Abortion

[01solara]

Well, we are what our ancestors made us... carnivorous not just herbivores. Also, cows should be (at least predominantly) grass-fed, not corn-fed. Eh, regardless...

I'd love to spearhead a national movement to get those anything-to-oil productions going, and not just this focus on ethanol.

As with everything else now energy policy and especially farm policy and they are both linked now are much more about securing votes than what is in the best interest of the country.

 

[JB3]

As with everything else now energy policy and especially farm policy and they are both linked now are much more about securing votes than what is in the best interest of the country.

Eh. I'd agree about that to some extent, but it also keeps the needs of everyday americans in the heartland in play in Washington politics so that the more liberal agenda of the coasts doesn't take hold of the national agenda. It acts as a sort of check to make sure that the needs of most americans are actually being met. (in most cases. I would agree that in the area of subsidies that influence has been completely abused)

 

[Kurn]

It doesn't appear that way to all people. If you are to be successful in persuasion, you must find some other route. Believe me, each side has their own "basic facts." Some would say the basic fact is the fetus is an individual with a right to see to life outside the womb.

If the fetus must go, the fetus must go.

I am not saying abortion should be frequent.
I only maintain that it's the woman's business and nobody else's, unless she allows them to be involved. I also maintain that that is the preferable legal resolution over-all.

The Catholic Church is entitled to prescribe its rules to its members and so on.
People can publicize all they want about abortion alternatives.
But as settled law in America, it must be the woman's decision and no one else's.

 

[Kurn]

The issue here is much more fundamental to the definition of what makes a human a human, and when the protections of the constitution take effect. This debate is still ongoing, and its a healthy one to have. There is no right or wrong answer; there is only a 'better' and a 'worse' one.

A human is a socially and biologically complex creature. An embryo is human ab initio.
But an adult human is a being that learns, that interacts, that teaches, that progenates, that votes, is a being that is more human than an embryo.

The protections of the Constitution should have no bearing upon this question. The woman's womb is sacrosanct. With respect thereunto, the Law should obey the woman's voice, not the other way around. Over time this would normalize the relations involved and encourage and optimize moral choice. And that can happen in no other way.

 

[Kurn]

I don't believe there is such a thing as "New Testament-Legal reasoning" -- the NT isn't about law, but about love and sacrifice, which means putting others ahead of yourself. So as for Jesus, He would most likely recommend that the mother carry the child to term, even if it meant her life -- after all, that's the example He gave, laying down His life for us all.

Jesus would say: "God gave life-giving to Eve. In every way you might persecute Woman but for these matters leave her to her own wisdom."

 

[JB3]

A human is a socially and biologically complex creature. An embryo is human ab initio.
But an adult human is a being that learns, that interacts, that teaches, that progenates, that votes, is a being that is more human than an embryo.

The protections of the Constitution should have no bearing upon this question. The woman's womb is sacrosanct. With respect thereunto, the Law should obey the woman's voice, not the other way around. Over time this would normalize the relations involved and encourage and optimize moral choice. And that can happen in no other way.

If it has no bearing then Roe V. Wade is null and void and abortion is murder. You are, I'm sure, aware of the legal gymnastics that went into making that ruling, aren't you?

 

[Kurn]

The Constitution has no bearing and should have no bearing because the charge of childbearing in all its aspects is naturally germane to the body of the woman.

Roe v. Wade was necessary to coax our nation out of barbarism. We are a free nation peopled by free citizens. Ergo, Roe v. Wade is a restoration of the natural right and prerogative of the woman.

Pre-Roe v. Wade and abortion prohibition are an abomination. They are a medieval abomination that we are well rid of.

 

[JB3]

The Constitution has no bearing and should have no bearing because the charge of childbearing in all its aspects is naturally germane to the body of the woman.

Roe v. Wade was necessary to coax our nation out of barbarism. We are a free nation peopled by free citizens. Ergo, Roe v. Wade is a restoration of the natural right and prerogative of the woman.

Pre-Roe v. Wade and abortion prohibition are an abomination. They are a medieval abomination that we are well rid of.

Except childbearing is not exclusively a female's domain. A woman cannot get pregnant without sperm. If the father would like to be involved, and would like the mother to have the child, he should have a say.

 

[opinterph]

... A woman cannot get pregnant without sperm. If the father would like to be involved, and would like the mother to have the child, he should have a say.

Delivering sperm is hardly a warrant to control another person’s body.

I think a man has a right/obligation to be involved with the welfare of whatever sperm is situated within his own body. Only to the extent that he succeeds in convincing others to nurture his sperm, post ejaculation, may he have a say in their disposition. If he wants them to become his offspring, he needs to do much more than simply spill them into a warm moist place.

 

[JB3]

Delivering sperm is hardly a warrant to control another person’s body.

I think a man has a right/obligation to be involved with the welfare of whatever sperm is situated within his own body. Only to the extent that he succeeds in convincing others to nurture his sperm, post ejaculation, may he have a say in their disposition. If he wants them to become his offspring, he needs to do much more than simply spill them into a warm moist place.

See, but that's what I'm saying. What if a man wants to be there to support the child, but the woman wants an abortion? Does the man's right to see the sperm grow into a child end just because the woman is the one carrying the child? Because that's essentially what Kurn is saying.

 

[ABoyNamedSue]

Droid if you were the was carrying the child and you didn't want it but the woman did how are you going to react.

 

[opinterph]

... What if a man wants to be there to support the child... ?

IMO, that assurance is best demonstrated prior to ejaculation. Childbearing is ideally an outcome which derives from an agreement of partnership. Sperm, as such, is nothing more than a by-product of sexual excitement.

 

[JB3]

Droid if you were the was carrying the child and you didn't want it but the woman did how are you going to react.

I'd be pissed, as I'm sure many women in that situation are. But the woman didn't get pregnant on her own. If the father is willing to be involved, and even take the child off the women's hands if she doesn't want it, why shouldn't he have a say?

Even if the child was an accident, if either of the parents wants to have it and take care of it, don't they have the right to have their opinion heard?

In my opinion, its not her decision alone to make in a situation like that.

 

[Just_Believe18]

I am apathetic about the issue for abortion.

I do not like the concept; however, I would not put a law against a woman for wanting one.

 

[Spensed]

Even if the child was an accident, if either of the parents wants to have it and take care of it, don't they have the right to have their opinion heard?

Firstly, we're not talking about a child. Secondly, while the guy or whoever can make his views known, he has no right to coerce someone into continuing a process that now involves only her body and not his.

Argue all you want, there's simply no consensus on this issue. It's not like theft, where not even the thieves claim that theft is right. That being the case, it's not an area for legislation and forcing one group view on another.

To repeat the bumper sticker: Against abortion? Don't have one.

 

[Kulindahr]

Delivering sperm is hardly a warrant to control another person’s body.

Neither is having a uterus -- which is why the essential point is to lay down a definition of when personhood begins.

 

[ABoyNamedSue]

I do not think it would be possible to even get an agreement on when life begins. Some would say as soon as the sperm hits the eggs, others would say as soon as the baby could live indepenently outside of the body, and others woudl say at first breathe, and so on and so fourth. It would be near impossible to form an agreemtn on when personhood begings.

 

[geoffmontgomery]

i am a biologist and have had to take biomedical ethics courses...the generally accepted theory upon people in the science profession agree that the fetus is not a sentient being...meaning it may have nerve cells forming and a heartbeat, but it cannot respond to stimuli and has no interests. If a being has no interests of their own, we are not required to consider them, because they have none. Even in late stage abortions (which i do not condone), the fetus is not the same as a newborn infant, until the fetus is expelled from the uterus, its heart valves have not closed, the mother is still breathing for it, and the fetus is not responding to pain. Hence, abortion may be a moral issue it is not morally unjust to disregard a fetus' feelings, because they have none.

 

[Kulindahr]

I do not think it would be possible to even get an agreement on when life begins. Some would say as soon as the sperm hits the eggs, others would say as soon as the baby could live indepenently outside of the body, and others woudl say at first breathe, and so on and so fourth. It would be near impossible to form an agreemtn on when personhood begings.

But from our understanding of when death occurs, it all hinges around a functioning brain: no brain, nobody home -- but brain up and running, then there's a person. So there's no real trouble in setting a point after which we are certain. We can say, "Before this point, we don't know -- after this point, there's a person".

i am a biologist and have had to take biomedical ethics courses...the generally accepted theory upon people in the science profession agree that the fetus is not a sentient being...meaning it may have nerve cells forming and a heartbeat, but it cannot respond to stimuli and has no interests. If a being has no interests of their own, we are not required to consider them, because they have none. Even in late stage abortions (which i do not condone), the fetus is not the same as a newborn infant, until the fetus is expelled from the uterus, its heart valves have not closed, the mother is still breathing for it, and the fetus is not responding to pain. Hence, abortion may be a moral issue it is not morally unjust to disregard a fetus' feelings, because they have none.

Let's see...

they react to music...
they react to the mother's moods...
they dream...

As for feeling pain, I just reviewed a batch of articles online, and the conclusions are mixed; the only consensus I saw was that during the first trimester the fetus does not feel pain; after that, there's little agreement until the third trimester, when there's agreement that there's a pain response.

 

[bankside]

From the Annals of the Improbable file:

If a man is sexually assaulted by a woman, could a woman be reasonably compelled to carry a resulting fœtus to term if the man wished to raise the child?