Third Party & Independents: Archives

Misha,
There is no way I would ever guess that you want to be a lawyer.
My position as an adult male, is that unless the “father” is actually involved, either through marriage or a committed relationship and the child is “wanted” he has a responsibility to make sure safe sex guidelines are followed. In other words the “father” has the responsibility to make sure of the birth control.
I think that the lack of responsibility shown in un-protected sex is almost criminal.
I am against abortion as a means of birth control, however I do belive in the precepts of Roe v Wade. I think that the benefits far out weigh the the downside of outlawing abortion.
I hope that made sense.

There is no proof that the soul exists, let alone that it is planted in the embryo. If folks believe it does exist at conception, then they should inordinate care not to conceive until they are ready for birth. In addition, if the pregnant mother is in posession of a potential human life, we need laws that prevent women from driving, walking the streets alone, showing too much skin or even being in public where prurient interests constitute a threat, not to mention that of kidnappers who would take the child and soul from the womb.

But, for those who choose not to go to such extremes as are found in fundamentalist Islamic states like that of the Taliban, where the woman and fetus are the chattel of men protected by the laws of men, then Roe V. Wade should and must stand. Religious freedom from persecution also includes not being persecuted for an abortion which the mother believes does not constitute murder of another human being.

The millions of children who die of malnutrition and unclean water each year in the world today are for me, a much higher priority than that of fetuses which have not been born and which the mother, for whatever reason, does not want to be born.

To give government’s the power to govern over the unborn and punish mothers for their actions which negatively affect the completion of term to birth, is to give governments far more power over individual freedom and liberty to determine one’s own destiny than I and millions of other freedom lovers are willing to grant.

As a Buddhist, I believe in the soul, but, the soul can neither be created nor destroyed by abortion. I believe a soul, until some years after birth, is pure potential for becoming enlightened or not, and the value of the soul is determined by the individual posessor of it by virtue of the enlightened perceptions, actions, and deeds that person commits their living to. Some of the greatest people come from poor and sometimes abused childhoods, and some of the worst have come from childhoods without want.

The laws of society have no place in determining the value and punishments for actions against souls, one’s own or others. That is the province of the individual and his/her maker. The laws of society should be guided by the principal of preserving society and the maximum freedom and pursuit of happiness for its citizens provided such freedom and pursuits do not endanger the freedom and pursuits of other members of the society. An unborn child is not yet a member of society, it is only the potential of a member of society very much like the sperm and egg - potential, nothing more, unless one subscribes to a particular religion which imparts full humanity upon conception, but that is a religious view which free society has no right to force upon its citizens through threat of prosecution and incarceration.

Parental obligations have absolutely nothing to do with souls- that is a red herring argument. They have to do with biology and logic. Since this article, I think, adequately shows that biology and logic illustrate that parental obligations cannot begin at birth or viability, conception is the only point at which they can rationally begin.

I do not understand the concept of a “soul” as I am not religious- but I do understand the very simple point that a being, even if less developed, comes into existence upon conception. That being is the child of her father and mother- that is indisputable. Since, i hope, we all awknowledge that parents have responsibilities to their children, the logic is inescapable that mothers have parental duties to their unborn children.

I spent a lot of care spelling out the arguments and logical steps in this article, the only thing I ask is those who favor abortion please read it carefully and consider where they disagree with the logic…

The fault lies in your putting the words unborn and children together. They are separate and distinctly different entities, both in the eyes of the law, in the fact of existence by a number of measures, and be virtue of definition.

In the 50’s when I was growing up, our society jailed folks participating in abortion. It didn’t stem abortion then, it just made criminals of those who participated. Same as with smoking pot. We outlawed it, filled our prisons at a huge number of billions of dollars, all for naught. Pot is still prevalent, demand is still there, and suppliers cannot and will not be stopped. All the law did was cost society as much or more in turning pot smokers into criminals than any losses legally smoking pot would have cost society.

The same will be true of overturning Roe V. Wade. All that will happen is that some citizens will be deterred, and many others will be forced into having abortions by non-doctors, in less than antiseptic conditions, and many mothers will die of massive hemorrhage or blood poisoning, or be incarcerated to learn other forms of criminal behavior while being conditioned to despise the society that sent them there in the first place.

Misha, it seems to me the better course of action is to not overturn R v.W, but, to invest in alternatives to abortion that dramatically reduce the incidence of abortion and make alternatives much more appealing. The cost of legal abortions is getting high, make less expensive alternatives available and abortion will decrease, perhaps even more than if it were illegal. Making anything illegal creates a black market. To the extent that that black market becomes sophisticated in dodging law enforcement, the illegal behavior can actually increase due to its illegality and invisibility to accounting and oversight.

David, you are wrong on a couple of key counts:

the number of abortions before roe v. wade by every measure was much much less than the 1.3 million that occur per year today. Moreover, the argument you currently made would apply fully to laws outlawing infanticide, rape, ect. ect. all of these are elligal but continue to occur. The same is the case with child neglect, and child abuse- these continue to occur in large ammounts despite them beign elligal. Should we just make these things legal becuase we cannot stop all of them? I think you know the answer to that.

Also, you have skipped over the right and wrong issue. We agree parents have responsibilities to their children. The question is when do those responsibilities begin. It is completely illogical to say that a mother can do anything she wants to her newborn child before the child comes out of her, but once the child is out of her, she has legal duties to take care of the child, and can be thrown in jail if she does nto feed the child (in fact, you dont be believe this either- as you support some limits on late-term abortions, do you not?). The distinction that would make such a result possible is grounded nowhere in logic (or the constitution- as you well know, despite your support for Roe v. Wade’s invented right to abortion). It is a result that men and women who began the pro-abortion movement wanted, and came up with a post-hoc rationale- which you are now repeating. Not many peopel take the birth threshold seriously (As shown by the overwhelming support for banning partial birth abortion), and the point of viability is exactly backwords, as this article demonstrates. As a result, conception is the remaining point at which parental responsibilities begin.

Also, your attempt to say that the unborn child is somehow “one” with the mother fails as a matter of embryology. An unborn child is a unique homo sapien, just attached to her mother. even if you think her level of development is not that of a “full” human being, she is still a homo sapein and still the offspring of her mother. As such, the mother has duties to her offspring, which the law ought to recognize.

Finally, as for your economic argument- all that would mean is that rich women could shirk their responsibilties to their unborn children, but poor women would not be able to. I think both rich and poor women should have to honor their responsibilties to their offspring (just like the father in the case I cited had to honor HIS responsibility, even though he wanted the mother to get an abortion)

Mischa, I love how you twist arguments.

1. Roe v. Wade is not abortion on Demand.

2. The issue isn’t whether a fetus is Human but whether a fetus is an independent person capable of individually sustainable life and whether it’s rights usurp the rights of the mother.

3. Some people actually believe abortion may be the parentally responsible thing to do given reality rather than religious ideals.

Nice try though.

Misha, you would you mind providing a source for your statistics regarding the number of abortions prior to Roe v. Wade? I am interested in how many folks having had an abortion and how many ‘criminals’ who performed them volunteered to be polled to determine how many abortions took place before Roe v. Wade.

infanticide, rape, ect. ect. all of these are elligal but continue to occur.

These are all crimes against citizens of the state defined by birth or naturalization. Unless and until the voters of this land or the courts stipulate that an unborn fetus is a citizen of the United States with all inherent rights derived from applicable laws governing children, abortion shall not be, and should not be, a crime. And be very careful should the government deem the fetus a citizen, for then all laws regarding neglect and negligent accidents which befall a pregnant mother shall bring her before the courts as a potential criminal.

even if you think her level of development is not that of a “full” human being, she is still a homo sapein and still the offspring of her mother. As such, the mother has duties to her offspring, which the law ought to recognize.

So, by your reasoning, a homo sapien should by law be deprived of the right to suicide, assisted suicide, and should be argument enough against the death penalty. If homo-sapien is to become sacro-sanct in the law, then the logical extension is to force the dying who suffer to suffer and to absolutely protect the sanctity of life even for those who have committed the gravest of crimes, since they are homo-sapien and facts demonstrate that enough innocents reside on death row as to make the taking of life in capital punishment a crime by the state by virtue of innocents being found on death row.

Finally, as for your economic argument- all that would mean is that rich women could shirk their responsibilties to their unborn children, but poor women would not be able to. I think both rich and poor women should have to honor their responsibilties

You may think both should, but, the truth and reality is overturning Roe v. Wade will in fact discriminate against the poor leaving the wealthy free to pursue their desire elsewhere. The last thing our country needs is more double legal standards for the wealthy and non-wealthy.

Misha,
“An unborn child is a unique homo sapien, just attached to her mother.”

At best, the relationship between the unborn fetus, and its mother is symbiotic. Until the third tri-mester it would not survive for long if wasn’t attatched to the mother.
Have we been able to messure brain activity in the fetus?
Until the third tri-mester the human fetus doesn’t seem to be much different than any other fetus inside any other mammal on the planet.

Greg:

1. according to the random-house dictionary (http://www.infoplease.com/dictionary/abortion-on-demand), abortion on demand means: “the right of a woman to have an abortion during the first six months of a pregnancy.” That is exactly what both Roe and the Democratic party stand for. Care to admit you are wrong?

2. I layed out the issue in full- whether parents have responsibilities to their children, and when those begin. the point of my article was that you cannot give me a logical reason why a mother owes NO duty of care to a child attached to her, but has a full duty of care to the same child once detached. I do not think you can provide me with such an argument, which is why you opted for ad homonim.

3. not sure exactly what this means, who are you are bringing religion into this thing. David, who is pro-choice is religious (budhist). Misha, who is pro-life, is not religious. I am sure you can find people on both sides of this issue.

Please try to answer actual arguments next time.

David:
1. If you seriously believe there were 1.3 million elligal aboritons per year in the 1970s, i guess i cant prove you wrong (just like i cant prove you wrong on how many unreported rapes there are per year. The best estimates i have read are that it was about 100K elligal abortions per year before Roe. Thats a big number, but a small % compared to 1.3 million

2. The citizenship argument again!? I can promise you that if a person was visiting this country on vacation from England and was raped, the criminal would be thrown in jail. So citizenship has nothing to do with it.

3. “Unless and until the voters of this land or the courts…” what a strange/funny commment from a supporter of Roe v. Wade. Anyway, what the point of this article is that unborn children OUGHT TO be recognized before teh law. I gave you a logical argument why that must be the case, and instead you respond my stating the current state of the law. what i am saying is that the current law (as required by roe v. wade’s make-believe “constitutional” analysis) is wrong, and needs to be changed.

4. “So, by your reasoning, a homo sapien should by law be deprived of the right to suicide, assisted suicide, and should be argument enough against the death penalty.” Again this argument does not follow. The steps in my argument were rather basic. (1) parents have duties to their children; (2) unborn children are the children of their parents. This does not mean there is never a justification for allowing human life to die. the main example, which i used, is the life of the mother. A mother has a duty to her unborn child, but not so high as to have to give her own life. Just like you have a duty to feed your child, but the law would not force you to give up your life to save your child.

Rocky-

1. You may be right- but the argument here, as i tried to explain, is not about the level of development of the unborn child. The child, is i hope you will admit, the offspring of her parents. My simple point is that parents have responsibilities to their children. Dont you think its wrong to say that a mother has no duty to her child when her child needs her most (before conception), but after birth, when the child is not fully dependent on her mother, the mother has MORE duties to her child? that just doesnt make sense to me, and none of you who are arguing against this article have responded to this point.

Misha,
If you substitute fetus for child, I will give you your point in you’re last post.

interesting, rocky- perhaps we can make some headway on this. Lets say we call the unborn a “being”, so we can capture both fetus and child… Why is it that mother’s owe duties of care to these beings after birth but not tbefore birth? I just dont see the logic to saying- “well, when the being needs the mother fully, the mother has no legal duty to do anything for the being, but when the same being does not need the mother as much, then the law can impose duties on the mother.” That was the point I am trying to make- do you find it at all persuisive? I guess i am asking because I think its a pretty strong argument, and I would like people to address it, without worrying about labels…

Misha,
I don’t know if I can give you being. In my mind “being” connotates intelligence, or conscious existence.
Haven’t some women been prosecuted for drug use during pregnancy?
I would say that the mother’s primary responsibility during pregnancy should be for her own health. If she’s not healthy I think this is a moot point.

Mischa, the problem with your definiton is the shift from on-demand abortion to the term abortion-on-demand. It is semantical to be sure which is the major problem I always have with your arguments. I presume laywers see great significance in that, most of us don’t and simply see it as puffery. Alas, I’ll play your game for a bit.
Since you looked up a politcal stance term rather than the general definitions of the english words, no, I’m not willing to acknowledge that I am wrong. You also ignored the 2nd definition.

Roe v. Wade, as you well know left plenty of room for regulation of abortion as long as the mothers right to her health was not usurped.

This is a significant Constitutional issue that you continually avoid by fronting the parental responsibility issue. The parent and child are not seperable during pregnancy and that IS the point.
The parental responsibility argument is in itself ad hominem.

“religion, a system of thought, feeling, and action that is shared by a group and that gives the members an object of devotion; a code of behavior by which individuals may judge the personal and social consequences of their actions; and a frame of reference by which individuals may relate to their group and their universe. Usually, religion concerns itself with that which transcends the known, the natural, or the expected; it is an acknowledgment of the extraordinary, the mysterious, and the supernatural. The religious consciousness generally recognizes a transcendent, sacred order and elaborates a technique to deal with the inexplicable or unpredictable elements of human experience in the world or beyond it.”- from your dictionary source.

Being an atheist in the literal meaning of the word (without a diety), I believe I choose the pragmatic and call a duck a duck.

Anti abortionism is a religious credo whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, Misha. You’ve made the argument now from numerous different sides which simply express your devotion to this credo. It in fact weakens your arguments strength to see you dance about this issue on so many sides avoiding your real goal: to usurp women’s rights.

Good article, though, Mischa.

Have a nice New Year!!

Greg- First, you misused “ad hominem”, so i assume you just dont know what the term means. Second, your claim about “religiousness” basically extends to any claim of right and wrong. So, since i strongly oppose rape and racism, my views on this issues MUST be religious. Unless, of course, you are using the “religious” label for any opinion that you disagree with. convinient, no?

You say I want to “take away the rights of women.” But i respond as Lincoln did to Douglas- there is no right to do a wrong. I want to limit women’s (and men’s) “rights” to kill new their newborn children. So do you. Similarly, i want to limit women’s rights to end the lives of their unborn children (i also want to limit the rights of men to end the lives of unborn children- as in the Unborn Victims of Violence Protection Act). I dance around no issue- abortion is wrong in most cases and I want it outlawed. You think other things are wrong, and want them outlawed. By trying to put my views in some other “category” you make your arguments a walking contradiction….

I have offered a detailed justification for my view- while you have blithly responded with semi-personal attacks and have offered no systematic refutation of my position. As a result, your view is much more mystical or groundless than mine, because while I base my views on reason, you base your on assertions (or at least, you have no laid our the reason for your views, as I think they are based on conclusions you wish to reach, rahter than step-by-step reasoning).

I dance around no issue- abortion is wrong in most cases and I want it outlawed.

The arrogance and pomposity of such a remark - to set yourself up as judge and jury in declaring abortion under any circumstances wrong - if you become pregnant and it is wrong for you, don’t do it. Do not pretend to play god and tell others what is right and wrong for them. Roe V. Wade does nothing to threaten yours, your wife’s or girl-friend’s rights nor does it instruct you how to deal with your pregnancy or that of your loved ones. All those opposed to Roe v. Wade DO INDEED intend to play God and tell others what they may and many not do. Roe V. Wade protects choice. Opponents of Roe v. Wade want to choose for those they don’t agree with, much like Hitler chose who could and could not procreate with whom.

A woman’s pregnancy is a private matter and needs no interference from GOD’s in human form or governments to dictate or limit choices between a mother, her fetus, and her doctor, unless the nation or species is at stake. America’s future freedoms, strength, and economics are not threatened by Roe v. Wade. Therefore, there is no compelling interest by the state to restrict individual rights of the mother. I will fight to preserve your choice to never abort just as ardently as I will fight to preserve another woman’s right to abort. It is a personal choice - if it is not your fetus, don’t presume to tell others what to do with it.

David, we have heard this argument before. It was used my southerns during hte 1850s. Let me see if this sound familiar to you:

“Slavery is wrong”

1850’s southern reponse:

“The arrogance and pomposity of such a remark - to set yourself up as judge and jury in declaring slavery under any circumstances wrong - if you lived in the south and someone offered to sell you a slave, just dont buy one. Do not pretend to play god and tell others what is right and wrong for them. Dredd Scott does nothing to threaten yours, your wife’s or girl-friend’s rights nor does it instruct you how to deal with your black neibhors or that of your loved ones. All those opposed to Dredd DO INDEED intend to play God and tell others what they may and many not do. Dredd Scott protects choice. Opponents of Dredd Scott want to choose for those they don’t agree with, much like…”

You so how incoherent your argument truely is? You are coming up with nothing new David- it is just like every other time in history when one person wanted to continue to do wrong. People who opposed slavery were also called religious nuts, told that it was “none of their business”, told that they were infringing upon property rights of southerners. I think the abolitionists were correct, even if convention wisdom at the time was that slaves were not “fully human.” You disagree with me, thats fine. But dont make such illogical arguments and try to pass them off as truth. They have been used before- and used to defend the worst practices out there. And, by the way, this applies to your “citizenship” argument too- as slaves were not “citizens” and were not recognized by the laws as such. yet abolitionists had the gal and arrogance to demand rights for slaves anyway. I wonder if you would compare their arguments to hitlers’…

In any case, David, you as well as everyone else who responded to this thread, failed to even partially addressed the logical argumetn I worked out in the above article. I am rather disappointed that all of that work seems to be wasted, as you guys didnt even want to consider for a second whether your faith in abortion on demand could be incorrect. I was hoping to find a way to talk about abortion not as murder, but abotu what duties parents owe to their children/offspring. Instead of trying to talk about this serious issue, you guys just resorted to ad homonim attacks (Greg) or silly comparisons to Hitler (David). Color me disappointed- oh well.

Finally- check this out:

I say:

“abortion is wrong IN MOST CASES and I want it outlawed.”

David says:
“The arrogance and pomposity of such a remark - to set yourself up as judge and jury in declaring abortion UNDER ANY CIRCUMSRANCES is wrong”

This kind of misreading of what I wrote is perhaps why no one has even bothered to address what i wrote above in my article. I am sorry for repeating myself on this- but i spent a long time working out the steps of the article, and people have returned to same falacy arguments, falling back on slogans about choice without even looking through what I wrote. I do not mean to be disrespectful, but I was really hoping/expecting for more for you guys. I didnt think I was going to change anyone’s mind, but I thought I could AT LEAST get people to talk about the the three step approach I outlined- I mean I think i have earned at least that much. I know its a logn article, but its a very important issue.

Mischa, Mischa , Mischa.

You seem more in love with your argument than in defending your rationale of it’s use.

When confronted with arrogance, I often use sarcasm and mirror logic to expose the elitist among us.

I will state my arguments again since you seem to wish to avoid them. Roe v. Wade does not avoid parental responsibility. It does not avoid morality. It also does not avoid the mother’s individual right to make medical and parental choices which you wish to usurp. There is no abortion on demand argument in Roe v. Wade except in the politicized use of the phrase abortion-on-demand which you missuse.

The point you are missing, Mischa, and why no one is addressing your parental responsibility argument is that the woman, by choosing abortion, has chosen NOT to be a parent. You do not like the moral choice she has made, and therefore you now go about demonizing her as a poor parent.

Being somewhat younger than me, you may not be aware of the elevation of woman’s rights that have been brought about by the ability to choose parent hood rather than being a man’s baby-on-demand machine.

As a fellow atheist, I am given pause by your elevation of all human DNA as sacred, rather than the more reasoned pragmatic position of reproductive choice as an elevating, empowering and respectful decision that the thinking man would make.

As always, Mischa, I find your arguments intelligent, if sometimes misguided.

Greg-

1. I am not so much in love wiht my argument, as I really wanted to tested out. It is different from the usual argument i use against abortion (that is, that abortion is taking of a human life), and I wanted to see if i could get some clash to see where its weaksnesses were.

2. I am not an atheist, i am an agnostic. I do not know if their is a god or not, because i do not have good evidence on either side. I am not sure how someone would even go about proving that there is or is not a god, so I am agnostic…

3. I have been pro-life throughout my life for the same reason. No one has offered me any sort of persuisive reason why unborn children are less human than newborns. To me, the differences (location, level of development ect.) are completely morally empty. It seems that most support for abortion is based on inertia of the argument, rather than a critical evaluation of the position. I think once the position is logically evaluated, one has a very very difficult time defending abortion. Even Peter Singer, who is one of the most important advocates of abortion, has admitted that there is really no difference, morally, between taking the life of an unborn child or a newborn. In Peter Singer’s case, he has decided that this means that taking the life of newborns is acceptable. Singer’s position is, at least, respectable to me because he is consistent and struggles with the issues. I think most of his pro-choice bretheren do not- as their arguments reflect this.

Misha,
I’ve read this forum for a while now, and one thing that I know that the red, blue and green sides can agree on is that it’s right to kill a human (or any creature) if the circumstances are correct. I’m not very proud that my first post on watchblog is to point that out…

Misha, you fail to recognize the difference between slaves and fetuses. The Constitution granted rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness to all governed by the laws of the land. That inevitably meant slaves as well.

The Constitution says not a single word about future or potential human beings. It is a very clear and distinct difference.

Look, I recognize the potential for compromise in your article. I spotted it right off. But, on the Roe v. Wade issue, there is a political climate to consider. Certain compromises like overturning Roe v. Wade will cascade into a loss of freedom of choice for women, and their mates. That is the truth of the political climate and reality of the conservative religious right intent to go all the way, but, by incremental steps, toward restricting a good number of freedoms of choice we currently enjoy.

In another political climate and environment, I would be amenable to replacing Roe v. Wade with a similar law that outlawed late term abortions except in the matter of life and death for the mother, rape and incest, and requiring counseling of alternatives for all other abortion considerations. But we have nothing like the kind of climate in which such a half compromise would be maintained. Any compromise like that in this environment would lead directly to a complete elimination of choice under any circumstances because of the weight of the religious influence and lobbying power of the right that regards abortion as a crime under any circumstances.

And that ultimately results in one religious group making value decisions for all other religious groups using the government. And that, in my mind, is establishment of religion if not by name, by force of conformity of all to that religion’s values and precepts.

Mischa, I’ve always found the agnostic position a bit of a wimp out. You either believe in a diety or you don’t. Being an atheist, in the true meaning of the word, simply means you don’t believe in a deity.

Truth be known, though I’ve used it before, too.

To me, the debate hinges on practicality rather than idealism. I have no argument with those that find it morally wrong to end any human life.

This is where I find problems with you parental duty discussion. You presume that parent hood begins at conception. In the real world, people don’t behave that way. They are likely unaware of this moment. I find Roe v. Wade a practical solution to a difficult and divise issue. Do I wish people of all economic and educational means find other ways to achieve birth control? Yes. Do I believe the state should interfere in in this most initmate and personal of decisions? No.

I understand your moral difficulties. I just don’t believe you take the truly moral position of doing the least harm. You seem to lack pragmatic perpective of the real consequences of your stance. People are fallible and not always perfect as they can be. You seem to lack some undersanding of this.

While I do not wish some moral dilema upon you, I would hope with time you gain a less reactive idealogical position with a more experiential, humanistic approach.

Greg- its interesting that you call my agnosticism a whim-out. I do not know you can be atheist. How do you know there is no god? To me, atheists are like very religious people- i do not really see that they have strong reasons for their beleifs. Just like I have yet to meet a religious person who can give me a good reason why god exists (at least, their conception of god), so i have yet to meet an atheist to give me a good reason why they know there is no god. In any case, for whatever reason, it doesnt matter to me much whether there is a god or not. I have my ability to think, and to consider what is right and wrong in my conduct. All i can do is act upon those thoughts- as a result, it doesnt matter much if there is a god or not. i hope that made sense.

Actually Mischa I do not “know”. Which is why I stated that I am atheisitic in the true definition of the word.I am not a follower of M. Ohara or any other group. I simply do not “believe” in God nor many other things that I do not believe have been proven over time.

Being of a scientific background, I look for the most likely explanations to things given the world as we know it. Scientists do not take positions of knowledge beyond the given observable and verifiable facts.

To me agnosticism is simply a “cop out” which states the obvious. No one “knows”. Some believe, some don’t. Given the look some true believers give you when you inform them that you are an atheist, something akin to a smelly item stuck to your shoe, it is understandable to duck the issue.

As I said, I’ve been guilty of that non stance before.

Misha -
You have my sympathy. Your well-thought-out post has been besieged by some of the most inane comments I have ever read. Really, though, the commenters are right: this is an issue of dogma, not science or logic. Christians, like myself, cannot tolerate murder at any level. Women’s Lib folks, like David, see Roe v. Wade as the moment of truth in the liberation of women and cannot give it up. If you truly see this as a logical issue, then I commend you, but you are likely to remain a minority in that regard.

Just because commenters like Greg and Rocky are, in a sense, right does not mean they are intelligent.

Rocky: Until the third tri-mester [sic] the human fetus doesn’t seem to be much different than any other fetus inside any other mammal on the planet.

Umm, except that human fetii have human DNA and as such are destined to become adult humans, which incidentally look like hairless apes. Human infants and adults aren’t much different from other carbon-based lifeforms either. Yet we don’t allow them to be killed and eaten. What an injustice!

Greg: I understand your moral difficulties. I just don’t believe you take the truly moral position of doing the least harm. You seem to lack pragmatic perpective [sic] of the real consequences of your stance. People are fallible and not always perfect as they can be. You seem to lack some undersanding [sic] of this.

This is hysterical, given that Misha has never brought morality into the discussion. Apparently morals are much more comprehensible than logic to an atheist.

David: A woman’s pregnancy is a private matter and needs no interference from GOD’s [sic] in human form or governments to dictate or limit choices between a mother, her fetus, and her doctor, unless the nation or species is at stake.

Here David shows that he just has a different set of moral criteria. The extinction of humanity, to him, is something that should not be allowed. The extinction of a particular human is not a problem, however. This underscores my original point that all the sophisticated arguments for abortion are just a cover for (or spring from) value systems. If logic were really the root, then David would not play God and tell hypothetical women that the survival of the human race is more important than their preferences. Perhaps he can understand that for me, and many others, each individual life is important enough to trump women’s (or anyone’s) rights.

Chops, great comments, right up to the last paragraph, where logic escapes. Whether you call it God’s design or simple evolutionary mandate, all life seeks to continue to live, unless aberrated by evolution or God to sacrifice itself for the preservation of the species or defective behaviors. Hence, morality at its most basic level is empirical and observable at this level in all life. Life is tenacious. Thus the moral criteria you refer to my having espoused is universally observable and not a matter of faith.

The logical extension of your last paragraph is that it is justified to kill millions in order to protect one. I know of no religion, science, or democratic society that holds such a belief as you just professed as believing for yourself. The few individuals who believed as you do had names like Hitler, Stalin, Saddam Hussein, Alexander, Hannibal.

And this comes directly from your own words “Perhaps he can understand that for me, and many others, each individual life is important enough to trump women’s (or anyone’s) rights.”

You said it, right there! For you, the rights (whatever the individual perceives them to be) of one individual overrides the rights of all others. That is certainly not a Christain philosophy taught by any theological seminary that I ever heard of, save for the Medeival Era of the Catholic Church in their application of the Inquisition.

… the number of abortions before roe v. wade by every measure was much much less than the 1.3 million that occur per year today.

O M F G !

And of course, it never occurred to you that:

1.) In 1973 (the year in which the Roe v. Wade decision was handed down - in January), the population of the U.S. was 210,902,404 - some 84,275,889 *fewer* than the 295,178,293 it is at present. Since over half of persons resident in the U.S. are Women, that means there are over 42,000 more Women in the U.S. now than there were in 1973, and the number has varied (upward) ever since.

2.) As has been pointed out, above, your figures do not count the number of Illegal Abortions sought and/or performed prior to the Roe v. Wade decision.

As Mark Twain observed: there are Liars, Damned Liars, and Those Who Lie With Statistics. Thank you for clarifying which class you wish to associate yourself with.

Misha -

An excellent post, and I think it is time for a new viewpoint in the abortion issue. Abortion has been argued as a moral issue in the political arena for too long. The issue needs to be addressed in completely non-moral terms, and I think your argument is an excellent one. Despite semantic differences (child/fetus/being) the logic behind your arguments is pretty solid. However, the argument is still not independent of morality. There is still the assertion of parental responsibility over the created offspring. We punish parents for neglecting children because of their inherent humanity. However, neglecting a fetus or even pre-fetus cannot be viewed in the same light. Again, the line for parental responsibility is blurred, as is the line for the humanity of the fetus. However, taking parental responsibility back to conception is still based on the assumed humanity of the conceived embryo, square-one. The argument uses a more morally independent approach, however, it does not completely escape the well-worn moral territory.

Despite all this, I commend your efforts in creating such a well thought out and thoroughly justified argument. (Except for the aforementioned hole leading back to the moral argument, which is likely inescapable)

My personal opinion is that we should ban all abortions after the 6th month, excepting the mother’s life situation. This is based on the proximity of the fetus to resemble human life and the viability of the fetus outside the womb through premature birth. Not to mention, it is a very limited form of restricting choice, as the woman would still have 6 months to decide to terminate the pregnancy. It’s not ideal to what I believe morally, however, I think it is the best compromise we have right now, respecting both the woman and the ‘life’ of the fetus.

captainozone-

I’m not sure what your point is, you estimate nearly 42,000 more women than in 1973, but the number of abortions has gone from about 750,000 in 1973 to over 1.5 mil in 1992 (the last non-estimated measure I found, current estimates are around 1.3 mil, the point holds regardless) when the population was roughly 260 mil (and thus only approx 25,000 more women than 1973). So the number of women has increased, but the number of abortion has increased at a much greater rate. So, does this put you in the ‘lies with statistics’ category?

Sources:

roevwade.org
abortionfacts.com

AParker, CaptainOzone misquoted his data. The number of additional women today is 42 million, not 42 thousand.

I can’t believe I missed that…I looked up the numbers as well, but I guess that 42,000 stuck in my head. Just for numbers then, there would need to have been approximately a half-million more un-recorded abortions in 1973 to keep pace with the percentage of women receiving abortions in 1992. However, there would only need to have been nearly 200,000 more un-reported abortions to keep pace with the approximate percentage of women today. The rates of increase are not as disparate as I mistakenly assumed. My apologies, cap’n.

KP

Misha, This info is at the following link.
http://statistics.adoption.com/placing_children_for_adoption.php

“There has been no research showing that women are choosing to abort their children rather than place these children for adoption. Although the adoption rate has remained relatively steady, nationwide abortion rates have continued to decline since 1990. (Freundlich, 1998)”

To continue about the responsibility that the fathers are taking.

“Experts point out that only a very small percentage of birth fathers historically have taken an active part in the decisions surrounding adoption, but some agencies report that in recent years, a quarter or more relinquishments have included active involvement of birth fathers. (Freundlich, 1998)”

To put things into perspective. Just over 25% of birth fathers are involved with the adoption process. I couldn’t find any stats as to the involvement of the father in the abortion process. I belive that often the fathers just split and leave the mother holding the bag, so to speak.

I’m not sure what your point is, you estimate nearly 42,000 more women than in 1973,

Whoooops! *eh-heh* Umm, er, that should have been “Over 42,000,000” - not “Over 42,000”.

(And it would have been, if the damned Sun hadn’t been in my eyes as I typed it, here in my Darkened Garret…)

Anyway, thanks to Mr. Remer for finding the error, and the preceding Information should have been enough to extrapolate from, at any rate.

No, the additional rise in Legal Abortions between 1973 and 2005 is not staggering, by any means. In addition to Mischa’s Skewed Statistics, and the failure to consider the number of Unreported Abortions prior to the Supreme Court decision, there is also the matter of Social Mores, which are a good deal more relaxed Now than they were when abortions were first Legalised under Roe v. Wade 32 years ago. It all adds up to another tissue of Lies promulgated by Outraged Males in an effort to control Womens’ Bodies.

Every male who thinks the choice of abortion should be illegal for a woman to make ought to be held down and have a Softball and a Football forcibly inserted into his colon via the anus: then he would know just a small component of what the Miracle Of Birth feels like to a woman. Afterwards, he ought to be compelled to attach Alligator Clips to his manly nipples several times each Day and Night for a year or so. If this Modest Proposition were observed, fewer Men would offer their opinions on what a Woman could or could-not do with Her Body.

Chops, Interesting that you think abortion has nothing to do with morality. I guess I’m too stupid to understand that position.

The point of my posts were not to argue parental responsibility, because I feel the position is only based on the rather phoney assumption that parenthood was the choice of the mother when, in fact, the whole point of the abortion was to not make that choice. Which, of course, those rather stupid supreme court justices agreed with.

I feel Mischa always makes intelligent posts and said so.

Greg,
I feel the position is only based on the rather phoney assumption that parenthood was the choice of the mother when, in fact, the whole point of the abortion was to not make that choice.

Seems to me the choice could have been made months earlier and not involved abortion at all…

Human law applies to humans.

If we were a society of butterflys, our society would have laws applying to butterflys, and butterfly responsibilities to their fellow butterflys. But what about the caterpillers? Is a caterpillar a butterfly? When does a catepillar become a butterfly? At which stage in the cocoon should the butterfly community take responsiblity for a new member of their society?

The law applies to humans. We believe humans have souls, wihch is why we exclude monkeys from our laws. Adult apes have brain waves, rudimentary language skills, and an extremely close biology to our own, yet we can kill them (unless they are on the endangered list). Why can we kill them? Because they don’t have the special status of “fully human”. If we dicovered alien life, and it was “animal” alien life, it would probably be okay with us to kill it. But if it were sentient alien life, we would outlaw the killing of it.

Parental duties to children exist because we have laws outlining the duties of humans to humans.

You can’t skip over the central issue, which is what makes us human? What is the difference between us and an ape? Why is it okay to kill an ape, and not a human? Why do we have land rights, and apes do not? At what stage of human evolution would it be okay to kill a human? Astrolopethicine? Or even up to Cro-Magnon?

The apes around us have the potential to evolve into sentient beings. Is the fact that in time, they can produce beings with sentience, a reason to outlaw the killing of them? What if it took ten years to give birth to a child, and incapacited you the entire time you were pregnant? Why does a ten year, incapacitating pregnancy make abortion seem more moral?

So the issue remains, at what stage of pregnancy is the being considered a “human” and given the rights of a human?

Julia

Mark A. I agree, except a little thing called reality gets in the way.

If we really, really wanted, we could could all live in peace and harmony and never have wars either.

The reason for Roe v. Wade was that the poor and uneducated rights were infringed while the upper classes used their wealth to find acceptable medical treatment to deal with their boo-boo’s

But then, don’t we always prey upon the weak?

Pragmatism is the key here to me, not pie in the sky idealism or theology.

Misha�

I notice that in your otherwise well laid out argument that you neglected to account for the rights of the mother to her own body. Your argument completely disregards Roe, and once again defines a fetus as a viable human being and citizen with rights superior to the mother. Even born children don’t have right under our constitution superior to those of adults. Nice try though�

V. Edward

Just one thought to add. Carrying a foetus to full term is more dangerous to the mother than an abortion. This is why nature bred women to be so much more healthy than men. So a woman is risking her life to nurture this initially featureless lump of cells through its journey into a full-fledged baby. In no other area of law has anyone ever suggested that an individual is required to risk life and limb for another. This may be compelling morally in a number of situations, but not legally.

In addition, lawful obligations are different depending on the stage the human is in. Children have different rights than adults. Drinking is only legal for those who are 21. What is the difference between someone is 21 and someone who is 5? If the 5 year old is going to become a 21 year old, then why not go ahead and give a 5 year old some vodka? If parents have the obligation to feed their 5 year old, then why don’t they have the obligation to feed their 21 year old?

Children do not have the right to not attend school. Parents have the right to imprison their children in a room (“ground them”). There are different laws on the books for homo sapiens depending on their developmental age. Does a 32 celled embryo have the same rights as an infant, who has the same rights as an adult? No. The law differntiates based on the stage of development, therefore, it is a specious argument to try to apply the rights of a 21 year old to the rights of a 12 year old to the rights of an infant, to the rights of a fetus.

Julia

Greg,

Mark A. I agree, except a little thing called reality gets in the way.
Pragmatism is the key here to me, not pie in the sky idealism or theology.

Hmm… The last time I checked, people aren’t required to get pregnant… At least not in my reality. So obviously, I was making a statement of fact, not being idealistic. As for theology, I never mentioned it.

V. Edward,

I notice that in your otherwise well laid out argument that you neglected to account for the rights of the mother to her own body.

I never really understood this argument. Other than in cases of rape, a woman always has a choice whether or not to get pregnant, doesn’t she?

Mark A.

Well, in a sense, women are required to get pregnant. You see, we wouldn’t have evolved, much less survived, as a species if pregnancy were “voluntary”. After eating and sleeping, sexual activity is the strongest drive, for good evolutionary reasons. And, sorry to say, no birth control method is perfect. So….

Well, in a sense, women are required to get pregnant. You see, we wouldn’t have evolved, much less survived, as a species if pregnancy were “voluntary”. After eating and sleeping, sexual activity is the strongest drive, for good evolutionary reasons. And, sorry to say, no birth control method is perfect. So….

No one is required to have sex, natural urge or not, so I don’t understand your argument.

Mark A., no one is required to breathe either, but, almost everyone seems to do it without thinking. So, your point is?

Mark A.

Let’s see if I can clarify my point. Calling it a “natural urge” sort of reduces it to the level of the “urge to scratch my nose,” a resistible and minor urge that goes away eventually and has little to do with the origins or survival of the species. Most biologists and psychologists call it a “drive,” which is closer to what I’m saying. I think I pretty forcefully made the point that the desire to have sex, though it can be suppressed temporarily and for a short period of time, is pretty much irrestible for most people. They spend a lot of time thinking about it and much of their behavior is devoted to preparing themselves for it. To say a woman can refrain from sex this one time or that one time is very much different from saying she can always avoid pregnancy. I do detect a small note of blame for the individual woman who finds herself pregnant and does not see a way to continue the pregnancy. Perhaps this is part of it; abortion is a way of making the fallen aware of their own faults. But it seems like such an extreme measure, both for the mother and for the potential child. Besides, according to all I’ve been told, going through an abortion is such an unpleasant thing anyway, if that doesn’t teach ‘em, nothing will.

The Pill has been deemed risky to health. Some 40 million women are subject to health warnings about taking it. Those who choose health should avoid the pill. Those who choose to avoid pregnancy should avoid sex altogether or take the pill.

Bottom line is, in light of this new health threat regarding the pill, there are going to be more, not less, unwanted pregnancies. What to do, what to do…?

Mark—

Biological arguments aside, we as citizens of the United States enjoy certain fundamental rights, and one of them is the right to privacy and dominion over our own bodies. Is it fair to assert that the moment a woman becomes pregnant she no longer enjoys the same fundamental rights we all enjoy under the constitution? Does she, or should she then become a ward of the state, or community property until her child is born? What interest does the state have until the fetus becomes viable on its own, without artificial means to keep it alive?

Yes all life is sacred and believe it or not I do not like abortion, I would prefer that all unwanted children be born and then adopted. But that is not my decision to make, nor is it the states. Life is not perfect, and there are times when a woman feels she needs to terminate a pregnancy; that should be her decision (in league with her doctor if she so chooses) and hers alone; it is her body, and her emotions.

Like it or not, an unborn child is not a citizen of this nation and as such should not enjoy the same rights as its mother, who is a full citizen.

And one more point, back to the biological argument: when it comes to sex, we humans are different from any other animal walking the face of the earth. Sex is a biological imperative for most of us; I know I could not live without it for long.

Julia, you make an excellent argument! And one I have not heard before. Thanks!

Julia,
You ask a number of interesting questions, however they don’t really prove your point. If butterflies had society, we could ask them for advice. If we look at ants, whose very existence is societal, we can see that the larvae and pupae (ant fetuses, following your reasoning), are very well cared for indeed.

Similarly, with the monkey argument. Although monkeys are very close to us genetically, they are not human and will not be. You try to use evolution to compare monkeys to fetuses, but it fails in this arguments on two levels. 1. Left alone, monkeys will not become human, and the chance that they will evolve into sentience is very low considering that they are adapted for where they are and extinction is much more likely than the development of sentience in evolutionary terms.
2. Following the responsibility argument, we did not create the monkeys or put them where they are, therefore, we are not responsible for them. It is interesting that a monkey in a zoo has much greater protection in terms of law and public sentiment than a monkey in the wild, mainly because in being responsible for its location, we are responsible for its care.
Also, we do have laws protecting monkeys. It is illegal to be cruel to or starve your pets, because you have a responsibility for them, and they are not human in any sense. If someone went around vaccuming out their pet dog’s brains, you can be assured that there would be quite an outcry.

Your observations about different rights and responsibilities is interesting, but also not directly applicable, since the discussion is about parental obligations. In terms of differing rights at differing ages, there is also a heirarchy of rights-2 year olds can’t vote, but they also can’t be killed or tortured (well, unless they’re suspected terrorists, according to our putative AG). So I would advocate against letting fetuses vote or drink, but that doesn’t mean that they have no right to live.

V. Edward-
You have it entirely backwards. Unlike animals, who are compelled to mate by pheromones or overwhelming hormonal changes, humans actually can control themselves. I don’t think anyone has ever died from lack of intercourse, your own feelings aside (what a loss to the scientific community if all of those nerds died in high school).

The citizens argument has kind of been done to death in these posts—slaves weren’t citizens, neither are immigrants, but killing them is wrong and illegal.

Everyone who has sex knows that there is a possibility of pregnancy. people do not just “find themselves pregnant” with no action on their part. Even if you use birth control, you know that there is a possibility of failure (it says so on the box). Why is it so wrong to think that therefore when someone becmes pregnant, they are responsible for the result of their actions? They made a choice, they took a risk, they should have some responsibility for it.

I know that fathers should be held responsible, and I know that the practical consequences of limiting abortion are not good (I’m thinking that abortion should probably not be made illegal until it becomes possible to hold fathers at least financially responsible for their children, which would minimize many of the problems).

I think, that abortion is a cop-out from the idea of personal responsibility. It’s not that I want to punish people for “sinning”, it’s that maybe if sex were seen as something important, with consequences, people may make better choices. I think that a woman definitely has a right to her own body, but it is very dangerous to think that that extends to the right to kill something that may be human that is there as a direct result of a choice she made.

brian, you are trying to bend science to make your point. The fact is, and anyone who knows ants knows this, some races of ants raid others specifically to steal their larva and pupae and eat it. Using cannibals to make your point is truly laughable. Try the science channel, it is full of good stuff like this.

brian said: “Left alone, monkeys will not become human”.

Yes, and many Buddhists believe that monkey may well be your reincarnated great grandfather. Show some respect.

So I would advocate against letting fetuses vote or drink, but that doesn’t mean that they have no right to live.

Doesn’t mean they should either. It depends on the circumstances doesn’t it.

I find it ironic that so many people who support military and wars, for any reason, can find room to be so righteous in defense of fetuses 5 seconds after conception. It is to me, an ultimate hypocrisy.

David,

The ants that you speak of are different species, not races, so the ants are not engaged in cannibalism, but war, and intraspecies war at that. Pupae and larvae are well defended in individual hives. Maybe if you got away from the TV and turned over a rock you could see for yourself (just kidding). Anyway, what ants do is not really the point. Julia was trying to make a point by showing how different caterpillars are from butterflies to suggest that fetuses are similarly different from humans. I merely provided another example showing a species that cares for its young even though they are not yet “ants”. I think the whole comparison of humans to animals argument is a little silly, because there is always a contrasting argument, and the fact that we can reason makes us different anyway.

Yes, and many Buddhists believe that monkey may well be your reincarnated great grandfather. Show some respect.

That is a good reason not to eat meat, but I’m not sure how it plays into a debate on abortion or the legal treatment of animals. I don’t think I’ve ever said anything disrespectful of anyone’s belief, and if I offended you, I’m sorry. The assertion, however, that buddhist belief systems should be considered in my arguments admits the idea that my Christian idea of a soul is equally valid.

When writing about Julia’s age-defined rights justification for abortion, I was refuting her point. Some of my ideas on why abortion is wrong are stated later.

I find it ironic that so many people who support military and wars, for any reason, can find room to be so righteous in defense of fetuses 5 seconds after conception. It is to me, an ultimate hypocrisy.

I am, and always have been against the war in Iraq and capital punishment. I even struggle with using animals in my research (maybe I’ve watched a few science channel programs in my day). I don’t know where you got the idea that I engaged in this kind of hypocrisy. If you weren’t talking to me, I agree.

brian, I respect your consistency on captial punishment, war and abortion.

I am a Buddhist in belief, and my remark was made semi-humorously. No offense taken at all. The point was, that I have no more right to insist that earthworms be removed before paving highways, or using animals in circuses, than a Christian to demand revocation of Roe v. Wade because it is inconsistent with their beliefs.

The only rational argument here to be made is, if a person believes the fetus is a human being or has a soul, that person should not have an abortion. But, that person has no right to tell other people how they should behave based on their own personal beliefs.

We are a nation of laws. The Constitution says nothing about potential human beings or citizens. Period. At the very most, the Constitution dictates that the states should individually decide abortion for themselves, according to its own words. However, the states must insure that their laws are applied equally for all, not just the wealthy or privileged, or Christian etc.

Prior to Roe v. Wade, the wealthy could afford clean, safe, abortions by doctors, and the poor could not, forced into back alley unsterile butcher shops run by anyone needing a few bucks and able to stand the sight of blood.

Roe v. Wade has saved 100’s of thousands if not more women’s lives by granting access to sterile medically trained doctors and clinics. Overturning Roe v. Wage will kill large numbers of women. Some will say “serves ‘em right for killing their fetus”, but, those who believe killing is wrong will accept the fact that overturning Roe v. Wade, will not stop the killing, just change the victims from not yet citizens and not yet born potential humans to living breathing mothers, sisters, daugthers, who are citizens.

The stories I grew up with about abortions prior to Roe v. Wade in Detroit were just as ugly and inhumane to hear as the idea of abortion is to Pro-choice folks.

Roe v. Wade perserves the right of citizens to make their choice, each according to their conscience and religion or whatever. Overturning it, results in one group of American citizens denying choice for a whole other group of citizens. The Constitution was designed to protect individual choices and freedoms from government and majorities (remember lynchings?) where no compelling national interest was threatened.

As it is, we have used national interest to abusive levels with the Japanese internment camps, and absence of minority suffrage. Let us not trample our Constitution’s dream and intent of a free people yet again, by overturning Roe v. Wade which protects each woman’s right to choose, on both sides of the issue.

I guess that the point would be that we require the parties involved to take responsibility for their acts. I suppose that would be as effective as telling teens to abstain from sex.
We all know how effective that has been in the past.