Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

It has always seemed to me that the pro-choice view should prevail, since it assumes that women are capable enough to make their own decisions about whether or not to have children.

Fair enough. But it's not unreasonable at all for a person who perceives the killing of a fetus to be genuinely equivalent to the killing of a person to conclude that the opposite should be the default position? And not at all bigoted. I mean, Odin is calling people bigots for objecting to the social support of murder. The fact that he disagrees with them as to what constitutes murder doesn't change the fact that their perspective is in no way a bigoted one.

(in fact, if anything, they would be justified in considering his position to be bigoted, since he attempts to declare a class of people as less-than-people. Again, according to their not-unreasonable worldview...)

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Fair enough. But it's not unreasonable at all for a person who perceives the killing of a fetus to be genuinely equivalent to the killing of a person to conclude that the opposite should be the default position? And not at all bigoted. I mean, Odin is calling people bigots for objecting to the social support of murder. The fact that he disagrees with them as to what constitutes murder doesn't change the fact that their perspective is in no way a bigoted one.

(in fact, if anything, they would be justified in considering his position to be bigoted, since he attempts to declare a class of people as less-than-people. Again, according to their not-unreasonable worldview...)

If they seriously thought abortion was murder they would be proposing charging women who get abortions with murder, they are not. They don't give a damn about the child after it is born. it's all about controlling women. If they succeed in banning abortion they will start going after birth control and off we go on the slide into The Handmaiden's Tale.

I have no respect for a world-view that believes a zygote is a person because it has a "soul" or such crap.

Let's cut the all the bull from this discussion shall we?

To Odin:

Yes, you were being bigoted. Everyone is bigoted about something and neither you nor I are exceptions. People who assume that their positions are the right positions and are intolerant to dissonant opinions are... well you get my drift.

What do you want, a world where your ideals rule and only your ideals, or do you want true tolerance and diversity? If you want true tolerance and diversity one must learn to accept intolerance and non-diversity as a natural and valid viewpoint. Newton put this best: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. (I know I'm stretching it's meaning, but cut some slack here)

For some reason I think a Silent or some other Artist generation would understand this best. While intolerance and bigotry can/will be cruel--it's not something to be gas chambered, burnt to the stake, or lynched out of existence--for that just continues intolerance, bigotry, and everything else you declare that you hate, in a different manner.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swiKTHeDNH8

Instead, just let it die and fade away on its own accord.

To Rani:

You'd get your point across a lot better, and get a lot less slack back if you weren't as bitingly hostile. Although I can understand why you would be.

To Child of Socrates:

Agreed on many points. However do people why should people who disagree with the practice have to financially support it--and thus in their minds promote it? -- Hmm reminds me of a certain argument we had back when T.Jeff. was president. Which leads to the whole do we want a rope of sand or a rod of iron debate.

To Justin'77:

Thank you. And as for why we have to make things non-people-- in order to morally justify genetic testing on fetuses (oh how bright and cheery the future looks), as that's where most of the genetic experimentation is going to be conducted, we have to first label them as non-human.

Oh and all those who think that Catholics are intolerant (fill in the blank). I put before your Judgment: Flannery O'Connor.

Everything that Rises Must Converge:

http://books.google.com/books?id=-Sd...age&q=&f=false

My opinion on the issue: Men shouldn't debate this issue as it has nothing to do with us (unless the male wants to claim ownership of the semen he injects, but that's just going into semantics ). Let the women battle it out and figure it out for themselves. And since I am a male, that's my opinion on the matter.

~Chas'88

Watching this debate unfold makes me wish the Homelanders would grow up right now. We need them to keep both Handmaidenites and Zygonites at bay. I don't think I can take another 15 - 18 years of this bull.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Odin

If they seriously thought abortion was murder they would be proposing charging women who get abortions with murder, they are not. They don't give a damn about the child after it is born. it's all about controlling women. If they succeed in banning abortion they will start going after birth control and off we go on the slide into The Handmaiden's Tale.

I have no respect for a world-view that believes a zygote is a person because it has a "soul" or such crap.

Alas, different people have different dominant values. Someone whose values are scientific might ask at what point a developing human being becomes sentient or self aware. Someone whose values are political or legal might ask at what point a developing human becomes a citizen. Someone whose values are religious might ask at what point a developing human acquires a soul.

These are three different questions. They are values driven. One cannot lightly persuade someone committed to one approach to abandon one such approach in favor of another. My own gut feeling suggests that the government should not be enforcing religious dogma, but I would quite expect others to have entirely different gut feelings. They would be no more likely to budge than I.

Thus, I can sympathize with your position, Odin, while anticipating that others will find it repugnant. Many will get quite stubborn about killing babies. I would not expect a calm rational discussion on such a subject.

You don't recognize an attempt - arguably, a flimsy one - at coalition building?

What did Prohibitionists and women's suffragists have in common? Yet they forged an alliance that culminated in both sides getting what they wanted (even though for the former it only proved temporary).

If Stupak's bill nudges us toward a "Christian Democratic" paradigm - in the Latin-American sense, not the Italo-German sense - something real good could come out of this.

Another potential "odd couple" would pair the environmentalists with those who desire to seriously restrict - and even, to some extent, reverse - (illegal) immigration.

The only limit to this is in the imagination of the factions contemplating joining forces.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Fair enough. But it's not unreasonable at all for a person who perceives the killing of a fetus to be genuinely equivalent to the killing of a person to conclude that the opposite should be the default position? And not at all bigoted. I mean, Odin is calling people bigots for objecting to the social support of murder. The fact that he disagrees with them as to what constitutes murder doesn't change the fact that their perspective is in no way a bigoted one.

(in fact, if anything, they would be justified in considering his position to be bigoted, since he attempts to declare a class of people as less-than-people. Again, according to their not-unreasonable worldview...)

Justin, I think you (and the Rani) are using the word "bigotry" rather loosely in this context.

I am able to see the other perspective on this. I simply disagree with it on moral grounds. And I do think my moral perspective on this is superior, or else I wouldn't have argued it so strenuously over the years.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

To Child of Socrates:

Agreed on many points. However do people why should people who disagree with the practice have to financially support it--and thus in their minds promote it? -- Hmm reminds me of a certain argument we had back when T.Jeff. was president. Which leads to the whole do we want a rope of sand or a rod of iron debate.

Well, I could take this argument and apply it to practices with which I disagree: capital punishment, the war on drugs, agricultural subsidies, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc.

I would have much less of a problem with those who oppose abortion if so many of them weren't also opposed to birth control.

Originally Posted by Odin

If they seriously thought abortion was murder they would be proposing charging women who get abortions with murder, they are not. .

Not necessarily. They'd end up trying to jail a substantial fraction of the American female population. This is clearly not workable, or effective, as clearly demonstrated by the so-called War On Drugs.

They don't give a damn about the child after it is born. it's all about controlling women.

Agree with the former, but the latter? Keep in mind that men benefit from abortion too, specifically that they aren't tied by child support payments and parental duties to a woman they don't want to be with.

Moral arguments for or against aside, let's call abortion what it is: a simple escape clause, allowing both guys and gals to have as much sex as they want, with whomever they want it, whenever the care to have it... while escaping the natural consequences of their actions. That's it.

If we want to get rid of abortions, we need both better birth control, and for young people to make better intimate decisions for themselves... rather than marching to the still-echoing Boomer drum. Fortunately the Millennials seem to be doing exactly that.

If they succeed in banning abortion they will start going after birth control and off we go on the slide into The Handmaiden's Tale.

And you know this... how? How can birth control be construed as anything other than preventive medicine? Even most conservatives don't believe otherwise.

I have no respect for a world-view that believes a zygote is a person because it has a "soul" or such crap.

What about a second-trimester fetus who has a measurable heartbeat and brain activity?

The questions raised above concerning when a human being becomes sentient and acquires a soul are central to the debate here. Obviously a zygote, lacking the "hardware" to run the "software" of a thinking and feeling soul, isn't sentient yet. After three months, however, I'd be very surprised if a baby isn't to some degree self-aware, enough at least to qualify as fully human, and worthy of being protected.

There... that's my $0.02. If it's enough to make me a misogynist (sp?) who's only interested in "controlling women", so be it. At least I don't pretend that women aren't just as interested in controlling and manipulating me, if they thought they could get away with it, Odin. Power-tripping is all-too-human for both genders.

Originally Posted by The Rani

True, but what I'm getting at is more like whether or not abortions constitute "necessary" health care which society has a moral obligation to provide. Even people who don't consider abortion to be murder don't think that they are a requirement for "health," other than the rape/health-of-mother exclusions.

So, we wait for the young lady's massive hemmorrhaging to kick in or would that be considered a pre-condition?

Mike Alexander laid out the most rational discernment I have seen on the topic.

There is a point in the pregnancy in which the state could 'take' the fetus and have it become a viable lifeform outside of the mother. The state would then be able to "adovacate" for the child independent of the mother.

Before that point, the fetus is only viable to the extent the mother makes it so; only she can independently "advocate" for the life.

To make the mother advocate against her will is slavery.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Let's cut the all the bull from this discussion shall we?

To Odin:

Yes, you were being bigoted. Everyone is bigoted about something and neither you nor I are exceptions. People who assume that their positions are the right positions and are intolerant to dissonant opinions are... well you get my drift.

What do you want, a world where your ideals rule and only your ideals, or do you want true tolerance and diversity? If you want true tolerance and diversity one must learn to accept intolerance and non-diversity as a natural and valid viewpoint. Newton put this best: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. (I know I'm stretching it's meaning, but cut some slack here)

For some reason I think a Silent or some other Artist generation would understand this best. While intolerance and bigotry can/will be cruel--it's not something to be gas chambered, burnt to the stake, or lynched out of existence--for that just continues intolerance, bigotry, and everything else you declare that you hate, in a different manner.

I have a problem with letting the intolerant running roughshod over women, minorities, the disabled, the non-religious, and the poor, throwing them under the bus for political victory.

A Karl Popper Quote I like:

"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."

Originally Posted by playwrite

So, we wait for the young lady's massive hemmorrhaging to kick in or would that be considered a pre-condition?

!!!!!:shudder:!!!!!

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

You don't recognize an attempt - arguably, a flimsy one - at coalition building?

What did Prohibitionists and women's suffragists have in common? Yet they forged an alliance that culminated in both sides getting what they wanted (even though for the former it only proved temporary).

If Stupak's bill nudges us toward a "Christian Democratic" paradigm - in the Latin-American sense, not the Italo-German sense - something real good could come out of this.

Another potential "odd couple" would pair the environmentalists with those who desire to seriously restrict - and even, to some extent, reverse - (illegal) immigration.

The only limit to this is in the imagination of the factions contemplating joining forces.

Great, lets throw women and gay people under the bus! That's the ticket! Sorry, I's rather join with the Libertarians.

Originally Posted by The Rani

True, but what I'm getting at is more like whether or not abortions constitute "necessary" health care which society has a moral obligation to provide. Even people who don't consider abortion to be murder don't think that they are a requirement for "health," other than the rape/health-of-mother exclusions.

Well, the response to that point seems blindingly obvious. If you want to bring another party into your doings (which is exactly what happens when the party 'society' is put into the private dealings between patient and doctor), you don't get to have exclusive choice anymore.

Pro-choicers defeat their only coherent argument -- that only the woman has any right at all to make such a choice -- when they bring society to the table as a financier. If society is participating in it, then the choice gets to be shared with society. Which means the choice is not exclusively the domain of the woman anymore.

---

Originally Posted by Bob Butler

Many will get quite stubborn about killing babies. I would not expect a calm rational discussion on such a subject.

How in the world could 'killing babies' ever be a topic on which it is appropriate to have a calm, rational discussion? It's a thing only mass-murderers and politicians (or do I repeat myself) do -- it has no place among the rational.

Originally Posted by Odin

Great, lets throw women and gay people under the bus! That's the ticket! Sorry, I's rather join with the Libertarians.

I have never said, abortion should be illegal. Don't ask me to pay for it in health Insurance coverage.

Originally Posted by playwrite

So, we wait for the young lady's massive hemmorrhaging to kick in or would that be considered a pre-condition?

Probably they would look it that the same way they would look at repairing someone's slit wrists. Afaik, insurance companies don't refuse payment on lifesaving measures to combat injuries someone did to themselves.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

And you know this... how? How can birth control be construed as anything other than preventive medicine? Even most conservatives don't believe otherwise.

The RCC is adimantly against birth control, as are many fundamentalist sects.

What about a second-trimester fetus who has a measurable heartbeat and brain activity?

Nearly all abortions occur before then, the rest are mainly because the health of the mother is threatened or because the fetus is deformed and non-viable.

The questions raised above concerning when a human being becomes sentient and acquires a soul are central to the debate here. Obviously a zygote, lacking the "hardware" to run the "software" of a thinking and feeling soul, isn't sentient yet. After three months, however, I'd be very surprised if a baby isn't to some degree self-aware, enough at least to qualify as fully human, and worthy of being protected.

At that stage the brain is no more developed than in other mammals.

Originally Posted by Odin

At that stage the brain is no more developed than in other mammals.

I like to think that people are more important than say... pigs .

Originally Posted by wtrg8

I have never said, abortion should be illegal. Don't ask me to pay for it in health Insurance coverage.

Yes, because poor women should be forced to have a kid she does not want and does not have the resources to care for! Brilliant! I hope you are willing to adopt the kid, or pay for the kid's well-being with your tax dollars.

See, this is what i mean about it being all about punishing women, this notion that if she was being stupid and got "knocked up" that she should be forced to have the baby as a "consequence" of her being a "slut".

Originally Posted by The Rani

Hm? Being pregnant is not a disease.

No, it's a preventable condition which, depending on one's own personal circumstances, may not be optimal.

Originally Posted by Odin

Yes, because poor women should be forced to have a kid she does not want and does not have the resources to care for! Brilliant! I hope you are willing to adopt the kid, or pay for the kid's well-being with your tax dollars.

See, this is what i mean about it being all about punishing women, this notion that if she was being stupid and got "knocked up" that she should be forced to have the baby as a "consequence" of her being a "slut".

No, it's all about getting people to take responsibility for their actions. Not just women, men too.

Originally Posted by Odin

Yes, because poor women should be forced to have a kid she does not want and does not have the resources to care for! Brilliant! I hope you are willing to adopt the kid, or pay for the kid's well-being with your tax dollars.

See, this is what i mean about it being all about punishing women, this notion that if she was being stupid and got "knocked up" that she should be forced to have the baby as a "consequence" of her being a "slut".

When did I say 'Slut'? Never. They are abortion clinics for this, remember and also they are some families who would love to adopt an unwanted child.

Originally Posted by Odin

Yes, because poor women should be forced to have a kid she does not want and does not have the resources to care for! Brilliant! I hope you are willing to adopt the kid, or pay for the kid's well-being with your tax dollars.

How truly awesome, Odin.

Not only do you insist he be a part of the medical question, but you insist that he be a part of the child's life itself.

Exactly which decisions in a woman's life do you think that wrtg shouldn't have a hand in? And why would you even put such a person -- with whom you so strongly disagree -- in charge of a woman's decisions, anyway? Doesn't the woman have a right to choose for herself?

There are certain expenses involved in being female and sexually active. These include birth control, all the HUGE expenses involved in bearing and raising children (which, btw, some people here arguing that these should be entirely an individual responsibility have never themselves faced), and (perhaps) abortion. Of those, obviously the expenses of bearing and raising children are far and away the greatest. Moreover, the bearing and raising of children is obviously a service for the public good (overall, with certain individual exceptions that can't be predicted ahead of time).

With any expense of life, we can collectivize it or we can make it an individual responsibility. The consequence of doing the latter is that we make it more difficult, with the result that some people will be unable to do it. (Note: it is NOT a response to this to say that failure to do so is the fault of the individual. That's only partially true, and in any case irrelevant. Whoever's fault it is, the fact remains that the harder you make something, the fewer people will succeed in doing it.)

The consequence of doing the former is that we cut into the spending and/or investing money of the more wealthy people, in one way or another (either taxes or insurance premiums).

In each case, we must decide which consequences outweigh the other. My position is that, since the consequence of socializing an expense is relatively trivial, we should do so unless the consequence of privatizing it is equally trivial, which is the case with anything people don't need.