The problem with the Abortion debate

[CTLawGuy]

Abortion is obviously extremely polarizing. The reason is that the two sides fail to agree on one fact underlying the debate: whether a fetus is a human being.

Most debates that are not as polarizing turn on a question of values, where the underlying facts are agreed upon. For example, dems and pugs disagree on tax cuts, but they agree on the crucial underlying facts: tax cuts entail people paying less money to the government, people as a result have more money, and government has less money. Whether that is a good things depends on the values of the respective parties. Dems like more social programs, so they don't like tax cuts, pugs like paying less taxes, so they favor tax cuts.

Abortion is different. To a Dem, the underlying facts of an abortion is that a fetus is only a potential life and is part of her body, and a woman prevents it from becoming alive by aborting it. To a pug, a fetus is an independent human being who has rights, and a woman kills it when she has an abortion.

Where the parties agree on the underlying facts, compromise can be had. For tax cuts, since both parties are on the same page, they can bargain for an acceptable level of tax cuts for both, where each will get at least some of what they want. (assuming both parties can act in good faith. *cough* Republicans! *cough*)

The difference in facts on the abortion debate leads to extreme polarization, where Dems think Pugs want to control and dominate women, and where pugs think women who have abortions are willful murderers. There is no compromise possible because each side's (at least extremists) refuse to acknowledge that the other's interpretation of the facts is legitimate or even in good faith.

Why would a pro-choicer ever allow the state to abridge a woman's right to personal choices about her body, even a little?
Why would an anti-choicer ever condone or tolerate the willful murder of a human being?

No compromise.

Let's see what might happen if the two sides agreed on the life status of a fetus:

If pro-choicers agreed that a fetus was a person, they would consent to abortion being illegal in most cases. They would press hard on contraception, sex education, alternatives to abortion, but fight to allow that right to remain in an emergency situation. They would fight to keep women out of the situation where they'd need to have an abortion. But under this, each side could get what they want: women not forced to be parents (at least on a wide scale), and a minimum of abortions.

(If you don't buy this above analysis, ask yourself whether your position on abortion really doesn't turn on your belief that a fetus is not a person? Would you allow a mother to kill her born infant becuase she doesn't want to be a parent? Of course not, an infant is a living person. A zygote is not.)

If anti-choicers believed that a fetus was not a person, but had a moral objection to snuffing out potential life, they would be less militant about criminalizing abortion (since it is not technically murder) but would be more open to exploring alternative ways to prevent the need for abortion, such as some of the remedies suggested above. The same result is reached: anti-chiocers get a minimum of abortions, even if they are legal, and women have the right to refuse parenthood.

Thus, if both agreed on the facts, a compromise could be reached that could prevent the constant tug of war and polarization over abortion.


Im not saying that we should believe a fetus is alive for the sake of compromise. I'm saying the key to winning and keeping the right to an abortion is to convince the public of the underlying fact as we see them, that a fetus is not alive.

Right now both sides talk past each other, making assumptions that the other side does not agree with. That will go nowhere.

We defeat them by defeating their worldview.

[BOSSHOG]

1. Fetus or not

The religiously insane are dealing with something that belongs to someone else and they want to "protect" "it" until "it" is born. Then given the opportunity they'd love to indoctrinate that child in their hate.

It should not matter what someone "believes" constitutes life except to the mother.

[CTLawGuy]

2. not meaning to be antagonistic

rather to provoke thought: but:

do you think a mother should be allowed to declare her born infant "not alive" and kill it. Does what is alive turn on what its mother thinks?

[BOSSHOG]

7. More importantly

I do not believe what you or I or anyone else might think should determine a pregnant woman's actions.

I'm not quite clear on your quesition. If the baby is already born, no the mother should not kill the baby without legal ramifications. There is no ambiguity about whether a child is actually a live being after being born.

Wording in the recently passed Mississippi's anti-abortion bill states that abortions will be "allowed" in the cases of incest and rape. Who the hell are those yahoos to determine what medical practice will be allowed on a patient?

[CTLawGuy]

9. the point of my question is

they believe a fetus is no different than an infant. You think they are different. They won't hear your arguments unless you can convince them a fetus is not alive.

[BOSSHOG]

14. What they "believe"

is totally fucking irrelevant to the United States of America. Their belief is based on religion, there is no organized religion in America. They do not need to be convinced about anything except the Constitution is the law of the land. I don't care if they won't hear my arguments. I know I'm proving your point, but as my sig line says, I didn't spend 24 years in uniform defending the bible.

[CTLawGuy]

19. im glad you spent 24 years in uniform defending our Constitution

what they believe is relevant to them, and attacking that is the key to winning people to our side.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

25. my argument is that the zygote is not a viable human being

A zygote can't exist outside the womb. A zygote doesn't even look human. But all you hear from these folks is that you are killing a baby. I've tried talking to them, but they basically stick their fingers in their ears and say "bla bla bla bla".

[madeline_con]

45. What about the post zygote stages, when it does look human?n/t

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

53. For them, it won't make a difference

For me-well, it doesn't make it a viable human being if it can't survive outside the womb. We will still disagree, only they will become even shriller in their beliefs.

[proud2BlibKansan]

105. It also looks like a worm at some stages n/t

[Yupster]

109. With all due respect darboy,

the idea of convincing someone that a fetus is not alive is a non--starter, and it is nonsensical to boot.

My kid was born via Caesarian. I was right there the whole time. The doctor took an ultrasound to see which way the limbs were going so he'd know just where to cut.

I saw my son's arms and legs and face etc, and then the doctor cut and there he was. Now are you saying that you're going to convince me that what I saw was not my son 15 seconds before he was born?

You're not going to try to make that argument are you darboy?

If you concede the point that the fetus is alive one minute before birth, which you must concede, then what about one day before, and one week before, and one month before.

It's a completely lost argument, and I'm pro-choice.

So what's a better argument?

That abortion is a case where two rights cross each other. Is there someplace where majorities of people of good will on both sides can reach compromise? Perhaps fetal viability would get a majority of each side?

Either way though you're not going to get the extremes of either side agreeing with any compromise. I believe most people are somewhere in the middle though and there's where a compromise can be reached.

[KittyWampus]

122. Hmm, I would say fetus is alive but not capable of supporting a human

individual's consciousness until the brain and nervous system progress past a certain point.

Just as four sticks and a split log will not support a person as a chair until the four sticks are securely attached to the plank.

[MadMaddie]

3. I think that you have a noble idea....

You have made the assumption that these repugs will be willing to sit down and discuss the issues. They are absolute in their belief and they will not waver...

I think that this has been one of the Democratic Achilles heel....We want to believe that everyone is rational and that everyone is willing to open their minds and take in new ideas and views and mull them over and form an oppinion....They are not like us...They do not believe in science...they are afraid of ideas and free thought.

The issue of abortion needs to be taken up a level from where the discussion is about whether the zygote is life or not...It needs to move up to a womens right to privacy...I think that is the flaw in Roe vs Wade...


<snip>
If anti-choicers believed that a fetus was not a person, but had a moral objection to snuffing out potential life, they would be less militant about criminalizing abortion (since it is not technically murder) but would be more open to exploring alternative ways to prevent the need for abortion, such as some of the remedies suggested above.

Thus, if both agreed on the facts, a compromise could be reached that could prevent the constant tug of war and polarization over abortion.
<snip>

[atreides1]

4. You have a point

But you just forgot something, the anti-choicers don't believe in any form of contraception, because to them it's still an abortion, the only sex education they have faith in is abstinence, and as we have seen from the law that was just past in South Dakota and the one that is making it's way through the Mississippi legislature, the only emergency situatino that they believe in, is when the life of the mother is in danger.

Personally as a man I'm not going to tell a woman what she can and can't do regarding her body, and unlike those anti-choicers in South Dakota and Mississippi I don't believe that rape and incest is a good thing.

[BOSSHOG]

12. FYI

The MS legislature changed the wording of the bill to "allow" abortion in cases of rape or incest. But the vote was incredibly close. One advocate of the anti-abortion bill opposed allowing abortion for rape and incest by saying "God does not make mistakes." Insane bastards.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

41. Is that really true?

I was under the impression only the Roman Catholics were opposed to birth control? I know the protestant fundamentalists are against premarital sex, but within marriage I thought birth control was okay.

[mmonk]

5. My argument is basically the following

I am against the state forcing women to carry pregnancies to term. I am against the state forcing women underground to get an abortion in unsafe and unclean conditions as I believe that is brutalizing women. See? I didn't get into the argument about when human life begins or anything that would engage that polarizing discussion and my reasons were clear and concise on why I support the right to legal and safe abortion.

[CTLawGuy]

6. and anti-choicers will say

"i'm against murder, you are for murder"

you've accomplished nothing unless you can sway people about when life begins.

[mmonk]

11. They are emotion based

and I won't go there, I'll walk. I know a blastocyst will become a human being if left alone in the womb. I think its crazy to give it rights at that point though. Even the human body aborts through miscarriage. To outlaw abortion does more harm than good I would say, especially given that statistically, societies where abortion is legal, ironically, the rate is lower. It wouldn't be good or a benefit to society to lock up women over this nor make it go away.

[CTLawGuy]

24. our side is extremely emotion based too

look at some of the abortion threads around here.

[mmonk]

76. Saying people are for murder is about as emotion based

as it gets and shuts down rational and civil discussion about whether a society is served well by banning abortion.

[CTLawGuy]

94. absolutely true

and so is saying that banning abortion is part of their plot to press women into slavery,

See you have one side that thinks the other are murderers and the other side that thinks the first use it as an excuse to hate and oppress women.

Very hard to come to a lasting solution under those circumstances.

The result is that abortion rights will be constantly under attack and might be taken away, and after a while be brought back. and so on and so on. There'll be no permanent policy.

[mmonk]

148. While some may say things that give an

impression they think women are subservient to men while holding an anti-abortion stance, I never approach it that way in that I know there are people that genuinely feel they are saving people from murder or wrongful death without having that outlook. I used to be against abortion at one time (surprised?). But I thought it over from a practicality standpoint and now support abortion rights. So you see, I've looked at it from both angles.

[NoAmericanTaliban]

8. It is a control issue by religious fundamentalist

who believe in spreading the seed because that is God's will & it will increase membership in their religion or race(remember Hitler's aryan womens camps). A means of control over women who are viewed as property. These same 'culture of life' folks do not believe in contraception or sex education - look at the abstinence program taught in schools for example. It wasn't too long ago that you couldn't even buy contraceptives. That is what they mean by the culture war. If it were up to them, male masturbation would be a crime. If the religious right were sincere they would try to do things to prevent a pregnancy to begin with - but that's not their motivation. Once the child is born they do nothing to help the mother. In fact they do the opposite by fear-mongering about 'welfare' queens & are cutting funding for most health & support policies for mothers & children.

An irony I've observed is the anti-illegal immigration attitude the RR has. Most immigrants are from Mexico & other Catholic countries who have a high birth-rate & do not believe in contraception or abortions. You would think that they would be pleased to have them in the US, but noooo...
Could it be more of an anti-Catholic than anti-immigration. I'm always amazed when some of my catholic relatives vote for religious right candidates.

What ever happended to the gop mantra of getting gov't out of our lives. That seems to be the last thing they are interested in. What hypocrates!

[CTLawGuy]

13. I think that

"Abortion is murder" would win out over any other consideration they have. That is our stumbling block in this fight. To get around that mantra.

[mmonk]

18. Tell them the death penalty is murder. Tell them war

is murder. Is that not technically true?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

39. Yes, and the Catholic Church

is against all three.

[mmonk]

75. True, they are consistent.

My point is most fundamentalists and most anti-abortion groups are not consistent, however.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

100. I agree and that makes no sense to me

because life is life and death is death.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. The pro-preggers regard pregnancy as punishment for sin.

Naughty ladies have to be punished for enjoying sex by being forced to have a child.

It's not about abortion. If that were the case the pro-pregs would be demanding sex-education, contraception on demand, and just plain common sense about sex. Instead they promote "abstinence", a solution that hasn't worked since Adam and Eve discovered that the plumbing had other uses besides watering the flowers.

[CTLawGuy]

16. Do you have any statements of theirs that back up your assertion?

" Naughty ladies have to be punished for enjoying sex by being forced to have a child."

Im pretty sure the whole 'the fetus is alive' thing plays a much bigger part.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. Try these.

"Nothing about contraception should be taught in schools. There is no question that it will encourage sexual activity." (Phyllis Schlafly, New York Times, 10/17/92)

" feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." (Fundraising letter from Pat Robertson that was an in-kind contribution to the Iowa Committee to Stop ERA, as reported in The Washington Post, August 23, 1993)

"All wickedness is but little to the wickedness of a woman." (Apocrypha. Ecclesiasticus 7:26)
"Women...have but small and narrow chests, and broad hips, to the end that they should remain at home, sit still, keep house, and bear and bring up children." (Martin Luther)

"I think contraception is disgusting -- people using each
other for pleasure."
- Joe Schneider
Director: Pro Life Action League
August 1985

"Technical advances permit women to avoid conception for
continuation of pregnancy. Women pay dearly for this non-freedom.
First, they become slaves of their erotic sensuality, they are easily
by the male of the species, they truely become sexual toys, and their
de-naturalization now transforms them into nothing more than large
semen containers."
- J.C. Espinosa
"Birth Control, Why are they
Lying to Women" 1980

"We are totally opposed to abortion under any circumstances.
We are also opposed to abortifacient drugs and chemicals like the pill
and the IUD, and we are also opposed to all forms of birth control
with the exception of natural family planning (the rhythm method)"
Judie Brown, President
American Life Lobby
New York Times
October 6, 1985

"The argument that making contraceptives available to young
people would prevent teen pregnancy is ridiculous. Thats like offering
a cookbook as a cure to people who are trying to lose weight."

- Rev Jerry Falwell, pres.
Moral Majority - Liberty Fnd.

On Sexuality Education:

"Sex education classes are like in-home sales parties for
abortions."

"The facts of life can be told in 15 minutes."

"Just tell them to keep your hands out of what's inside your
swimsuits -- that takes care of most girls and boys."

"Its very healthy for a young girl to be deterred from
promiscuity by fear of contracting a painful, incurable disease, or
cervical cancer, or sterility, or the likelihood of giving birth to a
dead, blind, or brain-damaged baby (even 10 years later when she may
be happily married)
- All of these were stated by
Phyllis Schlafly, President
Eagle Forum

"There is nothing loving about sex."

"Having sex without horniness is a greater expression of
love."
"Sex is self-satisfying, but not meant for pleasure."

-Fr. Paul Marx
Human Life International Symposium
on Human Sexuality

[CTLawGuy]

90. none of those are QUITE on point but

they do point out how stupid they are.

This is the closest to your point:

"Its very healthy for a young girl to be deterred from
promiscuity by fear of contracting a painful, incurable disease, or
cervical cancer, or sterility, or the likelihood of giving birth to a
dead, blind, or brain-damaged baby (even 10 years later when she may
be happily married)

but this talks about how the bad consequences of sex should deter it. We might actually say the same thing in the safe-sex context (except for the "give birth in 10 years part", I don't know WTF shes talking about there)

Most of those quotes say that RWers believe the nonsense that contraception encourages sexual activity, which is not the same as saying giving birth is a punishment for that sexual activity.

[madeline_con]

47. I've read that, too.

On a msg board I used to frequent.

[Minnesota Libra]

15. As long as liberals allow neocons to set the terminology.......

....on the abortion issue liberals WILL ALWAYS loose the debate.

Let me say at the outset that as a female I DO NOT agree with abortion on demand. I'm not going to even touch the issue of whether the fetus is a human being or not. I am against abortion on demand just as much as I am against the death penalty being so widely used (ex: Texas). The death penalty as well as abortion has its place in our society but should be used with GREAT RESTRAINT.

Even if the above is observed women will have to take back the debate on abortion as strictly a female issue if they ever hope to have any success at all. If women do this, then and only then will abortion become the permanent law of the land. No I'm not saying that men don't or shouldn't have a say in whether their significant other has an abortion or not. What I'm saying is when women DEMAND that those men AND WOMEN who are strictly against abortion have vasectomies or have their tubes permanently cut and tied then and only then will the issue be instantly changed. Men, at that point, will change the issue to one of "under what conditions are vasectomies and abortions needed.

[phylny]

77. The phrase you use, "abortion on demand," is a right-wing propaganda

phrase.

Makes it sound like a woman wakes up and says, 'Hmm, let's see - I have to pick up my drycleaning, get my nails done, and...I DEMAND that someone give me an abortion today!"

What on earth do you mean by "on demand"? And how are we going to decide who gets one?

[kenny blankenship]

17. The religiously insane believe that "the soul" is joined to the body

"at conception" when sperm meets egg. They are strongly pushed to believe this because of the prior doctrine that the soul lives on after death, without any material support from the body. You are never going to change their minds about what the status of life is. It doesn't matter that the fetus at stage n has no central nervous system, let alone consciousness; they think there is a human soul in there all the way back to the moment the condom leaked. I would like to stress that the afterlife of the soul is the important doctrine, it has no scientific or otherwise rational support whatsoever of course. And it's also very important to note that there is no political or legal battle being waged over this afterlife doctrine, neither over its particulars or its consequences. It is inert because it has no rational content. It cannot be tested. You can't make assertions about it and then argue the merits of the assertions--any assertion you could make about the afterlife of the soul is equally vacant. However there is this indirect means by which believers can entice/coerce other believers and non-believers into having an argument about their doctrine of the soul. By fighting for a legal definition of life which is upon examination will be found to be wholly dependent on the religious concept of a soul, fundamentalosts can feel they are gaining a victory for their view of the afterlife. If the state declares (under their political pressure) that the soul exists and that the soul exists even when there is no sufficient material basis for it to exist before birth, then the miracle occurs: the idea that the soul exists after death when the material basis of the body rots away is no longer absurd. That is what's at stake psychologically for them in this battle--the whole enchilada of their religious delusion complex. They seek to deny death. That's why they care so much about this--if they can impose their religious concept of the soul on a medical and legal situation, then their belief system and the possibility of their personal immortality gains a kind of external, legal "proof". It has made an imprint on the world they can see; it finally MATTERS. Thanks to abortion the doctrine of the soul gains substance, becoming something that can be fought out in the temporal world (which is the world that, as believers, they're not supposed to care about) and thus sheds its unbelievable and stale theological wrappings and transforms into something that they can at last feel as real. (Paradoxically if they ever win this battle they will suffer the loss of their struggle for meaning) This feeling of violent struggle and hatred acted out through politics and terrorism, in turn functions as the guarantee of their resurrection and redemption, the guarantee that these promised events are real and will happen, which are otherwise experienced as meaningless concepts since they have a strictly theoretical existence. Abortion makes them real.

In short, if abortion didn't exist Christians would need to invent it.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

40. That is the most intellectual explanation for what I think of as a very

basic concept that I have ever heard! Wow.

But it is not just Christians who don't allow abortions.

[napi21]

20. Approaching the abortion argument on when life begines is a looser!

You will NEVER change anyone's mind of that. It's a significant part of their religious beliefs, and that WILL NEVER CHANGE!

I suggest the argument be approached from a different side. There is ONE thing I think everyone can agree on, and that is every human has a "free will". As far as I know, every religion of any denomination believes that, and although others may label it different (rights, liberties, freedoms) they still believe that. In the abortion issue, the "State" is attempting to control an individual's Free Will. Some may well believe it's a sin, and they are certainly free to try to convince others that they are right, but the "State" has no authority to "keep people from sinning"! That's the job of the Churches, and that's where it should remain.

[CTLawGuy]

23. If I kill somebody

can I assert that I have a "free will" right to murder that person and that I should be left to the churches to deal with?


Sorry, you're back to the "what is life?" quandry you were trying to avoid.

[Minnesota Libra]

33. See #15 for a different way tro approach the issue nt

[Lolivia]

38. I *can* assert free will even if it leads to someone's death

The government can't force me donate a kidney to someone, even if not doing so leads to their death. In general, the law does not require any positive action to save someone's life. Meaning I cannot be forced to, say, give someone CPR - even if that person would die without it. (I am not, of course, saying I wouldn't - just that I cannot be forced to).

So why should the government be allowed to force me to provide my body to a fetus - even if it were conceded that a fetus is a person? No other person can forcibly take organs/blood/nutrients/any biological materials from me.

There is a difference between murdering someone who is able to live independantly and saying a "person" cannot use my body to keep him/herself alive. I am not legally obligated to keep anyone alive, especially if doing so poses significant risks to me.

It isn't about being allowed to kill someone - it's about being forced to keep someone alive.

I do, of course, feel moral and ethical obligations to help people - my point is only that the government cannot force people to do it.

[CTLawGuy]

43. well technically

parents have a duty to care for their children. They cannot just let their children starve to death.

For example if your two year old was an adult, you could bar him from your house, but if he's your 2 year old and you do that, you have committed a crime.

[Lolivia]

48. Parents can give up their children

and relinquish parental rights and duties.

Parents can do this at birth, years after birth - or before birth.

[CTLawGuy]

68. that's true

but they can't kill their children.

[Lolivia]

120. As I've pointed out

It isn't about killing children - it's about a woman removing a zygote/embryo from her body. The state can take over responsibility of the zygote from there if it feels it needs to.

No other class of people is required to keep someone else alive, no other class of people is required to maintain parental duties against his/her will.

Tell me why pregnant women are the only people that should bear that burden. How would that pass constitutional muster?

[CTLawGuy]

133. they shouldn't bear that burden

thats why I'm pro-choice.

[Lolivia]

137. So that "worldview" has been defeated

Pro-choicers could concede (which I am not) that a fetus is a person - and still not support banning most abortions.

That argument MIGHT work if:

- Every person was required by law to donate organs/blood/tissue/bone/marrow etc if they match someone who needs it
- Every doctor was required by law to honor his/her fiduciary duty and treat EVERY patient they came across
- Every insurance company was required by law to provide treatment to EVERY person for every medical procedure
- No parent could EVER relinquish their rights or duties - no adoption ever (except death of both parents)
- Criminal and civil law was changed to require every person to provide help to every other person - even if it posed risks to themselves
- Corporate charters are not granted (and must be revoked) to any company that causes/allows the deaths of any person (no cars, cigarettes, guns, etc)
- etc.


In short, if the legal, medical, and social systems were changed completely. Otherwise, I would say that places an undue burden solely on pregnant women to keep an individual alive - a burden that no other class of person has to bear. I would argue further that placing that burden on pregnant women, and pregnant women only, is a violation of equal protection.

[Warpy]

21. The problem is the failure to agree that a WOMAN is a human being

with sovreignty in her own body.

It matters very little to me whether the sentimental slobs want to morph a blastocyst incapable of surviving on its own into a cuddly 3 month old baby, cooing and smiling. My point is that a HUMAN BEING has the right to defend his or her body against injury or grave threat, both of which an unwanted pregnancy supply in great amount.

It's self defense. The right just denies the "self" represented by a woman.

[omega minimo]

65. DingdingDingding DingdingDingdingDing dingDingDingDing

[CTLawGuy]

89. so if you ask a right winger

"is a woman a human being?" they will say "no"?


while your assessment of the "real question" makes the other side look even more morally contemptible, I think I would be more convinced of its accuracy if you could give me some quotes where they say a woman is not a human being.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

22. Problem I've found is that

anti choice people won't compromise. They think that not only is a zygote a viable human being, but that doing anything to keep a woman from becoming pregnant itself is a sin (except for abstinence and perhaps the rythm method). The problem lies in the fact that these folks are not only anti-choice in regards to abortion but also anti-choice in regards to birth control.

[Minnesota Libra]

58. That is where you are wrong, some who may.......

....not necessarily agree with abortion on demand see absolutely nothing wrong with preventing the pregnancy in the first place. Birth control is a woman's choice and responsibility if she doesn't want a child right then. It's just that abortion should never be used as a method of birth control.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

92. I am speaking only from my personal experience

talking with right to lifers. I am sure that others have different experiences.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

131. Isn't that just Roman Catholics?

At least that has been my experience.

[Lolivia]

138. There are plenty of religious fundamentalists who oppose BC

It probably varies more from one individual evangelical to another, since they don't have as cohesive a religious doctrine as the catholics, but I've talked to plenty of non-catholics who oppose all BC.

[Solly Mack]

26. Human women don't give birth to puppies and kittens - so uh

it's kinda a well known fact that human women give birth to well, gee, golly - other humans.

So I really don't think anyone is stupid enough to wonder if a human fetus is a human...key word there being...gee - I don't know...human? (ya think????)

and uh, well...loathe as I am to state another obvious - a fetus is alive. See, an egg and a sperm join together and damnit all, if those fricking cells don't multiply and multiply and multiply - cause well, see...they're alive.


A human fetus is human (duh) and it will one day become a person (stating the obvious - slaps self for doing so)


I just don't care.

The woman is already a person - so she's the one that matters.

Call a fetus Jesus Christ for all I care...I support a woman's right to self-determination. Period.

Hey - let me humor you on this one.

A fetus is a person. In fact, I'll start calling them fetal-people.

and guess what?

I STILL support Abortion.

[SidDithers]

28. Good post, Solly

:toast:

Sid

[Solly Mack]

32. Thanks, SidDithers

Long ago when I was one of the fetal people, I used to enjoy hanging out in warm dark places, going neener neener neener to the eggs not chosen (though they will tell you they used me as a shield against the invaders and I was captured) but now that I'm a person, I know that everyone needs a little light in their lives.

I recommend candles. :)

[CTLawGuy]

93. thanks for the rant

and its needless hostile tone...

:eyes:

[Solly Mack]

110. LMAO

You make sweeping generalizations of "how Democrats view abortion" and yet you call me hostile? LMAO

You make statements that are not factual (a fetus is not alive, a human fetus is not a human) and you call me hostile? LMAO

Your entire post was nothing but misinformation heaped on a fallacious premise and - and I'm hostile? ROFLMAO

Do forgive me for intruding on your reality where a fetus isn't alive and a human fetus is not a human.

lololololololololol

[CTLawGuy]

128. self-deleted

I didn't realize that this was going to draw such hostility.

Mods, can you lock this thread, I think I regret starting it.

Some people cannot handle intellectual debate

[Solly Mack]

136. ROFLMAO Got milk?

Cause you for damn sure ain't got "intellectual debate"

[CTLawGuy]

140. oh wow, a "got milk?" reference

Ha ha ha! Oh gosh that's funny! That's really funny! Do you write your own material? Do you? Because that is so fresh.

"Got milk?". You know, I've, I've never heard anyone make that joke before. Hmm. You're the first.
I've never heard anyone reference, reference that outside the commerical before.

Because that's what the ads say right? Isn't it? "Got Milk?". And, and yet you've taken that and used it out of context to insult me in this everyday situation.

God what a clever, smart girl you must be, to come up with a joke like that all by yourself.

That's so fresh too. Any, any Titanic jokes you want to throw at me too as long as we're hitting these phenomena at the height of their popularity.



God you're so funny!

[Solly Mack]

141. For you - to go with your whine

and for your viewing pleasure:

Fetal People Night Club!

http://www.layyous.com/Videoclips/4d49.htm

it's a dancing, dancing machine
watch it get down
watch it get down

[CTLawGuy]

142. shouldn't you be doing your homework now?

weekend's almost over. Let's see what classes would you be in?

what do kids in 7th grade take these days....?

[Solly Mack]

143. LOL this coming from someone who doesn't know a human fetus is a human?

that doesn't know a fetus is alive?

LMAO

Are you sure you aren't projecting? Has failing 7th grade science left you scarred and bitter?

ROFLMAO

Keep it coming - you're funny!

[Name removed]

144. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Generator]

27. Of course it's human

But of course, it's not a fully formed human. In fact it's not even a human that could live outside of the mother for a second. In fact in exists soley in symbosis with the mother. If the mother dies, the "child" dies. It's like saying a lung is not human-of course it's human. Of course it can exist without me. (baring transplation which I discuss below) So I don't put the rights of something that cannot live without me above my right to life. It's the women's right to life. And of course, 25% or so of fetuses never live to term anyway. It's possible life. It's not an absolute. My life as a fully formed human being able to decide what to do with my body is not merely a wish-it's completed life.

I suppose someday science will perfect this madness to a degree (I'm not very pro-intervention of conception) that the fetus could be transplanted to another form whether human or not and continue to see if it makes it to fully formed life there.

We have enough life on the planet. Overpopulation seems to be more of a problem than forcing women that don't want to carry their fetus to term to do so. No one ever discusses whether nature should be trusted. And that a woman that doesn't want her baby to be, is nature's first hint that that life shouldn't go forward. (AND technically it can't go forward-no twelve week fetus can exist on it's own) A woman that wants her baby to be would do anything to keep that life.

And for all that-Oh yeah I'm so grateful I wasn't aborted line-there is a collary-I'm so grateful my mother wanted me to be born. That's where life should start. Not from someone being forced to be an incubator.

[SmokingJacket]

30. I think the solution we came up with thirty years ago worked out fine...

If you think life starts at conception, don't have an abortion.

Technically life DOES start at conception -- but it's just a very rudimentary life, and one that is incompletely separate from the mother's. Life accretes over time as the organism becomes more complex. Doesn't matter, really: we're certainly not going to change each other's minds any time soon.

The fact is, women will die and there will be unwanted babies and stupid painful shotgun weddings and MORE SUFFERING without legal abortion. We used to more or less all agree on that...

[bleedingheart]

31. No compromise - people should stay out of other people's business

Morality is subjective and therefore the entire "when does life begin" issue is a huge mess anyways.

It is idealistic to think that a compromise can occur. This is an all or nothing battle.

The PRO-CHOICE crowd doesn't force anyone to do what they don't want to do. In their case they want ALL people to have CHOICES regarding reproduction. The ANTI-CHOICE crowd wants to force everyone to do what they want them to do. They want everyone to have no control. It all an argument of control.

Let us look at the idiotic Prohibition movement. There were tee-totalers who thought no one should ever drink the devil's water. They were so successful that they got an amendment to the constitution...and lo and behold it was a catastrophic failure .... Everyone discovered that while alcohol has its risks, people have to make the decision for themselves.

Abortion has been around for thousands of years. Only imbeciles would believe that outlawing it will make it go away. In fact, the imbeciles will only discover this truth when they lose a woman in their life due to illegal abortion and then some of them will think it was God's judgement...

They start with abortion and then they will move on to birth control and before you know it they will be telling women that tattoos and piercings are forbidden without a man's approval...because we mustn't harm the breeding vessel.

[Arkansas Granny]

34. Part of the problem with the debate concerning abortion is that a

minority of the population is making the most noise against legal abortion. According to a Pew Research poll taken in July, 2005:

"A consistent majority of Americans (65%) are opposed to overturning the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision establishing a woman's right to abortion. But most Americans also favor restrictions on abortion. Nearly three-quarters (73%) favor requiring women under age 18 to get parental consent before being allowed to get an abortion.

This ambivalence is reflected in opinions on the overall availability of abortion. About a third (35%) say abortion should be generally available, but 23% favor stricter limits on abortion and 31% favor making it illegal except in cases of rape, incest or to save a woman's life. Only about one-in-ten (9%) say abortion should never be permitted. Moreover, while nearly six-in-ten (59%) think it would be a good thing to reduce the number of abortions in the U.S., one-third (33%) say they don't feel this way."

More info here: http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=253

[madeline_con]

50. Is that ambivalent?

I believe in the right to choose, but I don't want a child of mine having ANY invasive medical procedure done without my knowledge and permission. Sorry.

[Arkansas Granny]

55. I'm quoting poll figures here, not my personal opinion, to show

that the majority of Americans favor keeping abortion legal. It is a minority of Americans who are trying to overturn Roe v. Wade, but they are getting most of the media attention because they are making the most noise.

This survey also shows that most Americans favor some restrictions on abortion, including parental notification, without banning it. I happen to agree with you on the parental notification in the case of a minor, unless it can be shown that the notification itself could put her at risk.

[madeline_con]

56. I know, but I don't get why they said "ambivalent".

I didn't see it as such.

[Cerebral_Assassin]

35. pro-"life"

"Pro-Life" is a misnomer.

We are all at some point "anti-life." If we weren't, no one would buy anti-bacterial soap.

If one is TRULY against abortion, then ALL abortion is evil, and therefore, undigestable. You can't say, "Abortion is murder, unless there's rape or unless there's incest or unless......" That's like saying "I'm a vegetarian unless they're serving free-range chicken, or sausages, or hamhocks...."

If such a thing exists in the minds of pro-"lifers" as acceptable abortions, then they need to come down off the cross, because somebody could use the wood, and quit their moral posturing.

Personally, I hate the idea of abortion. I dream of a world where no one has an abortion, but for that to happen, we have to create a world where no one needs to. And for that to happen, we need to cut the horse flop and ask the hard questions like "How can we PREVENT unwanted pregnancies?" and "How can we eliminate the DEMAND for the SUPPLY of abortions?"

[sonsera]

36. Here's Another Perspective

or some food for thought.
If I remember reading my biology books correctly, less than 50% of fertilized eggs (zygotes) develop into babies. Many pregnancies fail without the mother ever knowing she was pregnant. Nature, therefore, aborts more than half of all its attempts at producing a new human being. Most women end up having multiple abortions, they just don’t know it. There are probably many reasons why a zygote that fails to develop correctly is naturally aborted (a miscarriage). Are the reasons a woman chooses to end her pregnancy by her own hand less valid?

[madeline_con]

51. They'll argue those were "God's will".

Which then begs the question, isn't everything, if one believes in God?

[laundry_queen]

64. my argument to that is that then it is God's will...

That infertile couples not seek out technology to produce babies if they are unable to 'naturally'. After all, it was God's will that they not reproduce. If they can overcome God's will to artifically 'make' life, then why can't someone who desperately needs an abortion overcome it to artifically end it?

[madeline_con]

67. There's also the argument that an all powerful God....

could stop someone from getting an abortion. ;)

[demigoddess]

37. you are all wrong and are playing into anti choice hands

the real argument is that men have a male form of abortion and do not wish women to have one. Women can be forced by rape to get pregnant and then by law to carry to term. Patriarchy does not care about anything else. Not even if the baby is alive, or a life or viable or anything like that.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

80. What is the male form of abortion?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

42. It is my personal belief that life begins at conception

This is not a religious belief. I was never taught this in church. Nor was I taught it by my mother. It is just my belief.

I belief that the one lesson we are here to learn is to value human life. We don't do this very well. I don't believe in capital punishment or war.

I believe very strongly that abortion is murder. But I don't believe I am required to defend the life in other people's bodies...only my own.

If abortion is a procedure that some people want, then it needs to be available. They are accountable for their actions; I am not. If there is some sort of tribunal in their belief system, they are the ones who will have to face it. I will not. I think it is a sad commentary on our world that so many abortions are necessary, and I am sorry to be so cold about it, it really isn't my problem. Keeping from getting pregnant is my problem.

I am not here to save the world, born or unborn. And I am not here to stop capital punishment or war. I'm just here to look after myself.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

49. I'm With Ya. I Believe Abortion Is Murder Too,

But I'm not going to force that opinion on others either. If it is murder, they will be judged by God for His reasons, not mine, if in the end there is a God that judges us when we depart. But if there is, I'll leave the judgement of the person up to him. I'll just do my best to worry about my own sins, of which I have plenty, and try and help those considering abortion for non-medical reasons to think otherwise but with an approach of intellect, not guilt or force.

[CTLawGuy]

95. so I guess your view is that abortions should be minimized

I gather that you mean that you believe abortion is murder but are opposed to a criminal justice solution.

So, am I correct in saying that your mission is to minimize the number of abortions through non-criminal justice means.

That is a valid position. There is in effect a "people's veto" on all laws. At 2 million people in prison we have the highest incaceration rate in the world, at about 0.7% of our population. So that means if most people thought a law was not worth following, the state could do nothing because they can't imprison 50% of the population, and detection would be a nightmare, because half the people wouldn't help the police. Even 10% of the population could not be imprisoned by the state without breaking the bank.

How does that apply to abortion? If 50% of the people think abortion is ok, then abortions will happen. (They will be hideously unsafe, but they will still happen) The state cannot imprison that many people and criminal justice will fail as a solution to the problem.

Same thing with drugs. The state spends so much money chasing down drug users but still drug use widely endures.

So when this is the case, a non-criminal justice solution needs to spring up. An example of this is music downloading. The RIAA cannot sue everyone for copyright infringement, they can't even FIND everyone. But someone realized that all the downloading happened because people didn't want to buy overpriced cds with the one song they liked and 10 they did not. So they invented Itunes to sell individual songs for $1. I don't know if that has deterred downloading, but in theory it should. I-Tunes hit the 1 billion song mark just recently.

Where suing everyone would not work, they tried a different solution which is likely to be much more effective.

And someone who believes that abortion involves both a living being and a woman's right should be seeking a similar alternative solution.

[madeline_con]

44. I beg to differ....

I believe it's a human, but I also believe it's the woman's busines and not mine whether she carries it to term.

Whether it's murder as some scream is still up in the air in my book. I'm still trying to figure out souls and ether.....

:shrug:

[sandnsea]

46. OR, women could decide for themselves

And everybody else could mind their own damned business.

[NaturalHigh]

59. As I've pointed out in other threads...

if that is your opinion, then you shouldn't expect men to make abortion an issue one way or the other. If men have no say in the matter, why should we be expected to lobby for abortion rights?

[sandnsea]

60. You respect women as independent individuals

That's like saying you shouldn't lobby for equal voting rights because you're not black and the issue doesn't affect you, one way or the other.

Nobody has the right to make medical decisions for women, period. Anybody who truly respects women would respect that.

[Lars39]

61. Because it could be your SO being denied life saving care someday.

The fundies are going after birth control pills, too. How many kids can you support?

[Mandate My Ass]

52. I don't follow you into your doctor's office to see if what you're doing

is morally acceptable to me with the expectation of changing your personal decisions. I especially don't do this because it's none of my business, but also because I don't want to be responsible for the life-altering consequences that could follow from being involved in your personal medical care, financial and otherwise.

Stay out of my gynecologist's office and I'll stay out of your life too.

It's a privacy issue. No pro-choicers would dream of demanding someone abort a fetus against her will. Anti-choicers who are unwilling/unable to alleviate the risks and consequences of enforced parenthood need to STFU.

[BlackVelvet04]

54. The biggest problem in the abortion argument from the Christian

side is that it's not Biblical. Nothing in the Bible leads me to believe that a zygote is a baby.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

81. Just a personal comment

my belief that a zygote is alive (not a baby) is just what is (to me, not everyone obviously) common sense. When egg meets sperm, the whole thing gets going. I don't see such a clear deliniation anywhere else, other than birh and being cut away from the mother, and that's way too far.

So even though I am painfully aware of all the gray areas, I have had to, after many years, come back to that one instant of fertilization. That is the spark of life to me.

But that is my personal code and I wouldn't foist it on anyone. Although my daughter was aware of my belief when she was unmarried, I never pushed it on her. She knew I would support any child she brought home and support it joyfully. But it was her decision.

[BlackVelvet04]

139. I think it's fine for people to make this decision for themselves, BUT

if one is going to use religion as the justification of their decision and belief I think they need to have a clear understanding of just what the bible does and does not say about it.

In the OT a woman's life is regarded more highly than an unborn child as evidenced by the punishment for killing a mother as opposed to causing a miscarriage.

In Genesis when God created Adam, Adam became a living being with a soul when God BREATHED LIFE INTO HIM.

And the Bible says "life is in the BLOOD".

I have to conclude that at the earliest life begins when there is a full circulatory system and at the latest when a baby takes it's first breath. I find it hard to believe that a spirit enters into every egg at time of fertilization considering only 25% or so actually make it to the point of being attached to the womb with a chance to make it to full term. It wouldn't be "cost effective."

[Orangepeel]

57. Roe v Wade already is the compromise of which you speak

it allows states to prohibit abortion (except when the health of the woman would be compromised) in the third trimester, after "viability" of the fetus to live on its own outside of a woman. It allows a varity of other restrictions in the second trimester.

A large majority of people agree with Roe v. Wade -- most of those that say they don't, don't know what it says and think that it means "abortion on demand".

[SPKrazy]

62. I'm Not Anti Choice, But I'm Not Pro Abortion Either

and to me your description of "what if" anti choicers believed that a fetus was not a person:

" but had a moral objection to snuffing out potential life, they would be less militant about criminalizing abortion (since it is not technically murder) but would be more open to exploring alternative ways to prevent the need for abortion, such as some of the remedies suggested above. The same result is reached: anti-chiocers get a minimum of abortions, even if they are legal, and women have the right to refuse parenthood."

Describes my beliefs about abortion. I'm pro choice, I'm personally against abortion. Don't believe it should be criminal because I do think that it falls into the "potential" life as a Zygote.

Now a late term (say 22 weeks and up) is a lot harder for me to see as a fetus and not a person. I still do not believe in criminalizing abortion at this stage because I still think it is between the woman, her partner (if available) her doctor, and her spiritual beliefs (not necessarily belief in God)

I am all for the alternative ways to prevent abortion as I think that is really what the goal of changing the debate on this issue should be about.

The fundies always try to frame it in a way that sounds like liberals want to "encourage" sex, when we are just realists and know that kids will have sex regardless of what parents do or don't do. Protecting our kids from pregnancy, disease, etc. is just the right thing to do period.

I like your post, and the ideas it presents.

I guess I am just really saying that some of us who are truly "pro life" (as opposed to anti choice) believe just as you have stated the "what if" proposition.

thanks

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheWraith]

69. It's offensive to make such an accusation against an established poster.

Also very much against the rules, as I recall. I recommend you apologize.

Out of curiousity, how you do go from "convince the public... that a fetus is not alive" to screaming "RIGHTWING FREEPTROLL BULLSHIT"? Not very logical.

Pity that we have two kinds of extremists on the left: the kind who are unable to accept nuance, compromise, politics... and those who are unable to do anything else.

[omega minimo]

71. Offensive is a false dichotomy pinpointed as the core of a debate

It's offensive to see people get all involved in arguing over false choices. I've seen something along these lines before and commented on the ideas, not this particular poster.

Offensive is suggesting that "the key to winning and keeping the right to an abortion is to convince the public of the underlying fact as we see them, that a fetus is not alive."

That is a bogus and smelly red herring. It deserves to be pointed out (in case it's too "nuanced").............

Hence

THIS IS RIGHTWING FREEPTROLL BULLSHIT

[TallahasseeGrannie]

83. Well...

as mentioned earlier, I believe a zygote is, indeed alive. Hence, no abortion. But I don't care what other folks do. This is my choice.

However, IF you could convince me it was not alive, then I would have no objection to the procedure even for myself.

I really don't quite understand what is upsetting you about this. It seems quite obvious to me that it is the central issue. Life or not.

[CTLawGuy]

87. I think some people

on both sides have been trained to hear the word "abortion" and just start screaming.

I doubt that the people calling my post "freeptroll bullshit" actually read my post.

It doesn't advocate one way or the other, even though I am pro-choice, hence the use of the word "anti-choice" rather than "pro-life".

I analyze the debate,to show why I think it is so polarizing and think of the best way to win people over to our side.

And I get called a freeptroll.


Actually I should amend the OP to add "extemist involvement" as a second factor in why it is so polarizing.

[omega minimo]

114. I read it.

I didn't call you anything. Your "analysis" is deeply flawed.

Your prickly responses are goading with more false choices. This is Devil’s Advocate bs and HOMEY DON’T PLAY DAT. :hi:

darboy (1000+ posts) Sat Mar-04-06 07:24 AM
Response to Reply #71
85. so, I can write you down as
being ok with a mother killing her infant child because she doesn't want the responsibility of parenthood?
Because how could you be against that if the life-status didn't matter, as you claim?

darboy (1000+ posts) Sat Mar-04-06 08:58 AM
Response to Reply #71
101. do you believe it is a false dichotomy because
1. There is no possible way that a fetus could be alive?
2. The RWers don't really believe a fetus is alive, so there is no real disagreement?
or
3. your position would be the same if you believed a fetus were alive, and theirs would be the same even if they believed it wasn't alive?

[Name removed]

117. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[omega minimo]

112. Whether by intention or ignorance

Whether by intention or ignorance, the OP is so full of red herrings and misconceptions that it inevitably leads to another impassioned, confused and misguided DU abortion thread:

“The reason is that the two sides fail to agree on one fact underlying the debate: whether a fetus is a human being.

“To a Dem, the underlying facts of an abortion is that a fetus is only a potential life and is part of her body, and a woman prevents it from becoming alive by aborting it.

“If pro-choicers agreed that a fetus was a person, they would consent to abortion being illegal in most cases. They would press hard on contraception, sex education, alternatives to abortion, but fight to allow that right to remain in an emergency situation.

“(If you don't buy this above analysis, ask yourself whether your position on abortion really doesn't turn on your belief that a fetus is not a person? Would you allow a mother to kill her born infant becuase she doesn't want to be a parent? Of course not, an infant is a living person. A zygote is not.)

“If anti-choicers believed that a fetus was not a person, but had a moral objection to snuffing out potential life, they would be less militant about criminalizing abortion (since it is not technically murder) but would be more open to exploring alternative ways to prevent the need for abortion, such as some of the remedies suggested above. The same result is reached: anti-chiocers get a minimum of abortions, even if they are legal, and women have the right to refuse parenthood.

“Im not saying that we should believe a fetus is alive for the sake of compromise. I'm saying the key to winning and keeping the right to an abortion is to convince the public of the underlying fact as we see them, that a fetus is not alive.”

There is a profound misunderstanding of the issue represented here. If it is presented in good faith, perhaps one problem is the interpretation of “alive” and “human being.”

:smoke: OM: In addition, some statements are SO over the top, that the intention is suspect, potentially inflammatory (and dangerous if unchallenged):

“(If you don't buy this above analysis, ask yourself whether your position on abortion really doesn't turn on your belief that a fetus is not a person? Would you allow a mother to kill her born infant becuase she doesn't want to be a parent? Of course not, an infant is a living person. A zygote is not.)

“If anti-choicers believed that a fetus was not a person, but had a moral objection to snuffing out potential life, they would be less militant about criminalizing abortion (since it is not technically murder)...”

See the tricks there? False choices. Once down that path, tricked into more false assumptions?

Warpy said it already:

Warpy (1000+ posts) Fri Mar-03-06 12:51 PM
Response to Original message
21. The problem is the failure to agree that a WOMAN is a human being with sovreignty in her own body.
It matters very little to me whether the sentimental slobs want to morph a blastocyst incapable of surviving on its own into a cuddly 3 month old baby, cooing and smiling. My point is that a HUMAN BEING has the right to defend his or her body against injury or grave threat, both of which an unwanted pregnancy supply in great amount. It's self defense. The right just denies the "self" represented by a woman.



In another, less confused setting, we might discuss “life or not” as it affects our individual decisions. The debate, however, does not center on that. It is, as REP said,

“The abortion debate is about who controls a woman's body: the woman or the state. Anything else is meaningless handwaving.”

[CTLawGuy]

85. so, I can write you down as

being ok with a mother killing her infant child because she doesn't want the responsibility of parenthood?

Because how could you be against that if the life-status didn't matter, as you claim?

[SidDithers]

106. *Cough Cough* Strawman *Cough Cough* nt

Sid

[CTLawGuy]

101. do you believe it is a false dichotomy because

1. There is no possible way that a fetus could be alive?
2. The RWers don't really believe a fetus is alive, so there is no real disagreement?
or
3. your position would be the same if you believed a fetus were alive, and theirs would be the same even if they believed it wasn't alive?

[TheWraith]

116. You're acting pretty crazy, you know that?

The original poster is a freeper because they don't fall in lockstep with your personal gospel on how an issue should be treated? They're a freeper because you think that your personal assertions of fact are the absolute end of the line, no discussion possible, no disagreement extant, and any member of the American public who doesn't instantly agree on exactly those terms isn't welcome? Now that, THAT is bullshit. I guess we can give up on all politics, then, because after all, it's inappropriate to try and argue or convince someone of a point. If they don't instantaneously fall on their knees in epiphany at the mere mention of our point of view, they're unworthy of the revelation. You're either with us or against us! No compromise! Bring 'em on! :sarcasm:

[omega minimo]

118. False choices are never the key to a debate, discussion or thread

Please read what I actually wrote and quit barking at balloons. It makes YOU look bad.

[CTLawGuy]

134. its weird

I'm not even stating a point of view that should draw huge hostility.

[REP]

72. The ARGUMENT is Offensive Bullshit

The cru of the debate is not whether the fetus is human or not; of course it is human - what else would it be? It's not a human being until it is born, but as it is formed from human gametes in a human body, I'm pretty sure a human fetus is human. It's alive as well; otherwise what we're dealing with is either a spontaneous abortion or an incomplete septic spontaneous abortion. This is strawman argument, or rightwing freeptroll bullshit, to pretend that anyone doubts any of the above.

The abortion debate is about who controls a woman's body: the woman or the state. Anything else is meaningless handwaving.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

84. I agree that is at least half of the issue

but it is incomplete without the conception at life issue.

It is not that simple, in my opinion.

I have some memories of the abortion controversy that are interesting. This is not history from the books, but just my impressions throughout life. In college, in the early '70's before RvW abortion was still available. This was in Delaware. Planned Parenthood, which took care of our birth control needs, would set you up with one in a hospital. I believe you had to sign that having the baby would be mentally devastating or something like that. At that time, the only people truly horrified by this were Roman Catholics and there weren't any sorts of protests that I was aware of. As it became simpler to get an abortion, the Catholics began to organize and hold rallies. And eventually some of the newly devout "Jesus Freaks" joined them. But the old line fundamentalists, the mainline protestants, So. Baptists, etc. did not join in. Then suddenly comes the concept of the religious right (I'm thinking early 80's with Reagan) and they began to seek political power and they exploited this issue. It is an issue that women can be easily coerced into suporting because it appeals to maternal instincts and the subsequent hormonal issues. I believe now that officious right wing religious types and politicians use it to keep women riled up and upset and therefore keep a modicum of power over them. I personally don't have a big problem with Catholics who are strong on the issue because they have been for years, and their faith is very consistent with the thou shalt not kill meme. But I don't trust the motives of the fundies here at all.

[REP]

152. 'Life' at Conception is New

It dates to the late 80s as a major theme among the antiabortnoids, but on it's face, it's as stupid as they are: 80%+ of blastocysts (fertilized eggs) never implat naturally - and almost every sexually active woman has had at least one precious preborn poppet carried out to sea on a tampon or buried in a landfill on a sanitary napkin. Some of those women may have taken a drug - an antibiotic, a migraine medicine, a high-blood pressure treatment, an oral diabetes agent, etc - without knowing they were "pregnant" (doctors define pregnancy as beginning at implantation, not fertilization) and hastened ther demise of that wee little one without even knowing it. Are those women murderers? How about the women who did nothing and still their bodies did not allow the implantation?

How about women known as serial miscarriers, who attempt pregnancy after pregnancy, knowing that most of them are doomed?

No, this is just more hand-waving. Don't let them distract you.

[CTLawGuy]

86. wow

you are really sure of yourself buddy :eyes:

[REP]

151. The Irony Is Fucking Priceless.

Buddy.

[CTLawGuy]

103. what you think the debate is about is not much of a debate

because you never hear them use "we think the state should control a woman's body" as a justification for controlling abortion.

[REP]

150. If You Listened, You Would

Buddy.

Just because you have not heard it does not mean it isn't there. You are new to the debate, and it is not uncommon for newcomers to be baffled by bullshit. With experience, you'll get better at understanding what's really at stake.

[omega minimo]

113. "The abortion debate is about who control's a woman's body..."

Thank you for comprehending and stating this so clearly.

"The abortion debate is about who controls a woman's body: the woman or the state. Anything else is meaningless handwaving."

[TallahasseeGrannie]

82. Freeptroll bullshit?

I don't think so, really. I think the OP is really attempting to find a way for compromise to continue to allow the procedure.

I personally see the "independent" part because my daughter is rh- and without rogam shots her body would have killed the little invader.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

88. Don't Be Such An Extremist Just Because Someone Has A Differing Opinion

Calling the OP a Freeptroll is the only bullshit I see. There is nothing that reflects the freep mentality more than stifling opposite opinion and dialog and using names and labels to criticize and demean. In the context of this thread, that namecalling was completely inappropriate.

The OP posted an opinion for discussion and dialog, and it was actually not a bad one in the context of the abortion debate. It was actually quite logical and filled with intellectual reasoning. It doesn't mean it framed the debate perfectly, as there is no perfect frame for such a heated topic. But it was a different take on it that for once went beyond the typical tired arguments. I would hope in the future you'd be a bit more tolerant of others different viewpoints and opinions without having to spout rage at them, but I won't hold my breath.

[CTLawGuy]

91. thank you

I appreciate your defense.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

96. No Problem. I Think Your Post Was Quite Well Thought Out And Appropriate

Sure there can be points that can be debated, but I have the utmost respect in your posting a well thought out, RATIONAL and intuitive discussion on such a heated topic. So many just default to being irrational with nonsensical arguments when dealing with the abortion issue, rather than actually engaging in discussion and rationally stating their case. Instead they just attack and demean with every bit of veracity as the extremists on the other side. There is nothing that I respect less than those that use attack as their debate tactic rather than logic, intellect and reasoning. I thought your OP was quite refreshing, in that it actually attempted to discuss the issue from a tangent of rationality and perspective without even the slightest hint of provocation. That's hard to do in this type of debate and I give you kudos for it.

[omega minimo]

115. "rationality & perspective without even the slightest hint of provocation"

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:



I never called the OP a Freeptroll, nor have I ever called you one.

Although you are one calling me an “extremist” and “nothing that reflects the freep mentality more...” because ASUSUALYOUNEVERUNDERSTANDWHATIAMSAYING.

I was not “stifling opposite opinion and dialog and using names and labels to criticize and demean.” I was pointing out red herrings and false choices and refuting the claim that these are the crux of the abortion issue.

Perhaps your inability to see that is also why you believe the OP to be “actually quite logical and filled with intellectual reasoning.”

IFTHISWEREACTUALLY "RATIONAL and intuitive discussion on such a heated topic" the concept of "human being" and "alive" would not be mangled so insensibly. Also, the importance of the WOMANASAHUMANBEING would be, at the very least, MENTIONED.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

121. If You've Noticed, The Offending Post Was Deleted.

So it obviously wasn't just me that considered your attack to not only be inappropriate, but in essence calling the OP a freeptroll because you didn't agree with him.

Now, even if you were saying the comment was one that a freeptroll would say, though you aren't saying the OP is one, well OM, same damn difference. Those thoughts came from his head to display his position and if you say they are freeptroll thoughts, than you might as well have just called him one.

And yes, maybe you were refuting what you considered to be red herrings and false choices but there is still a way to do so without demeaning the author. And for the record, calling out people's opinions and statements as being the same as freeptroll ones is an attempt to demean the poster and stifle discussion, as it is in essence saying "unless you see things as I do you are not only wrong, but so wrong that you think as bad as freeptrolls do". Spin the intent as much as you want, but that is what strong statements like that portray.

As far as the OP not saying anything regarding women's importance as human beings, well I don't think he has to. I'm not sure anyone on DU would say women weren't important so it would be expected that it doesn't have to be said.

Lastly, I understood your position perfectly. Just because you don't like my opinion on that position doesn't mean I don't understand. That statement alone of yours shows the accuracy of my statement that you demean posters and stifle opposition, since basically what that statement means is "I didn't like your opinion in response to my views so you obviously have no idea what you are talking about, as usual, and are not insightful as I am". Yes, that is what that means, as ludicrous a statement it is. Rest assured I understand your positions just fine, I just generally haven't respected the tone and approach of most of them regardless of the accuracy at times of their context.

[omega minimo]

125. LOL

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: ABSOLUTELYPATHETIC

This huffy display does not correct the incomprehension previously stated.

Actually, the "strong statement" "calling out people's opinions and statements as being the same as freeptroll ones is an attempt" NOT TO "to demean the poster and stifle discussion" but to point out that the flawed assumptions and false choices were a "set up" leading to confused discussion (as stated in the "offensive" post). It may have been ignorance, it may not have been intentional, but it reflects a deep misunderstanding of the issues.

As for respect for women being a "given"-- that is absolutely untrue, "even on DU," as this OP was attempting to draw the whole debate down to a pinprick of "is a fetus alive" "a human being" or not.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

126. LMAO!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
"calling out people's opinions and statements as being the same as freeptroll ones is an attempt NOT TO demean the poster" Wow, :rofl: ,that's one of the funniest illogical persepectives I have ever come across EVER, ANYWHERE! :rofl:

Sorry, I literally laughed out loud after I read that :rofl:

And then it continued to crack me up after you claim to not demean yet call the poster's opinion flawed and false, accuse him of setting people up and being ignorant and that he has a deep misunderstanding of the issues. Yeah, :rofl: I can just feel your good intention and kindness just oozing out towards him :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

OKTHATSITFORNOWBUHBYEGODLOVESYOUSEEYANEXTTIME

:hi:

[omega minimo]

127. Level of ignorance here on reproductive rights issues = no laughing matter

:evilfrown:

The fact that these sort of tortured ill logic straw men argument threads are usually chock full of men's bloviating is another DU mystery.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

130. Again, Calling People Ignorant Because They Have A Different Perspective

than you do is just plain inappropriate and misguided. Carrying this debate forward now with Sexist comments is even more inappropriate and misguided. The only mystery I see is how you just don't get that.

Bye now.

[REP]

153. Ignorance Means Lack Of Knowledge, Not Differing Opinion

I see lots of knowledge lacking here: a history of antiabortion propaganda and simple human biology, for starters.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

156. I Don't Believe His Knowledge Was Lacking. I Believe His Perception Is

perception is being disagreed with. Big difference.

[CTLawGuy]

132. huh?

I'm pro choice, hence I call the other side "anti-choice" rather than their preferred term "pro life".

How am I ignorant of reproductive rights?


This is the last time I touch abortion even tangentially. Or at least I will dumb down my posts.

[laundry_queen]

66. "Some religions believe the soul does not enter the fetus until

20 wks or so, or about the same time movement is felt. Those religions believe the fetus is not technically 'alive' until that point. Are those religions wrong? "
I've used that point on a few of the more PC fundies I've encountered - you know, the type who like let everyone know loudly that all religions should be respected and equal in this great free country called the USA but secretly (or even unconsiously in some cases) still want their religion to be the basis of all the laws in the country.
However IME many have just been so brainwashed by their churches that abortion is murder, nothing sways them and trying to have a rational conversation on when life begins is like trying to talk to a 2 year old with their fingers in their ears shouting "lalalalala" at the top of their lungs. Pointless. Until you get the fingers out and get them to stop shouting, they don't hear shit.

[Speed8098]

74. Don't forget the Catholics

Being raised in a catholic environment I can tell you definitively that catholics believe that if you are not baptized you cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

People who use religion as a rationalization for their ideas are the biggest hypocrites.

If a fetus can not survive independently from its mother, it is not a life.

[phylny]

78. Not all Catholics believe it, not even Popes:

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0506867.htm

[wickerwoman]

70. You're never going to defeat their worldview.

Most people (not to mention fundies) would rather die than admit they are wrong about anything. And with something like "When does life begin?" we're not even close to having enough scientific data for a definitive answer.

Know how we take abortion off the table? By making it obsolete.

I know I've posted this here five or six times before, and at the risk of being a bore, I'll post it again.

We're at the point where making abortion obsolete is simply a question of money and political will. With modern technology, in vitro fertilization, cryogenic freezing, life support at five months, etc. there's no reason why it shouldn't be possible to simply remove unwanted fetuses, preserve them and then reimplant them in women who are financially and emotionally prepared to be parents. Or women who do want the baby but aren't ready at that time to be parents could save it for a few years and then have in re-implanted.

Why aren't the fundies who are out there screaming about the life of the fetus donating their money to develop reproduction technology that would make abortion unneccessary? Because ultimately, their position has absolutely nothing to do with preserving life. That's why you'll never convince them that a fetus isn't a person. At the end of the day, they don't care if it's a person or not. Look at how little they give a shit after it's born. It's ALL about punishing women for having sex out of wedlock.

Nobody is ever going to "win" or "lose" the abortion debate. It's just one of those problems that history and technology are going to overtake as soon as we get our heads out of our asses.

[Behind the Aegis]

73. there is no real debate

I support sexual education, FREE contraceptives, and other educational programs. What I do not support is that a government has the right to determine the direction a citizen has to direct on his or her life. If it doesn't affect the life of another citizen, then the government should have NO role. If someone wishes to die, that is that citizen's right. If the citizen wishes to remove something from his/her body, that is his/her right.

I don't care for people that would use abortion as "birth control." I mainly disapprove of this because of the damage it does to the body; yet, that is still their choice.

The best way to 'prevent' abortion is sexual education and unrestricted contraception!

I always ask a "pro-life" (anti-choice) person...."how many of your children are adopted?" I haven't met one! I am sure they are out there, but, I have met many a 'pro-choice' person with adopted children!

[TallahasseeGrannie]

99. Here in the Bible belt

there are a lot of "pro-life" people who adopt. Mostly multi-racial children. I teach a lot of them. Many are home schooled and come to me for gifted services.

[Behind the Aegis]

111. That is refreshing to hear!

Thank you for posting that! While I have still yet to meet one pro-lifer with an adopoted kid, I knew there had to be some out there who had! :)

[TallahasseeGrannie]

129. They are mostly Roman Catholic

and very progressive in their social views, but very anti-abortion. Bi-racial babies need homes down here.

[mmonk]

79. How about this approach?

Does banning abortion stop abortion? The answer is clearly no. Do societies that ban abortion have lower abortion rates? The answer is no. Does underground abortions put more people at risk? The answer is yes. If you are in charge of making decisions on what's best for a particular society and are given these facts, does banning abortion provide a benefit to that society?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

97. I don't want to be arugmentative at

all, but do you have a link or something for your assertion that societies that ban abortions don't have lower abortion rates? I mean, I know bans won't eliminate them, but I would have thought that it would make it much harder to have one, hence lower rates.

If you can find a link I'd really like to have it for my arsenal of talking points on this issue.

[mmonk]

147. Sorry I've taken so long to get back to this.

I read a comparison on a Latin American country or two which ban abortion that have higher rates than we do. I will try to find it again and link it. No guarantees of me finding it though due to it being awhile ago, but I hope I can so I can verify my argument to people while providing you with the information.

[CTLawGuy]

98. let's put this another way

Imagine this:

You are a judge in a country where judges can jail people whom they believe have done something morally wrong. (In other words, there is no law that the judge is forced to apply.)


The police drag a young man into court.

The prosecutor says "your honor, we have a witness that saw the defendant smoking marijuana. Marijuana use is wrong and you should put him in jail."

The defense lawyer says "your honor, my client did not smoke marijuana and we have our own witness to prove it. Marijuana use hurts no one and you should not put him in jail."

The prosecutor says "the defense lawyer only wants to keep him out of jail because he is an extremist libertarian. Someone who smokes marijuana, as the defendant did, should be in jail."

Then the defense lawyer says "but my client didn't smoke marijuana, and the prosecutor just wants to jail innocent people to gratify his own ego, so you should not put my client in jail."


As the judge, are you ready to decide whether the defendant should go to jail?


I wouldn't be. before I can decide whether I should jail someone for using marijuana, I HAVE TO KNOW WHETHER HE ACUTALLY USED MARIJUANA!!!! That's why agreeing on the facts of a debate is so important. You can't make a decision as a nation that will last if you are working from different facts.

[Clark2008]

102. Would it help to compare it to slavery?

If they believe that a fetus is a human, then there isn't much of a leap to convince them that this HUMAN is forcing a woman's body to work without pay and without her consent (if she doesn't want to carry to term), which is slavery.

I think a woman should sue on the grounds that being force to work for another human without pay or consent is a violation of the Emancipation Proclamation and is, in effect, involuntary servitude.

[CTLawGuy]

104. so are you against a legal duty for parents to care for their children?

yes, I know children can be given up for adoption, but parents cannot just say "see ya later little johnny, go find a job."

There is a legal duty for parents to support children until age 18. Is that slavery?

[SidDithers]

107. If I were to need a kidney transplant...

and you just happened to be a perfect match, should the state be able to force you to donate a kidney to me, in order to keep me alive?

Or are you entitled to control the sanctity of your own body, and make your own medical decisions?

Sid

[REP]

154. I WILL Need a Kidney Tx

If the OP is B-, I'll be looking for him when the time comes!

[dorkulon]

108. The question is not whether it's alive...

...frogs are alive. The real question is whether or not it's a person. Remember, the people who believe a zygote is a person follow their "logic" to its conclusion, which is why they're also against contraception. That is a clearly absurd result.

Just like a braindead man is alive, but not a person, it's the same for the zygote.

[left of center]

123. Good observation!

[left of center]

124. Darboy, yes, you have a point and this issue will never go

away until there is more compromise.

I think the right will push until only regulated early term abortions are legel. At such a point the silent majority will join the left in drawing a line in the sand. The debate will eventually recede into irrelevance and the country will go on and become polarized about something else.

[JerseygirlCT]

135. A fetus is alive -- but it has no life independent of the mother

as an individual, it is still a potential life.

A woman on the other hand, is alive. And has a basic human right to bodily integrity.

This is not a debate about when life begins. We need to move away from that. That determination cannot be made with any scientific certainty. It is a philosophical question, which will be answered differently by people of different beliefs.

This is a debate about government's interference in women's private medical decisions. This is a debate about who decides whether a woman will become a mother.

[kiranon]

145. Fundies do not argue against infertility treatments - why not?

Do not believe we can change fundies but can at least move them to neutral on the issue of abortion. How? By going after their stance on infertility treatments - the very treatment that is creating embryos. Many conservatives use fertility treatments to have children. In the process, extra embryos are used and some are "culled". If every embryo is a life, then fertility treatments result in death. Just move the argument back one step and many fundie women and men will back off because they do not want to give up their chance to be parents.

Secondly, pro choice groups need to come out swinging for adoption and, especially, of special needs children. We can take the high ground here because I have yet to meet a fundie who has adopted a special needs child. Not that they do not exist, but where are the fundy churches advocating care for special needs children who often the result when a mom does not want the baby and/or did not take good care of herself or did not have the resources to give the baby a healthy in vitro environment. I know many pro choice women who have adopted special needs children.

Rape and incest are two ways to control women/children. Any man can rape a woman and end her dreams, her desire to never have to deal with the situation ever again and her life and her freedom if she is forced to have the child. If the rapist or incest criminal has rights in the child, the woman is then victimized for life. Why should a woman be forced to carry the child of a man she does not know and would never choose to know? Why would a rapist's right to have a child take precedence over a woman's right to raise the child she wants to raise? Each child a woman has makes it less likely she will have the resources to raise another.

Lastly, someone should investigate how much money some churches make from the adoptions they arrange and how harmful or not it is to the moms who use their services. Some demographic research or research papers would be in order in this area. Someone should look into why babies are offered for adoption by such churches with the "price" varying depending on certain characteristics of the babies.

Hypocrisy is written all over the fundies approach to abortion. It is a way for them to side track well intentioned people and avoid the real issues before the country and in the right of a woman to choose.

[CTLawGuy]

146. thanks for your intelligent response

thoughtfulness and deep analysis is becoming increasingly rare on this board. Sad to say.

[question everything]

149. The arguments of the anti-choice have hidden agenda

one of which is controlling women sexuality. I am certain that if pregnancy did not result from sexual intercourse, there would not be so much objection to it. And, of course, if men were the one getting pregnant.

Then there is the "exception" in case of rape and incest. You are not supposed to "punish" children for the sin of their parents. So if you consider a cluster of cells "a live person" you should always object to any termination of abortion.

Then there is the objection to birth control pills, to the morning after pill.

Even the late-term abortion, the so called "partial birth." We have had here several personal experience about what caused such a procedure, when the fetus was dead, when the life of the woman was in danger. So, again, globally banning this procedure eliminate any dialog.

And, of course, the hypocrisy of many wealth Republicans who publicly oppose abortion yet if a daughter of theirs will get pregnant, they will rush her to a secret appointment to terminate it. This is how it always was this is how it will be. Roe v. Wade just leveled the playing field.

Until the anti choice come out and open and tell us how they really feel about the topic, there will never be a compromise.

Last, we need to change our terminology. No, not just their "baby killers" - there are no babies there. But it is time for us to move from "choice" to privacy.

I've read someplace that the word choice raises issue of consumerism, while "baby killers" is more visceral. We need to use visceral words and images, too. And privacy can be a step in that directions. We need input from wordsmiths.

[frustrated_lefty]

155. Respectfully disagree.

You make a good point, that an agreement to definition of terms usually pre-requisite to productive discourse. As others have observed in this thread, however, the impetus to the anti-choice movement is inextricably woven together with other rightwing machinations, including their desire to have control over women's bodies and their perverse desire to force their views regarding sexuality upon those around them. Abortion becomes something of a lightning rod, drawing all of the attention, while they push forward the entire underlying agenda.

It might be useful to re-frame the debate: too many children are being brought into the world because rightwing abuse of viagra and related drugs is subverting their own god's laws ("Your god gave you limpdick; why do you defy HIS will?"). Moreover, it is unsafe to bring children into this world until rightwingers cease and desist with their rampant pedophilia.

In short, fuck compromising with them. The time for compromise is long gone. Call them on their shit.

-fl

[trixie]

157. You completely miss the point

I am anti-enslavementofmybodybythegovernment or pro-choice for short.

Being pro-choice does not mean you are for the murder of anyone. It gives women the same right to their bodies as men.