pro-choice people

[MaC]

Wasn't it Harry Browne who used to say that he was personally against abortion, and would not have the females in his family abort, but that it was not a matter for the state?  And, moreover, though he personally opposed the procedure on the very grounds you suggest, he did not feel the state should restrict.  Thus, he was both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice.  I thought that a very Libertarian position.  I think I'm probably neither, but I can certainly try to understand Browne's position.

yeah, that pretty much sums it up.  I'm a pretty big fan of Browne, and that's the gist of it.

[dazzleman]

I hate debating abortion.  But I have to say this:  Isn't it a logical fallacy (red herring) by saying "it's a women's body, she should choose".  I mean it diverts that fact that even though the fetus IS in her body, it's still living and should be treated as if it were any other human being.  Saying "it's her body" only tries to justify doing what she wants and not even taking into consideration the fetus.  Again, I hate to bring it up, but it needs to be said.

You're right.

[Redefeatbush04]

Yes I understand that the "fetus" can not survive on its own. If I stopped feeding my 7 month old it would die too.

If it's been born, someone else can feed it. Please refrain from ever making such an inane statement in the future. I've heard some pretty terrible pro-life arguments, but that one is easily the worst, and I don't even understand why it's brought up in intelligent debates.

You don't have to attack me cashcow. I realize that it was an exaggerated statement. Its just that when the fetus is in the mother, the mother is the only one who is responcible for raising the child. Once the child is born everyone is responcible. But if the family starved the child to death, collectively, theyd be facing some legal trouble. Yet in some circumstances we pay through taxes for this same mother to kill her child ("fetus") .  The only difference is that when the death is legal, it does not have someone else to take care of it, and the life is abandoned. I know what is going to be said about that statement. "But the fetus isn't life." If it isn't living why are you trying to kill it. That is the true conflict of opinion between democrats and republicans: is it living. No one with a conscience can stand for death. Even if I may have said that democrats are pro-death on this issue in the past, I am intelligent enough to know that they don't actually support death because in their minds if it was never living it couldn't have died. For many pro-abortionists the only issue is the mothers freedom, and since the "fetus" isn't living, life is a non-issue. For anti-abortionists the only issue is preserving life, and liberty trumps murder.  Lets talk about some of the methods to end the fetuses "non-life". There is something known as dilation and curettage. This is used I believe during the first trimester. The mouth of the womb is stretched out and a sharp spoon shaped thing is stuck into the uterus. The thing then scoops up the fetus and takes it out of the womb. Since this is a sharp object it is not entirely safe for the mother. There is also salt poisioning, which is pretty self-sexplanatory, resulting in a "candy apple baby" names so by its bright red glow. It often goes into convulsions and dies while still in the uterus. There is suction, which I find discusting. There is Dilation and evacuation which is even more discusting than that. I'm sorry I just can't elaborate on these any more. Its sickening me. I'm done.

[Cashcow]

You don't have to attack me cashcow.

I'm not attacking you, Red, you're a good guy. I'm attacking that hideous argument which fortunately you seem to have dropped.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Clearly, the motivation for most is that it will someday become living, as is the same impetus to use the morning-after pill and birth control. Are you against those? Aren't they doing the exact same thing - preventing life from peacefully and naturally developing? I have to wonder what you'd say about a woman who was brutally raped and became pregnant.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course there is a point during the pregnancy at which the fetus is probably a sentinent being. And, when the egg is first fertilized, I don't see how you can dispute that there's nothing but potential for a human being to form. This begs the question: When does it become a human being? Though he's clearly pro-life, David's assessment of this subject sums it up quite well; no one is qualified to determine when a tiny speck of cells actually becomes a creature with the same rights as me and you. For this reason, I think it's best we leave the choice to those in control of the situation which we may not understand, at least until the partial-birth stage (during which abortion is already illegal).

By the way, nothing irritates me more than people who say, "Well, abortion should definitely be legal for the # trimester, but illegal after the # trimester..." That's absurd. It's living or it's not. Pro-life or no-life. As if a bunch of politically savvy elitists on the internet have any right to decide something so important.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is it any more dangerous or disgusting than a back-alley abortion? What do you think of those?

[Ebowed]

Now, the back-alley abortion argument is quite possibly the worst argument of the pro-choice side.  "If you make abortion illegal, it'll still occur, and it will be less safe."  I could say the same thing about rape, I don't see anyone backing me up on that.

[Cashcow]

I wasn't using that as an assertive statement. He just needs to know that terrible things happen are going to happen no matter what. See the libertarian standpoint. You can be personally opposed to something and still not want to make laws against it.

Edit: It seems like he is more concerned with how the "life" is ended than the fact that life is actually ended. That is what I was referring to.

[Redefeatbush04]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Clearly, the motivation for most is that it will someday become living, as is the same impetus to use the morning-after pill and birth control. Are you against those? Aren't they doing the exact same thing - preventing life from peacefully and naturally developing? I have to wonder what you'd say about a woman who was brutally raped and became pregnant.

I know it will be a long difficult 9 months but she needs to have the baby. In such a situation the government should compensate her for damages both physical and mental which may have been caused by having to give birth. If the rapist is captured he should pay for it - possibly through hard labor over an extended period of time. I know that that mother is gonna go through hell for 9 months, and it may even affect her permanently, but it WILL definately affect that "nonliving" little creature permanently if she aborts it. I have put way too much thought into birth controll & morning after. My morals and my logic are at ends with each other. I suppose that at some point of time it would be more beneficial to use that little clump of cells for research (stem cell research) than it would be to develop that little clump of cells into a breathing thinking baby. The sacrifice of one life (that can't feel pain) can work towards saving millions (and ending their suffering). I support stem cell research within reason. Hmm.....it seems I have drifted off subject. How the hell did that happen? Whatever. Birth controll and morning after come at a time when that clump of cells can barely even be called a stem cell. It really isn't a big deal to me. Yet part of me screams out that life begins at conception. You have to draw the line somewhere. We all agree that life should be preserved. Is it living at 6 days? 6 weeks? 6 months? Think about it. A 90 day old fetus is no different than a 91 day old fetus but if the rule is that after 90 days it can't be aborted one is alive and one is a non-living clump of cells. Would you risk killing someone just because you don't want to admit to your parents that your not daddy's little perfect virgin daughter. Would you risk killing someone just to say that you got to make a choice? Would you risk destroying someones entire life so that you don't risk destroying 9 months of yours? I WILL NEVER TAKE THAT RISK AND NEITHER SHOULD YOU.

(sorry for the rambling)

[Cashcow]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Clearly, the motivation for most is that it will someday become living, as is the same impetus to use the morning-after pill and birth control. Are you against those? Aren't they doing the exact same thing - preventing life from peacefully and naturally developing? I have to wonder what you'd say about a woman who was brutally raped and became pregnant.

I know it will be a long difficult 9 months but she needs to have the baby. In such a situation the government should compensate her for damages both physical and mental which may have been caused by having to give birth. If the rapist is captured he should pay for it - possibly through hard labor over an extended period of time. I know that that mother is gonna go through hell for 9 months, and it may even affect her permanently, but it WILL definately affect that "nonliving" little creature permanently if she aborts it. I have put way too much thought into birth controll & morning after. My morals and my logic are at ends with each other. I suppose that at some point of time it would be more beneficial to use that little clump of cells for research (stem cell research) than it would be to develop that little clump of cells into a breathing thinking baby. The sacrifice of one life (that can't feel pain) can work towards saving millions (and ending their suffering). I support stem cell research within reason. Hmm.....it seems I have drifted off subject. How the hell did that happen? Whatever. Birth controll and morning after come at a time when that clump of cells can barely even be called a stem cell. It really isn't a big deal to me. Yet part of me screams out that life begins at conception. You have to draw the line somewhere. We all agree that life should be preserved. Is it living at 6 days? 6 weeks? 6 months? Think about it. A 90 day old fetus is no different than a 91 day old fetus but if the rule is that after 90 days it can't be aborted one is alive and one is a non-living clump of cells. Would you risk killing someone just because you don't want to admit to your parents that your not daddy's little perfect virgin daughter. Would you risk killing someone just to say that you got to make a choice? Would you risk destroying someones entire life so that you don't risk destroying 9 months of yours? I WILL NEVER TAKE THAT RISK AND NEITHER SHOULD YOU.

(sorry for the rambling)

I find that your position takes absolutely no consideration into the position of the woman who is actually having the baby. I honestly hope you get raped someday. As we're both males, that probably sounds funny, but there is absolutely no reason to make such a terrible experience that much worse. It's not like she'd wait that long, anyway, it would be at the very beginning.

[Redefeatbush04]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Clearly, the motivation for most is that it will someday become living, as is the same impetus to use the morning-after pill and birth control. Are you against those? Aren't they doing the exact same thing - preventing life from peacefully and naturally developing? I have to wonder what you'd say about a woman who was brutally raped and became pregnant.

I know it will be a long difficult 9 months but she needs to have the baby. In such a situation the government should compensate her for damages both physical and mental which may have been caused by having to give birth. If the rapist is captured he should pay for it - possibly through hard labor over an extended period of time. I know that that mother is gonna go through hell for 9 months, and it may even affect her permanently, but it WILL definately affect that "nonliving" little creature permanently if she aborts it. I have put way too much thought into birth controll & morning after. My morals and my logic are at ends with each other. I suppose that at some point of time it would be more beneficial to use that little clump of cells for research (stem cell research) than it would be to develop that little clump of cells into a breathing thinking baby. The sacrifice of one life (that can't feel pain) can work towards saving millions (and ending their suffering). I support stem cell research within reason. Hmm.....it seems I have drifted off subject. How the hell did that happen? Whatever. Birth controll and morning after come at a time when that clump of cells can barely even be called a stem cell. It really isn't a big deal to me. Yet part of me screams out that life begins at conception. You have to draw the line somewhere. We all agree that life should be preserved. Is it living at 6 days? 6 weeks? 6 months? Think about it. A 90 day old fetus is no different than a 91 day old fetus but if the rule is that after 90 days it can't be aborted one is alive and one is a non-living clump of cells. Would you risk killing someone just because you don't want to admit to your parents that your not daddy's little perfect virgin daughter. Would you risk killing someone just to say that you got to make a choice? Would you risk destroying someones entire life so that you don't risk destroying 9 months of yours? I WILL NEVER TAKE THAT RISK AND NEITHER SHOULD YOU.

(sorry for the rambling)

I find that your position takes absolutely no consideration into the position of the woman who is actually having the baby. I honestly hope you get raped someday. As we're both males, that probably sounds funny, but there is absolutely no reason to make such a terrible experience that much worse. It's not like she'd wait that long, anyway, it would be at the very beginning.

Rape IS a horrible experience. I mentioned that they would be 9 months from hell but that she needs to have the kid. I used to support abortion for Rape but then I thought deeper. Sure the kid may have to deal with not knowing his father but if he/she is put up for adoption he will never find out. It is the mothers 9 months vs. the childs entire life. Incest is a different issue. I don't know why but I feel that if the child finds out he was a product of incest he would take it a hell of a lot worse than if he finds out he was a product of rape.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Wasn't it Harry Browne who used to say that he was personally against abortion, and would not have the females in his family abort, but that it was not a matter for the state?  And, moreover, though he personally opposed the procedure on the very grounds you suggest, he did not feel the state should restrict.  Thus, he was both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice.  I thought that a very Libertarian position.  I think I'm probably neither, but I can certainly try to understand Browne's position.

Kerry said that he is personally against abortion.

[Cashcow]

Rape IS a horrible experience. I mentioned that they would be 9 months from hell but that she needs to have the kid. I used to support abortion for Rape but then I thought deeper. Sure the kid may have to deal with not knowing his father but if he/she is put up for adoption he will never find out. It is the mothers 9 months vs. the childs entire life. Incest is a different issue. I don't know why but I feel that if the child finds out he was a product of incest he would take it a hell of a lot worse than if he finds out he was a product of rape.

Yeah, that's so "deep." I get the impression that being "pro-life" to you means caring much more about the existence of life than the quality of life. This mindset has had a terrible effect on society.

[Redefeatbush04]

Wasn't it Harry Browne who used to say that he was personally against abortion, and would not have the females in his family abort, but that it was not a matter for the state?  And, moreover, though he personally opposed the procedure on the very grounds you suggest, he did not feel the state should restrict.  Thus, he was both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice.  I thought that a very Libertarian position.  I think I'm probably neither, but I can certainly try to understand Browne's position.

Kerry said that he is personally against abortion.

Very few are ardent supporters of abortion. They are "personally" against it. Kerry like many of these "personally against" people believes that a woman can choose to abort, but says that his family would never do so.

[Redefeatbush04]

Rape IS a horrible experience. I mentioned that they would be 9 months from hell but that she needs to have the kid. I used to support abortion for Rape but then I thought deeper. Sure the kid may have to deal with not knowing his father but if he/she is put up for adoption he will never find out. It is the mothers 9 months vs. the childs entire life. Incest is a different issue. I don't know why but I feel that if the child finds out he was a product of incest he would take it a hell of a lot worse than if he finds out he was a product of rape.

Yeah, that's so "deep." I get the impression that being "pro-life" to you means caring much more about the existence of life than the quality of life. This mindset has had a terrible effect on society.

if you found out that your mother was raped and that your dad isn't actually your dad would you kill yourself?

[Cashcow]

Rape IS a horrible experience. I mentioned that they would be 9 months from hell but that she needs to have the kid. I used to support abortion for Rape but then I thought deeper. Sure the kid may have to deal with not knowing his father but if he/she is put up for adoption he will never find out. It is the mothers 9 months vs. the childs entire life. Incest is a different issue. I don't know why but I feel that if the child finds out he was a product of incest he would take it a hell of a lot worse than if he finds out he was a product of rape.

Yeah, that's so "deep." I get the impression that being "pro-life" to you means caring much more about the existence of life than the quality of life. This mindset has had a terrible effect on society.

if you found out that your mother was raped and that your dad isn't actually your dad would you kill yourself?

Do you equate me to a month-old clump of cells?

[Redefeatbush04]

Rape IS a horrible experience. I mentioned that they would be 9 months from hell but that she needs to have the kid. I used to support abortion for Rape but then I thought deeper. Sure the kid may have to deal with not knowing his father but if he/she is put up for adoption he will never find out. It is the mothers 9 months vs. the childs entire life. Incest is a different issue. I don't know why but I feel that if the child finds out he was a product of incest he would take it a hell of a lot worse than if he finds out he was a product of rape.

Yeah, that's so "deep." I get the impression that being "pro-life" to you means caring much more about the existence of life than the quality of life. This mindset has had a terrible effect on society.

if you found out that your mother was raped and that your dad isn't actually your dad would you kill yourself?

Do you equate me to a month-old clump of cells?

no but this is an existence of life vs. quality of life situation? If you didn't kill yourself it would have a "terrible effect on society"

[Cashcow]

Um, I think you deeply misinterpreted what I was saying, which was that most pro-lifers seem to care much more about the fact that there is life than the quality of life itself.

[Redefeatbush04]

Um, I think you deeply misinterpreted what I was saying, which was that most pro-lifers seem to care much more about the fact that there is life than the quality of life itself.

No I didn't misinterpret it at all. Would you rather have your life (of poor quality) or would you kill yourself? Just answer it.


(g2g for the night be on tomorrow)

[Cashcow]

If my life were truly horrible, of course I'd kill myself. Wouldn't you?

Good night

[Redefeatbush04]

If my life were truly horrible, of course I'd kill myself. Wouldn't you?

Good night

No, not even if my life was horrible. And furthermore..... these aborted "clumps of cells"....they have a shot at a happy healthy life. These mothers, they have a chance at a happy healthy life. 

gnight my NJ brother (baby killer!!!! )

[Cashcow]

I don't understand why you value life so much. If your own life were truly miserable, why would you want to live and suffer when you could die and maybe keep some of your dignity?

these aborted "clumps of cells"....they have a shot at a happy healthy life. These mothers, they have a chance at a happy healthy life.

With the life-at-any-cost mindset, how do you know? Again... it seems like you're just tacking on a happy, healthy life as a fringe benefit to keeping people alive. However, it's also clear that you deeply value human life, while I do not. I respect your view.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

and proud of it.

OK, I really don't want to continue this argument; abortion is a touchy subject for me, and to be honest, the fact that it's such a political issue greatly bothers me as well. I bow out of this topic.

[Beet]

I hate debating abortion.

I love debating it. Its not so much of a policy debate (like gun control) yet as a values debate, hence it's quite easy to debate. There are no esoteric religious interpretations to get into here. No deep legal insight. No mountains of statistics and facts to dig up, or at least not many. On the other hand it is a big lightning rod. A very convenient issue for everyone to chip in on.

Lately I've picked up some new stuff about this debate.

First, a good percentage of people take the position they take not out of genuine conviction on this issue itself, but rather because a consensus on the issue on one side or the other would be a big win for the opposite side in the culture wars, which they are viscerally, heavily terrified of. So many people wouldn't even care about abortion at all except that it is a huge proxy for all the culture war. I find it's usually the more extreme people who are more likely to feel this way, but not all the time.

The second is not so obvious: This issue, like others, undergoes throes of high salience where the debate rapidly shifts, followed by long periods of hibernation. During the last period (1970s, early 80s), the debate developed two different "frames" (woman-focused vs fetus-focused) along with separate axes of values, and rhetoric, and opinion. Along each axis falls the full gradient of opinion, but they are each separate frames or paradigms of approaching the debate, or of forming opinion, and essentially talk beyond one another. The woman-focused frame can be seen in debates of individual rights (hence pro-choice) and circumstances. The fetus-focused frame can be seen in debates of fetal status (hence pro-life) and definition of life.

Third, although the fetus-focused framers (people who take this view) constantly claim that their frame rationally encompasses weighter substance (right to life vs privacy), their claims are more abstract and less tractable, requiring a deductivist view of the debate and perhaps an overly rationalist mind to fully accept. In fact, both frames have been supported by the structure of our debates and social attitudes.

Fourth, changes in mass consciousness for any particular issue do not occur except during a period of high salience, even when the underlying factors supporting the status quo structure of the debate have changed. For example, from 1935 to 1955, the underlying factors supporting the traditional dominance of segregation in the South had changed due to the economic and technological transformation of the country, the social experiences resulting from World War II, and the nature of the judges sitting on U.S. courts, in that order. However, civil rights was not a high salience issue until activists made it so. The revolution did not occur by itself. Hence, the proximate cause in a change in mass consciousness and the underlying factors that leave the status quo vulnerable to that proximate cause are separable.

Fifth, the underlying factors supporting the status quo in the abortion debate, which are a balance between the woman-focused vs fetus-focused frames, is gradually being undermined, even as public opinion, in the absence of a period where abortion has extremely high visibility, shows a deceptively stable picture of the abortion debate (as it has been for 30 so years).

Specifically, let us make a supposition. Suppose the individual rights view prevails on the woman-centered axis. That is, as womens' rights became broadly accepted enough to exit the political debate, and as premartial sex and the right to have sex become accepted, and as tolerance wins the culture war on womens' and sexual freedom issues, this axis gradually disappears due to an emerging consensus. With this apparent victory for liberal forces (which I do not feel to be complete by any margin), they are actually put at a fatal disadvantage in the abortion debate, as it is destabilized by the gradual exit of one of the two major axes. With the war over women over, the debate becomes increasingly defined along the fetus-centered axis.

Ultrasound is contributing to this. What was once an overly deductivist view, the fetus-centered view, nevertheless becomes dominant when the pro-life movement stops framing the issue along the woman-centered axis, realizing they cannot win there. Then, they shift themselves into the position of extendors of rights, of being the progressive side of the debate. They are aided by this by the fundamental importance of life over privacy in the hierarchy of rights, from the perspective of their frame. Under that case, all that is needed for a mass shift in public conscience is a period of high salience for abortion.

Such a period of high salience could occur before this administration goes out, assuming that 2 or 3 SCJ's decide to retire, sparking contentious confirmation hearings on this delicately balanced Senate. Under such conditions, a pro-life group that consistently ran a shorter, updated version, of, for example "Silent Scream" in national TV ads, and if they aggressively pushed their frame while avoiding the woman-centered one like the plague, might be able to push through a sea change in opinion.

The biggest thing holding back the pro-lifers today, ironically, is the surprising strength of the conservative right in the culture wars. The more abortion is framed in the '80s culture war, woman-centered frame, and less it is framed as a fetus-centered civil rights matter, the more stable the pro-choice status quo remains. Sometimes, you have to lose to win.

[angus]

The more abortion is framed in the '80s culture war, woman-centered frame, and less it is framed as a fetus-centered civil rights matter, the more stable the pro-choice status quo remains.

dude, how many times have I said just that?  on this forum.  and in varying paraphrases.  though your emphasis is different.  I usually state that up till the 60s or 70s this was a human-rights issue, and that only when the democrats began to make it a "woman's rights" issue did it begin to get really strange.  for example, the big gender gap from the beginning of time till around 1979 was that men, by a substantial margin, favored less restrictive abortion laws than women.  this is not surprising, and stems from natural biological and sociological considerations.  In fact, the reality is that many more women in the history of modern Western Civilization have been under greater pressure from their manfolk to terminate a pregnancy, rather than to continue an unwanted pregnancy.  but you wouldn't know that if you went to sleep at the beginning of time and just woke up today.  The dems are losing on an issue that they created is how I see this.  I can tell we're not going to agree on the analysis of fine points, but I think the manner in which you framed the issue is prescient.  amd I think this was an excellent post.  you're a smart fellow.  you really should reconsider your partisan loyalties.  don't know why you'd want to hang out with the riff-raff.

[Beet]

The more abortion is framed in the '80s culture war, woman-centered frame, and less it is framed as a fetus-centered civil rights matter, the more stable the pro-choice status quo remains.

dude, how many times have I said just that?  on this forum.  and in varying paraphrases.  though your emphasis is different.  I usually state that up till the 60s or 70s this was a human-rights issue, and that only when the democrats began to make it a "woman's rights" issue did it begin to get really strange.  for example, the big gender gap from the beginning of time till around 1979 was that men, by a substantial margin, favored less restrictive abortion laws than women.  this is not surprising, and stems from natural biological and sociological considerations.  In fact, the reality is that many more women in the history of modern Western Civilization have been under greater pressure from their manfolk to terminate a pregnancy, rather than to continue an unwanted pregnancy.  but you wouldn't know that if you went to sleep at the beginning of time and just woke up today.  The dems are losing on an issue that they created is how I see this.  I can tell we're not going to agree on the analysis of fine points, but I think the manner in which you framed the issue is prescient.  amd I think this was an excellent post.  you're a smart fellow.  you really should reconsider your partisan loyalties.  don't know why you'd want to hang out with the riff-raff.

Ah, I didn't see your earlier posts about this, sorry. Thanks for the compliment though. I guess I will now switch to GOP

[angus]

welcome to the dark side baby.   Put aside all those naive notions of wealth redistribution and come burn in Hell with me and the Plutocrats.  I'll even save a seat for ya   

seriously, yeah, I've pointed out this before.  I was beginning to think it was only me and lifelong Republican Teresa Heinz Kerry who could be fully abortion-supportive, but at the same time mightily offended by the "keep your laws offa my body" feminazis.  It's nice to see that someone sees this issue on a higher-brow level.  Rise above the din of the TV and think for yourself.  It's a rare thing nowadays.

[WalterMitty]

angus, i guess i feel very much like harry browne.

im very much opposed to abortion.  im not saying that people that have abortions are going to 'hell'.  that isnt for me to say.  ive never been in their shoes.

if i ever impregnated a woman and she had an abortion, id be very upset.  i probably wouldnt ever want to speak to her again.

however, at the same time, criminalizing abortion isnt the answer.  it should remain legal, because the alternative is so much worse.