| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 9/2/2007 12:30:00 AM | Having just answered the question from the opening topic, I’d like to continue on to some issues raised in the rest of the post.
There was some discussion regarding the definition pro-life. This is not a word, phrase or idea that can possibly extend to encompass every possible event that falls under the heading of lethal harm. There are just too many possibilities that would only serve to show the contradictions of one claiming to be pro-life, without exception. One such example can be made from a recent post to this topic.
Post: MSG 167
“One who favors the death penalty is NOT pro life. NUFF SAID”
Unfortunately there is more to say. A previous statement meant to confirm this person’s conviction to being a pro-life advocate, stated
“We have jails for violent murderers. Lock them up and leave them there for the rest of their lives. ONE murder, and you are done. No more of this rapists or murderers getting off in three years. I say that we use the jails for what they are for, and if someone who is really innocent is in jail, release him. If someone was executed and then found innocent, you cannot give the man his life back. If you are really pro life, you cannot POSSIBLY support the death penalty too, because an innocent person could be murdered while using the death penalty.”
Prisons were never meant to "harbor" criminals and the punishment metered by conviction was meant to be a time of rehabilation – not a time to allow for endless repudiations of ones guilt. We have created a legal system meant to protect the innocent. It allows enough time and enough chances to warrant enough investigation and evidence to be heard.
If there are rare cases in which society believes that a person can never become socially adaptable again, then it is actually much more humane and efficient to invoke a death penalty. I find it rather obsurd that so little logic and understanding is applied by those who profess to be pro-life in these situations. Is it their suggestion that an easy life at the expense of the general public and without vindication of those this person harmed, is the best solution? Or are you suggesting punishment, a lifetime of hell, with no parole, the equivalent of cruel and unusual punishment. Both scenarios seem unworthy of a pro-life morality.
This is just one argument against using the term pro-life as an all encompassing live based morality. It can only be used in the context of a given example.
Since the abortion issue has arisen, I thought using some ethical foundations in examening the question was in order. Here are some facts related to this issue.
We do not live in a commune. We do not have socialized
medacine, we do not all share the fruits of our individual labors as an
extended family. We do not bear children with any idea that we may be
contributing the next best thing to humanity that ever existed. We do
not bear a child and then vote within a community on how to raise this
child nor is there even any personal contact between a baby and every
individual of a community. The fact is, many children do not even have
an extended family. We are a society of individuals, and it is my
choice as to whom, I divulge my bodily functions. And what I divulge to my
physician is between me and my physician and can not, should not ever be
put in front of public eyes much less up for a vote. ALL OF THAT IS FACT.
Also fact, a physician does not have to perform abortions if they feel morally unable to do so. Also fact, a man has never been known to conceive or give birth and at this point it is not medically a possibility so an individual man also has no say at all much less a vote for what an individual woman does with her body.
From the above facts logic would conclude the following.
If any conditions are placed on anyone's individual rights over their own
bodies, than the laws that were meant to uphold those rights are
erroneous, and do not give us rights at all. This is not a stand against men or any single man, it is not a stand
against religion. This is the only possible logical conclusion, at this
time, for people who expect entitlement to certain inalienable rights.
Those rights include what a person does with their own body, and under the law it is no one’s business what transpires between an individual and their physician.
Even in the case of epidemics, the tracing of infection is by subject label and not by name. | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 9/2/2007 8:58:56 AM | | I still hold fast to the belief that it is bogus to call oneself "pro-life" and be in favor of the death penalty. The death penalty is nothing more than state sanctioned murder. | |
|
JTDadd
|
Joined: 8/10/2007
Msg: 178 | |
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 12/3/2007 5:09:26 PM | 2wheel, I agree completely with what you said about the pro-lifers who are campaigning against abortion. If they are doing all of those things, then they can say something about it.
Personally, I have been part of an abortion that was (needless to say) not welcomed. The woman I was dating had twins that were barely over a year old, and she had told me her tubes were tied when they were born. Yes, I was in the wrong for not using protection, but I did not want any more kids, and knowing that we had just started dating 4 months beforehand I was not sure we would be together to raise the child. She was collecting unemployment, had 2 grown kids who were living on the system, and was living at home with her mom. Neither of us had the financial ability to raise another child properly alone, and neither of us wanted any more. We made the decision to get the abortion.
Do I feel the fetus had a soul? NO! Do I feel it had rights? Our legal system does not allow you to use your rights until you are 18 years of age, so NO! Do I feel my children, and her other children have had a better life without the financial and psychological burden of another child? YES! Should the government or anyone else have a say in wether or not we had this child? NO!!! It is known as "Freedom of choice" and it is one of the things that our forefathers died for, and our sons, daughters, nieces, and nephews are fighting for today.
So many people want to stick their noses in everyone else's business when they shouldn't, and try to tell them how to think, act, and feel. But, when those same people are asked to help someone, they turn away from them as if they are diseased and afraid it might be contagious. Where are the solutions to the problems that would be created by the unwanted babies? Where is the money to raise them going to come from? Who is going to tell the child of a woman who was raped and not allowed to have an abortion that their father was a rapist? Why force her to carry the memories of that experience with her for 9 months?
I have seen arguments for both sides of this issue, and both have valid points. The simple fact is: if the majority always spoke for the minority, african americans and women wouldn't have the right to vote, smokers wouldn't be allowed to light up anywhere legally, and gas would be under 50 cents a gallon in the states. | |
|
JTDadd
|
Joined: 8/10/2007
Msg: 179 | |
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 12/3/2007 6:36:09 PM |
In the case of rape, I only have a very humble opinion, I find it hard to believe that taking the life of that unborn will reduce whatever harm was done to the victim/mother. I do believe the rapist needs to be held fiscally responsible either directly or indirectly for that child for 18-20 years,,, of course no hint of parental rights, that would be a debt that can never be forgiven and is completely separate from any other justice that finds him or reduction/degree of offense.
indkyperson, as I asked in my other post, who is going to tell that child that their father is a rapist? Do you have any idea what percentage of rape cases are actually solved? I don't, but I am thinking it probably isn't very high. Make them fiscally responsible? RIGHT!!! They are going to make a BUNCH of money while they serve their prison term for the rape that produced the unwanted child that you are going to force the mother to carry, then go through the trauma of separating themselves from to give up for adoption. I am also thinking that the majority of the men who would rape a woman are going to be about as good with paying on that as most men who are in prison are with child support.
Sorry, but the reality of this whole thing is that you are trying to make a decision about the rest of a person's life without knowing their situation. How would you like it if there was someone following you around telling you what you could or could not eat, what clothes you could wear, who you could or could not associate with, etc.? I know these are not the same situations, but it is the same principle. | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 12/3/2007 7:58:34 PM | Good point, JT. I also feel that there are times when an abortion is a tragic necessity, particularly in the case of a rape that results in pregnancy. I don't care for the use of abortion as a form of birth control, but I understand that there are times when the circumstances make an early term abortion preferable to the traumatic reminder of the rape during the pregnancy.
Plan B should always be legal, to provide the emergency contraceptive that prevents the need for a surgical abortion and even more trauma for the rape victim. | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 12/3/2007 8:17:46 PM | | Abortion is the main reason I'll vote for a Candidate.....I read on an eearlier post that abortion is between a woman and her lover..Well hun I hate too say this, you and your lover should have been more responsible with your bodies and not had unprotected sex, you have free choice, wether too protect yourself or not, if you don't than don't blame the unborn child for your ignorance....Kind of amazing we have more laws protecting pets then we do the unborn....So yes if the candidate is pro life, he has gotten my vote...The only time abortion should be allowed is in cases of saving the mothers life, rape, molestation, or incest... | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 12/4/2007 5:36:50 AM | | I wouldn't vote for or against a candidate for this sole reason or answer but I am pro choice so I do pay attention to the answers on this. | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 12/4/2007 7:41:52 PM | | I agree with uwish--I would not vote for a candidate solely on his position on the abortion issue. With that said, I could never vote for someone who calls himself "pro life" but supports the death penalty. | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 12/5/2007 9:54:07 AM | there is no right answer to this question, somebody asked about abortion in the case of rape, well iam sure that is a real small % of the abortions preformed.heres my questions to each group
pro life- what are you going to do for that child once its born, are you going to raise it , feed it , nuture it, pay for its school,teach it? are u even going to stay a part of its life to make sure its doing alright, make sure its being taken care of? are you?
pre-choice- so u think its a good idea that people can just do as they please and not have to pay a price, how does that teach responability.so just go have sex with any or everybody u want to and if u get knocked up due to your own irresponsability , well dont worry about it, go snuff out a innocent life!!
my point of this is that both sides can make very vaild points, in my opinion this should not be a decesion that somebody in washington should be making,it should be about resonability , not a politcal affilition | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 12/5/2007 9:25:19 PM |
What about in cases of rape?
In cases of rape, a medical examiner will check the victim. If evidence is collected then there are tablets available to prevent pregnancy after rape. | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 12/7/2007 12:22:53 AM | This was a question raised by my history teacher in my final year of high-school. We were studying eugenics programs of the past like mandatory sterilization to handicapped people so they could not procreate.
The situation is you know a child that is to be born of a mother with syphilis in the late 1700's and the resulting reverberations of that child is that it will eventually go deaf and blind. Basically being a drain on society, and will need special attention all of its life. Would it be prudent and humane to end the suffering of the child before it even happened?
If you answered that question "yes that would be prudent" You are responsible for killing Beethoven. Remember you never know that you might kill the child that creates cold fusion. That is a gamble no human should be willing to take. Sad part is, is that we may have already done this. | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 12/7/2007 12:49:01 AM | | I admit I am Canadian, and American politics has a huge impact here. Several years ago a man in Montreal petitioned the Supreme Court of Canada because his ex was going to abort. Being of solid financial means and willing to take full responsibility to rear the child, an injunction against her to have an abortion was levied by the court. One of the more controversial decisions in Canadian Law.Within a few days she crossed the border and aborted. The basis of the injunction that the supreme court ruled is his DNA was half responsible for the creation of the child. Should men in the United States have the right to stop an abortion if they want the child? | |
|
JDMPH
|
Joined: 11/22/2007
Msg: 188 | |
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 12/8/2007 1:13:05 AM | The U.S. Supreme Court is just a single vote away from overturning Roe v. Wade. If everyone who claims to be pro-choice (polls show as many as 80% of the American public is) voted for a pro-choice presidential candidate, not only would Roe continue to be the law of the land, but the privacy of all of us would be guaranteed. Reproductive choice is not just about abortion, it is about the right to choose to have a baby as well as the right to use all forms of contraception. The Chinese one-child family policy is a pretty good example of what happens when the government controls reproduction to the detriments of human rights.
As a health educator working in county public health clinics for 10 years, I provided family planning education and objective pregnancy counseling to thousands of women. I can honestly say that not one of them took their responsibility to prevent pregnancy lightly. But contraceptive methods are not infallible, and neither are humans---men as well as women.
It is so easy to judge others. Women have abortions for many reasons, most often because they cannot afford another child.
More alarming to me is the increase in teen pregnancies after decades of effective contraceptive use. Apparently, abstinance education is not working.
Thousands of children are languishing in the foster care system. One million abortions are performed in the U.S. annually. Where will all those babies go if Roe is overturned and abortion becomes illegal once again? In that event, we'd better start building more orphanages, as well as more prisons.
Still think abortion is irrelevant to choosing a candidate? | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 12/8/2007 2:52:57 AM | | Only if they treat it as a political issue. Next candidate... | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 12/10/2007 1:24:28 PM | Dear jdmph you saying about the increase in teenage pregnancies is way off base! See the line/disscusion on teenage pregnancies. It is percentage wise down, just a larger population makes it seem like an epidemic refer to limestonelady's list of the chart. You are right about abstinance teaching not working. I find it ironic that there is a line about human rights when this is a line about the stopping of human life. We are mammals, and the First world has a birth rate of 1.8 to the familys current. It takes a birth rate of 2.3 to maintain the status-quo. In other words the population is decreasing in North America and Western Europe. With almost 30% of the workforce retiring in the next 7-12 years we need as many children as possible to maintain our standard of life. No-body anywhere wants to pay more tax to support pension systems. We have developed a civilization based on population......
As for building more orphanages or prisons, that is society. The only way to end this debate is for the U.S. government to hold a REFERENDUM. That is what a TRUE DEMOCRACY would do. How hard would it be to create a petition in the States to get a Total of 25 million signatures to create the protocol for a vote on this issue. (Around 10% of the population) | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 12/12/2007 5:54:07 AM |
pro life- what are you going to do for that child once its born, are you going to raise it , feed it , nuture it, pay for its school,teach it? are u even going to stay a part of its life to make sure its doing alright, make sure its being taken care of? are you?
Exactly why I think people should be free to make their own choices - if my having a baby doesnt impact someone else personally (or anything else I do in my life for that matter) then its none of their business how I conduct my life
pre-choice- so u think its a good idea that people can just do as they please and not have to pay a price, how does that teach responability.so just go have sex with any or everybody u want to and if u get knocked up due to your own irresponsability , well dont worry about it, go snuff out a innocent life!!
And I agree with this also - I have known some women that have had multiple abortions and have flat out told them that birth control would work better - but its their choice | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 12/12/2007 5:38:04 PM | | If abortion is outlawed, then so should all reproductive services... | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 12/12/2007 5:52:49 PM | Reproductive services dont destroy life, they prevent it.
Abortion is goes beyond that and is unconstitutional- it deprives an individual of life without due process of law.
Why else do abortion advocates make it an issue of choice for the mother, while the life of the baby is ignored? Well then again part of that is concious. | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 12/12/2007 6:08:04 PM | | It's a tough issue for me because a critical component is when does life actually begin. I don't think there is a clear cut answer to that question. If we do answer the question, and the issue then becomes a battle between the rights of children and the rights of women, the rights of children then wins. | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 12/14/2007 7:58:49 AM | | No matter how you view it, abortion and the reproductive services tamper with the natures status quo. And how about this... It's all just biology, and nothing more. | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 2/2/2008 11:46:52 PM | | Bush is also Pro life. A much better option than Kerry would have been. | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 2/3/2008 12:02:04 AM |
Bush is also Pro life. A much better option than Kerry would have been.
Yes, because look at how Bush outlawed abortion.
No wait he didn't. | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 2/3/2008 11:24:33 AM | Just hurry up and overturn Rowe v. Wade and let the State's have the right to pass law regarding the subject like it use to be. I live in CA so this won't affect me regardless because if the religious control freaks get it overturned at the federal level then it will still be legal in CA and other blue states. So rest assured when the daughters of Christians get pregnant at 16 years of age there will still be a place in America where she can receive a safe abortion and not have to go to some hack in a back alley. Modern day anti-abortion advocates never had to accept the harsh realities of wire hanger abortions.
Do anti-abortion activists actually think that if abortion becomes illegal then it will go away? That rosey outlook would make one think that prisons are unnecessary. | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 2/3/2008 11:36:16 AM |
Do anti-abortion activists actually think that if abortion becomes illegal then it will go away?
Anti drug laws don't make drug use go away.
Anti violence laws don't make violence go away.
Which laws make any problem go away?
If abortion is deemed a crime against children, a law against that crime is required. | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 2/3/2008 12:16:52 PM | Theres some pretty simple things that all of you seem to be missing here.
I would argue that anyone with no birth certificate is not legally alive and therefor cannot be considered murdered. Fetuses, until very late in their development, arent really people. Just like sperm and eggs arent people.
Also, I wonder if any of you had read the very popular book Freakanomics. It draws distinct links between outlawed abortion and higher crime rates. I have decidedly over- simplified the arguments for space concerns, but all you folks should take a read.
Babies born into families that dont want them or cant support them dont exactly have a bright future. Theres not much to look forward to with a situation like that. And lets face it, we're overpopulated and getting more so every day because too many people are too dumb to use condoms. Anything that will slow population growth by regulating birth is okay in my book.
Also, i have a question. This one is for the pro-life folks. Why did you choose to be pro-life? Was it just because you enjoy fighting for the rights of undeveloped people, or is there something deeper im missing. ... | |
|
Home
login 
