So I think I heard Ron Paul say he wants to overturn Roe v Wade. This is a huge debate involving much more than the ethical aspect, but let's raise it here for purposes of a good discussion on ethics and philosophy as related to our political ideas at BTM.
Should abortion be legal, illegal, or what else?
Why? What are your philosophical/legal/ethical reasons that would gain the best marketability?
Subscribe to this thread- Flag as offensive
- Login or register to post comments
- 521 reads
That's what it basically boils down to, and it is indeed difficult to come to a decision when there are so many aspects to this issue.
However, in my opinion, I think that it should not be within the authority of the government, or anyone else for that matter, to decide what a single, individual woman does with her body. After all it is her blood that is sustaining the fetus, one could possibly percieve the fetus as a parasite if it were unwanted (maybe?) Also, many times when a woman doesn't want a baby and can't get an abortion, she leaves the baby to die somewhere, which everyone can agree is MUCH worse than an abortion.
Also, I believe abortion will always be legal, especially in the future. Think, when the world population soars up to 9.1 billion in 2050, abortion will HAVE to be legal, as a means of allowing the population to voluntarilly slow the population growth on an individual level. Banning abortion outright would mean a lot more population growth and if it could be stopped, then it would.
Maybe it boils down to a choice between a very real coercion of the entire population
and the very hypothetical "murder" of a far lesser number of alleged individuals.
I read an article by a surgeon after the gubernator starred in a movie as a pregnant man. He
assured us that using surgery and hormones, a man can be implanted with a fetus(as in an
abdominal pregnancy)and carry the infant for the full term. In a hypothetical future dominated
by a group we'll call feminazis, men voting in favor of the mass coercion mentioned above may
be able to enjoy their own forced pregnancy.
Dr. Paul is perfectly correct in his contention that abortion is not an issue which falls under the jurisdiction of the federal government. There is little question that the SCOTUS should vacate the ruling. It should never have agreed to hear the issue in the first place. Furthermore it should remand the matter back to the courts and legislatures of the several states as it is clearly, as well as constitutionally, an issue which should be handled at the community level.
Dr. Paul has introduced legislation in the house which is designed to remove the SCOTUS from having any authority or say in the matter and I support that legislation one hunderd percent. It is simply not a federal issue and the constitution grants no authority for any branch of the federal government to be involved in it in any way. The fact that it has become involved is simply another usurpation of the peoples right to set the standards by which they will be governed which, of course, begins at the local/state level. In other words, the resolution of the issue is a matter to be settled according to the standards of the particular community and not in accordance with the standards of a central government authority.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
In my humble opinion, this most divisive thirty five year long conversation has been brought about by a wholy unconstitutional act committed by the SCOTUS and a solution is long long overdue.
I'm so glad I'll never have to make this decision!! I really think we should just leave it to the ladies to decide, seriously guys c'mon.
- D
Seriously? You said you were serious, so...
...if your lady wants to abort your baby that you made and are (even inexplicably) excited to meet, you wouldn't mind? You'd just say "c'mon, leave it to her." You wouldn't feel the urge to discuss it with her or even some later day on the internet or with a friend/family member who is considering the same situation?
And don't try to say that's why you use protection or are gay or some other dodge to get away from answering a hypothetical question. And don't try to say that hypothetical questions are irrelevant. My point is that you (seemingly) think it should be left to the ladies to decide without male input, and I disagree.
“Money will be put under the direction of government, and the government will be put under the direction of money.”
~Philip Freneau
No cop-outs I'll answer your hypothetical, and my opinion on the underlying issue has changed over time. Answering the hypothetical, Personally my feelings would not be inexplicable at all, but would be based entirely on three things; that this is the person I want to spend my life and have a baby with, whether or not I'm in a responsible position career wise to properly care and raise a new human being, and finally her decision on the matter. In that order. Since none of those things apply to me I know how I would feel right now, but my feelings would never be inexplicable.
In any case yes, I would most definitely hope that I had some input in the matter, but hope is really all I can legally hope for isn't it? Which gets to the underlying issue. Should a man have certain legal claims (custody?) to an unborn fetus he helped create? That is one legal question can of worms that I've always wondered if it would ever find its way into a courtroom.
My legal understanding is that Roe V. Wade was decided in part by reading into the Constitution an inherent right to privacy, since then however, many privacy rights cases have chipped away at exactly how much privacy one can reasonably expect. So there are probably some legal questions left unresolved, which makes it a perfectly divisive issue.
I understand that abortion is mainly a moral question to those who oppose it, and a good question at that, but I try and stay away from telling others what is and what is not moral, and define ethics for myself. I'm happy with how the law stands and trust women to make the ultimate choice for what's best for themselves.
- D
IMHO, abortion is an abomination, an utter destruction of human life, and as such, I would never personally engage in the act of or condone abortion. This not only comes from a spiritual belief I possess in my love for God almighty, but also from a value I place on human life - which, IMHO, begins at conception.
Having said all of that, Roe v. Wade clearly demonstrates that neither your nor my personal beliefs really matter when the government can twist the words and intent of our Constitution and define it as a "Living Constitution" - which it is not, and should not be considered to be. The framers of the Constitution had very clear and timeless intentions when they carefully worded what is arguably the single most important declaraion of law.
The supporting SCoUS justices in the Roe v. Wade case made a gross and loose interpretation of the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment, citing something that hadn't previously existed "substantive due process" to create a right out of thin air - that to abortion.
The fact remains that the U.S. Constitution never addresses abortion as a right, thus not affording any option to ban or protect it - and as such, should never have been addressed at the federal level. Norma McCovey herself (Jane Roe) has even admitted that she was used as a pawn in the grand scheme of paving the way to a socially acceptable practice of women's rights to use abortion as a means of birth control (and that she would not have allowed herself to be used armed with that knowledge). Norma McCovey has become one of the biggest opponents of the case that defined her with anonimity - taking a pro-life stance in 1995, and arguing ever since to have her case overturned.
IMHO, Roe V. Wade should be overturned, and the rights should be given back to the states -- period. But as I said before, neither your nor my opinions really matter to a government who has all but set a foundation to create a police-state wherein the citizens are really afforded no rights whatsoever.
Dr. Paul's descussion (in "The Revolution") about the first time he witnessed an abortion speaks volumes to the type of cold-heart one must have in order to perform such a task... It is a vile and disgusting act that is sad to read from the perspective of a man who has dedicated his life to nurturing life from conception -- but I am glad he took the time to describe the scene because if it saves even one life -- then it was worth every minute of someone's time to read it.
Roe v. Wade was a horrible decision. Regardless of whether abortion should be legal or illegal, the decision is left up to the states by the Constitution; not the supreme court.
Congressman Ron Paul has authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094. He is the only prolife candidate. "As an OB/GYN doctor, I’ve delivered over 4,000 babies. That experience has made me an unshakable foe of abortion. Many of you may have read my book, Challenge To Liberty, which champions the idea that there cannot be liberty in a society unless the rights of all innocents are protected. Much can be understood about the civility of a society in observing its regard for the dignity of human life." - Ron Paul.
I am willing to listen to a man who delivered over 4000 babies. Life begins at conception.
i see at least one problem with legally defining life at conception. namely a dilemma would be created with birth/death certificates.
woman gets pregnant. legally at that point, a human life exists.
woman has a miscarriage. child was not born, hence no birth certificate was issued. but since the 'child' was declared to be legally a human being at conception, should not a death certificate be issued upon miscarriage? since a human being has died.
then, how do you reconcile the legal conundrum that a human being died but was never born? should the miscarriage be considered birth?
not stating opinions here. just throwing it out there. if someone has a answer/correction to this way of thinking, please don't hesitate to comment.
While your proposed question does garner some thought, I think it is a little skewed in concept. The discussion of human life doesn't necessarily translate to a human being... the argument being when does physical life begin. All throughout school, we are taught about biological life through the development of cells from embryonic stages -- with no differentiation being made as to whether that embryonic stage exists within or out of another creature, and it is always referenced as life. Why not humans?
There is no birth or death certificate, you're right. Without a certificate of birth, a death certificate not exist, true... BUT what is a brith and death certificate? They are merely manmade documents used only to record the life cycle of a human being - not meant to identify human life itself. I believe the distinction of human life from human being is important in geneal, but not relevant to the discussion of abortion.
Either way, birth and death certificates are state issued documents, not federal documents... So on that argument, why is abortion controlled at the federal level? (Which is what I think is more important to the discussion of abortion.
Either way, it's a fun discussion. Thanks for bringing that into the light swarelis. I am interested in seeing the take of others here.
> the argument being when does physical life begin.
so upon conception, there would a live being be present in the womb but not a human being? i'm more concerned about the legal implications of such a concept. if this life is not a human being then would it have human rights? as outlined by law, not natural law, man made law. if so, why? it's not a human being.
> They are merely manmade documents used only to record the life cycle of a human being
these are very important documents. they allow you to function in society. without those, you wouldn't get far. let's not miss the point here. what i'm trying to shed some light on is the fact that defining life at conception adds a lot of kinks and twists to a very simple system. you're born, you live, you die. natural and legal system accepts this sequence. if life is defined at conception, that would mean that cases would arise wherein the first two stages are no longer necessary for the last stage to occur. this is a bit skewed in my opinion. that's what i was trying to get a comment on.
you try to reconcile this by saying that human life is not necessarily a human being. you propose that a human life is different in legal terms than a human being? is this not already the case?
> Either way, birth and death certificates are state issued documents, not federal documents...
the institution that hands out these documents is irrelevant to my question.
> So on that argument, why is abortion controlled at the federal level? (Which is what I think is more important to the discussion of abortion.)
it may be more important but i really wanted to get my case analyzed and i don't feel that it was so far.
i'm still confused about how birth/death would be handled had life been defined at conception. anyone?
The paradoxical situation you describe presents a wonderful
opportunity to create an annoying new federal agency that will
issue conception certificates and certificates of prenatal death.
This new group will serve to facilitate the ongoing acclimatization of
society to the ever increasing levels of government intrusion into
everyone's private lives. It could assist in genetic screening of the
parents, intra-uterine vaccination(totally useless but harmful enough to
be attractive to the AMA), and all sorts of other NWO shenanigans.
A problem will be custom made to justify any action the government
wishes to create a constituency for. Based on their actions, this appears
to be the sort of society that most people prefer.
George II has famously stated that he and his team will not stop
thinking of ways to harm America, and based on how successful he's
been, I believe him.
a bit over the top, but your first paragraph is right on.
:-)
Apparently, he also didn't understand my comment. Death certificates are already issued for some "prenatal" deaths. Granted, they are at full or near term, but...still, the conundrum persists.
drjoanne.blogspot.com
What about a stillborn baby? A baby who lives all the way through ten months gestation and then dies during birth?
You were wrong in your assumption that these are not given death certificates. Indeed, they are issued death certificates and there is a mandate in each state for final disposition (obviously, as we're not talking about miscarriage- these deaths are much more like SIDS deaths with 7, 8, 9, 10 lb babies dying).
I do agree- manmade documents that in the end don't verify or deny life or really personhood.
drjoanne.blogspot.com
i wish there was a delete button for this sort of situation.
> I do agree- manmade documents that in the end don't verify or deny life or really personhood.
that may be a righteous opinion but it wouldn't go over too well if you were trying to claim life insurance on your spouse. so my conundrum is still unresolved...
Abhorrent as abortion is, governments are subordinate to natural law and are
unable to be empowered to supersede an individual's ownership over their own
body. (Of course they do it all the time.) Maybe the real issue is whether humans
are the property of the government, or even the populace generally, or themselves.
If we honored people's ownership of themselves, Roe would be a dead issue.
But NOOOOOooooo..a whole bunch of busybodies with too much spare time, owing
to their husband's doubtless parasitic business activities, like diverting foster children
into the international sex slave trade, want to look all P.C. and impress the KKK with
their hyper-religiosity, come up with some crazy idea like God is telling them to
control everybody else's body, and we get millennia of craziness.
Clearly you don't understand the issue or the science in the least. The abortion debate has absolutely nothing to do with the mother's body. If an unborn child was part of the woman's body the baby would have the same DNA. Obviously that is not the case. The child is no more part of my body than that pizza waiting to be digested in my stomach. Does the child have the same DNA? The same sex half the time? The same blood type even? The answer on all accounts is no. The child is a complete separate entity from the mother and is simply using the mother as a host for nutrients for seven to nine months. Is a greenhouse (the mother) and the plants inside (the child) the same entity? No When the child is born did the mother lose a part of her body? No. She gave birth to a completely separate life and allowed that child to leech off the mother's resources for development. Then you get into a debate of defining personhood. I use the word personhood instead of the word life purposefully because for centuries and even today by any kind of sane scientist's standard life starts as soon as the female's egg is fertilized. So legally we try to decide when personhood or in other words at what point someone deserves all the rights guaranteed as humans. In some cultures persosnhood doesn't begin until after infancy and subsequently infanticide (the killing of an infant) is perfectly acceptable. So when is it or is it acceptable to define personhood as anything other than when life begins? Some would claim personhood doesn't start till birth. But what makes that child any less of a human or a person the minute, the second, or even the nanosecond before birth? For that matter what is birth? If a child is partially birthed and the brains are sucked out of their skull with a syringe is that child born? Or is a child only born when the entire body is out of mother or maybe when the umbilical cord is cut? Its illogical to say that the child is less of a child in the course of several minutes and the distance between the mother's uterus and the outer world. Some people say a child isn't a person until it is sustainable. That sets a pretty poor prescedant because under that logic everyone who needed the help of modern technology to stay alive after a car accident or during a surgery lost their rights during that time they needed the help of life support and then magically regained them when they woke up or came to. Or you could extend that to children. Is a one year old able to sustain himself without being fed by its parents? Nope. So when does sustainability start and when does it end? Chances are we were all sustained at least financially by our parents until about 18-24. So during our childhood did we deserve any fewer human rights? No. You can't define personhood as anything other than conception because at that point a two humans make another. Some may say they're just a ball of cells and yes thats true. But technically when we're born we're a ball of cells a substantially larger ball of cells but just a bunch of cells nonetheless. Some may say oh well that ball of cells isn't human. Then what is it? Is it an alien zygote (the scientific name for that ball of cells)? A Feline Zygote? or is a human zygote? The zygote is the adjective describing which stage of life the human is. Just like you can say oh he is an infant human, a child human, a teenage human, an adult human, a elderly human. No difference. If you were aborted as a zygote would you be here? No. But it would have been perfectly fine for you mom to do so. Aren't you glad she didn't make that choice? Why would you wish that fate upon any of your peers? Moreover it is illogical to say life begins at any point other than conception and personhood begins at any point other than life. Therefore human rights and natural rights mustn't start at any other point other than the start of human life.
Clearly, and nothing in your discussion leads me to suspect you understand that word,
your beliefs lead you to think an individual does not have absolute sovereignty over
their own body. I disagree.
Life is sacred. As individuals we have an absolute natural right to defend ourselves against
anything we regard as a hazard to our well being. An infant in gestation may rightly be
regarded as a parasitic organism, especially in cases resulting from rape or incest, though
this is certainly not not the case in most pregnancies. This is a decision for the host organism,
and I'd never question it. At most, I'd counsel alternative ways of viewing the situation that
might lead to a more favorable outcome than abortion. A natural person in nature has several
ways to end an unwanted pregnancy, and it would not be the proper function of law to limit
their ability to contract for expert help.
To use law to deny a person a surgical abortion is to claim ownership of them on behalf of the
state, through the process of declaring them less valuable or worthy of consideration than
what they contain, i.e. dictatorial control of a subclass concealed beneath a hideous veneer
of politically correct religious and sexual hysteria. This is a manifestation of a mental illness
so common it's become a perennial political juggernaut. (Wilhelm Reich had a great deal to
say about this. See "Selected Writings".)
Greater social good will always be the argument for taking away freedom. This is the path to
forced vaccinations, chip implants, breaking up families, and the final solution to the traffic
problem, internment and liquidation of large segments of the population.
Those who bomb abortion clinics are unwittingly providing the reductio ad absurdum argument
for my position.
Good news on a related issue! The Florida State Supreme Court has ruled it's again legal to
walk about with one's underwear hanging out. Score one for the freedom lovers and gangstas.
Sadly, they also say (mandatory)school dress codes will be unaffected and remain in force. I was
just about to commence a campaign of attaching my soiled undies to legislators' car antennas
and having them arrested, with the press in attendance if possible.
"An infant in gestation may rightly be regarded as a parasitic organism, especially in cases resulting from rape or incest, though this is certainly not not the case in most pregnancies. This is a decision for the host organism, and I'd never question it."
PARASITE:
"an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment."
Did I hear you say that an unborn child can be considered a parasite? Isn't a parasite something of a different species than the host? Isn't a parasite something that attaches to someone by force? Is a human baby not the same species of its mother? Did you not make the decision to have that baby?
Even in a rape case, your baby is not a parasite. It is a human lifeform and has rights, just like other groups of people that Americans have historically tried to say are non-people.
"To use law to deny a person a surgical abortion is to claim ownership of them on behalf of the
state, through the process of declaring them less valuable or worthy of consideration than
what they contain i.e. dictatorial control of a subclass concealed beneath a hideous veneer
of politically correct religious and sexual hysteria."
These are HUGE leaps of logic. The state is claiming ownership of someone because they want to stop them from violating another person's rights? Non-sense.
To use the law to deny a baby its right to live is to claim ownership of a subclass of human beings on behalf of the state, through the process of declaring them less valuable or worthy of consideration because of how well developed they are. Once ownership is obtained, the subclass can be discarded by the state like trash under the hideous veneer of politically correct illogical non-sense.
“Money will be put under the direction of government, and the government will be put under the direction of money.”
~Philip Freneau
I absolutely think a person has absolute sovereignty over their own body. However, as I displayed an unborn child is not part of a mothers body, it may be inside it but by no means the same entity. You go onto talk about natural rights. Yet refuse to define when those rights begin. If it begins at conception then that child has as much right to his or her life as the mother. How can we define when rights begin? Every point in development other than conception is just an arbitrary line drawn in the sand. It is true that society will always advocate for the reduction of freedom in the name of the "greater social good" but since when have we had the freedom to murder without punishment? Its ironic you are blaming thinking such as mine to internment and mass "liquidation of large segments of the population" when you're type of thinking has already resulted in the "liquidation" of nearly 50 million of our peers.
Natural rights began with life itself, somewhere between the chicken and the egg. The point in a
human's development where I would delineate the existence of a new human as separate and
possessed of rights of its own is birth. Prior to this it has all the rights of any disease organism. The
various psychics who've weighed in on the issue see souls as entering a body over a range of times
and by degrees, but mostly near or shortly after the taking of first breath. The existence of in-uterine
memories does little to refute this view in my understanding.
Does a person still retain the right to refuse to harbor an implanted fetus in their womb at government
insistence, even if to do otherwise meant certain death for the fetus/zygote? I say yes, and remain
consistent in my views. What is your position on this?
I'm glad you appreciate the internment camp irony. Based on the Georgia Guidestones and the
writings of a plethora of globalists, I think that that is the plan. The neocons treasure their anti-choice
constituency so dearly, despite their own pro-genocide leanings, that I can't imagine they're referring
to contraception OR abortion, when they call for a ninety percent reduction in world population. The
irony is that they use a very public emotional hyper-religiosity as both a concealment of and a partial
means to aggrandize unto their closely held government corporation further control of people's
bodies.
You may categorize me as anti-abortion and pro-choice, until I suggest otherwise.
How does moving a couple of inches down the birth canal make that child any more of a child? What criteria all of a sudden gives it the right to live any more or any less than it did five minutes before it was born?
I think your comparison is like making a correlation between apples and oranges. The government does not have the right to force you to do something however it does have the right to make laws punishing the murderers who take the lives of the innocent. Are you against murder, battery, and assault laws? Or are they only acceptable when the person is floating in a bag of amniotic fluid? Is the government really forcing you to keep that knife in your pants and not kill the gentleman walking next to you down the street? You can say you have the freedom to do whatever you wish and you pretty much do. However, the government also has the authority to take away your freedom if you infringe on someone else's natural rights. That should be pretty much their only authority protecting life, liberty and property and punishing those who refuse to sign that unwritten social contract. I think our main difference of views is where and when life actually begins and consequently when we gain rights. I don't see any difference between a child who just had his brains sucked out through a syringe and the child who was lucky enough to live. I also see a difference between a child who has all ten fingers and toes yet can't breathe on their own.
You said,
"I think our main difference of views is where and when life actually begins and
consequently when we gain rights."
That about sums it up. The balance will serve as a reminder to me not to debate when upset.
Persons of goodwill and even similar ethical sensibilities may often disagree when their
perceptions of the facts differ.
Thank you for taking the trouble to express your views.
What's this whole natural law business? Isn't the natural law both whatever is found in nature and whatever we want it to be? Nature is both good and non-good. Nature is illogical and will always be illogical due to metaphysics. Nature dictates that I should kill my child if he develops autism at age 3 because either A he is a parasite that I may not want to host or B he is of inferior design and needs to be skimmed off my gene pool.
Is a fire that burns down a forest and kills a hundred people but restores balance to the local ecology good or bad? Natural law does not define what is good or bad, therefore is not a consistent basis for moral or social law.
“Money will be put under the direction of government, and the government will be put under the direction of money.”
~Philip Freneau
I was speaking more about natural rights. Mainly a person's right to Life, Liberty and Property. The purpose of government ought to be to punish those people who infringe on another's inalliable rights and to protect and uphold those rights. I suppose as evident by the conversation above people have different ideas of when these rights begin and end. These rights are fundamental to the Constitution (RIP) and mentioned directly in the Declaration of Independence.