Mickey Posted November 8, 2004 Posted November 8, 2004 Thanks for the well thought out answer. I understand the majority of your points except for the one about accidental births. People need to understand that there is always going to be a chance to get pregnant when they have sex. If they absolutely do not want to have a child, they should not be having sex. Period. Also, blaiming getting pregnant on being drunk is amazingly irresponsible. I have no sympathy for people who are just careless. I hope you were simply giving examples of how some people get pregnant and not justifying their pregnancies. 107817[/snapback] There is also a chance when you drive a car that you will get in an accident, can you infer consent to be in an automobile to be consent to be in an accident? Is the failure to wear a seat belt tantamount to given consent to die in an accident? What you are talking about as consent is really a concept well known in the law as "assumption of the risk". I don't imagine anyone keeps stats on this but if every women who ever got drunk then got pregnant or even a majority, there would be a lot more unwanted pregnancies than there are and our population would have "exploaded" beyond our resources long ago! Women only ovulate and are capable of conceiving for a short time each month. Even then, not every act of copulation results in a pregnancy. In fact, the odds are pretty strong that a random sexual encounter will not end in pregnancy. Is there a chance? Well of course there is always a chance but that isn't the question. When do the odds become so great that a given behaviour will lead to a particular result that we will infer intent/consent to the result by virtue of the intent/consent to the behaviour? It is like a drunk driver. Drunk drivers do not intend to kill anyone. "I thought I was okay to drive" they always say. Now if the person had two beers, you might say that he didn't assume the risk of driving drunk because the likelihood that his ability to drive was all that impaired or that he knew it was from two lousy beers is too small. If he had 15 beers and then drove, it is easier to infer that he assumed the risk of killing someone, knew it was a risk and went ahead and drove anyway. The inquiry depends on circumstances. Sexual encounters occur with an infinite number of variables. You can certainly take issue with the examples I gave but that misses the point. You can't make a one size fits all rule that all pregnancies except ones resulting from rape and incest are the result of irresponsible behaviour. Circumstances matter. That is what incest and rape are, they are simply "circumstances" under which there is some agreement, not necessarily complete, that the pregnancy is not the result of irresponsibility and is therfore ethically eligible to be terminated. Your position already acknowledges that circumstances matter, I am just trying to show that given the variety of human encounters and behaviour, you can't just make a universal judgment that all such pregnancies are the result of irresponsibility and therefore are not eligible for termination. Ultimately the argument turns on the question of who will be given the power to make this decision. I think individuals should and not the government.
Berg Posted November 8, 2004 Posted November 8, 2004 Could the people who are "pro-choice" please explain to me your reasons for wanting to keep abortions legal? Please try to leave out cases of rape or saving the mother's life because I can understand the thinking behind that. I am trying to understand why people thing killing an unborn child is ok. I'm not trying to attack you, I truly just want to see what your thoughts are on this issue and why you are "pro-choice". I feel that the woman has the choice to choose not to get pregnant in the first place, and she should make that choice before it even gets to pregnancy. After that, it is the woman's (and father's) responsibility to take care of the child they created. By the way, "Jane Roe" from Roe vs. Wade later admitted that she was not actually raped and has since tried to pass laws to abolish on demand abortion. 105584[/snapback] Simple. This is not something the Federal Government should be involved in.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted November 8, 2004 Posted November 8, 2004 Simple. This is not something the Federal Government should be involved in. 108187[/snapback] Exactly. So NO abortion clinic should get federal or state monies.
Mickey Posted November 8, 2004 Posted November 8, 2004 Draconian measures are necessary in this case, IMO. Here's the problem, it's of the chicken and egg variety: 1) Most children sired by teenagers happen to be born to parents who themselves come from broken homes, and most likely poor households. 2) These children of children are themselves going to grow up in a fractured home, and one that is likely impoverished to boot. 3) Since the children who are born to these teenage mothers are more likely to grow up poor themselves, they are far more likely to grow up under-educated and therefore are much more likely to spawn children of their own before their 18th birthday. So, at some point the cycle has to be broken and the more I think about it.... If the "logic" of abortion is that it's OK to kill unborn children for whatever reason, then shouldn't the government, in all its wisdom, put an end to the cycle of abortioneering by breaking the poverty/youth pregnancy cycle through mandatory sterilization of anyone who fathers or mothers a child under the age of 18? I mean, if we're talking about the good of the country here, I think it'd be far more humane and effective to cut off the baby-making machine at the source, not the end product. So my solution is this...allow these kids to have their one child. Then snippity-snip and the problem goes away. Same for anyone who receives an abortion at a taxpayer-funded clinic for reasons other than the health of the mother. Snip-snip, we suddenlyhave population growth control AND a reduction in poverty! Brilliant! 108126[/snapback] Gee, whenever I suggest that the pro-life position is really just a subtext for a government seizure the womb, I am told I am over reacting. Here it is, clear as an unmuddied lake. Forced sterilization. O brave new world. You seem to assume that pregnant teenagers are the only ones having abortions. That is certainly not the case. You also assume that all pregnant teenagers are from broken homes which is also certainly not the case. You also assume that all pregnant teenagers are unable to care for themselves or their children which, unless being wealthy is a perfect form of birth control, is also certainly not the case. Would pregnant teenagers from wealthy backgrounds who can care for themselves without help from the government be excluded from your program of forced sterilization? Would a mother who is pregnant in her thirties with a child she can ill afford to raise be eligible for forced sterilization as well? How do you determine when it is that a mother "can't afford" a child? What is the income level that would spare her entry into the forced sterilization program? What if a mother gets laid off from her job during her pregnancy, would she then be sent for a, how did you so gently put it, "snip-snip"? If a woman sentenced to forced sterilization refuses, can we jail her? Physically force her in to the stirrups? If someone helps her avoid arrest, can we arrest them for aiding and abetting a fugitive? If a doctor refuses to do the state's bidding, will he lose his license to practice medicine? Since it really is money that you are focusing on, why not just automatically sterilize anyone making less than "X" amount of money? Even better, just sterilize everyone with a reversible procedure. Have them apply to the state when they reach a certain age and can afford the license, the price for which could be set so that only those who really can "afford" a child would be able to buy the license. We could check to make sure that the home is not a "broken" one and that the parenst are not likely to get divorced anytime soon. We could make whatever other rules seem like a good idea and save even more tax dollars. Then we would just reverse the sterilization procedure and off they go. To the far left is socialism and to the right of that, liberals and to the right of them, conservatives and to the right of them, fascists. Since you are not a socialist or liberal, the line you have crossed is the last one, from conservative to fascist.
Berg Posted November 8, 2004 Posted November 8, 2004 Exactly. So NO abortion clinic should get federal or state monies. 108243[/snapback] No Federal involvement PERIOD. States, well, that's a more complex question. My druthers would be they stay out too.
TracyLee Posted November 8, 2004 Posted November 8, 2004 So my solution is this...allow these kids to have their one child. Then snippity-snip and the problem goes away. Same for anyone who receives an abortion at a taxpayer-funded clinic for reasons other than the health of the mother. What if she was raped? What if a thirteen year old girl gets pregnant and her parents force her to have an abortion? She should be fixed so she can't have kids in the future? Where are the irresponsible fathers in all of this? Not their body, not their problem? What if he says its not his kid at the time of the abortion to avoid the "snippity-snip"? Who pays for DNA extraction to prove he is or isn't? What if the mother won't say who is the father? You cannot sterilize children under the age of 18. Kids make mistakes, that's why they're kids. That's why they need direction and guidance from their parents, even well past the age of 18. Even then, there are no guarantees that our kids will not make major mistakes somewhere along the way. They'll probably make bigger mistakes as adults then they would as kids. Like get divorced, be sued, get arrested, go to jail. Have five kids with five different people. Stuff like that. Everybody makes mistakes. Abortion is not a cut and dried issue. No one really knows exactly when life begins.
Mickey Posted November 8, 2004 Posted November 8, 2004 Exactly. So NO abortion clinic should get federal or state monies. 108243[/snapback] Please show me what "abortion clinic" receives federal $? Provide link. My understanding is that the Hyde Amendment, passed by congress in 1976, prohibited federal funding of abortion in that it is not covered by medicaid with the only exceptions being when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest or when the pregnancy endangers the mother's life due to injury, illness or other physical disorder. Four states provide funding for low income women as they would for any other procedure (HI, MD, NY and WA). Thirteen others do but only because their state courts determined that such funding was mandated by their state constitutions (AK, AZ, CA, CT, IL, MA, MN, MT, NJ, NM, OR, VT, and WV). The remaining 32 states only provide funding in line with the sharp prohibitions of the Hyde Amendment. Additional restrictions on such funding beyond those of the Hyde Amendment are also in place. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 allows HMO's serving medicaid recipients to refuse, on moral grounds (there's a hoot, HMO's as arbiters of morality), to provide counsleing or refferals for reproductive services including abortion. The Hyde prohibitions do not apply just to medicaid recipients. Similar prohibitions apply to military personnel and their dependents, federal employess and their dependents, many Native Americans, Peace Corps volunteers, low income residents of DC and disabled women who are on medicare. Unless you live in those few states, there is no tax money going to abortion. As for federal cash, they don't pay for abortion except in those limited circumstances. If your argument is that a woman who is too poor to pay for the procedure who is raped and impregnated as a result should be forced to carry the child to term simply because she is poor, you need to make that clear because that is when "federal funding" for abortion comes in.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted November 8, 2004 Posted November 8, 2004 To the far left is socialism and to the right of that, liberals and to the right of them, conservatives and to the right of them, fascists. Since you are not a socialist or liberal, the line you have crossed is the last one, from conservative to fascist. 108247[/snapback] AHA. Well if you REALLY think I believe that, then you haven't read a single thing I've posted. I am ANTI-ABORTION. Therefore, I believe the sanctity of life is such that you don't mess with the womb. Period. So then, forced sterilization wouldn't be much of an option in my book, would it? Ever heard of hyperbole? I was making a point that when you allow the state to futz with issues of "choice", you open the door to China-like interference. The point is here, Mick, that there is NO WAY federal or state tax monies should go to support abortion, even IF it's legal (which it shouldn't be). It does, however, and that sets a dangerous precedent. The day will come in this country when social engineering such as this takes place...in the name of stem cells, research, "science" and environmental concerns. And easy access to abortion is the first step. It delegitimizes the BABY in the womb to the point where it's OK to do science fair experiments on it. A fascist indeed....really Mick. Now who's exaggerating?
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted November 8, 2004 Posted November 8, 2004 What if she was raped? What if a thirteen year old girl gets pregnant and her parents force her to have an abortion? She should be fixed so she can't have kids in the future? Where are the irresponsible fathers in all of this? Not their body, not their problem? What if he says its not his kid at the time of the abortion to avoid the "snippity-snip"? Who pays for DNA extraction to prove he is or isn't? What if the mother won't say who is the father? You cannot sterilize children under the age of 18. Kids make mistakes, that's why they're kids. That's why they need direction and guidance from their parents, even well past the age of 18. Even then, there are no guarantees that our kids will not make major mistakes somewhere along the way. They'll probably make bigger mistakes as adults then they would as kids. Like get divorced, be sued, get arrested, go to jail. Have five kids with five different people. Stuff like that. Everybody makes mistakes. Abortion is not a cut and dried issue. No one really knows exactly when life begins. 108270[/snapback] See my response to Mickey. My argument "for" sterilization was really one "against" abortion. No sane human being wwould advocate such barbarism. Just making a point about "choice" in the face of the sanctity of life.
Mickey Posted November 8, 2004 Posted November 8, 2004 What if she was raped? What if a thirteen year old girl gets pregnant and her parents force her to have an abortion? She should be fixed so she can't have kids in the future? Where are the irresponsible fathers in all of this? Not their body, not their problem? What if he says its not his kid at the time of the abortion to avoid the "snippity-snip"? Who pays for DNA extraction to prove he is or isn't? What if the mother won't say who is the father? You cannot sterilize children under the age of 18. Kids make mistakes, that's why they're kids. That's why they need direction and guidance from their parents, even well past the age of 18. Even then, there are no guarantees that our kids will not make major mistakes somewhere along the way. They'll probably make bigger mistakes as adults then they would as kids. Like get divorced, be sued, get arrested, go to jail. Have five kids with five different people. Stuff like that. Everybody makes mistakes. Abortion is not a cut and dried issue. No one really knows exactly when life begins. Legally, child who had not attained the age of majority, 18 in most states, is not capable of giving consent to any thing. Therefore, they can't be held to the terms of a contract. Any consent they give to a sexual encounter is disregarded and the other participant is guilty of statutory rape. On the one hand, when it suits us, we take the position that a child is not mature enough to be able to appreciate the risks of an act so as to give meaningful consent. At the same time, we want to impose adult responsibility on them when it suits us. And the right accuses us of situational ethics. 108270[/snapback]
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted November 8, 2004 Posted November 8, 2004 Please show me what "abortion clinic" receives federal $? Provide link. 108318[/snapback] If your boy John Kerry had been elected, they would have. He REPEATEDLY stated his intent to make sure abortion was available in EVERY doctor's office in the nation. Lovely. Think of all the bags of mangled baby parts and blood that would have produced. When introduced in conjunction with socialized medicine, well...there you have it. All of the sudden the federal government would have been sponsoring mass abortioneering.
Mickey Posted November 8, 2004 Posted November 8, 2004 AHA. Well if you REALLY think I believe that, then you haven't read a single thing I've posted. I am ANTI-ABORTION. Therefore, I believe the sanctity of life is such that you don't mess with the womb. Period. So then, forced sterilization wouldn't be much of an option in my book, would it? Ever heard of hyperbole? I was making a point that when you allow the state to futz with issues of "choice", you open the door to China-like interference. The point is here, Mick, that there is NO WAY federal or state tax monies should go to support abortion, even IF it's legal (which it shouldn't be). It does, however, and that sets a dangerous precedent. The day will come in this country when social engineering such as this takes place...in the name of stem cells, research, "science" and environmental concerns. And easy access to abortion is the first step. It delegitimizes the BABY in the womb to the point where it's OK to do science fair experiments on it. A fascist indeed....really Mick. Now who's exaggerating? 108331[/snapback] Read my other post on funding, the idea that the government plays a major role in paying for abortions is overblown. Giving the state control over the womb by giving it the power to forbid terminating a pregnancy is a step towards, not away from, the very "engineering" by the state you decry. It gives the government the right to interefere with reproductive choice. Roe keeps them out of the womb. The government has no right nor even an enhanced potential to have such a right to force an abortion. If you give it the power to force a birth, you give it the power to force an abortion. A point Justice O'Connor has made in abortion cases. Roe would prevent the state from forcing a woman who wants to take her child to term to have an abortion just as it prevents the state from stopping her from making that choice on her own. If you don't want the state to "futz" with issues of choice, then why are you in favor of them not only "futzing" with choice but with making it illegal to make a "choice" to terminate a pregnancy? If you are willing to give them that power, you are closer to giving them the power to force sterilization. You may have meant it as hyperbole but being in favor of forced sterilization and in favor of forcing a woman to carry a child to term are pretty consistent.
Mickey Posted November 8, 2004 Posted November 8, 2004 If your boy John Kerry had been elected, they would have. He REPEATEDLY stated his intent to make sure abortion was available in EVERY doctor's office in the nation. Lovely. Think of all the bags of mangled baby parts and blood that would have produced. When introduced in conjunction with socialized medicine, well...there you have it. All of the sudden the federal government would have been sponsoring mass abortioneering. 108345[/snapback] Yes, and all we would have had to do was repeal the Hyde Amendment by getting a republican controlled congress and senate to agree. Yeah. Is that what all those posts were about? Staking out your opposition to that which is not occurring and hasn't been since 1976 and is unlikely to ever occur unless there is a dramatic shift in the political makeup of both houses of Congress? Glad we got that straight. Now maybe you can tell us where you stand on flying cars, anti-gravity boots and warp drive?
OnTheRocks Posted November 8, 2004 Posted November 8, 2004 Exactly. So NO abortion clinic should get federal or state monies. 108243[/snapback] something that makes me madder than a wet hen.
OnTheRocks Posted November 8, 2004 Posted November 8, 2004 What if she was raped? 108270[/snapback] i don't want to get pulled too deeply into this thread because...well....just because and let me leave it that....but does anyone know what percentage of women who are raped....get pregnant? i am not looking to play devil's advocate...i am just curious.
Mickey Posted November 8, 2004 Posted November 8, 2004 something that makes me madder than a wet hen. 108380[/snapback] They don't get any federal cash. Only 17 get state money and that is because in 4 of them, the legislatures, ie "the people" decided that they wanted too.
Arondale Posted November 8, 2004 Posted November 8, 2004 Just a couple of comments. I am pro-life and I do not believe abortion is right in any circumstance, so that is where I am coming from. One of the arguments that has come up several times is the fear of future consequences if abortion is made legal. In other words, what impact will the 1 million plus aborted babies have on the nation if they are all allowed to live. Someone said it would be worse to allow a child to be born into poverty and to parents that did not want her than to be killed in the womb. Someone else said once abortion is legal it will make it more dangerous for women since they will have to risk getting an "underground" abortion. Another said the problem of poor, single mothers would only get worse. The issue with all of these arguments is taking one life over another. I believe most of those that posted along these lines said they were personally against abortion, but still pro-choice. Using these arguments basically is dangerous for several reasons. First, by doing so you are valuing one life more so than another based on their impact to society. In other words, an unwanted child's life is of no value. A woman's life is of more value than the baby she carries. A baby born into poverty is of no value and erodes the value of the mother. Who are we to determine which life is more valuable? What do we use to make that determination? Is value determined by potential, economic factors, age, sex, etc? If we start putting a value to each person's life, then we are in trouble. It won't be long before the elderly that are stuck in nursing homes are viewed as expendable. After that, kids with disabilities and down syndrome will be killed at birth. I fully realize there are issues to deal with if abortion is to be made illegal. I don't believe, as someone mentioned, that pro-life advocates only care about the nine month period during a pregnancy and don't pay attention to pre-natal care and after birth care. You can have your opinion, but that is certainly not the case with the people and organizations I am familiar with. The reality is that things would have to be improved, but just because current social programs may not be ready, does not mean we should continue to allow abortion. To the woman who said she did not know anyone who waited until marriage - now you do, and I could get you in touch with hundreds of others. Abstinence is a valid solution, just as it is a valid solution in the fight against AIDS. Your solution of having sex to test out a potential spouse is part of the problem that started abortion. I'm sure I'll get hammered for this, but history supports the fact that sex was intended to be part of marriage only. If you don't think so, then look at reality. Think about this, if an entire generation practiced abstinence and sex within marriage what would happen - AIDS would be virtually eliminated and abortions would be greatly diminished. A worldview that supports sexual promiscuity is a worldview that accepts the consequences of STD's and huge abortion numbers.
OnTheRocks Posted November 8, 2004 Posted November 8, 2004 They don't get any federal cash. Only 17 get state money and that is because in 4 of them, the legislatures, ie "the people" decided that they wanted too. 108388[/snapback] and who decided for the other 9 states?
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted November 8, 2004 Posted November 8, 2004 If you give it the power to force a birth, you give it the power to force an abortion. A point Justice O'Connor has made in abortion cases. Roe would prevent the state from forcing a woman who wants to take her child to term to have an abortion just as it prevents the state from stopping her from making that choice on her own. 108376[/snapback] Roe, AFAIK has NO PROVISION explicitly stating that the government cannot force an abortion, even as it does have one that prevents the state from making such an abortion illegal. Do you have a link that shows where such a provision exists? And, in the future, what would stop the courts from broadening Roe's domain? Once you open a legal door, it's kind of hard to close it again.
Berg Posted November 8, 2004 Posted November 8, 2004 and who decided for the other 9 states? 108412[/snapback] Is this a trick question or "fuzzy math"?
Recommended Posts