Do You Support The Death Penalty?

[delalluvia]

1) of course if you "disconnect" the fetus it will die. that's what premature births are.

OK so now you're agreeing that the fetus - without the mother - will die without extreme care that mimicks what the body of the mother does.  Hence, it's a part of the mother.  Part of HER body.  It cannot exist on its own.

Even at full term, a newly born baby will simply die from lack of food or other environmental causes very quickly without constant care. I don't get your point. Many premies are born at 4-5 months now.

You're drifting off the topic.  We're talking about fetuses in the woman's body, not a full term newly born baby. 

2) of course laws inhibiting drug (legal and illiegal) use, unlawful operations, unnecessary operations, etc are about "bodily sovreignty". and being compelled to work at a job or occupation or trade that one does not want to is the same thing. They exist because government believes people can't make the right choices. The inability to view child bearing as something other than "bodily sovreignty rights" is the bias that inhibits another view outside the rigid pro choice, any time, any place, any reason mentality, I think.

We'll have to agree to disagree here.  I've pointed out that the examples you gave have nothing to do with bodily sovreignty and everything to do with control of substances.  The government in the US doesn't care if you smoke yourself into lung cancer or drink yourself into an early grave.  As long as you do it in your own private time and it doesn't affect others, you free to poison your body as much as you want.

3) my definition of a baby is like most (80%) americans. What's yours?

80% ?  Please quote your source.

4) your counter point about Hitler validates my point exactly. He did NOT base his evaluation of humans on religion and scorned the Church.

Well yes he did.  Hitler was raised a Christian.  His viewpoints about Jews were based on earlier Christian teachings about Jews being the Christ-killers, were damned without conversion and thus beings who didn't deserve consideration.  His own personal biases and mental issues further flavored this:

Hitler 1922 speech:

"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter.  It points me to a man who once, in loneliness, surrounded by few followers recognized the Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them ..."

Hitler 1939 after his escaped assasination in Munich:

"Now I am completely content.  The fact that I left...earlier than expected is a corroboration of Providence's intention to let me reach my goal."

Hitler 1941 to adjutant General Engel:

"I shall remain a Catholic forever."

You say "shall we do away with Christian religion?" the church is not pro choice and beieves abortion is murder. I apologize for offending you, but I have to say millions of others are offended daily by the rampant amount of annual abortions. Hitler was, by the by, an avid supporter of abortion.

You missed the point.   You believe we should do away with abortion for personal reasons as it leads to genocide.  Quite a massive leap of logic.  I pointed out that the Christian teachings of Hitler caused him to despise Jews and later murder them.  If one leads to the other, then perhaps Christian teachings that lead people to persecute others should also be done away with.

5) I mentioned 4 months; the first trimester is 3 months.

Oops, my mistake.

And, abortions due to "massive birth defects" (a concept Hitler also introduced) are NOT the reason why the vast majority of abortions are performed each year.

Yes, but those are usually done in the 1st trimester when the fetus is little more than a mass of cells with no brain whatsoever.

95% of abortions are done as a means of birth control.

I would like you to cite your source before I would give credence to such a wild claim..

ONLY 1% because of fetal abnormalities. So, this point is somewhat mute since few would agree that (depending on what you mean by massive birth defects means) a child with such would not be a possible abortion option. However, you do know that "defects" such as a cleft pallet are reasons used to abort.

I know nothing of the sort.  The reports I read from women who have suffered through late term - or partial birth - abortions are due to defects such as spina bifida and lack of brain development.

[delalluvia]

Hi crayons,

Quote from: delalluvia on Today at 02:37:06 PM
What Mikaela said.  The pro-life and religious fundamentalist factions and of course the fact that in the U.S. we are still immersed in Christian morality in almost every facet of existence here - hence Jack and Ennis' issues - make not debating the morality/ethics of one's actions in choosing abortion almost unheard of.  It does exist, as others have pointed out, so it's really as it should be - a personal decision and not one needing to be dictated by our government.

Oops, spoke too soon! We're back to disagreeing again, I think. I don't believe an opinion that a fetus has a right to life has to be a religious matter at all. It often is, of course. But it also can simply be a person's independent opinion. So the idea that this issue should be "dictated" by our government can be seen as similar to the idea that murder is not a personal decision and that laws against it should be dictated by our government.

We still agree.   Mikaela was just answering your question about why abortion can be a difficult decision.  Mikaela pointed out rightfully that due to the Right to Life program of cramming the word 'baby' into every sentence when they speak of abortion, it would be difficult for a woman to not take in moral considerations when making her decision.  Not because it is a religious issue, but because to the individual woman, it can be. 

Most of the polls taken in the last decade show that most Americans are religious in some way, the majority are Christians of some sort, so it would be unusual if the average woman getting an abortion was not a believer of the Christian school.

[serious crayons]

We still agree.  

We're on a roll! So far, anyway ...

Well, because of all the issues that you and Mikaela mentioned, it seems to me disingenuous to claim that the abortion issue revolves entirely around a woman's right to control her own body. If, after considering all the evidence one way or the other concerning fetal rights, one still does not believe it has any, then it seems that should be the focus of the pro-choice argument. If there's a measure of doubt, then it still seems the pro-choice argument should somehow deal with it or risk sounding arrogant. By ignoring the fetus' status, pro-choicers sound as if they believe a woman's right to nine months of bodily control, valid though that might be, unquestionably takes priority over those of a hypothetical human to enjoy its potential life -- one that she helped bring into being.

Unfortunately, I realize, that's kind of idealistic thinking because the status of a fetus is so far from being resolved (and maybe never will be). In that imperfect world, the "woman's control" issue, I guess, has to suffice until someone comes up with something better. But to me it's not a great argument.

And weakening it slightly more, IMO, is the question of father's rights. I keep alluding to this only briefly, but actually I think it's very important -- should the father have any say in a woman's having an abortion? Should he have any say in whether she has and keeps the baby, knowing that means he'll be responsible for 18 years of support if she does? Why does the woman get all the power to decide on a matter that huge and life-altering?

[delalluvia]

We're on a roll! So far, anyway ...

Well, because of all the issues that you and Mikaela mentioned, it seems to me disingenuous to claim that the abortion issue revolves entirely around a woman's right to control her own body. If, after considering all the evidence one way or the other concerning fetal rights, one still does not believe it has any, then it seems that should be the focus of the pro-choice argument. If there's a measure of doubt, then it still seems the pro-choice argument should somehow deal with it or risk sounding arrogant.

There is always going to be a measure of doubt for some people for anything.  Why should those doubts be focused upon?  It would be like focusing our justice system on the possiblity that we may be wrong.  While that is a possibility, we don't continually focus on our justice system that way.

By ignoring the fetus' status

As you pointed out below, the fetus' status is currently under flux and will be for some time.  Right now, the fetus doesn't have a legal status until it reaches a certain stage of development - when it is viable outside the womb.  Or at least in some states.  This is why in the Laci Peterson case, Scott was tried for two murders instead of one.  The unborn baby was viable but still inside the womb.  Had he murdered her when she was only a few months along, he would have only been tried for one murder.

pro-choicers sound as if they believe a woman's right to nine months of bodily control, valid though that might be, unquestionably takes priority

See, I don't see a problem here.  Why shouldn't her rights take priority?  It is her body.  That did not change.

over those of a hypothetical human to enjoy its potential life

Potentiality isn't something one should base rights upon.  A woman may become pregnant, then spontaneously abort.  The potentiality came to naught.  Every pre-med student has the potential to be a doctor.  The fact that the majority don't make it through med school and get licensed is an extremely important distinction.

one that she helped bring into being.

So she can bring it into being, but as soon as she does, she no longer has control over it?

And weakening it slightly more, IMO, is the question of father's rights. I keep alluding to this only briefly, but actually I think it's very important -- should the father have any say in a woman's having an abortion? Should he have any say in whether she has and keeps the baby, knowing that means he'll be responsible for 18 years of support if she does? Why does the woman get all the power to decide on a matter that huge and life-altering?

These are excellent and very difficult to answer questions.  Should the father have a say?  And if so, what weight does his say carry? 

After all, how many people do you read about where the father grudgingly pays or doesn't pay child support?

His issue?  "I didn't want her to have the baby. SHE chose to have it.  Why do I have to pay for HER decision?"

Should he have the right to sign away his rights and responsibilities of the child should his say in the matter go directly against the woman's?

I would wonder how many women would change their minds about having a baby should the father have the option to not help her financially.

Or worse, he wants the baby badly, but she does not?  How can that possibly be reconciled?

The woman usually has the most power in the decision because in the end, she has to carry the child.  Again, it's the bodily sovreignty issue again.  It's her body that will take the full impact of the 9 months, her body that is irrevocably changed, her life that she is risking to have the child.

[loneleeb3]

I don't even really know what this means. 

I don't think that the decision to have an abortion has anything to do with convenience.  It's a gut-wrenching decision based on complicated factors.  Bearing an unwanted child is no small thing to ask of a woman... pregnancy and childbirth are potentially life-threatening processes that can and sometimes do ruin a woman's life on numerous levels.

To me the central question in the abortion issue is who has the right to control a woman's body.  And I think the only humane answer is the woman herself.

Well, From everything that I have read ( I'll see if I can find exact statistics) very few abortions are preformed due to life threatening circumstances.
While I agree, that it is a womans body, a choice should have been made earlier as to wether or not to have sex. It is not the childs fault the mother or father for that matter doesn't want it.Why destroy an innocent life for that reason? I know, people are going to say what if the woman had no choice IE rape. Well, those acount for one tenth of one percent of all abortions according to the NRLC.
Again, as terrible as it is, is it the childs fault? SHould we go kill the children of the rapist for what he did? No!
With as many couples treying to adopt it seems like a no brainer to me.
When does the right of the child come into play here? It is not a painless procedure for the child.
Dr Bernard Nathenson, an abortinist, filmed the abortion of an 11wk old inborn child. The child tried to get away from the light and as the procedure started could be viewed in what can only be described as a scream from the pain of the procedure.
I don't understand how people who are against the death penalty can view this as ok. As to the death penalty an adullt made a concious decision to take another life knowing the consequences of that action. Death is the punishment for said actions. In an abortion, an innocent child is either dismembered and sucked into a specimin jar or sink or burnt with a saline solution and forced out the birth canal! Both are barberic and both are done only because the child is not wanted for whatever reason.
I wonder how many people who are pro choice would want prostitution legalized. After all, it is a wpmans body!
I'm not trying to be mean or disrespetful. I am for full equality for women.I just think taking an innocent life is wrong!
Sorry if I made anyone angry. This is just my opinion andI repect everyones opinion even if I disagree.


11weeks
HEART IS BEATING (SINCE 18-25 DAYS)
BRAIN WAVES HAVE BEEN RECORDED AT 40 DAYS
THE BABY SQUINTS, SWALLOWS, AND CAN MAKE A FIST
THE BABY HAS FINGERPRINTS AND CAN KICK
THE BABY IS SENSITIVE TO HEAT, TOUCH, LIGHT AND NOISE
THE BABY SUCKS HIS OR HER THUMB
ALL BODY SYSTEMS ARE WORKING
THE BABY WEIGHS ABOUT 1 OUNCE AND IS 2 1/2 TO 3 INCHES LONG
THE BABY COULD FIT COMFORTABLY IN THE PALM OF YOUR HAND

[Shasta542]

I am with you, Lee. The choice comes when people have sex. Practically anyone can get birth control -- if people count on abortion for birth control, I don't understand that. (Yes, I know birth control is not 100% effective -- abortion is; so is abstinence.)

[delalluvia]

Well, From everything that I have read ( I'll see if I can find exact statistics) very few abortions are preformed due to life threatening circumstances.
While I agree, that it is a womans body, a choice should have been made earlier as to wether or not to have sex. It is not the childs fault the mother or father for that matter doesn't want it.Why destroy an innocent life for that reason? I know, people are going to say what if the woman had no choice IE rape. Well, those acount for one tenth of one percent of all abortions according to the NRLC.
Again, as terrible as it is, is it the childs fault? SHould we go kill the children of the rapist for what he did? No!
With as many couples treying to adopt it seems like a no brainer to me.
When does the right of the child come into play here? It is not a painless procedure for the child.
Dr Bernard Nathenson, an abortinist, filmed the abortion of an 11wk old inborn child. The child tried to get away from the light and as the procedure started could be viewed in what can only be described as a scream from the pain of the procedure.
I don't understand how people who are against the death penalty can view this as ok. As to the death penalty an adullt made a concious decision to take another life knowing the consequences of that action. Death is the punishment for said actions. In an abortion, an innocent child is either dismembered and sucked into a specimin jar or sink or burnt with a saline solution and forced out the birth canal! Both are barberic and both are done only because the child is not wanted for whatever reason.
I wonder how many people who are pro choice would want prostitution legalized. After all, it is a wpmans body!
I'm not trying to be mean or disrespetful. I am for full equality for women.I just think taking an innocent life is wrong!
Sorry if I made anyone angry. This is just my opinion andI repect everyones opinion even if I disagree.


11weeks
HEART IS BEATING (SINCE 18-25 DAYS)
BRAIN WAVES HAVE BEEN RECORDED AT 40 DAYS
THE BABY SQUINTS, SWALLOWS, AND CAN MAKE A FIST
THE BABY HAS FINGERPRINTS AND CAN KICK
THE BABY IS SENSITIVE TO HEAT, TOUCH, LIGHT AND NOISE
THE BABY SUCKS HIS OR HER THUMB
ALL BODY SYSTEMS ARE WORKING
THE BABY WEIGHS ABOUT 1 OUNCE AND IS 2 1/2 TO 3 INCHES LONG
THE BABY COULD FIT COMFORTABLY IN THE PALM OF YOUR HAND

Boy, we need to start a new thread on the abortion issue.

As for the above...well, let's just say 'The Silent Scream' was a very emotionally charged piece of propaganda already refuted by Planned Parenthood and other medical organizations and by some of my biology professors. The above statement "AT 11 WEEKS ALL BODY SYSTEMS ARE WORKING" can be instantly refuted by any website you care to go to on fetal development.  As for the other statements, some are true, but can also be applied to plants as well.

For the record, Dr Bernard Nathenson is a Born Again religious person, though he calls himself a Jewish atheist.   

[Shasta542]

As for the other statements, some are true, but can also be applied to plants as well.

 

[serious crayons]

There is always going to be a measure of doubt for some people for anything.  Why should those doubts be focused upon?  It would be like focusing our justice system on the possiblity that we may be wrong.  While that is a possibility, we don't continually focus on our justice system that way.

If the doubt is great enough, a justice system that ignored it would scary as hell.

See, I don't see a problem here.  Why shouldn't her rights take priority?  It is her body.  That did not change.

Because what's at stake for her is about eight months of discomfort, a degree of emotional turmoil and a small risk (nowadays) of death. Not inconsequential, I know. But what's at stake for the fetus is certain death. If the mother and fetus shared exactly the same human status (not saying they DO, I'm saying IF), then the fetus' interests should arguably outweigh hers.

Potentiality isn't something one should base rights upon.  A woman may become pregnant, then spontaneously abort.  The potentiality came to naught.  Every pre-med student has the potential to be a doctor.  The fact that the majority don't make it through med school and get licensed is an extremely important distinction.

The first is not a human decision. The second is too trivial, in comparison with life and death, to make a good analogy.

So she can bring it into being, but as soon as she does, she no longer has control over it?

She does have control, perhaps as well as a degree of responsibility.

[delalluvia]

If the doubt is great enough, a justice system that ignored it would scary as hell.

Ignore it?  Sure.  But we weren't discussing ignoring things.  We were discussing on what to focus on..

See, I don't see a problem here.  Why shouldn't her rights take priority?  It is her body.  That did not change.

Because what's at stake for her is about eight months of discomfort, a degree of emotional turmoil and a small risk (nowadays) of death.

Well, that depends on the woman doesn't it?  Your 8 months of discomfort, a degree of emotional turmoil and small risk is for someone else, 8 months of hell, illness and bed-riddenness with a possibility of diabetes, high blood pressure that could become an aneurysm (acquaintance had these risks during her last pregnancy).

Not inconsequential, I know. But what's at stake for the fetus is certain death. If the mother and fetus shared exactly the same human status (not saying they DO, I'm saying IF), then the fetus' interests should arguably outweigh hers.

IF the mother and fetus shared the same human status, why should the fetus' rights outweigh hers?  Both lives are at stake.  Unlike the fetus, the mother has many years invested in her life and she's risking her health and life and wellbeing.  Seems to me that her rights are no less important than the fetus'.

The first is not a human decision. The second is too trivial, in comparison with life and death, to make a good analogy.

She does have control, perhaps as well as a degree of responsibility.

Of course, a woman has a degree of responsibility.  When she has choices, she is trying to exercise it.  If she decides that a pregnancy is something she doesn't want/can't afford/deal with, she decides the responsible thing to do is end it.  Why is the government wanting to interfere with her making a responsible decision?