As the state of South Dakota moves to bring in a ban on abortion, “LaLa Leftist Land” reacts . Pedro provides the colour commentary;
My choice for Constitutional Amendment #28: the State should preserve the woman’s right to have a hot, tight, and firm body forever.
Via Maxed Out Mama, who has additional comments worth your time, (regardless of your position on the issue).
According to the book Freakenomics, the reason for the steady drop in crime in many US cities is abortion. Less Black and Hispanic children being born in the projects apparently. Let the moonbats on the left justify that against their cornerstone of protecting minority rights and the poor.
In some U.S. cities they’ve started pilot programs whereby students from inner city and high crime area schools are given field trip to the city morgue. Originally these programs were put in place to orient little Tyrone and Shaneekwa as to exactly how to go about finding thier way around the facility and who to speak to in order to identify the remains of thier recently departed classmate, on the wrong end of a crack deal gone bad.
Since this program was put in place, some school districts have expanded the program to target the high risk youth who already have a history in violent crime and those on a first name basis with their friendly neighborhood magistrate. In the new program the kids get feild trips to the pathology department and are forced to sit in on autopsies. Yep, they get to see the doctor make that large y-shaped incision and pull out the steaming inards of their local gang member to see if it was the twenty five bullets that killed him, or if he was poisoned with hemlock.
Another hit with the students is the high speed rotary saw that removes the top of the skull which facilitates scooping out the brain. (Wow, and to think that babies brains are stabbed with scissors, the pathologist has the audacity to use such a precision instrument to make such an impressive cut! Why do dead people get preferential treatment?)
Those students with weak constitutions are encouraged to hold on to one another when the intestines are flushed out and cut into small calamari sized rings, ran through a blender and sent off to the lab’s hemlock detector.
I propose mandatory school field trips to all “Brain Suckers ‘R Us” franchises. Not just for the skanks and druggies, but the “pretty girls” too. You know the type: Meet Bambi. She’s the one with the mauve colored Dodge Neon working in the marketing department. Quite pretty, a Daddy’s girl, wears here clothes too tight. She’s had a few boyfriends, nothing too serious. Took a trip to Mexico with a couple of the gals from work, had too many umbrella drinks and ended up slapping uglies with Dexter the local Speedo stud and his little swimmers got the job done.
All these gals (and boys of likeminded attitude) should get to see the inner workings of the abortion clinic in a “try before you buy” sort of visit.
Why do we have to sugar coat everything? Abortion is HARDLY a “simple medical proceedure” done in comfort and annonimity of your doctor’s office. Having your blood pressure taken is a simple medical proceedure. Abortion, like an autopsy, is a bloody and ugly “proceedure”.
I say give the kids (and adults) ALL the information then let them decide if an orgasm is worth all the extra baggage.
I apologize to Kate for being “colourful”.
William Macdonell
the Genie was out of the bottle thousands of years ago when hipocrates made his oath.
” and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion. ”
http://sprojects.mmi.mcgill.ca/ethics/X/topics/hippocrat/hippocrat1.htm
Course now the U of M will not let you graduate as a doctor if you don’t believe in killing babies.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.pathlights.com/abortion/abort11.htm
Behaviorally speaking, there’s little difference between a newborn baby and a 32-week-old fetus. A new wave of research suggests that the fetus can feel, dream, even enjoy “The Cat in the Hat.” The abortion debate will never be the same.
…
– By nine weeks, a developing fetus can hiccup and react to loud noises. By the end of the second trimester, it can hear.
– Just as adults do, the fetus experiences the rapid eye movement (REM) sleep of dreams.
– The fetus savors its mother’s meals, first picking up the food tastes of a culture in the womb.
– Among other mental feats, the fetus can distinguish between the voice of Mom and that of a stranger, and respond to a familiar story read to it.
– Even a premature baby is aware, feels, responds, and adapts to its environment.
etc, etc,
Eskimo 78,000 reticient mothers die each year having abortions some even in Canada.
The “simple” procedure also causes many lesser problems.
Can you imagine the parent whose teen daughter goes to school and doesn’t come home then mom and dad are told they sent her for a simple abortion and she died. But if she want’s an aspirin she needs parental consent.
Of course abortion is an ugly procedure.
But it would be a whole lot uglier (and more dangerous!) if it were done illegally in back alleys with coat hangers.
Abortion should be Safe, legal, and rare.
The best way to make it “rare” is to educate people about birth control and ensure that it is widely available. There is no reason, for example, that the morning after pill shouln’t be sold over-the-counter.
Irwin Daisy “According to the book Freakenomics, the reason for the steady drop in crime in many US cities is abortion. Less Black and Hispanic children being born in the projects apparently..”
That’s a misrepresentation. The author’s contention was that abortion reduces the number of unplanned/unwanted/fatherless children. This is a demographic with a high percentage of all kinds of problems irrespective of race.
If your interested in “social engineering” (I’m not) then Freakenomics supports the Pro-Choice “cause”. But ultimately the Pro-Choice movement isn’t concerned with engineering society but personal liberty.
GM
Tou said, “Abortion should be Safe, legal, and rare.”
How do you define “rare”.
At present in Canada, according to the information that I was looking at, there are 32 abortions per 100 live births translating into 100,000 abortions per year in Canada, again give or take a few thousand one way or the other.
Maranatha
Good Question.
In an ideal situaition, abortions would only be necessary where:
1)birth control was available, used properly, and simply failed (number of cases will vary depending on method of control used)
2)There was no possability of birth control (rape, incest)
3) The pregnancy was planned, but the health of the mother was in serious danger
Obviously, this would dramatically reduce the number of abortions.
I don’t expect things to ever reach this stage, however.
Let put it this way:
Abortion is a last resort. It should occur in as few cases as possible. We can reduce the number of abortions by educating people about birth control, promoting responsible sex, and encouraging adoption. However, the mother has the right to control her own body, and it is not for the state to second-guess her judgement.
I guess instead of “rare”, I could have said “less frequent than it is now”.
Given the simple fact that I will never have to worry about making the decision on whether to abort a child or not, I consider myself catagorically unqualified to decide whether its right or wrong.
Still, I think it’s sad that a woman should have to contemplate such action, and that a child should suffer such action.
Doesn’t say much for our society that we let this situation go on, on both sides of the issue. The negotiator in me likes to think there is an unhappy medium to achieve here.
A matter for much greater minds than mine.
However, the mother has the right to control her own body, and it is not for the state to second-guess her judgement.
They can always keep their legs closed or deal with the consequences.
And the state does have a right to second-guess if the state is paying for it.
Let them pay for their own consequences, there won’t be so many in the future.
Given the simple fact that I will never have to worry about making the decision on whether to abort a child or not, I consider myself catagorically unqualified to decide whether its right or wrong.
No doubt you will never be faced with the decision to commit murder, making yourself unqualified to decide whether it’s right or wrong.
Thanks, ol hoss. What you just wrote is pretty much how I feel: Actions and consequences is what it boils down to.
The human is (to my knowledge) the only member of the animal kingdom that can terminate a pregnancy at will. (I’m sure someone will try to correct me on this one) Just think how even the tiniest of mammals will defend to her/his death their offspring when threatend, yet you only need to turn on your tv to hear about the latest scum human abusing/neglecting/killing their own children.
The trouble with dealing with the naysayers is they insist in not seeing issues as black and white, especially when it comes to topics of morality.
Forget the “touching a hot stove” example of right vs. wrong because to the modern day left/lib/socialist, it isn’t the probability of burning one’s finger, to them the issue is how does the stove “feel” about being touched? And is there a government program/support group for the kitchen appliances who are victims of unwanted touching? This is called “grey area” morality or “nuance” if you will. Admittedly far beyond the comprehension of the non-“progressive”, such as myself, so on that note, that’s all I have to say about the abortion issue…..for now.
Wow whats going on? You bring up a relatively innocuous issue like abortion and and everyone gets all hot under the collar?
Anyway, seriously this is an important issue and I’m glad to see this bill go through in SD, if it does nothing else it will at least open the debate on abortion. The Left has continuously taken the position that, once an issue has been decided, its case closed. Abortion is a prime example of this attitude and I think demonstrates just how dangerous this type of thinking can be. The MSM has followed suit and continues (as it does on many issues) to deny the public the necessary information to draw its own conclusions.
If at anytime you were to discover that you had made a life altering decision based on faulty information, would you continue to conduct yourself according to that decision or would you go back and re-think the situation? Whenever the case for abortion on demand is even remotely challanged it is shouted down by the abortion rights advocates and the Left in general.
Partial birth and late term abortions are prime examples of this problem. Many individuals who identify themselves as pro-choice are against these procedures, however we are told by abortion advocates that we cannot even address these glarring offenses because it might in some way lead to the removal of our precious right to abortion.
If you were sure that your reasoning was sound, would you not welcome discusion? I mean if you were certain that you were doing the right thing, open debate would help you bring more people over to your way of thinking. Unfortunately, this is not the case with abortion or many other issues. It seems we are supposed to turn off our brains and accept the rulings of our “intellectual” superiors. Sadly, for many this is exactly what happens.
Whether you believe that life begins at conception in many ways has little to do with the issue. Most people who were not planning on getting pregnant are not aware of their pregnancy until weeks or months later. On the side of life at conception you can argue that the life present is primitive at best, but it is still life and it does posses unique human DNA.
Anyway this is getting pretty long, but i just want to make a few points.
1. Abortions in the cases of rape and incest account for statistically 0% of abortions performed in the US. Moreover, the circumstances of conception are not the fault of the concieved, why should the unborn bear the brunt of the punishment?
2. Women who have abortions have a higher than average likelyhood of suffering from depression and suicide within 5 years of the procedure.
3. Abortions cause undue strain on womens bodies and can cause infertility.
4. The negative financial and social ramifications do not necessarily make removal of the causal factor morally right.
5. Regardless of the cirmcumstance no one has the right to deny life to the innocent.
6. Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parrenthood, believed in eugenics and spoke of abortion as a means of enacting genocide against african-americans.
The one hurdle that proponents of abortion have never been able to get over is that abortion is, and always will be, not ideal. Idealy there would be no need for abortions. Abortion seems to me to be more about securing man’s desire to be free from the consequences of his actions.
After all, why should another life affect my right to do what i want, when i want, without fear of having to deal with the ramifications? Hmm…Sounds kinda ridiculous. Doesn’t it?
GM,
I admire your passion and persistance concerning a womans “right” over her body. Ol’Hoss, though rather crude, makes a good point…The state does have an interest so long as the state is paying. I have found figures that range in the $800-$1000 range for abortions performed in a hospital. About $500 seems to be the going rate in a clinic. You do the math at 100,000 abortions per year. That is a lot of money for our cash strapped health system to be saddled with considering most of these abortions are not medically necessary and I would suggest that an even smaller number are as a result of rape or incest. If the women want abortions for cosmetic reasons or for convenience, they should be paying for them, given that at the moment, they are still legal.
Even by your own standards, there are presently too many abortions, you said there should be “fewer”. I agree wholeheartedly! I don’t suppose that you thought we could agree on anything. Let’s see, we have had decades of “more education” and birth control, the messages about responsible sex pervade society continually in our schools and on television and there is already 4-7 year waiting list for adoptions. Abortions continue to rise and birth rates continue to fall as women continue to exercise “rights” over their bodies.
If I was health minister in this province, ( and you can be glad that I am not, nor ever will be), I would refuse to publicly fund abotions except in “rare” instances. What are the rare instances:
1. Rape or incest pregnancies after investigation and charges laid where possible.
2. Medically necessary to save the mothers life… This to be established by a board of three that I would set up in each health region consisting of a doctor, a nurse and an advocate for the rights of the unborn so that they would have a voice representing them. The family doctor would be welcome to attend, as would a family member or significant other as well as the woman if she is able.
Abortions of convenience or for cosmetic reasons would not be considered.
Beyond this, so long as abortion is legal, the woman would pay for the procedure herself.
It is time that people took some personal responsibility. There needs to be changes. The present system by any measure is failing. It is a travesty. 100,000 young lives per year in Canada never having an opportunity to enjoy life like you and I. It is sad.
Life is precious
Maranatha
Ol’Hoss, though rather crude, makes a good point…
Not all of us have a liberal education…thankfully it doesn’t take ten words when one will do.
Eskimo wrote: “…a woman’s right to choice ends when she makes that choice to spread her legs.”
To which Spike responded: “would your senario include a case of rape?”
I then said to Spike: “obviously not – unless you are of the opinion that women choose to be raped.”
And Spike took umbrage: “that has to be one of the dumbest comments [y]et, or is that wishful thinking on your part?”
Spike, taken in the context of the original exchange between Eskimo and yourself, my comment is a perfectly logical critique of your question. Eskimo is talking about the choice to have sex, and stating that the choice to avoid the consequences of an earlier choice should not be allowed (and I would add that the second choice carries consequences as well, which are not generally mentioned in the whole abortion debate). Then you brought in the argument of rape, which I pointed out does not involve the woman’s choice. Unless you, Spike, believe it does. I was trying, in not so many words, to gently show you how your question was ridiculous in the context of Eskimo’s remark.
So, since my point zoomed right over your head, I guess next time I will have to be blunt with you.
“They can always keep their legs closed or deal with the consequences.
And the state does have a right to second-guess if the state is paying for it. ”
So by that logic, I assume that you would be against the state funding cancer treatment for smokers? or knee surgery for skiing injuries?
“the choice to avoid the consequences of an earlier choice should not be allowed”
If this, is, in fact, What Eskimo meant, (and I invite him to correct me if it isn’t) then it has got to be the most absurd thing written in this discussion.
People make choices to minimize the consequences of their mistakes EVERY DAY. (Ever dropped a glass, but caught it before it hit the floor?)
Any person who claims to have never made a mistake is a liar.
Any person who recognizes a mistake that they’ve made, but then refuses to take action to correct it is a fool, and possibly irresponsible.
Assume a woman gets pregnant when she can’t afford to care for a child. Getting pregnant was a mistake for her. Abortion is a logical, responsible way to correct that mistake. Having a child she can’t afford to care for would be refusing to correct one mistake, and in doing so, allowing an even bigger mistake.
To deny people the right to correct their mistakes only makes those mistakes bigger.
GM…”Abortion is a logical, responsible way to correct that mistake. Having a child she can’t afford to care for would be refusing to correct one mistake, and in doing so, allowing an even bigger mistake.”
That means the child pays the ultimate price for its mother’s mistake.
Hardly responsible.
Worse yet when we know there are so many waiting to adopt.
So by that logic, I assume that you would be against the state funding cancer treatment for smokers? or knee surgery for skiing injuries?
I’m against socialism in all it’s forms.
Clear enough?
GM
You said…”Assume a woman gets pregnant when she can’t afford to care for a child. Getting pregnant was a mistake for her. Abortion is a logical, responsible way to correct that mistake.”
So would giving the child up for adoption so that the people who have been waiting 4-7 years on the list might have a chance to raise a family like the rest of us. They deserve the opportunity to pour out their love to another generation that they can call family.
You said “So by that logic, I assume that you would be against the state funding cancer treatment for smokers? or knee surgery for skiing injuries?”
First a baby is like mole removal, then it was like forced kidney donation, now it is like an accident or a cancer. We are talking about a human life here. I believe the day will come when that baby will have its rights to security of person recognized in law in this country. Just because it isn’t so doesn’t mean that it never will. In the meantime I am going to recognize that life as Precious and important, not to be compared with cancers.
For your information, the state is taking measures even as we speak to address the smoking issues. If you wish to talk about cancer, that is for another day, on another thread.
Disease and unavoidable accidents will no doubt continue to be covered in our wonderful health system. A little human being is neither an unavoidable accident nor is it a disease, any more than it is a paracite.
Life is precious
Maranatha
A lot of you people are really hilarious. We as a country can’t take care of the children we have. One in three lives in poverty. How much was that Alberta surplus again? 7 billion this year alone. Maybe thats what these young women see, they are alone, no support. Where are all these guys who plant the seed????? No ladies and gentlemen we are Hypocrits. We TALK about precious life and then when it actually comes out of the uterus suddenly its a cost item.
You start paying women a living wage for staying home and raising children and i will bet the abortion rate will drop to a trickle. But we dont want these precious little babies that much now do we. No its easier to be a hypocrit.
A sanctimonious one at that.
ol hoss,
“Not all of us have a liberal education…thankfully it doesn’t take ten words when one will do.”
Neither do I and well said!
“I’m against socialism in all it’s forms.”
Here, here!
No offence intended with the “crude” remark. Sorry if any taken. Thanks for your comments.
Maranatha
Marantha,
With all due respect I think you are taking some of my analogies out of context.
The knee injury/cancer analogy was simple: where a person has an affliction/accident (and for women in some situations, an unwanted pregnancy IS an affliction/accident) that is largely the result of their own error, should the government pay to treat that problem?
This was in response to the idea that the state should have a say in whether a woman should be allowed to have an abortion if the state pays for it.
If the state can control medicine, as long as the state pays for it, why should abortions be treated differently than cancer treatment in this respect? And if the state SHOULD control it, then can the state mandate abortion as well as deny it? (i hope not)
Steve D,
thank you so much for raising a point that has been neglected here.
Namely:
Where is all of the concern for the welfare of the child/foetus AFTER it has been born?
…and for all of the talk of women “accepting the consequences of spreading their legs” where is the insistance that the men who impregnated them (or if not,the state that denies them the abortion) take responsability?
…and for all of the talk of women “accepting the consequences of spreading their legs” where is the insistance that the men who impregnated them (or if not,the state that denies them the abortion) take responsability?
I thought you were just saying a woman has control over her own body? If that’s true you can’t very fault someone else for what she allows.
Here’s your quote;
The mother has a right to “security of person”, meaning that she has a right to control what goes on in her own body….It’s her body; she is in ultimate control of it.
Ok Ol hoss,
Allow me to explain:
1. I believe that every individual has a right to control his/her own body. This includes, in my view, the right of a woman to abort a pregnancy. If men could get pregnant, they, too, would of course have the right to abort in my view.
2. Every person has obligation to provide at least some measure of support for any (born) children they create to the extent that they are able to do so.
Since both men and women are equally responsible for conception then they must both bear equal responsability to provide for the child.
Since the burden of carrying the foetus for 9 months is, by nature, placed exclusively on the body of the woman, she must have exclusive control of whether to abort it.
Since conception is the equal responsability of both parties, the future responsability for any children born of it must be shared.
Both parties have the choice as to whether or not they have sex. Both of them are responsible for any children that result.
Only the woman is responsible carrying the foetus, so only she can decide whether to do so or to abort.
Rights = responsabilities
clear?
GM
“an unwanted pregnancy IS an affliction/accident”
As you can imagine… I disagree with your premise.
The measles, the flu, a cold.. these are afflictions. A baby is not an accident nor is it an affliction. You talk about the creation of a human life like it is a car wreck.
“…why should abortions be treated differently than cancer treatment in this respect? ”
It is an issue of personal responsibility! If people knew that they were going to have to pay for the procedure in the event of a pregnancy, it follows that they would be more careful. Like it or not, this is not the same as cancer! Whether you want to accept it or not, most unwanted pregnancies are the result of irresponsible behavior or carlessness. Cancer is a disease and not the result of a choice made.
As long as the “nanny state” is there to bail them out every time, why is there a need to act responsibly? As it is set up right now, it is self perpetuating and abortions are bound to continue to increase as they have been doing.
Maranatha
Steve,
Thanks for the comments. I wholeheartedly agree about men taking responsibility for their actions as well. For the most part men get a pretty free ride on this issue and that has never been fair to the women involved.
“Where is all of the concern for the welfare of the child/foetus AFTER it has been born?”
I guess when we get to the point where there are no more adoptive waiting lists, then we can discuss this. As it stands right now there is a 4-7 year wait.
Many of the abortions taking place right now are abortions of convenience or cosmetics. Many of these are married women who would manage just fine but can’t be bothered right now. Very few abortions are as the result of incest or rape.
I know what the answer is but there isn’t much appetite to hear that people should commit to one partner for life in a loving marriage. As we continue to see the erosion of marriage as it has been for thousands of years we will continue to see the foudations of our society crumble.
One of your comments was to do with child poverty. How much of a difference do you think it might have made to our society if the 2.5 million babies that have been aborted had been allowed to be born and had an opportunity to have contributed to society. It is my opinion that things are out of balance right now, in part because of abortion. I guess the pessamist would argue that those 2.5 million would be competing for resources and jobs. It is my opinion that we would have a much stronger economy as we would have a more robust work force with more people to create business and jobs. Canada is starved for skilled workers right now. We are importing workers from other countries (stealing their best and brightest) every year. This trend will continue in the foreseeable future. We are forced to actively engage in mass immigration. Why do we suppose that is?
Calling us all hypocrites doesn’t help the discussion. Name calling never does. Like I told GM earlier, I am not likely to win any friends here but these are important issues worth getting passionate about. The implications of continued abortion at the present rate in the western societies are enormous. The ongoing debate on abortion sets the stage for the coming debate on the value of life as we see the left continue to bring forward their agenda of euthanasia. It has already begun with euphamistic terms such as “dieing with dignity” and “doctor assisted suicide”. It is sad
Maranatha
“If people knew that they were going to have to pay for the procedure in the event of a pregnancy, it follows that they would be more careful.”
okay, so if people knew that they would have to pay for lung cancer treatment, wouldn’t that stop them from smoking?
I would think so.
What’s the difference?
Babies ARE accidents ALL THE TIME. HALF of all pregnancies in Canada are unplanned. (Frankly, I was an accidental pregnancy!)
Yes, people are irresponsible sometimes. That’s one reason I want them to have the chance to correct their mistakes!
Both parties have the choice as to whether or not they have sex.
But you just said a woman has control over her own body. Having sex is her choice.
Assuming no force or coercion are involved, aren’t the consequences a result of her choice? Therefore the responsibilities are hers as well.
Rights = responsibilities.
Clear?
Heh, it’s fun to tangle leftists up in their own arguments.
Hi ol hoss,
Nice try. but…
1) you haven’t even come close to tangling anything.
2) I am NOT a lefty. I am a libertarian.
But, to answer your response:
Of course a woman has control over her body.
SO DOES A MAN.
Last time I checked, they BOTH had to choose to have sex.
Clear?
(I like this game)
GM
“Babies ARE accidents ALL THE TIME”
If memory serves me correct, shortly after we were married, my wife and I decided to have a baby and we enjoyed every single interlude until she conceived. Then we decided that was so much fun that we should do it all over again and decided to have another child. This wonderful process repeated itself over and over again until we had four wonderful sons and not one of them was an accident.
I know our views on this topic are very different and it is obvious that you come at this from a different perspective. It seems to me that you are quite content with things as they are. If you get your way we will continue to have 100,000 little human beings aborted per year and the state will continue to pour out money for this at the expense of other needful procedures. This number will continue to grow as it has for the past 30-40 years. You have said that the number needs to be less and yet you are not willing that anything change to allow this to happen. You have suggested education. Education on this issue has been taking place in earnest for the last couple of decades and the number is still climbing.
If it is not too late for our society already, I hope that this ship can be turned around. The attitudes toward the value of human life are reflected in a society that increasingly has less and less respect for family, authority and one another. I hope the day will come where we will have a court and a governing body that will recognize the rights of the unborn. It will take a couageous leadership to bring this to pass but pass it will and pass it must. ironically, I think science will ultimately force the issue because there are advances being made as I type that are going to give us a better understanding of foetal developement. Would it change your view if it were dicovered that the foetus is aleady “sentient” to use your word, within the first dew days of conception? I fully expect that it is and that that will be discovered. Then what? If I am right, we have indeed slaughtered and murdered millions of our own on a scale greater than what happenned in Nazi Germany or Stalin’s USSR. What would that say about us? I expect that you don’t believe in God, I could be wrong but I do so I wonder what does He think about all of this?
If I am wrong, it wouldn’t be the first time nor would it likely be the last, but if I am right, we have much to answer for.
Thanks for your time and discussion. You have helped me to understand even more what is at stake and how important it is that someone continue to speak for those without a voice in the discussion. I hope we can still be friends. Bye for now.
Maranatha
I am NOT a lefty. I am a libertarian.
A rose by any other name…anyone who advocates the forced payment by their neighbours to protect them from the consequences of their own actions is a lefty.
Anyone who advocates not facing up to the consequences of their own actions is a lefty.
Last time I checked, they BOTH had to choose to have sex.
Obviously it’s only the woman who chooses whether, or not, to become pregnant, since she has “control over her body”.
GM,
“I am NOT a lefty. I am a libertarian.”
Enlighten me and explain the difference.
Maranatha
Okay,
Marantha:
A “lefty” in the modern sense, believes in an expansive, socialist state, but in individual liberty (usually).
A libertarian believes in personal liberty WITHOUT an expansive state. Basically, a libertarian wants government to get out of people’s lives. (see Robert Nozick or milton Friedman for some good examples)
Ol hoss,
I DO advocate people facing up to the consequences of their actions.
But where a person has the opportunity to correct a mistake before it gets bigger, they should be able to do so.
Trying to minimize the damage a mistake causes is part of “facing the consequences”
Let me put it this way: if somone negligently starts a kitchen fire, I’m in favour of letting them put it out before they burn their house down.
Correcting a mistake is PART of taking responsability. So, in some cases, is having an abortion.
“Obviously it’s only the woman who chooses whether, or not, to become pregnant, since she has “control over her body”.”
I assume that you are trying to be glib, but just in case…
What I have said is that the woman has the RIGHT to excercise control over her body.
Since it takes two people to concieve, conception is the mutual choice (or fault) of two people. either person could have said “no”.
Since actually carrying the foetus to term can only be done by the woman alone, staying pregnant (as opposed to aborting) is entirely her decision.
But, once the child is born, since it took two people to create it, two people are responsible for it.
Yes, this approach gives women more choices than men, but only because nature assigns them more responsability.
Marantha,
As useful as this debate has been, I feel it is time to sum up my position.
You believe that life is sacred. So do I.
There is an old legal saying “Hard cases make bad law”. For me, abortion is the ultimate hard case.
Here is the problem:
I view the right of a person to control what happens to their body as a natural and necessary extension of the right to life. If a woman has an unintended pregnancy, she has, as part of the right to control her body, the right to remove it.
But, of course, this necessitates destroying the foetus. Which, depending on one’s view, may be ending another life.
The foetus is in a unique position: it is simulteniously part of the womans body, and (arguably) also a person.
So any right of personal security given to the foetus must, by necessity, interfere with the same right in the mother.
It is the perfect dilemma: we can’t affirm the right of security of one without denying it to the other.
In this case, I choose to affirm the rights of the mother (who is unquestionably a “person”) over the foetus (which may or may not be).
This is by no means an easy decision.
Do I agree that there are too many abortions for bad reasons? Yes. But a right is a right.
Do I know what a higher power (I believe in one, though I don’t use the same word as you)thinks of this? No. But even if I did, it is not for me to impose my faith on others.
Thank you for the respectful, reasoned tone of the discussion. It has been appreciated.
GM,
I too have already summed up my position in an earlier post. I would however like to respond to one point you made in closing and I’ll try to be brief.
You said “In this case, I choose to affirm the rights of the mother (who is unquestionably a “person”) over the foetus (which may or may not be).”
As you know, I believe that the foetus is a person. I hope that if the supreme court and the legislators of the land decide that a foetus is a person with inalienable rights including the right to security of the person and the right to life, then I hope that you will decide to bring the same zeal and determination for the rights of the unborn person as you do now for the “rights” of the woman. The way that I see it, it is a nine month sacrifice for the mother to carry to term whereas it is a lifetime sacrifice for the unborn. Who is giving up more? The woman who is asked to give up a few months or the child who is asked to give up fourscore years and all the potential of a life well lived?
Like I said before,I admire your passion and persistance, I too believe in freedom and liberty and the rights of the individual. It is only a matter of who’s rights we recognize as we grapple with a desperately sad situation. It is my belief that the right to life and the security of the person will in the end trump all other rights.
I hope that you did not feel that I was trying to “impose” my faith. That was not my intent. I only brought it up at all as it relates to where my perspective comes from.
We are not so far apart in this discussion. Thanks again.
Maranatha