NO it is NOT about control over one's body - YOU ARE FORGETTING THE UNBORN CHILD.Originally Posted by Libertine65
- Join Date
- Jan 2002
- Location
- North Side, Chi-Town, 1962
- Posts
- 563
NO it is NOT about control over one's body - YOU ARE FORGETTING THE UNBORN CHILD.
Have you read Doe v Bolton? If anything, the SCOTUS was making the point that legimate restrictions do not include gaming the system. I hardly see how outlawing the use of approval committees that can, and certainly would, be packed with anti-abortion medical providers who would have veto power over the legal practice of medicine by others, in any way, "pretty much mandates abortion-on-demand throughout pregnancy." For the record, the partial birth abortion bill is similar in tone, though much less draconian in scope.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.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.
(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.
In both the Roe and Doe opinions, the right to restrict abortions was affirmed, but was never allowed to be superior to the life and health of the mother. That's as right as rain, in my book. :!:
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
AARRGH! GLOVES OFF!!
tascar or whatever your frickin name is.
You are the person I wrote to in the chapters:
"Boomers Suck" and most definitely, positively, without a doubt---"Generation-X Speaks".
Your rants are base-less, fact-less and most importantly, useless.
You are every jerk-o** I have ever heard rant about a subject and turn around and commit 500 other detrimental acts on society. You are the personification of hypocritical. You are the essence of couldn?t-look-at-your-own-faults so I project them on everyone else in society.
You couldn?t handle an intense feeling if a tenth of it showed itself to your soul. Therefore, everyone that you come in contact with must feel the wrath of whatever babble you?re spewing this year.
I don?t care if it?s abortion, racisms, religion, the big bang theory, deterministic science, quantum theory, or whether Bush knew. It doesn?t make the slightest bit of difference because they?re all excuses for you to dodge the truth which is your personal failings.
I have spent my life listening to you pathetic couldn?t-face-my-own-fears-if-my-mothers-life-depended-on-it creeps and I?ve had it. You and your friends are the exact reason we are where we are, in this society.
You can?t face your shadow.
So, instead, ?we?ll beat the crap out of anyone that comes our way and if you happen to work for one of us or you come into our place of work or school or anywhere where we have one-ounce of control over you, we will make your life miserable?. The fact is you are complete and utterly incompetent lazy American swine who can?t FACE YOUR OWN DEMONS.
tascar?get a therapist, get a priest, get a crystal, get a lover, get a monk, get a bible, get a shakra, get a mirror, get SOMETHING, anything that will make you quit spreading your poison.
-jim goulding
Re: AARRGH! GLOVES OFF!!
Looks like Brian Rush has changed his handle, folks! 8)
Well, I beg to differ. Technically, there are two "already existing" bodies involved here. The issue at stake is whether the distinct body of the fetus (say what you will, there is a distinction between the fetus's body and the mother's) is a human person. If the fetus is a human life, as pro-lifers assert, then it is entitled to protection. If abortion is the deliberate extermination of innocent human life it cannot be a private decision anymore than rape or murder can be the private decision of the assailant. If you presented me with persuasive and logical evidence showing that a fetus is not a human life, then I would have no problem agreeing with you. As I see it, most (if not all) of the evidence points to the fetus being human, so the only reasonable and humane thing to do is to protect the unborn by providing pregnant women with better options than abortion.
It would be a good idea to note that some of the most persuasive pro-life arguments are based on logic and practical reasoning, not religious doctrines, and that not all pro-life people consider themselves religious.
Also, I find the way you describe a pregnant woman's relationship to her unborn child frankly offensive. "Parasite"? "Blob"? Why must a mother be expected to see her own child as an enemy and a usurper? I can never get my head around the pro-choice rhetoric that says abortion is "good" for women. Even people who are in favor of legal abortion have to admit that abortion is never the best possible thing that could happen to the mother OR the child. I think it was columnist Frederica Mathews-Green who said that a woman wants an abortion the way an animal, caught in a trap, wants to gnaw off it's own leg.
Much madness is divinest sense. -- Emily Dickinson
Re: AARRGH! GLOVES OFF!!
People who know that they have no answer to an argument start calling names. See above. Let me return the favor and correct some of your errors:
I know about these things. A dear friend of mine from high school was raped and got pregnant. She went and had an abortion. A year later, she was dead - killed herself.
In her suicide note, she said that she couldn't go on because she realized that what she did in response to being a victim of a violent crime was to commit a heinous murder of one of the most vulnerable classes of HUMAN BEINGS - an unborn child.
Too many women realize this after they have committed murder like this.
So for them and the unborn HUMAN BEINGS, I will NEVER give in to these feminist bitches and others who support them.
And don't you *EVER* call me a boomer or claim that you know how I feel, you jackass. I am an X'er not a boomer and you have no idea what shit I have been through or have seen in my life. :x
No,takascar. I am seeing the already alive WOMAN first. The "unborn" fetus comes into play AFTER SHE is considered FIRST. Once again,SHE takes precedence over an overly romanticized fetus/blob that should not even concern you or anyone else. SHE already exists. And "legislation" (your word not mine) to "control" or "stop" abortion IS government created law (inspired by that dirty church instititution) meant to control another human's body and personal life. Sorry,but that's not the job of my government. Whatever happened to the republican party that believed in "less government"? ............."There was a time when religion ruled the world.........It is known as the Dark Ages."
*Fight the religious-right*!!
Sorry,Katie 85. There is no distinction. The fetus is DIRECTLY connected to her. It depends on HER. It cannot survive without HER. Therefore there is no distinction. Her omnipotence and power as WOMAN & ALREADY FORMED HUMAN blurs ANY distinctions moralists may create.........That's too bad that you're offended. It isn't a pretty topic. But we're all big boys and girls. I do not live a Doris Day existence. No Pollyanas are allowed iNtO my reAlm. 8)
...........Pro-lifers keep calling it a "child". It isn't. Those are word games,much like the PBA argument. It isn't a "child" like you see on a Gerbers baby jar or a box of Dreft. In the *FIRST-TRIMESTER* it is a barely formed blob swimming in it's own waste.
*Fight the religious-right*!!
Can't face the mirror
takascar still skirts the issue.
Don't pay any attention to your complex and the damage it has on society. You can't look in the mirror and see the reality. Then you'd see the passive aggressive person that you fear and know that you are.
-jim goulding
Re: Can't face the mirror
Sigh....
You're still engaging in personal attacks rather than dealing with the issues. Defending the unborn is a HUMAN RIGHTS issue just like opposition to the death penalty and torture.
I could not "face the mirror" if I did not fight to save the most innocent lives in our society.
I don't think further replies regarding this subject on this thread will be helpful.
The last thing I will say is that the anti-life (abortionist) movement is an excess of the 1960/1970's and as an X'er, I want to work towards fixing the excesses of the boomers and will probably be dedicating more time to this in the coming years (in fact, maybe all of my time).
In the last few Actions in which I have participated, I have noticed a marked increase in the number and kinds of people who are joining in. There are many more women who are abandoning Patricia Ireland and her ilk and coming to the side of Life.
Nuff said. I am through with this thread.
Takascar, I am wondering what you think about cases of rape or incest. You appear to think that accidental pregnancy is always the woman's responsibility.Not me. The condition is perfectly preventable by exercising some self control rather than giving way to every animal impulse out there."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?
It's like a bug high on the wall. You wait for it to come to you. When it gets close enough you reach out, slap out and kill it. Or if you like its looks, you make a pet out of it.
- Charles Bukowski
All right, so there is no difference whatsoever between a fetus and a woman's hand, since they are both part of the woman's body? What about the fact that a fetus has it's own genetic code that is entirely distinct from it's mother? Babies can also have a different blood type and may be Rh positive when the mother is not.
I am also at a loss to understand how you can use the dependency of the fetus to dismiss any claim that it is human. A newborn infant is utterly helpless and dependent on it's mother; does that make it a "parasite" too?
As for the woman being "already formed", what exactly would you say constitutes a "formed" human? Babies don't have fully developed nervous, reproductive or skeletal systems - their development won't be completed until they're in their late teens or early twenties. Human development lies on a continuum. The physical faculties of a two year old are much more developed than those of a newborn, but a two year old is still far from complete physical development. A fetus is most certainly "already formed", however small and undeveloped it's form is.
Would you refer to a pregnant woman's baby as a blob or parasite in her presence? I should hope not. That kind of language is meant to be inflammatory and offensive. When discussing an issue as sensitive and important as abortion I try my best to be respectful. I expect the same courtesy in return.That's too bad that you're offended. It isn't a pretty topic. But we're all big boys and girls. I do not live a Doris Day existence.
Much madness is divinest sense. -- Emily Dickinson
So does the baby. YOU must prove otherwise, since it is you making an assertion in conflict with observed fact.
And the High Middle Ages. And the Age of Reason. And today.
Better study a little biology, since that statement is objectively false. BTW, your assertion that the baby is not a child can't be admissable, since you yourself ruled out religious statements.
I suspect Libertine is just trolling anyway, Katie. The statements are just a tad too perfectly calculated, too perfectly offensive, to be likely to be 'natural'.
Libertine may mean what is posted, but I suspect it's posted that way on purpose.
Re: Can't face the mirror
What issue? So far, it's you making cryptic remarks.
http://www.petersingerlinks.com/All right, so there is no difference whatsoever between a fetus and a woman's hand, since they are both part of the woman's body? What about the fact that a fetus has it's own genetic code that is entirely distinct from it's mother? Babies can also have a different blood type and may be Rh positive when the mother is not.
I am also at a loss to understand how you can use the dependency of the fetus to dismiss any claim that it is human. A newborn infant is utterly helpless and dependent on it's mother; does that make it a "parasite" too?
Dr. Peter Singer, often called "Dr. Death" (with good reason) has argued essentially that such dependence does imply that they aren't people. He has also argued that an adult gorilla has a moral status higher than that of a newborn human.
The interesting thing about this is that our modern society, while not quite ready to embrace him, can't quite bring itself to reject him, either.
Re: Can't face the mirror
Cryptic remarks? They are anything but cryptic.What issue? So far, it's you making cryptic remarks.
"Complex" see Carl Jung.
"passive aggressive" look in the mirror.
hopefulcynic? hopeful for what? That the world will produce more people like you? That sure would be great.
-jim goulding
Yes, I've heard of him. I think the reason our society has trouble condemning people like him outright is creepily obvious. We share his basic assumptions about life, death and suffering, however much we are loathe to admit it. We're becoming a society where human life is not meaningful unless it is personally fulfilling. Even more significantly, suffering is increasingly being regarded as a supreme evil that must be avoided at all costs.
Much madness is divinest sense. -- Emily Dickinson
As one born 30 years before you and has keenly (to a fault) observed the "passing show" along the way, I would correct your "We're becoming a society..." to "We have become a society where human life is not meaningful unless it is personally fulfilling."
Much of Roe v. Wade was processed on this very basis: that a life born into certain conditions might as well be nixed in the bud (so to speak). I, and millions like me, have preached a gazillion sermons on the abject fallacy of this "valueless" notion to little avail.
Alas, we are even now beginning to turn the other way, to a place where a new generation "gets it," and the value of any human life (regardless of class, status, navel-gazing ability, and a another's "right") is given much more consideration.
The sad part of this never ending tale is that, in the meantime, a Rubicon must be crossed that will test that "value" to the very hilt. And this will be crossed at much loss of human life.
Doe requires that 'health' be so broadly defined as to be, in effect, a universal guarantee of availability. It makes legal restriction so tricky and difficult as to be unworkable.Have you read Doe v Bolton? If anything, the SCOTUS was making the point that legimate restrictions do not include gaming the system. I hardly see how outlawing the use of approval committees that can, and certainly would, be packed with anti-abortion medical providers who would have veto power over the legal practice of medicine by others, in any way, "pretty much mandates abortion-on-demand throughout pregnancy." For the record, the partial birth abortion bill is similar in tone, though much less draconian in scope.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.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.
(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.
Granted, it doesn't say that outright. But that's what it does in effect. The only question is whether that's what the SCOTUS intended when they wrote it or not. Sometimes it's hard to tell when a court ruling is cynically calculated to produce an effect, or when the effect is just the side-effect of a naive or badly written ruling.
And this is new, how?Yes, I've heard of him. I think the reason our society has trouble condemning people like him outright is creepily obvious. We share his basic assumptions about life, death and suffering, however much we are loathe to admit it. We're becoming a society where human life is not meaningful unless it is personally fulfilling. Even more significantly, suffering is increasingly being regarded as a supreme evil that must be avoided at all costs.
"Socrates: Not life, but a good life, is to be chiefly valued?
Crito: Yes, that also remains."
--Crito by Plato
Hey, I never said it was new, just alarmingly prevalent. Besides, isn't "all of philosophy only footnotes to Plato"? :wink:
Much madness is divinest sense. -- Emily Dickinson
It's true that the basic questions and challenges of life never really change, or at least, never have changed so far in all history.Hey, I never said it was new, just alarmingly prevalent. Besides, isn't "all of philosophy only footnotes to Plato"? :wink:
