It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I'll bet they lose.

Will these increasingly draconian invasions by conservatives be slapped down in the election booth?

I sure hope so.

These conservatives need to move to their own little country where they have their own way, without inflicting their backwards fundamentalist world views on the rest of us.

And yet Republicans claim that it is the Democrats who want to control how people live their lives and that they are for freedom... despite the Republicans being the party to control who people can marry, want to control woman's rights, they are the party that want to keep the drug war going far more so than the other, they are the ones behind the Patriot Act... about the only right they seem to be ahead of the Democrats on is gun control.

>> ^RFlagg:

And yet Republicans claim that it is the Democrats who want to control how people live their lives and that they are for freedom... despite the Republicans being the party to control who people can marry, want to control woman's rights, they are the party that want to keep the drug war going far more so than the other, they are the ones behind the Patriot Act... about the only right they seem to be ahead of the Democrats on is gun control.


While I most agree with this, nearly completely, those against abortion equate it to murder...something government is most assuredly involved in. I find the debate on abortion good, in a way. One side is valuing life, the other liberty...both of the things that make this union great. I kind of wish people would see it like that instead of each side as the devil.

@geesussfreak, I get that there are some who see abortion as murder. I respect that.

What bothers me is that they so desperately want to save the life of the unborn fetus while being for the death penalty and against welfare support for the child once it is born. They don't mind if a woman dies carrying a baby to term. They block sex education and contraception so that unwanted babies aren't created. They aren't so careful with the mental health of young girls and women who have been raped and empregnanted by their abusers.

It is the inconsistency that bothers me.

The world is a harsh place. Horrible things happen. All we can do is minimize the damage as best we can.

Forcing women and children into back alleys for abortions desperately desired is not a solution.



>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^RFlagg:
And yet Republicans claim that it is the Democrats who want to control how people live their lives and that they are for freedom... despite the Republicans being the party to control who people can marry, want to control woman's rights, they are the party that want to keep the drug war going far more so than the other, they are the ones behind the Patriot Act... about the only right they seem to be ahead of the Democrats on is gun control.

While I most agree with this, nearly completely, those against abortion equate it to murder...something government is most assuredly involved in. I find the debate on abortion good, in a way. One side is valuing life, the other liberty...both of the things that make this union great. I kind of wish people would see it like that instead of each side as the devil.

@bareboards2 Hmmm, those issues don't really seem related at all to the issue at hand. For one, to compare the death penalties as a punishment criminals is hazardous to your own argument. Are you saying abortion is a punishment to children? I don't think that is a comparison you want to make. I don't see how welfare factors into it, at all. If I don't think people should be murdered, it doesn't follow that I should have to support via welfare every person whom isn't murdered.

Also, you confuse "caring" with "allowing". For instance, I am for prostitution being legal, but I still think it is horrible. It is like saying you can't have jails because you believe in liberty, and jail violate liberty. It depends on what is MORE important, and those who are supporters of pro-life choose to favor life that can't speak for itself...a subjective position, but one they feel morally obligated to protect. I should also point out this is a week case. A majority (according to many polls) of people are wishy washy when it comes to saving the life of the mother vs the baby. This is actually a point where both sides of the issue see more eye to eye on that rabble rouses would have. Rape and abuse also fall into that rather large majority of pro-lifers are more aligned than pro-choicers would usually suspect.

The entire issue of child birth is also inconsistent for pro-choice people as well. Most pro-choice people are against third term abortions, which is very inconsistent indeed. If it isn't a baby till it is born, then why? Because like most issues,, for many, this is about emotion more than thought out beliefs from both sides. Don't be so hard on pro-lifer, you might find you have more in common than what you think. Just prevent the hardliners from taking over the conversation, and I feel like you might be one of those hard liners for the camp that I fight for, which I why I say anything at all.

I don't respect that. It's complete horse-shit. It's based, as always, in religion and not in REALITY.
>> ^bareboards2:

@GeeSussFreeK, I get that there are some who see abortion as murder. I respect that.

@gwiz665 You don't have to be religious to think that babies might be babies in the womb. I still struggle with it. It is my lack of ability to be solid on it that makes me error on the side of liberty, and why I support abortion as a decision best left to the individual. When is a person a person? That isn't only a religious question, but a scientific and philosophical one. Is a person DNA, or their mind? I don't really know the answer there, which is why I still struggle with this issue.

"Are you saying abortion is a punishment to children?" No. Where the heck did you get that from, @GeeSussFreeK? Isn't that kind of a leap?

Killing is killing. That is what I was saying.

I'm not going to address the rest of your long post, because really -- it does just get down to this: if abortion is murder, then the death penalty is murder.

Both are the conscious taking of a life, when you strip it down, whatever emotionally laden words you use. Call it "murder" for abortion, THEN it is "murder" for the death penalty.

Once the conservative right stops calling for state sanctioned "murder", then I will listen to their arguments about abortion being "murder." They can't have it both ways. If you are pro-life, you had dang well better be pro-life.

That is what I was saying. The rest is a conversation to have once we get past this central big stumbling block, yes?

And you wonder why whites are still call the c word.

Haven't these people seen Dirty Dancing? Back alley abortions never end well. You don't just kill the baby, you kill your ability to dance.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

@gwiz665 You don't have to be religious to think that babies might be babies in the womb. I still struggle with it. It is my lack of ability to be solid on it that makes me error on the side of liberty, and why I support abortion as a decision best left to the individual. When is a person a person? That isn't only a religious question, but a scientific and philosophical one. Is a person DNA, or their mind? I don't really know the answer there, which is why I still struggle with this issue.


Those broad philosophical questions you are asking, I would say, is a practicing of religion.

You're trying to find some philosophical basis for your questions when you should be looking at them in simple biological terms. When is a person a person? When they are born.

1 in 3 women in the US have an abortion in their lifetime? If that's true, I'm honestly a bit taken aback.

>> ^RedSky:

1 in 3 women in the US have an abortion in their lifetime? If that's true, I'm honestly a bit taken aback.


What they mean is 1 in 3 women who were taught abstinence only sexual education.

>> ^bareboards2:

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I'll bet they lose.
Will these increasingly draconian invasions by conservatives be slapped down in the election booth?
I sure hope so.
These conservatives need to move to their own little country where they have their own way, without inflicting their backwards fundamentalist world views on the rest of us.


At times like this and with the anti-Evolution nonsense in the Kansas BOE a while ago, I can only cringe at what backwards things happen in my home state (although I haven't lived there for a few years). I think you are right, and this won't survive a challenge in (hopefully) the state supreme court, or failing that a higher court.

However, I don't think that these "draconian invasions" will be halted at election time. The local Kansas voters casting votes for their state reps and senators are probably going to approve of this sort of action much more than a poll of average Americans in general would.

Added to that is the fact that the far right-wing nuts are highly encouraged and motivated to go out and vote in primaries that are somewhat ignored by other constituencies, so by the time it comes to a general election the run-of-the-mill conservatives frequently have to choose between a far-right republican or breaking ranks entirely and voting for a democrat (which many are loathe to do).

So when it comes down to it, your statement about conservatives moving to "their own little country" is rather apt, but they would suggest that they've already done it... It's called Kansas.

There are days when I absolutely hate this fucking state. And I'm -always- embarrassed to admit I grew up here.

@JiggaJonson That is a fallacy. It is called begging the question. Why should I accept that position? And to that end, do you support 3rd term abortions?

I think GFK is right that this is an issue of feelings. The feelings in question may have their roots in a religious upbringing, but that's really no worse a place to get them than from parents or classmates or mass media. If you feel like killing a fetus is wrong, then you're welcome to that opinion.

One question is: how much support does an opinion need in order to justify the government depriving a woman of the freedom to control her own reproduction. I doubt there is a "right" answer to this one. We don't require 100% consent for government intervention. For instance, only 99.9% of us think murder is wrong, but we still put murderers in prison. Certainly the requirement is higher than the 40-50% range I've seen on abortion polls.

Another, perhaps more interesting, question is: should people's emotional reactions to issues be a guide to government policy? I claim that they should not. Citizens often get emotional about a particular law, without questioning what the actual effect of that law is. Unfortunately we have politicians who are willing to pander to these desires. Instead of asking whether a law is popular, we should ask whether it produces the actual outcome that people claim to desire.

If you want fewer killed fetuses...
Don't: ban abortions.
Do: mandate sex ed and free condoms.

Don't like teenagers making risky decisions and having sex? Too bad. No government in the world has figured out how to solve that one.

If you want less crime...
Don't: execute criminals.
Do: invest in education, hire more police, spend more on prisoner rehab.

What's that? Killing criminals makes you feel better? Well you'd better poll the public on killing innocent people, because the death penalty does that too.

Finally, let's not leave our dear liberal president out of this.

If you want more prosperous and educated citizens...
Don't: underwrite college loans to students in for-profits and drop out factories
Do: invest in community colleges and technical schools

You're not in Kansas anymore, Dorothy.
>> ^Stormsinger:

There are days when I absolutely hate this fucking state. And I'm -always- embarrassed to admit I grew up here.

Once people get over that life in itself isn't sacred, this issue will be much easier.

Ah, abortion on the Sift again. I participated in the discussion last time. I'll quote myself from last time because I think it is relevant to what's going on in Kansas.

The only thing I'd like to add to that comment is that I believe that it would be possible to seriously reduce the number of abortions by doing what @Mikus_Aurelius said--making sure we have mandatory sex education classes and good access to birth control (for all ages).


In reply to this comment by SDGundamX:
Two years ago, if you had asked me my position on abortion I would have told you I was pro-choice all the way. Then I saw an actual abortion performed and had everything I believed turned upside down. Seeing the doctor wash little dismembered body-parts into a sink--arms, legs, parts of a skull--and count everything up to make sure he got it all... that pretty much convinced me I needed to re-examine my beliefs. I have tried since that time to be open to all positions on the matter and to form my own opinion based on reason and logic. The conclusion I came to is very similar to swampgirl's--abortion is morally wrong but is also a necessary evil.

I'm an atheist, so I don't oppose abortion on any religious grounds. No, like swampgirl said earlier, I just think we should stop beating around the bush. We're taking human lives here. Granted, we're doing it as mercifully as we can (i.e. before the nervous and pain response systems are fully developed) and for ostensibly good reasons. But I think too many people try to gloss over the fact that a human life is ended in the process. I think people are uncomfortable with the idea and that's why we quibble over when a human is an officially recognized "person" or when certain rights should be ascribed.

However, although I oppose abortion on moral grounds, I do not agree with making abortions illegal. That probably seems paradoxical to most people, but it stems from the fact that I am pragmatic. There are serious problems with making abortion illegal: backroom abortions and their associated risks; a suddenly skyrocketing number of babies that need adoption placement in a system that is already burgeoning under the weight of unwanted or neglected children; massive population expansion at a time when resources such as clean water are becoming scarce; and so on. In an ideal world, we could make abortions illegal and provide superior care and support for all women who must carry unwanted babies and place all of those unwanted babies with caring, loving, families. But I've seen enough of the world to know that it is anything but ideal.

And so I believe that as horrible as it is, legal abortions are necessary in the world. It kind of depresses me a little bit that I can find something immoral and yet still condone it. I think maybe it's a sign that I'm getting old that I'm willing to compromise my morals for pragmatic concerns.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

That is a fallacy. It is called begging the question. Why should I accept that position? And to that end, do you support 3rd term abortions?

My personal opinion about 3rd term abortions is itself a red herring. It should be up to the individual woman to chose what she's going to do with her body, plain and simple. I don't see eye to eye with people who have third term abortions but those are choices they have to make and live with.


It's not my place, or yours, to tell them what they can or cant do with what is a deeply personal and infinitely varied situation.

>> ^Stormsinger:

There are days when I absolutely hate this fucking state. And I'm -always- embarrassed to admit I grew up here.


So sorry you lack the self respect to realize your existence defines your domicile, too.

I'm a proud Kansan.

>> ^JiggaJonson:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
That is a fallacy. It is called begging the question. Why should I accept that position? And to that end, do you support 3rd term abortions?

My personal opinion about 3rd term abortions is itself a red herring. It should be up to the individual woman to chose what she's going to do with her body, plain and simple. I don't see eye to eye with people who have third term abortions but those are choices they have to make and live with.
It's not my place, or yours, to tell them what they can or cant do with what is a deeply personal and infinitely varied situation.


That's a commendable position. How far does it carry? If, after birth, a child's parents find themselves unable to care for the child, and, after careful consideration, decided it is best to kill the child, are you as open-minded? If not, why? Why is passing through the birth canal so magical?

>> ^SpaceOddity:

>> ^Stormsinger:
There are days when I absolutely hate this fucking state. And I'm -always- embarrassed to admit I grew up here.

So sorry you lack the self respect to realize your existence defines your domicile, too.
I'm a proud Kansan.


Shut up you dick. How's that feel? A taste of your own dick medicine!

@rebuilder I never said the birth canal was magical. It is very practical though.

If you feel that a person is a person at some earlier time, then by all means before a child is born require the parents to register the child at their local state office, get a birth person certificate, have the parents claim them on their tax form (while, again, still in the womb), etc. I think that taking such steps wouldn't make any sort of practical sense but hey, to each their own.

Abortion is murder. I actually heard the word "convenience" used in this video, that women are just clamouring so badly to kill their unborn children and actually feel inconvenienced by the shutdown. What a wretched, sickening society we live in.

Life is a gift from God. Your body doesn't belong to you, it belongs to Him. If people obeyed God rather than their mindless lusts they wouldn't have this problem in the first place. It doesn't matter what trimester the baby is in, it is a life and it is to be nurtured and protected.

Don't feed the troll.

Shinyblurry's a bible literalist proselytizer and the Sift his new pulpit, if you haven't met him yet.>> ^shinyblurry:

Abortion is murder. I actually heard the word "convenience" used in this video, that women are just clamouring so badly to kill their unborn children and actually feel inconvenienced by the shutdown. What a wretched, sickening society we live in.
Life is a gift from God. Your body doesn't belong to you, it belongs to Him. If people obeyed God rather than their mindless lusts they wouldn't have this problem in the first place. It doesn't matter what trimester the baby is in, it is a life and it is to be nurtured and protected.

Actually I'm a human being with a valid opinion based on my personal beliefs. Like you, I would assume. Just because you don't like that opinion, and strongly disagree with it because you're a secular humanist, doesn't make me a troll. Thanks for the lovely introduction, though.

>> ^messenger:
Don't feed the troll.
Shinyblurry's a bible literalist proselytizer and the Sift his new pulpit, if you haven't met him yet.>> ^shinyblurry:
Abortion is murder. I actually heard the word "convenience" used in this video, that women are just clamouring so badly to kill their unborn children and actually feel inconvenienced by the shutdown. What a wretched, sickening society we live in.
Life is a gift from God. Your body doesn't belong to you, it belongs to Him. If people obeyed God rather than their mindless lusts they wouldn't have this problem in the first place. It doesn't matter what trimester the baby is in, it is a life and it is to be nurtured and protected.

@GeeSussFreeK not to bleed one conversation into another, but SDGundamX's post above is a great example of consequentialist reasoning for why abortion should be kept safe and legal.

It's also consequentialist reasoning for why he thinks you need a damn good reason to ever abort a child in any circumstance. It's also consequentialist reasoning that leads him to say that if your goal is truly to minimize abortion, you should be in favor of better sex education and access to birth control for teens, not trying to squeeze abortion clinics out of existence.

It might go without saying, but I agree with every word he wrote too.

@NetRunner Which is completely short sided and takes a fraction of variables into account. What if you are aborting the only person that can cure cancer? Consequentialist morality is untenable.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

@NetRunner Which is completely short sided and takes a fraction of variables into account. What if you are aborting the only person that can cure cancer? Consequentialist morality is untenable.


You're getting the hang of it, sort of. That's something an individual contemplating abortion should weigh, I'd say. I think it's a wash because there's as much chance that the child would be some sort of savior of humanity as it would be a new Hitler, and people who think those are likely outcomes probably aren't mentally fit to make the decision in the first place...

But in any case, that's not a germane argument if you're trying to make a point about what the law should say about abortion in general. It certainly doesn't give you an argument for why you should try to reduce abortion by criminalizing the practice, instead of trying to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies with education and contraception.

As for the idea that this way of looking at morality being untenable, again, I think you need to think about it more (and read Mill's Utilitarianism! ).

Mostly I'm not really sure what kind of moral reasoning you think is superior. Most right-wing people have a deontological view of morality, but then can't quite explain why their rules should be anyone's guide for making moral decisions, much less something that should be implemented as law without any regard to the consequences (and increasingly, implemented without the consent of the governed).

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

@NetRunner Which is completely short sided and takes a fraction of variables into account. What if you are aborting the only person that can cure cancer?


What if you are aborting the next Stalin? There's no way to know, is there?

We should avoid "what-if's" and decide based on evidence. And the research evidence that does exist points to the increased liklihood of negative consequences for both the parents and children when a family is forced to bring an unwanted baby to term. Read more here (yes, it's a pro-choice forum, but if you do some more Googling in Google scholar you'll find the research is sound).

i posted a sift talk about this after i attended a planned parenthood rally a while back. there are some who, as individuals, view the debate as life and death. i understand that. and i respect it. if i thought that was actually what the pro-life movement was about, i might be behind it. like sdxgundam, i also oppose abortion on moral grounds. but a pro-life movement must be 100% pro-life. at every stage of life. and i haven't seen evidence that it is.

it's not about that though. the movement as a whole and the powerful men in legislative positions or behind an alter that stoke the fires of the pro-life movement seek one thing, control. it's about controlling women and their sexuality. because history has been sooo very very threatened by female sexual power.

it's about distraction because if you can have one group yelling at the other group about something so passionately, that on the grand scale of global issues doesn't really even weigh in.. then you can keep them from yelling about the mass murder and theft that is committed every single day.

banning abortion does not save lives. it does not stop unwanted pregnancies. it does end rape or incest or poverty or unprotected sex or hormonal teenagers making impulsive decisions or desperation or suffering or medical emergencies or child abuse or spousal abuse. it doesn't even end abortion.

it pushes to back alley clinics and kitchen tables where unsanitary conditions threaten the lives of both mother and child. >> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^RFlagg:
And yet Republicans claim that it is the Democrats who want to control how people live their lives and that they are for freedom... despite the Republicans being the party to control who people can marry, want to control woman's rights, they are the party that want to keep the drug war going far more so than the other, they are the ones behind the Patriot Act... about the only right they seem to be ahead of the Democrats on is gun control.

While I most agree with this, nearly completely, those against abortion equate it to murder...something government is most assuredly involved in. I find the debate on abortion good, in a way. One side is valuing life, the other liberty...both of the things that make this union great. I kind of wish people would see it like that instead of each side as the devil.

this is how you decrease the number of abortions:

1. free comprehensive, scientifically sound, sex education to all
2. readily available, easily accessible, very affordable, guilt-free access to contraception in every community
3. counseling
4. streamline the adoption process to make it an actual option to EVERY sane, loving adult with the means to care for a child. i'd adopt a 3rd baby in a heart beat if it didn't cost $40k and they let single women of modest income do it. i have the means to support another child, but i don't have $40k laying around.
5. make health care a right
6. revisit public policies that actually alleviate poverty
7. equal pay for women
8. make legitimate vocational schools as affordable as community college and/or offer more grant-eligible vocational programs within community colleges... i know from experience that learning a trade can offer as much opportunity for single mothers as it can for any young man.

guess how many of these abortion-preventing solutions planned parenthood has a hand in???

This is how you end the abortion debate:

Determine the time at which a fetus is declared a human being and is granted human rights.


The extreme pro-choice crowd says at birth.

The extreme pro-life crowd says even before conception and ever egg is sacred.


It is IMPOSSIBLE for the two sides to even remotely understand one another without addressing instead the question of when life begins. If you can find a clear and objective definition of when a fetus gets promoted to human status you can resolve this, trouble is that just can't be done.

My own best answer is conception in a womb. The reasoning being that after that point, if the mother just does nothing but try to live their lives, the fetus will be born and grow up. That's the natural course from that point on, and any point afterwards just seems an arbitrary and fuzzy mark. That leaves me in the pro-life camp, and I make no apologies for that, despite being -gasp- male...

>> ^SDGundamX:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
@NetRunner Which is completely short sided and takes a fraction of variables into account. What if you are aborting the only person that can cure cancer?

What if you are aborting the next Stalin? There's no way to know, is there?
We should avoid "what-if's" and decide based on evidence. And the research evidence that does exist points to the increased liklihood of negative consequences for both the parents and children when a family is forced to bring an unwanted baby to term. Read more here (yes, it's a pro-choice forum, but if you do some more Googling in Google scholar you'll find the research is sound).


"the research evidence that does exist points to the increased liklihood of negative consequences for both the parents and children when a family is forced to bring an unwanted baby to term"

This still applies when the baby is two months old. Can you explain why 2 months after being born and 2 months before being born are the difference between murder and the morally right choice.

There are always exceptions to every rule. Consequentialism is how everyone lives and functions. Everyone. Even someone as categorical as Ayn Rand, even the most staunch religionist is also a consequentialist. No one is purely categorical - they don't exist.

Abortion is a terrible thing, no reasonable people disagree with that. A fetus is far from a human. It's not conscious, it does not (depending on size) have any nervous system whatsoever. If the situation calls for it, people should be allowed to have abortions safely and cleanly. Ideally, the baby would have been stopped before conception with a condom or other contraceptive, but contraceptives are not foolproof, and some times the woman has no choice (rape, daterape, Elizabeth Hurley, etc).

The solution to abortions is not to ban them, but to educate people such that they are only used as a very last solution. If religious people just spent their efforts on education about contraceptives instead of trying to destroy abortions clinics and preaching about abstinence, the number of abortions would fall drastically.

It's interesting that the areas with the most religious people, is also the ones with the most abortions - corrolation yes, causation, perhaps?

God damn religion... >:[

@bcglorf

See what @gwiz665 said. A fetus is human, but it is not a human being (yet). It's a hugely important distinction. The fetus before the 2nd trimester hasn't developed a nervous system well enough to feel pain, nor is the brain developed enough for consciousness. That's the distinction. A 2-month old can both feel pain and is conscious and therefore is a human being. A fetus is not, in my opinion.

The problem of course is that a fetus will become a human being (most likely--miscarriage is still possible) without intervention. So terminating a fetus is, in my opinion, immoral. But far less immoral than killing a conscious human being capable of feeling pain. And far less immoral than forcing a woman to bear the economic, medical, social, and psychological costs of bearing an unwanted child.

^Human vs. Human being is just playing on semantics.

My point is the entire debate revolves around what point you consider a fetus to be human in the sense as having the same rights and freedoms as the rest of us. For ease I'll try and refer to that as human being here.

From what you've said it seems before the 2nd trimester, you don't consider the fetus a human being. Is it one from the 2nd trimester on? If so, does it have the same rights and freedoms as other human beings starting then? This would ultimately mean terminating it is covered by laws on murder.

As for basing it on brain development, I dislike that as a reason for it being too fuzzy. There is NO clear line to say right there is the point where the ability for consciousness and feeling pain has developed. We just really don't have a good clear definition of consciousness, let alone the brain development required to achieve it. I still stand that implantation in the womb is the only really clear and firm line to be drawn.

@bcglorf

Well, you're entitled to your opinion. But I don't think it's a semantic game. When police discover a "human femur" buried in the ground have they discovered a "human being?" No. They've discovered a bone that belongs to a human. Likewise, your hair is "human hair," but it is not a "human being."

We use the term "human being" to describe a living creature that possess certain qualities--among them consciousness and an ability to feel. A human fetus, while alive, does not have those qualities. As such, I don't feel we can really consider it a human being.

Of course, you can choose to disagree. But if you do, I'd like to know what qualities a fetus has that you think entitles it to be considered a human being.

I happen to think science does have a very clear idea of brain development--see the article I linked to--and consciousness to say that fetuses in the 1st trimester don't possess it yet. And the law, both federal and that of several states makes it clear that yes, a 2nd trimester baby has the legal rights of a human. Someone who kills a pregnant woman can be tried for double-homicide.

Admittedly, the laws are a mess right now. For some states, the double-homicide can be charged even if the woman was only in the 1st trimester. This is something that should be resolved in the future.

None of this means you have to change your opinion. Look at the evidence and make the decision you think is most rational.

A human fetus, while alive, does not have those qualities.

Unless you insist like many of my countrymen that up until the last second before birth there is still nothing more than a non independent fetus inside the womb.

And the law, both federal and that of several states makes it clear that yes, a 2nd trimester baby has the legal rights of a human.

I guess part of my problem may be that I'm Canadian, and up here there are no laws against abortion, to the extreme that if you have a willing doctor when you go in to labor you could still 'choose' anytime before delivery to terminate...

None of this means you have to change your opinion. Look at the evidence and make the decision you think is most rational.

That's a tough thing to say in all this though. After the point you consider a fetus a human being with full rights, you have the same degree of moral obligation to defend that human's right to life as with any other person. If you believe that murder should be illegal and face arrest and jail time, then when other people act on their 'difference of opinion' on when a fetus is a human being you support them being arrested.

I believe the 'solution' is to treat abortions like other life saving situations, they are solely allowed when there is a credible threat to the life of the mother that necessitates a horrible choice. Because I believe a fetus is an independent human being with it's own rights from when it attaches to the womb, it does mean that abortion is lumped in with infanticide, and I'm ok with that. I additionally support a massive effort to treat and prevent the struggles and difficulties faced by prospective parents in difficult circumstances, and to prevent people in difficult circumstances from getting unexpectedly pregnant in the first place.

@bcglorf

After the point you consider a fetus a human being with full rights, you have the same degree of moral obligation to defend that human's right to life as with any other person.

Right, I agree--I suppose you'd be morally obligated to try to end abortion if that was the conclusion you came to. But I guess what I'm saying is, if you're going to make that judgment andyou're going to take it to the next level and try to interfere in other peoples' lives and force them bear children they don't want and care for them for the next 18 years, then the burden of proof is on you to show that your judgment is indeed the correct one. And I think that's the problem pro-lifers are facing--the scientific evidence so far actually seems against that view.

But even if you could prove your judgment (i.e. a fetus is a human being with full rights) to the satisfaction of most people, it raises another problem--a fetus would only have the same rights as another human, not more rights. It could be argued that to force a mother to carry an unwanted child is tantamount to slavery. Basically the state would be forcing her to put her health at risk (complications due to pregnancy and childbirth are not uncommon, even with modern health care--just ask my wife who spent a large part of her first pregnancy hospitalized), stop working for a time, spend an inordinate amount of money on health care and other costs caring for the unwanted baby....

Essentially, you haven't solved the problem, you've only traded one moral dilemma for another because now the fetus has MORE rights than the mother. No other human being could be said to possess the right to take away another individual's personal freedom or so infringe upon their life.

In an ideal world, of course, there would be no complications due to pregnancy, all women would be fully compensated while on maternity leave, and all unwanted children would be placed with loving families that would care deeply for them and raise them as their own. But we clearly don't live in an ideal world.

That's why I believe that all we can do is choose the least immoral path. To me, that path is clear--keep abortions legal. Do everything in your power to make them a means of last resort and hopefully someday they won't be needed anymore.

You are free to believe differently. But if you are going to take the next step and try to force those beliefs on other people, then that's something else entirely. Until you solve the problems I mentioned above (proving a fetus is a human being as opposed to just believing it, compensating mothers who are forced to carry to term, making sure unwanted children will not be abused or neglected, etc.) you can't abolish abortion and claim to be taking the moral high-ground.

In Denmark we have a 12 week rules. Before that it's the woman's choice, after that you have to have a compelling reason - threatening the mothers life, deformed baby etc. I'm not all happy joy joy about babies aborted in the 12th week, but it's a much better solution than going at it with knitting needles like the "good old days".

@bcglorf and @SDGundamX the problem is that a fetus doesn't go from amoebus blob to fully formed human in an instant, it's a slow gradual process. You can't place a magic point where every fetus is now a human, but we can set some boundaries:
0-12th week definitely unconscious fetus
12-16: may have started developing X
16- ... etc etc

In the end abortions should absolutely not be done on a whim, but they should be a possible alternative.

"But I guess what I'm saying is, if you're going to make that judgment and you're going to take it to the next level and try to interfere in other peoples' lives and force them bear children they don't want and care for them for the next 18 years, then the burden of proof is on you to show that your judgment is indeed the correct one."

Why is the burden of proof on pro-lifers for this one? If a fetus is a person before it is born, abortions "interfere" with other peoples' lives at least as much as forcing someone to undergo an unwanted pregnancy. It's just as defensible to say the pro-choice side should have to prove a fetus is not a person before they strip it of all of its rights by killing it.

^thanks archwaykitten

I think that addressed the burden of proof succinctly.

As to this:
Essentially, you haven't solved the problem, you've only traded one moral dilemma for another because now the fetus has MORE rights than the mother. No other human being could be said to possess the right to take away another individual's personal freedom or so infringe upon their life.

This, once again, cuts both ways. No other human is so dependent on another for it's continued survival and well being. More over, the personal freedoms of the mother are NOT being revoked or impinged at the choice of the child, but by those of either the mother or in extraordinary circumstances a rapists choice. Either way, why is the child to pay for the crimes of a rapist or the choices of the mother?

Everything comes back to when life begins, after that laws respecting human life trump every other consideration out there.

I'm not going to address the rest of your long post, because really -- it does just get down to this: if abortion is murder, then the death penalty is murder.

The death penalty is not murder, it is punishment, if you even want to call it that.

Three squares a day, activities, mail, internet, tv for decades on Death Row, followed by a chosen last meal and a chance to say last words, not dying alone is far better then what the vermins' victims got.

I'd be for abolishing the death penalty if life in prison really meant life in prison, and time was served on a frozen rock gulag in Alaska with only the barest of necessities.

Both sides claim to want to make abortion, "Safe, legal and rare."

Ending all rewards for breeding out of wedlock might increase abortions but will also save a hell of a lot of money long term. Stopping wanton breeders means ending breeder culture.

Best cure for that is education, not cutting aid for those who are otherwise completely fucked. Then they'd be driven to abortions even more!
>> ^quantumushroom:

Both sides claim to want to make abortion, "Safe, legal and rare."
Ending all rewards for breeding out of wedlock might increase abortions but will also save a hell of a lot of money long term. Stopping wanton breeders means ending breeder culture.

Aaaand guess how many of these right-wing conservatives are against?

/Captain Obvious

>> ^peggedbea:

this is how you decrease the number of abortions:
1. free comprehensive, scientifically sound, sex education to all
2. readily available, easily accessible, very affordable, guilt-free access to contraception in every community
3. counseling
4. streamline the adoption process to make it an actual option to EVERY sane, loving adult with the means to care for a child. i'd adopt a 3rd baby in a heart beat if it didn't cost $40k and they let single women of modest income do it. i have the means to support another child, but i don't have $40k laying around.
5. make health care a right
6. revisit public policies that actually alleviate poverty
7. equal pay for women
8. make legitimate vocational schools as affordable as community college and/or offer more grant-eligible vocational programs within community colleges... i know from experience that learning a trade can offer as much opportunity for single mothers as it can for any young man.
guess how many of these abortion-preventing solutions planned parenthood has a hand in???

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by jonny.