The following is from the book, Winter is Coming, by jim goulding

Chapter 14 - Boomers & Silents; 2004-2024

Strauss and Howe end The Fourth Turning with two chapters (10 & 11) that try and predict how the coming Winter era will start, spark, and climax.

The predictions are bold and I commend them for doing it. As I stated earlier, it takes guts to predict the future.
Let's peer into the future, and see what S&H, Dent, and I think is going to transpire.

It's important to remember what the key is to the Winter eras in American history. That key is the age location of the archetypes. This is the common thread binding the seven Anglo-American Winter eras going back to 1459. Listed below are the American Winter eras. (Appendix A lists all seven eras and the rest of the Turnings in Anglo-American history).

Crisis Era (Beginning of)

Cycle - Colonial
Era - Glorious Revolution (1675-1692)
Puritan (Idealists) Elderhood 63-83
Cavalier (Reactive) Midlife 42-62
Glorious(Civic) Rising Adult 21-41
Enlightenment (Adaptive) Youth 0-20

Cycle - Revolutionary
Era - American Revolution (1773-1789)
Awakening (Idealists) Elderhood 63-83
Liberty (Reactive) Midlife 42-62
Republican (Civic) Rising Adult 21-41
Compromise (Adaptive) Youth 0-20

Cycle - Civil War
Era - Civil War (1857-1865)
Compromise (Adaptive) Elderhood 63-83
Transcendental (Idealist) Midlife 42-62
Gilded (Reactive) Rising Adult 21-41
Progressive (Adaptive) Youth 0-20

Cycle - Great Power
Era - The Great Depression & WWII (1929-1945)
Missionary (Idealists) Elderhood 63-83
Lost (Reactive) Midlife 42-62
G.I. (Civic) Rising Adult 21-41
Silent (Adaptive) Youth 0-20

Cycle - Millennial
Era - The Great Devaluation (2001-2024?)
Boomers (Idealists) Elderhood 63-83
Generation-X (Reactive) Midlife 42-62
Millennials (Civic) Rising Adult 21-41

Homeland Babies (Adaptive) Rising Adult 21-41
As a cycle theorist, I can't look at this graph and deny what it says. Every time these archetypes line up in this specific pattern, a Crisis era ensues. (The right-hand column lists the current era, 2002).

The next thing I want to remind you of is that this is a macro science, not a micro science. Don't try to make everything perfect in generational study or you'll drive yourself nuts. I know--because I've tried.

One thing I did find while driving myself nuts was that the Generational Diagonal became more precise as our society advanced. The age locations matched closer and closer to the phases of life that S&H put forth. Basically, their model is getting better and better as time goes on.

The next item to look at is how the politically affluent generations alive, the Boomer and the Silent generation, will behave during this Winter era. To accomplish this, S&H looked at the past behavior of the same archetypes.

As the previous chapters attest, the Boomers will play a very impotent role in the era. If history and the past few years (2001-2003) are any indicator of the future, we could be in for a Winter era similar to the Civil War or worse. I see no reason to believe that the Boomers will do some sort of personal shadow confrontation in the next few years that will change my opinion.

What history tells us is that the Boomers will age much differently than the Silent generation. In The Fourth Turning, S&H go into great detail about the Boomers aging (see pages 279-287). S&H write, "Boomer gerontologist Harry Moody sees a twenty-first century shift to a 'contemplative old age' that eliminates today's focus on activity and instead 'transcends doing, in favor of being.'"[i]

In the above passage we see that the Boomers are going to "age gracefully". They'll accept their aging process, welcome it. Furthermore, they will not be as active as their predecessors.

Look for the "Boomer evangelical"[ii] and Christians to advance their radicalism. They will push for more prayer in public life. Furthermore, if Roe v. Wade is to ever be overturned it will come in a Winter era. Maybe this era. The Boom is in total political control, and it feverishly believes in its cause. If you add those two things up, the Boomers will probably get what they want.

As far as the economy, the Boom will not be in an envious position. First of all, they have a collective tendency to put off saving money. Second, they were very spoiled by their parents' new-found wealth and have no frame of reference for hard economic times. The same could be said for the Millennials and Generation-X; however these two generations have a completely different collective view about the economy.

S&H state the Boomer situation very simply: "Sooner or later, the truth will dawn on old Boomers, that the money simply won't be there to support their accustomed consumption habits in old age."[iii]

On the bright side, the Boom is not the G.I. generation. They will not transfer money away from everyone else and to themselves. They will consider the economic problem theirs, not ours. Instead of hording the taxpayers' money, they will be inclined to give up Social Security and accept a radically different version of today's Medicare. They will push the government entitlement money towards the new Hero generation, the Millennials. The Boom is not the only generation that will do this; look for Gen-X to do the same. This is because we all love the Millennials (Heroes) in youth and young adulthood. This is precisely where the Heroes get their self-confidence. However, it's also where they get the penchant for entitlement that manifests itself into a money-grabbing generation in Midlife.

A piece of information that I can't ignore, and is rather abstract, is the fact that the Boomers and Gen-Xer's I know have always conceded that Social Security will not be there. The only supporting fact that I can offer is, the G.I., the Silent, and the Boomer politicians have been looting the system for twenty years.

Quoting from a 1998 Senate Budget Committee session, the evidence presents itself.

"GREENSPAN: I will wait to see what the numbers look like.
HOLLINGS: Well, the truth is...ah, shoot, well, we all know there's Washington's math problem. Alan Sloan in this past week's Newsweek says he spends 150%. What we've been doing, Mr. Chairman, in all reality, is taken a hundred billion out of the Social Security Trust Fund, transferring it over to the spending column, and spending it. Our friends to the left here are getting their tax cuts, we're getting our spending increases, and hollering surplus, surplus, and balanced budget, and balanced budget plans when we continue to spend a hundred billion more than we take in. [my emphasis.] That's the reality, and I think that you and I, working the same side of the street now, can have a little bit of success by bringing to everybody's attention this is all intended surplus. In other words, when we passed the Greenspan Commission Report, the Greenspan Commission Report only had Social Security in 1983 a two hundred million surplus. It's projected to have this year a 117 million surplus. I've got the schedule, I'll ask to put in the record the CBO report: 117, 126, 130, 100, going right through to 2008 over the ten year period of 186 billion surplus. That was intended; this is dramatic about all these retirees, the baby Boomers. But we foresaw that baby Boomer problem, we planned against that baby Boomer problem. Our problem is we've been spending that particular reserve, that set-aside that you testify to that is so necessary. That's what I'm trying to get this government back to reality, if we can do that. [my emphasis.]

"We owe Social Security 736 billion right this minute. If we saved 117 billion, we could pay that debt down, and have the wonderful effect on the capital markets and savings rate. Isn't that correct? Thank you very much, Sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman."[iv] [my emphasis.]

In the beginning of this book, in the acknowledgement section, I wrote about the 'horse's mouth'. That's exactly what this is. The men in charge are spewing out the truth about looting the Social Security system to the tune of $736,000,000,000. That's billions. And that was in 1998. Today's figures are--does it really matter what they are? Bottom line is, the Boomers, Silents, and G.I.'s stole Generation-X's money.

Senator Hollings (D-South Carolina) says this about the Social Security Trust fund: "The truth is that the Social Security Trust Fund has already been stripped bare. There is no trust and no fund." [v] (my emphasis.)

Lastly, I'll quote two top U.S. officials on this matter. First: Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas) states this: "The dollars taken out of your paycheck are not deposited into an account to be paid to you later. On the contrary, they are spent immediately to pay current benefits, and to fund completely unrelated federal programs.

"Your Social Security administration 'account' is nothing more than an IOU, a hopeful promise that enough younger taxpayers will be around to pay your benefits later."[vi] (Author's emphasis.)

Second: Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said this: "...the Social Security trust fund does not consist of real economic assets, we are left to rely on the federal government's future decisions to either raise taxes, reduce spending or increase borrowing from the public to finance fully Social Security's promised benefits".[vii]

The severe looting began in 1987[viii] when the Silent generation was in political control of Congress[ix] and the G.I.'s were in charge of the Executive Branch.[x] These two generations looted the system for approximately $250 billion. Then, the Boomers took over in 1992 and proceeded to loot the system for $750 billion.

Excellent planning by those generations. I've been robbed. You've been robbed. Our children have been robbed. Generation-X sure is an evil generation. We sure are slackers. I have an idea. Let's flip-flop all the prisoners the Boom has put in jail for smoking pot and we'll put the politicians who stole our money in their place.

If the Winter era turns out to be a double-crisis era, like the crash of 1929 and WWII, then the coming devaluation will be followed by an all-out total war. That's the problem with Winter eras. The wars are not small. They are massive and they are fought to the finish. The Boomers (who'll be in political control until about 2015[xi]) might have screamed "hell no we won't go", but they'll send someone else to die for their selfish causes. They've already been practicing, haven't they.

Only ten Senators and thirty Representatives in Congress (2003) have ever been in military combat.[xii] Neither President Bush nor Vice President Cheney has been in active duty. The unfortunate souls in this Winter era, are the Millennials, b.1982-2001. If a total war breaks out, it won't happen until after 2010. The Millennials will fight this war. Will you tell the government, "No! Not this time!"?

Or will you let them get slaughtered for some Boomer's fire-and-brimstone cause?

As a country, you sat back and let two Bush Presidents send Gen-X to Iraq. How many of the Boomer politicians sent their children to die in Iraq in 2003? Of the entire Executive branch and the entire Congress, there was a total of one child.[xiii] Typical Idealists.
Lastly on the Boomers in this modern Winter era, I'll leave off with a quote from authors Peter Collier and David Horowitz. They state that the Boomers are "a destructive generation whose work is not over yet".[xiv]

* * *
The Silent is the only generation alive that has been through a crisis era before and will be around when it all hits the fan again. The last of the G.I. generation will be around also, but in fewer numbers and in less a position to offer help.

The Silent generation has a lot to offer: experience being the most important of this. S&H write, "Reversing the G.I. trend towards separation, these new-breed elders [the Silents] will want to stay actively engaged in an increasingly Boomer-dominated society... The Silent will feel less the senior citizen than the senior partner." [xv]

The Silents will pass their enormous economic wealth onto the younger generations, especially Gen-X, whom the Silents now feel guilty about. Looking back on their lives the Silents will regret leaving their children so underprotected and the way they rushed Gen-X to grow up fast. What makes the Silents so unique is that they never give up trying to make things right. Passing off their economic good fortune is one way for the Silents to believe they are helping the scales tip towards that goal. [xvi]

Furthermore, S&H write that the Silents will continue to "press the case for other-directed social compassion, pluralism, sympathy for the underdog, and procedural fairness." [xvii]

Lastly, S&H state that the Silents are in a position to mediate the generational war between the Boom and Gen-X.[xviii] The Silents have a long history of building committees in the political system to try and make things as fair as possible for everyone. They have a history of expanding our judicial system and creating layers of appeal processes. Although this can be defined as red tape, it can also be perceived as a collective conscious trying to work out every last detail, to make sure that nothing is missed and everyone gets heard. That's exactly what the Boomers and Gen-X need in their internal warfare.

We've looked at the Boomer and the Silent generations and their possible collective behavior in this Winter era. What about the ever-maligned Generation-X?

i Strauss and Howe, The Fourth Turning 280-281.
ii Ibid 281.
iii Ibid 283.
iv "The Looting of Social Security to Balance the Federal Budget".
v Sherman.
vi Paul.
vii Aversa.
viii See chart: "The Looting of Social Security to Balance the Federal Budget".
ix Strauss and Howe, Generations Appendix B (p.463).
x Ronald Reagan, born 1911. George Herbert Walker Bush, born 1924. (G.I. generation was born 1901-1924).
xi "Baby Boomer".
xii Wilson.
xiii Rangel.
xiv Strauss and Howe, The Fourth Turning 286.
xv Strauss and Howe, Generations 390.
xvi Ibid 390.
xvii Ibid 390.
xviii Ibid 390.

* * *
Copyright
All rights reserved.
Copyright(c) 2003, James A. Goulding, Elmhurst, Illinois.

This book may not be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the author, James A. Goulding.

Printed electronically in the U.S.A. by Jim Goulding

Cover Design by James A. Goulding

Editing by Jordan Watkins

Disclaimer
This book is not an investment book. It's for informational purposes only. Always, always, always, seek the advice of a professionally certified investment adviser. I may be a trader, but that does not qualify me to give investment advice nor do I want to give you that impression.

Hmmmmm. Much was said that needs to be absorbed.
But on Roe v Wade: The problem is that the *men* leading the cause do not SEE THE WOMAN in the equation. If a woman decides to terminate a pregnancy in her FIRST TRI-MESTER,IF that is what is best for *HER ALREADY EXISTING LIFE* at that particular intersection of her life,then that should be no-one's business,not the government OR the corner church. HER *ALREADY EXISTING LIFE* should usurp and take precedence over an over-romanticized fetus that is *DIRECTLY CONNECTED AND DEPENDENT ON HER BODY* and will directly affect HER WORLD. "Partial Birth Abortions" hardly ever occur. And if they do,it is not due to some spur-of-the-moment,birth-control WHIM. The *DIALOUGE* that is engendered by the 'PBA' argument is meant to connect words like "grisly" and "horrible" with the term and issue OF abortion,therefore muddying the waters of thought,discourse and the understanding of what Roe v Wade & CHOICE has meant for the *PSYCOLOGICAL* emancipation of woman; It seeks to SHIFT the dialouge off the issue of CHOICE IN THE FIRST TRI-MESTER. The masculine principle is working overtime since the feminine one has dominated for so many decades now. I plan on fighting it TOOTH & NAIL. Possibly with a steel-toed boot or two as well. :twisted:

This is why Scalia is shifting the spotlight to himself so much as of late. He's signaling to Bush supporters that the culture wars are to be won THROUGH AND UP ON HIS ACROPOLIS. He's signaling to them to keep the shrub in office so that that a conservative court will rule for decades to come; This may ignite the first spark of the new potential "civil-war". *I KNOW I DO NOT PLAN ON LIVING BY THE MORES OF PROTESTANT CHRISTIANITY*. SHARPEN YOUR NAILS,BOYS AND GIRLS,IT'S GOING TO BE A BLOODY RIDE. :lol:

Libertine,

I admire your passion for a cause.

sincerely,
jim goulding

I'm just tired of religion (manmade) & "moralists" controlling the dialouge in this nation. Since when did absolutism make a return? The strategy of the right today is to filibuster the cultural dialouge and HOLLER till everyone is just too tired to fight. Capitulation is not an option for a Sagittarian. Neither are protestant values for a Latin-inspired New Orleanian. We actually have an illiterate protestant,upstate New York transplant "reverend" here in New Orleans trying to "ban" certain events,Mardi Gras being one. Imagine a "reverend" using the tax monies that gay citizens pay for "police protection" on labor day weekend as well,to protest THEIR existence in THEIR city and nation,all the while using THEIR tax dollars......... Most were toothless,but extremely vociferous. The "reverend" seeks to stoke up the poor and trailer-trash,which is what is being left behind here in a poverty stricken metro area; They have no time and energy for tolerance and enlightenment; The "reverend" does percieve that. The "reverend" wants bland protestant values to usurp that of the already established New Orleans Latin ones. Oh,and he's a boomer.

Originally Posted by Libertine65

I'm just tired of religion (manmade) & "moralists" controlling the dialouge in this nation....

A few points about this thread.

1. The Fourth Turning has not started yet. 9/11 was not the catalyst. See the behaviour of people in society today and notice that the driver generation (Boomers) is not old enough yet. QED.

2. The 4th is due in 2006. The New Silent started being born in 2003.

3. Abortion is murder. Human life begins at conception. It is no less proper for society to ban abortion than it is for them to ban killing old people because they are "inconvienient".

4. The Rights of the Unborn Child will finally be recognized in a constitutional amendment during this 4T.

Good evening.

My impression of the religious are that they can be divided into two types. There are those who want to help their fellow man, on the one hand, and on the other there are those who want to bully him. *** ***

Originally Posted by takascar2

Originally Posted by Libertine65

I'm just tired of religion (manmade) & "moralists" controlling the dialouge in this nation....

A few points about this thread.

1. The Fourth Turning has not started yet. 9/11 was not the catalyst. See the behaviour of people in society today and notice that the driver generation (Boomers) is not old enough yet. QED.

2. The 4th is due in 2006. The New Silent started being born in 2003.

3. Abortion is murder. Human life begins at conception. It is no less proper for society to ban abortion than it is for them to ban killing old people because they are "inconvienient".

4. The Rights of the Unborn Child will finally be recognized in a constitutional amendment during this 4T.

Good evening.

Disclaimer -- these points are all the opinion of the poster. They are not universally acknowledged facts. :wink:

And a fine good morning to you,takascar2. Nope. Sorry. There will be no "constitutional amendment" controlling one's body in this nation. Where would that end?? I'd rather see it ALL TORN DOWN FIRST,before fundies get their grimy,little hands on my SECULAR free-republic...... "Abortion IS murder" is just a mantra that the right spews oVeR and OVeR ad-nauseum. What SHE does in her first-trimester with HER body concerning a fetus/blob is NONE OF THE CONCERN of the church OR congress. "Life begins at conception"? (Irrelevant to the argument). There are many a lives with brown and black & white faces that already have lives and need adopting; Whatcha doing for them?......... I never used the word "inconvienent" in my argument. And I do not disrespect the elderly,nor advocate abortion as birth-control,which was where you were headed by attributing that word to me. Funny how you jumped from still NOT SEEING the woman,to seeing "old people" with your argument. It still has NOTHING to do with the fact that said fetus/blob is connected to HER ALREADY EXISTING BODY. Ergo,SHE usurps fetus/blob,no matter how hard Sen.Rick Santorum rubs his palms,shakes his head and purses his lips. A fetus/blob has NO "rights". It can't think,walk,percieve or VOTE. SHE can do those things already. See her FIRST. STOP POLITICIZING a woman's womb................And a note to all free-spirits and individualists: Beware the American who desires a "constitutional amendment" where your own body is concerned! Good Day.

I would like to ask takascar if he is also opposed to contraception.

Originally Posted by Libertine65

I'm just tired of religion (manmade) & "moralists" controlling the dialouge in this nation. Since when did absolutism make a return? The strategy of the right today is to filibuster the cultural dialouge and HOLLER till everyone is just too tired to fight. Capitulation is not an option for a Sagittarian. Neither are protestant values for a Latin-inspired New Orleanian. We actually have an illiterate protestant,upstate New York transplant "reverend" here in New Orleans trying to "ban" certain events,Mardi Gras being one. Imagine a "reverend" using the tax monies that gay citizens pay for "police protection" on labor day weekend as well,to protest THEIR existence in THEIR city and nation,all the while using THEIR tax dollars......... Most were toothless,but extremely vociferous. The "reverend" seeks to stoke up the poor and trailer-trash,which is what is being left behind here in a poverty stricken metro area; They have no time and energy for tolerance and enlightenment; The "reverend" does percieve that. The "reverend" wants bland protestant values to usurp that of the already established New Orleans Latin ones. Oh,and he's a boomer.

Ah, the upstate NY Bible Belt. Guess all that talk about the new South is true.

Ah,but New Orleans isn't "southern",she's LATIN........... The "reverend" has been here for years. It's just he now sees the oppurtunity to INTERJECT HIS brand & version of an INNER-WORLD & CODE-OF-LIVING to the rest of us due to the vaccum that a poverty-stricken,oppressed New Orleans has borne out. The educated and enlightened ones have left and are continuing to leave. The poor & working class have no time for the enlightenment and Live-and-Let-Live values of a Pagan/Latin culture with Mardi Gras & Southern Decadence as it's peak celebrations. He's jumping on that. (Kinda reminds me of a guy in Germany in the 30's). But this time around it's the "queers".......And Upstate New York is no bastion of liberal values. It's lineage is conservative WASP. It has ALSO shown contempt for polyglot-decadent NYC in years past..... He is an interloper,a rabble-rouser & a hate-monger. And he has hi-jacked christianity to achieve his POLITICAL GOALS. I find it disturbing that a "religious leader" would be asking my GOVERNMENT to "BAN" certain cultural events. Not in my lifetime.

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

I would like to ask takascar if he is also opposed to contraception.

No.

Again, I say - why can we have laws against murder and not against abortion. Thats hypocracy.

I use the term "inconvienient" because all a woman has to do to keep
from getting preggers is to keep her legs closed and stop acting like a slut. Fornication is antisocial. Marriage is for producing children, so if you are married, you are supposed to have kids.

If you really dont want them, take the pill or something else.

You dont erase one mistake with an act of murder.

I and many people who care about all human life will make it our holy cause to finally get the unborn child his/her full rights as a citizen of the country and that includes the right to live.

Originally Posted by takascar2

I use the term "inconvienient" because all a woman has to do to keep
from getting preggers is to keep her legs closed and stop acting like a slut. Fornication is antisocial. Marriage is for producing children, so if you are married, you are supposed to have kids.

If you really dont want them, take the pill or something else.

Two questions.

1. The pill stops ovulation but it also occasionally prevents a fertilized egg from properly implanting in the uterus. Is that murder?

2. My mother is 73 and a widow. If she were to find the second love of her life and marry again, is that immoral because she is too old to have kids (and wouldn't want them anyway at this stage of her life).

Thanks.

Originally Posted by The Wonk

Two questions.

1. The pill stops ovulation but it also occasionally prevents a fertilized egg from properly implanting in the uterus. Is that murder?

2. My mother is 73 and a widow. If she were to find the second love of her life and marry again, is that immoral because she is too old to have kids (and wouldn't want them anyway at this stage of her life).

Thanks.

Don't be silly.

"All a woman has to do to keep from being preggers is to keep her legs closed and stop acting like a slut."

Now who's being silly?

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

"All a woman has to do to keep from being preggers is to keep her legs closed and stop acting like a slut."

Now who's being silly?

Not me. The condition is perfectly preventable by exercising some self control rather than giving way to every animal impulse out there.

Uh-huh. I assume you'd have a similar message for men who rape women and get them in that "condition."

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

Uh-huh. I assume you'd have a similar message for men who rape women and get them in that "condition."

Yes - it is a criminal offense to do that kind of thing. So should murdering an unborn child.

AIDS and getting knocked up unintentionally are two conditions that can be avoided by some self control.

Okay, how are you going to enforce a total ban on abortion?

Originally Posted by takascar2

Originally Posted by The Wonk

Two questions.

1. The pill stops ovulation but it also occasionally prevents a fertilized egg from properly implanting in the uterus. Is that murder?

2. My mother is 73 and a widow. If she were to find the second love of her life and marry again, is that immoral because she is too old to have kids (and wouldn't want them anyway at this stage of her life).

Thanks.

Don't be silly.

I'm not. If you truly believe that human life begins at conception and that a fertilized egg is a human being, than using the pill is murder. That is a position held by the Catholic Church, which is one reason why they oppose contraception. If you support using the pill, then either you believe that life doesn't begin until a later date (perhaps when the fertilized egg implants itself in the womb -- the traditional medical definition of "pregnancy" or you were unaware of how the pill works.

And if marriage is for having kids, than people who don't want or can't have kids shouldn't marry. If you think they should, than you think that marriage is good for reasons other than having kids.

Originally Posted by Libertine65

"Life begins at conception"? (Irrelevant to the argument).

Just how is that question irrelevant? If human life (or, rather, human personhood) does begin at conception, then pro-lifers have every right to be upset. If it does not, then abortion is about as ethically questionable as removing a mole, in which case pro-lifers are raving madmen.

It still has NOTHING to do with the fact that said fetus/blob is connected to HER ALREADY EXISTING BODY. Ergo,SHE usurps fetus/blob,no matter how hard Sen.Rick Santorum rubs his palms,shakes his head and purses his lips. A fetus/blob has NO "rights". It can't think,walk,percieve or VOTE.

I have two comments about that. First, it's obvious to everyone that the fetus is dependent on it's mother. I would add that the lives of premature babies are dependent on their incubators and the skill of the doctors who care for them. Newborns and two year olds are also completely dependent on the care of adults. Second, the conditions you just stipulated for the unborn - thinking, walking, percieving (not sure what you mean by that) and voting - are not applied to newborns and young children. Nor are they applied to adults who are sleeping, comatose, or otherwise incapable of performing those acts that supposedly make them human.

The question really boils down to one distinction. Is human personhood something we are, or is it something we do? You seem to think the latter. One of the inconsistencies about abortion that has always puzzled me is that a baby born at 6 or 7 months gestation (this happened to a family acquaintance, the baby is 4 months old now) is granted all the rights of a human being, but the same baby in utero has no rights whatsoever. How can a change of location change the nature of the baby/fetus? I have never heard that question adequately answered by a pro-choice person - perhaps you'd like to give it a try.

Originally Posted by Katie '85

... One of the inconsistencies about abortion that has always puzzled me is that a baby born at 6 or 7 months gestation (this happened to a family acquaintance, the baby is 4 months old now) is granted all the rights of a human being, but the same baby in utero has no rights whatsoever. How can a change of location change the nature of the baby/fetus? I have never heard that question adequately answered by a pro-choice person - perhaps you'd like to give it a try.

I'll answer, though I may not be the right one to do it.

In fact, a 6-7 month old fetus has rights, albeit limited ones. Read the actual decision in Roe v. Wade. The gestation period was broken into 3 trimesters, with the woman haveing total precedence in the first, less but still dominant rights in the second and the third was left purposely undefined, since the fetus obviously becomes viable a some point during the process and science is capable of moving that point.

Even New York, which legalized abortion before Roe v. Wade, required a "health of the mother" test for third trimester abortions. What's open for discussion at this point is how serious the risk to the mother needs to be for that to take precedence, and when must heroic efforts be made to save the child. It's asumed that there may be some variation in interpretation from state to state, but its also assumed that the variation is constrained by Roe.

Originally Posted by David '47 Redux

Originally Posted by Katie '85

... One of the inconsistencies about abortion that has always puzzled me is that a baby born at 6 or 7 months gestation (this happened to a family acquaintance, the baby is 4 months old now) is granted all the rights of a human being, but the same baby in utero has no rights whatsoever. How can a change of location change the nature of the baby/fetus? I have never heard that question adequately answered by a pro-choice person - perhaps you'd like to give it a try.

I'll answer, though I may not be the right one to do it.

In fact, a 6-7 month old fetus has rights, albeit limited ones. Read the actual decision in Roe v. Wade. The gestation period was broken into 3 trimesters, with the woman haveing total precedence in the first, less but still dominant rights in the second and the third was left purposely undefined, since the fetus obviously becomes viable a some point during the process and science is capable of moving that point.

Even New York, which legalized abortion before Roe v. Wade, required a "health of the mother" test for third trimester abortions. What's open for discussion at this point is how serious the risk to the mother needs to be for that to take precedence, and when must heroic efforts be made to save the child. It's asumed that there may be some variation in interpretation from state to state, but its also assumed that the variation is constrained by Roe.

Actually, Doe vs. Bolton, in practice, pretty much mandates abortion-on-demand throughout pregnancy. So the theoretical variations permitted by Roe are essentially suppresed by Doe.

(Don't blame me for those pseudonyms.)

In practical terms, prior to leaving the womb, American law treats the unborn as inanimate objects, usually. There are laws on the books that permit homicide charges for causing the death of a 'wanted' unborn child, though NARAL and Co. oppose even those, recognizing them as an implied threat to their goal of easy and guiltless abortion.

Originally Posted by Katie '85

Originally Posted by Libertine65

"Life begins at conception"? (Irrelevant to the argument).

Just how is that question irrelevant? If human life (or, rather, human personhood) does begin at conception, then pro-lifers have every right to be upset. If it does not, then abortion is about as ethically questionable as removing a mole, in which case pro-lifers are raving madmen.

It still has NOTHING to do with the fact that said fetus/blob is connected to HER ALREADY EXISTING BODY. Ergo,SHE usurps fetus/blob,no matter how hard Sen.Rick Santorum rubs his palms,shakes his head and purses his lips. A fetus/blob has NO "rights". It can't think,walk,percieve or VOTE.

I have two comments about that. First, it's obvious to everyone that the fetus is dependent on it's mother. I would add that the lives of premature babies are dependent on their incubators and the skill of the doctors who care for them. Newborns and two year olds are also completely dependent on the care of adults. Second, the conditions you just stipulated for the unborn - thinking, walking, percieving (not sure what you mean by that) and voting - are not applied to newborns and young children. Nor are they applied to adults who are sleeping, comatose, or otherwise incapable of performing those acts that supposedly make them human.

Give them time. It'll take awhile before the inherent logic of their position takes them that far. Decades, probably.

The question really boils down to one distinction. Is human personhood something we are, or is it something we do?

Another way to express it is: are rights something with an objective nature, or are they something bestowed conditionally, and thus revokable by consensus?

It is irrelavent in that the ESSENCE and thrust OF the argument is not about "when life begins"? It is about control over one's own body from government and CHURCH(manmade) influence. Those are amorphous,religious word games that the right uses to SHIFT the argument. (a sort of hearts and minds thing). That is an argument that will go round-and-round till we go extinct. But what we DO KNOW,is that *her already existing life* should usurp the parasite that is connected to her. *IF* it is best for her already existing life to terminate her pregnancy,a clean and safe & PRIVATE procedure should remain in place. You'll never get rid of abortion. It will just revert BACK to back-alley.