if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?"
-- Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 1803
A Matter of Rights
by Lee
Sometimes the British attitude is better, like in this case.
A majority of women in Britain want the abortion laws to be tightened to make it harder, or impossible, for them to terminate a pregnancy.
Evidence of a widespread public demand for the government to further restrict women’s right to have an abortion is revealed in a remarkable Observer opinion poll. The findings have reignited the highly-charged debate on abortion, and increased the pressure on Tony Blair to review the current time limits.The survey by MORI shows that 47 per cent of women believe the legal limit for an abortion should be cut from its present 24 weeks, and another 10 per cent want the practice outlawed altogether. Among the population overall, reducing the upper limit was the preferred option backed by the largest proportion of respondents, 42 per cent, made up of a 36-47 per cent split among men and women.
Only one person in three agreed that ‘the current time limit is about right’, with slightly fewer women (31 per cent) than men (35 per cent) saying that. Just 2 per cent of women and 5 per cent of men think the last possible date after which a woman can end a pregnancy should be increased from 24 weeks.
The leader of the 4.1 million Catholics in England and Wales, Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor, called on politicians last night to heed the evidence of a growing demand for a rethink on abortion policy, to include The Observer’s findings. ‘There has been a moral awakening over the last few years about abortion; the British public have been undergoing a reality check,’ said his spokesman, Dr Austen Ivereigh. ‘The Cardinal sees in this moral awakening a growing unease with, and erosion of, the idea of abortion as simply a woman’s right.’
Increased awareness of the realities of abortion, and the impact of ultrasound images of a 23-week-old foetus smiling and grimacing, have made people change their views, said Ivereigh. The latter ‘very dramatically showed that what had been depersonalised in many people’s minds as a foetus was clearly seen to be a baby, a human being in formation, and that has come as a shock to many people’, he added.
Why is the British way better? Because it allows for some flexibility based upon society’s ever-changing values. Here in America we tend to see things in terms of absolute rights, which is a result of our country being founded by men who believed deeply in this concept. So when it comes to the issues that divide society, people tend to fragment into groups who believe in one type of polarized absolutist position based upon rights. Abortion on demand is a right, claim the pro-abortion folks. Abortion is a violation of the rights of the fetus, claim abortion opponents.
The problem with this approach is that it sets up abortion as an all-or-nothing proposition. In other words, abortion is available only so long as you have a Supreme Court which believes the Constitution provides a right to one. As soon as the makeup of the court changes, which it appears is about to happen, then that “right” can disappear overnight. Either the pro-abortion groups are completely placated or the anti-abortion groups are, there is no middle ground.
Of course, as simple logic dictates, most people in America do not accept a polarized position on anything, and always see some kind of middle ground. The attitudes of Americans are generally similar to those of the British. Generally speaking, the American attitude is that abortion is not a good thing, and should not be available on demand, but it should not be removed entirely. The issue is that our legislative branch is entirely too gutless to tackle the abortion issue themselves, simply because of how polarizing it is for so many people, so they are more than happy to sit idly by and allow the judiciary to assume the legislative role. See, the judiciary is comprised of lifetime appointments, and is therefore unaccountable to the voting public, unlike legislators. It’s much easier for a legislator to rail against a judicial decision he doesn’t like ex post facto than it is for him to choose a position and argue in favor of it himself.
Our way sucks. The British way is better.
Comments
...and, just to be clear: I’m not making a value judge on any position here, just saying I don’t get this “our way, their way” point. The only distinction between “the American way” and “the British way” on this issue is that they don’t have an overriding judicial decision that essentially outlawed legislative consideration or relief.
It won’t happen, though, without rewriting whole parts of the Constitution, and making it much easier to amend, perhaps through referenda, and that’s not on the agenda for the moment. So you’re stuck with them I’m afraid.
Actually, the Constitution is nebulous enough about the judiciary that the Judiciary Act handles most of these nuanced points, but very little can help when a society goes through a Stupid Age, as America did between 1968 and 1980.
As “Roe“‘s own attorney says on her own website, it wasn’t about abortion. She makes it painfully clear that she saw it as some kind of triumph over male domination, to show women “what it is like to be autonomous in making the decisions most vital to their lives”. Basically, as real gender equality came into being, a certain element of the population handled it the way that teenagers do when they get their first taste of independence: “You can’t control me! LOOK WHAT I’M GOING TO DO TO PROVE IT!”
Lee,
If you follow that argument through, arn’t you really arguing against a constitution (essentially a pre-defined and hard to change piece of law that emobodies certain rights) ? That’s what a lot of people often find surprising about our system, that we have no constitution. We don’t have a lot of the “rights” as you would define guranteed in any way.
Just to add, in a way I think a constitution helps the US. You guys seem to be much more polarised/extreme than most countries when it comes to Politics and this would allow a government in power with a slim majority to rough over the rest pretty easily. Imagine what a slightly further to the right (religious) Republican party could to re gay rights or the sort of union protectionist crap a democrat party to the left could come up with. Perhaps having a constitution protects you guys from the extremes of either.
In the UK we are a little (lot) more moderate on most things, political disagreements are much more about implementation of policy/ideals than anything else so perhaps a constitution is less necessary.
Don’t know really, just throwing it out there.
You guys seem to be much more polarised/extreme than most countries when it comes to Politics and this would allow a government in power with a slim majority to rough over the rest pretty easily.
I love general blanket statements like this. The US is hardly extreme when it comes to politics, Americans are just noisy like usual. The US isn’t in constant revolution like many parts of South/Central America, or Africa. Political disagreements generally don’t turn into terrorist attacks, like in the ME. Yes, I know there were a few instances of home grown terrorism in the US, but they were quickly denounced by everyone, not celebrated as the start of a non-stop blood feud. American extreme political views are nothing more than a bunch of noisy talking heads on CNN and in Hollywierd.
The problem with abortion is that it is almost an exact copy of the slavery debate.
There were many good reasons to allow slavery. The main point being that the economic success of the US south depended on it. Another view was that the government doesn’t have the right to decide what a man should do with his property.
The government tried to appease both sides of the issue with the mason-dixon line, and that failed miserably. This was an all or nothing policy, and no matter how hard you tried you could not justify slavery. Just like abortion it’s not a economic issue or every a personal property issue, it’s a human rights issue for which there can be no comprimises.
We look back today and think of people who used slaves with absolute disgust, which we should, and when abortion is illegal again people will look back on us today the way look back on our on past.
Lee: “Our way sucks. The British way is better.”
Our way is better when the courts stay out of stuff they shouldn’t be in. Then we have states attacking the problem from judicial and legislative ends, and we can see which models work for a given issue.
Federalism, baby… its should not be a left/right issue. It aids in hte pursuit of quality governance.
Don’t you think that there are better ways of avoiding unwanted kids? Like condoms? And abstinece? A woman does have the right to chose. She has the right to say “no”. Abortion should be saved for emergencies, not everyday “ho-hum, I’ve changed my mind.” A child is a major decsion in someone’s life, and shouldn’t be a matter where someone can just hit the “undo” button.
I feel like being an ass today. Here you go Lee.
The problem with this issue in particular is that there really is no middle ground on the issue because the issue is literally “life and death.” Either you allow abortions--in any permutation of any kind and any situation-- and the pro-lifers are pissed off. The argument being that the baby is still being killed. On the other hand if you flip that around, you have the pro-Abortionists saying “any kind of restriction on abortion is bad.” Granted these are the absolutist positions, but I think it applies to everyone involved with this issue to some degree.
I liked your “legislators should grow balls” part though. I completely agree.
Off topic, but truly great non the less Sheehan.
Arbitrary “rights” determined by parliamentary fiat aren’t rights at all. “Rights” *are* inherently absolute, otherwise they’re “priviledges”, by simple definition.
That’s exactly my point. The only reason there was a federal “right” to an abortion was because there was, at the time, an activist court which decided to ignore states rights and the Constitution itself and somehow magically invent one. Thus the abortion debate is always framed around “a woman’s right to an abortion” when it really has nothing to do with rights whatsoever. Since the right was not explicitly granted via the amendment process, the right to an abortion will only exist as long as there is a court willing to continue the tradition.
I’m not making a value judge on any position here, just saying I don’t get this “our way, their way” point. The only distinction between “the American way” and “the British way” on this issue is that they don’t have an overriding judicial decision that essentially outlawed legislative consideration or relief.
That’s exactly my point, Aaron. My position is that, while I generally support the concept of abortion rights for women, there is no inherent “right” to an abortion in the Constitution as it currently exists. Roe should be overturned, and the right to regulate abortion should be returned to the state legislatures. If there is significant societal shift in the attitudes towards abortion, the best way for this to manifest itself is when there are 50 different “test tubes” for various rules and policies to be experimented with. It’s the rigidity of the phrasing of abortion being a right or the fetus having rights that makes the debate over this issue so wrong.
So Lee, do YOU believe that the fetus has a right to life?
This was an all or nothing policy, and no matter how hard you tried you could not justify slavery. Just like abortion it’s not a economic issue or every a personal property issue, it’s a human rights issue for which there can be no comprimises.
Interesting that you should bring this up. The abolitionists took an absolutist position on slavery, in much the same way that the anti-abortion groups do today: it is an immoral institution which needs to be outlawed immediately. However, the abolitionists were not prepared to deal with the consequences of their absolutist moral position.
While the abolitionists agree that slavery was evil, the vast majority of them still viewed blacks as inferior and not deserving of equal rights. The very same northern states which outlawed slavery also passed laws preventing freed Southern slaves from moving there. It was very easy for them to rant and rail about the evils of southern slavery while insulating themselves from the societal cost of dealing with the end of that institution.
The exact same thing is happening with the anti-abortion movement. If abortion is outlawed, how are we going to deal with the enormous societal impact of all these unwanted pregnancies? This is something I blogged on just the other day.
For example, there are going to be tens of thousands of babies born to low-income women, who have no spousal support. These children are going to need public assistance money, which require a massive expansion of the welfare state, funded by enormous tax increases or copious deficit spending. Welfare mothers are more likely to become pregnant than educated women from more affluent families. With more welfare mothers getting pregnant, and abortion not an option, we’re going to end up with even more welfare mothers. The chances of a young woman being able to work hard to get an education and get off welfare decrease significantly when she has a child she has to feed and raise at the same time. So, one result of a ban on abortion will be a guarantee of decades of Americans mired in poverty, spending a lifetime suckling at the government teat. Babies of welfare mothers will be more likely to end up on drugs or in a gang or in prison. This damages society as a whole. As mentioned above, this will result in even more numbers of young men incarcerated. When they are incarcerated they are unable to provide for their children, nor provide a father figure role. This will significantly increase the likelihood that these babies themselves will end up in prison. Another self-perpetuating societal drain.
Much like the abolitionists in the 1800s did over slavery, I see the anti-abortion groups today assuming an extremist moral posture. Once they get their way, they’ll wash their hands of the whole thing.
We look back today and think of people who used slaves with absolute disgust, which we should, and when abortion is illegal again people will look back on us today the way look back on our on past.
Yes, but you’re assuming that there is no difference between a fully grown black slave and a three-week old fetus. They’re both deserving of the same legal protection in your eyes. I would submit that when you look at an adult white man and an adult black man and a fetus, the black man has a hell of a lot more in common with the white man than either of them do with the fetus. (In the context of rights, nothing more.)
What I mean is, it’s almost impossible to make an intellectual argument as to why a black man should be denied rights based solely on the color of his skin, but you can make a very reasonable argument that a fetus, which often has no ability to live outside the womb, should not be afforded any legal protection whatsoever.
Our way sucks. The British way is better
Upon further reflection, given the states of our two countries.....would you like to modify that statement?
If you follow that argument through, arn’t you really arguing against a constitution (essentially a pre-defined and hard to change piece of law that emobodies certain rights) ?
Not at all. What I’m saying is that since we have a document that explicitly lists unalienable rights, everyone tends to view their own pet project in terms of a right: the right to an abortion, the right to healthcare, the right to a job, the right to a house, the right to an education, and so on. Just because some or all of these might be things that *should* be granted by the state does not make them a right by definition.
So Lee, do YOU believe that the fetus has a right to life?
Me, personally? Up until the point of fetal viability, no. I’m am inherently opposed to late term abortion in all instances.
Upon further reflection, given the states of our two countries.....would you like to modify that statement?
Uhhh… no. Why would I? What about the “state” of the UK do you find so abhorrent? In terms of the way they view abortion, their way is better than ours.
Dude, what the fuck are you talking about?
Once they get their way, they’ll wash their hands of the whole thing.
Exactly. I offer the suggestion that we should vote on abortion, up or down, right now, but the consequences of that vote will be made immediate and clear.
If you vote in favor, you swear that you will forevermore absolve all levels of government of any responsibility (financial, medical or otherwise) for yourself and any children you might have, now or in the future. With no appeal.
If you vote against, you are immediately enrolled in an adoption program where your name will be added to a pool. That pool will have one name from it selected at random to adopt the child of any woman who is forced to bear a child to term because of the ban. With no appeal.
How would you vote, given those options?
Lee, I think youve been smoking crack!! Didnt we see posts from you last year showing that the lack of absolute rights in England was a weakness??( something about double jeopardy) The only problem here is (living constitution ) justices inventing rights as they go.
Lee, I think youve been smoking crack!! Didnt we see posts from you last year showing that the lack of absolute rights in England was a weakness??( something about double jeopardy) The only problem here is (living constitution ) justices inventing rights as they go.
Okay, Jesus, let me say this again. THERE IS NOT, NOR SHOULD THERE BE, A RIGHT TO AN ABORTION. Because of this, it is pointless and counterproductive to frame the debate over abortion in terms of rights. We always discuss abortion in terms of rights in this country, whereas in Britain they have more wiggle room to negotiate compromise positions.
On the subject of abortion, the British way is better.
I fail to understand how you do not see this as a Human RIGHT. Did you not have the right to be born? The fetus has different DNA from the mother which makes the fetus separate thing from the mother.
As a person who keeps on banging the drum of evolution, which believes that we evolved from a single cell. You would think that or lives start in much the same way.
If you vote against, you are immediately enrolled in an adoption program where your name will be added to a pool.
How about if I vote against it I get to hand out condoms, and talk about personal responsibility.
.....and how babies are made....penis in...no condom...commitment.
I fail to understand how you do not see this as a Human RIGHT. Did you not have the right to be born?
Of course not.
The fetus has different DNA from the mother which makes the fetus separate thing from the mother.
It is separate, sure, but is it a person? Does it have rights? That’s a different issue. I see a fetus as a potential person, and just like it grows from two cells into a fully-formed baby, so its concept of personhood and rights grows along with it.
The very same northern states which outlawed slavery also passed laws preventing freed Southern slaves from moving there. It was very easy for them to rant and rail about the evils of southern slavery while insulating themselves from the societal cost of dealing with the end of that institution.
While I am sure it is not your intent, the way this is phrased could leave some with the impression, that after careful consideration, the abolitionists would have concluded that slavery should have been allowed to exist. I reject “societal cost” arguments, because with this utilitarian analysis, it implies that the rights of some can be trampled for the convenience of others. The cost of ending slavery was truly horrific, the Civil War, however I do not believe that would justify the continued existence of slavery.
Yes, but you’re assuming that there is no difference between a fully grown black slave and a three-week old fetus. They’re both deserving of the same legal protection in your eyes. I would submit that when you look at an adult white man and an adult black man and a fetus, the black man has a hell of a lot more in common with the white man than either of them do with the fetus. (In the context of rights, nothing more.)
The intrinsic problem of partial, or unequal, rights is that it is notoriously hard to quantify who deserves what amount of rights. Herbert Spencer tackled this issue, and his conclusion was basically that since there is no scientific method to determine who should have what rights, everyone should have equal rights, otherwise, the system is based on whim.
I would also suggest a warning, that the idea of unequal rights is a cornerstone of totalitarianism. This is not meant as a slur against your character, just a warning that we are treading in some deep territory.
Me, personally? Up until the point of fetal viability, no. I’m am inherently opposed to late term abortion in all instances.
This is an interesting stance; however, I ask of you, what is the difference between viability and survivability? A new born infant is just as dependent prior birth as after birth. Without further explanation, this appears to be a fairly arbitrary position.
Exactly. I offer the suggestion that we should vote on abortion, up or down, right now, but the consequences of that vote will be made immediate and clear.
If you vote in favor, you swear that you will forevermore absolve all levels of government of any responsibility (financial, medical or otherwise) for yourself and any children you might have, now or in the future. With no appeal.
If you vote against, you are immediately enrolled in an adoption program where your name will be added to a pool. That pool will have one name from it selected at random to adopt the child of any woman who is forced to bear a child to term because of the ban. With no appeal.
How would you vote, given those options?
This is laughable as I am quite sure it contradicts your own beliefs. First, I believe all Conservatives and Libertarians here do not believe the government should be responsible for anyone; regardless of abortion.
As to your 2nd paragraph, everyone here would start convulsing with rage if the government mandated adoption. It would be a horrible violation of individual liberty and rights.
I do not see the point of your argument, other than to create a scenario where those who oppose abortion, but do not want to adopt, are painted as hypocrites.
Me, personally? Up until the point of fetal viability, no. I’m am inherently opposed to late term abortion in all instances.
This used to be pretty much my opinion as well, its a sensible place to draw the line. The problem is that it’s a line that changes with technology. What happens when we have artificial wombs that could bring a foetus to term, let alone the fact that incubators mean fetal viability has changed with technology. Not saying I have the answer, I don’t - and perhaps this is the best line there is but still, it has clear problems. I think perhaps one based on the actual state of the foetus (consciounsess of some sort) would be better.
How about if I vote against it I get to hand out condoms, and talk about personal responsibility.
Not sure if you know, but condoms arn’t 100% effective. In fact there is no 100% effective contraception except steralisation (I have even heard of mistakes there with men) While I am sure a lot of pregnancies are cased by people not taking proper precautions, they are certainly not all.
I fail to understand how you do not see this as a Human RIGHT. Did you not have the right to be born? The fetus has different DNA from the mother which makes the fetus separate thing from the mother.
A right from whom? What type of right? Why does it have any more right to a life than a sperm has a right to fertilize an egg? What changed at the point of conception that gave two disparate gametes this sudden right to existance?
The only way I can see you assign some right to a fertilized egg is a religious connetation, but given that God allows over 2/3s of foetuses to die (far more than abortions in the US) the grounds for this argument seem somewhat shaky.
As a person who keeps on banging the drum of evolution, which believes that we evolved from a single cell. You would think that or lives start in much the same way.
Is != Ought.
Not at all. What I’m saying is that since we have a document that explicitly lists unalienable rights, everyone tends to view their own pet project in terms of a right: the right to an abortion, the right to healthcare, the right to a job, the right to a house, the right to an education, and so on. Just because some or all of these might be things that *should* be granted by the state does not make them a right by definition.
Ok, but the only alternative to this is to not have a constitution. So which do you want? :)
Of course in the UK we do have some rights, the human right’s act for example. I am not sure if it says anthing about abortion in it though. There was a court case last week though about a women trying to get parental consent for children before they have abortions. The result is pretty obvious, most of the discussion has been more about why she was allowed to waste tax payer’s money bringing it to court.
Drum, a better explanation of my objections would be the following:
I offer the suggestion that we should vote on the War on Terrorism, up or down, right now, but the consequences of that vote will be made immediate and clear.
If you vote in favor, you will immediately be given a rifle and sent on IED patrol in the Sunni Triangle. With no appeal.
If you vote against, you forfeit all right to protection and all non American may kill you at will. With no appeal.
How would you vote, given those options?
First, I believe all Conservatives and Libertarians here do not believe the government should be responsible for anyone; regardless of abortion.
If the government forces a women to bear a child don’t you think that changes the equation? It would be akin to having conscription but then forcing anyone injured during a war to pay their own medical costs.
The only good news I can see in the whole abortion thing is that one day they will come up with a completly effective contraception and abortion will become a non isse. I would be surprised if that dosen’t happen in my life time.
Not sure if you know, but condoms arn’t 100% effective. In fact there is no 100% effective contraception
Placing a condom on does decrease the chance of little children does it not? Also there is a 100% effective contraception. Hand + porn = no child.
Why does it have any more right to a life than a sperm has a right to fertilize an egg?
Can a sperm make a child?
The only way I can see you assign some right to a fertilized egg is a religious connotation
No, I don’t place religion in this at all. You don’t have the right to kill someone because you can’t take personal responsibility for you actions.
I offer the suggestion that we should vote on the War on Terrorism, up or down, right now, but the consequences of that vote will be made immediate and clear.
If you vote in favor, you will immediately be given a rifle and sent on IED patrol in the Sunni Triangle. With no appeal.
If you vote against, you forfeit all right to protection and all non American may kill you at will. With no appeal.
How would you vote, given those options?
Gimme my fuckin’ rifle, pal, and tell me where Cindy Sheehan is at this moment.
This is laughable as I am quite sure it contradicts your own beliefs.
Not at all. It simply lays the consequences on the line for all to see. My own vote on that would be irrelevant (although I would vote against, and roll the dice - if abortion is eliminated by that vote, there would be a MASSIVE pool from which to choose, and a concomitant effort at finally perfecting contraception).
How about if I vote against it I get to hand out condoms, and talk about personal responsibility.
You can do that, too, but since contraception is not perfect (see above), there will be SOME unplanned and unwanted pregnancies, even among the most ardent and careful users. The pool is the only way to accept the full responsibility for your vote.
If the government forces a women to bear a child don’t you think that changes the equation? It would be akin to having conscription but then forcing anyone injured during a war to pay their own medical costs.
Nothing is changed. Why should she be allowed to murder the child for her own convenience? Also, no one is forcing her to do anything except take responsibility for her own choices. The only exception being rape.
The pool is the only way to accept the full responsibility for your vote.
So because someone is to stupid to realize sex may result in pregnancy. I should have to take care of their children?
...oh wait
If the government forces a women to bear a child don’t you think that changes the equation?
She forced herself to be responsible for the child the moment she spread her legs.
How can “the government force a woman to bear a child” when childbearing is a perfectly natural process upon a woman having made the decision to get laid. You might as well ask how the government has the right to force me to take a dump today after I decided to eat something last night.
For me this all hinges on justification, or lack thereof. Whether or not you believe that a fetus is a separate human being and at what point, where’s the justification for extinguishing a new human life?
When the innocent are killed unintentionally it’s called an accidental killing, or manslaughter. We don’t call that murder for a reason. The difference has to do with intent.
What are the unborn guilty of? Nothing, they are the most innocent of all human life. I ask again where’s the justification? Mom wishing to delay or forgo the responsibilities of a parent just aren’t enough.
aren’t = isn’t
The abolitionists took an absolutist position on slavery, in much the same way that the anti-abortion groups do today:
Lee your entire post makes it sould like the cost of freedom for blacks in America was TOO great. I understand what you are saying Lee, but do you also have to go a step further and say that even though there were consequences, freedom for the blacks was a good thing.
but you can make a very reasonable argument that a fetus, which often has no ability to live outside the womb, should not be afforded any legal protection whatsoever.
So what, there are adults who can’t live without machines keeping them alive. Does that mean they aren’t real people?
What changed at the point of conception that gave two disparate gametes this sudden right to existance?
And at what point do those 2 cells become protected life? How many cells do there have to be before its a human? Who decides, poloiticians? Lawyers? Judges? What quantifies any person to determine when life begins? Who can even determine what life is let alone when it starts?
If the government forces a women to bear a child don’t you think that changes the equation?
What are you talking about? Women have the right to choose. The government doesn’t “force” them to have child because abortion is illegal anymore than the government “forces” me to live next to an asshole because I can’t shoot him in the head.
This used to be pretty much my opinion as well, its a sensible place to draw the line. The problem is that it’s a line that changes with technology. What happens when we have artificial wombs that could bring a foetus to term, let alone the fact that incubators mean fetal viability has changed with technology.
Let me state at the onset that I completely agree that choosing a cut-off line for abortion is completely arbitrary and subjective and open for debate. The reason that I like the viability standard is precisely because it changes over time as technology increases. So, to use your hypothetical, if a woman is three months pregnant and wishes not to have the baby, she could have it removed and placed into an artificial womb. It sets a point at which the personhood of the fetus is established, while making sure that women who do not wish to a carry the child do not have to.
I think perhaps one based on the actual state of the foetus (consciounsess of some sort) would be better.
I think an excellent case could be made for using this as the standard. Indeed, it’s why the media in this country were so lackluster in their reportage of the fact that babies in utero can and do feel pain at very young ages, or that they respond to stimuli and show emotions, that sort of thing. It was reported, but it wasn’t given the level of coverage that other medical breakthroughs are given, simply because it goes against the liberal (and thus media) attitude toward abortion. Anything that might “humanize” a fetus is discouraged, so that the decision to abort can be made in as clinical a manner possible, which of course is a preposterous notion when you’re discussing an unborn baby.
Hand + porn = no child.
See, this is an example of what I’m talking about with the absolutism. This might have worked 200 years ago, but we live in a sex culture. People like sex, it’s used to sell all sorts of products. Porno is a multi-billion dollar industry. You can’t possibly sit there and expect people to remain celibate until marriage. This is not a feasible option in today’s world. I mean, there are cultures where this sort of message is popular. Saudi Arabia is a great example. They, as a society, have totally eschewed sexuality. Teenage pregnancy is not an issue there. Is this the type of world you want to live in?
I’m a 35 year old bachelor. Are you saying that the only option available to me is to remain a virgin until I get married? Because, I hate to break this to you, that ain’t gonna happen. I have been happily banging chicks for the past 19 years, and I’m not going to stop any time soon.
So, we can either pine for a simpler time, or we can deal with the practical reality of live in the modern world. The reality is that the idea of celibacy is dead. People are going to start fucking in their teens or early 20s. While abstinence should be encouraged, the realities of life dictate that other options should be available.
She forced herself to be responsible for the child the moment she spread her legs.
Interesting that so many people here always refer to the act of pregnancy as being the responsibility of some slutty female who “spread her legs.” The last time I checked a guy had to stick his dick in between those legs for a pregnancy to occur.
Whether or not you believe that a fetus is a separate human being and at what point, where’s the justification for extinguishing a new human life?
Because a clump of cells isn’t a human life. Yet.
Lee your entire post makes it sould like the cost of freedom for blacks in America was TOO great. I understand what you are saying Lee, but do you also have to go a step further and say that even though there were consequences, freedom for the blacks was a good thing.
I was just playing off your example. I think that slavery was an infinitely greater injustice than abortion, but you were the one who made the comparison. That being said, my point still stands. As John Galsworthy once said, “Idealism increases in direct proportion to one’s distance from the problem.”
It’s very easy to sit there and take the moral high road over a child you will never see, never have to spend time with, never have to support, or never get to know. And I say this as a guy who has all but adopted a child who isn’t mine. I dated a girl years ago, a single mother. Her son was two and the time. She and I dated for a few years. Well, the relationship is long gone, but I still talk to this boy every day. He views me as his father, and I’m the closest thing he’s ever going to have to one. It’s not out of a sense of callous disregard for life that I hold my beliefs, it’s a very, real practical sense.
I see abortion as an evil, but I don’t see it as legal murder. Therein lies the distinction.
So what, there are adults who can’t live without machines keeping them alive. Does that mean they aren’t real people?
This is a total straw man. Once you exit the vagina you’re a person, there’s never been any debate about that. But progressing backwards from the moment of birth, there comes a point where that unborn baby becomes nothing but a clump of goo. At some point between goo and baby the state of personhood is established, and until that time the fetus should not have any legal protection.
And at what point do those 2 cells become protected life? How many cells do there have to be before its a human? Who decides, poloiticians? Lawyers? Judges? What quantifies any person to determine when life begins? Who can even determine what life is let alone when it starts?
An odd position for you to take, considering that you’re otherwise arguing that life begins at conception, and the anti-abortion lobby has an army of lawyers willing to use the court system to get that belief codified into law. My belief, which was the point of this post, was that society should be able to decide these sorts of issues for themselves, outside of the rigid confines of the all-or-nothing system that we have in this country.
Placing a condom on does decrease the chance of little children does it not? Also there is a 100% effective contraception. Hand + porn = no child.
Yeah it does, as does the women being on the pill, but neither are guranteed. A friend of my X recently got pregnant while on the Pill (she had the child though). I realise there are some people out there who think abortion is just a convenient method of contraception but for some of us it really is a last resort. I am not sure I would want my girlfriend to have one or not, it would be a horrible decision to have to make, but I do think it should be mine/girlfriend’s to make.
Can a sperm make a child?
As much as a zygote can. They are both only a potential child. In fact, it may be possible some time to get a normal differentiated cell (or perhaps an undifferntiated one) to divide and form a child. Would this cell be valuable in itself or only once some technology was done on it to make it divide? I really don’t see a single fertilized cell as any more valuable than a hair follicle - I don’t think anything you can say would change that in the same way I can understand the religious connotations of it; but if you don’t believe in souls or other such non physical manifestation of a single cell then what is remotly value in it, apart from potential of which the sperm has the same?
No, I don’t place religion in this at all. You don’t have the right to kill someone because you can’t take personal responsibility for you actions.
For many an abortion is taking responsibility for their actions, very few people enjoy the idea of an abortion, its a horrendous thing to have to go through for most and certainly punishment. Despite that, you are saying “kill someone” - clearly someone who accepts abortion would differ that you are killing someone.
Nothing is changed. Why should she be allowed to murder the child for her own convenience? Also, no one is forcing her to do anything except take responsibility for her own choices. The only exception being rape.
Which is it though? Either you only care about the potential child or not, what difference does rape make?
She forced herself to be responsible for the child the moment she spread her legs.
How can “the government force a woman to bear a child” when childbearing is a perfectly natural process upon a woman having made the decision to get laid. You might as well ask how the government has the right to force me to take a dump today after I decided to eat something last night.
No, remember that for some abortion is not an amoral procedure. You may think it is and you may think you have the right to impose your morality on someone else, but they view it differently as not something amoral. So you are preventing them from doing something that they think is perfectly right to do, in doing so you need to take some responsibility in forcing them down a path they don’t want to walk.
And at what point do those 2 cells become protected life? How many cells do there have to be before its a human? Who decides, poloiticians? Lawyers? Judges? What quantifies any person to determine when life begins? Who can even determine what life is let alone when it starts?
Let me state at the onset that I completely agree that choosing a cut-off line for abortion is completely arbitrary and subjective and open for debate. The reason that I like the viability standard is precisely because it changes over time as technology increases. So, to use your hypothetical, if a woman is three months pregnant and wishes not to have the baby, she could have it removed and placed into an artificial womb. It sets a point at which the personhood of the fetus is established, while making sure that women who do not wish to a carry the child do not have to.
I see what you mean. This would perhaps be a good thing, women (and men) could become financially responsible for the child but it could be removed from them and allowed to grow and be adopted. This is perhaps a way technology can solve this moral problem for us.
Got to say this is the most interesting discussion we have had on abortion here.
Also there is a 100% effective contraception. Hand + porn = no child.
But then you have a massive porn problem.
And porn is a “sin”. *rolleyes*
Let me state at the onset that I completely agree that choosing a cut-off line for abortion is completely arbitrary and subjective and open for debate.
Exactly! What does it say about those who so cavalierly assign life and death based on whim? Your basis for denying the fetus’ rights is about as strong as belief in the flying spaghetti monster.
See, this is an example of what I’m talking about with the absolutism. This might have worked 200 years ago, but we live in a sex culture. People like sex, it’s used to sell all sorts of products. Porno is a multi-billion dollar industry. You can’t possibly sit there and expect people to remain celibate until marriage.
No, but I do expect them to take responsibility for their action. A consequence of sex is pregnancy. I see no reason why one should be punished for the bad choices of another.
Interesting that so many people here always refer to the act of pregnancy as being the responsibility of some slutty female who “spread her legs.” The last time I checked a guy had to stick his dick in between those legs for a pregnancy to occur.
Two points:
1) Females are the only ones capable of getting pregnant; therefore they have additional burden and should take extra care.
2) The Father is also responsible for the welfare of the child.
It’s very easy to sit there and take the moral high road over a child you will never see, never have to spend time with, never have to support, or never get to know.
So what? Rights are rights are rights are rights.
This is a total straw man. Once you exit the vagina you’re a person, there’s never been any debate about that.
When your argument is based on social costs, not rights, it is incredibly easy to draw the parallel that others that inflict a “social cost” should be removed as well. Stupid adults inflict tremendous social costs, but unless they break the law, that does not affect their rights.
Your basic argument is that a fetus goes from no rights to rights. After the transformation to rights, they are protected. Until that point, anything may be done because they have no rights. After rights, they have the full protection of the law. Social costs has absolutely nothing to do with this debate; it is nothing more than bastardized utilitarianism.
My belief, which was the point of this post, was that society should be able to decide these sorts of issues for themselves, outside of the rigid confines of the all-or-nothing system that we have in this country.
In theory, rights exist outside of the realm of man. They are recognized, they are not granted.
Honestly I have to agree with Lee on this one.
Most of this was probably already said by someone, but meh…
The problem with the abortion issue in this country is that the way the policy seems to be pushed is that there either is abortion or there isn’t. With this issue it just doesn’t work. If you allow blanket abortion your basically sanctioning mass murder and sexual irresponsibility. If you ban abortion there are women’s health issues, issues of children being born into situations they shouldn’t be, and the sexual character of our society, even in a normal sense, not just the worst of it.
In terms of Lee’s Britain vs. the US comparison. In the US we view things as absolute rights, even though abortion obviously cannot be viewed in that sense, which is a potential flaw in our thinking becoming a real flaw. Whereas the British, who tend not to think in absolute rights, are thinking correctly about this issue in that they are attempting to look pragmatically at the moral and practical consequences of various abortion policies.
What shoudl we do? Lee’s already said it. Eliminate Roe vs. Wade, make it a state issue.
issues of children being born into situations they shouldn’t be,
Well, we could always resort to liscensing…
Since guys like Lee are not satisfied with ‘hand + porn’ and want to fuck, how about we legalize prostitution across the board? Prostitutes would be licensed and as part of agreeing to that licence, they must be sterile. You want to fuck? Go fuck a whore. Otherwise, you are beholden to the well being of the offspring you may produce.
Which is something Lee agrees with.
t’s very easy to sit there and take the moral high road over a child you will never see, never have to spend time with, never have to support, or never get to know.
So what? I never had a slave and neither did you, but that doesn’t stop you from no only acknowledgeing the issue but making the judgement that it’s wrong. I don’t have to have a child to understand that it’s wrong to kill it.
This is a total straw man. Once you exit the vagina you’re a person, there’s never been any debate about that.
But you are the one who made the point about the negative social impact of unwanted children. How useless and societal drain to adults have to be before their lives are forfeit?
An odd position for you to take, considering that you’re otherwise arguing that life begins at conception
It’s not an odd posistion for me to take, I beleive abortion is wrong and shouldn’t be done. It’s people like you that suprise me. You don’t know when life begins but you have no problem throwing caution into the wind with other people’s lives when those people can’t speak for themselves.
Abortion is no more a right than healthcare. That doesn’t mean it should be illegal though. The unfortunate fact is babies have been terminated by their parents since people started having babies. Infanticide is not new. Even though the point of where consciousness begins is up for debate, science should be working to find the closest point, and that would be a good line to establish.
A reliable morning after pill is a good start, and should be promoted even more than it is now. That being said, the cost should go to the two involved in this situation, not the taxpayer.
A few cells in the process of forming a baby is not killing someone, it is killing the potential for someone, which happens quite often in nature when conditions aren’t right. Concidering that nature does not have the ability to see things such as financial impact, how much love the kid will get, whether or not the baby will get a good foster home, etc., the human brain also makes a choice.
That doesn’t mean it should be illegal though. The unfortunate fact is babies have been terminated by their parents since people started having babies. Infanticide is not new.
Murder, slavery, piss poor woman’s rights.
Even though the point of where consciousness begins is up for debate, science should be working to find the closest point, and that would be a good line to establish.
Those that are mentally retarded…
A few cells in the process of forming a baby is not killing someone, it is killing the potential for someone
What is the difference between the clump of cells and a mewling infant, in terms of being “someone.”
which happens quite often in nature when conditions aren’t right.
There is a difernce between nature and chance and a man made decision.
Murder, slavery, piss poor woman’s rights.
They are all bad things, and examples of one human controlling another through evil means. Abortion involves terminating the potential for another human being. Killing a newborn is also one human controlling another through evil means, and I would venture anything after 5 or 6 months is killing another human being (that’s why science should be researching this further).
Those that are mentally retarded…
What about ‘em?
What is the difference between the clump of cells and a mewling infant, in terms of being “someone.”
Then we should just make it illegal to kill any creature. An ant has more consciousness than a group of cells. I’m not going to argue that killing an 8 month old is ok just because it hasn’t popped the chute yet. It’s clear that someone at that stage could survive out of the womb, and even if it couldn’t it still has developed consciousness. A group of cells though? Why not just make it illegal for a woman not to get knocked up before she loses yet another egg, or make it illegal for a guy to shoot his wad in a sock instead of a woman?
They are all bad things, and examples of one human controlling another through evil means. Abortion involves terminating the potential for another human being. Killing a newborn is also one human controlling another through evil means, and I would venture anything after 5 or 6 months is killing another human being (that’s why science should be researching this further).
A history of infaticide is not a justification for it, it is an appeal to tradition.
Also:
“I would venture anything after 5 or 6 months is killing another human being (that’s why science should be researching this further)”
Would venture? You are not sure?
Those that are mentally retarded…
What about ‘em?
Regarding point of consciousness, it would seem that a lack of consciousness could equally apply to the retarded.
Then we should just make it illegal to kill any creature. An ant has more consciousness than a group of cells. I’m not going to argue that killing an 8 month old is ok just because it hasn’t popped the chute yet. It’s clear that someone at that stage could survive out of the womb, and even if it couldn’t it still has developed consciousness. A group of cells though?
You argued that killing cells is not killing someone. Define someone. Is it someone mentally aware and developed? How does a new born infant become someone?
There is a difernce between nature and chance and a man made decision.
This is correct. Over time, life has evolved from simply reacting to surroundings, to being able to predict, analyze, and control the surroundings, and this is especially true with humans. Nature has done this to improve the limitations of simple reaction. If someone has sex, and takes a pill prior to, or a few days after to terminate a pregnancy, or uses some other procedure, it may be because they are aware that the future for this potential infant is not going to be good, even though nature’s instinctive reaction may think the environment is just fine. Why bring a kid into a world where it is not wanted, will not be loved, and at best maybe will find a decent foster home? Head it off at the pass before it becomes a kid.
I’m not a big fan of abortion, and safe sex, or no sex at all would be the best possible scenario. It would also be a better world (in terms of living longer) if there were no drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, soda pop, or potato chips, but all the laws in the world aren’t going to get rid of those either. It would just transfer over to an unsafe black market. Unless you are willing to create laws the would basically remove the freedoms of every citizen, then you might want to look at ways were we can best deal with freedoms that may not be the best thing for a human to do to themselves, but humans will do none the less. I think anti-abortionist could win the battle of keeping an abortion limited to under a few months or so, but it’s not going to go any farther than that.
Would venture? You are not sure?
Correct, not for sure. That’s why science should step up, and find an actual point as to where consciousness fires up. It does do it at some point. I don’t know myself, and wouldn’t claim to.
See, this is an example of what I’m talking about with the absolutism.
See nothing, that was a smart ass comment that you turned around to make a point. All those Filipino whores will be happy to find out that I was a prude. What consenting adults do to one another sexually is their own business.
I like that because I see abortion in a different light that I am painted as some religious zealot. When you start spreading you seed around the world there is some responsibility in your actions. When I started to throw it around I knew a few things like I could knock someone up, get a STD, or find sunshine and fall in love with the golden rays.
Because, I hate to break this to you, that ain’t gonna happen.
Well not from your choice.........zing
Then we should just make it illegal to kill any creature. An ant has more consciousness than a group of cells.
Er, we don’t oppose murder because humans have consciousness. We oppose it for the same reason that we oppose cannibalism: It isn’t because it isn’t as delicious as, say, beef, it’s because *it’s a freaking human being*.
That clump of cells is the whole of a tiny, newly created human organism.
Fun question: If, say, a two-month old fetus is not a human being, is it perfectly permissable to fry it up with some red wine like veal? Since it isn’t a person, but just a clump of tissue, would anyone find it offensive to use aborted fetuses in the creation of pet food?
Fun question: If, say, a two-month old fetus is not a human being, is it perfectly permissable to fry it up with some red wine like veal? Since it isn’t a person, but just a clump of tissue, would anyone find it offensive to use aborted fetuses in the creation of pet food?
That’s pretty sick, but I do like a chick who swallows. ;) Is that cannibalism?
There is a point in time from transition of just tissue to an actual human life. A few cells in the process of dividing is not the same as a person. At the same time, 6 or 7 months into the pregnancy, there probably is a human life. I don’t think that it can be said that there is not a human in the womb just because we don’t have x-ray vision to see it. There has to be a cut off point. Some say at the moment of conception, and that’s fine, but it’s not going to fly with the overwhelming majority of the population. Perhaps determining when consciousness begins, and more than just cells with human DNA clumped together would be a better way to draw the line.
There will be no perfection in this debate, only a reasonable compromise. It sucks, but that’s the way it is. In the meantime, there are thousands, if not millions of fathers who have run off, and left the woman and kid to fend for themselves. Why not pursue making them responsible, and once we’ve cleared that up, we can worry about the life of future parents, whether they choose to be or not.
Er, we don’t oppose murder because humans have consciousness. We oppose it for the same reason that we oppose cannibalism: It isn’t because it isn’t as delicious as, say, beef, it’s because *it’s a freaking human being*.
Most people oppose cannibalism because it involes killing someone. Personally however I don’t have a problem with it, if someone wants to leave their body to be eaten by someone after they die I couldn’t care less. It might seem disgusting to me but my disgust is absolutly no reason to prevent someone from doing something.
That clump of cells is the whole of a tiny, newly created human organism.
No, it’s a clump of cells that may continue to divide into a foetus or may not. At the current time its a couple of nuclei and some completly undifferentiated cells. The only real difference between them and say some amoeba (apart from the number of chromosoes) is that these cells will continue to divide.
It has absolutly no more value then some sperm and egg cells, and I don’t think many of you are worried about the loss of these - although I do recommend the monthy python skit “Ever sperm is sacred”.
Fun question: If, say, a two-month old fetus is not a human being, is it perfectly permissable to fry it up with some red wine like veal? Since it isn’t a person, but just a clump of tissue, would anyone find it offensive to use aborted fetuses in the creation of pet food?
That sounds disgusting but that is just our moral “yuck” factor. It’s disgusing in the same way as eating another human in the movie “Alive” is disgusting. Does it mean it’s wrong? I can’t see why really, what difference does it make once the foetus is dead if its burried, burnt, used for medical purposes or eaten by your pet dog? I am not saying I would want to do so, but I can’t see any logical or ethical reason against doing so, it just ‘sounds’ disgusting.
There will be no perfection in this debate, only a reasonable compromise. It sucks, but that’s the way it is. In the meantime, there are thousands, if not millions of fathers who have run off, and left the woman and kid to fend for themselves. Why not pursue making them responsible, and once we’ve cleared that up, we can worry about the life of future parents, whether they choose to be or not.
Men should only be made responsible if they get equal choice in the decision to bring the foetus to term. Once they make that decision then they should be as much responsible for the child as the women.
Why is the British way better?
Answer’s in the question :)
Karbox,
You opined that abortion would be acceptable in the case of rape. I agree, but ...
Does that square with your apparent stance that each and every (other?) unborn has rights, and should be allowed to come to term without regard to the circumstances into which it would be introduced to the world? That fetus was not complicit in the rape, after all.
Is the argument for aborting a product of rape (1) that the infant would be inseparable from the horrible act that caused it, and thus might not be adequately loved and cared for, might actually become a scapegoat, and/or (2) that the father is highly unlikely to take responsibility, and/or (3) that the mother’s psyche would be so harmed by the birth that it is not right to put that burden on her?
I’m just wondering where the flow of the logic runs that brings one to the conclusion about this “rape exception” to the rule.
Next entry: The Gipper Goes South
Previous entry: Hamas Jefferson
We have some flexibility built right in: It’s called “a Constitutional amendment”. Want to flex things around? There you go.
Arbitrary “rights” determined by parliamentary fiat aren’t rights at all. “Rights” *are* inherently absolute, otherwise they’re “priviledges”, by simple definition.
That said, you contradict yourself: You simultaneously claim that Americans generally don’t have an absolute position, but also claim that the problem is that we insist on one. Neither of these claims seems to me to be correct.
The *reason* for the Roe case was because a majority of state legislatures had been tackling it, to the dismay of *Kodos/Kang impressions* those who wanted abortions for all (namely, an unemployable lawyer).
What took place in Roe vs. Wade was beyond the clear bounds and intentions of the system. The people who made it an issue of our rights were nine guys in robes.
Er, how does that work?
That’s the *aggregate* American attitude, but that’s as valuable for lawmaking purposes as saying that “Americans are generally of a mixed race”. Teeming hordes of Californians certainly feel that abortion should be available on demand, with some believing it should be free. Likewise plenty of people in, say, Kansas feel it is outright murder. While there’s a significant faction that has a moderate position, I think it’s reasonable to say an easy third-to-half the country would readily tell you that they are either at one end or the other.
..and yet, that has absolutely no matter to what happened. Abortion only became the issue that it is today when the federal government got involved. Whether Congress or the Supreme Court does it isn’t really the problem, except at a strictly technical level (IE, which part of the Constitution did they screw up).
If you’re asserting that a Congressional,
nationwide decision on abortion (which the Supreme Court has excluded anyway) would resolve the controversy, I don’t get the joke.