Again, the definition of what is or is not a 'private medical decision' beyond the reach of government in this country is one that government makes. The definition of what constitutes a criminal violation of another person, is one that government makes. Insofar as the public is reflected in that balance secondary to public pressure on law makers, the public opinion matters. Insofar as our laws inevitably reflect a balance of the our values of liberty, order, protection from harm etc we have a duty to be involved. Why don't you ask me where I see the proper balance rather than presuming.
Women have plenty of responsibility of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy. If you mean financial responsibility, women also have to pay for children. There are plenty of women paying child support to males raising their children. And if she raises the child alone, child support payments are not designed (for the average male) to constitute the amount of money that it really takes to raise a child....women still have to have additional monies to care for the needs of the child. - - - Updated - - - Because your opinion on someone else's private medical decision doesn't matter. I'm pro-mind-your-own-damn-business
Who the hell do you think you are, telling me I have less of a right or duty to help form good public policy via abortion than you have. What I believe should be the proper balance between protecting a women's liberty and this other life from a potentially criminal attack is as fundamental as yours . I will not be silenced by your sexist (*)(*)(*)(*). Its a balance of values, we are discussing and you do not own that conversation. When private interest ends, and vital public interest begins is a public debate that we all share.
Are you ready for the punchline...........UNLESS SHE ABORTS IT............ So let's give the man a choice to abort it also. (you know the responsibility kind, not the medical kind)
The pro-choice position does not need laws or concerned citizens, all it needs is for people to stay out of others' decisions. Those who are concerned about the values of our nation just want to butt in and make decisions for other people. Really and truly, your opinion doesn't matter to a woman with an unwanted pregnancy.
Roe vs Wade already did 'butt in', quite properly and that is why we have a three trimester test on state regulation rather than some blanket affirmation of a woman's right to do whatever she wants, whenever she wants to it. Current law does NOT stay out of this, it measures a set of rights for the woman, and a right to regulate later in the pregnancy for states. I am a citizen who insists on the same right to impact that balance, that you have regardless of your genitalia or mine. Any specific woman's indifference to my rights and duty as a man and citizen, is as moot as it is sexist.
It's funny that with liberals, this is the only topic they don't want others to interfere with when it comes to personal freedoms.
Oh really? What about relaxing or eliminating penalties on drug possession? Is that a conservative or a liberal position? What about allowing gay people to marry and adopt. Was that a conservative or liberal position? Allowing people to immigrate, being free from religion (I suppose either side could claim this one), allowing prostitution to be legal and regulated? In reality, there is minimal correlation between more or less freedom comparing liberals and conservatives, unless you're talking about specific issues. http://www.learnliberty.org/videos/who-favors-more-freedom-liberals-or-conservatives/ Many people say this, but I'd argue that almost none of them really believe it if they thought about what they were saying. You value "life." Cells are alive, plants are alive, animals are alive. Do you cry for the lettuce you eat? Those cells were alive. Do you fantasize about spreading bacterial life to other planets because you value life so much? No. So what do you, and most people, really value? A particular kind of life. Is it human life that you value? Life that has human DNA? I doubt it. You probably do not cry when a unique human cancer is killed by surgery and neoadjuvant chemotherapy, rather you rejoice because the demise of the cancer represents the ability of a PERSON to continue to live their life. What is a person? Is it human DNA combined with a body that contains a beating heart? Well what happens if you do a heart transplant on somebody? Did that change what kind of person they are? No. What if you did a brain transplant. Would that change what kind of person they are? Yes. So it has something to do with the brain, the mind. So the question of when valuable human life begins, is a question of personhood, and a question of when the mind is sufficiently developed for us to value it. That's a relief. I'm not sure if there's any point to trying to have a rational discussion with somebody who has faith in something. Yes, similar to the point I made above, though it's not just human life, since tumors are human life but we don't give tumors funerals. Nope. Viability is a morally irrelevant standard dependent upon technology, eventually. Newborn babies don't survive on their own period, so we're starting from a completely arbitrary place. Very premature babies don't survive without significant medical intervention. Someday we may be able to grow a baby from fertilization to birth in an artificial womb, but that still wouldn't make an 18-week fetus any more or less valuable than it is today. This is completely incorrect. It's not until after 20 weeks that the prerequisite structures are in place for consciousness to occur. The article I have is focused on pain perception, but it's essentially the same question. Consciousness involves the same connections between the thalamus and cortex that are required for pain perception, or any perception, and this occurs no earlier than 20 weeks. http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=201429 Make it 20 weeks and I'd agree. Many people buy heavily into an "us-versus-them" mentality, believing basically that these other people are evil and not like us. On the other hand, their conception of a baby (at least an American baby) is that of innocence. The bible encourages this: Yes exactly. I think you have a good understanding of what's important for this issue. You were just incorrect about when a fetus can achieve consciousness.
You're missing the point of the opposing side. They (erroneously) believe a fetus is a human person whose right to live they consider to be more important than the right of a woman to not be pregnant. So there's no point to saying what you said until they believe that a fetus is not yet a person. At that point, what you said would become completely true.
That's not true. Viability is the point, where if born, the foetus could survive with medical intervention. Not only that, the odds of a good outcome must be reasonably high. The chances of a foetus born at 22 weeks surviving for long, even with intensive medical intervention, are virtually zilch. Before anyone leaps in with tales of babies born at 21 weeks and surviving to become rocket scientists, I'll point out how the length of a pregnancy and the age of a foetus is worked out. A normal pregnancy begins on the first day of the woman's last menstrual period. It's generally thought that women conceive two weeks after this date - around midway through their cycle. Therefore, if a woman is 8 weeks pregnant, the age of the embryo is about 6 weeks. Nobody can say for sure, but that is a good rough estimate ( and also why women seldom deliver on the EDD but usually within a few days of it). In the case of IVF, it is actually known when the woman became pregnant and the length of the pregnancy is counted from the date the embryo was implanted. Therefore, had those babies born at 21 weeks been conceived naturally, we would be saying they were born at 23 weeks plus. In every case of a miracle baby surviving birth before 22 weeks I've ever heard of , it was conceived by IVF. Always add two weeks. The outcomes of babies born before 24 weeks gestation ( and therefore actually 22 weeks old) are dismal. We don't consider them viable. Babies born at full term are usually fully capable of sustaining their own lives at the same basic level we all do. They may need medical help, but they use their own organs to sustain their own lives they are not dependent on using the organs of another person. That is what is meant by viability.
I am aware that RvW and other rulings and legislation affect pregnancy/birth. I am saying that we do not need that regulation evidenced by Canada whose citizens are not burdened by any such legislation and seem to do fine without it. They actually have a lower abortion rate than the US. Sorry, but men will never have the same right to abortion choice as women, and they will never be able to impact the choice. Men in the past have passed regulation banning abortion to little avail, women still make the choices they deem best. Men have been successful in passing nuisance regulations which women have tolerated, but when it comes to interfering in real choice, women make their own decisions as evidenced in South Texas where the over-regulation of abortion clinics has led to closings and the increase of illegal abortions.
Thousands and thousands of WOMEN voted for and supported the regulation and banning of abortion procedures and / or clinics since universal sufferage, and they did so because of a heart-felt and well considered view of the same balance between the liberty rights of women and the rights of the states to regulate the health, welfare and safety of their population. They were not 'little submissive or foolish women, victims of male propaganda efforts either. The rationale is based on exactly the same reasons, arguments , and concerns that govern men who voted for and supported the regulation and banning of abortion procedures based theirs on. Women who support these guidelines and rules are not using some obscure thought process different than their men counterparts . Of course that is equally true of men who advocate for more liberty in this matter. You cannot dismiss or deny those women their role, and you cannot disparage those men theirs. these arguments whatever their value, are not at their base 'sexist'. It is their impact is profoundly gender disparate . My point is that A public right to advocate for or against a public policy on abortion, is very different from a personal right to meddle in the affair. I was 'pro-life' for awhile . I have been 'pro-choice' for a lot longer. But it was not sexism that got me either place. I will not be denied my right to advocate or speak because of my gender. I will not have my views dismissed or marginalized in the public square because of my gender. None of those declarations is less true depending on what position I advocate. If I ever offer my unsolicited views to a private party, about what she should do with her choices, she should feel free to kick my balls off.
UVVA type laws deal more with the females consent than anything else, hence why they only apply when a woman has not consented to the damage and/or death of the fetus.
It is true, but saying it is ignoring the side you're arguing with. In debate failing to address your opponent's point is conceding it. And if you concede their false notion of early fetal personhood, you don't win by talking about it as a personal issue that doesn't involve anybody else, except maybe the self defense line of thinking we've discussed elsewhere.
Uh, this isn't a Sanctioned Official Debate site.....posters can post their opinions...... The point of fetal personhood is addressed often in here....and the opposition doesn't understand the big words....
I have given a great deal of thought as to why women would not support other women, and I believe there are a variety of reasons. Some of them ARE submissive or foolish women, some of them like the support of a man and don't want to rock that boat. Those women have learned to use the submissive posture to their advantage, manipulating men to get what they want. Some of the women are past the years of childbearing, and if they had unwanted pregnancies they felt they had no choice, and they darn well think young women can endure it if they did (IOW, those women should be punished because I was). Some women, only a few, had an easy time of pregnancy/birth, and honestly don't see what the big deal is, those women tend to have never suffered from financial difficulties. Many of the women are young, and have never experienced pregnancy/childbirth so they don't know what they are talking about but they talk anyway. Really no one wants to interfere with your right to advocacy or speaking, but when you turn that to legislating, it's a different matter. Now you're "advocating" taking away women's rights, women's rights as decided by the SC.
Wow. Now that was patronizing towards women who do not share your view. In essence they are either pathetic versions of Edith Bunker or Grandma Walton. Astonishing, really. There is something obviously wrong with women who's abortion stance is not sufficiently pure. They are either too stupid, too weak or too callous to other women's pain I figured that if a women tells you what their reasons are for a specific public policy stance, it behooves you to believe they know better than you do what they are. If they tell me that they get increasingly concerned about the welfare of that unprotected fetus, I believe its because they are increasingly concerned about the welfare of that unprotected fetus. They may conclude some regulation is in order because that is the conclusion their analysis of the issues and risks, brings them to. Look, I am just trying to get rid of the sexism and stereotyping of men and women in this debate.
More than happy to have a debate with you without sexism and stereotyping .. it would make a change from the standard opponents to abortion Would just like to point out that the fetus is not unprotected, certainly not in the later term anyway.
You are absolutely right. And that represents a compromise stance between the interests of women to their personal liberty, and the interests of states to regulate and protect that fetus and it reflects the concern I mentioned whether it is a man or a woman expressing it. My first rule is to presume the integrity and competence of both sides. My second is to presume that all citizens of both genders have a fundamental right to advocate a stance anywhere along the continuum. The fact that the impact of the law is profoundly gender disparate, does not mean men are to shut up about the law and its moral practical and ethical ramifications. I am not an opponent of abortion rights for women. I am an opponent of stereotyping the opposition to abortion. I said above thread, the only argument I cannot handle, is one that says men should not have or express their voice. Do not marginalize me whatever position I take.
I'll respond to your second part first, I am a male and there is no person in this world that will stop me voicing my opinion on this issue. The interesting thing about the compromise stance of Roe is that it fails to address a fundamental question, the very fact that Roe allows the states to protect the fetus after a certain point alludes to the government deeming the fetus as a person, the question that the courts have, as yet, failed to answer is if the state has a legitimate interest in protecting the fetus, on what grounds can it allow the fetus, as an incompetent actor, to intrude on the body integrity and liberty of another private party, the woman, as a means for attaining its objective?. The courts have not yet addressed the constitutionality of the states response to the intrusion, including the use of that intrusion as a means for accomplishing the state's goal : The protection of the fetus . The value of potential life as represented by the fetus, is similar to, if not the same as, the value placed on all born human life. The issue in abortion rights is, therefore, not the state's interest in protecting potential life, but rather the state;s justification for offering greater protection of potential life than born life. In other words, the issue is not the legitimacy of the state's interest in potential life but rather the state's justification for granting to pre-born potential life a greater right of access to another person's body than it grants born life. The very fact that Roe offers a greater protection to the fetus than it does to born persons is a violation of the equal protection clause.
That is a thinker, alright. I guess the answer may be statutes governing the use of lethal force against non lethal force but that wont even cut it. You are allowed to use whatever force is required to repel and I can't think of a lesser amount of force that will repel the threat even if the presumed harm is minimal. a 260 pound man cannot beat a 90 year old woman to death because she slapped him. but if she slaps him every five minutes for months...
I do understand it. I really do get it where you are heading. I just don't know what to do with it, and if it comes through the appellate courts, I doubt that SCOTUS will either. I do know that they don't want to go there, at least this court does not. My guess is that its the sort of thing they will want very badly not to see in a brief coming over their desk.
