[RD] Thoughts on Abortion (split off from Very Many Questions XXXII)

[Cassius Critzer]

The real issue is the cruelty of the methodologies (there are five main ways) which treats human life so callously. The issue is solvable if done compassionately and early by pharmacology. This should be the tactic of appeasing the sensibilities of 90% such that all could compromise instead of being intrasigent.

A whole industry of desperate medical researchers and Planned Parenthood has created a macabre business of selling fetal tissue and violating US law. If the preponderance of abortions are done chemically very early on, this heinous practice would mostly stop.

Are you aware of how many known abortions have happened? It is a shocking number. Politically it is an inflammatory number given how frequently it targeted minorities in America...even putting in the business in places of perceived high traffic, a very grotesque concept.

And it has the distinction of being connected to the sordid eugenics movement which sought to reduce minoritiy populations.

The genuine emancipation of women will occur when women can safely control pregnancy such that it occurs when they wish it to occur. However realize that such planning will result in dramatic alterations to demographics and in unintended ways.

Some groups will not plan pregnancy, and therefore in the end, will overcome the demographics of your nation. Which may alarm atheists and antitheists as they dwindle in size versus other groups. You may see theocracy return, for example, in your lifetime.

Moderator Action: AN RD thread is about real discussion, not inflammatory rhetoric. If you wish to make such inflammatory posts, please be prepared to back them up with some kind of reference or citation. --LM
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Lemon Merchant]

IMHO "pro-choice" simply means that a woman has the right to seek an abortion for any reason without interference from society or the government. "Pro-abortion" can loosely be defined as the same thing. It's simply a matter of linguistic juggling, except with this emotionally charged topic, you're juggling chainsaws. I prefer to call the "pro-life" people "anti-abortionists", because that is really what they are. It's an "If the shoe fits, wear it" sort of thing.

 

[Cassius Critzer]

IMHO "pro-choice" simply means that a woman has the right to seek an abortion for any reason without interference from society or the government. "Pro-abortion" can loosely be defined as the same thing. It's simply a matter of linguistic juggling, except with this emotionally charged topic, you're juggling chainsaws. I prefer to call the "pro-life" people "anti-abortionists", because that is really what they are. It's an "If the shoe fits, wear it" sort of thing.

This is stereotyping and I would think a moderator would be more balanced.

I am pro-life but not against abortion. I cannot impose my preferances on others. Having intentionally taken Women's Studies when I was about the only guy in the room, and the only Christian, and this seemingly a millenia ago, then I think it is absurd to think "all X is this".

The variety of human experience produces individuals with sometimes seemingly contradictory viewpoints. For abortion, there is a continuum of belief in the pro-life movement. I mean if you are some crazed Pentecostal fundamentalist fire and brimstone street preacher, then those folks may be akin to what you describe. How many Christians believe in that form of spirituality? Not many.

Would you ever say pro-choice folks are the same precisely? I would think their beliefs are diverse as there are tens of millions of them or more.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

This is stereotyping and I would think a moderator would be more balanced.

Unless you see moderator text in my post, I am not speaking as a moderator, but as myself. Do not mistake the distinction.

 

[Mouthwash]

IMHO "pro-choice" simply means that a woman has the right to seek an abortion for any reason without interference from society or the government.

You made this definition up, sorry. It is just a buzzword for the position that abortions are morally acceptable (and it distracts from the abortions themselves by focusing on the freedom gained from the fetus's death). I certainly haven't seen it used in any other context.

I am pro-life but not against abortion. I cannot impose my preferances on others.

By pro-life, do you mean that you believe that a fetus is morally equivalent to a mature human? If so, I wouldn't call the right for every person to live a mere "preference."

Having intentionally taken Women's Studies when I was about the only guy in the room, and the only Christian, and this seemingly a millenia ago

Not going to comment, not going to comment, not going to comment...

 

[Lemon Merchant]

You made this definition up, sorry. It is just a buzzword for the position that abortions are morally acceptable (and it distracts from the abortions themselves by focusing on the freedom gained from the fetus's death). I certainly haven't seen it used in any other context.

It's my own definition, yes. It's what the term means to me. It may not be the accepted societal definition of the term as you are using it, but it's how I feel about the concept.

And actually, if you read any Canadian based opinion on the subject, you'll find that the way that I use the term is very similar to the pro-choice movement here in Canada.

 

[Cassius Critzer]

You made this definition up, sorry. It is just a buzzword for the position that abortions are morally acceptable (and it distracts from the abortions themselves by focusing on the freedom gained from the fetus's death). I certainly haven't seen it used in any other context.

By pro-life, do you mean that you believe that a fetus is morally equivalent to a mature human? If so, I wouldn't call the right for every person to live a mere "preference."

Not going to comment, not going to comment, not going to comment...

It is not theologically defensible to impose morality as it violates basic Free Will which is solely between God and a person. You cannot impose your will on me, nor I you. If either try, the natural response is resistance. That accomplishes nothing.

Trying to do it with legislation and creating impediments is probably only to affect the impoverished.

And education is working as abortion rates have fallen.

Are you simultaneously mocking Women's Studies while try to preach the correctness of being pro-life? Wow, what a mixed message that insults women while telling them what they should do. Is that effective?

 

[Mouthwash]

It's my own definition, yes. It's what the term means to me. It may not be the accepted societal definition of the term as you are using it, but it's how I feel about the concept.

And actually, if you read any Canadian based opinion on the subject, you'll find that the way that I use the term is very similar to the pro-choice movement here in Canada.

That's because the pro-abortion crowd is becoming populated by purists as they drive out anyone deemed insufficiently progressive. People who don't think guilt should be presumed before innocence in rape cases, for instance.

It is not theologically defensible to impose morality as it violates basic Free Will which is solely between God and a person. You cannot impose your will on me, nor I you. If either try, the natural response is resistance. That accomplishes nothing.

It might be theologically incorrect in your opinion, but I can think of quite a few defenses even inside the... weird Protestant framework you seem to have. It is also psychologically false (actions provably induce emotion, and even forced obedience makes difficult actions easier). And it isn't practically defensible, unless you're willing to argue that the law never deters anybody.

Are you simultaneously mocking Women's Studies while try to preach the correctness of being pro-life? Wow, what a mixed message that insults women while telling them what they should do. Is that effective?

Women's/Gender Studies has quite a... um, reputation in some circles.

 

[Cutlass]

There will never be a meeting of the minds on the subject of abortion. It it an area which fundamentally will be in disagreement. The problem is that both sides are for something which the other side sees as the price being too high. There just is no room for a middle ground.

The anti-abortion crowd ( I don't use the term pro-life, because in my lifetime I've only ever encountered 2 people who are convincingly anti-abortion and pro-life. The rest are just anti-abortion, and give no indications of being pro-life) feel they cannot give an inch. It's a moral imperative to them. To them it's killing babies. The pro-choice crowd does not dare give an inch. For you cannot compromise with someone who will not compromise.

For both sides, the price is too high. Women will seek abortions, whether it is legal or not. And even when the safety is low, and they risk their lives doing so. And that is because the level of desperation they face is just too severe. Anti-abortion activists dismiss this as 'convenience'. It is not. It is a matter of life and death to them. It is desperation.

Neither side feels it can give an inch, as the opposite side is asking too high of a price. So where does that leave us as a matter of public policy? The standard for public policy should be 'is there a convincing public interest in making laws about this'? That is, does the public have enough of an interest in the subject to take the rights of the individual? Roe v Wade is not a stand alone landmark Supreme Court Decision. Rather it is an evolution of law from an earlier landmark Supreme Court decision Griswold v Connecticut. The principle in law here is that people in their personal lives have a fundamental right to be left alone. That government has to demonstrate that it has a convincing public interest when taking actions which interfere with individual liberties.

On the subject of abortion how would you make that case? We need to leave religion out of it, for government is always wrong when it legislates on the basis of the religious convictions of some at the expense of others. So is there a harm being done here that warrants government involvement? One side says yes, the other no. No middle ground.

 

[Cassius Critzer]

That's because the pro-abortion crowd is becoming populated by purists as they drive out anyone deemed insufficiently progressive. People who don't think guilt should be presumed before innocence in rape cases, for instance.



It might be theologically incorrect in your opinion, but I can think of quite a few defenses even inside the... weird Protestant framework you seem to have. It is also psychologically false (actions provably induce emotion, and even forced obedience makes difficult actions easier). And it isn't practically defensible, unless you're willing to argue that the law never deters anybody.



Women's/Gender Studies has quite a... um, reputation in some circles.

You lost me, Dude. In fact, if you think you are spreading the Gospel, you are deluding yourself. The Law cannot force obedience. The Law is willingly followed or it is subverted at every turn.

You cannot make nonChristians, or I gather nonCatholics, succumb to your vision of reproductive need. Ain't gonna happen. In fact, it makes people hate the Gospel.

Whereas a concerted effort has been made to not shame those who had abortions, a HUGE number, but reconcile them to Jesus. That is a long process.

Tell me, is birth control not Christian? Your answer will speak volumes about your understanding of theology.

 

[Traitorfish]

You made this definition up, sorry. It is just a buzzword for the position that abortions are morally acceptable (and it distracts from the abortions themselves by focusing on the freedom gained from the fetus's death). I certainly haven't seen it used in any other context.

I'm going to highlight this particular phrase, because it is I think a far more complicated one that you're permitting.

"Morally acceptable", here, does not mean uncomplicated. It does not mean the best of all possible worlds. It only means that the moral force against the action is weaker than the moral force in favour of it. It is not necessary, it is not even encouraged, it is just acceptable.

You may disagree with the pro-choice position (or pro-abortion, for whatever difference it makes), but if you want to have a sincere debate about the moral content of abortion, you have to at least extent to your opponents the assumption that they are capable of morally complex decision-making.

You lost me, Dude. In fact, if you think you are spreading the Gospel, you are deluding yourself.

You cannot make nonChristians, or I gather nonCatholics, succumb to your vision of reproductive need. Ain't gonna happen. In fact, it makes people hate the Gospel.

Mouthwash is numbered among the Sons of Abraham, my guy, I don't think he's over-worried about the Gospel.

 

[Cassius Critzer]

In my opinion, there is nothing in the Constitution that honestly discusses in any way ...abortion. So it is silent. And so there is nothing which states the Federal government has any jurisdiction. So by the Tenth Amendment, it is either or both a state and an individual issue.

Even saying that abortion is a state issue is tenuous. The only way it is would be through certifying medical professionals and inspecting clinics.

In that case, it is no different than a vasectomy procedure which is between a patient and the physician.

Think of how marriage laws once were before interference. No marriage license was needed. You cannot govern such a private matter. Neither can the government interfere with abortion.

But we are way down the grasping overreach of federal and state governments. The only way to fix it is to try to regain the fact that the Tenth Amendment is equally for individuals...not just states.

No one has a guaranteed right to a vasectomy. Sorry, it ain't so. An enterprising physician works for a group that provides them. That is negotiated.

Say you hate the effect of alcoholism and you are a teetotaler (what an obscure word). Do you foist your belief on local governance and push for a dry county? I wouldn't. I think that's weird. Likewise I would not encourage an abortion (as you can see) but I wouldn't forbid it either.

Is healthcare a right? Nope. Unless made a Constitutional Amendment ratified by 38 out of 50 state legislatures, then healthcare is not a natural right that is protected by the Federal government.

However, there is nothing preventing any state from declaring that they will.observe healthcare as a natural right. Say California does this. The case could be made that since healthcare IS a natural right, and abortion a valid medical procedure, then in California women would have a guaranteed right to an abortion.

A state could declare anything to be a protected natural right: home ownership,some form of job, access to water, free beer for all, etc.

 

[Cutlass]

In my opinion, there is nothing in the Constitution that honestly discusses in any way ...abortion. So it silent. And so there is nothing which states the Federal government has any jurisdiction. So by the Tenth Amendment, it is either or both a state and an individual issue.

Even saying that abortion is a state issue is tenuous. The only way it is would be through certifying medical professionals and inspecting clinics.

In that case, it is no different than a vasectomy procedure which is between a patient and the physician.

Think of how marriage laws once were before interference. No marriage license was needed. You cannot govern such a private matter. Neither can the government interfere with abortion.

But we are way down the grasping overreach of federal and state governments. The only way to fix it is to try to regain the fact that the Tenth Amendment is equally for individuals...not just states.

No one has a guaranteed right to a vasectomy. Sorry, it ain't so. An enterprising physician works for a group that provides them. That is negotiated.

Say you hate the effect of alcoholism and you are a teetotaler (what an obscure word). Do you foist your belief on local governance and push for a dry county? I wouldn't. I think that's weird. Likewise I would not encourage an abortion (as you can see) but I wouldn't forbid it either.

So basically people are the property of the state and there is no such thing as liberty.

 

[Cassius Critzer]

So basically people are the property of the state and there is no such thing as liberty.

And how did you arrive at this mishappen pearl?

 

[Cutlass]

And how did you arrive at this mishappen pearl?

The concept that the US Constitution does not protect the people of the United States from the actions of the state governments is not consistent with American constitutional law. But is consistent with the concept that the state is supreme in all things, and that the rights of the people are subordinate to the needs of the state.

 

[Cassius Critzer]

The concept that the US Constitution does not protect the people of the United States from the actions of the state governments is not consistent with American constitutional law. But is consistent with the concept that the state is supreme in all things, and that the rights of the people are subordinate to the needs of the state.

You need to reread my post as the jist is the INDIVIDUAL not the state is the one who gets to decide in my opinion.

Natural rights come from God or nature. They do not come from governments. The only raison d'tre for government in the American Republic is to protect the natural rights of citizens.

Collectively an ommision of protection of natural rights is decided by a majority of state legislatures. The Equal Rights Amendment was an attempt that failed to define this natural right. It was close at 33 out of 50.

If anything, my concept has way way more freedom. In fact states could elect to guaratee anything as a protected natural right. Regardless you have natural rights which are not defined.

You have a natural right to pay for a vaectomy but can you find someone to contract with?

Likewise you have a natural right to pay for an abortion but can you find someone to contract with?

 

[Lemon Merchant]

Moderator Action: Let's stay on topic, please. If you need a reminder, the topic is abortion. It says so at the top of the thread.

 

[Cassius Critzer]

What is off topic?

Abortion affects demographics and causes a change in political leadership and control
Abortion rights arise from political theory of diverse kinds to support it as a natural right or a civil right.

These are very basic philosophical questions about how the government allows abortion or impedes it.

Likewise there are religious elements that affect how abortion is restricted and the validity of this in a free society.

Then there is the bioethics of the procedures.

Then there is the discussion of medical effects both physiological and psychological.

How is any of this off topic or even inflammatory?

We have yet to discuss the economic complexities of private access by managed care and public access for the impoverished.

Give us some direction.

 

[Mouthwash]

The anti-abortion crowd ( I don't use the term pro-life, because in my lifetime I've only ever encountered 2 people who are convincingly anti-abortion and pro-life. The rest are just anti-abortion, and give no indications of being pro-life) feel they cannot give an inch. It's a moral imperative to them. To them it's killing babies. The pro-choice crowd does not dare give an inch. For you cannot compromise with someone who will not compromise.

As we speak, the current law in the United States is taxpayer-funded abortion up until birth.

On the subject of abortion how would you make that case? We need to leave religion out of it, for government is always wrong when it legislates on the basis of the religious convictions of some at the expense of others. So is there a harm being done here that warrants government involvement? One side says yes, the other no. No middle ground.

Well, I did post an alternative of defining abortion as medical malpractice (by the state, not the federal government). What's your opinion on that?

I'm going to highlight this particular phrase, because it is I think a far more complicated one that you're permitting.

"Morally acceptable", here, does not mean uncomplicated. It does not mean the best of all possible worlds. It only means that the moral force against the action is weaker than the moral force in favour of it. It is not necessary, it is not even encouraged, it is just acceptable.

I'm just using acceptable as a shorthand for "thinks it's the woman's right to kill the fetus she's carrying."

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm just using acceptable as a shorthand for "thinks it's the woman's right to kill the fetus she's carrying."

None the less. This "right" is not arrived at naively, without an acknowledgement of the moral complexity of the act. I'll grant that people might hammer away at slogans, about a "woman's right to choose" as if it were morally uncomplicated- but if we judge every political position by its most simplistic sloganeers, all are likely to turn out equally vacuous, and all we can judge is whether their inventory of slogans is more or less coherent.