I hear your resoning about gay marraige and am sympathetic to the point. But I think it is reasonable to disagree to an extent. My actual quote is, "I personally beleive that traditional marriage defines a less ambiguous boundary between relationships that are distinguished under the law and those that are not." With emphasis on the traditional marriage. Traditional marriage promotes procreation and the family unit that is the foundation of civilized society. Its recognition under US law as distinguished from other types of relationships is acceptable in my view. I like to think of it as promoting the traditional marriage rather than demoting gay marriage. I dont think that it prevents gay people from having as significant a relationship as is possible. They should not let the labels of society influence the level of their commitment.

What I hear from you on abortion is that it should be legal to kill a baby 1 day before it is born. In your eyes, the baby is still just a fetus and extension of the womans body. You say that it is better to abort early, but that no rights are given to the baby until it is freed from the womb. It is not hard to defend abortion in the case of rape. Rape is not a personal choice of the mother and therefore she has not willingly yielded her personal freedom. Plus when a reported rape has occured it should be easy to monitor the woman and abort asap if necessary. It is the responsibilty of the woman to accept the consequences for her actions. Being raped is not something that she is responsible for. If abortion is such a terrible thing and as you say can often be avoided, then why is it wrong or narrow minded to be prolife? It seems to me that prolife is in favor of prevention and against the terrible action. Prochoice could also favor prevention, as you seem to, but it does not provide real consequence for failure to act responsibly.

 

I'll stick the abortion debate, as the gay-marriage one we're splitting hairs. I don't see you as anti-gay, so that's good enough for me to drop it. Haha

The abortion problem...

I don't think I said that pro-life is narrow minded (I reserve that for the anti-gay people). It is an extremely complex thing, but yes, you read me right... 1 day before the baby is born, the fetus does not have rights. What I'm talking about is what should be 'legal' ... because in this case, we can easily say that the mother has strong moral obligations towards her fetus, and especially if it is near birth, it should (morally) be carried to term and delivered. However, to give it all the rights of a person, like I said earlier, would take rights away from the mother--who is undoubtedly already a person.

I get your argument for the rape situation... but it's such a weak one. The fact is, you think that a fetus is an innocent being that is entitled to rights... and yet you condone killing it if it came into existence not by choice. Are there any other situations where you'd condone the 'murder' of innocent people? Probably not. But you respect the uniqueness of the mother-fetus relationship... and apparently, forcing her to carry it to term when it wasn't her choice is not acceptable. So you kill the innocent fetus.
I, unlike you, feel that even if the baby came into being as the result of a mistake, we still cannot force the mother to carry it to term. It's not fair, and it violates her rights. Also, appreciate the unique situation this is for women, and women alone! No guy is ever forced to endure 9 months of pregancy and all the hardship associated with it, and childbirth. Fact is, we can't take away the mothers rights just because she has a fetus inside her. The fetus doesn't have rights, because it is the one situation in this world where giving one 'being' rights would automatically violate the rights of another.

 

By your reasoning, it is the womans right to smoke, drink, go on rollercaosters etc. during a pregnancy. And there is technically nothing wrong with that because it is her right to do as she pleases over the babies right to a healthy life, or life in general. Pregnancy bears certain responsibilties, if giving life to your baby is not one of them, then I dont know what responsibilties we can attach to it.

Cetaintly by your reasoning, it would be perfectly legal to a mother to kill her baby at the mere moment for birth. Perhaps, as it is her body, she could perform this abortion in her house with a kitchen knife? I dont really see what rights of the mother are violated by forcing her to care for her child. If the baby is born then the woman must take of it but otherwise she can kill it. Is that the idea?

 

In direct response to your statement, just ever so why does the woman have precedent over the baby when it comes to rights? I mean what your saying is that the reason we cant give an unborn fetus rights is because it comes in conflict with another beings' rights. Hell, im pretty sure that would be an effective arguement for not giving rights to nineteenth century slaves... but read on.

Im not sure if you realize it, but you just hit the nail on the head. Although your statement is opinion and not fact (sorry if you think it is fact), you brought up the very talking point of roe vs. wade. What the supreme court decided is that the fetus doesn't, in fact, have rights in the first trimester, effective in making abortion legal across the board (mind you it has to be done by a liscensed individual and by legal terms. Some forms of abortion are illegal during the first trimester). In the second trimester, it is a States' Rights issue, leaving the States to decided whether abortion is legal or not (stipulations hold true here as well). However during the last trimester, it is illegal to get an abortion anywhere, as per the Partail Birth Abortion Ban Act. The reason? A fetus of that maturity has the ability to survive outside the whomb. Effectively, this ban DID give fetuses rights (or at least third tri fetuses).
On an off note, for those attempting to support partial birth abortions, i would like to explain how it is performed. The docotor basically collapses the babie's skull by quite literally sucking its brains out. http://www.nrlc.org/ABORTION/pba/diagram.html
A truely horrific act that Hillary Clinton supports.

 

You need to realize that sometimes there will be differences in moral and legal rights.

Is it moral for a woman to drink or smoke while pregnant? No.
Should it be illegal? Maybe. We have a slippery slope problem here, but I'll leave that aside and focus on why this is okay, while abortion is very different.

See, if she's drinking/smoking during pregnancy and plans to carry the fetus to term, there is an important fact here: the fetus will one day be a human being, separate from its mother, with all the rights of a person. In abortion, this is not the case.
Look up the case of Ms. G... it's frustrating as hell, but the courts ruled that they could not force her into treatment for her solvent addiction (while she was pregnant). She had already given birth to brain damaged children in the past, so child services had tried to force her into treatment to protect her unborn fetus. The courts ruled against them, as the fetus does not have rights--and provided it rights would be violating Ms. G's autonomy.

Redline, your slave argument is ignorant. I stated (very clearly) that the conflict of rights between a fetus and mother is UNIQUE. I use this in the truest sense of the word. A slave can leave his master, and his master will be affected... but this is apples and oranges. A fetus is entirely dependent on its mother. Entirely.

Personally, I don't agree with third trimester abortions. I think the woman has had 6 months to make a decision. I think 3 months is enough time to make the decision. But, this is my opinion based on morals. I'm not sure I could defend it in terms of setting a legal precedent.

The issue of 'viability' is an important one... when can the baby survive outside the womb? This period is getting earlier and earlier in the pregnancy, as technology advances. So, one day, we will be able to gestate a child entirely outside the womb. From conception to 'birth'. When this happens, should all abortions be banned? I don't think so. I think aborting fetuses early is preferable to having hundreds of thousands of orphaned children to look after--when the alternative is to destroy them before they resemble a human being.

Controversial, yeah. This is a hot topic for good reason.

How do you guys feel about genetic screening? Or finding abnormalities during pregnancy? Do you abort if you find out your child will have a severe disability?

 

Hot topic for sure. I actaully think abortion should be legal for the first trimester. It takes two months tops to determine if a woman is pregnant. Another month for the decision. But I would also propose an exponential fee for the right to abort a fetus. Second abortion is twice as much as the first etc. with a limit of 3 or something like that. Young people will make mistakes and shouldnt be punished for life, but habitual behavoir must be targeted. My arguments against abortion give a reasonable foundation for prolife laws, however, practical circumstances must be considered. I dont really buy the argument that a womans right to not have a baby are more imprtant the a babys right to be born. I could understand this if the mothers life is at risk, but that is rarely the case.

Genetic screening and related issues must be confronted because the technology is progressing rapidly. Genetically engineered babies are not far in the future. I would prefer a gentically modified baby to a gentically "abnormal" one.

 

The financial tiers that you have described wouldn't work... Understand that when you start to regulate pregnancies and punish women who do not adhere to "the rules" you are (unintentionally) targeting the lower class. Women with lower incomes/lower education are the ones most likely to struggle to provide the best prenatal environment for their fetus, and are also the most likely to experience an unwanted pregnancy that they cannot afford to carry to term.

If there was a better way to target habitual behaviour... then maybe. I think we all agree that abortions are unfortunate... but there's no great way to get around them at the moment.

Yeah, I think we'd all prefer a genetically modified baby to an abnormal one... but that doesn't answer what you'd do had your wife conceived naturally and prenatal screening determined it was, in fact, severely abnormal. Scary.

 

Not to highjack the thread...

But both your arguements reminded me of my Army days and I knew this officer (he was a Captain) and we'd have these discussions on population control. He came up with the idea that at 11 all women would have time release contraception implanted - plenty of them currently on the market - and they would have to petition the court (I'm sure some special court, we never got into that part of the discussion) to have them removed.

But you had to meet certain criteria first:

1. Must be over 18 yrs of age
2. Must be financially secure
3. Have no history of violence or psychological disability
4. If not married for at least two yrs must make financially enough to qualify as a two person income.

Like Headshock, I was arguing the pitfalls of his social planning idea - though I have to admit it did make a great deal of sense considering the population issues we face here.

Teen pregnancy would literally be abolished - though I'm sure teenagers having sex would most likely spike.

Unwanted pregnancies would cease - abortions would fall to nil - but available children for adoption in country would fall off as well...

It was an interesting premise...

 

Pali, interesting but a terrible idea.

I think that making a progressively penal system is feasible. Monetary fees could be based on tax brackets or something. Or the penalty could be unrelated to money. Perhaps volunteer work at an orphanage could be arranged. Just an idea, not really something that could be impemented in todays society. The only rules that I would like to enforce is a mother's obligation to the well being of her child, and her responsibilty to prevent unwanted pregnancy. It would be interesting to hear a womans perspective.

Im not so sure about the abnormal fetus scenario. Seems too much to me like population architecture that was present in **** Germany. When genetic engineering becomes feasible, there will be the option to hopefully modify the genes to promote healthy development or proceede without interference. I would not support devaluing a life due to abnormal development.

 

Pali's would never fly because that is a huge violation of freedom, as well. It'd solve problems, at the expense of rights. It'd be treating them as livestock. You'd also have a spike in infectious STI's as well, as the uneducated would likely fall victim to a false sense of security with unprotected sex. Interesting, but scary. Haha

The progressive penal system isn't feasible... seriously. You're talking about tax brackets of a population that can barely provide for themselves... you're kicking them when they are down. It's easy to preach, as a middle-income male, about how women should be punished for conceiving accidentally. You've no idea of the circumstances that fostered the pregnancy. It might not be rape, but it could have been manipulation. How many girls do you know that have been in relationships with douchebag guys? Those guys are probably the ones who refuse to wear a condom, and end up getting a girl pregnant and leaving her. It doesn't make the girls 'stupid'... it's unfortunate that they don't have the support, self-esteem, or whatever other means required to get out of such an unhealthy relationship. To punish them for conceiving is ridiculous. What about the guys who get these girls pregnant? Your plan has them walking away unscathed.
You can't police women or their bodies. Fairness and equality are part of the rights we are all supposed to have. You're talking about taking those away from a group that is already severely disadvantaged (woman, and lower class).