PDA

View Full Version : ACLU Defending Woman Accused Of Using Drugs While Pregnant



savafan
08-19-2005, 01:19 AM
http://www.thewbalchannel.com/news/4868032/detail.html

EASTON, Md. -- Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union are appealing the conviction of an Easton woman who was accused of endangering a child by using cocaine while she was pregnant.

Kelly Cruz, 30, was found guilty of a reckless endangerment charge Aug. 5 after waiving her right to a jury trial. She was ordered to serve 2 1/2 years in prison.

Cruz was charged in February, about a month after giving birth to a premature baby boy who tested positive for cocaine.

Defense attorneys had sought an acquittal, arguing there was never a risk of harm to another person -- because a fetus doesn't meet the definition of a person under state law. But a Talbot County judge ruled that the person who suffered the risk was the baby after it was born.

ACLU attorneys said prosecuting women for their actions during pregnancy is unprecedented elsewhere in Maryland and claim it is an attempt to create a new crime by charging pregnant women for harming their fetuses.

Caveat Emperor
08-19-2005, 01:49 AM
This is all part of the very, very dangerous slippery slope (legally and morally) that exists whenever we start attaching "rights" to an unborn fetus.

That is all I will say on the matter.

The Baumer
08-19-2005, 05:40 AM
It's a sad day when something as harmless as snorting cocaine is deemed "illegal" and "wreckless". I blame the right wing conservatives.

WMR
08-19-2005, 05:46 AM
This is all part of the very, very dangerous slippery slope (legally and morally) that exists whenever we start attaching "rights" to an unborn fetus.

That is all I will say on the matter.

Except it wasn't going to be a fetus forever, and the potential health problems that it may suffer from this woman's reckless behavior will extend far beyond the relatively short time it spent as a fetus.

zombie-a-go-go
08-19-2005, 08:35 AM
It's a sad day when something as harmless as snorting cocaine is deemed "illegal" and "wreckless". I blame the right wing conservatives.

Obfuscate much?

She wasn't charged with drug use/possession, she was charged with reckless endangerment.

I think you misunderstood the article, entirely.

WVRed
08-19-2005, 08:43 AM
That Poor Kid.

ACLU=All Criminals Love Us

Falls City Beer
08-19-2005, 09:29 AM
Obfuscate much?

She wasn't charged with drug use/possession, she was charged with reckless endangerment.

I think you misunderstood the article, entirely.

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

RBA
08-19-2005, 09:33 AM
I waiting to hear what Rush has to say on this matter. I'm sure he can remain objective despite the ACLU trying to defend his criminal drug activities.

registerthis
08-19-2005, 09:36 AM
I can understand the side of those who think this woman should be punished for her behavior, but where does one draw the line? What about a woman who consumes too much caffeine during her pregnancy? A woman who smokes? A woman who consumes a poor diet? A woman who consumes alcohol? Any one of those activities could potentially endanger the life of the unborn fetus, but should we lock up all mothers who do this?

I suppose this case is a bit easier, since the object in question is an illegal drug, but if the precedent being set is that the woman simply endangered the life of her unborn child by behaving this way, how will the courts draw a line on this issue?

Slippery slope, indeed.

Falls City Beer
08-19-2005, 01:01 PM
I can understand the side of those who think this woman should be punished for her behavior, but where does one draw the line? What about a woman who consumes too much caffeine during her pregnancy? A woman who smokes? A woman who consumes a poor diet? A woman who consumes alcohol? Any one of those activities could potentially endanger the life of the unborn fetus, but should we lock up all mothers who do this?

I suppose this case is a bit easier, since the object in question is an illegal drug, but if the precedent being set is that the woman simply endangered the life of her unborn child by behaving this way, how will the courts draw a line on this issue?

Slippery slope, indeed.

Don't you know a fetus is more important than a living, breathing, thinking woman? Come on, man, get with it.

savafan
08-19-2005, 03:14 PM
I can understand the side of those who think this woman should be punished for her behavior, but where does one draw the line? What about a woman who consumes too much caffeine during her pregnancy? A woman who smokes? A woman who consumes a poor diet? A woman who consumes alcohol? Any one of those activities could potentially endanger the life of the unborn fetus, but should we lock up all mothers who do this?

I suppose this case is a bit easier, since the object in question is an illegal drug, but if the precedent being set is that the woman simply endangered the life of her unborn child by behaving this way, how will the courts draw a line on this issue?

Slippery slope, indeed.

Working with a 35 year old man who has fetal alcohol syndrome, I would definately be a proponent of arresting a woman who drinks while pregnant. This individual I work with stands 5'4" and weighs 60 pounds. He looks elvish, and can't carry on a coherent conversation. I am constantly having to monitor his behavior in public restrooms, because he cannot comprehend what is appropriate behavior, and in public he is seemingly wanting to hug and touch every pretty girl he sees. He has no ability to manage money, and cannot be counted on to work a job. He rambles and shouts out curse words at inappropriate times and places. His life consists of watching TV, listening to the radio and playing with toys that were made for children ages 3-5. He gets angry and frustrated for no apparent reason, and oftentimes his thoughts only turn to radio, television, or inappropriate sexual topics. He cannot drive himself anywhere, and must count on others to take care of his most basic needs while being supported by your money through social security, medicare and medicaid. Oh yeah, his biological mother left him at the hospital and he was finally adopted at the age of ten into a caring family, but his adoptive parents have now both passed away.

gonelong
08-19-2005, 03:39 PM
Don't you know a fetus is more important than a living, breathing, thinking woman? Come on, man, get with it.

It truely saddens (and I mean deeply saddens) me that they aren't considered of the same importance, or at the very least, of similar importance.

Falls City Beer
08-19-2005, 03:43 PM
It truely saddens (and I mean deeply saddens) me that they aren't considered of the same importance, or at the very least, of similar importance.

I think women are more important than fetuses--and I'm not budging.

registerthis
08-19-2005, 03:44 PM
Working with a 35 year old man who has fetal alcohol syndrome, I would definately be a proponent of arresting a woman who drinks while pregnant. This individual I work with stands 5'4" and weighs 60 pounds. He looks elvish, and can't carry on a coherent conversation. I am constantly having to monitor his behavior in public restrooms, because he cannot comprehend what is appropriate behavior, and in public he is seemingly wanting to hug and touch every pretty girl he sees. He has no ability to manage money, and cannot be counted on to work a job. He rambles and shouts out curse words at inappropriate times and places. His life consists of watching TV, listening to the radio and playing with toys that were made for children ages 3-5. He gets angry and frustrated for no apparent reason, and oftentimes his thoughts only turn to radio, television, or inappropriate sexual topics. He cannot drive himself anywhere, and must count on others to take care of his most basic needs while being supported by your money through social security, medicare and medicaid. Oh yeah, his biological mother left him at the hospital and he was finally adopted at the age of ten into a caring family, but his adoptive parents have now both passed away.
SF, I can certainly see your point...I knew a classmate of mine in school whose brother had FAS. It was an ugly thing to see, to be sure.

But, again, where do you draw the line? I mean, there are always going to be things that mothers-to-be could do to harm their unborn children, whether intentional or not. I just don't know that you can legislate such things. The fact is, parents have a responsibility to bring children into this world and to raise them. When they screw this up, the kids do suffer. Is this fair for the children? No, of course not. But some things are just difficult - if not impossible - for the government to legislate.

Caveat Emperor
08-19-2005, 04:06 PM
Except it wasn't going to be a fetus forever, and the potential health problems that it may suffer from this woman's reckless behavior will extend far beyond the relatively short time it spent as a fetus.

But, where do you draw the line between "reckless" behavior and "acceptable" behavior for the woman.

Further, there is no way of knowing (often) the results of prenatal behavior on any child that is born. Thus, there would be an issue of selective prosecution to consider: do we punish strictly any woman who is found to be doing anything that might be deterimental to her baby's health in the future, or only women who partake in such behavior AND find later that it has a detrimental impact on individuals? Are we going to ticket all speeders or just the ones who cause an accident as a result of their speeding?

What about civil claims? Will a child be able to sue it's mother for poor decisions made while it was still a fetus?

Will we end up with women, paralyzed by the fear of lawsuits and prosecution at a later date, simply sitting at home on the couch while pregnant because they are fearful of what might occur to their fetus if they leave the house?

Like I said...slippery slopes are problematic...

RFS62
08-19-2005, 04:17 PM
I think women are more important than fetuses--and I'm not budging.


When does life begin? When does the fetus stop being a glob of cells and become a living entity, with rights?

registerthis
08-19-2005, 04:20 PM
And here we go!

RFS62
08-19-2005, 04:22 PM
And here we go!


Isn't that the only question that matters here?

gonelong
08-19-2005, 05:04 PM
I think women are more important than fetuses--and I'm not budging.

You don't have to. In fact, I somewhat agree with you.

If it came down to the life of a woman or the fetus ... I'd save the woman. She has established relationships, is someones wife, mother, sister, daughter, etc. IMO, the women is more important than the fetus in that case.

I don't know how to say it so that it doesn't sound condescending, but it does make me sad that all life, or what will become life, or what will possibly become life at some point - isn't held in higher esteem.

registerthis
08-19-2005, 05:26 PM
Isn't that the only question that matters here?No, no one has yet addressed my question, which seems much more specifically related to this matter: Where do you draw the line between the reckless endangerment of a fetus, and a mother-to-be simply going on about her life, albeit without much thought for her actions?

Clump of cells v. human life isn't the issue here...how much responsibility a potential mother has to the well-being of her unborn child IS. Introducing the "clump of cells" argument only serves to cloud the true issue.

registerthis
08-19-2005, 05:28 PM
I don't know how to say it so that it doesn't sound condescending, but it does make me sad that all life, or what will become life, or what will possibly become life at some point - isn't held in higher esteem.I don't really see anyone holding anyone's life in lower esteem--I see practical issues arising out of a very difficult question.

Falls City Beer
08-19-2005, 07:10 PM
When does life begin? When does the fetus stop being a glob of cells and become a living entity, with rights?

When the child can survive independent of the mother's womb. Before then it's a fetus.

But registerthis is right, this issue of a mother's culpability is different--I led the discussion astray, unintentionally, but I did.

The Baumer
08-19-2005, 07:26 PM
Obfuscate much?

She wasn't charged with drug use/possession, she was charged with reckless endangerment.

I think you misunderstood the article, entirely.

Not to obturate the intimation you are injuncting, but I did register the article. I simply have a different elucidation apropos the idea of exculpating this woman, which I think is convivial to the extent of merriment.

Falls City Beer
08-19-2005, 07:31 PM
Not to obturate the intimation you are injuncting, but I did register the article. I simply have a different elucidation apropos the idea of exculpating this woman, which I think is convivial to the extent of merriment.

Now let's try the same sentence with a Germanic, as opposed to a Latinate, lexicon:

I don't want to call your words crap, but I got the point. I think the woman is a b***** and drinks and makes lusty too much.

RFS62
08-19-2005, 10:08 PM
When the child can survive independent of the mother's womb. Before then it's a fetus.



Well, the evolution thread has run its course several times, and still keeps ticking. I'd really be interested in the RedsZoners' take on this question, although I know it's incendiary.

I'm not looking for a referendum on abortion, but the question of where does life begin is one that has been debated since the dawn of time, and could make for an interesting discussion, if everyone plays nice.

letsgojunior
08-19-2005, 10:38 PM
But, where do you draw the line between "reckless" behavior and "acceptable" behavior for the woman.

Further, there is no way of knowing (often) the results of prenatal behavior on any child that is born. Thus, there would be an issue of selective prosecution to consider: do we punish strictly any woman who is found to be doing anything that might be deterimental to her baby's health in the future, or only women who partake in such behavior AND find later that it has a detrimental impact on individuals? Are we going to ticket all speeders or just the ones who cause an accident as a result of their speeding?

What about civil claims? Will a child be able to sue it's mother for poor decisions made while it was still a fetus?

Will we end up with women, paralyzed by the fear of lawsuits and prosecution at a later date, simply sitting at home on the couch while pregnant because they are fearful of what might occur to their fetus if they leave the house?

Like I said...slippery slopes are problematic...

First off CE, I wanted to mention that I've found your opinions very informative and well considered on numerous subjects. I've really enjoyed reading your recent posts (and learning from them as well). I'm not sure this particular issue is as slippery a slope as you perceive though. There's a tremendous difference between abusing an illegal substance, and not taking one's prenatal vitamins, for instance. One thing is clearly against the laws of the United States, physically detrimental, and has scientifically been documented to seriously harm developing fetuses, whereas the other would likely have pretty minimal impact in my opinion.

I think there should be some consideration given to the amount of potential harm the action could cause. Again, there is a tremendous difference between throwing down Jack Daniels vs not exercising enough. I think, in lawsuits like this, there should be a reasonableness type assumption - as in "would a reasonable person consider this relatively safe behavior during a pregnancy?" As for childen suing their parents, I would think by the time they could intellectually realize their parent was doing something detrimental during pregnancy, the statute of limitations for a civil suit would have expired.

I do completely agree with you that it's nearly impossible to effectively quantify how something affects a fetus's development, unless it's something knowingly harmful (drinking excessively, drug abuse, etc). For instance, how does vegetarianism affect a developing fetus? Is that potentially harmful? A glass of wine once per month? How do supplements affect a developing fetus? All of these are very intriguing questions.

I do agree, however, with the basis of this lawsuit in the sense that the woman knowingly engaged in what I consider reckless and derelict behavior during a pregnancy. It has been shown in numerous studies how dangerous drug use is during pregnancy, and it's common knowledge that pregnant women should abstain from drinking and drug usage. While I agree that you can't litigate based on "slippery slope" issues such as caffeine usage, or diet, or other factors that might negatively affect a pregnancy, I think this was pretty flagrant behavior on her part.

JMO. Please keep posting on these topics - I'm really enjoying reading your perspective.

savafan
08-19-2005, 10:49 PM
Well, the evolution thread has run its course several times, and still keeps ticking. I'd really be interested in the RedsZoners' take on this question, although I know it's incendiary.

I'm not looking for a referendum on abortion, but the question of where does life begin is one that has been debated since the dawn of time, and could make for an interesting discussion, if everyone plays nice.

I believe that life begins at conception. If we classify the tiniest of bacteria and amoeba as life forms, then so too must you classify as the fertilized zygote a lifeform. The zygote contains all 46 human chromosomes that a person will carry for the remainder of their life. At seven weeks, the heart is pumping blood through the tiny fetus. This is the fetuses blood, not the blood of the mother. Sure, the fetus can't yet survive outside the womb, but that shouldn't make it any less a classification for it being a living being.

Falls City Beer
08-19-2005, 11:02 PM
I believe that life begins at conception. If we classify the tiniest of bacteria and amoeba as life forms, then so too must you classify as the fertilized zygote a lifeform. The zygote contains all 46 human chromosomes that a person will carry for the remainder of their life. At seven weeks, the heart is pumping blood through the tiny fetus. This is the fetuses blood, not the blood of the mother. Sure, the fetus can't yet survive outside the womb, but that shouldn't make it any less a classification for it being a living being.

A bacterium is a self-sustaining organism; an embryo dies outside of the mother.

savafan
08-19-2005, 11:15 PM
A bacterium is a self-sustaining organism; an embryo dies outside of the mother.

mold is a lifeform, but it needs moisture to survive.

Falls City Beer
08-19-2005, 11:24 PM
mold is a lifeform, but it needs moisture to survive.

Yeah, and you and I need oxygen. What's your point? We, like mold and bacteria, can move around to obtain what we need. An embryo is unsustainable and is wholly dependent on the body of a woman.

RFS62
08-20-2005, 09:08 AM
When the child can survive independent of the mother's womb. Before then it's a fetus.




But hasn't this standard changed over the years with advances in medical science?

Does the self-awareness of the baby have anything to do the question?

Falls City Beer
08-20-2005, 10:02 AM
But hasn't this standard changed over the years with advances in medical science?

Does the self-awareness of the baby have anything to do the question?

I'm sure it has. I should have stated that this is my opinion. I'm not a physician, though, so I'm using a broad conceptual standard.

But again, what is at issue here is less when "life" (nebulous term to begin with) begins, but how far-reaching the law is in telling a woman what she can and cannot do.

RFS62
08-20-2005, 10:05 AM
I'm sure it has. I should have stated that this is my opinion. I'm not a physician, though, so I'm using a broad conceptual standard.

But again, what is at issue here is less when "life" (nebulous term to begin with) begins, but how far-reaching the law is in telling a woman what she can and cannot do.


Seems to me that what she can and cannot do would be totally relevent to when life begins.

Falls City Beer
08-20-2005, 10:14 AM
Seems to me that what she can and cannot do would be totally relevent to when life begins.

I don't see it that way. I think the rights of a woman take precedence over everything here--pregnant or not. Like it or not people must have their civil liberties protected, even when the behavior is ill-advised.

Do you mean whether or not the fetus is considered a "person" in the legal sense? I don't think "life" is really the issue here.

RFS62
08-20-2005, 10:38 AM
I don't see it that way. I think the rights of a woman take precedence over everything here--pregnant or not. Like it or not people must have their civil liberties protected, even when the behavior is ill-advised.

Do you mean whether or not the fetus is considered a "person" in the legal sense? I don't think "life" is really the issue here.


Not a legal sense, although that's obviously important. Sounds like you're basing your opinion on a moral point of view, which to me is the real question.

Defining morality on this issue is what makes it such a sticky wicket. I'm sure if this thread gets into this with even a fraction of the detail the evolution thread generated, we'll see a broad spectrum of opinions.

Where to draw the line between the moral rights of the child and the mother..... when does life really begin...... what is the right thing to do?

Reds/Flyers Fan
08-20-2005, 11:37 AM
Don't you know a fetus is more important than a living, breathing, thinking woman? Come on, man, get with it.

Define "thinking"

Certainly Kelly Cruz doesn't apply. I'll take the fetus - at least that unborn baby has a chance to make something of his/her life.

Falls City Beer
08-20-2005, 03:27 PM
Define "thinking"

Certainly Kelly Cruz doesn't apply. I'll take the fetus - at least that unborn baby has a chance to make something of his/her life.

Well, you're right, thinking is a relative concept.

I happen to think it's morally and ethically reprehensible that two people with a combined income of $15,000 a year bring 10 kids into this world (really I think it's wrong to bring 10 kids into this world no matter your income--as overpopulation is all but a guarantee over the long haul). But guess what? It's none of my damn business to tell that couple how many kids they can have. It's called a liberty and I believe in a government that protects liberties whether I like them or not. I also think it's irresponsible that people eat fast food and crap and raise my insurance premiums. But it's not my business to tell people what to eat either. Drinking/ using drugs while pregnant is a poor choice and terribly irresponsible--but it's an issue of conscience, not law--it HAS to be that way if civil liberties are to exist.

Caveat Emperor
08-20-2005, 03:44 PM
Well, you're right, thinking is a relative concept.

I happen to think it's morally and ethically reprehensible that two people with a combined income of $15,000 a year bring 10 kids into this world. But guess what? It's none of my damn business to tell that couple how many kids they can have. It's called a liberty and I believe in a government that protects liberties whether I like them or not. I also think it's irresponsible that people eat fast food and crap and raise my insurance premiums. But it's not my business to tell people what to eat either. Drinking/ using drugs while pregnant is a poor choice and terribly irresponsible--but it's an issue of conscience, not law--it HAS to be that way if civil liberties are to exist.

I'll go ahead and play Devil's Advocate here...

The problem with a libertarian view of governmental authority is that it doesn't take into account secondary effects of allowing unrestrained liberty. For example, the government prohibits consumption of alcoholic beverages while operating a motor vehicle because it is such a poor choice and so terribly irresponsible that it constitutes a life-threatening hazard to other people.

Similarly, take cigarette smoking...a completely legal activity, and one could make (successfully, too) the argument that it represents a personal choice that individuals make. You're free to pick up a pack of cigarettes and start puffing; it is your life and if you want to exponentially increase your risk of death via lung cancer, that should be your call, right? However, beyond the oft-debated hazards of secondhand smoke on people who choose NOT to smoke for health reasons, there is also the issue of cost to society in medical expenses. Millions of people every year are treated by HMOs for diseases which arrise out of smoking, and that cost is spread out evenly to every consumer in the form of higher premiums. In the case of government-provided healthcare, such as Medicare and Medicaid, the cost is spread out to taxpayers, many of whom made the responsible decision to not smoke.

The list could go on and on...if you're a member of Met Life, I guarantee you that some fraction of your healthcare premiums are going to pay for the treatment of some moron in Fresno who broke both of his legs while trying to do some skateboard trick down two flights of steps, or as in the case at bar, a woman in, say, Albany whose son is being treated for a debilitating childhood disease caused by the mother taking drugs or drinking during pregnancy.

I suppose that could be labeled as the "Cost" of liberty, but I think an equally strong argument could be made that the government has a responsibility to legislate limitations on certain issues (such as, perhaps, drinking and drug use during pregnancy) in the name of protecting society from being forced to shoulder the burden of individual irresponsible behavior collectively. It's kind of a social-contract thought: we give up some of our freedom to the government in exchange for government ensuring the well being of the greater whole.

Not saying which side of the issue I fall on personally, but I think there's more sides to the coin than just 2.

Falls City Beer
08-20-2005, 03:55 PM
I'll go ahead and play Devil's Advocate here...

The problem with a libertarian view of governmental authority is that it doesn't take into account secondary effects of allowing unrestrained liberty. For example, the government prohibits consumption of alcoholic beverages while operating a motor vehicle because it is such a poor choice and so terribly irresponsible that it constitutes a life-threatening hazard to other people.

Similarly, take cigarette smoking...a completely legal activity, and one could make (successfully, too) the argument that it represents a personal choice that individuals make. You're free to pick up a pack of cigarettes and start puffing; it is your life and if you want to exponentially increase your risk of death via lung cancer, that should be your call, right? However, beyond the oft-debated hazards of secondhand smoke on people who choose NOT to smoke for health reasons, there is also the issue of cost to society in medical expenses. Millions of people every year are treated by HMOs for diseases which arrise out of smoking, and that cost is spread out evenly to every consumer in the form of higher premiums. In the case of government-provided healthcare, such as Medicare and Medicaid, the cost is spread out to taxpayers, many of whom made the responsible decision to not smoke.

The list could go on and on...if you're a member of Met Life, I guarantee you that some fraction of your healthcare premiums are going to pay for the treatment of some moron in Fresno who broke both of his legs while trying to do some skateboard trick down two flights of steps, or as in the case at bar, a woman in, say, Albany whose son is being treated for a debilitating childhood disease caused by the mother taking drugs or drinking during pregnancy.

I suppose that could be labeled as the "Cost" of liberty, but I think an equally strong argument could be made that the government has a responsibility to legislate limitations on certain issues (such as, perhaps, drinking and drug use during pregnancy) in the name of protecting society from being forced to shoulder the burden of individual irresponsible behavior collectively.

Not saying which side of the issue I fall on personally, but I think there's more sides to the coin than just 2.

Yes, but you've pointed out a wonderful example of an extra-legal incentive NOT to engage in irresponsible behavior--the almighty dollar. People smoke less now in this country than they did 50 years ago largely because of education but I think also in no small part (at least it was in my case) to the notion that what I do can affect others (either through secondhand smoke or increased insurance premiums for others). But these issues can't be forced, they have to be educated and massaged with extra-legal avenues, like money and education. Again, it should be a matter of conscience, not law.

Honestly the drunk driving example is a bit of a red herring--driving drunk puts other "persons" at risk; and as the ACLU points out, the fetus isn't a person by way of legal definition. Further, drunk driving is almost always performed on public land, not private (which, as you know, changes the picture immensely).

I'm not an out-and-out libertarian, btw. I think the government has every right to raise taxes for the common good and the protection of the country's borders.

Rojo
08-20-2005, 05:01 PM
But a Talbot County judge ruled that the person who suffered the risk was the baby after it was born.

This pot doesn't need further stirring but:

1. The judges ruling isn't without merit. However, if that line or reasoning is upheld it poses a problem for abortion opponents because it would actually encourage abortion. No birth, no person, no liability.

2. If you believe that she shouldn't be held liable for the fetus, shouldn't you also believe that nobody should face charges for using drugs. Why should abortion, as a body/privacy issue be held out as more important that other body/privacy issues? Why can a woman abort a fetus but not snort cocaine?

cincinnati chili
08-21-2005, 01:41 AM
This thread has taken many forks.

I'm taking the fork from 62's question, and maybe I'll make my way back to the initial question.

I'm really not sure where life begins. But I never understood the hang-up about that question. Even if I grant savafan's contention that life begins at conception, the fundamental questions for me are: a. when does human life become life we want to protect? and b. at what cost do we wish to protect it?

I don't wish to protect first trimester fetuses at the cost of forcing women into the prison system for either terminating them or failing to protect them.

It would make me angry on a visceral level to knowingly watch a woman throw down Jack Daniels every night while pregnant, particularly if I were the father. But as unsavory as that is, it would be worse to live in a country where the government could force women into becoming unwilling fetus-harvesting-pods, forced at gunpoint to eat healthily, exercise, and take proper vitamins.

cincinnati chili
08-21-2005, 01:48 AM
Why should abortion, as a body/privacy issue be held out as more important that other body/privacy issues? Why can a woman abort a fetus but not snort cocaine?

That's a different thread, but it's a good question. I can handle paternalistic laws if they relates to behavior such as driving on a public street, extracting taxes for the public interest, etc. But I fail to see the policy purpose of criminalizing private behavior.

I'm firmly pro-choice, but I understand the concerns of certain well-intentioned people in the pro-life camp much more than I understand our criminal drug laws.

GAC
08-21-2005, 07:54 AM
When the child can survive independent of the mother's womb. Before then it's a fetus.

Can you show me where medical science states (not the ACLU), when they use the term "fetus", where it is used to indicate meaning void of life (i.e. a person)? I can't find it anywhere. Every medical journal I've referenced simply says it's a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth; an unborn baby.

Some use the argument that the baby, while in the womb is not viable. The legal definition of viability is "capable of independent existence." When does a fetus gain the ability to live without its mother? This question of viability is defined by the Supreme Court as when a baby is "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb."

This definition is too broad; it covers many people to whom it was initially intended to refer. A healthy 2-month-old baby, by this definition isn't viable, since that baby can not live without the support of parents or guardians.

What about premature babies born at 6-7 months? Obviously not viable. Should the parents, if they so choose, be able to remove it from the incubation chamber and other life support needed to aid in this child's development? What's the difference betwen that and abortion? Same result.

Viability has traditionally been used to determine the ethical justification of abortion. If this justification were the only rule in murder, any crazy, crippled, or young human could be legally killed. Viability must be defined more clearly.

Ever witness an abortion- especially a late term abortion? Didn't know a "fetus" could cringe and recoil (and obvious indication of pain/feeling) when those instruments are inserted to rip/remove the baby from the womb?

GAC
08-21-2005, 08:09 AM
I don't think "life" is really the issue here.

Maybe it should be.

And that is the crux of the issue here. Find a legal way to show it is not life, even though medical science has not shown conclusively that it is not (or when life begins). It doesn't matter that science really doesn't have the answer. We seem to use science (or twist it) for our own agendas.

And then we inject into the argument the reasoning of "protecting civil liberties", as to lump that unborn child into the general, generic, category of other civil liberties, and the right of the woman to make that "choice"... ending the life of an unborn child, simply because that child would be an "inconvenience", or as Jocelyn Elders once said.. " a planned, wanted, child". That's what it is all about. And it is a sad testimony, and very indicative off our current society.

CrackerJack
08-21-2005, 12:10 PM
And then we inject into the argument the reasoning of "protecting civil liberties", as to lump that unborn child into the general, generic, category of other civil liberties, and the right of the woman to make that "choice"... ending the life of an unborn child, simply because that child would be an "inconvenience", or as Jocelyn Elders once said.. " a planned, wanted, child". That's what it is all about. And it is a sad testimony, and very indicative off our current society.


I find the footage of little boys and girls with their arms and legs blown off by an errant US bomb just as tragic and upsetting as a late term abortion. They recoil and feel pain too and have no choice.

Yet no one really cares about them, or sticks up for their "rights." Somehow that is acceptable to us because it was a mistake, non-intended, collateral....just as a pregnancy might have been a mistake or unintended.

I think what the original response to this was, how such a set precedent could affect future rulings and legislation.

Putting mothers in prison for an addiction or mental illness is not really solving anything, just appeasing our need for bloodlust, revenge and punishment.

It doesn't make me feel any better and I highly doubt a 2.5 year prison sentence is a deterrant to other mothers like this doing the same thing (if killing their own baby isn't enough in the first place).

Once again the issue/ruling is completed overwhelmed by the abortion topic.

Rojo
08-21-2005, 02:22 PM
That's a different thread, but it's a good question. I can handle paternalistic laws if they relates to behavior such as driving on a public street, extracting taxes for the public interest, etc. But I fail to see the policy purpose of criminalizing private behavior.

I'm firmly pro-choice, but I understand the concerns of certain well-intentioned people in the pro-life camp much more than I understand our criminal drug laws.

FTR, I don't really have an answer either. I'm pro-choice but I'm not ready to legalize heroin. But these kinds of inconsistencies show me that our laws aren't as rational as we would like to think. Rather, they are a reflection of our cultural prejudices. There's very little reason for booze to be legal and pot illegal except for the fact that everybody's grandfather drank.

Falls City Beer
08-21-2005, 03:39 PM
FTR, I don't really have an answer either. I'm pro-choice but I'm not ready to legalize heroin. But these kinds of inconsistencies show me that our laws aren't as rational as we would like to think. Rather, they are a reflection of our cultural prejudices. There's very little reason for booze to be legal and pot illegal except for the fact that everybody's grandfather drank.

Sure, there's bleed-through and messiness in our laws, no question. The best we can do is aim at a consistency of philosophy and provide that transgression must, in some ways, be built into the system.

Obviously, you're right, booze being legal and pot being illegal is, in a certain manner, inconsistent. As a sidebar, I see no reason why most drugs aren't legal. But the issue of legality and illegality of the substance seems an almost tertiary issue, not a central one, to this case.

I think the precedent that this case sets up is one where you could simply substitute "cocaine" with "poor diet," "lax neo-natal care," or "no exercising" as potential reasons for "harming the health of an unborn child." That's dangerous precedent. That a woman could potentially be jailed or fined for not following a prescribed diet while pregnant seems a real possibility based upon the precedent this case sets up.

Caveat Emperor
08-21-2005, 05:31 PM
And then we inject into the argument the reasoning of "protecting civil liberties", as to lump that unborn child into the general, generic, category of other civil liberties, and the right of the woman to make that "choice"... ending the life of an unborn child, simply because that child would be an "inconvenience", or as Jocelyn Elders once said.. " a planned, wanted, child". That's what it is all about. And it is a sad testimony, and very indicative off our current society.

Here's some controversial food for thought for you, then...is it simply better that some babies don't come into this world?

I worked in the Juvenile Court this summer as part of my internship, and I came into contact with tons of kids who were born with the entire deck stacked against them. Mothers who were too young and irresponsible to be raising children when they were born, too ill educated to understand the importance of getting their child into school, working 3 jobs and never home with their children, etc. These kids weren't wanted...they were afterthoughts in the lives of their parents and ended up being raised by the worst elements in our society. Then, at age 12 and 13, we express shock that they are able to be stealing cars, carrying guns, or causing fights. Most of these kids will end up in prison for long periods of their lives.

And these kids are positively well-off when compared to the plight of a great many children in the developing and third world. Take the children in Africa who are born to parents with AIDS that basically live with a death sentence on them from the moment they open their eyes...or the children born into unspeakable poverty in India and China. Can we really say that condemning someone to a life of suffering, hunger and pain is a good?

And therein lies my problem with the majority of anti-abortionists: they decry the practice of abortion as barbaric and claim it to be murder. However, I see very few ponying up the cash in order to fund programs that provide free prenatal care for poor mothers or volunteering to be foster parents for these children that are brought into the world "Unwanted," or demanding better funding in schools so that these children can have a future even if their parents don't want them.

Ending abortion is a laudable goal...but I think a better goal is to create a society where every child should be born not because they have some existential right to exist but, rather, because we fully expect every child to have a chance at contributing to the betterment of mankind and it would be a tragedy to lose the potential contribution of any one child.

You don't create that world with big posters that show a dead fetus on the side or by protesting in front of abortion clinics...you do that by campaigning for positive change in the way society treats ALL children, not just the ones in our neighborhood.

Falls City Beer
08-21-2005, 05:36 PM
Here's some controversial food for thought for you, then...is it simply better that some babies don't come into this world?

I worked in the Juvenile Court this summer as part of my internship, and I came into contact with tons of kids who were born with the entire deck stacked against them. Mothers who were too young and irresponsible to be raising children when they were born, too ill educated to understand the importance of getting their child into school, working 3 jobs and never home with their children, etc. These kids weren't wanted...they were afterthoughts in the lives of their parents and ended up being raised by the worst elements in our society. Then, at age 12 and 13, we express shock that they are able to be stealing cars, carrying guns, or causing fights. Most of these kids will end up in prison for long periods of their lives.

And these kids are positively well-off when compared to the plight of a great many children in the developing and third world. Take the children in Africa who are born to parents with AIDS that basically live with a death sentence on them from the moment they open their eyes...or the children born into unspeakable poverty in India and China. Can we really say that condemning someone to a life of suffering, hunger and pain is a good?

And therein lies my problem with the majority of anti-abortionists: they decry the practice of abortion as barbaric and claim it to be murder. However, I see very few ponying up the cash in order to fund programs that provide free prenatal care for poor mothers or volunteering to be foster parents for these children that are brought into the world "Unwanted," or demanding better funding in schools so that these children can have a future even if their parents don't want them.

Ending abortion is a laudable goal...but I think a better goal is to create a society where every child should be born not because they have some existential right to exist but, rather, because we fully expect every child to have a chance at contributing to the betterment of mankind and it would be a tragedy to lose the potential contribution of any one child.

You don't create that world with big posters that show a dead fetus on the side or by protesting in front of abortion clinics...you do that by campaigning for positive change in the way society treats ALL children, not just the ones in our neighborhood.

Excellent post. I would only add that a society that trusts women to make their own choices should also be a goal of our country and our world.

RosieRed
08-21-2005, 08:43 PM
Caveat, that is a great post.

Rojo
08-21-2005, 08:45 PM
Here's some controversial food for thought for you, then...is it simply better that some babies don't come into this world?

I worked in the Juvenile Court this summer as part of my internship, and I came into contact with tons of kids who were born with the entire deck stacked against them. Mothers who were too young and irresponsible to be raising children when they were born, too ill educated to understand the importance of getting their child into school, working 3 jobs and never home with their children, etc. These kids weren't wanted...they were afterthoughts in the lives of their parents and ended up being raised by the worst elements in our society. Then, at age 12 and 13, we express shock that they are able to be stealing cars, carrying guns, or causing fights. Most of these kids will end up in prison for long periods of their lives.

And these kids are positively well-off when compared to the plight of a great many children in the developing and third world. Take the children in Africa who are born to parents with AIDS that basically live with a death sentence on them from the moment they open their eyes...or the children born into unspeakable poverty in India and China. Can we really say that condemning someone to a life of suffering, hunger and pain is a good?

And therein lies my problem with the majority of anti-abortionists: they decry the practice of abortion as barbaric and claim it to be murder. However, I see very few ponying up the cash in order to fund programs that provide free prenatal care for poor mothers or volunteering to be foster parents for these children that are brought into the world "Unwanted," or demanding better funding in schools so that these children can have a future even if their parents don't want them.

Ending abortion is a laudable goal...but I think a better goal is to create a society where every child should be born not because they have some existential right to exist but, rather, because we fully expect every child to have a chance at contributing to the betterment of mankind and it would be a tragedy to lose the potential contribution of any one child.

You don't create that world with big posters that show a dead fetus on the side or by protesting in front of abortion clinics...you do that by campaigning for positive change in the way society treats ALL children, not just the ones in our neighborhood.

Except the Catholic Church IS pretty consistent on these issues. So while this argument can counter some abortion foes, it doesn't counter all of them.

And I don't know if I could tell a child that lives in poverty that he would've been better off had he never been born.

Falls City Beer
08-21-2005, 09:09 PM
Except the Catholic Church IS pretty consistent on these issues. So while this argument can counter some abortion foes, it doesn't counter all of them.

And I don't know if I could tell a child that lives in poverty that he would've been better off had he never been born.

Where the Catholic Church is consistent leads to more suffering than those Protestants who oppose abortion yet favor the death penalty--at least most Protestant groups that I'm familiar with have few problems with contraception. The Catholic Church goes to Third World nations and preaches that contraception is evil, so people contract and spread AIDS, overpopulate, and die, ad infinitum. They decry sex education--heck, they don't even preach abstinence. Yeah, the Catholic Church is consistent alright.

Falls City Beer
08-21-2005, 09:18 PM
And I don't know if I could tell a child that lives in poverty that he would've been better off had he never been born.

I don't either.

But what I DO know is that some people should never, ever, ever have kids.

GAC
08-21-2005, 09:24 PM
Here's some controversial food for thought for you, then...is it simply better that some babies don't come into this world?

I worked in the Juvenile Court this summer as part of my internship, and I came into contact with tons of kids who were born with the entire deck stacked against them. Mothers who were too young and irresponsible to be raising children when they were born, too ill educated to understand the importance of getting their child into school, working 3 jobs and never home with their children, etc. These kids weren't wanted...they were afterthoughts in the lives of their parents and ended up being raised by the worst elements in our society. Then, at age 12 and 13, we express shock that they are able to be stealing cars, carrying guns, or causing fights. Most of these kids will end up in prison for long periods of their lives.

So now we are gonna add to the justification for abortion not simply that it's not a viable life while in the womb, but the possibly viability of that life when out of the womb? Who are we, as imperfect humans ourselves, to sit and make that judgment? - "This child's probability of success in life are better because it's family is better off economically. While we need to abort this child because it's family is poor and it's chances are pretty slim."

First off - you have no way of predicting that in an unborn child - the course their life will take. How about that child who is born to those poor circumstances and with the odds apparently against them, who have gone on to have success or make something out of their lives? There are many, many examples that could be sighted. The human spirit is a complex entity, and hard to predict/chart.

Secondly - the reasons you sight above is still no justification in killing them - "you are most likely not gonna be a 'contributing member' to society, and in foresight we want to keep the welfare roles and prison population down. Don't want to unleash another possible criminal onto society if we can prevent it."

Last - what about children born with severe disabilities that will prevent them from being contributing members of society, and will always need the parents care or basically, when they are adults, become "wards" of the taxpayers? Should we kill them once this is discovered?


Take the children in Africa who are born to parents with AIDS that basically live with a death sentence on them from the moment they open their eyes...or the children born into unspeakable poverty in India and China. Can we really say that condemning someone to a life of suffering, hunger and pain is a good?

How does that justify abortion in America? Those aren't the reasons why millions of abortions have been performed in this country.


However, I see very few ponying up the cash in order to fund programs that provide free prenatal care for poor mothers or volunteering to be foster parents for these children that are brought into the world "Unwanted," or demanding better funding in schools so that these children can have a future even if their parents don't want them.


You don't create that world with big posters that show a dead fetus on the side or by protesting in front of abortion clinics...you do that by campaigning for positive change in the way society treats ALL children, not just the ones in our neighborhood.

Why is activism so accepted in other segments of our society (animal rights, environment, etc); but when it comes to the life of an unborn child it's somehow frowned upon or seen as extremism? To correct/address the problem one must raise awareness and educate. Especially when we are being told that what is developing within them is nothing more then a group of lifeless cells. I will admit that I don't always agree with some of the tactics taken by certain segments of the anti-abortion groups; but I don't let that dissuade me from the nobler task at hand.

How do you know that those who oppose abortion are not willing to pony up the cash or are unwilling to support programs such as you mention? What statistics are you providing to support this contention? And it's not just a burden that should be shoved onto anti-abortionists; but it's the responsibility of everyone in our society. And I agree with you that more should be done by everyone within our society to provide that environment for raising children/family. I dont know of anyone who opposes abortion who would oppose tax dollars being used to support programs to achieve that goal. The problem is that alot of those initiatives/programs are strongly opposed, and have been defeated, by those organizations/lobbying groups who support abortion. If abortion were somehow outlawed in this country, are you saying that there is no possibilty that the taxpayers wouldn't want the monies now spent to fund abortions being utilized to help such families? I think that it would happen. I feel we would see an expansion of such programs. And if it didn't happen, THEN people would have a right to point fingers.

But I can sight many, many organizations that are sponsored/supported by those who oppose abortion and offer alternative methods/programs to help families in need at the local and national levels. But sadly enough, many are also sponsored/supported by local churches (not all, but alot) - and we have this sticky issue in this country of separation of church and state that simply scares the heck out of people if they discovered tax dollars were being utilized to support those organizations - even though it's being used to help families - simply because it's a church or church sponsored organization doing it. Who cares who is doing it as long as it's achieving the objective we all want? Look at the stiff resistance that Bush's faith-based initiatives gets.

Over the last three years our church has been the beneficairy of the Summer Food Program here locally. We provide the facilities and all the volunteer help to feed poor children and their families. It's a great program! The taxpayers provide the financial support, but we do all the work. And our goal is not to proselitize. It is against the government regulations, which we gladly abide by. The goal is to help these families/kids.

It's programs like these that we need more of. There are plenty of people willing to do so, and help/contribute as much as they can. But even their resources are limited. But if these programs could be expanded, and taxpayers could see how these programs are setup and ran, then I think more people would be willing to see their tax dollars used to sponsor such wothwhile methods. Church and other charitable programs get more for their dollar then any government program IMO. Why? Because they have to. But let the government be the "watchdog" over such programs.

Falls City Beer
08-21-2005, 09:35 PM
"I dont know of anyone who opposes abortion who would oppose tax dollars being used to support programs to achieve that goal."

I do. I know about 58 million of 'em.

Falls City Beer
08-21-2005, 09:43 PM
"But I can sight many, many organizations that are sponsored/supported by those who oppose abortion and offer alternative methods/programs to help families in need at the local and national levels. But sadly enough, many are also sponsored/supported by local churches (not all, but alot) - and we have this sticky issue in this country of separation of church and state that simply scares the heck out of people if they discovered tax dollars were being utilized to support those organizations - even though it's being used to help families - simply because it's a church or church sponsored organization doing it. Who cares who is doing it as long as it's achieving the objective we all want? Look at the stiff resistance that Bush's faith-based initiatives gets."

A lot of organizations do "nice" things; but scratch the tin foil on some of them, and scary stuff lurks beneath. The Salvation Army helps feed a lot of people. Great. They also officially proclaim that gays and lesbians are sinners and devils--and have been turned away from the Army's assistance.

Charities are not self-evident goods. That's how so many shield others from discovering their corruption. Public, governmental programs are transparent and accountable to the taxpayer.

Falls City Beer
08-21-2005, 09:57 PM
Except the Catholic Church IS pretty consistent on these issues. So while this argument can counter some abortion foes, it doesn't counter all of them.

Truthfully, the argument begins and ends with: can a woman decide her bodily fate? That's the issue. Where life begins, who's more important, who's to blame, who's not paying child support, who's snorting what--secondary issues.

This ruling answers that question. No, women cannot decide their bodily fates.

RosieRed
08-21-2005, 10:03 PM
I dont know of anyone who opposes abortion who would oppose tax dollars being used to support programs to achieve that goal. The problem is that alot of those initiatives/programs are strongly opposed, and have been defeated, by those organizations/lobbying groups who support abortion. If abortion were somehow outlawed in this country, are you saying that there is no possibilty that the taxpayers wouldn't want the monies now spent to fund abortions being utilized to help such families? I think that it would happen. I feel we would see an expansion of such programs. And if it didn't happen, THEN people would have a right to point fingers.

What initiatives/programs have been defeated by groups that support abortion?

And what "monies now spent to fund abortions" are you talking about?

traderumor
08-21-2005, 10:24 PM
The only thing I want to know is why "slippery slope" argumentation is being advanced/supported by the same people who cried foul for such argumentation in discussions/debates on the homosexual marriage issue?

Falls City Beer
08-21-2005, 10:34 PM
The only thing I want to know is why "slippery slope" arguementation is being advanced by the same people who cried foul for such argumentation in discussions/debates on the homosexual marriage issue.

Nice try. This case's precedent points DIRECTLY to other possible means of limiting the freedoms of women; it's a LEGAL precedent--the consequences could set all kinds of dominoes into motion.

Gay marriage does not open the door in ANY fundamental way to incestuous, bestial, human/inanimate marriages, as those relationships are different in KIND not DEGREE. In this case, you can easily transpose "cocaine" with "alcohol," and the finding would be the same. It's ruling about potential detrimental effects--the agent of harm is immaterial.

traderumor
08-21-2005, 10:34 PM
Truthfully, the argument begins and ends with: can a woman decide her bodily fate? That's the issue. Where life begins, who's more important, who's to blame, who's not paying child support, who's snorting what--secondary issues.

This ruling answers that question. No, women cannot decide their bodily fates.It seems to me that the ruling decided that it was wrong for a mother to feed cocaine to her infant, whether in utero or after the child was born. I am so glad my ethic does not require me to conclude that another person is only relevant when that person is pushed completely through the birth canal. So, does relevance begin at the neck, or the shoulders, the chest, or does every little toe need to be out? I'm sure the head being out doesn't count, i.e. partial birth bludgeoning.

traderumor
08-21-2005, 10:37 PM
Nice try. This case's precedent points DIRECTLY to other possible means of limiting the freedoms of women; it's a LEGAL precedent--the consequences could set all kinds of dominoes into motion.

Gay marriage does not open the door in ANY fundamental way to incestuous, bestial, human/inanimate marriages, as those relationships are different in KIND not DEGREE. In this case, you can easily transpose "cocaine" with "alcohol," and the finding would be the same. It's ruling about potential detrimental effects--the agent of harm is immaterial.Alcohol is legal, as are cafeinne, nicotine, and all the other items mentioned by another slippery slope supporter. Cocaine is an illegal drug for the mother to take as well, whereas drinking or smoking while pregnant is stupid, but not illegal.

Falls City Beer
08-21-2005, 10:42 PM
Alcohol is legal, as are cafeinne, nicotine, and all the other items mentioned by another slippery slope supporter. Cocaine is an illegal drug for the mother to take as well, whereas drinking or smoking while pregnant is stupid, but not illegal.

But she was not brought up on charges of cocaine possession or usage. That's what you're not understanding. The charges were reckless endangerment. Any agent, taken in the extreme, can endanger a fetus. Therefore, one must conclude that reckless endangerment could extend to any agent/behavior, including legal agents.

traderumor
08-21-2005, 10:55 PM
But she was not brought up on charges of cocaine possession or usage. That's what you're not understanding. The charges were reckless endangerment. Any agent, taken in the extreme, can endanger a fetus. Therefore, one must conclude that reckless endangerment could extend to any agent/behavior, including legal agents.Are you basing that on the ACLU's objection, or is that language from the actual decision? I would be surprised if the illicit/illegal nature of cocaine consumption had no bearing on the decision.

BTW, I never argued homosexual marriage would lead to the things you mentioned. My only slippery slope is what it would mean for the strength of families. Irrelevant here, but wanted to clarify that you were misrepresenting my position.

Falls City Beer
08-21-2005, 10:57 PM
Are you basing that on the ACLU's objection, or is that language from the actual decision? I would be surprised if the illicit/illegal nature of cocaine consumption had no bearing on the decision.

BTW, I never argued homosexual marriage would lead to the things you mentioned. My only slippery slope is what it would mean for the strength of families. Irrelevant here, but wanted to clarify that you were misrepresenting my position.

Well, others were arguing my above-listed fallacious contentions, if not you specifically.

No, the decision says that she was found guilty on charges of reckless endangerment. Read the article.

traderumor
08-21-2005, 11:49 PM
Well, others were arguing my above-listed fallacious contentions, if not you specifically.

No, the decision says that she was found guilty on charges of reckless endangerment. Read the article.I did read the article. The ACLU was using the "not a person" defense. The article also says the charge was based on cocaine use (see first paragraph) and the baby testing positive for cocaine. That was the cause for reckless endangerment. Your point is taken, but as you know, slippery slope argumentation is always, well, slippery. I do not see any reasonable prosecutor dragging pregnant smokers and drinkers into court, and if they did, I would imagine a judge would throw out the charges immediately.

I think the slippery slope you should be more worried about is what Maryland says about personhood. The judge treated the baby as a person in utero, since that is where the cocaine was ingested by the child. That is the more dangerous precedent, which I'm sure someone has already pointed out.

RFS62
08-22-2005, 12:11 AM
So many people I respect posting their opinions on this issue. Just what I hoped for, actually.

As long as it remains respectful. But that's a hard thing to wish for, with such difficult issues.

Myself, I oppose the death penalty, I support gay rights. I'm not an evangelical christian. I'm a conservative, but not because of any religious leanings. I don't understand how the debate for abortion doesn't start with answering the question "when does life begin". How any argument can not use the answer to that question as the starting point ot the discussion, I'll never know.

If it's fair for the science minded community to question evolution and the genesis based creation theory, why isn't it fair to ask this question and expect an exact, precise answer? It seems so disingenuous to me to skirt around the answer to this question when making your case, regardless of what side you come down on.

I don't base my beliefs on this issue on anything other than the question of when do we start to protect those who can't protect themselves, no matter who it inconviences, and no matter to what degree the inconvenience. But I understand the pain and extremity of the inconvience, and don't want to minimize that issue in my consideration of the issue.

I was born 2 months pre-mature. I had an enlarged heart, a collapsed lung, a heart murmur, and a 50 % chance at best to survive. I was in an incubator for the first two months of my life, and wouldn't have survived if born 50 years earlier.

Even if my mother hadn't been inclined to tough it out with me, which, with today's medical knowledge she would have been offered an option to terminate my life, her pregnancy, with no opposition, should my life have been decided on the degree of her inconvienence, even if she hadn't been willing to roll the dice and raise me?

From my point of view, I'll take my chances. Put me wherever you want in life. If you don't want me, fine. Give me to somebody who does, or even someone who doesn't. It's my life, not yours. What I make of it is all on me. Not you.

George Foster
08-22-2005, 01:04 AM
When the child can survive independent of the mother's womb. Before then it's a fetus.

But registerthis is right, this issue of a mother's culpability is different--I led the discussion astray, unintentionally, but I did.

So I assume that you are against late term abortions, and people that do them should be charged with murder. Right? Your post just said a child is "a child" if it can live outside the mothers womb. So killing a "child" is murder...right? I'm glad to see you are becoming more conservative. Don't contradict yourself when you replay.

RosieRed
08-22-2005, 02:14 AM
So many people I respect posting their opinions on this issue. Just what I hoped for, actually.

As long as it remains respectful. But that's a hard thing to wish for, with such difficult issues.

Myself, I oppose the death penalty, I support gay rights. I'm not an evangelical christian. I'm a conservative, but not because of any religious leanings. I don't understand how the debate for abortion doesn't start with answering the question "when does life begin". How any argument can not use the answer to that question as the starting point ot the discussion, I'll never know.

If it's fair for the science minded community to question evolution and the genesis based creation theory, why isn't it fair to ask this question and expect an exact, precise answer? It seems so disingenuous to me to skirt around the answer to this question when making your case, regardless of what side you come down on.

Just my take on things ...

I don't know that there can be an exact, precise answer to the question of when life begins. If you have a fertilized embryo, you have the possibility of life. Is that life? I don't know. Who would answer that question anyway? The government? Scientists? Court justices? And how would they know, exactly? How does one even define life in this case?

When it comes to abortion, I honestly don't know if the debate starts with "when does life begin". Let's say hypothetically that life definitely begins at conception. Well, then what? No more abortions? For me personally, if it were decided and accepted that life begins at conception, that would not change my opinion of abortion. (Which is that I think they should remain legal.) I would still think a woman should be able to terminate a pregnancy. You can call it life, you can call it a cluster of cells, and I'm still going to think the same thing.

If we were talking about late-stage pregnancies, I think the life question becomes more valuable to the discussion. At least to me, anyway.

Whenever I'm talking about or thinking about this issue, I always think "I could never have an abortion. I just couldn't." I fully and totally support a woman's right to choose for herself; it's something I very much believe in, but I always just think I would never have one. And then all these "what ifs" start popping up in my head ... and then I'm just glad I live somewhere where I would have the choice, should it come to that. Because I would really hate to not have any say in what happens to my body.

Rojo
08-22-2005, 03:44 AM
Truthfully, the argument begins and ends with: can a woman decide her bodily fate? That's the issue. Where life begins, who's more important, who's to blame, who's not paying child support, who's snorting what--secondary issues.

This ruling answers that question. No, women cannot decide their bodily fates.

That's exactly right. It is about a woman and her body. It is not about whether or not your or I think it would be better if some children didn't enter this world.

GAC
08-22-2005, 08:36 AM
"I dont know of anyone who opposes abortion who would oppose tax dollars being used to support programs to achieve that goal."

I do. I know about 58 million of 'em.

No you don't.

GAC
08-22-2005, 08:39 AM
What initiatives/programs have been defeated by groups that support abortion?

Off the top of my head? How about the huge oppostion to faith-based programs. Many have gone after these initiatives because of this huge fear/paranoia of proselytization (totally unfounded). And the initiatives cover all charities (both religious and secular). The goal is to help families within our communities isn't it?

Here are some interesting stats though....

The public acknowledges that religious organizations play a constructive role in American life. Three-quarters of Americans say churches, synagogues and other houses of worship contribute to solving important social problems.

When asked, in general, who can do the best job at this, 37% of Americans say religious organizations, 28% choose federal and state government agencies and 27% opt for non-religious, community-based groups.

Why not use ALL these organizations (both secular and religious) to help families/children in need? As I stated before - let the government be the watchdog; but let these organizations do the "field work". You are gonna get a more personal, hands-on approach from caring charities then simply getting a check in the mail every month.

How about any government program that wants to teach abstinence?


And what "monies now spent to fund abortions" are you talking about?

Just as it says - taxpayer monies to fund abortions. Are you saying our government is not doing so?

GAC
08-22-2005, 09:14 AM
No, the decision says that she was found guilty on charges of reckless endangerment. Read the article.

The article says this....

Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union are appealing the conviction of an Easton woman who was accused of endangering a child by using cocaine while she was pregnant.

Cruz was charged in February, about a month after giving birth to a premature baby boy who tested positive for cocaine.

Gee- I wonder how that kid got cocaine in his system?

The ACLU's argument is simply ridiculous - but that's the ACLU for you. And it's due to their own position on abortion. Their argument?- that there was never a risk of harm to another person, because it's a fetus. But again, what does medical science define a fetus as?.... does it say it's not a person? No. it says it's a developing human being at 8 weeks.

But the baby was tested positive for cocaine after it was out of the womb. And do you think her drug use was the reason it was born premature? I'd say so.

Are you gonna try and convince everyone here that her cocaine usage is not an issue here, and that it posed no harm to that baby, whether inside the womb or after birth?

Simply ridiculous IMO.

Have you ever READ any studies on what the effects of illegal drugs, such as cocaine and crack have on these babies later in life? The bottom line of these studies is that the exposed children, overall, had more behavioral problems as they grew older and into school age. Studies have shown where these children were more socially aggressive, suffered cognitive development effects, and lower I.Q's.

I hope the kid is taken away from her. At least until she straightens her life out.

Johnny Footstool
08-22-2005, 09:21 AM
How about the huge oppostion to faith-based programs.

The opposition is based on the Establishment Clause.

On the flip side, how about the huge opposition to birth control/contraception?

GAC
08-22-2005, 09:37 AM
The opposition is based on the Establishment Clause

It's already been shown in the courts that it doesn't violate the establishment clause because it does not respect an establishment of religion when it includes other religions and secular charities. As long as certian guidelines are met, then no one can be excluded.

registerthis
08-22-2005, 09:43 AM
Alcohol is legal, as are cafeinne, nicotine, and all the other items mentioned by another slippery slope supporter. Cocaine is an illegal drug for the mother to take as well, whereas drinking or smoking while pregnant is stupid, but not illegal.I assume you're referring to me, and as I mentioned this case is a bit easier because it involves an illegal substance--in this case, cocaine.

But the context of the ruling is, this mother is being punished for something she did that could harm her fetus. Picture the word "cocaine" replaced with 'alcohol". yes, I know alcohol is legal, but if this woman is being jailed because she used a substance that could harm her fetus, and NOT necessarily because that substance was illegal, it doesn't take a great leap to see the "slippery slope" of which we talk. Additionally, as I'm sure others here could attest to, a woman who drinks alcohol during her pregnancy is just as likely--if not more--to cause significant harm to the unborn child. So it's fairly easy to see a potential mother brought into court on charges of endangering her fetus by consumign alcohol, and using this case as a precedent.

registerthis
08-22-2005, 09:48 AM
Off the top of my head? How about 'none'?

Show me one single person who "supports" abortion. I have yet to meet anyone out there that fits that criteria, but then again there are enough fruits and nuts in the world, there's probably someone out there who enjoys killing unborn fetuses.

Supporting a "choice" to have an abortion is not anything like supporting the actual ACT of abortion. I support a person's right to choose to smoke cigarettes when it doesn't harm me or others, but it doesn't mean that I support smoking.

Johnny Footstool
08-22-2005, 10:24 AM
It's already been shown in the courts that it doesn't violate the establishment clause because it does not respect an establishment of religion when it includes other religions and secular charities. As long as certian guidelines are met, then no one can be excluded.

Which faith-based programs are you referring to?

And what about the huge opposition to contraception?

savafan
08-22-2005, 10:32 AM
And what about the huge opposition to contraception?

As far as I know, aren't Catholics the only ones who oppose contraception?

traderumor
08-22-2005, 11:07 AM
How about 'none'?

Show me one single person who "supports" abortion. I have yet to meet anyone out there that fits that criteria, but then again there are enough fruits and nuts in the world, there's probably someone out there who enjoys killing unborn fetuses.

Supporting a "choice" to have an abortion is not anything like supporting the actual ACT of abortion. I support a person's right to choose to smoke cigarettes when it doesn't harm me or others, but it doesn't mean that I support smoking.Why do folks who support abortion play semantics with "the right to choose?" I just wanna know what the motivation is. Is it to appease the conscience? I mean, we restrict individual choices of what a person can do their own body all the time. People are not allowed to engage in illegal activity that involves their body (e.g. ingesting illegal drugs) in the privacy of their own home. An individual does not always have a choice of what they can do with their own body, especially when another life is involved. That is why this case, like any other case of injury to a baby while in the womb, is whether or not another person is harmed. The ACLU saw that and used that as their defense. Making a distinction between defending "the right to choose" and "supporting abortion" is a semantical smokescreen, in my opinion, and why folks play that little word game is not apparent to me.

registerthis
08-22-2005, 11:25 AM
Why do folks who support abortion play semantics with "the right to choose?"It's not semantics at all, it's simply how you personally choose to view it. I don't *support* abortion any more than I support binge drinking, smoking or an unhealthy diet. Personally, I find abortion--particular when used as a form of birth control--to be a rather awful practice. But...eh, read on.


I just wanna know what the motivation is. Is it to appease the conscience?Nope, it's a recognition that people have a fundamental right to choose to do with their bodies as they see fit. That there are certain aspects of one's life over which the government should not have control. Your problem, TR, is that you equate "pro choice" with "encouragement of abortion." Regardless of how you wish to view it, they are not the same thing. Though I understand why that is thought to be the case--the right needs to present it this way to "inflame" the pro-life crowd. It's why pictures of aborted fetuses are equated with the pro-choice movement, because it's meant to show that pro-choicers somehow encourage this type of behavior. If you were opposed to a city-wide anti-smoking ordinance, I could put your cause on a billboard featuring a pair of diseased, blackened lungs, and infer that you support this. When in fact that wouldn't be the case at all.


I mean, we restrict individual choices of what a person can do their own body all the time. People are not allowed to engage in illegal activity that involves their body (e.g. ingesting illegal drugs) in the privacy of their own home.
Well, the drug war and illicit drug use are really an entirely different topic. As far as a drug like marijuana, I personally believe it's a hypocratic stance by the government to ban the ingesting of it while allowing alcohol consumption. Really, their effects are very similar.

With regards to heavier drugs--re: cocaine, PCP, heroin, etc.--there are other concerns beyond mere personal choice that enter the debate here. Aside from being taxing on our health care and social systems, "harder" drug users are frequently a greater menace to society than those under the influence of "softer" drugs. But, again, this is really an entire discussion of its own.


An individual does not always have a choice of what they can do with their own body, especially when another life is involved. That is why this case, like any other case of injury to a baby while in the womb, is whether or not another person is harmed. The ACLU saw that and used that as their defense. Making a distinction between defending "the right to choose" and "supporting abortion" is a semantical smokescreen, in my opinion, and why folks play that little word game is not apparent to me.Let me ask you, TR: would you support the prosecution of a woman who smoked during her pregnancy?

How about one who ingested too much caffeine?

How about one who consumed a poor diet?

How about one who performed work that could potentially damage the fetus?

All legal activities, to be sure, but all activities that could, nonetheless, cause significant harm to the child. To draw this discussion back along appropriate lines: where should this line be drawn?

And I have already fully explained the differentiation between "pro choice" and "pro abortion." If you are unable to see it, it's not my problem.

westofyou
08-22-2005, 11:27 AM
Originally Posted by traderumor
Why do folks who support abortion play semantics with "the right to choose?"

I don't know... why do people who support the Bible trump it as "The Truth"?

Johnny Footstool
08-22-2005, 11:34 AM
As far as I know, aren't Catholics the only ones who oppose contraception?

Lots of people are opposed to anything but abstinence as birth control.

traderumor
08-22-2005, 11:48 AM
Let me ask you, TR: would you support the prosecution of a woman who smoked during her pregnancy?

How about one who ingested too much caffeine?

How about one who consumed a poor diet?

How about one who performed work that could potentially damage the fetus?

All legal activities, to be sure, but all activities that could, nonetheless, cause significant harm to the child. To draw this discussion back along appropriate lines: where should this line be drawn?


Again, it does appear that this ruling centered on the use of an illegal substance by the mother, and I've already presented my argument for your slippery slope argument last night. It hasn't changed after a night's sleep. The precedent set is that if a mother ingests illegal narcotics while pregnant, she could be charged with reckless endangerment of her child. All you have done is slid right down the ACLU's slippery slope argument. It is not foreseeable, in my lay opinion, that it could be extended to legal actions performed by the mother that may have harmed a baby. I haven't seen any of the attorneys weigh in on a legal perspective here, but I think the ACLU is sensationalizing. I know, that's hard to believe, but that is what it seems.


And I have already fully explained the differentiation between "pro choice" and "pro abortion." If you are unable to see it, it's not my problem.
A distinction without a difference is not a differentiation. You support the means as well as the end, whereby the means is abortion for the end of "choosing to kill one's own child." Actually, I have no problem, this issue is crystal clear.

savafan
08-22-2005, 11:50 AM
Lots of people are opposed to anything but abstinence as birth control.

True, individually, but I thought that Catholics were the only Christian sect that oppose contraception as part of their beliefs.

registerthis
08-22-2005, 11:58 AM
Again, it does appear that this ruling centered on the use of an illegal substance by the mother, and I've already presented my argument for your slippery slope argument last night. It hasn't changed after a night's sleep. The precedent set is that if a mother ingests illegal narcotics while pregnant, she could be charged with reckless endangerment of her child.Fair enough. I don't disagree.


All you have done is slid right down the ACLU's slippery slope argument. It is not foreseeable, in my lay opinion, that it could be extended to legal actions performed by the mother that may have harmed a baby. I haven't seen any of the attorneys weigh in on a legal perspective here, but I think the ACLU is sensationalizing. I know, that's hard to believe, but that is what it seems.Then you have very little concept of how the precedent system in the Courts function.

let's alter the argument a bit: Suppose the woman was ingesting an extreme amount of alcohol--an amount that surely would irreparably harm the fetus. Would you expel it from the realm of possibilities that she could be arrested and charged with endangering her fetus? Because she certainly is--the fact that her actions are deemed "legal" does not supplant the fact that her actions ALSO could cause great harm to the fetus.


A distinction without a difference is not a differentiation. You support the means as well as the end, whereby the means is abortion for the end of "choosing to kill one's own child." Actually, I have no problem, this issue is crystal clear.No, you have a comprehension problem. it's the same reason we don't hold gun manufacturers liable for citizens killed with those guns. It's why we don't hold alcohol manufacturers responsible for people killed by drivers drunk on their product. It's why we don't hold makers of high-fat foods liable for people who die of heart atacks brought on by eating their product. We don't hold them liable because we understand that there is a fundamental CHOICE made by people as to whether or not they choose to use those products, and in what manner they decide to use them.

it's interesting, because many pro-lifers are also pro-gun, and the arguments you are making in favor of halting abortions could also be used in the banning of the sale of guns. You may or may not have a problem with that, I just find it to be an interesting bit of irony.

traderumor
08-22-2005, 12:26 PM
Fair enough. I don't disagree.

Then you have very little concept of how the precedent system in the Courts function.

let's alter the argument a bit: Suppose the woman was ingesting an extreme amount of alcohol--an amount that surely would irreparably harm the fetus. Would you expel it from the realm of possibilities that she could be arrested and charged with endangering her fetus? Because she certainly is--the fact that her actions are deemed "legal" does not supplant the fact that her actions ALSO could cause great harm to the fetus.

This scenario is exactly why I say, if you want to argue slippery slope, I see this ultimately being just another ruling where the judge had to consider the child a person in utero, just like Ohio's two counts of murder stipulation for the murder of a pregnant woman and the baby in utero. In your scenario, I could see an attorney arguing this, but I'm not sure he could meet his burden of proof for cause. However, wouldn't ingesting a child with huge amounts of alcohol outside the womb be criminal? So why not inside the womb? I'm not seeing where that is a bad precedent to set.

But you have been arguing that a mom might get charged for merely drinking alcohol or smoking while pregnant. Smoking would seem to be the hardest to prove, as you would have to somehow show direct causation, whereas I do not think the risks of smoking and the effect it has on a baby in utero is as conclusive as something like ingesting cocaine (which I imagine was probably a crack baby, bu that is pure assumption on my part). See, I do understand the general theory of precedence setting, which is why I think your argument does not go far enough. Get enough of these precedences set, and the Supreme Court could be forced to revisit Roe v. Wade someday. And that would be a good thing.

Ah, the charges of judicial activism seem to resonate differently when it adversely affects the worldview of those it normally supports.

registerthis
08-22-2005, 12:35 PM
This scenario is exactly why I say, if you want to argue slippery slope, I see this ultimately being just another ruling where the judge had to consider the child a person in utero, just like Ohio's two counts of murder stipulation for the murder of a pregnant woman and the baby in utero. In your scenario, I could see an attorney arguing this, but I'm not sure he could meet his burden of proof for cause. However, wouldn't ingesting a child with huge amounts of alcohol outside the womb be criminal? So why not inside the womb? I'm not seeing where that is a bad precedent to set.Personally, I think bringing a child into a world where they won't be cared for, loved, properly raised and presented an opportunity to succeed at life should be criminal...but what do I know? I'm just one of those cold-hearted libs who take pleasure at sucking fetuses out of wombs with vacuums.


But you have been arguing that a mom might get charged for merely drinking alcohol or smoking while pregnant. Smoking would seem to be the hardest to prove, as you would have to somehow show direct causation, whereas I do not think the risks of smoking and the effect it has on a baby in utero is as conclusive as something like ingesting cocaine (which I imagine was probably a crack baby, bu that is pure assumption on my part). See, I do understand the general theory of precedence setting, which is why I think your argument does not go far enough. Get enough of these precedences set, and the Supreme Court could be forced to revisit Roe v. Wade someday. And that would be a good thing. One, get enough of those precendents together and women end up spending 9 months locked up in a federal maternity ward to ensure the Best Possible Outcome to her pregnancy.

Two, overturning R v. W would be a tremendous step backwards societally, culturally and for women's rights. I wish I could view the world with the black and white filters you have, TR, but I simply can't.

Falls City Beer
08-22-2005, 12:47 PM
FCB talking points:

1. Drinking bleach is legal--it too could kill a fetus. The agent doesn't matter--the charge is reckless endangerment.

2. A fetus isn't a person; where there is no person being harmed, there is no crime. You can't recklessly endanger cells.

This case is like many others that occurred in the 80s under Reagan, but were thrown out as unconsitutional under Clinton. Gee, what a shock.

traderumor
08-22-2005, 01:43 PM
Personally, I think bringing a child into a world where they won't be cared for, loved, properly raised and presented an opportunity to succeed at life should be criminal...but what do I know? I'm just one of those cold-hearted libs who take pleasure at sucking fetuses out of wombs with vacuums.So, abortion is actually altruistic. Only through the looking glass could one arrive at that conclusion. So, people who have abortions should be able to do so because some of them will not be able to properly provide for their children? What about retro aborting all the kids whose parents turn out to be failures after the fact. They thought they would be good parents, but it turns out that they could not properly care for, love, or properly raise a child, so let them kill their kids. Oh, that would be wrong because they are now persons since they successfully made it out of the birth canal. I tell you, the rationilizing performed to support the state when it allows innocent people to be slaughtered is at times unbelievable if I didn't see the arguments for myself.

registerthis
08-22-2005, 02:03 PM
I tell you, the rationilizing performed to support the state when it allows innocent people to be slaughtered is at times unbelievable if I didn't see the arguments for myself.TR, I can't comprehend the myriad purposes/reasons that would drive someone to decide to have an abortion. And neither can you.

Personally, I am much more concerned about a State that allows innocent people to suffer, be deprived of health care, deprived of a quality education, and deprived of an opportunity to better themselves. That is where my energy is focused. I am concerned about poor sex education in our schools, non-use of contraceptives and birth control, and parents who are more focused on themselves than what their children are doing. Once we've solved these issues, then perhaps we can revisit abortion.

Of course, once we have solved those issues, perhaps abortion won't be necessary.

GAC
08-22-2005, 09:24 PM
How about 'none'?

Show me one single person who "supports" abortion. I have yet to meet anyone out there that fits that criteria, but then again there are enough fruits and nuts in the world, there's probably someone out there who enjoys killing unborn fetuses.

Supporting a "choice" to have an abortion is not anything like supporting the actual ACT of abortion. I support a person's right to choose to smoke cigarettes when it doesn't harm me or others, but it doesn't mean that I support smoking.

Pure semantics Ben, and you know it. Respectfully, I've read your "pro-choice" argument before and what you think those of us who oppose abortion think that term means. You're wrong as to your implications.

To be pro-abortion, to many pro-lifers such as myself, means that those who are labelled such see nothing at all wrong with the procedure. There are no moral implications because what that woman is carrying is not life. That's why you use the word "choice". So therefore you are pro (meaning "for") abortion and do "support" it's advocation as a viable means. It's not saying you advocate forced abortions. IMO, there is no middle or neutral ground on this social issue.

I've also heard you advocate, in defense of your position, that what's in that woman's womb is nothing more then a group of cells, is not life (i.e the term fetus is used). Does medical science support that claim? Does science say conclusively that it's not life? Because I've referenced several medical journals and yet to see that implied anywhere in their definition of fetus.

Will anyone who supports abortion as a choice at least address this?

Or are they gonna then try to sidetrack that issue by bringing up viability?

I don't understand how those who use science to support their various positions, cannot show conclusive scientific evidence to support their position in this instance? Maybe they can't?

RosieRed
08-22-2005, 09:49 PM
Pure semantics Ben, and you know it. Respectfully, I've read your "pro-choice" argument before and what you think those of us who oppose abortion think that term means. You're wrong as to your implications.

To be pro-abortion, to many pro-lifers such as myself, means that those who are labelled such see nothing at all wrong with the procedure. There are no moral implications because what that woman is carrying is not life. That's why you use the word "choice". So therefore you are pro (meaning "for") abortion and do "support" it's advocation as a viable means. It's not saying you advocate forced abortions. IMO, there is no middle or neutral ground on this social issue.

I am pro-choice, but that does not mean I am pro-abortion. You can argue that it's semantics all you want, but there IS a distinction. It's not like I think abortions are great and I jump for joy everytime someone has one. I do think there are moral implications in some abortion cases, and I certainly think that it is a very serious and grave procedure. And believe it or not, I do think life is precious. But just because I support the legality of abortions does not mean I encourage or promote abortions.

I agree there really is no neutral ground on this issue, but I do know quite a few people who oppose abortions in all but the most extreme cases (ie rape, the mother's life is at risk, etc.). I think that's about as close to "middle ground" as there can be.


I've also heard you advocate, in defense of your position, that what's in that woman's womb is nothing more then a group of cells, is not life (i.e the term fetus is used). Does medical science support that claim? Does science say conclusively that it's not life? Because I've referenced several medical journals and yet to see that implied anywhere in their definition of fetus.

Will anyone who supports abortion as a choice at least address this?

Or are they gonna then try to sidetrack that issue by bringing up viability?

I don't understand how those who use science to support their various positions, cannot show conclusive scientific evidence to support their position in this instance? Maybe they can't?

Address what? The issue of "life"? I've already stated in this thread that whether it is "life" or whether it is a "fetus" doesn't change my views. I don't know which it is, and I don't know how science can conclusively state which it is either. But either way, I would still be pro-choice.

Falls City Beer
08-22-2005, 10:34 PM
Pure semantics Ben, and you know it. Respectfully, I've read your "pro-choice" argument before and what you think those of us who oppose abortion think that term means. You're wrong as to your implications.

To be pro-abortion, to many pro-lifers such as myself, means that those who are labelled such see nothing at all wrong with the procedure. There are no moral implications because what that woman is carrying is not life. That's why you use the word "choice". So therefore you are pro (meaning "for") abortion and do "support" it's advocation as a viable means. It's not saying you advocate forced abortions. IMO, there is no middle or neutral ground on this social issue.

I've also heard you advocate, in defense of your position, that what's in that woman's womb is nothing more then a group of cells, is not life (i.e the term fetus is used). Does medical science support that claim? Does science say conclusively that it's not life? Because I've referenced several medical journals and yet to see that implied anywhere in their definition of fetus.

Will anyone who supports abortion as a choice at least address this?

Or are they gonna then try to sidetrack that issue by bringing up viability?

I don't understand how those who use science to support their various positions, cannot show conclusive scientific evidence to support their position in this instance? Maybe they can't?

First of all, since when has science ever swayed your opinion? So why are you asking for it now?

Second, I feel I need to ask because I think this will clear up a lot of bunk: do you believe in greater and lesser goods, greater and lesser evils?

Have you ever lied to someone to protect his or her feelings? The answer to this is quite obvious: yes, you have. Does that mean you're "pro-lying?" No. Of course it doesn't. You are "anti-lying," but you are even MORE "anti-hurting-someone's-feelings." No one except for the sickest monster on earth "likes" abortion--but when the alternative is "women can't control their bodily fates," I know which way I lean.

Johnny Footstool
08-23-2005, 12:47 AM
Pure semantics Ben, and you know it. Respectfully, I've read your "pro-choice" argument before and what you think those of us who oppose abortion think that term means. You're wrong as to your implications.

To be pro-abortion, to many pro-lifers such as myself, means that those who are labelled such see nothing at all wrong with the procedure. There are no moral implications because what that woman is carrying is not life. That's why you use the word "choice". So therefore you are pro (meaning "for") abortion and do "support" it's advocation as a viable means. It's not saying you advocate forced abortions.

So you're not really "Pro-Life," because you refuse to let a woman have control of her own life. You're "Anti-Choice" in that you don't think a woman should be allowed to choose what happens to the cells in her body. You'd rather have the government dictate that choice to women. Does that mean you're "Pro-Dictatorship"? ;)

Let's keep debating the meaning of the little labels we have for each other. That's sure to be productive.

GAC
08-23-2005, 09:43 AM
First of all, since when has science ever swayed your opinion? So why are you asking for it now?

I have nothing but admiration and respect for science. It's when it's inconclusive (Darwinism) that I express reservations/skepticism. And I think rightly so. But it was you and others who use the term "fetus", and assign to it the meaning that it is not life. And medical science does not state that at all. So when you are saying that it is not life - then I'll assume that is just your opinion.


Second, I feel I need to ask because I think this will clear up a lot of bunk: do you believe in greater and lesser goods, greater and lesser evils?

So I can asume then that you're saying that in order to avoid the "greater" evil - a child born into poverty, or possibly gravitating to life of crime as an adult, or some other worse scenario that none of us have the ability to predict, we need to endure the "lesser evil" of abortion. And of course, that all leads to a greater good in the long run -for us as a society anyway. Not for that poor child whom we will never know how their lives would turn out.

That is a very sad commentary on a society whose only answer/response to a problem that they themselves created, and exasperated, due to their own selfish promotion of sexual promiscuity over the last few decades, and loose sexual morals, along with the destruction of the institutions of marriage and family, is to kill the only ones who aren't responsible or had anything to do with the problem to begin with. But they get the blame.

That's our answer.

But the statistics dont back up the claims that some have made on here as to their justification for abortions - to prevent a child from being raised in poverty, abused, or growing up to be criminals or non-contributing members of society.

The reasons why women in this country get abortions (according to the women themselves) is a majority of the time an issue of inconvenience...

http://www.agi-usa.org/presentations/abort_slides.pdf

Approximately 1.2 million abortions occur annually in the U.S (2002).

67% of abortions are from women who have never been married.

And abortions are given for the following reasons:

21% - inadequate finances
21% - not ready for the responsibility
16% - woman's life would be changed too much; disrupt career
12% - problems with relationship: unmarried.
11% - not mature enough
8% - children are grown; woman has all she wants
3% - woman or fetus has health problems
1% - caused by rape or incest



No one except for the sickest monster on earth "likes" abortion--but when the alternative is "women can't control their bodily fates," I know which way I lean

And that is where we will always differ. I don't believe it's the "right" of a woman, just because she is bodily carrying a child, to be able to kill it.

And I know that I'm probably gonna get nailed for this by alot of women on here, and me being a man and all, but I'll say it anyway. :lol:

If this is solely an issue of a woman's right ONLY, and her right to control her body - then if she feels so strongly about it (not wanting a child to begin with), and that men should keep their noses out of the decision-making process once conception has occurred, then why doesn't she (with the exceptions being rape of course) exercise that right/control, and take the same strong stand beforehand when she knows the consequences that can result? Pregnancy.

GAC
08-23-2005, 09:44 AM
So you're not really "Pro-Life," because you refuse to let a woman have control of her own life. You're "Anti-Choice" in that you don't think a woman should be allowed to choose what happens to the cells in her body. You'd rather have the government dictate that choice to women. Does that mean you're "Pro-Dictatorship"? ;)

Let's keep debating the meaning of the little labels we have for each other. That's sure to be productive.

I have no problem with labels when they are not used in a derogatory or demeaning fashion, and make sense. The above does not. ;)

registerthis
08-23-2005, 09:45 AM
Pure semantics Ben, and you know it. Respectfully, I've read your "pro-choice" argument before and what you think those of us who oppose abortion think that term means. You're wrong as to your implications.

To be pro-abortion, to many pro-lifers such as myself, means that those who are labelled such see nothing at all wrong with the procedure.
And I don't know how many times I have to write that "I don't support abortion." You're just completely off-base here, Greg. I see plenty wrong with abortion, I think it's a dreadful form of birth control and I deplore the fact that it is used in that manner. The difference, between my position and yours, is that I don't feel qualified--or empowered--to make that choice for someone else.


There are no moral implications because what that woman is carrying is not life. That's why you use the word "choice".
I do believe in certain situations it is a viable option, yes. And you're also correct, I don't believe that a clump of cells which could not survive outside of the womb is "life". But that hardly means there are no moral implications! There are moral implications in everything we do, Greg. There are moral implications everytime you put gas in your car, because it helps fund the corrupt Middle East dictatorships we claim to loathe--one of which we recently overthrew. There are moral implications everytime you use a product or medical treatment that was tested on animals. Does it make you an amoral person for doing these things? Of course not, but a "choice" has nonetheless been made.


So therefore you are pro (meaning "for") abortion
Ah, here you go again, Greg, making a fallacious argument. If you support a person's right to eat meat, are you pro-killing of animals? If you support a person's right to smoke, are you pro-lung cancer? If you support a person's right to own a gun, are you pro-murder? This is a serious flaw in your reasoning, Greg, I suggest you reconsider your argument. There is a significant difference between supporting someone's right to make a choice, and supporting the choice they make.


IMO, there is no middle or neutral ground on this social issue.Then I think this answer's FCB's question about whether or not you view "greater" or "lesser" goods. You and TR are very much alike, in that the world is very black and white for you.


I've also heard you advocate, in defense of your position, that what's in that woman's womb is nothing more then a group of cells, is not life (i.e the term fetus is used). Does medical science support that claim? Does science say conclusively that it's not life? Because I've referenced several medical journals and yet to see that implied anywhere in their definition of fetus.Surely, you can't be serious. Since when has what "science" says carried any weight with you? You're one of the greatest categorical deniers of scientific findings on this board. I'm certain that if I produced a study which stated, conclusively, that the clump of cells was not, in fact, life, you would be quick to discredit it.


Or are they gonna then try to sidetrack that issue by bringing up viability?Honestly, the very fact that you view "viability" as a sidetrack to this issue is the clearest statement yet of your position here. I believe this is the same tact taken by those who wish to teach "abstinence-only" sex ed in our schools--viability be damned, this is a black and white issue.

GAC
08-23-2005, 09:49 AM
Then I think this answer's FCB's question about whether or not you view "greater" or "lesser" goods. You and TR are very much alike, in that the world is very black and white for you.

Surely, you can't be serious. Since when has what "science" says carried any weight with you? You're one of the greatest categorical deniers of scientific findings on this board. I'm certain that if I produced a study which stated, conclusively, that the clump of cells was not, in fact, life, you would be quick to discredit it.

See response above to FCB on these two. ;)

registerthis
08-23-2005, 09:54 AM
See response above to FCB on these two. ;)Sure, no problem Greg. You embrace science when it suits you, reject it when it doesn't. I know the type.

Perhaps you would like to present your conclusive evidence that the clump of cells IS life? Because, honestly, I haven't seen much on that, either. It all looks like conjecture to me.

GAC
08-23-2005, 10:41 AM
Sure, no problem Greg. You embrace science when it suits you, reject it when it doesn't. I know the type.

Wronng again. But I left the ID thread for a very valid reason. Remember your PM when we both agreed to disagree, and you said you would leave the thread if I did. Well - I did. Did you? ;)

I embrace science when it's results are conclusive. Darwinism, macro-evolution, etc., is not.


Perhaps you would like to present your conclusive evidence that the clump of cells IS life? Because, honestly, I haven't seen much on that, either. It all looks like conjecture to me.

Are you contending that it's simply a clump of cells during the entire pregnancy? How do you explain a premature baby born during the 2nd trimester then? Not life?

Why then don't you spend the same amount of energy you have expended on exploring and examining evolutionary theories and creation (which I commend you on), and research what you are asking me? That's how I arrived at my position. There are plenty of medical journals, and those within the field of medicine, who can do a far better job at showing you're wrong in your contention. I'm not even gonna try to open up the volumes of evidence that shows that. You do the homework. Besides -you won't believe me anyway. ;)

But I will provide you with this link that allows you to follow with pictures and developmental characteristics through the various weeks/stages of that child's development within the womb. And that development doesn't stop once the child exits the womb either. It simply begins within the womb.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/wrtk/graphics/32-weeks.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/wrtk/develop/week32.shtm&h=240&w=240&sz=10&tbnid=IEzD6srZbVIJ:&tbnh=104&tbnw=104&hl=en&start=34&prev=/images%3Fq%3DA%2BDEVELOPING%2BFETUS%26start%3D20%2 6svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN

By the end of the 8th week, all of the main organ systems are in place. The first muscle movements take place. From that point on it's all about development.

By the end of the first trimester, thyroid hormones, instrumental in brain development, are starting to be produced by the baby on it's own. Prior to that, they are supplied by the mother.

4 1/2 month baby sucking it's thumb. Vocal chords are active.

http://www.dushkin.com/connectext/psy/ch03/plate3.jpg

traderumor
08-23-2005, 10:42 AM
Then I think this answer's FCB's question about whether or not you view "greater" or "lesser" goods. You and TR are very much alike, in that the world is very black and white for you.While I know you are being derogatory in that statement, that is what happens when two believers properly apply the Bible to an issue that is not a great moral dilemma (EDIT: by not a great moral dilemma, I mean it is not hard to decipher the issues and take a position). I do not believe I have a lock on the truth, and I don't think GAC does either. We state our positions from a Biblical worldview and believe that a proper interpretation of Scripture is attainable and that there are proper and improper applications of Scripture. Much of what I see in the way of arguments from those who do not accept the Bible is that they do not understand the basics of interpreting Scripture, much less be equipped to determine if the Bible is reliable or not.

Yet, I arrived at the conclusion that abortion is killing another person long before I had turned the first page in a Bible. How? I did not need to rationalize that "it isn't really life" or "this is about women's rights" because both of those things are clear just using normal methods of reasoning. If the baby kicking and moving and sucking his/her thumb, all in the womb, isn't life, then what is? Just a ludicrous argument, especially with the technology available. And FCB, YOU rely on science, yet arrive at the lump of cells conclusion. Lumps of cells don't have eyes, ears, mouth, nose, fingers, toes, arms, legs, a beating heart (which you can hear with an external monitor very early), a determinable sex. All of those things can be viewed at great levels of details with ultrasound technology at very early stages, which makes the position even more ludicrous and outdated. On this issue, that makes me "black and white," or intolerant as another way of putting it, and that is fine. While there are issues with shades of gray, and a person would have to consider themselves infallible to not admit that, this is not one of them.

Killing another human being is murder, whether that human being is in a womb or in an incubator, or in a bubble, or any other stage of viability. Many, not all, but many women who have abortions realize that. It seems that those most willing to fight for this right have never had an abortion themselves. When the rubber meets the road, it seems that the opinion of the option seems to change. I guess its the reformed smoker principle at work.

Why being in a womb doesn't make you a person, I have no idea. BTW, the baby my wife aborted before we met I informally adopted, we named the baby and had a memorial service for long after the fact. We also named the child who was miscarried just over a year ago, so I take the personhood of a child in utero pretty seriously, and didn't even need the first knowledge of the Bible to do so. Of course, that doesn't make my position "right," but this is not a moral laboratory issue for me, it is a pain that I have personally experienced more times than I would wish on anyone. And my wife's pain for having the abortion still hasn't gone away, and probably never will. I am afraid she is normal in this regard. It is a choice she does not consider a right she ever had or ever wanted, in hindsight, of course.

Now, as far as this case goes, I find it interesting that this judge is considered to be attempting to make law, as the ACLU suggests, when all he did was apply the law of reckless endangerment in the parent/child relationship, which, even as a laymen, I can see that doing so seems to be a valid application of that law. Also, again as a laymen opinion, I do not think that a judge is to rule based on what precedent he might be setting in doing so. He is to properly apply the existing law, which in this case is the charge of reckless endangerment. I think if a judge does not apply the rule of law in a matter for fear of the precedent it would set, then he is just as activist (by activist, I mean taking actions that establish law) as if he makes a ruling specifically to create a precedent. That is based on the assumption (which I could be not totally right here, feel free to chime in on this, attorneys) that a precedent is not law, it is application of existing law. However, if no law exists, it could become de facto law, I suppose, but that doesn't apply here, so it seems. In other words, his ruling is only valid if he applied the rule of law in place, regardless of the consequences of that ruling. He is a law adjudicator, not a lawmaker. And if he avoids applying the law to a case specifically to avoid setting a certain precedent, then he has made a prejudicial decision, IMO.

GAC
08-23-2005, 10:51 AM
Exactly TR. And in this particular discussion (abortion) - my stance is not simply "The Bible tells me so". Medical science gives alot of credence to my pro-life position.

They knock us for rejecting scientific theory in the other discussion - and yet basically either reject or ignore medical science in this one.

Johnny Footstool
08-23-2005, 11:09 AM
I have no problem with labels when they are not used in a derogatory or demeaning fashion, and make sense. The above does not.

Satire is rarely recognized by the target.

registerthis
08-23-2005, 11:13 AM
While I know you are being derogatory in that statement, that is what happens when two believers properly apply the Bible to an issue that is not a great moral dilemma (EDIT: by not a great moral dilemma, I mean it is not hard to decipher the issues and take a position). I do not believe I have a lock on the truth, and I don't think GAC does either. We state our positions from a Biblical worldview and believe that a proper interpretation of Scripture is attainable and that there are proper and improper applications of Scripture. Much of what I see in the way of arguments from those who do not accept the Bible is that they do not understand the basics of interpreting Scripture, much less be equipped to determine if the Bible is reliable or not. Well, this is your first problem. You're applying Biblical standards to an issue that affects many more people than those who believe in the Christian God. I respect that you are opposed to abortion on biblical standards, but that is not a foundation for supporting a ban on the procedure through law.


Yet, I arrived at the conclusion that abortion is killing another person long before I had turned the first page in a Bible. How? I did not need to rationalize that "it isn't really life" or "this is about women's rights" because both of those things are clear just using normal methods of reasoning. If the baby kicking and moving and sucking his/her thumb, all in the womb, isn't life, then what is? Just a ludicrous argument, especially with the technology available.
In your opinion, perhaps it is...I find it difficult to believe that something that is incapable of living outside of the womb is "life" in the same sense that the mother is life, but again here we're arguing opinions. And the crux of the pro-life/choice argument is who has the right to enforce their opinions/beliefs on others? Like I said, to you it's very black and white: as soon as that egg is fertilized, it's life to you. Others don't see it that way. It is a point you seem to have a difficult time grasping.


Killing another human being is murder, whether that human being is in a womb or in an incubator, or in a bubble, or any other stage of viability. A 3 month old fetus isn't viable under any circumstances.


Many, not all, but many women who have abortions realize that. It seems that those most willing to fight for this right have never had an abortion themselves. When the rubber meets the road, it seems that the opinion of the option seems to change. I guess its the reformed smoker principle at work. Well good for them, and it's why I support mandatory counseling for all who choose to get this procedure. But, reformed smokers or not--people still smoke. People are still free to make that choice. Campaign against abortion all you want, I'd probably even support you--in much the same way that I support anti-smoking initiatives. But I will not support someone who wants to take the choice away, to place it in the hands of the government.

It's rather funny, because many right wingers will protest till their blue in the face that the government has no right to take away their guns--that they may own them if they choose. The tens of thousands of people killed by guns every year aren't a deterrent to them, because they understand that there is a difference between supporting the concept of gun ownership, and supporting the evil things that guns do.


Why being in a womb doesn't make you a person, I have no idea. BTW, the baby my wife aborted before we met I informally adopted, we named the baby and had a memorial service for long after the fact. We also named the child who was miscarried just over a year ago, so I take the personhood of a child in utero pretty seriously, and didn't even need the first knowledge of the Bible to do so. Of course, that doesn't make my position "right," but this is not a moral laboratory issue for me, it is a pain that I have personally experienced more times than I would wish on anyone. And my wife's pain for having the abortion still hasn't gone away, and probably never will. I am afraid she is normal in this regard. It is a choice she does not consider a right she ever had or ever wanted, in hindsight, of course.That's a nice personal story, and I understand your personal feelings on the matter, but it doesn't change my stance at all.

And, consider this, from a practical level: If your wife had decided to have an abortion, yet they were deemed "illegal" and she was forced to go to a "non-accredited" location to have the procedure done, there is a fair chance that the outcome may have been as bad for her as it was for the fetus. That's another issue which hasn't been addressed: people on the right think that if abortion is outlawed abortions will stop. Quite the contrary, people will still have abortions, it won't end the practice. What it WILL do is make it a significantly more risky procedure for the mother, who will not only receive the abortion under less-than-ideal terms, but will also not receive the proper care and treatment afterwards.


Now, as far as this case goes, I find it interesting that this judge is considered to be attempting to make law, as the ACLU suggests, when all he did was apply the law of reckless endangerment in the parent/child relationship, which, even as a laymen, I can see that doing so seems to be a valid application of that law.Of course you see it that way, the fact that the judge ruled that the fetus was, in fact, a child--when no such prior law under similar circumstances existed. That is the ACLU's argument.

Although i will say that I can see both sides of this, and the fact that it was an illegal drug makes her easier to prosecute...but you're simply denying reality if you argue that you don't see the "slippery slope" attached tot his case.

traderumor
08-23-2005, 11:30 AM
Of course you see it that way, the fact that the judge ruled that the fetus was, in fact, a child--when no such prior law under similar circumstances existed. That is the ACLU's argument.

Although i will say that I can see both sides of this, and the fact that it was an illegal drug makes her easier to prosecute...but you're simply denying reality if you argue that you don't see the "slippery slope" attached tot his case.And the ACLU lost. The judge applied the law as a parent/child relationship, irregardless of the precedence he was setting. I think that is the way the system is supposed to work, regardless of whose worldview it supports. At least that's what folks espousing opposing worldviews to mine hold to when my worldview is not supported with a ruling. BTW, if he did not apply the rule of law properly, then the decision will be overturned in appeal, correct? That should be the only issue here--was the law properly applied, not whether or not it sets a precedent, just in case my prior post didn't make that entirely clear. Again, that is something I am reminded of when I don't like a judge's application of an existing law. It doesn't seem to work both ways, though.

registerthis
08-23-2005, 11:40 AM
That should be the only issue here--was the law properly applied, not whether or not it sets a precedent, just in case my prior post didn't make that entirely clear. No, this is true. At this point, the only appeals that could be heard are whether or not the Judge applied the law properly. The crux of the issue is, for all intents and purposes, moot. But, I would say this case has a decent chance of getting sent back to the trial court, because the Judge DID set a precendent in this case. And, you know, if the precendent is a stiffer penalty for women who take illegal drugs while pregnant, I really wouldn't have a problem with that. It's really impossible to defend the woman's actions here. But the ruling should be very carefully worded, to avoid an instance where a woman could be brought up on child endangerment charges for, example, smoking. That's really my only issue here.

traderumor
08-23-2005, 11:57 AM
And there you have it, sports fans, Reg and I found some common ground :beerme: :)

registerthis
08-23-2005, 12:04 PM
And there you have it, sports fans, Reg and I found some common ground :beerme: :) :runaway:

<runs to window to check for signs of apocalypse>

Kidding... ;)

RosieRed
08-23-2005, 01:39 PM
And I know that I'm probably gonna get nailed for this by alot of women on here, and me being a man and all, but I'll say it anyway. :lol:

If this is solely an issue of a woman's right ONLY, and her right to control her body - then if she feels so strongly about it (not wanting a child to begin with), and that men should keep their noses out of the decision-making process once conception has occurred, then why doesn't she (with the exceptions being rape of course) exercise that right/control, and take the same strong stand beforehand when she knows the consequences that can result? Pregnancy.

I honestly think that if men could get pregnant, the legality of abortion would never be questioned like it is now.

GAC
08-23-2005, 08:53 PM
A 3 month old fetus isn't viable under any circumstances.

Neither is a 1 day old infant. At least according to the Supreme Court's broad definition of viability. And I guess you could say the same for a premmie also.


Well, this is your first problem. You're applying Biblical standards to an issue that affects many more people than those who believe in the Christian God. I respect that you are opposed to abortion on biblical standards, but that is not a foundation for supporting a ban on the procedure through law.

I've not used Biblical standards on this thread to support my position. If anyone really wants to learn more, then all they have to do is take the time and effort to research many credible medical journals and resources on prenatal care and fetal development.

But if Jesus were physically walking the good ol' US of A today he'd have plenty of issues with our citizenry (on both the left and the right). But he wouldn't be pro-choice when it came to abortion. Not when he spent a good portion of his ministry defensing those who were weak, helpless, defenseless, and innocent. I think he would treat the abortion issue with the same righteous indignation that he showed those in that temple.

And he'd probably get arrested. ;)

Here is an excellent slide presentation on the development of that baby, with many medical facts....

http://www.justthefacts.org/clar.asp


Well good for them, and it's why I support mandatory counseling for all who choose to get this procedure. But, reformed smokers or not--people still smoke. People are still free to make that choice. Campaign against abortion all you want, I'd probably even support you--in much the same way that I support anti-smoking initiatives. But I will not support someone who wants to take the choice away, to place it in the hands of the government.

Why do you place the life of a child on the same level of "choice" as that of someone smoking or drinking or whatever? I find that somehow demeaning to that life to lower it's level to that point.

Yet we want government to be the "hand"/controlling and dictating factor in so many other aspects of our society via regulations/laws. It seems OK to raise the tax on cigarettes to force people to quit smoking. We see government intereference/influence, via restictive and punitive laws,regulation, and taxation that leaves it's citizenry with little "choice". Yet we cringe at them protecting the unborn.


people on the right think that if abortion is outlawed abortions will stop.

No one on the right says or believes that.

GAC
08-23-2005, 09:16 PM
I honestly think that if men could get pregnant, the legality of abortion would never be questioned like it is now.

I think you'd be wrong. Life is life regardless of who is carrying that child.

But then we'd probably be seeing more cases of men suing woman for child support - and woman upset over the fact that they have no say in the life of the child they helped conceive. And for once the courts would be on the man's side on this issue.

That's if it were all possible. ;)

Mutaman
08-23-2005, 09:20 PM
But if Jesus were physically walking the good ol' US of A today he'd have plenty of issues with our citizenry (on both the left and the right). But he wouldn't be pro-choice when it came to abortion. Not when he spent a good portion of his ministry defensing those who were weak, helpless, defenseless, and innocent. I think he would treat the abortion issue with the same righteous indignation that he showed those in that temple.


How do you think Jesus would have felt about our invasion of iraq?

traderumor
08-23-2005, 10:01 PM
I honestly think that if men could get pregnant, the legality of abortion would never be questioned like it is now.Why is it ok for women to make sexist remarks?

westofyou
08-23-2005, 10:23 PM
Why is it ok for women to make sexist remarks?

Because they deal with sexism every single minute of the day, every single day of the week, every single week of the month, every month of the year, every year of their lives.

Mutaman
08-23-2005, 10:34 PM
This "what would Jesus do" criteria has got me thinking:

if Jesus championed the poor and the underdog would he support the Republican party today?

If he spent so much time healing the sick would he be against funding for stem cell research?

If he said "he who is without sin, throw the first stone", would he be in favor of capital punishment?

This Jesus sounds like a hell of a guy. To heck with Hillary, lets elect Jesus.

Christ for President


Let's have Christ our President
Let us have him for our king
Cast your vote for the Carpenter
That they call the Nazarene

The only way
We could ever beat
These crooked politician men

Is to cast the moneychangers
Out of the temple
Put the Carpenter in

Oh it's Jesus Christ our President
God above our king
With a job and pension for young and old
We will make hallelujah ring

Every year we waste enough
To feed the ones who starve
We build our civilization up
And we shoot it down with wars

But with the Carpenter
On the seat
Way up in the capitol town

The USA
Be on the way
Prosperity bound

Woody Guthrie

RosieRed
08-23-2005, 11:06 PM
Why is it ok for women to make sexist remarks?

You think that comment I made is sexist? :laugh:

Do you disagree with it?

TeamCasey
08-24-2005, 06:20 AM
I honestly think that if men could get pregnant, the legality of abortion would never be questioned like it is now.

:clap:

I was reading through a previous response about the woman's decision at the time they had sex. No where does it mention the man's responsibilty.

I was reading through a previous response about the inconvenience to the woman. No where does it discuss the man's responsibility.

TeamCasey
08-24-2005, 06:22 AM
But then we'd probably be seeing more cases of men suing woman for child support.

Do you take issue with child support?

RBA
08-24-2005, 08:51 AM
Here's something interesting. I hope it adds to the debate.


Report: Fetuses Do Not Feel Pain Until Late Pregnancy

Wednesday, August 24, 2005

http://www.foxnews.com/images/service_ap_36.gif

A review of medical evidence has found that fetuses likely don't feel pain until the final months of pregnancy, a powerful challenge to abortion opponents who hope that discussions about fetal pain will make women think twice about ending pregnancies.

Critics angrily disputed the findings and claimed the report is biased.

"They have literally stuck their hands into a hornet's nest," said Dr. Kanwaljeet Anand, a fetal pain (search (javascript:siteSearch('fetal pain');)) researcher at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, who believes fetuses as young as 20 weeks old feel pain. "This is going to inflame a lot of scientists who are very, very concerned and are far more knowledgeable in this area than the authors appear to be. This is not the last word -- definitely not."

The review by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco comes as advocates are pushing for fetal pain laws (search (javascript:siteSearch(' fetal pain laws');)) aimed at curtailing abortion. Proposed federal legislation would require doctors to provide fetal pain information to women seeking abortions when fetuses are at least 20 weeks old, and to offer women fetal anesthesia (search (javascript:siteSearch('fetal anesthesia');)) at that stage of the pregnancy. A handful of states have enacted similar measures.

But the report, appearing in Wednesday's Journal of the American Medical Association, says that offering fetal pain relief during abortions in the fifth or sixth months of pregnancy is misguided and might result in unacceptable health risks to women.

Dr. Nancy Chescheir, chairman of obstetrics and gynecology at Vanderbilt University and a board director at the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine (search (javascript:siteSearch(' Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine');)), said the article "will help to develop some consensus" on when fetuses feel pain. "To date, there hasn't been any."

The researchers reviewed dozens of studies and medical reports and said the data indicate that fetuses likely are incapable of feeling pain until around the seventh month of pregnancy, when they are about 28 weeks old.

While brain structures involved in feeling pain begin forming much earlier, research indicates they likely do not function until the pregnancy's final stages, said the report's senior author, UCSF obstetric anesthesiologist Dr. Mark Rosen.

Based on the evidence, discussions of fetal pain for abortions performed before the end of the second trimester should not be mandatory, the researchers said.

The authors include the administrator of a UCSF abortion clinic, but the researchers dispute the claim that the report is biased.

Dr. Catherine DeAngelis, JAMA's editor-in-chief, said the decision to publish the review was not politically motivated.

"Oh, please," DeAngelis said. "If I had a political agenda, I wouldn't pick fetal pain."

JAMA does not publish "politically motivated science. We publish data-based, evidence-based science," DeAngelis said.

The measure pending in Congress would affect about 18,000 U.S. abortions a year performed in the fifth month of pregnancy or later, said Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee. He said the review is slanted.

But Rosen said the researchers "tried to review the literature in an unbiased fashion. This was a multidisciplinary effort by experts on anesthesia, neuroanatomy, obstetrics and neonatal development."

Rosen also said that administering anesthesia or painkillers to the fetus could pose health risks to the mother.

When doctors operate on fetuses to correct defects before birth, general anesthesia is given to the mother primarily to immobilize the fetus and to make the uterus relax, Rosen said. Anesthesia during fetal surgery increases the mother's risks for breathing problems and bleeding from a relaxed uterus, the researchers said.

Rosen said those risks are medically acceptable when the goal is to save the fetus but there's not enough evidence to show any benefit from fetus-directed anesthesia during an abortion.

Administering anesthesia directly to the fetus is also sometimes done but generally to reduce the release of potentially harmful fetal stress hormones (search (javascript:siteSearch('fetal stress hormones');)), Rosen said. There is little research on its effects, the authors said.

Anand, the researcher from Arkansas, said the authors excluded or minimized evidence suggesting fetal pain sensation begins in the second trimester and wrongly assume that fetuses' brains sense pain in the same way as adult brains.

While Anand has testified as an expert witness for the government in court cases opposing some late-term abortions, he said he is not anti-abortion and that his views are based on years of fetal pain research.

GAC
08-24-2005, 09:15 AM
Pretty inconclusive article if you ask me. I've also read medical journals, just as the one doctor contends here, that the fetus can feel pain in the 2nd trimester (4-6 months). Which makes sense since there are thousands of babies born premature every year in the 2nd trimester. Do you think they are developed enough to feel pain?

But it's not an issue of whether they can feel pain or not. Is that suppose to sooth people's conscious' knowing they might not feel pain? It's still an issue of life.

Falls City Beer
08-24-2005, 09:17 AM
Pretty inconclusive article if you ask me. I've also read medical journals, just as the one doctor contends here, that the fetus can feel pain in the 2nd trimester (4-6 months). Which makes sense since there are thousands of babies born premature every year in the 2nd trimester. Do you think they are developed enough to feel pain?

But it's not an issue of whether they can feel pain or not. Is that suppose to sooth people's conscious' knowing they might not feel pain? It's still an issue of life.

Not that this answers every question, but aren't 98% of all abortions in this country performed within the first trimester? It's something like that.

traderumor
08-24-2005, 09:32 AM
You think that comment I made is sexist? :laugh:

Do you disagree with it?Yes, I do. It implies men are incapable of understanding abortion and feeling the pain that abortion brings because they cannot get pregnant. Of course I disagree with it, but it is a silly thing to even debate since it is not possible. But I will conjecture this. It is at least biologically possible for all women to get pregnant (for sake of argument, exclude those who cannot for reasons other than they are not female), yet there are differing opinions among women regarding abortion. I would imagine the same phenomena would hold true for men. There would be some that believe it is a right and should be allowed to have one for any reason and would have one if they wanted to, there would be some who may believe it is a right but they would not do it as a matter of personal choice, and there would be some who are dead set against it. So yes, that is sexism 101, no different than me telling you "well, you'd think differently about one sex getting paid more than the other for the same job if you were the one getting paid more."

Falls City Beer
08-24-2005, 09:32 AM
:clap:

I was reading through a previous response about the woman's decision at the time they had sex. No where does it mention the man's responsibilty.

I was reading through a previous response about the inconvenience to the woman. No where does it discuss the man's responsibility.

Deadbeat dads go to prison for a lot of things--almost never for non-payment of child support.

That should tell you something right there about society's view of the onus placed on men and their responsibility to child-rearing.

GAC
08-24-2005, 09:39 AM
This "what would Jesus do" criteria has got me thinking:

if Jesus championed the poor and the underdog would he support the Republican party today?

If he spent so much time healing the sick would he be against funding for stem cell research?

If he said "he who is without sin, throw the first stone", would he be in favor of capital punishment?

This Jesus sounds like a hell of a guy. To heck with Hillary, lets elect Jesus.

Christ for President


Let's have Christ our President
Let us have him for our king
Cast your vote for the Carpenter
That they call the Nazarene

The only way
We could ever beat
These crooked politician men

Is to cast the moneychangers
Out of the temple
Put the Carpenter in

Oh it's Jesus Christ our President
God above our king
With a job and pension for young and old
We will make hallelujah ring

Every year we waste enough
To feed the ones who starve
We build our civilization up
And we shoot it down with wars

But with the Carpenter
On the seat
Way up in the capitol town

The USA
Be on the way
Prosperity bound

Woody Guthrie

It's really not necessary to mock in order to get your point across. Have you seen me or TR mocking anyone on this thread that we differ with?

Didn't I state above that Jesus would have issues with our citizenry in this country on both sides?

Neither political party has a very good track record of helping the poor in this country IMO.

And regardless what you state, or what someone else may print, no evangelical or Republican or conservative believes that the Republican Party is the Party of God. You may find someone somewhere who may have said such a thing; but they'd be sorely wrong, and an overwhelming majority of evangelical Christians in this country would disagree with that statement.

If Jesus could heal the sick (and he could) then why would he need stem cell research? But no - to answer your question, Jesus, IMO, and from the evidence of scripture's portrayal of him, would not support it.

And you need to read/study the passage you quote about casting the first stone. Captial punishment wasn't the issue. The whole scenario was a set-up job by the Jewish heirarchy to try and trap Jesus to betray Jewish Law (which did call for stoning for adultery), and thus turn the masses against him. Jesus didn't fall for it, and exposed their own hypocrisy. But he also told the woman to "sin no more" (i.e. leave the lifestyle).

In the Gospels, the accont of Jesus' earthly ministry, he never directly addressed the issue of capital punishment. Though he, and those thieves, were a victim of it. I don't remember Jesus telling those thieves, as they were hanging on that cross next to him, that what the punishment they were getting was wrong or immoral. In fact, the one thief demonstrated repentance and rebuked the other who was mocking Jesus by saying they were getting what they desevered for the crimes they committed.

But Romans chapter 13 pretty much covers the justification of capital punishment, and the role of government in it. If one reads the previous chapter (12), they find that it is not the role of the individual when wronged to met out justice or take personal vengeance. We are to...

1) trust in God who is holy and just, and will see the justice is served, and
2) he has established the institution of human government as his representative to met out that justice... [b]"But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience." (12:4,5)

traderumor
08-24-2005, 09:41 AM
Pretty inconclusive article if you ask me. I've also read medical journals, just as the one doctor contends here, that the fetus can feel pain in the 2nd trimester (4-6 months). Which makes sense since there are thousands of babies born premature every year in the 2nd trimester. Do you think they are developed enough to feel pain?

But it's not an issue of whether they can feel pain or not. Is that suppose to sooth people's conscious' knowing they might not feel pain? It's still an issue of life.I agree that the ability to feel pain is a moot point, although the claims do indeed seem dubious. It would seem to be evident based on the systems that are developed at certain stages. But then, if a moral imperative is the ability to feel pain makes injuring/killing another person wrong, I guess one could cut off everything of a paraplegic who is paralyzed from the neck down and plead innocence because the person felt no pain.

GAC
08-24-2005, 09:50 AM
:clap:

I was reading through a previous response about the woman's decision at the time they had sex. No where does it mention the man's responsibilty.

I was reading through a previous response about the inconvenience to the woman. No where does it discuss the man's responsibility.

I knew this would come up, and I want you to understand TC that I wasn't trying to purposely omit the role/responsibility of some scoundrel men in our society. I readily acknowledge that.

What I was trying to get across is the point that if woman are going to use the strong argument that it's solely an issue of it's their bodies and they alone have control over it (men have no say), then why don't woman exercise that asme type of attitude/control beforehand, and prior to conception?

It's not excusing men for their behavior at all.

registerthis
08-24-2005, 09:58 AM
Neither is a 1 day old infant. Completely different set of standards, Greg. With appropriate care and attention, ALL one-day old infants who are otherwise healthy will survive. There are NO circumstances under which a 3 month old fetus can survive out side of the womb--even the most advanced medical care can't cause that to happen.


I've not used Biblical standards on this thread to support my position. If anyone really wants to learn more, then all they have to do is take the time and effort to research many credible medical journals and resources on prenatal care and fetal development.Well, you're responding to a post I made to TR. And, honestly, I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here. That the 'clump of cells' that is a fetus will one day turn into a fully-grown human being? At what stage in a fetus's development organs are formed? You can present all of the medical references and definitions you want, and I probably won't disagree with any of them. But what you won't find is a Journal which credibly states when, precisely, "life" begins, because science makes no claim on that. We have both stated our positions on this issue, and we simply disagree on them.


But if Jesus were physically walking the good ol' US of A today he'd have plenty of issues with our citizenry (on both the left and the right). But he wouldn't be pro-choice when it came to abortion. Not when he spent a good portion of his ministry defensing those who were weak, helpless, defenseless, and innocent. I think he would treat the abortion issue with the same righteous indignation that he showed those in that temple.I would agree that Jesus would abhor abortion as a form of birth control--as do I. But that isn't the issue here. Would Jesus issue an edict to stop it? Would he encourage the Roman governor to implement a law preventing women from making that choice? Jesus was opposed to many things, but he also allowed for the doctrine of free will--that people are free to make choices. Some choices have repercussions--in this world and the next--but they are still ours to make.


And he'd probably get arrested. ;) Only if he bombed a clinic and killed people.


Here is an excellent slide presentation on the development of that baby, with many medical facts....

http://www.justthefacts.org/clar.asp Again, that's nice and all, but it doesn't change my position on the right of women to make that choice. You're taking the wrong tract here, Greg. You don't need to convince me that abortion is a nasty procedure. Convince me that the government has a right to step in and dictate to a woman what can and cannot happen to her own body. THAT is the issue.


Why do you place the life of a child on the same level of "choice" as that of someone smoking or drinking or whatever? I find that somehow demeaning to that life to lower it's level to that point. Not in the least, as both smoking and drinking result in the deaths of people--both from those who actually smoke and drink, and those who die as a result of someone smoking or drinking. Guns, too, as I've mentioned several times. You can support someone's right to choose to use these things, but not support their actions. It's a fairly straightforward argument.


Yet we want government to be the "hand"/controlling and dictating factor in so many other aspects of our society via regulations/laws. It seems OK to raise the tax on cigarettes to force people to quit smoking. We see government intereference/influence, via restictive and punitive laws,regulation, and taxation that leaves it's citizenry with little "choice". Yet we cringe at them protecting the unborn. I'm all for protecting the unborn--offer counseling, alternatives to abortion, ban third trimester abortions--I'd have no problems with any of those. But what I won't do is have the government dictate a woman's decision in this process.

You're smoking tax example is a fallacy--people still CHOOSE to smoke. The cigarette tax isn't arbitrarily enforced. If you smoke, you pay the tax. It's all fine and well for the government to encourage and offer incentives for people to quit smoking, but it is a problem when they tell you you can't. There is the big difference.

TeamCasey
08-24-2005, 10:01 AM
I knew this would come up.

Sssshhhh ... I purposely didn't use your name, Man!

You're my pal ....... even though we're complete opposites on many of these threads ...... and I want to throw Nerf balls at you sometimes. :laugh:

registerthis
08-24-2005, 10:01 AM
And regardless what you state, or what someone else may print, no evangelical or Republican or conservative believes that the Republican Party is the Party of God. These guys do:

Christian Coalition of America (http://www.cc.org/)

traderumor
08-24-2005, 10:08 AM
Deadbeat dads go to prison for a lot of things--almost never for non-payment of child support.

That should tell you something right there about society's view of the onus placed on men and their responsibility to child-rearing.I've always thought it counterproductive to put a dad in jail for not paying child support, unless they are doing work release and all the money he makes during that time goes for child support. However, in this day and age, I would conjecture (my word for the day ;) ) that for every guy who is not paying child support in Ohio, there are nine who are faithfully paying theirs. Heck, we even got paid in full by my adopted son's deadbeat dad for all of his back child support, who was such a good dad he couldn't wait to sign the papers giving me the rights to adopt him. I would be one of those nine, pay it every week and have only missed any payments during one short period of unemployment (which was caught up subsequently), and I've been divorced for over 10 years. And I don't think I'm the exception. It is not easy to get away with not paying it as it used to be.

traderumor
08-24-2005, 10:20 AM
I might add "What Would Jesus Do" is not relevant as he was of a different nature than man according to the Bible. Since the argument Mutaman is appealing to his status as Jesus the Christ, the Scriptures teach that he was fully God and fully man, so we can't even do everything Jesus did or would do in the first place. We cannot heal the lame, raise the dead, or resurrect ourselves, so to ponder how he would handle this dilemma or that dilemma is not necessarily relevant to his finite followers.

traderumor
08-24-2005, 10:28 AM
Ok, I gave more credit than was due, so revise my rant to 2 of 3 for guys paying child support that are ordered to.

Here's some interesting info (http://jfs.ohio.gov/Ocs/performanceffy.pdf)

BTW, that is a slooooooooooooowwwwwwww link. Stinking government and their cheap servers ;)

Mutaman
08-24-2005, 12:48 PM
But Romans chapter 13 pretty much covers the justification of capital punishment, and the role of government in it. If one reads the previous chapter (12), they find that it is not the role of the individual when wronged to met out justice or take personal vengeance. We are to...

(12:4,5)

I think you guys can find an obscure provision of the bible to justify any position you want to take. Not that I want to get into a n extended discussion with so called Jesus experts, but wasn't Jesus innocent of any crime? Didn't the government execute an innocent man when they crucified him? Doesn't the fact that capital punishment can be applied to innocent people make it illogical and wrong? Isn't the story of Jesus the best example of this.

And how did he feel about tax cuts in war time? Didn't he say render to Caesar that which is Caesar's.? And what was his position on gun control?

Mutaman
08-24-2005, 01:01 PM
I might add "What Would Jesus Do" is not relevant as he was of a different nature than man according to the Bible. Since the argument Mutaman is appealing to his status as Jesus the Christ, the Scriptures teach that he was fully God and fully man, so we can't even do everything Jesus did or would do in the first place. We cannot heal the lame, raise the dead, or resurrect ourselves, so to ponder how he would handle this dilemma or that dilemma is not necessarily relevant to his finite followers.

But I don't believe that the bible is the final word on anything, any more than I believe the Koran is. And I'm not a finite follower of Jesus so his conduct as a man is relevant to me.
The bottom line is don't use your religious beliefs to attempt to convince us non-believers of the correctness of your political arguments. And don't try to convince someone that your political position is correct because thats what Jesus would believe in, and then get upset when someone takes that position to its extreme. Personally, what I remember of my 12 years of Catholic education, has always convinced me that Jesus would support my political beliefs- you might call them liberal. But thats just me.

traderumor
08-24-2005, 01:02 PM
I think you guys can find an obscure provision of the bible to justify any position you want to take. Not that I want to get into a n extended discussion with so called Jesus experts, but wasn't Jesus innocent of any crime? Didn't the government execute an innocent man when they crucified him? Doesn't the fact that capital punishment can be applied to innocent people make it illogical and wrong? Isn't the story of Jesus the best example of this.

And how did he feel about tax cuts in war time? Didn't he say render to Caesar that which is Caesar's.? And what was his position on gun control?Yes, Jesus was actually innocent of committing any crime. However, he was charged with the crime of blasphemy for claiming to be the Son of God. The government did execute an innocent man in Christ's case, although you have to believe that Jesus is the Son of God to support that claim. The government, on the word of the Sanhedrin, was carrying out a valid execution order, in their opinion.

But the Bible does allow for capital punishment by civil government for legitimate capital crimes. Of course, that means nothing with respect to the US government's authority to do so since we do not live in a theocratic kingdom, but it does provide support for a Christian who claims capital punishment is a valid means of justice for certain crimes, which I consider to be limited to taking another life with premeditation.

traderumor
08-24-2005, 01:06 PM
But I don't believe that the bible is the final word on anything, any more than I believe the Koran is. And I'm not a finite follower of Jesus so his conduct as a man is relevant to me.
The bottom line is don't use your religious beliefs to attempt to convince us non-believers of the correctness of your political arguments. And don't try to convince someone that your political position is correct because thats what Jesus would believe in, and then get upset when someone takes that position to its extreme. Personally, what I remember of my 12 years of Catholic education, has always convinced me that Jesus would support my political beliefs- you might call them liberal. But thats just me.Then why did you ask the question "What would Jesus Do?" Your question implied that you understood him to be a valid authority, unless you were simply mocking, which I would have no way of knowing from your post. Otherwise, if you want to invoke his opinion to the discussion, you have to accept his authority, and that is based on Biblical evidence.

RosieRed
08-24-2005, 01:36 PM
I knew this would come up, and I want you to understand TC that I wasn't trying to purposely omit the role/responsibility of some scoundrel men in our society. I readily acknowledge that.

What I was trying to get across is the point that if woman are going to use the strong argument that it's solely an issue of it's their bodies and they alone have control over it (men have no say), then why don't woman exercise that asme type of attitude/control beforehand, and prior to conception?

It's not excusing men for their behavior at all.

GAC, how would a woman do that, exactly? Not ever have sex, because she might get pregnant? Because you know as well as I do that abstinence is the only sure way not to get pregnant. Surely you aren't suggesting all women who don't want to get pregnant should never have sex.



Yes, I do. It implies men are incapable of understanding abortion and feeling the pain that abortion brings because they cannot get pregnant. Of course I disagree with it, but it is a silly thing to even debate since it is not possible. But I will conjecture this. It is at least biologically possible for all women to get pregnant (for sake of argument, exclude those who cannot for reasons other than they are not female), yet there are differing opinions among women regarding abortion. I would imagine the same phenomena would hold true for men. There would be some that believe it is a right and should be allowed to have one for any reason and would have one if they wanted to, there would be some who may believe it is a right but they would not do it as a matter of personal choice, and there would be some who are dead set against it. So yes, that is sexism 101, no different than me telling you "well, you'd think differently about one sex getting paid more than the other for the same job if you were the one getting paid more."

That isn't at all what I said, or meant. In fact, all I said was "If men had the ability to get pregnant, the legality of abortion wouldn't be discussed nearly as much as it is now."

And what I meant by that is I can't see the hypothetically pregnant men in this country standing for someone telling them what they can and can't do in regards to terminating said pregnancy. I think men would want the *choice* ... I never said a word about men being incapable of understanding abortion or feeling pain abortion brings. You somehow infered that from what I wrote.

So, if me thinking men would want the choice is sexist ... well, guess I'm sexist then. :dunno:

Mutaman
08-24-2005, 01:44 PM
Then why did you ask the question "What would Jesus Do?" Your question implied that you understood him to be a valid authority, unless you were simply mocking, which I would have no way of knowing from your post. Otherwise, if you want to invoke his opinion to the discussion, you have to accept his authority, and that is based on Biblical evidence.

Excuse me. The "What would Jesus Do?" criteria was raised by GAC in post 111, which I was responding to. Using the biblical Jesus (or any provision from the bible) to support a political position, is offensive to people like me who don't believe that the bible is the last word on anything. How would you feel if I started quoting Budda or Mohamadd to support my politics in an argument with you? But then as I started writing about it, I began to realize that GAC was wrong. The Biblical Jesus(as I understand him) does support my political beliefs, not his.

traderumor
08-24-2005, 01:55 PM
This "what would Jesus do" criteria has got me thinking:

if Jesus championed the poor and the underdog would he support the Republican party today?

If he spent so much time healing the sick would he be against funding for stem cell research?

If he said "he who is without sin, throw the first stone", would he be in favor of capital punishment?

This Jesus sounds like a hell of a guy. To heck with Hillary, lets elect Jesus.

Christ for President


Let's have Christ our President
Let us have him for our king
Cast your vote for the Carpenter
That they call the Nazarene

The only way
We could ever beat
These crooked politician men

Is to cast the moneychangers
Out of the temple
Put the Carpenter in

Oh it's Jesus Christ our President
God above our king
With a job and pension for young and old
We will make hallelujah ring

Every year we waste enough
To feed the ones who starve
We build our civilization up
And we shoot it down with wars

But with the Carpenter
On the seat
Way up in the capitol town

The USA
Be on the way
Prosperity bound

Woody GuthrieOh, I was mistaken that you really wanted to know the answers to your above questions. Rather, you were just stirring up trouble?

Falls City Beer
08-24-2005, 03:08 PM
GAC, how would a woman do that, exactly? Not ever have sex, because she might get pregnant? Because you know as well as I do that abstinence is the only sure way not to get pregnant. Surely you aren't suggesting all women who don't want to get pregnant should never have sex.




That isn't at all what I said, or meant. In fact, all I said was "If men had the ability to get pregnant, the legality of abortion wouldn't be discussed nearly as much as it is now."

And what I meant by that is I can't see the hypothetically pregnant men in this country standing for someone telling them what they can and can't do in regards to terminating said pregnancy. I think men would want the *choice* ... I never said a word about men being incapable of understanding abortion or feeling pain abortion brings. You somehow infered that from what I wrote.

So, if me thinking men would want the choice is sexist ... well, guess I'm sexist then. :dunno:

You're not sexist. At all. Men control virtually every facet of society, from business to religion, from medicine to law--in light of this fact, it's not the least bit illogical to assume that if the situations were reversed (that men had to have their bodies altered and their lives turned upside down by pregnancy) that men would make sure choice would be available to them. Like I said earlier, society doesn't deem non-payment of child support an imprisonable infraction (yeah, I know there are laws on the books that say men can go to jail, but no one ever really sees time for non-payment, at most, garnishment of wages), so that should tell you the symbolic weight that society places on the man's role in child-care and rearing.

And to those who say it's not a good idea to imprison deadbeat dads, as that prevents them from creating income, I can only say two things: 1. Depending on the state, anywhere from 30-45% of divorcees/deadbeat dads don't pay child support at all (try getting blood from a stone principle) 2. The issue of whether or not we imprison people should be based on more than a utilitarian model (in this case, "it's not practical to imprison deadbeat dads because then they can't earn money"); punishment (in this case, imprisonment) also bears symbolic gravity--it says to society: "this is serious, this will not be tolerated." I think the message that is sent by not imprisoning deadbeat dads but giving mandatory sentencing to, say, pot dealers says quite a bit about our society and its priorities. Don't you?

In short men get the "get out of jail free" card, while women are left "holding the baby." No puns intended of course.

Rojo
08-24-2005, 03:30 PM
I can't resist playing around here but.....

Is it fair to give men no choice. If a woman decides to abort, the man has no say. Fine. She is the one that has to carry the baby. But if she decides to have it, then the guy has to pay support. Again, I don't have the answer here, but this goes to my earlier point about laws not being as grounded in absolute principles as one would think.

Falls City Beer
08-24-2005, 04:16 PM
I can't resist playing around here but.....

Is it fair to give men no choice. If a woman decides to abort, the man has no say. Fine. She is the one that has to carry the baby. But if she decides to have it, then the guy has to pay support. Again, I don't have the answer here, but this goes to my earlier point about laws not being as grounded in absolute principles as one would think.

It's not that men have no choice. Ideally, a couple chooses to have a child together--hence, the "planned" in Planned Parenthood. But absent that arrangement, the choice must by its nature fall to the woman, as virtually every consequence (biological/bodily, emotional, monetary, logistical) falls to the woman as well. The best arrangement is self-sustaining, really: a loving couple decides to have a child together, hence, the desire to terminate pregnancy goes down exponentially; the reverse, then, is all too often the reason for abortion (that, and being sixteen years old).

RosieRed
08-24-2005, 04:45 PM
I can't resist playing around here but.....

Is it fair to give men no choice. If a woman decides to abort, the man has no say. Fine. She is the one that has to carry the baby. But if she decides to have it, then the guy has to pay support. Again, I don't have the answer here, but this goes to my earlier point about laws not being as grounded in absolute principles as one would think.

If guys don't want to pay child support, maybe they shouldn't have sex either.


(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

traderumor
08-24-2005, 05:01 PM
That isn't at all what I said, or meant. In fact, all I said was "If men had the ability to get pregnant, the legality of abortion wouldn't be discussed nearly as much as it is now."

And what I meant by that is I can't see the hypothetically pregnant men in this country standing for someone telling them what they can and can't do in regards to terminating said pregnancy. I think men would want the *choice* ... I never said a word about men being incapable of understanding abortion or feeling pain abortion brings. You somehow infered that from what I wrote.

So, if me thinking men would want the choice is sexist ... well, guess I'm sexist then. :dunno:To which I don't see the connection between the ability to get pregnant and one's stand on abortion, as my previous post pointed out. There are a large number of women who disagree that it should be available, so why would you assume the same would not be the case if men had that ability? After all, it isn't like all men are against having abortion available for all for any reason. It seems on this board, which is predominantly men, that I am in the clear minority, and I don't think any of them can get pregnant, yet here they are, most agreeing with you that abortion should be made available.

Falls City Beer
08-24-2005, 05:06 PM
To which I don't see the connection between the ability to get pregnant and one's stand on abortion, as my previous post pointed out. There are a large number of women who disagree that it should be available, so why would you assume the same would not be the case if men had that ability? After all, it isn't like all men are against having abortion available for all for any reason. It seems on this board, which is predominantly men, that I am in the clear minority, and I don't think any of them can get pregnant, yet here they are, most agreeing with you that abortion should be made available.

That's not exactly scientific. Did you ever think that there's a majority of men just not piping up one way or another in this post, for whatever reason? Or further, that a message board for the Reds is necessarily a representative sampling of male attitudes toward abortion?

westofyou
08-24-2005, 05:13 PM
Or further, that a message board for the Reds is necessarily a representative sampling of male attitudes toward abortion?

From the mouths of babes....

RosieRed
08-24-2005, 05:18 PM
To which I don't see the connection between the ability to get pregnant and one's stand on abortion, as my previous post pointed out. There are a large number of women who disagree that it should be available, so why would you assume the same would not be the case if men had that ability? After all, it isn't like all men are against having abortion available for all for any reason. It seems on this board, which is predominantly men, that I am in the clear minority, and I don't think any of them can get pregnant, yet here they are, most agreeing with you that abortion should be made available.

I don't think I'm making my point very well, based on your responses.

I hear what you're saying though.

traderumor
08-24-2005, 05:19 PM
That's not exactly scientific. Did you ever think that there's a majority of men just not piping up one way or another in this post, for whatever reason? Or further, that a message board for the Reds is necessarily a representative sampling of male attitudes toward abortion?Do you mean as scientific as Rosie's claim that you are supporting?

Falls City Beer
08-24-2005, 05:35 PM
Do you mean as scientific as Rosie's claim that you are supporting?

Rosie's conjecture (that if the situations were reversed, men would have choice available to them) is at least founded on the bedrock that men call the shots, say what's fair, etc.

Rojo
08-24-2005, 07:35 PM
If guys don't want to pay child support, maybe they shouldn't have sex either.


(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

But that's the same argument people make against legalized abortion.

GAC
08-24-2005, 09:24 PM
GAC, how would a woman do that, exactly? Not ever have sex, because she might get pregnant? Because you know as well as I do that abstinence is the only sure way not to get pregnant. Surely you aren't suggesting all women who don't want to get pregnant should never have sex.

Simply going on medically scientific fact here Rosie. sperm + egg = baby. If one is not present then it is an impossibility. I'm stating if those who are single or married, and don't want to create that child, along with the responsibilty it brings, then they need to take those steps necessary to insure it doesn't happen. Many couples in this country, including my wife and I, have done exactly that. And I don't accept this logic that just because some are not as responsibile as the others we need to provide them with an alternative - abortion. And when conception does occur, the answer is not to discard that baby in a dumpster because we don't want the inconvenience and responsibility. Take that responsibility beforehand.

I fully understand that the sex act is a sensual and beautiful thing. IMO, that is the way God intended it to be. And I know we will differ on this, but it's sole intent was between a husband and wife and for procreation. The end result is that children (our progeny) are created.

To many, abortion is the solution to the procreation "problem" while keeping the enjoyment aspect intact while also escaping responsibilty. Its simply like playing Russian roulette - except we point the gun at the innocent child conceived.


And what I meant by that is I can't see the hypothetically pregnant men in this country standing for someone telling them what they can and can't do in regards to terminating said pregnancy. I think men would want the *choice* ... I never said a word about men being incapable of understanding abortion or feeling pain abortion brings. You somehow infered that from what I wrote.

That response, about feeling pain, was in direct response to RBA's posting of that article on not feeling pain, not you Rosie. Where did I infer in my response to you otherwise?


So, if me thinking men would want the choice is sexist ... well, guess I'm sexist then. :dunno:

Did I say anywhere that it was sexist?

RosieRed
08-24-2005, 09:45 PM
^ GAC, I wasn't replying to you when I wrote those second and third items you quoted.

Just to clarify.

traderumor
08-24-2005, 09:50 PM
Rosie's conjecture (that if the situations were reversed, men would have choice available to them) is at least founded on the bedrock that men call the shots, say what's fair, etc.And that you agree with her, which is the only standard something has to pass.

Falls City Beer
08-24-2005, 10:03 PM
And that you agree with her, which is the only standard something has to pass.

Well, yeah. I hope I'd defend a position I agree with. :confused:

traderumor
08-24-2005, 10:41 PM
Well, yeah. I hope I'd defend a position I agree with. :confused:Don't be so confused. The idea was that agreeing with you is the only standard of truth you recognize. The possibility that you may have chosen a bogus position never seems to enter your mind.

Falls City Beer
08-24-2005, 11:01 PM
Don't be so confused. The idea was that agreeing with you is the only standard of truth you recognize. The possibility that you may have chosen a bogus position never seems to enter your mind.

Shouldn't that make you feel better, that I'm so self-deluded?

RosieRed
08-24-2005, 11:29 PM
Don't be so confused. The idea was that agreeing with you is the only standard of truth you recognize. The possibility that you may have chosen a bogus position never seems to enter your mind.

Is saying that "men call the shots, say what's fair, etc." a bogus position?

CrackerJack
08-24-2005, 11:29 PM
Because, like sex, driving in a car might kill someone just like sex might get someone pregnant, maybe we should abstain from driving?

Maybe we should not fight clearly non-defensive wars because innocent children will be killed, and take responsibility for our actions? Or are their lives okay to take, to sacrifice, even though they have no choice either? You can't play God and at the same time fear it.

If God is so almighty powerful, don't you think he/she/it could've simply created a situation in the human body that made it fatal for the mother if she tried to abort? If zero tolerance of abortion were that important to God? I think that would be pretty easy considering all the other miracles and incredible complexities and balances of nature.

I don't believe in late or mid-term abortions, or even anything over a month ideally, and hope that we get there some day soon as a minimum - abortion is not a good thing and is not something even pro-lifers advocate or champion.

God gave us free will, to choose when to give and take life from the womb, God gave us the ability to use contraceptives, and left it up to US, if you believe in a God.

Whatever choice a mother makes with what is inside her body is her's and her's alone.

Abortion is a sad reality of life, and a necessary one for now if we don't want to completely choke ourselves to death with overpopulation and poverty. Just as sad and wrong as war, disease, and car accidents.

You can keep asking people to not have sex and raise criminals and fall into poverty, or deal with the problem realistically and hope that education and science, like so many other things, creates a better world where some day it is hardly, if ever, necessary.

I think it's about being part of the solution and not the problem - if God can forgive you for supporting wars via tax dollars and moral support that kill innocent children and civilians, then opposing abortion for purely Biblical reasons is futile and blatantly hypocritical. Life is precious in it's entirety, not one more than another - and people who are killed by errant bombs are no more given a choice than a fertile egg that's aborted or miscarried.

This is not aimed at anyone in particular - but the general consensus of pro-lifers, it's just how I feel and know those people mean well, but that doesn't excuse them from criticism. I would much rather people do constructive things to fix the problem, and accept that people aren't going to ever follow your strict Biblical ways, than condemn and doom people to hell and judge them. Do something that, God forbid it involves scientific methods or compromising for the good of the whole, works toward eliminating the need for this procedure. It's easy to condemn and point fingers, anyone can do that.

GAC
08-25-2005, 08:08 AM
^ GAC, I wasn't replying to you when I wrote those second and third items you quoted.

Just to clarify.

np Rosie - I still luv ya! ;)

But you threw this old man for a loop, because I was going back and re-reading what I posted - "did I really say that?"

It's possible - the mind is a terrible thing to waste! :lol:

GAC
08-25-2005, 08:11 AM
If guys don't want to pay child support, maybe they shouldn't have sex either.


(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

I agree wholeheartedly. As a wise man once told me - alot of times, men think with the wrong head. ;)

GAC
08-25-2005, 08:24 AM
Is saying that "men call the shots, say what's fair, etc." a bogus position?

I'd like to see the women calling the shots in this instance - as far as taking the chance of conceiving a baby is concerned. I'm not trying to put the burden on the woman, because we all know the intentions of alot of men out there.

I'm simply implying to the women - TAKE CHARGE! Especially if the chances are good that guy is irresponsible or not gonna take the responsibility if a child is conceived. Believe me, in that sense, I am very sympathetic to the woman's plight in that situation.

I'm alot older now, and when I look at this younger generation, even when compared to my generation of the 60's which lived by the mantra of "love the one you're with", I see a far greater attitude of irresponsibility and accountability when it comes to the arena of sexual activity. And we are paying the cost.

I look at how sex is marketed in just about everything we see. It seems everything centers around it. And the pressures seem to be harder on this generation then previous IMO.

traderumor
08-25-2005, 10:08 AM
Shouldn't that make you feel better, that I'm so self-deluded?No, and I'm sorry for the potshot. The whole issue about whether or not my "polling" of RZ was scientific just seems a bit misplaced considering the nature of debates on this board. However, is it fair to say, that of the men who post in these types of threads, that there are a predominance of posters supporting "choice" and only a few "lifers" like myself defending the other side, as a general rule? That is all I was saying.

traderumor
08-25-2005, 10:18 AM
Is saying that "men call the shots, say what's fair, etc." a bogus position?I wasn't really referring to this specific issue with FCB, but to give you an answer, that would depend on the issue and the environment one finds themselves in. But that is a very, very broad generalization. I wouldn't sell women that short in their influence in our culture. While women are by no means "running the show" from a big picture perspective, there has been substantial progress in that area in just my lifetime.

For example, there is a woman "calling the shots" at UC right now :evil: