Thread: Abortion: split from stem cell research

Very good stories that turned out well, unfortunately they all don't turn out well. These are examples that people when left to their own can make good decisions, the government didn't need to force any of this decisions upon any of them.

I'm glad your gay friends had the opportunity to adopt a child, as many know don't have that right because gay adoption is banned in some states because the fine enlightened loving folk think that is wrong.

I really don't need any convincing with regards to abortion, I think it is a bad decision. I just defend the rights of individuals to make their own decisions even bad ones that I disagree with, just as I defend the right for people to say things I disagree with, the right to follow any religion or no religion and the right for individuals to own firearms. To me these are all the same thing, individual rights. One can't pick and choose which individual rights they like, you take them all or you take none.

Originally Posted by Hutch

I really don't need any convincing with regards to abortion, I think it is a bad decision. I just defend the rights of individuals to make their own decisions even bad ones that I disagree with, just as I defend the right for people to say things I disagree with, the right to follow any religion or no religion and the right for individuals to own firearms. To me these are all the same thing, individual rights. One can't pick and choose which individual rights they like, you take them all or you take none.

The funniest thing about this debate is everyone seems to really agree. And I do think there is considerable room for positive movement on this issue, because behind the positioning most people agree on this and should be able to focus on the issues and values that lead to the situation.

But I don't think it's as simple as favoring all versus favoring no individual rights. What about restricting the individual right to:

1. use crack, and then burden all of us
2. kill someone that is ****ing you off
3. own automatic weapons
4. sleep in your neighbor's house because it's nicer than yours
5. not allow people of a different race eat in your restaurant
6. refuse to hire gay people as employees
7. resist the draft

We aren't as free as we'd like to think, and we can't be if we want to live next to each other and thrive. Abortion is particularly testy because it pits two fundamental invidual liberties - the freedom not to have something grow for months in your own body, and the right to life of the life that's in your body. So for me its a weighting of profound and conflicting individual liberties, not a question of whether you do or don't support individual liberties, and unfotunately we have to pick and choose here because you can't have it both ways.

Two questions for many of you on the opposite side of the aisle, and I mean this sincerely, not as a baitng.

1. If you don't think a fetus is human life, then why do you think it's a bad decision or an immoral decision to abort it?

2. If it only took two weeks to carry a fetus to term instead of nine months, would you support a ban on abortion? [ie are we really talking about the right not to be unreasonably imposed upon for nearly a year, and the right not to be shamed publicly]

Originally Posted by loueedacat

The funniest thing about this debate is everyone seems to really agree. And I do think there is considerable room for positive movement on this issue, because behind the positioning most people agree on this and should be able to focus on the issues and values that lead to the situation.

But I don't think it's as simple as favoring all versus favoring no individual rights. What about restricting the individual right to:

1. use crack, and then burden all of us
2. kill someone that is ****ing you off
3. own automatic weapons
4. sleep in your neighbor's house because it's nicer than yours
5. not allow people of a different race eat in your restaurant
6. refuse to hire gay people as employees
7. resist the draft

We aren't as free as we'd like to think, and we can't be if we want to live next to each other and thrive. Abortion is particularly testy because it pits two fundamental invidual liberties - the freedom not to have something grow for months in your own body, and the right to life of the life that's in your body. So for me its a weighting of profound and conflicting individual liberties, not a question of whether you do or don't support individual liberties, and unfotunately we have to pick and choose here because you can't have it both ways.

Two questions for many of you on the opposite side of the aisle, and I mean this sincerely, not as a baitng.

1. If you don't think a fetus is human life, then why do you think it's a bad decision or an immoral decision to abort it?

2. If it only took two weeks to carry a fetus to term instead of nine months, would you support a ban on abortion? [ie are we really talking about the right not to be unreasonably imposed upon for nearly a year, and the right not to be shamed publicly]

1. use crack, and then burden all of us

Not sure under what right this falls under, but personally I'm against most of the prohibition on drugs. I believe it should be tackled in a different way, as incarcerating people for simple possession and use has done nothing but brought about more social problems.

2. kill someone that is ****ing you off

Again this a basic principle of law, and is covered by a right, that being free speach, which allows you to say things that may make people angry. As well as the right to life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

3. own automatic weapons

Technically one should be able to own an automatic weapon, so I don't know what you are getting at. There is no qualifier in the constitution as to what arms actually it has been argued that th arms it talks about are the ones that people try to ban most that being assualt/military type weapons including full auto weapons. It's definitely not there to protect hunting weapons.

4. sleep in your neighbor's house because it's nicer than yours.

One has property rights so this is covered.

5. not allow people of a different race eat in your restaurant

All men (man as in human so it includes women) are created equal, thus discriminating against ones race, sexual orientation, or beliefs is wrong

6. refuse to hire gay people as employees

All men (man as in human so it includes women) are created equal, thus discriminating against one, because of race, sexual orientation, or beliefs is wrong.

7. resist the draft

It could be argued that there are constitutional rights that do allow this. If it is a responsibilty of citizenship one could allows renounce their citizenship.


As for why I personally would not choose abortion at this time in my life, under most circumstances that I could foresee is that I'm financially secure, have a support network and could provide a decent life for a child. He has nothing to do with a blastocyst, embryo, or fetus IS a child, because for me it isn't, it has the potential to be a child, just as more than 18% of fertilized eggs that do not implant themselves are not children. For this reason I have no problem foreseeing some circumstances where abortion could be considered, if my wife was raped, if my wife's life was in jeopardy, or if after numerous tests the fetus has serious defects that my wife and I feel that we could not deal with.

I prefer to have the decision left with me and not made by others that have no stake in the decision.

As for your hypothetical question regarding two week gestation, really it doesn't matter as that isn't the fact. If blastocyst, embryos, and fetus could be removed and grown in some other method I really don't think there would be any need for abortions. There would be a big need for orphanages, because there would be lots of children that no one wanted. There most likely would be a need for more prisons too as some of these products of the state grew up and became criminals, violent criminals at that.

As for your hypothetical question regarding two week gestation, really it doesn't matter as that isn't the fact. If blastocyst, embryos, and fetus could be removed and grown in some other method I really don't think there would be any need for abortions. There would be a big need for orphanages, because there would be lots of children that no one wanted. There most likely would be a need for more prisons too as some of these products of the state grew up and became criminals, violent criminals at that.[/quote]

It does matter if it clarifies the nature of the debate, because it would elucidate what "libertY' we are really talking about. You say then you would see no need for abortion if pregnancy was a two week burden - would you then support a ban on abortion? And why if it's not human? And is your current objection therefore really the magnitude of the inconvenience imposed by a nine month pregnancy? [and I'm not talking rape and health of mother cases, which I agree are different]

On the other items, you are picking and choosing which individual liberties you think have a priority - which is what we all do.

Originally Posted by loueedacat

You say then you would see no need for abortion if pregnancy was a two week burden - would you then support a ban on abortion? And why if it's not human? And is your current objection therefore really the magnitude of the inconvenience imposed by a nine month pregnancy? [and I'm not talking rape and health of mother cases, which I agree are different

I said no such thing in my post. Forcing a woman to have an unwanted pregnancy has many short term and permanent burdens that accompany it. I'm glad you can write them off as simple "inconveniences", as it doesn't mean much coming from a man that won't ever have to endure them. What I said was that if an embryo could be removed and grown outside of the womb, I cant see way an "abortion" would be necessary as the result is the same. Woman have an abortion for the result, not the procedure, so personally any procedure which makes them no longer pregnant would suffice.

As for "liberty" only a person has constitutional right's, as embryo's and fetuses are not persons, they have no rights so they can not trump those of the pregnant woman's. My objection is as I've stated many times before, that the state, nor I, nor anyone else has no right to infringe on the woman right to choose a medical procedure unless she is incapable of making an informed decision due to mental defect or capacity.

I'm glad you think rape and the health of the mother are different, unfortunately, many of the pro-life movement don't share your enlightened belief.

Originally Posted by Hutch

embryo's and fetuses are not persons

when do they become persons?

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

when do they become persons?

When they can viably survive outside the womb.