End the Abortion Debate

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.

[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 ]