In 1973, the Supreme Court made one of its most controversial decisions, declaring most anti-abortion laws unconstitutional. Now on November 4th, the people of South Dakota will head to the polls to vote on a proposed statewide abortion ban. With emotions running high on both sides, how should abortion be legislated in tomorrow’s America? (Editor's Note: On November 4th, South Dakota voters rejected Measure 11 to ban abortion.)
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
I'm just thankful my mother didn't take my life away. One big problem with this "law" is that it was never taken to the people for a vote. A few old guys in robes decided for us that it should be legal. I say let each state put it to the people, like South Dakota, and keep the Feds out of it.
Sid, you say you don't know when life begins, but you do know it's not at conception..??? Which is it? you don't know but you do know? Life is life whether we believe in it or not.
- robbyjon
October 18, 2008 10:07AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
robbyjohn said "Sid, you say you don't know when life begins, but you do know it's not at conception..??? Which is it? you don't know but you do know? Life is life whether we believe in it or not."
I don't see the problem. They're separate questions. Does life begin at conception? No. Does life begin at birth? I don't know..maybe. Does life begin in the 30th week of gestation? I don't know...maybe. My point is that the beginning of life cannot be defined by means of oversimplified developmental stages, like conception or birth, or by arbitrary physiological criteria like heartbeat. Human life must be defined functionally, based on the acquisition of higher order consciousness/awareness, which are hallmarks of the human mind, and essential characteristics of human beings vs. other animals. At this point, those concepts are strictly philosophical since science cannot even define them clearly, let alone state with certainty when they begin.
I realize this is a hot-button issue, especially in view of the deep religious views of most Americans. I also realize that it is psychologically satisfying to have simple black-and-white answers to important issues. But this does not justify sweeping, blanket pronouncements by either side in the absence of supporting facts.
I'm afraid we just have to live with the uncertainty, and keep our laws flexible enough to accommodate it.
Sid
- SidAirfoil November 4, 2008 8:46AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
If your mother had aborted you, like nature probably did to a dozen or so other fertilized eggs before you, you would have never known. The states don't get to vote on every issue, get over it. Just imagine that we left slavery and jim crow laws up to the states!
"Life is life whether we believe in it or not."
what does that mean? that no matter what the facts turn out to be you will deny reality and leave your opinion to be guided by this "belief"? And what if you were born in a country that had no restrictions on abortion whatsoever, then you would believe that way. How unfortunate that decisions in life are made because of the geographical location where one is born. Thinking, examining, and reflecting are worthy things to do during one's life.
- mangueken February 28, 2009 9:43AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
I just recommended you and I totally didn't mean to.
What's the most ridiculous is this:
It's like you don't even know what you're talking about because this about THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA PUTTING THIS ISSUE TO A VOTE.
christ on astick, but i'm of the opinion you shouldn't vote if you don't know what the crap you're talking about.
- SocialistBetty March 23, 2009 2:31AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I just recently was pregnant with a baby that had a fatal condition called anencephaly. This is a ntd where the brain and top of the skull do not form. I was told that my baby would die once it was born, if it was not stillborn.
I could not emotionally handle carrying a baby for 4 more months that I knew would die. I could not sit at home in a bubble and be depressed. I have responsibilies like my daughter to take care of as well as work and school.
Medicaid would not allow me to deliver the baby early in the hospital. SO YES I HAD AN ABORTION BY ANOMALY.
No woman should have to carry a baby that she knows will die immediately after birth.
Anyone who wants to ban abortions will ban all abortions..even the ones that women need!
- allforsun April 6, 2009 6:24PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
The ban won't eliminate abortions, those have been happening for millenia in all societies. What it will do is eliminate safe abortions, done by qualified doctors. That women feel remorse is human. Women feel depressed and sucidal after bad marriages, do we want to ban marriage? Good Luck women of South Dakota, I hope you feel protected.
- againes October 16, 2008 6:45AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
This is a weak argument that appeals to emotion and does not in any way address the consequences of this law. Fine, try to prevent women from aborting their down syndrome babies - what are you going to do with these unwanted people? Abandoning genetically deformed infants to a shoddy state system is humane? How do you figure?
The problem, in my view, with all anti-abortion arguments is that they're about abortion is right or wrong. That is almost completely irrelevant, the debate here is about whether abortion should be legal or not. If you think abortion is wrong and want to prevent it, fine. Making it illegal will not prevent abortion. The numbers throughout the world conclusively show that the legal status of abortion does not affect the rates of abortion. The availability of contraception does. Criminalizing abortion will mean lots of illegal and potentially unsafe abortions, likely *increasing* the numbers of people who die. How is that pro-life?
If you want to protect the precious unborn babies, offer some support to mothers with unwed pregnancies. Get out there and advocate for freely available, low-cost or free birth control. You can't say that you want to stop abortion and try to prevent contraception from being available at the same time, at least not if you want to be consistent. This is something that seems to happen more and more, unfortunately, particularly with the move to reclassify contraception as abortion and also make it more difficult to get, typically a position advocated by supposed "pro-life" folks. Get real.
If you're against Roe v. Wade, you're pro-dead mothers, not against abortion. If you, like me, find abortion to be morally troubling, you should be focusing on more widely available contraception.
- lostlo October 20, 2008 8:47AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(4)
Side: No
you ever hear of adoption? Check into the amount of couples that are trying to adopt sometime. "Genetically deformed" and everything. The problem with you people is you don't see the baby as a real person. It's all about the poor innocent woman. Give me a break. NO sex, NO baby is the free available low-cost birth control. After that, you have responsibility. Remember that? It's the baby that is innocent in this whole issue, not the parent.
- robbyjon October 20, 2008 2:23PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
First of all, what is with the "you people"? Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and shouldn't be classified in a group like that.
And yes, there are tons of people that want to adopt babies. But what happens to the baby that doesn't get picked? Or the baby that becomes a burden to the adopting family? He/she ends up in foster care bouncing between homes, possibly never knowing one set of parents as their own. Not to mention the kids that end up with various problems because their parents decided they couldn't handle the responsiblity, and rather than keep the child and raise them in an unfit manner, decide to give them up for adoption.
- only1 October 20, 2008 8:58PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
In my (sadly, lengthy) experience with the women who are drug addicts, those that do not abort unwanted pregnancies very, very rarely put them up for adoption. Instead they keep them in extremely dangerous and abusive home situations. Even those that are given away are frequently born addicted to drugs, which is a tough way to start life. For some reason pro-life arguments about the rights of the unborn child only seem to extend to its right to life; I've never heard anyone argue for a child's right to not be born virtually guaranteed to have a short, painful life of addiction.
I personally think that abortion is abhorrent and would never have one, but to criminalize just seems completely insane to me. I've never had anyone actually answer my position, just launch off on the litany of what an awful person I am and how innocent the unborn are. "You people" is exactly what I've come to expect.
- lostlo October 22, 2008 3:21PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Yes, I have heard of adoption. I think you'll find if you had actually read my comment and not just what you wanted to see, I never said that I thought abortion was right or good. I was arguing about the legality of it.
Saying "everyone should just be responsible" is all well and good, but that's a completely absurd proposal to actually solve any problems. You might as well say that the solution for our health care system is for people to just stop getting sick. The housing crisis can easily be solved by everyone being more responsible with their money.
I live in the real world, and in the real world criminalizing abortion does not help unborn babies, no matter how innocent. It merely makes abortion unsafe.
I welcome your comments on the issue of how criminalizing abortion actually causes the loss of more lives. If you want to take the stance that women who would seek abortion deserve to die, you are welcome to that opinion, but again it doesn't really seem to be pro-life.
- lostlo October 22, 2008 3:16PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
First, "you people" is not a very polite way of addressing people.
Second, a baby implies birth has happened and no one disagrees about the human life of a baby. The problem is the pro life side trying to redefine a baby and moving it backwards until it means a zygote.
Third, No sex may be a preferable way for you to live your life, I pass no judgment on that. However that is you, there are many of us that consider having sex a natural, healthy, beautiful fun experience and see no compelling reason why an accidental fertilization should be the standard of judging whether we are responsible people or not.
Fourth, we have responsibility only after we have made the personal choice of keeping a fertilized egg.
- mangueken February 28, 2009 10:15AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"Our nation was founded on the principle that all human beings are created equal. That never meant that we are all created the same. It means the lives of all human beings have equal value and worth, regardless of our relative skills, intelligence, and the differences in our physical ability or health. The denigration of these values is the denigration of the human race."
And yet, if they are convicted felons, you throw your airs and graces about the sanctity of life out of the window in exchange for a swift execution.
All of these erronous beliefs about abortion and sanctity of life stem from religion rather than reality. Life is not sacred. People die every single day from completely random issues. Just visit / work in a hospital for a day. Death is sad, but it is an inevitability and nobody is going to save you after you die. If someone bothered to pick up a science book now an again there simple wouldn't be any issues.
Ultimately this is an argument between the educated and the uneducated. Controversy can only exist if both parties have a sound argument in the first place. As it stands the "pro-lifers / anti-women's rights bridage" have a lot of catching up to do.
- mrperson
January 28, 2009 12:42PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I had a baby with anencephaly. No mother should have to carry a baby that she knows will die. It is so painful and depressing. PLEASE..... vote no to banning abortion .
Vote yes to allowing state funding to pay for abortions. It cost me $2,000 dollars to get an abortion and It would have cost $10,000 to deliver in the hospital. I deserved to hold my baby and never got to.
- allforsun April 6, 2009 6:31PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Should South Dakota Pass the Abortion Ban?
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Debate misses the key point
Abortion rights is an important issue, and it is typically presented (as in this debate) as a complex topic involving women's right, women's health, the doctor-patient relationship, government interference, social policy, historical precedent, biblical interpretation, etc.
But in the end none of this is relevant. The root question is "When does life begin?"
If you believe that life begins at conception (I do not), then there can be no justification for abortion, just as there can be no justification for murder. In this case, abortion must be illegal in ALL cases. Ethically, exceptions cannot be made, even for cases of rape, incest, or the health of the mother just as we cannot murder one innocent person to save the life of another. It seems to me that "Pro-lifers" who allow these exceptions are contradicting themselves, because there are no exceptions to rules against murder.
But if you believe that life does not begin at conception, then abortion (at least until the point at which you believe life does begin) has no ethical component, and should be legal as a matter of personal choice.
I don't know when life begins. But I do know that it is NOT at conception, or any time soon thereafter. For me life is not based my interpretation of when the soul inhabits the body. It is based on when consciousness begins. And that cannot happen AT LEAST until there is a functioning brain.
No matter what anyone claims, at this point NO ONE knows when life beings. Clearly this is a matter that has been debated for thousands of years, and on which we all have opinions (most of them strong). But that's the point, they are OPINIONS, not facts. Our philosophy and science have simply not come far enough to give an unambiguous answer to this question, leaving it (for most people) in the realm of faith.
And since the nature of life IS a matter of opinion at this point, abortion should also remain a matter of opinion...and choice.
Much of this needs elaboration, but it's a good place to start.
Sid
- SidAirfoil
October 15, 2008 4:18AM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Life or personhood
I think you're thinking of personhood, because there is simply no question about whether or not you are ending a life. I think the issue comes when dealing with what defines personhood before you can get to whether or not an embryo has an interest in remaining alive.
Then, IF you establish that it does have that interests, you'd have to determine if it should have a right to protect that interest. Only then would it be clear that any point before that, the cells cannot have an interest, and aborting the pregnancy is an amoral issue. For any point after that, you'd have to determine under what circumstances a pregnant woman, who clearly has a fundamental interest in remaining alive (and rights to life), would be allowed to infringe upon the interest of that embryo in order to do so. This is clearly an issue of morality.
Because, if it's determined that a fetus has interests, and we know that a grown woman has interests, and both lives are in danger, whose right will be violated? Who makes that decision? I suppose it would be put to a medical triage of sorts.
There are no other interests that rise above the one to live, so any infringement on this would be immoral. One would have to prove that a fetus has interests (which I don't believe can happen until there is a central nervous system), and we've got a moral issue. Otherwise, it's not even really a valid debate.
- mike
October 16, 2008 7:30AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Life vs. personhood
Mike said "I think you're thinking of personhood, because there is simply no question about whether or not you are ending a life. ".
Yes, I was referring to "personhood" throughout my post.
The idea of "life" in and of itself is not important to this debate. This sound's strange, I know, but many things are "alive" that as a society we have no compunctions about killing. Many animals for food, insects as pests, skin cells when we scrape our knee. All of these things are alive, but killing them is (for most of us) not controversial. We even let people die when they are in a vegetative state (most of the time).
So "life" is not the standard for the debate on abortion. The standard must be HUMAN life, which I treat as synonymous with "personhood". With respect to a fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus, the question is When does it become a person? Certainly not at conception, by my way of thinking. Possibly not until birth. Arguably sometime in between.
But aside from chronological definitions, the acquisition of higher consciousness characteristic of humans from birth onward is my functional definition. I just don't know when that happens. And since no one else does either, we should leave up to each of us.
Sid
- SidAirfoil
October 16, 2008 1:38PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
A slippery slope.
Thanks for clarifying. Currently, in Colorado, USA, there is an attempt to constitutionally define "personhood" as starting from conception. To me, this is a silly notion.
But on the flip side, it's a dangerous thing to base an argument on "I just don't know when that happens. And since no one else does either, we should leave up to each of us."
I'd rather apply hard science and err on the side of not generating needless suffering. There has to be a point where nociceptors are up and running. At that point, a fetus has a clear interest in not being injured and killed. I don't know where that point is, and it sounds like you don't either, but that should not justify making potential inflicting of pain and death a "personal" choice.
At the same time, do I think this decision should start with legislation? Nah. I think that, as I feel with most big ethically-based laws, the moral majority should make that happen. And that won't happen until we have more information, more education, and some effective methods of planning, protection, and prevention in regards to human reproduction.
- mike
October 16, 2008 2:47PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Life begins
We can't ignore medical science.
At 21 days, the heartbeat can be heard. At 40 days, brain activity can be detected.
In a hospital, these are often used to determine the beginning and end of life. So if the cessation of these is the definition of dead, should we adpot these as the beginning of life? Would you therefore banning all abortions after 21 days? 40 days?
- DominicSavio
November 2, 2008 12:24AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Medical science and life
DominicSavio said "At 21 days, the heartbeat can be heard. At 40 days, brain activity can be detected."
Maybe. But a heartbeat is not the essential characteristic of human life. All animals have heartbeats, but we kill them all the time. And even humans in persistent vegetative states also have heartbeats but are often allowed to die precisely because it is the mind, not the heart that defines human life.
The same can be said for brain activity. It is not enough to have an "active" brain. Animals have those, too. The brains of humans in vegetative states also have active parts (the parts that keep there lungs and heart pumping, for example). It must be a brain with consciousness, awareness, person-ness. And since there is no clear definition of when that begins, or even what it is, I reject those criteria.
(Aside: 59.3% of abortions in the U.S. are performed at 8 weeks of gestation of less (Wikipedia). That's 56 days, which is pretty close to your 40 day suggestion. So probably close to half of abortions might be acceptable to you, right?)
Sid
- SidAirfoil
November 4, 2008 7:26AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
A quick objection
While most of your argument is very good, I do have a problem with you denying that abortion to save the life of a mother cannot be valid if you believe the fetus to be a person. If there is a car crash, and two people are somehow fused together in such a way that one will live and the other will die if seperated, but if left together both will die, then the doctor has a tough decision to make, but ultimately should make. One must be saved and one must die. This is the same scenario as if an abortion occured to save the life of the mother. Being as the mother usually has a higher chance of survival, it is usually wise to save her rather than the baby. Granted, at that point, it is the doctor's decision. As far as the other extenuating circumstances, you are right, they have no justification. I also disagree with your apparent belief that we should err on the side of liberty over life. I would place life before liberty, and would rather risk denying someone a freedom they should have had to try and save someone's life than deny someone a life they should have had to try and save someone's freedom.
- richardsonkr
January 18, 2009 12:27PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
very eeenteresting.
"I would place life before liberty, and would rather risk denying someone a freedom they should have had to try and save someone's life than deny someone a life they should have had to try and save someone's freedom."
which is odd, you being a military man. we've argued this before... but now that i know you're pre-military, it has all the more meaning. how can you be going into such a position where liberty is extended over life?
give me liberty or give me death.
freedom isn't free.
a thousand other cliches.... life without liberty is a poor, sad life. not much of a life at all.
- SocialistBetty
March 23, 2009 2:28AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Good Point
As I reread my own comment, I did realize that that seemed a bit off, even before I read yours, which pointed it out. I think the clarification needs to be made with consciousness. If someone willingly risks their life for freedom, and does in fact lose it, he or she has made the choice to sacrifice their life for freedom. If someone chooses to oppose freedom, and strives to take it from another, it is within the rights of those whose freedom is being taken to take his of her life in defense of their own freedom. A fetus, however, is created, in the vast majority of cases, by the actions of its parents . Nature has chosen the mother to bear the biological burden of childbearing. (except in the case of seahorses, but I digress) A fetus does not intentionally limit a woman's rights, nor does it seek to limit her freedom. Unfortunately, evolution has made the fetus dependant on the mother. What must also be taken into account is the amount of liberty being taken. Conquest by fascists would be an incredible violation of freedom. Freedom to work, live, move about freely, all of the Bill of Rights, national sovereignty, all would be utterly and permanently destroyed. Bearing a child requires giving up some of the freedom to one's own body for a mere nine months. The taking of one being's life, who has done nothing to warrant its destruction except for being formed as a side effect of it's parents' actions, for the sake of that small liberty cannot be justified.
Of course, what immediately comes to mind is collateral damage. The loss of innocent life as a result of war is horrifying, and should act to deter nations from unnecessary fighting. It is however, a fact of war, and if a war must be fought, every step should be taken to minimize it. That being said, one cannot fail to do what is necessary for fear of the negative consequences. Chemotherapy is horrifying, but it is better than the alternative. Collateral damage differs from abortion in that abortion in several ways. The first is in the degree of the freedoms at stake, which have been mentioned above. The second is intent. Killing a fetus in cold blood is different from killing a civilian in a warzone on accident. In civilian courts, it is the diffence between murder and manslaughter, in a military court, it is the difference between an accident and a war crime . Collateral damage wil happen so long as there is war. That is an excellent reason to try for peace, but unfortunately violent measures must sometimes be employed in the defense of both life and liberty. Abortion, on the other hand, is necessary only to preserve the rights of a woman to her body for a very short period of time. In cases where two people's rights collide, one must look both at the difference in severity of the rights in question, and at who has the greater claim. I would argue that a fetus has greater right to life than a woman has to her body, and a nation has a greater right to life and all liberty than the soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen who sacrifice both for it, than the enemy combatant who emperils both to end it, and the innocent civilian who was simply in the ewrong place at the wrong time.
- richardsonkr
March 23, 2009 4:36PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
10 months.
Which is the actual length of time, really. 40 weeks, in general.
I make the claim that it wrong to force a woman (by means of either allowing or disallowing action) to be imprisoned to her body for any reason. More over, I find the claim that we must allow only medical actions that agree with nature to be preposterous considering the whole point of medical advancement has been to thwart nature.
And if you find that it is acceptable to force a woman to give up her freedom for however long because it means that one life might live, you find it acceptable to say one person's life can not be free.... and this then applies to all people - including the life that freedom was tossed aside for. Which makes little sense.
If you say one person has no right to freedom because it's only for a short time, you make it allowable for every person to be enslaved to another for only a short period of time.
Freedom doesn't work that way. Either you are free (in so far as the use of your body by others), or you are unfree.
This is one reason why Vietnam was so opposed. Because you had thousands, literally, who were enslaved by the government.
And further to that, men like Cheney and Bush and Clinton and a host of others were able to buy their way out this enslavement.
Which speaks further to injustice.
You join the military because you want to. If you were forced into it against your will and principles of what you believe (for if you believed in the war , you would have enlisted), would you still hold that your life was worth less than others?
And if you hold that your life is worth less than others lives, why then should you try and force your belief upon me?
I owe my life to no one. To be forced to owe my life to someone, even for a short period of time, means that I have no individual right. This is the very foundation of this country... that I have the right of an individual.
I think I have said though, that if it determined that the fetus is viable - or even if the medical community is unsure but there is a possibility of it being saved, there is little difference between an abortion and a c-section. If the woman does not want to give up her freedom and owe her life to a fetus, there is more than one option of abortion, at some point, that doesn't enslave the woman. If this is the case, then it becomes the responsibility of us all to ensure that the life of the fetus IS protected. This doesn't mean the woman must remain pregnant.... it simply means a change in procedure. However, if this is the case - which I think it is.... it is not the woman who bears the burden of this extra cost, but the society that says life should be protected.
- SocialistBetty
March 25, 2009 9:53AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Freedom
I think we need to introduce to this conversation a definition of freedom. Freedom is not the ability to do whatever you want. That's anarchy. In a free society , everyone has "inalienable rights" that are protected by the government. Sometimes, those inalienable rights are mutually exclusive. For example, if someone buys something, it his property by right, and it is absolutely wrong to take it away. At the same time, people have a right to freedom from slavery, and it is absolutely wrong to violate that right. So if a someone buys another person, we have a problem. On the one hand, the first has an inalienable right to his (or her) property. On the other, the second has an equally inalienable right to his/her liberty. Both cannot be. It is absolutely wrong to keep slaves, but it is absolutely wrong to confiscate an individuals property. What to do? Fortunately, this nation made a decision that the right to liberty trumps the right to property. As you well know, this was not always the case. Now, you rightly argue that it is absolutely wrong to force a woman to be imprisoned in her own body for any reason. I agree with this, but by the same token, it is absolutely wrong to kill her child for any reason. The pregnancy cannot rightfully be terminated, and cannot rightfully be allowed to continue. Alas, both cannot be. In this situation, one must consider which has the greater claim to his or her rights. This is the only situation in which it is acceptable to consider the extent and length of the limitations of freedoms. I would argue that the fetus, assuming that it is a person, has a greater right to life than its mother has to her right to reproductive freedom.
I fail to see where you are trying to go with your little "the government enslaved Americans back in Nam" rant. Are you referring to the draft?
Also, you seem to suggest I said some things that I did not. The first is the comment about natural medical procedures near the beginning. I never said anything about abortion being "unnatural" or anything like that. I support genetic engineering, cloning, adult stem cell research, Frankenfoods, etc. The only reason I am opposed to infant stem cell research is the necessity of killing a fetus to conduct said research. I really don't give a shit about whether something is "natural." The second is the claim that somewhere in this conversation I said that my life was "less valuable" than other Americans. I never said that, not once, or even implied that. And where do you get off questioning my support for the war based on my enlistment status? Because I didn't enlist right out of high school I obviously don't believe in the war? What? You don't know the circumstances, and you can't make judgements like that without signifigantly more information than you have been given.
- richardsonkr
March 31, 2009 9:33AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Everything but the last paragraph(ic). almost.
it does appear to be a catch-22 (have you read that book?... great book. "there's a dead man in my tent.").
that's why i proposed that if the medical community thinks it worth the cost and effort to support the life... it's a different procedure altogether and frees the woman from the enslavement of a forced pregnancy (as in: laws that ban aborted pregnancies). that's the whole point. that's what i've been trying to get across. come on. it was the last thing i said, k.r.
there are some people on here that think that because i will never - under any circumstances... and i don't care if it meant that ten million babies would die - support the forced use of one person's body for the needs, wants, or expectations of another. for whatever reason.... who think that because i would never support that, obviously i just don't give two shits about life and innocent beings. obviously, that's not true.
liberty and life are not separate issues. life without liberty (and screw all the other kinds.... it's the freedom of simple BEING that we are talking about) is essentially meaningless. this doesn't mean the freedom to walk around punching people in the face. it is the freedom to walk around without being told that you may or may not walk around. it is the freedom to speak without being told what to say or when and how to say it. This. THIS is the freedom that i am speak of. the ultimate right of choice over one's own body. OWN body. not that of others. it is the right for which you have said you are willing to die for to ensure that is possible for others. that is your choice. if you had that choice made for you - as the drafted boy-soldiers of vietnam had it made for them - it wouldn't be free, would it? in fact, if you were drafted into the army, mr. richardson, you would be enslaved to your own country.
this is an issue of freedom, yes.
but this isn't JUST about "reproductive" freedom, mr. richardson. it is the freedom of the whole woman. if you ban abortion , you reduce women down to merely their wombs and what they can do and define the woman as merely that: a reproductive organ housed in skin and bone and muscle topped off with a useless brain. the woman's woman parts are greater than the sum of her whole is what you then say.
i say: would you feel the same way if it were you?
would you say: I
I, say the I with feeling!!!
I am worth less than my womb. (ARE you worth less then one part of you? Is your freedom?)
I am less than my womb.
I have no right to do as I please [with my body] for the sake of my womb because nature has designated my womb to be the carrier.
how does that make you feel to know that you are worth less than a single part of you?
...... mr. richardson, i never said you said abortion was unnatural. i mentioned nature and medical science because you did say it's merely nature that designs a woman to carry the child. you say the child has no choice. did i choose to be a woman? did you choose to be a man? we had no choice in our sex. i have a choice to not bear a child, though. that is the freedom i have over my body, though i chose not the form. it doesn't matter intent of lack of intent or accident or design of nature when a fetus is inside the womb.... if MY freedom is at stake... I have a right to keep it.
my body IS my choice.
again. see the last paragraph. because there are choices in the choice..... abortion is one until the life of the growing fetus outweighs the demands of freedom of the mother. but that doesn't mean you can simply allow the enslavement of one individual to another. it means that the medical community that has provided women with a safe means to something women have been doing for thousands of years must provide an alternative. that's all.
there needn't be a catch-22.... there doesn't have to be a dead man in your tent, so to speak.
you're the only person i feel like i can actually speak with about this subject (who doesn’t just agree with me). so, you know... if you're still thinking i'm saying you're saying things you're not. well then, just tell me. i do sometimes read things wrong. i'm not fucking perfect.
- SocialistBetty
April 1, 2009 1:44AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
End Song
Clear this bitch up, between, shall we?
natural medical procedures near the beginning... that would be this.
SB(me): More over, I find the claim that we must allow only medical actions that agree with nature to be preposterous considering the whole point of medical advancement has been to thwart nature.
i didn't mean that YOU, krk, were making that claim. just that it's A claim. pologies. however, it does seem to me that you do give a shit if something is "natural". because you, like a lot of people, are saying that it is biological fact that the woman carries the fetus, and that the fetus didn't "ask" (so to speak... or rather... not?) to be created.
see the other post for more on that one.
~~
second claim of "somewhere in this conversation" you said that your life was "less valuable" than other Americans. You never said that, or implied that.
here's where i got that from:
rkr (that's you, dollface): a nation has a greater right to life and all liberty than the soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen who sacrifice both for it
so what i take that to mean is that your freedom - as part of the military - is less valuable than "civilians". that you make a choice to be in the military doesn't matter at this point.
what Did you mean by that statement? .....
- SocialistBetty
April 1, 2009 1:56AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Quick note on Murder
Interesting points in relating abortion to murder. "Murder" actually is legal if it is self defense, i.e. if you think your life is in danger. So you could be ethically "pro-life" and believe in the exception for "life of the mother" being threatened by the fetus. Just a thought.
- againes
October 16, 2008 6:34AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Here's the thing people aren't realizing:
If Roe v. Wade is still in effect, this abortion ban will be overridden. This is only in the event that Roe is overturned (highly unlikely), thus this effort is unfortunately useless.
- bagpiper2005
October 16, 2008 7:23AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The Root Question
The truth of the matter is that it is entirely un-American to force one's viewpoints onto others. This is exactly what would be happening if we ban abortion, gay marriage, physician assisted suicide, etc.
There are many Americans, all with different beliefs, customs, and traditions. To say that one way of thought is better than another alienates entire spectrums of beliefs.
More importantly, it is completely un-American to take away the right to choose from over half of the American population based on the opinions of less than 1/3 of the population. I say 1/3 because that seems to be the usual percentage of Americans in agreement with the proposed initiative.
We need to stop thinking of only ourselves and our beliefs and begin to consider the effect that proposing such a ban would cause. This is not simply pro-life vs. pro-choice. It is about remembering that one 1/3 of the nation's opinion should not infringe upon the rights of the entire nation.
If one believes that abortion is wrong, the simple solution would be to not partake in an abortion.
- homeofthefree
November 4, 2008 5:25PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Abortion
Hmmm...so if I don't believe that thievery is wrong, I should just choose not to do it? Or, maybe murder? Obviously one who believes abortion to be immoral will not, if consistent, "partake" in it. But that is not the issue; the issue concerns the taking the life of an innocent human being.
By the way, if gay marriage laws are passed, and I'm to live under those laws, is that not "un-American" by your definition. After all, that viewpoint has been forced on me, against my wishes.
- plainsman
November 5, 2008 2:03PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Choice
Plainsman,
Perhaps I failed to word my post to correctly show the basis of my pro-choice stance. Therefore, I will attempt to do so now.
The issue of abortion is one which goes much deeper than pro-life v. pro-choice. The issue at hand is taking away the choice to commit an act which is completely private. My ultimate concern is that banning abortion essentially strips women of their right to choose. This, in itself, is completely against everything that America, in my opinion, stands for. So, I would like to step past the argument that the issue at hand is "taking the life of an innocent human being".
One of the main elements of America that makes it so great is the reality that the state respects the right to privacy and ensures American citizens freedom. Therefore, I believe that when these freedoms, the right to choose, and the rights of American citizens to live without the government infringing upon their private lives are stripped away we being to regress into one of the many societies which we speak out against every day.
The issue of living under laws which one disagrees with is in my opinion an erroneous one. We as Americans, must ensure that every person maintains the right to privacy and the freedom to choose as long as those rights and freedoms do not infringe upon the rights and freedoms of others. Allowing for women, if they so choose, to get an abortion in no way infringes upon the rights of other American citizens. The same is true for gay marriages.
Furthermore, allowing women to choose whether or not to receive an abortion is in no way forcing a viewpoint onto the entire populace. However, forbidding the right to choose does exactly that.
Stripping American citizens of their rights is a very dangerous game. We must remember our roots and ensure that we do not begin stripping away at the layers of freedom. America, after all, was created to ensure that people maintain freedom and that the state can in no way infringe upon those freedoms.
Banning abortion like banning gay marriage is a very slippery slope and speeds up the possibility of America regressing into that which we fought and continue to fight so hard against.
- homeofthefree
November 10, 2008 10:45AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
One thing stands out.
Most of what you said is absolutely correct. This is a place of freedom, and restricting freedoms that don't harm anyone else goes against the grain of what this country was founded on. That is why I am for legalization of marjuana and other drugs, for the rights of homosexuals, for the unrestricted right of the people to bear arms, and against all "victimless crimes." Abortion, however, is not one of these things. An innocent life is being destroyed. While you certainly can make a good argument for abortion early in the pregnancy, and there is no reason to restrict birth control, once a feltus begins to kick and play, to respond to voices and sounds, to show emotion, it is a person, and it's inalienable right to life is being infringed. Americans not only should but must insure that as long as rights and freedoms do not infringe upon the rights and feedoms of others they are protected. Abortion, however, is not without a victim. It does infringe upons the rights and freedoms of another. This is why it should not be legal. That being said, it also should not be banned. What I would recommend happen, is that Congress makes a Constitutional Amendment defining at what point a specimen of the human race becomes a person and achieves citizenhood, and with that citizenhood Constitutional protection, with said point occuring at some point between conception and birth, probably late in the pregnancy. After this point, termination of the child, as it would then be defined, would be classified as murder, and not abortion. After that amendment is ratified, the policy as to whether termination of the human specimen prior to that point is legal or not should be left to the states. In an ideal world, abortion of all kind would be illegal. However, this is not the case, and this is the most reasonable compromise I can come up with.
- richardsonkr
January 18, 2009 11:57AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You are being ridiculous.
Your first statement is mostly valid. Your second, regarding gay marriage, is not. America is a Democratic-Republic, and as such, policy is the will of the people. A vital aspect for the survival of a Democratic system of government is that the people consent to live by the decision of the majority. This is often referred to as "majority rules." Furthermore, that viewpoint would not have been "forced" onto you. You are allowed to keep you dissenting position, you are just not allowed to lead an armed rebellion or attempt to undermine the system just because you did not get your way. Furthermore, you are not being asked to marry someone of the same gender, so what do you care? His point seems to be that passing an initiative though it received a minority of the vote would be un-American, and it would be. What he fails to take into account is Federalism. If most of the people of South Dakota want to ban abortion , it is the right of the State to ban it.
- richardsonkr
January 18, 2009 12:09PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Majority rules but..
Yes the majority rules but our founding documents are there to protect the minority from the excesses of the majority. In other words, What makes our constitution and the bill of rights different is that there are limits to what a majority can do. States do have individual rights but only up to a certain point. Since Roe v Wade protects the privacy of the individuals in relation to abortion , states do not have the right to act against it, just as (to use an absurd example) no state, today, could legally allow any form of slavery to be practiced. We have federal laws against it.
Regards to a previous post of yours:
It's hard to follow the logic of those against choice, with few exceptions. The reason is, it is so selective and based on this one aspect: abortion, a question, that in a real sense, really only has direct implications on the females of our society (I'm only talking about the ability to produce life since men can't. I am not referring to raising and rearing of a child and all the implication that has on both men and women in terms of the financial, mental / physical well being of the child).
But if defining life and protecting life is so important why do we put so many restrictions on dealing with the question.
Here's a list:
1) the first cause of life. If life is a continual process why stop at the fertilization of the egg by the sperm? My sperm is life in potential. A woman's egg is life in potential. Yet, nature has the female eject unused eggs every month. And well, men...
2) Many fertilized eggs are naturally aborted against people's will and we have many techniques for helping them although some of them will have to live their lives without being able to bear children. Why should we make an exception for the induced abortions and force people to have babies they don't want to have?
3) Why is only human life so important when there is a strong interconnectedness to all life on the planet?
4) What about war and the death penalty - both are cases where we justify the taking of life - how will our future constitutional amendment about life affect these things?
I'm sure there are more things but this a good place to start when trying to define the philosophical and moral attitudes we should have about life.
- mangueken
February 28, 2009 9:33AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Choice
I just want to say I am pro life in these matters. If I knock up a girl I would want to keep the baby. Mostly due to my superior physical genetics;) However I am grateful for the CHOICE to keep him/her. Because of that I am pro choice. If somebody wants to have a word that rymes whith shushmorshin then let them. Odds are they will be filled with guilt and anguish that will cause more of a hardship than the child ever would have. I am and will remain however pro free will aka pro choice.
Love it or hate it other people have a choice too.
- ttut21
August 10, 2009 3:18AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.