I was thinking about this on my way to work today...
What would be an acceptable compromise with the abortion issue?
Late term abortion is not acceptable...and an outright ban is not acceptable to some.
So, what is the compromise?
I say, late term abortion needs to be made illegal. When the life of the mother is in danger, things need to be done to save her life. However, that just about NEVER means you have to kill the baby.
I would say strict parental involvement and approval is needed for anyone under 18. I could live with it being available through the first trimester, then completely illegal.
What would you be able to live with.
Friday, September 15, 2006
Deep thoughts
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
34 comments:
To be honest (and I'm not Catholic), I'm not comfortable with it at all.
I believe in prevention, and in making it illegal for kids to have sex before they're old enough to realize the responsibilities, I believe in birth control, etc., but not abortion.
I would completely agree with you, but I was trying to see what compromise would be acceptable to you...
I guess I am willing to give up to the end of the first trimester with strict parental guidelines...
most liberals will say that is too soon...
"What would you be able to live with."
The question isn't what am I able to live with it...it's what can the unborn child live with?
Thank you.
To those who are truly against abortion in general, there is no compromise, game. We can't deal with the thought of an unborn child being killed at all. It's murder any way you look at it.
The subject more should be how to prevent it from happening in the first place.
Another thing you might want to think about: if there were strict parental guidelines, and they were followed, then it wouldn't happen in the first place.
I'm unable to live with it because the child is unable to live.
I've also had a recent personal happening indirectly related to abortion with my daughter. She lost a baby.
She had to have an abortive procedure done, because the baby had died and didn't "expel".
It was the most painful thing that she and I have been through. It was her second child that she wanted, and my grandchild, at just a month and a half of pregnancy.
Now, take that another step, and imagine what it would have been like had she been aborting a live baby. We really would have been torn up over it.
I could accept your comprimise game and I am glad you are looking at comprimise because that is the only way to solve a problem where there are different ideas on what to do. It is called statesmanship.
well dedanna, if you vote for Dem's then you are voting for partial birth abortion and abortion on demand...think about that
Who said I vote for either one of you suckos?
As a matter of fact, I write in Linus or Snoopy. Nobody else will do.
Well, I'm not one willing to compromise on the issue. I trust individual women to make moral decisions about controversial matters like abortion, not the government.
Legally, it is a different story. The right to an abortion is not enumerated in the Constitution, and ought to be sent to the states to decide. Ceteris paribus, when choosing between pro-choice and pro-life candidates, I will vote pro-choice. Things aren't equal, though.
No late term abortion, EVER? What about if the fetus's brain is developing outside its skull and it has no genetalia? What then?
As I have stated before, I believe that most liberals WOULD compromise, but they know that the so-called pro-life side would NEVER stop with a compromise.
I totally disagree, Jim, and I think that attitude is liberal nonsense. It basically shakes down like this: biologically speaking, there is no such thing as a period of development when the embryo, zygote, fetus, whatever you want to call it at any given stage, is "non-human", that is, not a person. It's a willful disregard for logic that is born, as it were, out of a desire to abdicate responsibility and continue indulging in sexual self-gratification. Damn near every other view is lame rationalization for immaturity. So the main point from which all other opinions should begin, is that we are always talking about a human being who came into existence with the penetration of a woman's ovum by a man's sperm. This is the exact beginning of every human being on the planet. No one comes into being without that episode. The act of intercourse is by God's design (or nature's for the heathens out there) the method by which this situation is brought about. This Bio 101 lesson is just to eliminate the concept of "unwanted" pregnancies. When a couple engages in the very act that is designed for procreation, then that act is by it's nature an invitation to life, or more specifically, to the child that will eventually be born if allowed. This is the basis for the conservative/religious/pro-life position. I will add that even without any religious references whatsoever, the science and biology work the same way. It's human life. Period. End of discussion.
Except that the discussion of this thread goes on. With the above recognized as the fact it is, how can any compromise come about. Even from my personal fundamental POV, the life of the mother is of equal importance to the life of the child. Thus, should it be determined that death of the mother is highly likely should a pregnancy continue, that is a form of self-defense, and not the same as the typical abortion, which is selfish to one degree or another. So one point of compromise is to preserve the life of the mother, but by her choice primarily, or her husband's should she be unable to speak for herself.
In these debates, one often hears of possibilities of incredible abnormalities as described by Jim. These are rare of course, but allowing for the possibility, an HONEST assessment of the doctor in charge in consultation with the mother would be in order and I'd have a hard time legally forcing a woman to go through with such a pregnancy. I fear for the obvious abuses of this kind of policy and would expect stringent steps to be observed in coming to this conclusion. Right now, there are all sorts of minor situations being put forth as valid reasons for terminating, and 99% of the time the reasons are quite INvalid.
Then there's rape and incest. These two should be dealt with in the same manner as the above. Incest does not guarantee deformities at all, though they are more likely if the parent have a genetic condition. For rape, I agree with George H. W. Bush who said that with rape there seems to be two victims, the woman and the child that may be a result of the rape. Put it up for adoption. Giving up nine months for the life of a child doesn't seem a bad trade, as unfortunate as it may be.
All in all, the pro-abortion side wants no restrictions whatsoever. And they always refer to rape, incest and the "health" of the mother. The health issue is to afford them an ambiguous law under which anything can be done. But since rape, incest and the LIFE of the mother constitute no more than 1% of all abortions, my compromise would be:
I'll give the 1% for the lives of the other 99.
Nice try marshall. Despite your laborious use of language, your agrument falls very short. Any attempt to infuse the debate with 'morality' about pre-conceptive activity is pure bigotry and nonsense. Life is life, and there is no difference between any of it except that humans make the laws that protect us from each other. Since almost 60% of pregnancies fail to make it past the first trimester, there is no real logic behind denying a woman the right to terminate it of her own accord. In addition, since the pregnancy takes place inside of her body and she has legal parental rights over her child, it is her choice to bear a child whose health or when hers is in jeopardy.
Sadly, those who cant be happy without forcing control over other people will always try and implement their choices on those who think differently. Ultimately, jason is correct, and each state should be able to decide what it wants to allow inside its borders. However, Roe vs Wade is important because it is basic protection. Without it, fascists like marshall will try and prosecute women who cross state boundaries to get abortions or help those who do.
As I have stated before, there is no significant increase in abortion activity since it became legal. Mostly, abortion rates are down from the 80's and earlier. Since abortion is a service few women would choose, those who are desperate will choose it regardless, and should be afforded safety and guidance. For those who claim that any effects, including death, are just for women who choose it, it just proves that those people do not care about life and their opinions are compromised.
Should a first semester compromise be enacted? Sure. Will it solve anything? No. Mostly, because the religious freakshow will never tolerate any dissenting opinion, regardless of how good it is for the country and other people.
rhyno, it is not 60%...
once the egg is fertilized and is embedded in the uterus, the failure rate is 25%
rhyno said...
Since almost 60% of pregnancies fail to make it past the first trimester, there is no real logic behind denying a woman the right to terminate it of her own accord.
Whether this figure is correct or not, it doesn't matter. It's a bullshit statement, rhyno. Just because a pregnancy will or will not make it beyond the first trimester is no excuse for murdering an innocent child. In one case (miscarriage), nature is dealing with whatever problem is there. In the other, a human being, not nature, is deliberately taking away the possibility that the fetus can come to term.
I'm sorry, I'm not willing to take away that kind of choice (nature's). You screw with nature, and it will come back to haunt you.
jim said:
What about if the fetus's brain is developing outside its skull and it has no genetalia? What then?
This to me, gets into prevention. Pregnancies should be planned for, and associated risks minimized before one ges pregnant. These days, the risk of abnormalities for the most part can be found through blood tests for the mother and father both; through DNA testing, etc. etc. This is how unwanted pregnancies are prevented, and how abortions are prevented.
I realize that there is always still a risk with the unknown, but this minimizes it drastically.
I still hold with abortion should not be an option for anyone. Prevention should always be the primary option.
Actually, its greater than 60%. I was being generous. Only 60% even become imbedded, and I was reaching to the anti-"morning after pill" psychoes. After that, then yes, it is about 25%.
No, dedanna. There are more factors in play than just whether or not the egg is viable to determine whether it spontaneously aborts. Despite controlling attempts by religious zealots, a fertilized egg is not a human. Its a collection of cells with no viable future for many months. It takes a minimum of 34-42 days for that to remotely resemble a human in development. Since the development of the nervous system doesnt even allow it to feel pain until the third trimester, first trimester restriction is probably generous but solid.
Well, Marshall, I and many, MANY people would disagee with your characterization of a zygote or fetus as a "person". In my opinion, which is absolutely just valid as yours, a person is a living, breathing child. A fetus is not.
Marshall, thanks for the biology lesson. I never knew how babies were made.
We've all known, as you are admitting, that this whole thing is about controlling sexual behavior. We all know that you want all women to stop being the whores you believe them to be.
Also, there is no group to my knowledge that is "pro-abortion".
Democrats are pro-abortion...that is why Clinton vetoed to get rid of partial birth abortion more than once
I know of no Democrat who is pro-abortion. Every Democrat I have every HEARD of believes that abortions should be safe, legal, and rare. That would not be "pro-abortion."
Both Rhyno and Jim fall into the same tired and fallacious responses. In Rhyno's case, he has a problem with the infusion of morality into any legislative decisions. The cowardly "you can't tell ME how to live" argument doesn't take into account the fact that all laws do just that. All laws are infused with some notion of right and wrong, most of which flows from Judeo-Christian philosophies regarding same. But despite all of that, I didn't use any faith based points in my argument. I used science and logic. It just happens to mesh with Judeo-Christian philosophy. There's a lesson there.
I think it's completely illogical to suppose that Roe v Wade didn't increase not only the rate of abortion, but the rate at which people like Rhyno and perhaps Jim used such laws to enhance their chances for getting laid. Roe v Wade, as well as abortofacient drugs, has certainly increased promiscuity, thus the need for abortions. No stats required here. It only makes perfect sense. Before the pill and Roe v Wade, there was a time when "morality infused into society" influenced and guided behavior. Of course some engaged. That's hardly at issue. But the frequency was less, far less than we see since the introduction of these procedures, pills and the attitudes that came with them.
As Dedanna pointed out, and correctly so, what the body does with an embryo is one thing. That in no way logically leads to the concept that therefore the mother has the rights to kill the kid. Parental rights never entitle the parent to kill their kids. What a completely asinine assumption. The moment that egg is fertilized, it possesses it's own unique DNA, distinguishable from the mother. Thus, it is not "her body" with which we on the right are concerning ourselves, but the body growing inside her at her explicit invitation. We are equally concerned with the lives of the mothers and even with the lives of people like Rhyno, but those lives to not take precedence over another's simply because of cosmetic differences such as skin color, hair color, number of limbs, weight, height, or what stage of development. You'll be pleased to know, even lame arguments don't lessen your worth.
A fertilized egg IS indeed a human. Without repeating the biology lessen (I don't know how I could possibly explain it in more simple terms), suffice it to say that it is human life passed on from the parents to it's offspring and despite it's microscopic size, which for you is sufficient rob it of it's humanity, it is indeed a human being. Your belief in the opposite is no different than the attitudes of the KKK toward blacks, or the Nazi's toward Jews. They disputed their humanity based on skin color and nationality/religion, and you do it on the child's microscopic size.
Now here's where "morality" is definitely infused into the discussion. You guys apparently believe there is nothing wrong with abortion just so there is less restriction on getting your nuts off. Well, that attitude has done nothing to enhance our culture. Engaging in an act designed for procreation, for purposes other than procreation, only to murder the result of that procreation is a lot easier if we subjectively use facts as lame excuses for labeling a human being, a non-human. True men (or women) of honor would never suffer such cheap rationalizations nor make them themselves, never mind whether or not they're religious.
Now Jim claims a fetus is not a living, breathing child. Well it IS a child, and it IS living. It also is getting it's oxygen supplied by it's mother, and has been since fertilization. Even if removed as "a clump of cells", those cells are by scientific standards, living. This is not debatable. It is living. That the "clump" is dependant upon it's mother or not "viable" outside the womb is also lame since #1, who wasn't at that stage, and #2, most five year olds would die without their mothers to feed and nurture them.
"We've all known, as you are admitting, that this whole thing is about controlling sexual behavior. We all know that you want all women to stop being the whores you believe them to be."
You're projecting here. It's not about controlling anyone, at least not anymore than any other law which prohibits the taking of a human life. THAT is the point. These children are protected by the Constitutional right to life. The argument, selfishly raised by those on your side of the debate, is whether it IS human life that is aborted. As I've described above, it clearly is and thus is deserving of the same protections as you are.
I know that your side prefers to believe that people are beyond the honor and self-discipline required to control THEMSELVES, but we on the right know better. It's always a question of whether they WILL control themselves, not whether they can. As such, I don't believe laws, or made up rights, based on the unwillingness to be one's own master is the way to go. Certainly not when considering human life is involved. The worst part, is that it is the most vulnerable and helpless of humans at risk, and that is beneath any honorable man or woman. And BTW, "slut" is the proper word to describe a loose woman. I prefer "asshole" for the sort of man who would support the kind of "rights" that enhance his ability to use women as does Roe v Wade and the introduction of Birth Control pills. One needn't be a Christian to understant that.
Ok, one sentence:
Why have sex, which springs forth the egg & sperm, which combine to bring forth a life at any given time, if not to bring forth a life?
If this were not the purpose, then the egg & sperm wouldn't even come into play, and I'm not playing biology or religion either one here -- just logic.
Wow, Marshall, since you are absolutely right on all this, I can't imagine why people, legal scholars, theologians, philosophers, lawmakers, and scientists have even bothered to debate the subject over the millenia. The "truth" is SO OBVIOUS and undeniable.
dedanna said: Why have sex, which springs forth the egg & sperm, which combine to bring forth a life at any given time, if not to bring forth a life?
Jesus, dedanna, are you kidding me?
Nope, the egg & sperm make the life, in the end.
Destroy them, and you've destroyed a life.
Any questions?
Whether that life is future or current.
" I can't imagine why people, legal scholars, theologians, philosophers, lawmakers, and scientists have even bothered to debate the subject over the millenia."
Pick one or two of the above and show me an argument that contradicts mine, and I'll show you how it's a cheap rationalization. They can't argue the biology. All they will do is subjectively select some arbitrary point in the person's development to name as the beginning of it's personhood. Is there a functioning brain? Is it attached to the uterine wall? Is there blood flow? Can it feel pain? None of this matters considering all are descriptions of stages that everyone outside the womb has gone through on their way to retirement homes in Arizona. Rhyno mentioned the percentage of embryos that don't attach to the uteris and are flushed from the body. This is more properly compared with millions of people who die before reaching the average lifespan for any of a thousand reasons. The difference is that in this case, it happens in the womb instead of at some point outside it.
But even if we were to allow for any of those arbitrary points to stand as our standard, how can we certify that a fetus or embryo has reached that stage? One micro-second one way or the other is all that determines humanity? No sir. That dog will definitely not hunt. It won't even get off the porch.
So my compromise includes spending all that money that is used on abortions and fertility research (a related can of worms)and "redeploy" it (libs love that word these days) toward finding real contraception that does what the word implies, which is to prevent conception/fertilization and then, we wouldn't have to go through all that crap about "controlling" other people and everyone can be the self-indulgent sluts they prefer to be. Just think: rampant porking with no consequences beyond some chick thinking you loved her. What could be better?
AMEN!! THANK YOU!!!
Attaboy, Jason and Jim! The whole point of allowing abortions is that women have a choice. Hence, pro-choice. This doesn't mean that women are encouraged to have abortions, it means they have the option, and it means that THEY can decide for themselves what the right decision is for them.
Dedanna: Here's one reason to have sex without 'bringing forth life' (gag): It feels damn good!
Then do it without bringing forth life. Use birth control. That's my point.
As if you couldn't see it --
Posts like anonymous' above is why they call 'em dipshits, folks.
To the anonymous poster:
First, get a moniker. You lame POV might get credited to another lame anonymous poster.
Secondly, the whole point of the pro-choice agenda is that a human being becomes a human being at the moment he/she was conceived, which, one last time, happened at the moment the female ovum was penetrated and fertilized by the male sperm. If you can prevent that from happening as you indulge yourself (as if anyone is acutally letting you), then go ahead and enjoy your self-gratification. Or, you can be a man (or woman, as the case may be) and control yourself.
Or, be a man and use birth control, and prevent those fishies from eating up the eggs.
That simple.
Marshall: I go by anon here b/c I know the Game and don't want the link to my own personal blog to be public. Plus, he doesn't know who I am, and I'd prefer to keep it that way. I'll think about creating an actual anon moniker.
To the rest of your comment, I don't believe either for myself or that the pro-choice POV believes human life is created upon conception. I think a fetus is a fetus, not a human.
But, that's just my humble POV, rip it apart as you are free to do.
Dedanna: It's not actually that simple. Birth control is not 100% effective, and I know more than one woman who has conceived while using a condom or being on the pill.
Also, I don't feel namecalling is particularly effective nor mature. It certainly doesn't lend credibility to your comments.
Post a Comment