Ok so patricia had a comment she sent to me ahead of time.
this one is all sticky for me, because although I firmly believe that
all living things are sacred and should be protected.. I try to see
the law issue where it comes to this one.
Hope you enjoy the comments. 
Let me know what ya think
Patricia
Abortion is a topic that does in fact set the nation in a division,
not unlike the Civil War, however do we do well to look at it as such?
It is not an issue of North vs. South, Women vs. Men but a division of
Legal Protection of Citizens vs. the presumed rights of an unborn
human.
Let's look then at this from that vantage point.
The Dred Scott Case of 1856 determined that :
"A free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to
this country and sold as slaves, is not a 'citizen' within the meaning
of the Constitution of the United States." Further stated:
"When the Constitution was adopted, they were not regarded in any of
the States as members of the community which constituted the State,
and were not numbered among its 'people or citizens.' Consequently,
the special rights and immunities guarantied to citizens do not apply
to them. And not being 'citizens' within the meaning of the
Constitution, they are not entitled to sue in that character in a
court of the United States, and the Circuit Court has not jurisdiction
in such a suit."
The point of law that was being communicated was not one of
"personhood" but of Citizenship and the exercise of the law regarding
that Citizen. Following the case, African-Americans did in fact
attain Citizenship and freedom via the Civil War and the laws that
protected them as naturalized Citizens of the United States.
Does an unborn human qualify as a Citizen of the United States and
therefore find protection under the Law?
First what makes us Citizens of the United States?
According to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services �
you are a Citizen if you:
A.Were born here, thus being born with the rights of the Nation as your own.
B.Were naturalized and proclaimed a Citizen after having met the
guidelines for admission.
When looking at them both, they require one thing: Being a born
individual. Your birth certificate is the first document that it is
required.
Thus, the Government has established that either you are born in this
nation and are thus a Citizen or you are a person naturalized to this
nation � after the age of 18 and having met stringent citizenship
requirements and duly professed your oath.
An unborn human is not considered a citizen of this nation until it is
born. You may not receive benefits for this "non born human"; you may
not apply for a birth certificate or a Social Security Card until it
is a born person. The "non born person" cannot speak to state its
intent of naturalization, cannot affirm its allegiances, etc.
cont....
We might reasonably ask then, how is it that the Laws of the United
States can extend to this "non born person" who is residing in the
womb of its mother, in particularly if the mother does not wish that
"non born person" to reside there at all? It then falls into the
category of a Citizen American female's right to conduct herself under
the protections of the Law until such time as the "non born person"
becomes born and becomes a Citizen of the United States and is then
protected by the Law of the Land as a born Citizen. If the parties
that wish to protect the rights of the "non born" would continue then
- they would have to seek redress from the courts for a currently
non-existent "form of citizenship that extends to non born persons"
because by my reading of Citizenship, it is not the case at this time.
Further discussion on the matter, I will convey in the comments
section over the coming days, however, it was appropriate to begin
with the Citizenship and Law question to begin.
so this one is hot...great job everyone.
So, Zaph and Patricia are resting their case on citizenship. Not rather the baby is a human, which apparently they both agree to, but is he/she a citizen of the United States. Zaph, I see the argument over who is human as far more profound than who is a citizen of any individual country.
I'll be interested to hear you two defend this view if BoP ever tackles illegal immigration. Taken to its logical extreme, your citizenship arguement does not bode well for non-citizens.
Abortion is a practice that occurs throughout the world, not just in the United States. To pin your arguments only on the laws of this country ignores the issue in the rest of the world. I most especially think of China, where forced abortions and sterilizations are the norm.
In basing your argument to kill infants unborn on citizenship, you must reconcile those memorable words of the Declaration of Independence,"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and all have the right to life. This right, so firmly established at the creation of the United States would apply in this case. All men. I'm not hearing anything about citizenship in those words.
Also, it would appear both of you would have sided with the court in the Dred Scott case, as the arguments of that court are very similar to the arguments made in Roe v Wade. Apparently, per your argument, Patricia, blacks did not become humans until the LAW made them such. Hmmmm.
One more thing: Based on your arguments, if Roe v Wade is overturned, or if Congress grants citizenship to the unborn, I assume you both will firmly support those decisions, as your arguments become null and void.
GT, I agree that the mother's life comes first. As I said, this is where the choices become hard. I find it difficult to kill a baby to save the mother's "mental health" however. Mental Health is not necessarily a synonym for being comfortable, or for not living with the consequences of one's actions.
Does this mean a child concieved of rape should be kept? By the logical extension of my argument that the child is an innocent victim as much as the woman, my answer would be yes, as politically incorrect as that may be. You sacrifice the life of one human being for the comfort of another.
Liberty Dog has presented a strong case, without the aid of religion.
Joe, you've tried valliantly to present a middle ground. Very commendable. I would certainly be in favor of stronger laws on the practice of abortion, preventing frivolous ones, and allowing the decision to rest on the mother and the MD.
I honestly don't know where the cutoff would be when abortion would no longer be killing a human. The links to pictures in my post were intentionally of the first 7 weeks after conception. Hard for me to see those fully formed fingers and toes as a blob of tissue.
Pictures such as that are the reason I've decided, better safe than sorry. better to err on the side of life, than to sup
Mark, I didn't mean to indicate that a mother should feel "comfortable" with the birth of the child before the abortion option is removed. I thought I had made it clear that the mother's level of sanity, if adversely affected by the birth, should be highly considered.
If a mother was gang raped and she became pregnant as a result, and a mental health professional were to determine her mental health would be adversely affected by giving birth to that child; she should clearly have the right to have the child removed. To demonstrate my point by making an extreme analogy here; if a woman becomes insane due to being forced by the State to have that unwanted child, I would argue that the mother was killed by the State. In other words, the mentally healthy "you" and the mentally insane "you" are two totally different people.
More realistically though; what if our hypothetical woman were forced to have that unwanted child by the State, and as a result, she becomes dependent upon therapy and pills for the rest of her life. Are you actually saying that in this case, you would prefer the mother "takes one for the sake humanity" and sacrifices her mental well-being for the rest of her life to give birth to the child of a criminal? If so, I couldn't disagree with you more.
This is just one example to illustrate my point. There are obviously, many other circumstances where the mother's mental health should be considered. Immediately coming to mind is incest. It would be hard enough for a young woman to deal with an incestuous pregnancy, but being forced to give birth to that child might just be the icing on the cake to drive that mother to the doorsteps of insanity, or perhaps even drive her to a life of crime.
In these cases, the mother should have the right to abort the fetus, should a competent mental health professional determine that her mental health is in grave danger should she be forced by the State to give birth to that child. I believe our beloved Constitution clearly protects her in these circumstances.
On the rape exception, in what other situation does the anguish of the victim give that person a right to have an innocent third party put to death? We don't even let victims insist that perpetrators be put to death!
My friend's sister was brutally murdered. The guy who did it is getting three hots and a cot, free education, recreation, medical care, while the girl lies moldering in the ground. This is a cause of ongoing anguish to her family. Should the cost they pay in anguish for knowing that this guy is alive be justification for letting them shoot him dead?
We don't even kill the rapist, no matter how much the woman suffers from knowing that he's alive. Why should we exact a higher price from the innocent bystander than from the perpetrator of the crime?
I'd like to provide some food for thought on issues raised:
1. The idea that the alternative to legal abortion is a return to "back-alley butchers" deserves a twofold answer. First, most pre-legalization abortions were done by doctors. Second, a lot of the safe-n-legal practitioners are appalling quacks.
2.The idea that the fetus is just a glob of cells up until about 12 weeks is inaccurate. By 8 weeks, all major systems are in place. After that, it's just making refinements. That's why it's at 8 weeks that the technical term changes from "embryo" to "fetus." Even before 8 weeks we see a lot of specialization and developmental milestones. For example, urine is first produced at 7 weeks.
3. The idea that this is somehow a women's issue and that men aren't quite as entitled to have a say is like saying that only parents can legitimately object to child abuse and only married people can legitimately object to domestic violence. Social justice is everybody's business.
My personal opinion, and just that, is that it is the woman's body, to do with as she wishes, she alone must bear the consequences and responsibility for her decision. I do not believe we have the right to tell ANYONE what they can or cannot do with their body.
Dear Readers:
First.. I did not rest my argument on citizenship.. I began with it. :0)
Second, I do not want to be construed as one who is an advocate of abortion, because it is my personal and spiritual belief that all life is sacred from conception to death.
Third, it is important that we DO understand that I believe that though I personally recognize these things, not every one else does. I also do not believe that I have the right to enforce or impose my beliefs on anyone else. Not everyone must see as I do, nor will they. I do not have the right to take over their will and their reason and force it on them.
I see the argument over who is human as far more profound than who is a citizen of any individual country.
I see the argument over what is human as one that not a one of us can answer for sure. We are basing everything upon our reasoning of what a human in utero feels and does not feel, suffers and does not suffer. For those of us who have read the bible, you will recall that in the genesis story.. man was formed but was not alive, until God breathed the breath of life into him. Would not this have some bearing on the matter as well, if we are to speak of the sanctity of life and its origins?
In basing your argument to kill infants unborn on citizenship, you must reconcile those memorable words of the Declaration of Independence,"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and all have the right to life.
Once again however, we can only protect the life and secure those rights for one who is born into this country. Until they are, they are not a citizen entitled to the full levity of the law.. that or change the law.. and may the voice of the people prevail in that issue, not Washington.. not the powers that be there in washington.. but truly the people.
One more thing: Based on your arguments, if Roe v Wade is overturned, or if Congress grants citizenship to the unborn, I assume you both will firmly support those decisions, as your arguments become null and void.
Actually yes, I would. I would abide by the law that is spoken by the full voice of the people of this nation.. or.. i would support something that would give an unborn certain citizenship rights, if the voice of the people spoke in unison and NOT big business or religious lobby or conservative politicians..it should be put to a national vote, in my opinion.. but, like that's gonna happen.
christina - We don't even kill the rapist, no matter how much the woman suffers from knowing that he's alive. Why should we exact a higher price from the innocent bystander than from the perpetrator of the crime?
Dear Christina: The difference being that the rapist doesn't LIVE in your body.. nor does it reside in your home requiring all your love and attention that you may or may not be able to give, based on your psychological,emotional, financial,physical abilities.
A child is your child forever. However, I like many people prefer the adoption of a child rather than an abortion.. as a personal thought.
christina - The idea that the fetus is just a glob of cells up until about 12 weeks is inaccurate. By 8 weeks, all major systems are in place.
This would not be correct statement. At 8 weeks the brain is not functional, though it is in place; the heart is in place, but cannot sustain life; the lungs are not able to sustain life. The fetus is not all systems "in place" or operable. In fact, a child born before the age of 24 weeks has less than a 50% chance of surviving. I know this how? My niece was a twin delivered at 24weeks gestation. The other twin was lost to death. Of course this also gives me a vantage point of realizing and coming to a decision on life and the sanctity of it too. We held her in our palms of our hands, so small, attached to ventilators and wires.. Was she a life? Yes, she was. Made no difference if she was "in the oven" or not.. she was a life.
Wow, I get up late and this is what I get, Patricia beating me to the punch here...Odd how two people from different sides of the spectrum can have a similar view of things.
Let me first reiterate...I would not have an abortion if I was female, nor would I advise my wife to. My citizen argument is only one part, as I respect the constitution above all other governmental tools. Does it apply, that is one of the tests, as far as the other issues brought up, my views stay, if we ever talk about Dred Scott, or illegal immigration, you will see that my view does not change. What is good for the operation of this country as a whole and what I view as moral are not the same things (and by the way, here I do limit my discussions to this country, this is where I live, and what I care about. I have no control over other countries, so I tend not to discuss their politics until they interfere with ours).
I feel education, and communication are far more effective, and less lethal options. Convincing someone that they are killing a person, and discussing with them the ramifications of the action, can and have saved countless babies. But making the practice illegal at this time, when we are very evidently not ready, would be disastrous.
I would support laws that limit when abortions could take place, I would support laws that require psychiatric counseling before hand, and I would support any law that helps the education and discussion of the issue. But in all cases, I believe the life, not the comfort of life, but the actual life of the mother outweighs the life of the unborn child. And abortion is never a good form of birth control; to be used in that manner is despicable.
Sorry for the meandering, I just got up.
To GTL: I agree that this isn't a left-right issue, which is why I believe is should be monitored nationally because states are individually too left or too right to have a good answer. If the country works to compromise, a better if not good answer is possible. I think our positions on this are very similar overall. We both believe that abortion is wrong unless there is a threat to the mother's life in some way, whether mental anguish at a rape or physical threat of loss of life. Amen to that bro!
To Zaphriel: You are right to say that while abortion is wrong it is not right to make it illegal. Making it illegal will do more harm than good by sending people to back-alley butcher doctors and making people hide pregnancies and not seek adequate medical treatment. I think we are in close quarters on this matter because like me, you believe that we need to do more to prevent there from being a desire for abortion rather than making it illegal. As I stated, I believe the right way to do this if to create a law that penalizes frivolous abortions but still leaves the choice up to women and their doctors. It will not punish rape abortions or abortions because of threat to life of the mother. We should also make sure that birth control and adoption options are readily available so that unwanted pregnancies might decrease and adoptions increase.
To Liberty Dog: I don't think you're right, friend, to say that Democrats in general want to control the mind or body of another. We are not the party of propaganda; that spin cycle belongs to our friends on the right. As to your example, their are weirdos in all political movements and you can point out a few and so can I but that does not make us the party of mind and body control. As to a pharmacist refusing to offer birth control and the morning after pill, that is wrong no matter how you can the mustard. It isn't a pharmacist's place to judge what another person needs or should do. It is not their place to judge what another should do at all. They can think whatever they like but if they want to help with a problem they should be constructive about it instead of obstructionist. This isn't like choosing to only sell Coke or Pepsi; It’s a matter of much greater importance. Many people, particularly in the south, live in small towns where they have only one pharmacy in town and often no other for a long distance. It is not right for the pharmacist to make the decision whether to have the baby or not for the woman. It is not their place to force their views on others.
To Mark: I don't so much consider my view as a middle ground so much as a logical ground where reason meets morality. We need a realistic solve to this, not a left or right catered answer that will do nothing other than make the problem worse. I truly think a strong national law as I above described will have a much better impact than an all out ban or than simply letting abortion exist as it does now.
To Christina: It isn't rig
continued...
To Christina: It isn't right that a woman can't ask for the death penalty for a rapist. Also, forcing a woman to have a rape baby only makes her humiliation more complete and, in the case of rape kids I have met, often ruins the kid's life too. It is not right to make the child and mother go through life like that simply because the rapist gets away with it. One bad because of another bad doesn't make a right. Also, I wanted to mention that while perhaps my understanding of 6 weeks to the third month is flawed, my entire point was that if an abortion must take place it should be within the first few weeks of pregnancy for moral reasons because at a point in the pregnancy, whenever that may be, the embryo becomes a living semi-conscious being.
To Patricia: I disagree that whatever our laws end up being in regards to abortion; they should only apply to Americans. We have an obligation to stand up for what is right and for what our nation believes. When a person travels to a nation, they are subject to the laws of that nation so if someone is here and wants an abortion, they should have it but only under the circumstances and penalties of our laws. Otherwise, right on sister! Life is sacred and it should be protected but only so long as it isn't at the cost of the life of the mother or at the cost of quality of life loss of the child as in a rape case.
thank you for already linking to me! as you can see I've been pre-occupied with learning about how to post. I found you today because I was reading the "gun-toter". But to put in my two cents is this. Today's woman has many choices about her reproductive system. Her last two choices carring a 'rape' child, and carring a child which will become the child of the 'taxpayer'. Otherwise a child which will maybe forever live off of the taxpayer. I do not have a child today because of my taxrate, and I've never 'known' a woman I could stand to be around. I will leave you now to make that link, and I will soon return to business.
But Kevin, by refusing to protect the fetus you're saying that one person (the mom) has every right to kill somebody else. Doesn't her right to "control her body" end where the body of the fetus begins?
And really, the prochoice movement not about women doing what they want with their bodies. If it was, they'd be backing elective amputations for apotnemphiles, "Ana" support groups for girls who embrace anorexia, and tattoos for underage girls. The fact that they back "partial birth abortion" shows that it's all about having a right to demand that the fetus be put to death.
patricia, the rapist also isn't the woman's child. A woman isn't just the ground in which a man plants his seed. The baby's an innocent bystander, not the rapist himself.
As for the claim that a young embryo's organs aren't "supporting life," of course they are, or the embryo would die. They're just supporting it in the embryo's natural environment. To say it's okay to kill a fetus because it would die if not in the uterus is like saying that it's okay to kill non-swimmers aboard a ship on the ground that they'd die if they fell into the sea anyway. The fetus is where it belongs, in its natural environment. If I stuck you on the bottom of the sea, we'd see real quick how inadequate your organs were to sustain life outside your natural environment.
Zaph, even when abortion was completely illegal, doctors could still, without fear of prosecution, kill a fetus if necessary to save the mother's life. There was even a gruesome intstrument called a cranioclast that would be used to crush the fetal skull in the birth canal if the baby's head was too big to pass out through the mother's pelvis. (This in the days before c-sections were feasable.)
The cranioclast was relegated to the Chamber of Horrors, and now the abortion lobby's brought it back in the form of The Procedure Formerly Known as Prince. (They insist there's no such thing as PBA and conveniently forgot that the procedure had two names before the prolifers dubbed it Partial Birth Abortion anyway...)
Joseph, there are lots of very much loved kids out there concieved in rape, both those parented by their birth moms and those placed for adoption. I just think it's heinous that we could even suggest that it's appropriate to execute the baby for a crime its father committed. We should give the mom support and love, and that starts with helping her focus on who the real criminal is -- and it's not the innocent third party inhabiting her uterus.
BTW, I don't buy the rape exemption either, unless it poses risk to the mothers life. Adoption is always an option, but to kill the child for the actions of his rapist father, just doesn't make sence.
Christina said:
Doesn't her right to "control her body" end where the body of the fetus begins?
I would say that this is very true..however, the fetus and the mother's body are intertwined until such point as the child is delivered from the womb and the cord is cut, thereby making this child a fully living being in our world. Until then, the mother is in control of anything going on within herself, for without her, life would not be possible. It seems to me that what is being advocated here is that we relegate women to the position of "host entity". Her feelings, her thoughts have no direct bearing for in retracting the law that is protecting her to make that decision, we are saying that, in essence, the fetus she carries is actually entitled to more freedom then she is.
The fetus is where it belongs, in its natural environment. If I stuck you on the bottom of the sea, we'd see real quick how inadequate your organs were to sustain life outside your natural environment.
I would like to reiterate that I am not a pro-abortion person, but I am also not a person that will force my personal views on another.
However, we do not take into consideration this.. fetuses do not only grow in the womb, they have been known to do so elsewhere as well, in the fallopian tubes, and even intra-abdominally and not implanted in the uterus. To say that simply because it grows here it is in its natural environment is not a logical point. The same could be said for a woman who has a tubal pregnancy and must have it aborted. The fetus would still be in what you would see as a "natural environment" (for it evidently chose where it would implant) so she would then not have the right to the abortion procedure either, for it is still in the "host's body".
This is where I will make my point clear:
If we take away the right of women to have a say in their body and what it does or does not do, where it goes and does not go.. then we are in fact telling women.. "You may have no say in your body during the time of impregnation, because another person is residing within it. You may not drink, smoke, eat badly. You may not travel, you may not engage in sports because you might harm it. You are now a "host". Accept it. We are taking control of your body."
Sound harsh.. or to some it may sound like heaven on wheels.. but this is exactly what we are doing. We are telling a grown woman what she can or cannot do and we are giving the baby that is carried more rights then we will leave the mother with.
No, Patricia! A thousand times NO! Christina is not "relagating the woman to be host." She is elevating her to the status of Mother. I can think of no higher calling, can you? No one is saying women have no say over their bodies. That's just more NARAL propaganda. What a woman does have is the ultimate responsibility to care for a life other than her own, to nurture and protect it. The position you find yourself in is saying that that responsibility does not begin until the cord is cut. That is very much a pro-abortion stance, no matter how much you claim to be pro-life.
You are indeed forcing your views on another. You can't really avoid it. You are forcing your view that a woman can kill her unborn baby if she chooses. That too, is very much a pro-abortion stance.
Mark.. you said that it was not a matter of relegating the woman to be a host, but elevating her to the status of Mother. I agree, there is no higher calling for myself.. but what if the woman you speak of does not want to be elevated to Mother status? What if she merely wants to be done with it, to move on with her life, for whatever be her reasons?
You say that no one is saying that a woman may have no say in her body or life.. yet see what the world does when that pregnant woman is smoking a cigarette, or having a glass of wine.. Indeed, plenty of people have a say in that woman's life as soon as she is seen as pregnant. Funny that, before this generation, women smoked in pregnancy and had a glass of wine or a beer and there was no harm done, or at least not the harms that the media shouts about now. My mother was a smoking mom.. and though perhaps I was a lb. less than what I should have been, I was perfectly healthy, as was my sister. My grandparents were Italian and drank wine.. all their children turned out fine. But not today.. its already viewed that when that woman is pregnant, her life has ceased to be her own.. and now must be solely about the baby that she carries. Though I agree.. not all do, and many women in fact resent it.
I am *NOT* forcing my views on anyone, Mark. I am speaking them. As much as y'all have the right to speak yours, I have the right to speak mine. I do not feel you are forcing your views on me, I don't see why you would say that in reverse order. This comment section is to allow everyone to balance the issue. Believe it or not.. not everyone feels as you do. Though I personally chose to give life to two wonderful children, in a very physically and emotionally abusive marriage.. I have no right to force that on someone else. Though if I were raped, I feel that I would still choose it.. I cannot take the right to choose from another woman who experiences that devestation in her own way. Though I had no problem nurturing and nourishing life within me.. it does not mean that I can force someone else to be willing to do that. It is still a country of free citizens.. and as long as that mother is the owner of her own body.. I have no right to take from her her free will. Who can choose another's destiny or path? Do we even have that right? Do we even WANT that right? Even God.. gives man/woman free will to choose. Even God, gave the the Egyptian Pharao the free will to do as he did, and those weren't abortions.. they were murders of born infants and toddlers. Why did he not strip them of that will--in the name of doing right? Because there was destiny involved..sometimes even evil times that followed because of it, yet free will was theirs. Are we now, in America willing to do what even God didn't do--take away the right to choose right or wrong?
Ahhhhhh--nothing like the free exchange of opinions and ideals
I just love this stuff!
My argument here will NOT be in favor of abortion -- abortion, I agree, is an undesirable activity (for all the reasons you've all mentioned) that should be avoided if at all possible.
My argument here is against ANY legal restrictions on the choice of a woman to have an abortion.
Two weeks ago, in this forum, I posted a comment on the issue of abortion, in response to the following statement:
"Pregnant women should have the responsibility and duty not to deliberately abuse their bodies in a way that is likely to cause harm to their unborn children; but absolutists declare that her individual rights trump her individual responsibilities."
My response was (and is):
"It's hard to disagree with the basis of what you say (i.e., abortions are nasty things) but the implication is that the pregnant woman has no "right" to an abortion. Obviously this is untrue -- she has, in fact (in most places) a *legally protected* right to an abortion.
"The unasked question is, of course, SHOULD she have a right to an abortion. There is no doubt in my mind that she should because of the alternative. The alternative is: we would be giving the government a "right" to control a basic biological function of the pregnant woman. That, in spite of all the attempts to romanticize the fetus or dramatize its development, is an obviously dangerous precedent."
Think about that! What we're really discussing here is not so much whether an 'unborn' is a person or a citizen or a lump of tissue; what we're debating is giving you, me or someone else the power to judge and control a woman's reproductive choices. We're debating the insertion of our legal system *as well as our own moral choices) inside someone's body.
The power of the government is a scary enough thing -- out there, outside your home. If I was to suggest a law restricting your activities in your home -- in your bedroom -- you would be throwing virtual rocks at me but yet, here some of you sit, unopposed to the suggestion that we bring the force of law not only inside your home but inside your body.
The reproductive choice MUST remain just that, a choice, made by the pregnant woman and, if she chooses, by her husband or sperm doner and by her doctor.
One more small point on abortion. The issue of parental notification has been in the news lately -- to my mind a parent has the absolute right (a right I deny to the government) to deny an abortion to their minor child.
Patricia, you aren't forcing your view on me, or anyone else in this forum. You have free will to believe any view you want. In fact, it might be your "destiny" not to read any further...And if I thought everyone believed as I did, this kind of thing would be pretty boring, now wouldn't it?
But, those who believe as you do are forcing your view on the unborn child. That was my point.
Whymrhymer, you make alot of sense. Government being involved in these decisions does concern me. Alot. In fact, it's one of the few arguments for abortion that make any sense at all to me. See if this response makes sense:
The Federal Government is already involved. They stuck their nose in to this mess in 1973, with Roe v Wade. The advances we've made in neo-natal research since that time are beyond comprehension, and have pushed back the viability of premature infants by months since Roe v Wade became law.
Those advances are what has led me to believe we now have two lives, with inalienable rights to life, to consider. It's not out of some attempt to glamorize the fetus, or dramatize its development. It is, to my mind, the illogic of spending thousands to save a premature infant, yet still being able to kill that same infant in utero.
Maybe, in 1973, the arguments of Roe v Wade made sense. But, for me, having worked on neo-natal units, the right of the infant to life outweighs the other arguments.
I'm not as black and white as I appear, believe it or not. Just can't get around the fact that it's a human life we are talking about killing.
Whymrhymer great comment, it adds to my point considerably. I love this forum, because in the exchange of the ideas, we often find better expressions of our own feelings from other sources.
Mark, I don't think anyone here, or at least I don't deny that we are talking about a human here, but I separate my gut knee jerk reactions from my political voting policies. What I may personally feel here is of no consequence, what I feel is best for the country is the point.
Telling people what they can or cannot do legally with their own bodies sets up s very slippery slope, one that I don't want to come anywhere near.
What I have been trying to express here is an emphasis on Education, discussion, and Personal responsibility. Along with the freedoms that we all seem to take for granted, we have, each of us, enormous responsibility to act within our own moral standards, so that the government doesn't feel the need to step in. We have a duty to society to both protect our freedoms and act reasonably within them. But that is a personal issue and not a matter for law, yet. We must educate everyone on the full ramifications of abortion and give them all the information we can so they can make informed decisions. Generally it has been my experience, that once a woman has an abortion, she is punished mentally from within. The effect on her psyche, (from my limited experience) far out weighed the supposed benefit from terminating the pregnancy, especially when there were no complications prior.
I find myself here agreeing with both of you guys, but my patriotic logic tells me to err on the side of freedom, it is the better of two roads, as the other road leads to no choices, and no liberty.
To Christina: I never suggested that there aren't a few kids that are the resuls of rape that are happy people but the fact is, most of them most likely are not. I never met one that was happy and I have met too many to say the least. Plus, it can absolutely ruin a woman's life to have to go through with the pregnancy full term, I have seen that too. It is nobody's place, certainly not the government's, to tell a woman what she has to do with her body on such a case.
To Patricia: I wholly agree that you have a point in regards to a woman and her pregnant status being relegated to "host entity." Where in the Bible does it command that we must force women to have their babies, to be a forced host like a caterpillar with wasp eggs laid in it forcefully, to a man who raped her's baby or when her life is threatened by it all? This is absolutely wrong.
To Mark: There is a difference in frivolous abortions, by far the vast majority of them fit this category, and medical emergency and rape abortions. In effect, if we make a raped woman have a rape baby, we are raping her again. This is just immoral if not moreso than the rape in the first place.
To Whymrhymer: Good call friend. I doon't think anyone here is advocating abortion. We're saying it's wrong, every one of us. I think the best wa yto go is to make a comprehensive law that doesn't outlaw abortion but which offers incentives not thave an abortion and penalties for women who have frivolous abortions. Medical emergency abortions and rapoe cases should be immune from penalty.
To Zaphriel: We definitely agree about this subject for the most part. Education, birth control, adoption and other things need to be heightened. WE can even pass a law helping to stem frivolous abortions but the right itself must be protected.
Cheers all!
"Even the jackals offer their breasts to nurse their young, but my people have become heartless like ostriches in the desert." Lamentations 4:3
"Rescue those being led away to death, hold back those staggering toward slaughter." Proverbs 24:11
"This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Choose life so that you and your children may live, and that you may love the Lord your God, listen to his voice and hold fast to him." Deuteronomy 30:19-20
"He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters." - Matthew 12:30
Furthermore, if you don't like what I, or God, have to say, know that what He says is the Truth.
"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, but fools despise wisdom and discipline." Proverbs 1:7
I don't know about the rest of you, but I fear the Lord. I also trust the Lord and I believe he is the Way the Truth and the Life.
I'm sorry. To elaborate for slow folks or people I may've upset, my stance on abortion is Pro Life. We're told by God to rescue those being led away to slaughter. We're told we've been given a choice between life and eath, blessings and curses and the Lord tells us to choose Life.
I can't stand against the Word of God, nor can I disregard His instructions just because some immature, childish, irresponsible female wants to choose to murder her baby to make her own life easier.
It's ridiculous.
Dear R.V.:
While I respect your views and definitely feel that people should allow their spirituality and beliefs to govern their behavior-- I dont feel that anyone has the right to dictate that for someone else, my friend.
Not all in this nation believe the same, will they then have no protection under the Law?
While I respect your opinion and the Bible as your authoritative source for how to live your life, it does not detract from the rights of others to recognize 'God' as they understand him/her. Nor are they required to believe the same as you do,nor should they be forced to live by the rules within the bible as their source of truth.
It is in fact a choice.. as you said in your comment.
While the abortion issue arouses many emotions and strong feelings for many people, we cannot and should not relegate it to the religious only viewpoint.
Zaph, I too see liberty as the best case scenario. If the extremists on the pro-abortion side will allow it, facts can come out on the dangers of abortion, both to the child, and to the mother who aborted her baby.
Joe, your idea has great merit, and would be something I would strongly support.
It fascinates me that no one, not one of the thirty comments so far are pro-abortion, in the NARAL sense of the word. I fully expected a very different kind of discussion when I chose this topic. Agreement that abortion is a bad thing moves the two sides closer.
Joe's suggestion would be a wonderful middle ground, a place all except the extremists on both sides can take a stand. I would put the penalties on the doctors who choose to practice frivolous abortions. And, I still have concerns about the rape clause, for reasons I cited earlier. I've worked with many rape victims over the years, some of whom did indeed choose to keep the baby of the rape. One of those children is now a Senior in college.
But I hear what GT is saying, and in part agree. I find encouragement at how much we agree on, in spite of our differences.
Good call Mark! I obviously wouldn't be advocating that rape-mothers give up their child. I would offer them the same incentives to not have an abortion and special assistance because of their rape but I think that if they feel that their life will suffer catastrophically because of the rape-pregnancy, they should still have the option to have teh abortion without penalty because of the raope circumstances. I honestly think that the comprehensive law is the way to go on this. It will cover ground on both sides: ending the majority of frivolous abortions, offering extra help to rape victims but maintaining that women DOO have the final say, though if they choose to have frivolous abortions they will suffer a penalty. I think this reall yis the answer.
So, everybody, great Job, I think it was an exceptional first post for Mark, and definitely a lively one, I would like to thank everyone for keeping it as civil as it was, I really had expect to have to delete comments or something, but all the comments so far are intact. I think people are starting to get the point. Discussion and civility.
Great Job...Patricia is up next with a post called "38 million" you will all have to come back and see what that is about on thursday.
Hey Patricia, I thank you for your respectful disagreement and while I understand what you mean that not everyone feels the same about God and the Bible, I want you to know I'm not trying to push my religion on these folks. What I'm doing is simply what I believe and that's what the Word of God says to do. God didn't tell Christians to back down because some people may not believe in Him, so we should respect them and back away. He told us to intervene. He told us to act. In fact, the remainder of the verse from Proverbs 24:11 says this:
"If you say 'But we knew nothing of this,' does not He who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who guards your life know it? Will he not repay each person according to what he has done?"
What that means is, I don't need to sit back, as a Christian, and respect other people's beliefs who are defying the Word of God. If I just sit back and respect their privacy and beliefs, I'm violating that verse. I can't sit back and act like I don't know what's going on. This is why Christians push for these measures. We can't hang loose and watch millions of babies be murdered, senselessly, every year, because of irresponsible mothers who want to do nothing more than escape responsibility.
Now, true, there are lots of women who need to have emergency fetal evacuations in order to save their own lives (not stress and embarrassment) medically, but think of the millions and millions of innocent babies who are murdered because of 13 year olds who get pregnant, don't have to have parental consent to kill their baby and then keep if from their parents, as if it's a secret. It's ridiculous.
I have to say, I don't care what people's beliefs are and I don't care how people perceive God unless they perceive Him how the Bible so obviously portrays Him to folks with common sense. No matter the circumstances, I will never respect anyone who pushes for murdering babies. Just because America is a free country doesn't mean we have the freedom to murder innocent lives.
"Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil." I Peter 2:16
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you. Before you were born I set you apart." Jeremiah 1:5
"This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Choose life so that you and your children may live, and that you may love the Lord your God, listen to his voice and hold fast to him." Deuteronomy 30:19-20
There's just no geoing around that. If anyone consider's themselves educated but are too ignorant to believe the Word of God, I feel very sorry for them and I hope they find salvation before eternity finds them.
"For the WORD of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart." Hebrews 4:12
"The fear of the Lord is the beg
Continued:
"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, but fools despise wisdom and discipline."
Proverbs 1:7
By the way, I have a banner for you guys on my blog.
I think this is an excellent site, very diversified and very civil.
Zaph. Love the comments box at the beginning. Great way to move directly to the comments. Nice job.
RV, I know you intended your comments for Patricia, but I'm feeling I need to respond as well. You've been to my site enough to know my Evangelical Christian bona fides, bro.
I think your comment takes me in a different direction from the chosen topic of abortion in some ways. Because of that, and due to the limited abilities of HaloScan to do the cut and pasting, and linking I may want to do, I'll put my response over at Liberty Just in Case later this evening, or at the latest tomorrow morning. I'll title the post, Response to RV. Till then.
TANSTAAFL
And you all know I intended my comments respectfully toward Patricia. Faith and views may differ but I have equal respect for all of you. This is a true balance of power and a blog is a true blog when it lives up to its name.
Thanks for the compliment, we really do appreciate it.
Any time.
Commenting by HaloScan
