A mother's love

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

You have a good point, but I'm afraid we are bordering on a exercise in semantics at that point IP.  I would argue we are not imposing a moral value but instead instituting a logically formulated set of values designed to ensure harmony in our tribe.  Pure semantics.

I guess what I was trying to get at is the government should not advocate a moral position simply because someone holds it.  It should have some reason and logic behind its dictated morals.  I was also trying to imply that forcing ones morals on another does not somehow make you, nor them, a better person.

You raised a very good point and it stands, I hope my point was not lost due to my linguistic imprecision.

Well, I think it goes right to the heart of the issue.  It's foolish to pretend that we aren't imposing one person's (or several persons') versions of morality on the masses, even if we think we're coupling it with logic it still comes down to an action being either good or bad and a standard by which to differentiate the good from the bad.

On a side note, I hope you weren't trying to say that there are no logical reasons for opposing abortion?  

Lastly, there have to be better arguments for abortion than tired old canards like "a mother's body."  For god's sake, we're all rational adults here, and reason implores us to acknowledge that the fetus, though dependent on the mother, is no more a part of her body than a fully birthed baby.  Let's not be so crass as to think we can equate a fetus to an appendage you could just cut off.

It's an autonomous life conditionally dependent on another autonomous adult life.  A fetus has different DNA, and often a blood type differing from the mother, and it's a completely different sex 50% of the time.

There, pot stirred.

[waterboy]

Without knowing the entire circumstance of this woman's decision I could not envision judging her, but in no way would I consider her decision heroic. Brave? Yes, but heroic implies something different to me. She left three young daughters with a single father to care for them. Heroes don't willingly do that. She may very well have cheated herself of a fulfilling lifetime providing the care and direction they needed from a birth mother and I hope it wasn't for some contemporary religious dogma. If she had a chance to live, her family deserved a better thought process. Martydom works well for Islamist radicals but doesn't fit well here.

Now, to throw some feces into the fan. Why are you guys so intent on changing the world to fit your moral compass?  I really am curious why you "pro-life" zealots are so cock sure of yourselves that you comfortably insist on imposing your view of  life on everyone else. You must indeed be a blessed generation as none before you were so unquestioningly confidant of the answers to moral dilemmas. Your sense of moral superiority is irritating and yes, pathetic.

What I want to say to you Guido is, you should use your own reasoning here. You emphatically believe that no one has the right to criticize the war in Iraq unless they have served. You told me that since I had not served directly that I had no right to even give my opinion. Well, buddy, you have no dog in this race either. Unless you can bear children, you have no right to criticize or decide for those who do. Your proselytizing is hypocritical, unwanted, and unwarranted as well as that of any other male. If you were true to yourself, you whould be attacking any male who tries to venture an opinion on this subject. But of course anyone who denies that he had an agenda in posting this topic, will have no problem ignoring his own hypocrisy.

Sort of like IP denying science has any real understanding of global warming, but science has the "life thing"  all figured out. My science good. Your science immoral.

I will not be lured into any discussion of abortion rights with the intent of enlightening your views or changing them (which probably pleases you). I did my own study and contemplation and came to my own conclusions.

[tim huntzinger]

quote:Originally posted by guido911Oh, and Tim, funny how you started showing up shortly after aox disappeared...

Dude.  I am anti-abortion, but I will not use that issue as a blood sacrifice for a failed political agenda.  I am not going to start an argument just for the sake of an argument.

You one of them 'egg-on-uppers' or are you more one of us 'second-tri' folk?

[cannon_fodder]

IPLAW:

There are logical reasons to oppose abortion.  However, 95% of opposition to abortion is purely religous based.  People were told to oppose abortion, so they do.

and I dont believe I used the tired "women's body" argument.  It implies the woman is the sole decision maker and the father has no rights whatsoever.  An argument I would never make (unless her health is actually in danger due to the pregnancy).

I will argue about peripheral issues, but there is little point in arguing abortion with most people.  I enjoy open minded debate (especially when it changed my view - which is the point after all) but find it nearly impossible on this issue.  Hence my initial declaration instead of an argument.

[iplaw]

quote:
Now, to throw some feces into the fan. Why are you guys so intent on changing the world to fit your moral compass?  I really am curious why you "pro-life" zealots are so cock sure of yourselves that you comfortably insist on imposing your view of  life on everyone else.

Again, every law is an imposition of morality.  Is that so hard to understand?  Would you prefer we have no laws?  Also, why are you trying to impose your morality, or lack thereof on us?  You should just be silent on the issue.

quote:
You must indeed be a blessed generation as none before you were so unquestioningly confidant of the answers to moral dilemmas. Your sense of moral superiority is irritating and yes, pathetic.

No.  Rather I believe that it's YOUR generation that has led us down the path of moral equivocation, self-indulgence and selfishness where abortion can now be discussed as a "right."  The generations preceding you knew better as well; that is why abortion was considered a barbaric and murderous act.  It was your generation that created dilemmas, not ours.  

quote:
Sort of like IP denying science has any real understanding of global warming, but science has the "life thing"  all figured out. My science good. Your science immoral.

Where did I do that?  I merely stated that there are many scientists on both sides of the issue.  You are the one that simply pretends as if there is only one side...

quote:
I will not be lured into any discussion of abortion rights with the intent of enlightening your views or changing them (which probably pleases you). I did my own study and contemplation and came to my own conclusions.

Good for you.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

IPLAW:

There are logical reasons to oppose abortion.  However, 95% of opposition to abortion is purely religous based.  People were told to oppose abortion, so they do.

and I dont believe I used the tired "women's body" argument.  It implies the woman is the sole decision maker and the father has no rights whatsoever.  An argument I would never make (unless her health is actually in danger due to the pregnancy).

I will argue about peripheral issues, but there is little point in arguing abortion with most people.  I enjoy open minded debate (especially when it changed my view - which is the point after all) but find it nearly impossible on this issue.  Hence my initial declaration instead of an argument.

I can make an argument against abortion just as I can make an argument against infanticide and neither involve theism.  

Sure there are people who don't want abortions because it offends them spiritually, but the same goes for murder.  Do we strike the laws on murder because the church believes that murder is sin?  Of course not.  I disagree with the church on many, many things, but just because they happen to get it right occasionally doesn't make the position untennable for the rest of us.

BTW, you didn't use the "woman's body" argument, but it was used no less than 5 times in this thread.  Sorry I didn't better delineate that.

[Conan71]

It is promoted heavily by the Christian right as a moral issue but I think where abortion gets slipped into the government context is a human rights issue.

I find it interesting that liberals are all about the human rights of suspected terrorists and convicted murderers, but don't seem to care about those of a fetal human being.

Personally, abortion doesn't have a place in my life, but I don't think the government needs to meddle in moral issues.  I don't think the government belongs in the marriage business either- straight or gay, except as it relates to people trying to bilk the government by bogus unions.

[cannon_fodder]

Conan, it was approached as a human rights issue and that is why abortion is legal.  A fetus incapable of living outside of the mother is not human and has no rights.  It garners no protection of the human rights commission nor the constitution (baring the rare imposition of murder charges for intentional actions by another party killing the fetus.  A dilemma of law to be sure).

Granting the fetus rights would mean the government can mandate anything it wants on any pregnant mother.  The fetus would be capable of inheriting property even though it may never be born alive.  Every miscarriage would have to be investigated as a murder - to make sure the mother didnt drink or smoke or otherwise contribute to the miscarriage.  Under current US law you cannot purposely kill one human to save another - thus a doctor could never terminate a pregnancy even if continuing meant a 99% chance the mother and fetus would die.  

There are hundred of seemingly outrageous and far fetched legal issues that pop up and will pop up.  It is the LEGAL issues that determines the law.  The abortion topic is one of the most complex legal issues that has ever been presented (Due Process issues as well as protected rights).

If you really care about the legal aspects there are many websites that chronicle the cases (and summarize them)  involved and the logic used:
http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/conlaw.htm

The above site summarizes the decisions for you (I had to read them ALL for god's sake).


IPLAW:

You know as well as I the differences between abortion and murder.  The crime of murder is the intentional killing of another with malice aforethought.  The United States does not recognize a fetus as a separate individual than the mother - so she would be convicted of killing herself.

The rationale for protecting individuals from murder are entirely different than the argument for protecting fetuses.  For one, pure chaos would reign if anyone had the right to kill another person at will.  One would be forced to kill now and ask why later.  Though shalt not kill (other tribal members) is the oldest of civilizations laws.

It's clear that you are emotionally attached to this issue (not saying you shouldnt be), but I hope you see the difference in reasoning.  No mass chaos has resulted from abortion.  Basic civilization can continue.  Free rights to murder would end civilization in a month.

[iplaw]

quote:Conan, it was approached as a human rights issue and that is why abortion is legal.  A fetus incapable of living outside of the mother is not human and has no rights.

It depends on the stage, and medical advances are pushing the limit farther back.  Also, an infant is incapable of living without human intervention just as a fetus...

quote:
...miscarriage would have to be investigated as a murder - to make sure the mother didnt drink or smoke or otherwise contribute to the miscarriage.  Under current US law you cannot purposely kill....

These are all periphery issues that can easily be dealt with, especially the last issue of the health of the mother.  Are we really worried about a fetus inheriting property?  Just more work for you and I if they can!

quote:
There are hundred of seemingly outrageous and far fetched legal issues that pop up and will pop up.  

Life and death issues are not/should not be controlled or directed by concerns for efficacy in our legal system; that's reprehensible.

[cannon_fodder]

Surely you have read the cases IPLAW?  You know as well as I that they are well reasoned compromises.  It would be nearly impossible to overturn them and save face.  The issue is not simply legal efficacy, though in the legal system it is an important goal unto itself.

(ps. I edited and posted a response to you above per murder as you were posting)

[iplaw]

quote:
You know as well as I the differences between abortion and murder. The crime of murder is the intentional killing of another with malice aforethought. The United States does not recognize a fetus as a separate individual than the mother - so she would be convicted of killing herself.

The SCOTUS never took up the issue of when life begins.  It has never made that determination, so to say that the issue has been settled is incorrect.  It has not been addressed.

Also, laws can and do change, and with the advancement of neonatal medical care in the last 25 years, it's becoming more difficult to justify abortion in medical terms.

quote:
It's clear that you are emotionally attached to this issue (not saying you shouldnt be), but I hope you see the difference in reasoning. No mass chaos has resulted from abortion. Basic civilization can continue. Free rights to murder would end civilization in a month.

There is no difference to a person who believes that a fetus is a life.  The fact that society has been able to equivocate it away for selfish gain is not a reflection of whether it is truely a life or not.  It is either life or not, regardless of our personal opinion on the matter...and you were right to point out the irony in charging a person with two counts of murder when killing a pregnant woman.  The law isn't even immune from the absurdity of stating a fetus isn't a life.

We should recognize the inherent limitations of the legal system.  It should not be worshiped as an unerring beacon of morality.  Laws can, and sometimes should be overturned when they are morally reprehensible or at odds with the science they once stood on...

[Conan71]

Abortion is basically where the laws of nature and laws of man butt heads.  It's a slippery slope and you are both right:  one of the more intricate issues of law ever dreamed up.

Personally, I think it is a red herring issue when it comes to presidential candidates.  A president does not have the power to overturn it.

Yes, I do get that a president can nominate justices that he thinks will handle the issue according to his views if it comes before the supreme court, but there are no guarantees.  Roe V. Wade has stood for 34 years now.  I believe it is here to stay.

[cannon_fodder]

So present it, present the argument that abortion should be illegal.

I fail to see how making abortion illegal will in any way advance our society.  It is personal belief's that a fetus has natural rights that drives the decision.  Society stands nothing to gain and society is not damaged by the status quo.

As cold as that may be, the only benefit to outlawing abortion would be the appeasement of a subset of person's beliefs.  I do not think that is a good enough basis to legislate.  At what juncture is legislating on belief too far?

Abortion is a religious debate.  Nothing more.  I have never heard anyone argue against abortion on anything other than a religous basis or moral basis.  In spite of the above reference to all laws being moral - laws are meant to serve society not morality.

So maybe I am just not swayed because I view it purely as a logical issue and anti-abortionists argue purely from a religous standpoint (faith  being inherently illogical).  Perhaps I need to be enlightened.

[iplaw]

quote:So present it, present the argument that abortion should be illegal.

The question hinges on whether the fetus is a life.  If you medically determine the fetus to be a life, then game over.  If you chose, beyond all rational thought to argue that a fetus is not a life, then abortion is no different than having a tumor removed, and you are right.

quote:
I fail to see how making abortion illegal will in any way advance our society.  It is personal belief's that a fetus has natural rights that drives the decision.  Society stands nothing to gain and society is not damaged by the status quo.

I didn't realize that societal advancement was a prerequisite to human rights...

quote:
As cold as that may be, the only benefit to outlawing abortion would be the appeasement of a subset of person's beliefs.  I do not think that is a good enough basis to legislate.  At what juncture is legislating on belief too far?

Again, all our laws are a legislation of a belief.  The Good, The Bad, and The Moral Law to differentiate the two.

quote:
Abortion is a religious debate.  Nothing more.  I have never heard anyone argue against abortion on anything other than a religous basis or moral basis.  In spite of the above reference to all laws being moral - laws are meant to serve society not morality.

Again, it hinges on where you being the debate.  If it is a wholly differentiated life form that simply depends on the mother for sustinance, just as an infant does then you are wrong.

quote:
So maybe I am just not swayed because I view it purely as a logical issue and anti-abortionists argue purely from a religous standpoint (faith  being inherently illogical).  Perhaps I need to be enlightened.

Check out the JREF forums on abortion.  There you can see a great number of atheists who are vehimently opposed to abortion as they believe it is murder.  It's not a religious issue, though I think that some people believe it offers them some measure of protection because they THINK it's only a religious one.

Bottome line is, whether a fetus is a life or not IS NOT a legal or religious issue.  It is a medical issue, but the courts have refused to revisit the issue because it creates a conundrum for them.

[cannon_fodder]

As I said before in my statement, LIFE itself is not the determining factor.  Being alive only garners a minimum amount of protection, additional protection is given because of what makes us human.

Sperm is both alive and capable of creating a human, but when a teenagers throws a condom out the window it isnt murder.
--

Social advancement should be the precursor to ALL laws.  Human rights laws are key to a modern functioning society as it establishes basic rules that, if followed, would help curb the cycles of violence.
--

Laws are not meant to delineate good from bad, they are meant to keep social order.  It doesn't matter that murder is wrong, it matters that people committing murder would destroy our society.  Even most of the 'moral' codes in the world are society codes in their origin (including keeping women covered in Islam, kosher foods for Jews, and worshiping one god).  In most cultures, religion was sustained by the state for the sole purpose of controlling society and thus its moral codes served that purpose (Ra wanted the serfs to build pyramids, the gods wanted the Spartans to die defending the kingdom, god wanted the Christian kings to invade Jerusalem instead of fighting each other, god wanted Muslims to forcible convert Arabia and pay tribute to the caliphs).

I digress, laws should be formulated to benefit society and not a particular moral code.  Though, the two are not mutual exclusive.

--

I did not say atheists did not oppose abortion.  I simply stated that arguments I heard were all religous based.  Furthermore, of those supporting making abortion illegal I would confidently say 90% or more do so on religous grounds.

--

Medicine cannot determine at what point a fetus becomes a human worthy of protection.  The protection is granted by LAWS, but medicine.  Therefor, it remains a legal issue.

Again, the issue isnt when something is alive, but when it should be endowed with individual rights.  If medicine decided sperm+egg = human it wouldnt effect the debate.  Everyone knows it is genetically human and alive by definition.  But LEGALLY, that alone doesnt not grant protection as an individual.

Thus, legal issue.