Abortion

[FLGOP]

I would like to give my two cents.  First off, I am a pre-med student majoring in biochemistry.  
That said, biologist have a set of standards (seven) that must be fulfilled in order to classify something as living.  They include response to stimulus, growth, development, metabolism, and others.  The fetus, without a doubt, fulfills the requirements to be considered living.  
As to the argument of cells being capable of being humans, that is scientifically not true.  The major difference between the fertilized egg and skin cells is that the skin cells are already specialized, whereas the fertilized egg is undergoing development and the stem cells are beginning to reproduce and specialize.
Seeing as how the woman and the fetus have a different DNA structure, the fetus is not part of the woman.  Furthermore, tests performed on pregnant women show that they have two sets of brainwaves and two heartbeats.
For a philosophical argument, I ask shouldn't a right have universal application?  We all have the freedom of association, the press, and speech.  This does not depend on whether we are male or female, Jew or Gentile, black or white.  The so called right to an abortion, by its very nature already excludes half the population, as men may not have abortions.  This is further compounded by girls who have note reached puberty, which because of their inability to ovulate can not become pregnant.  Then there are the women that no longer ovulate, they may not become pregnant either.  With an increasing elderly population, this excludes about another 10%.  Then we have all the women that are sterile, those that are lesbians, and those that are celibate.
As for Roe v Wade, Roe is now staunchly opposed to abortion, as is Dr. Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of NARAL.  The legal basis for Roe v Wade was the Griswold v Pennsylvania case.  This case came up with the idea of a right to privacy in marital relationships.  If someone is not married, how can they have this right to an abortion?
FYI, abortion was practiced in the NAZI concentration camps to prevent the "undesirables" from reproducing.  There is also a group of pro-life atheists and agnostics, it's called Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League and its website is www.godlessprolifers.org.
Something that was posted on the first page truly troubles me.  The argument that letting states decide the abortion issue would force poor women to lead miserable lives is truly a troubling statement.  That is nothing more than Marx's class warfare strategy.  If you are poor, work harder and make self sacrifice.  That is what my family had to do when we first came to this country.  I can tell everyone here that hard work and sacrifice will insure an upward economic mobility.  If a person can't afford to have children, they shouldn't be having unprotected sex.  If they still have unprotected sex, they have already made their choice.
Partial birth abortion is called this in the media because of the procedure used.  The child is delivered feet first, leaving only the head inside the womb.  Scissors are used to open the skull, and then a vacuum is used to collapse the skull.  What is left of the child is then fully delivered.  I've noticed that when describing the procedure how many people that consider the fetus to be just a collection of tissues start to cringe.
I can understand making exceptions for cases when the mother's life is in peril, but can not understand why we must punish the child for the crimes of the father.  In instances of rape, the perpetrator should be captured and punished.

[FLGOP]

First off, to answer Gustaf, I only mentioned Hitler because here in the states many are now attempting to paint him as being pro-life.

As for my moral bias, it is inherent in all humanity.  Morality was the foundation of ethics, which guide all society.

Now for women having or not having sex, I was trying to argue that they should have worn some protection, which is far more cost effective than either raising a child or having an abortion.  It is not much more effective to have the state pay for abortions.  Abortions are not cheap, and if people keep having UNPROTECTED intercourse, women will keep getting pregnant.  Where is the financial incentive for someone to use protection if the undesirable end result will either way not happen?  I could buy condoms to prevent a pregnancy, or I could not buy them and then have the state pay for the abortion.  The choice was made to have sex without the use of a condom, or other contraceptive.  Choices have consequences and people have to start taking personal responsibility for their actions.

I agree that the law should not have classes, regardless of what they may be based on.  However, I disagree that the government is responsible for people.  People must be responsible for themselves.  If, because of some disability, some may not be able to fend for themselves, then I am sure others will be charitable enough to provide for them.  It is not the role of government because government, through its taxation, forces some people to pay for goods and services that they feel are not truly necessary.  Not so long ago, the headquarters of Habitat for Humanity (based in Atlanta, Georgia) decided to open a place so that Americans can learn what poverty is truly like, they argued that the poor in America are not necessarily poor when compared to those in other parts of the world.

It is precisely because I believe in gender equality that I oppose elective abortions.  Women can require their partner to wear some sort of protection.  If her partner chooses not to, she can use her power and deny him intercourse.

To Beet, thanks for your welcome.  However, I see things somewhat differently.  Members of one species may arise only from members of the same species.  It is impossible for two humans to mate and produce a calf, or any other animal, as an offspring.  If we are humans now, it is because we have been humans at every stage of our development.

Physical attachment in and of itself does not exclude individuality.  The best visual example of this would be Siamese twins.  Yes, they are physically attached, and sometimes separation may kill one or both of the twins.  As to the debate on whether it is one individual or two, the original Siamese twins had two different personalities, each one had a wife, and each one fathered children.

I mentioned the heart and brain waves because people only have one set of each.  If any of us were to go in and get an ECG, only one set would be detected.  If a pregnant woman at the proper stage of embryological development were to go in, two sets would be detected.

As to changing the debate from viability to consciousness, this in and of itself would be even more highly debatable.  The implications would be far reaching, for instance, if someone were to become unconscious, would that imply that they are no longer able to live?  But then what if they are capable of regaining consciousness, either on their own or with the aid of medicine?

I'm not too sure we understand each other on what universality is or what can be deemed a right.  I view walking as an ability, not so much a right.  It can be classified as a right for the purposes of mobility to allow for the freedom of association, but it is not in and of itself a right.  As for women, even those that are heterosexual and fertile, they do not always have the "right" to an abortion.  A woman can not have an abortion if she is not pregnant; there is nothing to abort otherwise.

As for common law precedents, the ruling in Dred Scott was never overruled by the court.  It became a moot point only after the Civil War and the subsequent amendments to the Constitution that outlawed the practice.  The idea of stare decisis is not as solid as once it may have been.  The Courts constantly change their interpretations.  Whether it is the case of Brown v. Topeka Board of Education, which overturned the concept of separate but equal, or WV School Board of Education v. Barnette which overturned the ruling in Gobitis, the opinion of the court is in constant change.

My mention of the agnostics and atheists was only as a response to a previous entry that claimed all pro-life advocates are theists.

[FLGOP]

As for Roe v Wade, Roe is now staunchly opposed to abortion

In Roe, she was forced to have her child because the case took too long. I'm sure having to raise that child after all had an impact on her viewpoint on abortion. Anyway, Roe v. Wade was not about her--it was about the issue in general.

Actually, that child was latter put up for adoption, she herself did not take care of it.

[FLGOP]

If a person can't afford to have children, they shouldn't be having unprotected sex.  If they still have unprotected sex, they have already made their choice.

Now for women having or not having sex, I was trying to argue that they should have worn some protection, which is far more cost effective than either raising a child or having an abortion.  It is not much more effective to have the state pay for abortions.  Abortions are not cheap, and if people keep having UNPROTECTED intercourse, women will keep getting pregnant.  Where is the financial incentive for someone to use protection if the undesirable end result will either way not happen?  I could buy condoms to prevent a pregnancy, or I could not buy them and then have the state pay for the abortion.  The choice was made to have sex without the use of a condom, or other contraceptive.  Choices have consequences and people have to start taking personal responsibility for their actions.

People must be responsible for themselves.  If, because of some disability, some may not be able to fend for themselves, then I am sure others will be charitable enough to provide for them.  It is not the role of government because government, through its taxation, forces some people to pay for goods and services that they feel are not truly necessary.  

It is precisely because I believe in gender equality that I oppose elective abortions.  Women can require their partner to wear some sort of protection.  If her partner chooses not to, she can use her power and deny him intercourse.

I don't support this line of reasoning because women obviously are more affected by pregnancy than men are. Both men and women should be responsible for their choices, but there certainly are fewer consequences for a man who has unprotected sex. Legalized abortion is just a way to compensate for that and help achieve gender equality.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, but women have the power to say no.  That is one thing feminism is right about, that women have power just like men.  It, in my view, is somewhat discriminatory against women to believe (I hope I am not placing any words in anyone's mouth) that they have sex to a large extent because of the desires of males.

[FLGOP]

I can't decide what I should to address first. Perhaps I'll do it a la carte.

I will start with your views on poverty. I will agree that contraception is more cost effective than abortion. However, it is significantly less effective than abortion. If you use natural contraception, the rate of failure can be 30%. So, if a woman is pregnant, it is cheaper for the government to pay for an abortion than a lifetime of welfare entitlements and pre and post natal care.

Also, a society's standards of poverty are of course defined by one's surroundings. One who might be wealthy in Mozambique could constitute a member of the underclass here. If the levels of affluence and poverty are of comparable variance, the significantly more secure person in America can suffer equal psychological trauma based upon class resentment.

To say abortion shouldn't be funded by taxpayer money is silly. I oppose most of our defense spending. Does that entitle me to insist that we cut off funding for national security and in addition allow me to refuse to pay my taxes?

Your attempt to link Dred Scott with the disregard for common law precedent is factually incorrect. While not overturned by the Supreme Court, the decision was invalidated by the Thirteenth Amendment. Yet, the Eisenstadt decision is still alive and well as binding precedent. It is frequently cited by the Supreme Court in privacy disputes.

Finally, I cannot see your gender equality argument's premise. What I think it says is that men and women can use their abilities equally to fend off conception. But this has nothing to do with actual gender equality theory. It can be best described as the distant edge of the parabola of the plane of standard egalitarian thought.

And one correction, nclib. The petitioner in Roe v. Wade did not raise her child. Her mother did, at a considerable hardship for an aged woman.

Natural contraception has a high failure rate, granted.  But people can buy condoms, diaphragms, and spermicidal jelly.  The failure rate of each is very, very small.

As you can probably guess, I am against entitlements.  I would suggest that the father get a job, as well as the mother, and once the child comes of age he can also get a part time job.  They also have to live without some of the excesses of modern life.  Television is not necessary, nor are VCRs, camcorders, DVD players, etc.  If they make small sacrifices, and work hard, they can move up the economic latter.  There is no need for a lifetime of welfare entitlements.

If a person in America feels some sort trauma due to class resentment, I have an idea that's so radical that it may actually work: I propse the person do something about it rather than just complain about the system.  Work is available to those that look.  A major problem with the developing American view to work is that there are certain jobs that are beneath them, and this is hogwash.

In fact, you can argue that defense spending should be cut, as I argue that social spending should be cut.  Whether any of the cutting actually takes place is another issue.  We all have a right to our opinions and to voice them.  I, however, do pay my taxes, and regardless of whether I agree with what the government does with it I still must pay them.

As for my writing about Dred Scott, there is nothing factually incorrect about my statement.  It was never overturned by the courts.  It became a moot point after the Civil War with the passage of the 13th Amendment, which I had alluded to in my second posting in this thread.

I mentioned other cases because of the fact that the ruling in one overturned the ruling in another.  Again this is because stare decisis is not as strong as it once was.  There is absolutely nothing that can stop the court from hearing a case where the Eisenstadt decision is overturned.  There have been several Supreme Court rulings that have narrowed Roe v Wade, and there is nothing to either prevent overturning those previous rulings or placing greater restrictions placed on Roe v Wade (other than who sits on the court).

I wasn't arguing that both genders have an equal ability to fend of contraception, but rather that women have more power.  She can wear a diaphragm, use spermicidal jelly, or not have sex with a particular male if he refuses to use protection.  We are so much more than just carnal creatures seeking instant gratification.

[FLGOP]

migrendel,

How does having an abortion erase the fact that the woman was raped.  If she does have trauma from the rape, it is because of the rape.  The crime should be more seriously punished.  

Would I allow a woman to get an abortion if she gets raped, (this answers a previous question) probably yes.  I would not force the woman to get the abortion, however, as many women have been raped and decided to go through with the pregnancy.  There was an article in Time Magazine quite some time ago that highlighted some of the women that got raped and still did not get an abortion.  

Further, a person's morality applies to the majority of cases, not the exception, this is the same ways that our laws are promulgated.

[FLGOP]

It surprises me how those that consider themselves pro-choice believe that there is only a choice after sexual intercourse.  There is always the choice of having sex in the first place.  Afterwards, there is the choice of which contraceptive to use, such as condoms, spermicidal jelly, diaphragms, timing, etc.  There is always the knowledge that having sex without protection may lead to pregnancy.  There is also the knowledge that intercourse may lead to an STD.  There are pressures to have people use protection.  Never focusing on personal responsibility does lead to the decay of society.

[FLGOP]

Again, what about personal responsibility?  People have sex, granted; many people have sex wearing some form of protection that prevents the spread of STD and prevents pregnancy.  By saying that it is okay to have sex without the use of protection, because you can then go get an abortion, just clears the way for more unprotected sex.  Then we'll start wondering why there's a new epidemic related to sexually transmitted diseases.

[FLGOP]

All this talk about choice makes me wonder why all those supporting choice are so opposed to my choice to own a gun...