End the Abortion Debate

[lehighguy]

We overturn Roe v Wade and institute nationwide (or statewide) plebiscite broken up by trimesters. Majority rules and the law goes into effect for 25-50 years (take your pick).

Likely results based on recent polls:
First Trimester: Legal
Second Trimester: Dunno, don't keep up on this stuff
Third Trimester: Illegal

The plebescite would be phrased something like this:

We the people believe that a fetus/child/whatever in the X trimester should be considered either a living human being and therefore is a citizen of the United States with all of the rights that entails.

[whiskeytown]

I have felt that since the legal defination of death is teh cessation of brain activity that life should start with the beginning of brain stem activity -

I think that gives people 30 days... we certainly have teh science now to determine when brain activity starts...

That would usually be enough time....but of course, that wouldn't make anyone happy on either side. But hey, why be consistant with our medical definitions of life when we can quote a verse from the old testament and pull a new definition out of our ass that differs from when we think someone is dead.

RB

[lehighguy]

I think people would be more satisfied if they got a chance to voice thier concerns and simply lost or didn't get all they wanted. There are millions of issues ranging from healthcare to taxation, but none poison our political debate the way abortion does.

[jj_frap]

[ QUOTE ]
I think people would be more satisfied if they got a chance to voice thier concerns and simply lost or didn't get all they wanted. There are millions of issues ranging from healthcare to taxation, but none poison our political debate the way abortion does.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about the religious right and its collective penis envy of homosexuals?

[ QUOTE ]
...collective penis envy of homosexuals...

[/ QUOTE ]


Cute. Never heard it before. Original?

[lehighguy]

You can't bring social change in the courts, you have to do it in the streets. You have to convince people your right, thus marginalizing the other side. It is the only legitamate and thus effective way of seeking social change.

Sorry if it's a lot of work.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
I have felt that since the legal defination of death is teh cessation of brain activity that life should start with the beginning of brain stem activity -

I think that gives people 30 days... we certainly have teh science now to determine when brain activity starts...

That would usually be enough time....but of course, that wouldn't make anyone happy on either side. But hey, why be consistant with our medical definitions of life when we can quote a verse from the old testament and pull a new definition out of our ass that differs from when we think someone is dead.

RB

[/ QUOTE ]

Using this criteria I propose we abort half the users on this board.

Mack

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
I have felt that since the legal defination of death is teh cessation of brain activity that life should start with the beginning of brain stem activity -

I think that gives people 30 days... we certainly have teh science now to determine when brain activity starts...

That would usually be enough time....but of course, that wouldn't make anyone happy on either side. But hey, why be consistant with our medical definitions of life when we can quote a verse from the old testament and pull a new definition out of our ass that differs from when we think someone is dead.

RB

[/ QUOTE ]

Using those criteria I propose we abort half the user on this board.

Weird Deja Vu

Mack

[ACPlayer]

Thge die hards of the side that loses will continue to agitate, try to bring new plebiscites, try to change laws etc.

Better to just let them kill each other and let the fetus live on (if the mother chooses to let it, that is).

[Beer and Pizza]

They did this in 1820. These states will be slave free, these will be slave states. No more slave states above this here line. All issues solved. Great compromise.

Except, new issues came up. People began to see it as more than a political issue, but as an issue of fundamental rights. So new compromises had to be made down the road, and eventually, the idea of some people being property became unacceptable to enough people that slavery had to die.

Abortion will follow the same path. Decades of compromise will take place on always changing ground. And finally, enough people will see that owning/killing a unique person is no longer acceptable. We may all be dead by the time that happens though.

Thanks lehighguy for setting everything straight. I don't know what we'd do without guys like you in charge.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Even though I would have a hard time agreeing to the personal decision to terminate a pregnancy of which I was a part, I am staunchly pro-choice. I feel it's a personal, moral decision that is none of the government's business. The same governmental concept that can ban abortion can also require abortion (like China). Neither iis acceptable.

The collective has no business involving the government in the personal healthcare choices of its citizens. Until such time as peer-reviewed, scientific study determines beyond a reasonable doubt when sentience inheres, state involvement should inhere at the discrete, observable occurance of birth. period. Otherwise you'll see the do-gooders arresting pregnant women for having a glass of wine.

"An embryo has no rights." - Ayn Rand

[lehighguy]

Weak post dude.

[Olof]

[ QUOTE ]
Even though I would have a hard time agreeing to the personal decision to terminate a pregnancy of which I was a part, I am staunchly pro-choice. I feel it's a personal, moral decision that is none of the government's business. The same governmental concept that can ban abortion can also require abortion (like China). Neither iis acceptable.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and the same government concept that can ban you from killing your seven year old cild can also require you to kill it.

Also, I think abortions are allowed in China.

[WillMagic]

My position is a lot of fun.

1. I support legalized abortion, for sure, in the first and second trimesters. In the third trimerster I'm middling, but I don't really care that much one way or the other.

2. Roe v. Wade was a horrid legal decision that should be overturned. Its negative impacts on the country and the Court itself are still felt today.

3. Though I would not live in any state without legalized abortion, I believe should be up to the states to make their own laws in regard to abortion. Federalism trumps other considerations in this regard.

Will

[lehighguy]

If you believe life begins at birth, of course pro-choice makes sense. But what if you don't. If a fetus is alive, it has rights. This difference of opinion on the beginning of life IS the abortion debate.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Of course a fetus is alive. Of that I have no doubt. I do have doubt as to when it becomes sentient and suffers loss and fear the way you and I do. I do have doubt over the ability of government to exercise retstraint (if the fetus is considered alive at conception, is it a crime for a pregnant woman to smoke?). I do have concern that, considering how governmental concepts can change, that once we allow the government authority to make decisions on whether or not a woman carries a pregnancy to term, we empower it to decide in both directions.

You've probably read enough of my posts to know that I don't trust government and I trust the collective only marginally more. To me, the slope here is way to slippery to allow the government dominion over what is essentially a private matter. Should scientific proof emerge that indicates in utero sentience, I would be willing to reconsider.

If you haven't read it yet, one of the most even-handed treatments of the debate was co-authored by

Carl Sagan. (http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml)

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

es, and the same government concept that can ban you from killing your seven year old cild

reductio ad absurdem is irrelevant to rational debate.


Also, I think abortions are allowed in China

I was referring to the policy of forced abortion in China

[caretaker1]

[ QUOTE ]
I think people would be more satisfied if they got a chance to voice thier concerns and simply lost or didn't get all they wanted. There are millions of issues ranging from healthcare to taxation, but none poison our political debate the way abortion does.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well put.

[lehighguy]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course a fetus is alive. Of that I have no doubt. I do have doubt as to when it becomes sentient and suffers loss and fear the way you and I do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, the government already decided when sentience began in Roe v Wade. For someone that is very anti government your outsourcing a pretty big decision to them.

[ QUOTE ]
I do have doubt over the ability of government to exercise retstraint (if the fetus is considered alive at conception, is it a crime for a pregnant woman to smoke?)

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, we do have child neglect laws. Kids can get taken away if you beat them, and drinking while pregnant is kinduv like beating your kid. But I doubt this would spill over in to too many other activities. We currently allow parents to do some pretty amazingly stupid things, I don't see why they wouldn't be able to do this while pregnant.

[ QUOTE ]
I do have concern that, considering how governmental concepts can change, that once we allow the government authority to make decisions on whether or not a woman carries a pregnancy to term, we empower it to decide in both directions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well we still don't allow government sponsored genocide, so I don't see how it could go the other way. If the government isn't allowed to kill its own citizens then it certainly won't be allowed to kill fetuses if they are considered living citizens.

[ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Well, the government already decided when sentience began in Roe v Wade. For someone that is very anti government your outsourcing a pretty big decision to them.


No, I'm not outsourcing the decision to anyone. I'm leaving where it belongs. With the woman.

[FishNChips]

[ QUOTE ]
My position is a lot of fun.

1. I support legalized abortion, for sure, in the first and second trimesters. In the third trimerster I'm middling, but I don't really care that much one way or the other.

2. Roe v. Wade was a horrid legal decision that should be overturned. Its negative impacts on the country and the Court itself are still felt today.

3. Though I would not live in any state without legalized abortion, I believe should be up to the states to make their own laws in regard to abortion. Federalism trumps other considerations in this regard.

Will

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. What about the 3rd trimester has you middling?

Curious as to why you think RvW is so aweful?

Agree with you on states's rights.

FishNChips

[FishNChips]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think people would be more satisfied if they got a chance to voice thier concerns and simply lost or didn't get all they wanted. There are millions of issues ranging from healthcare to taxation, but none poison our political debate the way abortion does.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about the religious right and its collective penis envy of homosexuals?

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, this is a helpful post. thanks for sharing

[lehighguy]

So if one women decides it begins at 5 months, and another says it begins at 6 months, which one is right?

If a women decides to kill thier 2 month old kid, we don't let them. Why is this any different?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

You know, I'm getting invoved in a debate I swore I would never again get into. It gets too emotional.

I have no desire for you to change your opinion on this subject, thus this debate is fruitless. I've heard it all before and I've been on the same side of this issue for 35 years.

I tried to be conciliatory at the beginning but I see I was wrong to do so.

Let me be clear. I believe it is a fundamental human right for a woman to be able to terminate a pregnancy anytime, anywhere, for any reason.

You may have whatever last word makes you happy.

[lehighguy]

I suppose that is why the debate will never end. Christian types will keep voting for republicans because you got the court to impose your particular view of the beginning of life on them. It'll get worse and worse as you impose more believes through the court instead of taking the time to convince people your right.

I have argued this a lot... and I seem to get nowhere. Life ends where life begins -- with cognizance, measured by higher brain-wave activity. This is measurable around the 26th week of pregnancy. It may not be exact, but it's a damn good compromise, I think. A woman should have until the 2nd trimester to legally abort for whatever reason. After that, abortion only in the case where the mother's life is in danger.

[Utah]

The problem is that your argument opens the door to lots of other things as well. You therefore must be pro drug choice, pro suicide choice, and a host of other things.

[lehighguy]

I believe he is, as am I. Those are really bad examples anyway.

[Utah]

They are perfect examples. If you want to make a base an arugment on healthcare or "my body" principles only then you open those doors. I am not saying those ideas are bad.

[lehighguy]

They are bad examples in that poster also supports them. The main defense against abortion is the fetuses rights, not a mitigation of the mothers rights.

[Utah]

I think you missed my point as I am not making a pro or anti adoption argument. I was simply pointing out the weakness of a specific arguement:


"I feel it's a personal, moral decision that is none of the government's business.....The collective has no business involving the government in the personal healthcare choices of its citizens. "

The "collective" is already heavily involved in the healthcare choices of its citizens (e.g., I cant legally pay my friend Mike to perform surgery on me) and the government already has its hands all over our bodies. I am simply saying that if you blindly accept the argument that the governement cant touch us then you logically must accept that argument everywhere.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I know I said I wouldn't say any more, but aside from this particular debate, how is allowing everyone to make up their own mind and act on their moral belief imposing anything on anybody?

[lehighguy]

Your imposing it on another human being, the child, by killing it. This is what people never seem to understand. Abortion is different from drugs or sex or anything else because there is a second non-consenting party.

[Nepa]

[ QUOTE ]
Majority rules and the law goes into effect for 25-50 years

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would you put on this condition?

I'll re-worded. We would like to take away womens rights and privacy for 25-50 years.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

No "child" is involved. As long as you continue to distort reality in the debate, your argument has no credence. A fetus is not a child.

[ QUOTE ]
I have argued this a lot... and I seem to get nowhere. Life ends where life begins -- with cognizance, measured by higher brain-wave activity. This is measurable around the 26th week of pregnancy. It may not be exact, but it's a damn good compromise, I think. A woman should have until the 2nd trimester to legally abort for whatever reason. After that, abortion only in the case where the mother's life is in danger.

[/ QUOTE ]

RETRACTION (for future reference): I used the word "cognizance" not knowing what the true definition was. I'm not sure what word describes what I'm saying: someone is alive when they have a functioning brain. This is what Terry Schiavo did NOT have according to most of the doctors that examined her. That means, she was no longer a person (with the right to life).

[Olof]

[ QUOTE ]

RETRACTION (for future reference): I used the word "cognizance" not knowing what the true definition was. I'm not sure what word describes what I'm saying: someone is alive when they have a functioning brain. This is what Terry Schiavo did NOT have according to most of the doctors that examined her. That means, she was no longer a person (with the right to life).

[/ QUOTE ]

Would this apply even if it were virtually certain that her brain would begin to function normally in less than nine months?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
No "child" is involved. As long as you continue to distort reality in the debate, your argument has no credence. A fetus is not a child.

[/ QUOTE ]
What is a child?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

RETRACTION (for future reference): I used the word "cognizance" not knowing what the true definition was. I'm not sure what word describes what I'm saying: someone is alive when they have a functioning brain. This is what Terry Schiavo did NOT have according to most of the doctors that examined her. That means, she was no longer a person (with the right to life).

[/ QUOTE ]

Would this apply even if it were virtually certain that her brain would begin to function normally in less than nine months?

[/ QUOTE ]

If her brain would "begin to function normally", then that would mean that it's not right now. Which means, right now, she's not a person. In the case of a fetus, you could say it is a "potential person", since it's brain will develop to the point of being a person. But, a "potential person" is not an actual person. Any sperm and egg is a "potential person" given the right set of circumstances. We protect actual people, not potential people.

That being said, in the case of Terry Schiavo, if there was a chance that her personhood could be restored -- meaning she was a person, but died, and there was a way to bring her back to life, then I think it would be good to bring her back to life. I hope the distinction is self-evident to most. To those that think using condoms or birth control is immoral, I'm sure this distinction is not clear.