserve to die, but innocent people shouldn't have to die so that we can be sure the guilty die. Life imprisonment is good enough until it can be proven that there is absolutely no chance for error in a death sentence. So far, that likelihood seems to be far in the future, if ever. After the uncertainly about guilt is removed, then I would still want the death penalty applied equally and without predjudice to skin color or wealth. If those obstacles to justice can be removed, then I would be 100% FOR the death penalty in certain, but not all, cases.

[Cat Atomic]

23. Because it's got nothing to do with life.

It's about the *power* to determine who lives and who dies. If they were really "pro-life", they wouldn't back invasions, sanctions, or any of that other vicious garbage. That stuff gives them a hard on.

[tom_paine]

30. It is the Doublethink which Orwell prophesied

Enforced by the mightiest propaganda machine humankind has ever seen.

[virtualzero2]

31. It should be all or nothing

Frankly I'm more in line with the Republican view on this one.

Now I'ld also admin that the arguments on both sides are pretty shadey at times.

But being against abortion and for the death penalty makes more sense than being for abortion and against the death penalty.

As a Christian I'm against both but at least a murderer has commited a greivous crime. I can see the reasoning in his execution though I don't agree with it. An unborn child hasn't done nothing wrong so this one is beyond me.

Anyways the question I ask is why is it OK to be FOR abortion but AGAINST the death penalty?

[Djinn]

127. Once again

fetus - human

for the same reason that it would be considered child abuse to feed your kids only 1 lettuce leaf a day it would NOT be child abuse to be a preganant woman on that diet.

In short until you can get a fetus to survive outside the womb - get out of ours!

[karabekian]

34. to be devils advocate

why do some find eating meat or using animal products wrong (i.e. PETA) and abortion right?

:evilgrin:

[DrWeird]

35. Sexism and racism.

They don't care that it's convicted killers that get killed. Notice the thousands of innocent Iraqis they killed, including babies.

And I shouldn't have to mention how racist the DP is.

[Beaker]

36. the unborn are innocents- convicted killers are not.

it's not really an inconsistency, and it's not that hard to understand...it's not like they're budhists.

[jokerman93]

47. I don't think they're hypocrites at all

They are compelled to establish political control over all decisions regarding life and death.

Powers of choice that regard life, death and especially sex are all key to controlling the imagination and therefor the psyche of the individual.

This is religion used as a tool of political coercion.

In my opinion, the politicized new "crish-junism" of the American right, has little in common with the teachings of Jesus. It's essentially a death cult bent on controlling not only women but everyone -- by limiting personal choice through the false dialectic of sin and righteousness.


It has no place in the political arena of this country, but religion is too tempting a passkey to the conscience of the people for salivating totalitarians to pass up.

[DevilsAdvocate2]

50. Just a reminder for all who have posted on this topic

Your mother was pro-life :)

[veganwitch]

53. and if she wasnt

you would be none-the-wiser.

[Mandate My Ass]

56. Yes she was!

I'm so glad she had a choice as well as legal, safe options available to her and I'm glad I do as well!

I love my mom sooooo much I'd hate to think if my mom didn't want me she'd have died from an unsafe, pain-filled procedure.

[elfwitch]

58. NO, my mother was pro-having me...

I was wanted, desired, worked toward. My mother made a very conscious decision to become pregnant and a choice to stay that way until I was born.

If my mother, or yours, or me, or any other woman, did not make the conscious choice to become pregnant because her birth control method failed, she was forced in some way to become pregnant, or what whatever reason took away her choice to become and remain pregnant, then she should not have to remain so.

Pregnancy is a huge strain on your body. Some women have permanent chemical and biological changes after pregnancy. Some women become diabetic or get high blood pressure for the rest of their lives because they became pregnant. No one but the woman who is pregnant should ever be forced to remain so if it is her choice not to.

You can label it murder or killing babies or whatever you want, but until you are in that situation, it really is none of your business. It is the business of the woman who has to risk her health in the process of coming to term. I've said this many times on many different posts:

If YOU don't want to have an abortion then DON'T!
Otherwise mind your own damn business.

[DevilsAdvocate2]

61. So are you saying...

"...You can label it murder or killing babies or whatever you want, but until you are in that situation, it really is none of your business. It is the business of the woman who has to risk her health in the process of coming to term..."

Are you saying that when a married couple conceive a child, the pregnancy is none of the husband's business?

[elfwitch]

65. I'd say...

That he gets to voice his opinion and that if the marriage is any good, his opinion should be deliberated with some weight. But ultimately, it boils down to my body my choice. As soon as men start having babies, then they get a full vote. Until they have to take on all the health risks and the responsibility of carrying around another life form inside them, they can have opinions but not a deciding vote.

I had, by what most people consider, a very easy pregnancy. I had no major medical problems during the duration and only experienced some complications during delivery. I would NEVER want to be pregnant again. Aside from the loss of mobility, you also suffer a great deal of loss of privacy. Your belly is an invitation for any yahoo to come up and tell you how you should live your life. Are you taking vitamins? Are you going to breast feed? Are you drinking enough water? Are you going to have a "natural" delivery? There is no end to the very personal questions a pregnant woman has to endure.

I love my son more than life itself. I planned to have him. I wanted to have one child of my own. But I would never be pregnant again. Until you have walked a mile in a pregnant womans very comfortable shoes, you cannot even begin to know what it is like.

And finally, it still isn't anybody's business but hers, whether she wants to go through the entire process or not. Her body, her choice.

[WhereIsMyFreedom]

231. I am a man and I 100% agree!

well said

[veganwitch]

79. can we move to canada so i can marry you

we wont even have to worried about changing last names :)

[elfwitch]

85. thanks for the proposal...

Flattered.
But... this witch is already married.
She picked up the nicest of bridge trolls and has made a happy fairytale home with two cats, and elf, a troll, and a little boy who is half elf half troll. We all love each other very much.

But if my gate swung that direction...
Who knows?

Hope you find a witch of your very own.

[skippysmom]

83. My mother is actually very pro-choice

And abortion wasn't legal when I was born.

God, I hate that slogan.

[DevilsAdvocate2]

91. Why do you hate it?

Why do you hate that slogan? I don't repeat it mindlessly, but I thought it'd be fun to throw it out in the middle of this thread. It makes people stop and think.

[skippysmom]

109. I hate it

because, like I said above, my mother is pro-choice, NOT pro-life.

And because she didn't HAVE a choice in 1972. I'd hate to see our country go back to a time with back alley abortions.

[Djinn]

135. because it's stupid and meaningless

My mother was not and never has been "pro-life" in as much as the term means "oppose abortions" Beleiving abortion should be safe and legal does not translate into thinking all pregannacies should be aborted therefore the "your mother had you so she MUST be pro-life" is ridiculous...it's almost as specious as the stupid

"what if Jesus/Beethoven/MLK's mother had an abortion?"

to which my response is always

"what if Hitler's had?"

[RandomKoolzip]

139. No. it makes people groan.

Not "stop and think." My mother is VERY pro-choice, and she was happy to have me. IT WAS HER CHOICE. Just because we're pro-choice doesn't make us incapable of making decisions logically.

And this subject should only be up to women. Men should not play a role in this decision. (I'm a man, and this just seems logical to me.)

[jokerman93]

147. Because what you said...

Because what you said, although it's a clever little slogan one can pick up down at your corner church, it's specious, simplistic and essentially meaningless.

You don't know my mother and I'm not tempted to trivialize the issue by explaining why your quip is at least silly and presumptious, probably wrong in more cases than you're willing to accept.

[outinforce]

149. I Agree

I happen to think that the "Bumper Sticker" phrase "Your Mother Was Pro-Life" is specious, simplistic, and meaningless.

It is as specious, meaningless, and simplisitic as "If You Don't Want An Abortion, Don't Have One".

It is like wise as silly and presumptuous -- and ad disrepecful of another person's point of view -- as the "If You Don't Want...." "Bumper Sticker" phrase.

[Djinn]

172. wrong

because "if you don't want abortion don't have one" isn't factually wrong - "you're mother was pro-life" patently IS

[outinforce]

174. Your Opinion

Thanks for expressing your opinion.

But the whether something is "factually wrong" or "factually right" is not really the issue.

If you look closely, I never suggested that one of those "bumper sticker" slogans was factually correct -- or that one was factually incorrect.

What I said was that they were both "specious, meaningless, and simplisitic, silly and presumptuous -- and disrepecful"

Surely you will agree with me about this.

Won't you?

[Lindacooks]

213. No, I don't think that

'if you don't want abortions, don't have one' is at all disrespectful. It shifts the focus where it should be: this is a PRIVATE DECISION between a woman and her doctor. PERIOD. Nobody else has any business interfering in that decision. And yes, that includes the father.

This whole thing has to work two ways. If the father can just walk away and abandon the mother and baby, which happens quite often, then fathers don't get to choose if the mother has the child or terminates the pregnancy. Tough luck. That's the way life works.

[Jane Roe]

216. I bet it is pretty easy to decide . . .

that a slogan is respectful if you agree with the slogan. However, the agreement with the slogan would seem to seriously undercut the possibility of objectivity of your opinion on that issue.

[outinforce]

217. Would You Agree, then, With This?

"If the father can just walk away and abandon the mother and baby, which happens quite often, then fathers don't get to choose if the mother has the child or terminates the pregnancy."

Interesting.

I think I hear you saying that the mother's right to choose abortion is conditional. And that the condition is that "if the father can just walk away and abandon the mother and baby", THEN the mother gets to choose whether or not she gives live birth to the child.

This would suggest that if the father were to commit to not "just walking away and abandoning the mother and child", the mother would then be sort of obligated top give birth to the child. The commitment of the father could take a couple of different forms, I guess. One form would be to marry the mother. The other could be some sort of registration that the father would have to make with the civil authorities that acknowledges his paternity and obliges him not to abandon the mother and child.

If that is not what you are suggesting, then how about this? Since you seem to be suggesting that it is "Tough luck. That's the way life works" that operates when a mother decides to abort her unborn child, even when the father wants the child to be born, is it also just "tough luck. That's the way life works" when the father decdies to abort his relationship with the mother and child, even when the mother wants the child to be born?

[Alenne]

112. Actually my mother was and is pro-choice

She chose to have me.

[Nobody]

114. Actually....

My mother, a Catholic Democrat, is pro-choice. So is my Catholic Republican father. He once yelled back at anti-abortion protestors when he was going to see the doc about something. They were harassing a young woman and he yelled at them that he could guarantee to them that he wasn't pregnant.

My parents believe in having backup plans.

[Djinn]

129. I love your Dad!

I work for a health service and across from the hospital where I'm based there is a day surgery that amongst other things provides abortion counselling and surgery - each wednesday there is a small (pro-lifers not too huge in Aust) band of dedicated MALE anti-abortionists, the only people who I ever see there in support of patients are women - nice to hear blokes (and a Catholic one to boot) giving the interfering womb police some grief back

[Festivito]

54. Fear OF shame explains both.

Edited title, added explains both.
Hardly anyone that went to a high school during the past 40 years has had no contact with abortion, legal or illegal.

Whether these people had one, paid one, caused a baby, tried something that could have caused a baby, drove a sister or friend, donated to one, or just talked about it in a hallway, they participated and CAN FEEL SHAME.

So, if government makes abortion illegal, then, IT'S NOT THEIR FAULT, it government's fault. They don't need to feel that shame if it's government's fault for not protecting them.

DEATH PENALTY really really means it is someone elses fault, just a little closer to absolutely. Not society's, not our own.

IDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY makes fine rhetoric for hiding its opposite. Much like the "Defence of Marriage Act" really means "Decimation of Marriage Act" making marriage about sex instead of love. People for Clean Air means two Republicans trying to make the air dirty. The Patriot Act means the UNpatriotic act of diminishing the rights once won by patriots.

[leftofthedial]

55. because they are hypocrites

and it allows them two political marriages of convenience.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

64. Masturbation & Wet Dreams Should be Outlawed!

Ask any woman who has had a miscarriage-becoming pregnant is the POTENTIAL for life. If you truly believe that life begins at conception, then men should be prohibited from spilling their sperm any where they choose.

Ridiculous you say? So is the anti-choice argument.

Again, it's the usual DUers here, all of them anti-choice, all of them men, all of them with the same tired arguments...

:boring:

[DevilsAdvocate2]

66. Anti-choice is a misnomer

Unless you would like for your position to be termed "anti-life" or "pro-death".

[elfwitch]

73. quibbling about language

The Right frames the argument with language all the time.

Sixteen cells is a baby.

Death, life, choice, what have you, it all boils down to people wanting to control access to a safe medical procedures that are really only the business of the doctor and the patient.

[Djinn]

130. fine

I think anti-choice is a fine term for those who want abortion banned - not just those that like me probably wouldn't personally have one but beleive in affordable legal & safe abortion. They want to remove the choice.

If you want to call me pro "unwanted-fetus" death go ahead

[elfwitch]

71. sing out Rose!

I agree. Until you have actually carried one in your belly, or even have the potential to, I have to say that it really isn't your decision.

I won't tell them how to use their penis, if they stay out of the business of my uterus and vagina.

[DevilsAdvocate2]

76. A couple of things

First, the "right" are not the only ones who frame an argument with language. Everyone does. Language is powerful. Why else would some factions want certain things deemed "hate speech"? If i say I don't like someone it doesn't sound nearly as bad as if I say I hate them.

Second, society does have a stake in some things that don't necessarily apply to every individual. Do you believe that people who elect not to have children should have a say in what is taught in public schools? Maybe they shouldn't have input on laws regarding children, such as child abuse, molestation, etc.

I am not 100% against abortion. My view is that it is not something that should be done after the first trimester except in instances where the physical well-being of the mother is in jeopardy. 3 months is plenty of time to make the decision, and the fetus is still in a non-viable state. But as I say, that's my opinion.

[elfwitch]

82. society has a stake in many things...

But the decision to be pregnant or stay pregnant is not subject to committee hearings. Some things are too personal. That is why laws restricting certain personal behavior have been eliminated.

Sodomy laws were restricting the behavior of normally law abiding adults with the ability to make decisions like that on their own. You wouldn't get far with laws about what elective surgery you could or could not have or laws restricting masturbation. Some things are private. Some things should be left up to the individual. If an adult makes an informed decision to do or not do something that effects their personal health or mental well-being, it is their choice and theirs alone. Neither you or I or the government or the church or anybody has the right or should have the authority to legislate choices of this nature.

[DevilsAdvocate2]

90. Why not allow post-term abortions?

A large part of the argument surrounding this subject revolves around the fact that a fetus can't survive outside the womb. However, a 2 week old infant can't survive outside the womb if nobody feeds it, gives it drink, gives it shelter, or protects it. Why not allow post-delivery abortion? After all, many times a newborn has an effect on the mother's mental well-being. If the mother chooses to terminate, does it really hurt anyone but her? The baby won't know what's going on.

[elfwitch]

97. but only the mother can...

Only the mother can provide the sustenance needed for a fetus in the womb. You cannot take it out and hook it up to machines or transplant it to another womb.

Once a infant is able to survive outside the womb (that time frame is getting earlier and earlier these days) anyone can take care of it.

Going to the extreme of farce does not help the argument. It is like Jonathan Swift suggesting that the rich eat the children of the poor during the Irish Potato Famine. It is farce. It is outlandish.

How about this? Every pro-life person sign up to raise until adulthood any child that is unwanted and may have been aborted? You get to be a Pro-Life buddy. You have to finance and fret over any product of a woman's desire to abort. Everybody that is against abortion gets to be on this list. You won't know when it is your turn to get your brand new pro-life buddy. You will just get a call and then Social Services will deliver your new little bundle of moral highhandedness to your front door.

It would never happen. It is really easy to be against abortion if it isn't your financial responsibility to raise a child that someone didn't want.

[outinforce]

101. In Your Example.....

In your example, elfwitch, where you say, "Everybody that is against abortion gets to be on this list.", would you include, as people required to be on the list, people like some on this very thread who say that they are not pro-abortion, but who do claim nevertheless to be pro-choice?

And if being "pro-choice" would be a condition for keeping one's name off such a list, just how "pro-choice" would a person have to be? Would someone who said that a woman should have an unfettered right to have an abortion at any time during the first three months of pregnancy, but who said that s/hwe supported restrictions on the right to abortion after that be "pro-choice" enough? Or would it be necessary for someone to say that s/he supported an unfettered right to an abortion up until the end of the sixth month of pregnancy be "pro-choice" enough? Would it matter whether they supported things like parentla notification? Would supporting all of Roe v. Wade be sufficient? Or would they need to support a completely unfettered right to an abortion up until the time the umbilical cord is severed in order to be "pro-choice" enough to be excluded from the punishment you envision for being "against abortion"?

[elfwitch]

142. No...

You are missing the point entirely. It is really easy for people to be anti-abortion. Especially if you aren't the one faced with the decision. If all the people standing in the protest lines or decrying the procedure as immoral or as murder had to take in any child that may have been aborted, their position might not be so strong. If every woman being shouted at from the streets was "adopted" by one of the people shouting from the safety of the sidelines and they were legally obligated to raise her child, there might not be so many people shouting from the sidelines.

Has it ever occurred to anyone that the large majority of abortions that are occurring are not used as frivolous birth control? Do you honestly thing that women are tripping off merrily to the clinic? Most of the women having this procedure are doing so because they cannot handle either mentally or financially an unplanned pregnancy.

Birth control failure happens. Even the most careful person might be a victim of percentages. Should a person that was trying very hard not to get pregnant have to stay that way because their birth control method failed? Or are you suggesting that if you don't want to run the risk of pregnancy you should abstain from sex? Then pregnancy becomes a punishment for sex.

So if abortion is wrong or immoral or murder as many anti-abortion advocates maintain, and you make the procedure illegal, then you get to take care of the kid that the woman was forced to have. The child then becomes just as big of a shock and unplanned surprise in your life. You won't know when it is coming, because you didn't plan for it to happen that way. You won't get to turn it away when it is your turn.

Otherwise, it is none of your business. If you aren't willing to randomly take these children that women cannot handle, then stay out of their lives and respect their decision.

The current law allows abortion, under normal circumstances, through the first trimester. No one here is suggesting that there be unfettered access. That is the outrageous rantings of people who want to make it completely illegal. The current laws are acceptable. The problem is that there is a push by people who are against the procedure to make it illegal for everyone under any circumstances.

It all goes back to what I've said over and over again. If YOU don't want an abortion, don't have one. That is fine. That is your business. But don't let YOUR beliefs keep other women from having them if it is the decision they have made. Whether you approve of the procedure or not for yourself or someone in your family is irrelevant to the absolute need to keep it SAFE and LEGAL.

[outinforce]

143. Yes.......

Thank you, elfwitch, for your thoughtful response. Thank you for taking the time to help me understand your position on this issue a bit better. And thanks also for pointing out your observation that I am missing your point. Abortion is, in my view, too important an issue to have people mis-interpreting other people's points of view on it. It is my belief that mis-interpretation of other people's points of view is the single biggest factor leading to animosity between people on this issue.

You say that it is really easy to be anti-abortion. I would suggest that it is not as easy as you might think.

I am not quite sure what, exactly, you mean by "anti-abortion", since I do happen to have several friends who support abortion rights, but who tell me that they are "personnally opposed" to abortion, or who tell me that they think abortion is not a good thing. I have always considered them to be "anti-abortion", because they feel that although women must have the right to have abortions, they feel that abortions should be rare.

I have several friends who describe themselves as being "prolife", but who at the same have absolutley no problem with abortions in certain circumstances. These circumstances might include, for some who call themselves pro-life, abortions which occur during the first few days of pregnancy, as well as pregnancies which threaten the life of the mother or which resulted from rape or incest.

It seems to me that to truly be "anti-abortion" one would have to say, I think, that there are no circumstances in which abortion is ever justified, and I think that would be a terribly difficult think to justify. That is why I suggest that it may not be as easy as you think to be anti-abortion.

You ask, "Has it ever occurred to anyone that the large majority of abortions that are occurring are not used as frivolous birth control? Do you honestly thing that women are tripping off merrily to the clinic?". I can't speak for everyone, but I certainly do not think that the large majority of abortions are used as frivolous birth control. Nor do I happen to think that women are tripping off merrily to the clinic. But I would think that abortion is such cases would somehow be -- if not "wrong" -- the certainly something that would make me uncomfortable. And it does seem to me that there is a part of the pro-choice community which says, in effect, "Even though most don't use abortion as a frivolous means of birth control, we would have no problem if every singler abortion were in fact a form of frivolous birth control."

You also say this, "No one here is suggesting that there be unfettered access. That is the outrageous rantings of people who want to make it completely illegal."

I would suggest that there are in fact people right here on DU who suggest that there be an unfettered right to abortion throughout the entire pregnancy. Some suggest that we use Canada's law as our own model. Canada allows (and pays for) abortions for any reason at any time during a pregnancy, if I understand the posts of some correctly. So I assure you that the call for unfettered access -- which may, as you say, be truly "outrageous" -- comes not so much from those few people who want to make abortion completely illegal. Rather, it does come from those who really, truly believe that the state has no right to interfere -- at all -- with a woman's right to choose, even if it means that a woman would have the right to destroy a completely healthy, eight-month fetus who poses no risk to her health or life.

[DevilsAdvocate2]

110. Actually, I already contribute financially

It's called welfare, food stamps, subsidized housing, Earned Income Tax Credit, tax deductions for dependents, free public education, and county health clinics, just to name a few.

[SemperEadem]

119. hmmmm

"But as I say, that's my opinion"

which, of course you are entitled to...

...using laws to enforce it in my uterus and my life, you are not entitled to...

[outinforce]

81. Welcome to The Discussion RationalRose!

It is so good to see you here. You always seem to show up as one of the usual DUers who visit these threads.

This thread just wasn't the same without you.

So Welcome.....I'm glad you're here.

I must say, though, that your argument about wet dreams and male masturbation is, well, a bit -- and just the tiniest bit -- fatiqued.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

86. You're STILL here?

I thought you would have forsaken DU for a website more in line with your skewed attempts at reasoning.

I guess you don't understand the POTENTIAL for life. Have you ever had a miscarriage? I didn't think so. If it takes both a sperm and an ovum to create life, then ridding your body of the holy sperm is tantamount to murder. All those little fishies swimming where they don't belong! When their only use is for fertilizing the egg! To do anything else with your sperm should be prosecuted under the law!

This post and the one above shows the ridiculousness of your argument.

Again, I'll reiterate:

transparent. tired. buh-bye.

:boring:

[DevilsAdvocate2]

95. Huh?

"If it takes both a sperm and an ovum to create life, then ridding your body of the holy sperm is tantamount to murder. All those little fishies swimming where they don't belong! When their only use is for fertilizing the egg! To do anything else with your sperm should be prosecuted under the law!"

Has anyone tried to argue that the only use of a woman is to produce offspring, or that having sex without trying to get pregnant should be against the law?

[outinforce]

98. There Are, DevilsAdvocate2,....

Ther are, DevilsAdvocate2, some DUers who are the same usual people who visit threads such as this one and make the same tired arguments.

You may have discovered one such usual visitor and one such tired argument.

[FlaGranny]

140. Yes, there has been -

the Pope. Sex is only for procreation and otherwise should not be indulged in.

[outinforce]

96. Why, Yes...Yes I Am

Hi, RationalRose!

Yes I am still here. I enjoy the diversity of opinion and the diversity of people one finds here on DU.

I confess that I really don't know of other websites that are, as you say, "more in line with" my "skewed attempts at reasoning".

Perhaps you know of one or two that you think might be more appropriate for me?

I know I am mistaken about you when I say that it appears to me that you desire uniformity in thought and in types of discussions. I know I am mistaken because you are so rational and measured in your own arguments. Nonetheless, since you were so kind as to suggest that I forsake DU to visit other websites, let me return the kindness.

If you really find it difficult to deal with posts from people whose opinions differ from your own, you may want to try, on occasion, to visit other websites that demand conformity to opinions that are just like yours as a condition for posting on them.

[Yupster]

126. What does masturbation and

wet dreams have to do with conception? You really lost me there?

[wuushew]

78. Because they are pro-soul not pro-life

For the following reasons(As understood from my atheist viewpoint)

felons and the post-born all can be saved through Jesus. God is greedy and covets souls as some sort of natural resource. This is why fundies are in such a fervor to convert you. It meets their quota.

A fetus which is aborted has its soul "recycled" so killing the unborn before they "draw first breath" does nothing to further Gawd's avarice.

[randr]

105. Hypocrisy, Hypocrisy, Hypocrisy

There is not one single issue that so personifies the republican party than that they are hypocritical in every respect.

[EV1Ltimm]

113. because republicans only care about you 3 times in your life...

before you're born, when you're old enough to serve, and when you're old enough to donate generously.

[jbm]

118. because conservatism is based on the assumption..

that without strong boundries people will drift towards the 'dark side',and liberalism assumes that human nature is inherently good.

Both the death penalty and the desire to prohibit abortion are part of these strong moral,social,legal,biblical boundries they think must exist in order to create a society that is 'safe'.

Liberals tend to put more faith in human nature,and believe that most women won't abuse abortion rights,and they look for the reasons why a crime was committed rather then just instantly writing off the criminal.

[Yupster]

120. I guess it's the difference between

guilt and innocence.

One person has been convicted of a horrible crime in a court of law. The other just couldn't be more innocent than not even being born yet.

That's hard to understand?

[Djinn]

131. why is this hard to understand

one isn't a PERSON

[Yupster]

138. I guess because my wife and I have a kid

and since it was a high risk pregnancy, we had quite a few sonograms and other tests done. Watching our kid grow inside my wife over the months I guess makes it hard for me to understand that he wasn't a person. Of course he was a person.

When he slept, he put his right hand behind his ear which looked weird. Once he was born, he slept the same way for about two years. Not only was he a person. He was the very same person he is now.

When did he become a person? I don't know, but when we were looking at the sonograms 5-6-7-8-9 months, he was I am absolutely sure a person.

[drdigi420]

159. a common trait of humans

is to attribute human traits to objects, pets, etc, it's called 'personification'

it doesnt make the fetus a person any more than saying 'fluffy is a part of the family' makes your favorite dog a person

does that help you get it? or do you still think that fetus was a person?

[outinforce]

167. Another Common Trait of Humans

is to de-humanize that which they wish to destroy.

At one time in this country, Black folk were not considered human beings. They were, from the point of view of the Consitution, 3/5ths of a human being. De-humanizing Black folks in this way permitted the more powerful in the land to have slaves.

At one time in Europe, Jews were considered by some to be less than human beings -- parasites, I think some called them. De-humainzing them allowed people to send Jews to their deaths -- after all, they were merely destroying parasites.

Thanks for your observations, drdigi420, about common traits that some humans have.

Saying something is not human does not mean that it is not.

[Yupster]

185. My son was born via Caesarian

I saw him in sonograms, then I saw him on a sonogram just before the doctor went in to get him. I saw the doctor pull him from my wife's body. It was the same little baby boy that I saw just a few minutes earlier. You're trying to tell me that he wasn't a human before the doctor touched him?

I can tell you that he was a human. He was the very same boy that the doctor birthed. Really, I watched the whole thing. I was an eye-witness.

Baby in womb. Doctor cuts baby out of womb. It was the same baby. No switcheroos or anything. I saw it all myself.

[Djinn]

194. don't know why I'm responding

to such a stupid post. Your baby was FAR MORE ADVANCED THAN A 4 WEEK OLD FETUS - once upon a time your child WAS a 4 week fetus and had the doctor removed the kid at that point in time you would not have a surviving child.

[Yupster]

195. What's with the four months?

Your post # 131 just says one's a person and the other isn't. The original post starting the thread didn't qualify things by weeks either. It just said abortion. Drdigi isn't so concerned with weeks either. He/she just says a fetus is a fetus.

Anyway, my point is the same as it was. My son was the same baby boy before he was born that he was when he was born. I saw the whole thing. He was the same boy.

Now when did he become a boy and stop becoming a tissue mass? I don't know but it was before he was born. Of that I am certain because I saw him.

When do you think he becomes a boy? I guess you think it's after four weeks which you refer to, but when then?

[Djinn]

224. to be honest

I don't have a totally set point either but I'm more than comfortable saying it is WAY after the stage at which 99% of abortions happen.

[Djinn]

173. bit presumptious there aren't you

You think you're the only person in the world who's been pregnant, been through a troubling pregnancy or has kids...sheesh, also you can find it hard to understand but for me the delineation isn't so hard, if you remove a fetus from the womb it cannot survive - forget the specious "but a 1 month old baby can't survive by itself either" because it can be cared for by any adult willing - NOT SO with a 3 month fetus, it can not be removed and placed in another womb.

VERY few abortions get performed after 3 months MOST get performed when still in the embryonic stage or very early fetal stage - take a look at fetal/embryonic models of 4 - 12 weeks gestation (at the end of the third month a fetus is 2 inches long) and tell me honestly if you think it looks like a human or a potential human

On edit - I can not beleive that outinforce is trying to draw parralells between the murder of thousands of PEOPLE by the Nazi's and abortion - that is really revolting

[Yupster]

186. Fetuses get removed from the womb

and survive all the time.

My own son was pre-mature, was born via Caesarian, and he's survived just fine.

[Djinn]

192. born pre 3 months was he?

if not please re-read my post and stop comparing babies born a few weeks or a month or two even, premature and a 8 - 12 week FETUS' which is the case in the VAST MAJORITY of abortions - 12 week old fetus' CAN NOT survive when removed from the womb

[outinforce]

163. Thank you for your .....

opinion.

Unless you can provide the rest of us with an objective, scientific definition of what is and what is not a person, then all you are doiung is expressing your own personal opinion.

You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion about what is and what is not a person.

But so is everyone else.

[drdigi420]

160. man, so wrong

one is a person

the other is a fetus

grow up already

[Ilsa]

121. Read the LTE every day in my RW newspaper.

They have this debate every week. The RW has a serious letter-writing campaign fo rtheir position. The left and moderates get tired of the harassment and nasty name-calling (our paper shows NO discretion) and stop, just to try and keep the subject off the landscape, but they write on anyway. Here's a link to one of the milder name calling letters (different sugject - TX redistricting):

http://www.thevictoriaadvocate.com/opinion/letters/story/1660348p-1954826c.html
Editor, the Advocate:

I'm writing this letter, in general, to all the Wheeping Nellies who are still crying over redistricting, and I'm writing this letter particularly to the loony lefty journalist (please forgive my being thrice redundant) who used to work for the Advocate but now resides in New Mexico.

snip

[gatlingforme]

125. That is the perinial question I always ask myself as well

[arewethereyet]

133. actually no. Life is not life.

But they do misinterpret scripture on the abortion side.

The basic idea is that abortion is murder but that capital punishment is not murder. This is half right. Murder in the Biblical sense is the taking of innocent life. Convicted bad people are not innocent, ergo, no problem.

However they overlook the Judeo tenent that a child is not a child till its born insted calling it as early as the combination of DNA. The smarter ones say that technology is the reason that justifies this re-assessment. A lady COULD just be putting on a few pounds and not be great with child and proof was required. As ultrasounds and the like can demonstrate this sooner now, time to upgrade the regs.

Only you are not allowed to update the regs.

So technically partial birth abortions are murder and wrong (actual kid is present, at least partially).

Perhaps this helps you better understand the concepts involved.

[outinforce]

137. I'm Having Some DIfficutly Here

I do hope yo uwill excuse me, but I am having some difficulty here followiing your argument.

Are you suggesting that for those whose objections to the current US Law on abortion come from a religious point of view, they may never re-interpret scripture in light of new understanding? If that is your position, then what would you have to say about what the Episcopal Church has just done?

And what about those of us whose objections to the current US Law on abortion are not based upon anything relgious? Do we gert to "change the regs"??

And what gives you the right to say that, in the case of "partial birth abortion", a kid is present? Aren't you assuming that a fetus that has not yet taken its first breath is a "kid"?

[arewethereyet]

180. lets see if I can clarify

firstly, these are not MY views but rather what scripture sez.

Ok

Re re-interpreting scripture: you don't get to do that. Why ? God being omnipotent is not subject to anything being "new" to Him. He inspired the Word so there is no need to update.

I'll hold the Episcopal question for a sec...

Re non-scriptural views on the subject: if you choose to follow your own rules, you are free to change them as you see fit.

Re Partial birth: physical proof of the child is undeniable

back the the Episcopal Church (my denomination as it happens). Are you referring to what the group in Conneticutt (?) did, that is, making a gay bishop, or are you referring to the orthodox wing did, making a church with a church in protest to the other action ?

Scripturally speaking, consecrating an actively bishop is wrong. The rules are clear. Similarly, he should not have been consecrated a priest but I understand that took place prior to his becomming open about it. Considering that about a third of the US church and all of the rest of the Anglican Community are in agreement says more than my humble interpretation. Splitting the US communion only not really splitting it was kind of silly. If you have a problem then you get over the material aspect of the descision (they would have to give up church property) and just split. If you are a priest and don't believe the God will provide then you are in the wrong business.

But what do I feel ? I don't really care, I'm in Virginia. I am surprized that he went through with it knowing the harm that it would bring to the church and he apparantly did not realize that the church would be forced to slowly, quietly shut the door on gays. I'm sure he thought it would have the opposite effect. Westminster will eventually chime in on this and not favorably.

[outinforce]

189. Thank You For Your Reply.

Thanks for your reply, arewethereyet.

You have provided much information for me to consider.

I do have one question, though.

You say, regarding partial birth abortion, that physical proof of the child is undeniable.

But surely you realize (as a quick review of the posts to this very thread will reveal) that there are many people who will deny that there is a child present.

It is, according to some on this very thread, a fetus -- not a baby, and certainlty not a child. It is a mere "fetus" -- something, I think, akin to an insect or a parasite.

You may have offended some of these people by saying that "physical proof of the child is undeniable".

[Djinn]

225. stop being fatuous

But surely you realize (as a quick review of the posts to this very thread will reveal) that there are many people who will deny that there is a child present.

It is, according to some on this very thread, a fetus -- not a baby, and certainlty not a child. It is a mere "fetus" -- something, I think, akin to an insect or a parasite.

you really are stretching things here - most people have argued the distinction between a viable baby (whether born or unborn) and a NON viable fetus - regardless of care provided outside the womb a fetus of up to ATLEAST 12 weeks will not survive

Also absolutely NO-ONE has called a fetus a "parasite" they have called it a FETUS it is not akin to an insect and no-one except you suggested it was

[outinforce]

237. I See, Djinn,....

I notice, Djinn, that you have about 500 posts here on DU. I think it is possible, then, that you may have missed some of the other threads on the subject of abortion where some folks who call themselves pro-choice tend to use what I call the "parasite argument" to bolster their support of abortion rights.

Please understand that I personally find the notion that I was ever a "parasite" to be terrbily offensive. And I find it likewise offensive that anyone would characterize another person's earliest stages of development to be akin to that of a bacterium or virus living within her/his mother, but, hey, that's just me, and I'm just one of those males who shouldn't even be commenting on abortion anyway.

Nevertheless, in order to fill you in on some of the arguments you may have not yet seen here on DU, let me first of all assure you that there are people who post on DU and who do refer to human fetuses as "parasites".

Their argument goes something like this (please understand that this is not my argument, only my best effort to state their argument):

A fetus is a living, growing "thing" within a woman's body. It feess upon the woman's body, and cannot exist outside of the woman's body. In that sense, it is absolutely no different from a parasite. Since a woman's bodily integrity means that she must have the right to destroy a bacterium or a virus or a tapeworm which lives within her, and which could not exist outside her body, she must have the same right to destroy a fetus, since a fetus is just as much a parasite as a tapeworm or a virus is.

(Any DUer who actually subscribes to his notion, please feel free to correct or refine any point I may have mis-stated).

Please understand, Djinn, that I share your view concerning the validity and offensiveness of this argument. But, since there are people here on DU who hold this opinipon quite dear, and who base a large part of their view on abortion rights on this view of the human fetus, I thought it best that I spell out the argument (as best I can) to you.

And concerning your distinction between a viable "baby" and a non-vialbe "fetus", I think, here again, that after you have been around a few more abortion threads on DU, you may come tor realizwe that simply calling a "fetus" -- whether viable or not -- a "baby" may cause you to be labeled a "pro-life zealot".

[arewethereyet]

229. I was speaking in the context of the discussion of dogma

I leave it to the other posting folks to sort this out as best fits their beliefs. A fetus/child that is literally partially born is a peculiar and not very grey line.

I figure if people are going to join in a thread like this they should be ready for whatever occurs.

[Joe Momma]

134. it is simple

restricting reproductive rights allows them to subjugate women and the death penalty allows them to legally lynch blacks.

[robcon]

141. That's only simple to simple minds, vami93.

I don't agree with your simplistic "subjugate" and "lynch" arguments. They are extremely offensive to those of us who believe killing is (almost always?) wrong - whether of a viable baby or a convicted murderer.

[Djinn]

175. and your assertion

that a 3 month old fetus is a "viable baby" is offensive and FACTUALLY wrong - you can not transplant a 3 month fetus (the VAST majority of abortions are before the end of the third month) into another womb or a test tube or a humidicrib.

[DevilsAdvocate2]

144. Killing a fetus is against the law

All you have to do is look at the Scott Peterson trial. He's charged with 2 murders: his wife and their UNBORN son. To say abortion is okay in all circumstances at any point in pregnancy is hypocritical if, at the same time, people will be charged with murder for killing a baby that hasn't been born yet. Why should the fact that a doctor does the killing with the mother's consent make it okay? Once a fetus is viable outside the womb, roughly 6 or 7 months, abortion should be against the law.

[outinforce]

145. This was(is) the Subject of a Thread in the Civil Rights Forum.

I think that there are some who wold say that it has to do with the intention of the mother.

If a fetus is destroyed, and the

Mother intends for fetus to be destroyed = abortion = no murder.

Mother does not intend for unborn baby to be killed = murder.

This is not, as I recall, the ony possible explanation. I think some have suggested that it is silly for the state of California to prosecute Scott Pterson for two murders, since, if he in fact killed his wife, he would only have taken one human life.

[drdigi420]

156. you shouldnt be charged with the 'second' murder

a fetus is not a baby, no matter what the republikkkans and other holy rollers say

lets get it all straight now:

A FETUS IS NOT A BABY

stopping a pregnancy is NOT murder

killing a pregnant woman, while disgusting, is still just ONE murder

i agree with you, the law IS hypocritical, and someone shouldnt be charged with an extra murder if a fetus happens to exist in the victim's womb

now dont go turning this around trying to make me out to be 'soft on murder' or some other religous nonsense. if scott peterson is, in fact, guilty, he should be in jail for life, but charging him with a second murder is not only silly, it flies in the face of factual science.

just more evidence that religion is dangerous and evil

[outinforce]

166. What About Those of Us Who Are

Life-long Democrats and whose basis for concern about abortion has nothing to do with religion?

Are folks like us not entitled to have an opinion which says that a fetus is an unborn child? Should we be in the business of correcting people who tell us that they have seen ultrasounds of "their baby"? If we have friends who we know support abortion rights, should we make sure that theyu never say, "I felt my baby kick the other night", if what they mean is "the fetus/parasite had a reflexive movement inside my uterus the other evening"?

Do you have any guidleines for proper behavior for the rest of us?

Thank you in advance for setting the rest of us straight, although, since I am gay, I was really wondering if you could use some other, less-offensive term.

[thingfish]

150. Cuz belly-babies never did nuthin' wrong!

And all those nig- I mean convicts, well... they raped and murdered white wimmins and such!

[outinforce]

151. Disgusting!

Absolutely disgusting.

[Djinn]

177. and your holocaust/abortion morally equivalancy quotes

aren't disgusting? you compare the pre-meditated torture and murder of more than 6 MILLION living breathing PEOPLE with abortion? That one of the grossest things I've heard in these forums

[outinforce]

187. Do Tell

Please do tell me where it is, exactly, that I morally equated the holocaust with abortion.

I think that you, Djinn, may have made, in your own mind, a leap from what I said (which was merely to point out that sometimes human beings try awfully hard to deny the humanity of that which is human) to a conclusion that abortion and the holocause are the same thing.

[Djinn]

191. you made the parallell

"At one time in Europe, Jews were considered by some to be less than human beings -- parasites, I think some called them. De-humainzing them allowed people to send Jews to their deaths -- after all, they were merely destroying parasites."


well either you were comparing the "dehumanisation" of jews in europe to abortion or you were bringing in a completely unrelated issue to obfuscate - which was it

[outinforce]

197. I Think You Have Mis-Directed Your Comment

Thanks for your comment, Djinn.

I'm afraid I really must object to your observation that I was possibly "comparing the "dehumanisation" of jews in europe to abortion."

I did no such thing.

It is entirely possible that you made the link between the dehumanization of Jews in Europe to abortion. That is something you did - not me. It seems to me that if you believe that a human fetus is little more than a "clump of cells" -- a "parasite", worthy of no more respect than an insect that A human being may choose to squash or to let live, then there is no way, in my view, that you would possibly be disgusted by any comment I might make concerning the dehumanization of Jews in Europe.

If you check closely, you will see that my comments concerning African-Americans who were held in bondgae and the attempt to liquidate all the Jews in Europe was in response to a comment made by drdigi420, who made an observation about human traits. One such trait that drdigi420 point out "is to attribute human traits to objects, pets, etc, it's called 'personification'. it doesnt make the fetus a person any more than saying 'fluffy is a part of the family' makes your favorite dog a person. does that help you get it? or do you still think that fetus was a person?"

I was merely saying that humans can -- and do -- de-humanize that which is human.

If you want to object to someone who "bring(s) in a completely unrelated issue to obfuscate", you might wish to address your comments to drdigi420.

Thanks.

[Jane Roe]

200. when the issue is defining what is "human" (politically) . . .

and what is not, it helps to look at our political history in making this distinction. We haven't always gotten thios distinction correct in the past. Sometimes civilizations have given animals rights equal or superior to humans. Sometimes civilization have wrongly defined a class of people right out of all the human rights that they should enjoy.

To study and learn from this history is not the same thing as saying that fetuses are identical to black people (which would be offensive).

Humankind has clearly made mistakes on defining humanity in the not-too-distant past. It would be an act of extreme hubris to assume, without critical examination, that we have gotten the definition of humanity perfect as of 1973.

[Djinn]

226. whatever

you brought the holocaust into a debate about abortion. you can explain your reasons for doing so however you wish but you did.

I'm not even giong to justify your "parasite" crap with a response

[highlonesome]

152. what about battered wife syndrome and death penalty?

Isn't that basically saying that killing is justified for a certain crime even without conviction by a jury?

Me? I think both are wrong.

[Mioshi]

153. Probably for the same reason..........................

democrats support abortion but are against the death penalty.

[drdigi420]

157. nope

abortion = medical procedure removing an unwanted cluster of cells


murder = taking a human life


get your facts straight

[outinforce]

165. "Facts"

Thank you for setting the rest of us straight regarding the facts, drdigi420.

You seem (at least to me) to be so knowledgable ahout this sujbect.

Perhaps you would favor me with some facts.

As I understand it, the contents of a human woman's womb is alive. That "cluster of cells" to which you refer is certainly alive, isn't it? I have always thought so, but perhaps I ma badly mistaken.

And (again, as I understand it), that "cluster of cells" is certainly human -- it is not a form of plant life, and it is not a fish or a goat or a worm.

So here's my problem, and I wonder if you -- as authoritative and in command of the facts as you are -- could help me to grow up into the more enlightened person you think I should be: If that "cluster of cells" is not human life, then what, exactly is it? Death? Plant Life?

Thank you in advance......

[Djinn]

178. simple

you just love this patronising crap don't you

it is an embryo or a fetus.

an egg is NOT a chicken - even a fertilised one is still an egg

[outinforce]

188. When

does an egg stop being an egg and become a chicken?

[Djinn]

190. when it hatches

[outinforce]

196. You, also

You also seem to "just love this patronising crap don't you".

Thanks for your answer to one of the great metaphysical questions of our day.

I'm not quite sure how it is, exactly, that a discussion about eggs and chickens is relevant to a discussion about abortion and the death penalty.

My rather limited knowledge of human biology tells me that human beings are not "hatched".

So I'm wondering, Djinn, just what point you are making when you observe that a chicken becomes a chicken when it hatches.

Thanks in advance.

[Djinn]

227. thanks again for your patronising questions

Clearly this is complicated and confusing for you

(sorry I'm not usually narky on this forum but you're constant "thank you for your opinion but it is only your opinion" and "you seem to be so knowledgeable" comments are getting irritating YES these are all our opinions - that kinda being the point of this thread, and on this topic - abortion but more particularly foetal development, without detailing my education/training and work history, I would be happy to posit that YES I probably AM more knowledgeable than yourself - that doesn't really matter though as, as you contradictorily point out - this is about OPINION

anyway

A fertilised chicken egg is much like a fetus - in that it has the potential to become a chicken but is not yet one. Much like a fetus has the potential to become a human being but is not yet one.

[outinforce]

236. I'm Not Quite Sure What to Say

I'm not quite sure what to say, Djinn.

I would ordinarily thank you for your comments, but I take from what you have posted that my saying "thank you for your opinion" somehow offends you. So I won't say that.

It also appears that if I comment on how knowledgable you are on this subject, that that also irritates you. Far be it from me to ever intentionally irritate a fellow DUer, so (difficult as it may be for me to do so), I will refrain from complimenting you on your obvious vast knowledge of chickens, eggs, fetuses, and other sundry topics.

I do, though, have a couple of questions for you.

When you say, "A fertilised chicken egg is much like a fetus - in that it has the potential to become a chicken but is not yet one.", are you stating something that is a fact -- or are you stating something that is your own opinion -- and which, therefore, is no more nor no less valid than anyone else's opinion?

Similarly, when you say, "A fertilised chicken egg is much like a fetus ... Much like a fetus has the potential to become a human being but is not yet one.", are you stating something that is a fact -- or are you stating your own opinion -- something that is no more nor no less valid than anyone else's opinion?

And one more question, if you don't mind. When is it, exactly, that a fetus stops being a "potential" human being, and becomes an "actual" human being? And, because I am so dense, would you please identify whether your answer to this question is a fact or your own opinion?

Thanks in advance (I hope that doesn't irritate you!)

[wadestock]

154. They represent a psychotic mix of ideals and religion

The republicans have no real morals.

The do the gun control thing to get a bunch of warm bodies to vote republican.

They do the abortion thing to look humane, and appeal to a religious base of voters. It was formulated because of its catch 22 appeal.

They can't possibly look bad expounding on the virtues of life.
And on the other hand, the democrats find it inherently difficult to argue against.

So they come out winners in terms of voters even though they really don't stand for anything.

[drdigi420]

161. the same people that are anti-choice

were offended by the brief glimpse of part of one of janet jackson's fake boobs

don't try to understand these people

they aren't very bright or mature, that's all you need to understand

[outinforce]

162. Links??

Thanks, drdigi420, for your inciteful comments to this thread.

Although I can speak only for myself, I would venture to say that there are many people who have already posted to this thread who welcome the opinions of someone so knowledgable and so in command of the facts concerning this subject.

So I was wondering if you would mind terribly sharing the fact on which you base your statement that "the same people that are 'anti-choice' were offended by the brief glimpse of part of one of janet jackson's fake boobs".

I only saw one of Janet's boobs, and I had no idea it was fake. And you may be interested to know that there are some on this thread who would consider me (incorrectly, I might add) to be "anti-choice". I was no in the least offended by the brief glimpse of Janet's boob (although it did offend me that an act of violence against a woman was broadcast on national television).

But more to the point. I think I hear you saying that people whom you consider to be anti-choice are the same people who were offended by the sight of Janet Jackson's breast. Do you have any links you can provide to back up your statement?

The reason I ask is that I have several very good friends who I know for a fact a very much in favor of abortion rights, and who, last Sunday evening, were watching the Super Bowl with their children. And I also know that they were very much offended by what they saw.

So I'm a little taken aback by your suggestion that it is only people who are anti-choice who were offended by the sight of Janet's boob.

Surely a person as well-versed in the facts concernig abortion and the death penalty would not make such a statement unless you had some factual basis for doing so.

I am most interested in seeing whatever facts you have. Would you please share them with me?

Thanks in advance......

[drdigi420]

170. wow, and, for a moment

i thought you had a sense of humor

thanks for clearing that up for me

[outinforce]

171. Was It Something I Said, drdigi420?

Whatever made you think I had no sense of humor?

Oh, I get it now! Silly me!

You were only joking when you suggested that people you call "anti-choice" are "the same people that were offended by the brief glimpse of part of one of janet jackson's fake boobs."

SO I guess you were also just joking when you said that "they aren't very bright or mature"

I guess my sense of humor is just a bit more "grown up" than yours.

Sorry I missed the humor in your post about "anti-choice" people and Janet Jackson.

[Strapping Buck]

164. Well I'm a Democrat and I'm against both...

As far as the Repukes, they're more dumb than inconsistent.



Nevertheless, turn the question back on yourself. Why are so many here against the death penalty but for abortion?

As you so eloquently phrased it: Isn't life, life?

I never got this inconsistency.

[durutti]

168. There's no inconsistency.

I'm pro-choice and oppose capital punishment, but I don't think that the GOP position is necessarily logically inconsistent. In their view, the taking of innocent life is wrong. The fetus is innocent. Those who receive a death sentence usually are not.

[plumbnsquare]

181. "Why do republicans find abortion wrong and the death penalty great?"

If it's really true that "life is life", then the reverse question is also valid: why do so many people oppose the death penalty yet support abortion?

Is it really true that "life is life"? "To be or not to be, that IS the question."

[Jane Roe]

202. I think a slightly more intesting question is . . .

why support abortion, but not vigilante justice directly applied by crime victims. Vigilantism (sp?) is the "pro-choice" position when it comes to criminal justice.

[Fescue4u]

182. Same reason that Democrats find Abortion great and the death penalty bad

Both are killing are a person, but each side finds a way to villify or justify each position.

Logic has little to do with political/emotional issues.

[arewethereyet]

184. nice summation

[markus]

193. Because of race

Abortion is largely a choice of young white women. In their twisted world view, they want more of these to deal with the growing racial "imbalance" in the country.

The death penalty, however, is largely applied to people of color.

So, if you're worried about the continuing demographic avalanche about to fall on top of the gwb's of the world, this view makes perfect sense.

Why my (Catholic) church's "social justice" types fall for it, I don't understand. Which is why it's "barely" my church.

Honest pro-life in all instances (abortion, death penalty, euthenasio) I can understand and respect (but disagree with).

[napi21]

201. I asked my cousin who is a minister

why abortion is wrong and the death penalty OK. His response...the bible tells you an eye for an eye. The unborn cannot have done anything wrong, thus their life is being taken or murdered without cause.

I don't believe in abortion, but I also don't believe I should force others to have my option.

[Jane Roe]

203. further question

It sounds like you are pro-choice on abortion, but not pro-choice when it comes to slavery.

Why the difference?

[napi21]

205. No, not true

I think slavery is and was very wrong. I assume you are referring to the fact that I didn't comment on the death penalty. I must admit, I'm torn on my opinion.

If someone were to murder one of my shildren, my husband or another family member, revenge takes over, and I would want that criminal to pay the uptimate price with his/her life!

However, the death sentence is handed down in far more cases when the accused is poor, or a minority. The cause is of course, if you can afford a VERY GOOD & expensive lawyer, you'll find a way out!

I do believe in "let ten guilty go free rather than convict one innocent."

[Jane Roe]

206. My question:

why are you willing to let people impose their views about the morality of slavery, but not impose their views about the morality of abortion?

In your opinion, when should we impose our views on others (through law) and when shouldn't we?

[markus]

219. They both are about rights

However, in the case of reproductive choice, it is about giving an individual person a choice whether to carry a pregnancy to term.

Slavery was about depriving an individual their rights in the interest of the property rights of others.

For this reason, I see them as unrelated issues.

A foetus or unborn person has no legal standing.
If you grant that standing, you will have opened a very ugly box. If a woman drives to fast, has an accident and loses her unborn child, should she be prosecuted for manslaughter? If the unborn have legal rights, can I deduct my unborn child on my taxes during the year prior to term? How about if the child doesn't make it to term? If rape victims are required to carry their progeny to term, can the rapist be held responsible for child support?

The way to make abortion largely an insignificant issue is to make contraception widely available to all, at little or no cost, something many significant opponents of abortion also oppose.

[outinforce]

221. "A Very Ugly Box"

Thank you for your observations, markus.

You mention that "many significant opponents of abortion" oppose making contraception widely available to all, at little or not cost.

I'm not sure who you would include as an "opponent to abortion", since I have read hear on DU several posts from a number of people who describe themselves as being "pro-choice" on the issue of abortion, but who say at the same time that they are not "pro-abortion". This leads me to think that they do not think that abortion is either a great thing -- something to be "endorsed" -- or a "neutral" thing -- like having a tooth removed. I might even venture to say that some of them would like to make sure that abortion is rare, safe and legal.

It is just so difficult to know who is "pro-choice", "pro-abortion" "pro-life" and "anti-abortion", don't you agree?

You mentioned that "A foetus or unborn person has no legal standing.
If you grant that standing, you will have opened a very ugly box."

Are you suggesting that the determination of whether something -- like an unborn "person" -- is or is not deserving of legal rights ought to be made on the basis of how inconvenient it might be to work out a system of laws which protects every one's legal rights?

There have always been people who tried to block expansison of legal rights to people, on the basis that expanding rights would just make life so unnecessarily complicated to us all. The Americans for Disability Act comes to mind. "My God," some people said, "Passing that Billm, and letting disabled people enjoy some rights would just open up a very ugly box".

If unborn children ever are afforded legal rights, then I hope that those rights -- as well as answers to all of the questions you posed -- would be answered by legislators who are elected by -- and accountable to -- the electorate, instead of by a majority of nine robed Justices.

[Jane Roe]

232. Thank you for the thoughtful answer

I don't agree with you, but: (1) you put your position in a clear, understandable way; and (2) it helps me make the point I wanted to make here.

My point:

the extent to which you are prochoice necessarily depends on when you believe that there is a high probability that the z/e/f has become an individual in the metaphysical sense of deserving human rights. You believe that it is okay to outlaw slavery because the slave is an individual. Because the slave is an individual (in your eyes, not in the eyes of White Southerners circa 1830), gov't can and should step in and protect the individual by freeing her from her slavery.

If you are pro-choice with respect to first trimester pregnancies (as we both are), we are saying that we don't believe that another individual really has emerged at this early (pre-fetal-brain) point in a pregnancy. However, if someone, somehow convinced us that an embryo was an individual, then it would become appropriate for government to step in, for the same reason that government stepped into the slavery situation in the US and most other nations.


Why my point is important:

Some antichoicers are evil and have bad motives. I know that. Chances are, I have spoken with Randall Terry more than you have, and still I assure you that I dislike his worldview just as much as you do, dear reader. I can't say that I have spoken with George W. Bush, but I believe that his intentions and beliefs are just as bad (actually worse) than Terry's.

HOWEVER, there are other antichoicers who sincerely believe that an embryo, or perhaps a late term fetus, is an individual -- for reasons that have nothing to do with male dominion over the female. Certainly it is easy to see that if an antichoicer has sincere beliefs and good intentions, then you want to be debating her as to when life begins and why.

On the other hand, you do *not* want to arguing that protection of human rights is not the government's business. You also do *not* want to be arguing that some antichoicers have bad motives so they all must have bad motives. Unfortunately, I come across versions of these last two arguments a lot on DU -- which is strange because Mssrs. Terry and Bush both got tombstoned from here a long time ago.


So, what now?:

On the plus side, there is occasionally good discussion on DU about when life begins and why. In fact, there was recently a helpful thread called something like "when does life begin?" This is certainly more productive than repeatedly villifying the Randy Terry's of the world.

Concentrating on the stupid, evil people you disagree with should not stop you from having serious give-and-take discussions with the smart, well-intentioned people that you disagree with.

[earthman dave]

204. It's about control, about who decides who lives and who dies. eom

[outinforce]

207. Great Observation

The "choice" referred to when some folks talk about being "pro-choice" is exactly that, earthman dave -- all about control, about who decides who lives and who dies.

Thanks for your observation.

[earthman dave]

211. Anytime!

:)

[Joe Momma]

228. maybe we should

force all women to carry to term. Then we can give these children to those who are pro-life (insert essay on life here(because really, it is only innocent life, and the bible tells me who is innocent, so I can celebrate when the guilty die, and grieve when the innocent die, blahblahblah)). They would, in turn, enslave them. The cycle of morality goes on...

Bye the bye. I have read somewhere in my endless crawls through the internet that black women exercise their right of choice at a percentage higher than their percentage of the population. If we can limit this right of choice, as well as executing a disproportinate number of black males, perhaps we can further the real agenda here. A retro-revival of the early 19th century "hip to be a slave" period.

[outinforce]

235. You've Confused Me....

I have to confess, vamil93, that you have confused me here. I'm afraid that my comprehension abilities just do not allow me to understand thwe point you are trying to make here.

Are you suggesting that it should be the policy of the United States to force all pregnant women to carry their unborn children to term? And that it sh ould also be the policy of the United States to take babies from mothers who declare that they are "pro-choice" and give them to people who are "pro-life"?

If you have a link to your "essay on life", I would be more than happy to read it.

I'm also just a bit uncertain as to what your reference to the Bible has to do with anything. Perhaps you could elaborate for me?

And are you suggesting that the "pro-life" people who would receive the babies born of "pro-choice" mothers would somehow enslave their adopted children? Or are you suggesting that the babies, onece grown up, would enslave their adoptive parents? I'm just not certain, and I do so want to understand the point you are making.

And I confess to being completely baffled by your reference to a period in the early 19th century when it was "hip to be a slave". Perhaps my study of that period, learned from boooks which were undoubtedly written by white males, which taught that slavery was a great injustice, were just wrong? I frankly had no idea that it was ever "hip" to be a slave.

And I am having great difficulty with the math here. You are suggesting that it ias a good thing for black women to abort their unborn children in a percentage higher than that of the general population? Doesn't that give a whole new meaning to the term "population control"?

[Father Yukon]

208. ..

Right-wing, religious zealots have no difficulty supporting the death penalty.

Abortion to a Conservative is evil, but screwing the boss's wife is good.

Executing a poor black man for murder is GOOD by executing a rich white guy who murders his wife is BAD

[Jane Roe]

209. Yes, Republicans are all devils in the flesh

They smell like poo poo and they all like to kick puppies too -- just to watch the poor pup react to the pain of having its bones snapped under the impulse of their swinging jackboots.

/sarcasm off

Posts like the one I am responding to do not help progressive causes.

[veganwitch]

220. neither do you

does that mean you will stop posting?

[outinforce]

222. Here's My Vote....

"does that mean you will stop posting?"

Here's my vote, for what it is worth.....

I vote that Jane Doe does not stop posting.

And I bet you think it is because Jane and I seem to agree on some issues.

And if you think that, you would be wrong -- about the reason.

I happen to enjoy a discussion that involves lots of people with different viewpoints civilly, and with respect for one another, laying out their viewpoints, asking questions, and making observations.

I think it is called diversity.

In addition to Jane Doe, I enjoy the posts from you, veganwitch. I would hate it if you were to decide to stop posting.

[Jane Roe]

234. Rats, I thought I was making real progress with you n/t

[Jane Roe]

233. Response

1. I don't want the poster to stop posting. I just want to see more thoughtful posts. I do this by pointing out the folly of the foolish post.

2. Maybe my thinking and the expressions of this thinking in my posts will improve if DUers engage me on a serious level about the real issues.

3. I invite you to help out with point #2, VeganWitch. For starters in this new program to improve my thinking:

When do you believe life (as a matter of human rights that should be recognized) begins and why?

Roe v Wade says at some point during or at the end of the third trimester. Can you add any precision to R v W's fuzzy stance?

[YNGW]

210. Just Wondering

>Abortion to a Conservative is evil

I see you are a former Catholic priest. Doesn't the Catholic Church teach abortion is a sin? What is your position on the subject?

[info being]

214. Because the only people they like are dead or unborn