Fetuses stomped in Texas 'abortion' [Archive]

Gawain of Orkeny

06-09-2005, 18:28

Fetuses stomped in Texas 'abortion'
LUFKIN, Texas - It's a case bound to spark debate on abortion no matter where one stands: a 19-year-old Texas man was sentenced to life in prison for, at his pregnant girlfriend's invitation, kicking her belly and causing her to miscarry. After four months of pregnancy, Erica Basoria, 17, decided she wanted to end the lives of the twins she was carrying. But instead of getting a medical abortion, she started jogging and hitting herself to induce miscarriage. When that failed, she told cops, she asked her boyfriend, Gerardo Flores, to help.
Posted by Editor at 10:14 AM
Abortionist Convicted of Murder - Why?
NBC5.com reported that 19-year-old Gerardo Flores was convicted yesterday in Lufkin, Texas, of two counts of murder for stomping on the stomach of his girlfriend, causing her to miscarry twins. [Photo, left, is mug shot taken at Angelina County Jail] Erica Basoria was 16-years-old at the time, and asked Flores to help her abort. She was not charged due to her legal right to abort. [Photo, right, is from Lufkin High School yearbook.] Flores received an automatic life sentence. I wonder, why? He was just committing an abortion.'

I guess only doctors carry a license to kill nowdays.

LINK (http://www.covenantnews.com/abortion/)

Don Corleone

06-09-2005, 18:31

I don't see how they can nail him on murder, as long as we have abortion on demand allowed while the woman is in labor, let alone 4 months pregnant.

The worst they should be able to get him for is practicing medicine without a license.

Mongoose

06-09-2005, 18:44

Stomping on a womans stomach is practicing medicine?

I think that the woman should receive the same punishment as the man. Though i'm not sure if that punishment should be prison for life...

Gawain of Orkeny

06-09-2005, 18:49

Shouldnt he really be charged with practicing medicine without a license?

I think that the woman should receive the same punishment as the man. Though i'm not sure if that punishment should be prison for life...

She has the right to do what she likes with her own body remember abortion is legal.

Goofball

06-09-2005, 18:56

Given abortion laws in the U.S., the verdict does seem to be without justification.

Don Corleone

06-09-2005, 19:24

I'm not saying "I" think all he did was practice medicine without a license. I hope you get the irony of my post. Our legal system is constructed in such a way that if a baby is in the birth canal, and the mother changes her mind, she is legally entitled to an abortion.

How can they nail the boyfriend on murder? By law, abortion is not murder. According to the way our laws are written, all he did was assist the woman in executing a choice she made regarding her body and two parasitic lumps of tissue that she wanted removed. As Jill Ireland, president of NOW in the mid 90's once said, it's no different then having a wart removed (yes, she really said that).

So, what did this guy do that was so awful... according to our laws, nothing. The only thing they could potentially nail him on is practicing medicine without a license.

BDC

06-09-2005, 20:05

I guess only doctors carry a license to kill nowdays.

LINK (http://www.covenantnews.com/abortion/)
Nonsense. The state can as well. ~:p

Mongoose

06-09-2005, 20:10

Ah, OK then :bow: .

Given current US laws, i agree that the verdict was...uncalled for at best.

ICantSpellDawg

06-09-2005, 20:51

ironic - where is a more reputable link?

i do like the site - but im not sure i can trust it for un-biased journalism

Steppe Merc

06-09-2005, 21:06

Well, I guess this shows how stupid people can be sometimes. Is it really that hard to just get a normal abortion? I can't imagine getting stompted on is that fun.
But I think the saddest part is that she was year younger than I am...

Kaiser of Arabia

06-09-2005, 22:03

She was only 16/15? Wow, that is sad.

doc_bean

06-09-2005, 22:06

Well it's Texas, hearth of Jesusland.

Steppe Merc

06-09-2005, 22:48

Kaiser: I think it said she was 16.

Gawain of Orkeny

06-10-2005, 01:30

ironic - where is a more reputable link?

Just about any where. Its a news story that was widely reported. Whats to dispute?

Well, I guess this shows how stupid people can be sometimes. Is it really that hard to just get a normal abortion? I can't imagine getting stompted on is that fun.

I saw his attorney on O Reily last night. He didnt kick her in the stomach. She laid down and had him put a foot on her stomach and apply pressure. Now whats going to happen when this case goes to the supreme court? I cannot see it being avoided here.

Proletariat

06-10-2005, 01:42

Everytime I think of this story I want to vomit. Give him life for spousal abuse and give her life for murder.

Proletariat

06-10-2005, 01:49

Something posted on another board I frequent, but I'd rather answer it here. My atheistic views which over-lap at times with 'right wing percieved morals' can be confusing to some people I've debated with here, so I'll try to explain.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is one aspect of the pro-choice position that I haven't seen specifically considered or discussed here that I'm curious to hear people's opinions on (from both sides), and that is basically Judith Jarvis Thomson's "famous violinist" analogy. The crux of that argument isn't necessarily whether or not a fetus is truly a human being, or whether one has a right to "kill" it per se, but rather: do we have the right to compel a woman to have her body utilized literally as a "life support system" for another lifeform for nine months?

No. But illegalizing abortion is not compelling a woman to be a life-support system.

Pregnancy is a potential consequence of sex. This is a fact. All children, in order to be born, must be carried by a woman for some period. This is also pretty much a fact. When you have sex, whether you are a man or a woman, you are under constructive notice of that potential consequence, and you assume your respective responsibility for it if it arises.

This idea that a woman is robbed of her "choice" if abortion is illegal is horseshit. If you don't have sex, you can't get pregnant. This is undeniable. By choosing not to have sex, a woman chooses not to get pregnant, and short of rape, she is not "compelled" to serve as anyone's life-support system. The truth -the truth- is not that women would be denied a choice; it's that some women simply don't like the choice Nature has presented them. They want to have sex without having to deal with the consequences.

The cruel truth about abortion is in the selfish feminist agenda that carried it to the courts: abortion is a bloody political axe wielded in the gender war between men and women. Again, some women want to have sex without having to deal with the consequences, and they want the ability to abort because they perceive the men who impregnate them as free of those consequences. As becomes clear whenever a "pro-choice" advocate falls back on hackneyed gender-attacks of systematic male irresponsibility, legalized abortion relies on the same basic principle as did slavery, as did the Holocaust, as has every unjust war that has ever been perpetrated: let the powerless pay so that the empowered may be more greatly empowered. It is the widespread oppression and murder of the weak by the strong. And as with other moral catastrophes, millions of people tolerate it and even defend it because of their own selfishness or moral weakness.

Someone in another thread made the comment that:

Class warfare, race warfare, and special interest warfare if you will, are political tools that both parties use.

So it is with abortion and gender warfare.

And FTR, I don't see this as a "Christian" issue in the least. It's just a matter of basic fairness that anyone with a brain can see. Unfortunately a lot of people seem far more interested in using their brain to construct rationalizations for what they wish were true than in seeing what actually is true. Killing, enslaving, oppressing people is wrong, no matter how clever an excuse you come up with.

econ21

06-10-2005, 02:11

A depressing and disturbing story, Gawain, but I can't help feel the state has ruined another life by condeming the 16 year old to life imprisonment. He sounds like a not very bright confused youngster who was trying to help his girl friend and its not the kind of crime you'd expect him to repeat as an adult.

Laridus Konivaich

06-10-2005, 02:16

Everytime I think of this story I want to vomit. Give him life for spousal abuse and give her life for murder.
How could you call it spousal abuse? They were not married, also, according to what I read, she asked him to do it - Clara: "Please have sex with me, Henry." ... later... Clara: "Henry, you rapist! I am filing charges!" :wink: -

And considering that abortion is legal, how would having one be murder? The only thing here is that the abortion was different from the standard clinical procedure, as far as I can tell. I am not saying that abortion is right or wrong, simply reading what the laws say.

Proletariat

06-10-2005, 02:18

Sorry, girlfriendle.

JAG

06-10-2005, 02:22

Hm, quite a weird story - and a bit disturbing. I do not think I could stomp on any womans stomach let alone a pregnant womans stomach, but I guess different experiences and situations cause help create the situation for people to choose that path. Anyway, I really don't think the guy should be given life for murder, bloody hell that is going to far. Let him carry on with his life, he seems to have gone through enough problems as it is.

Kanamori

06-10-2005, 02:35

"Wisconsin declares 30 year low in number of abortions. Meanwhile, the number of abortions in Michigan increases by thousands during the last four years."

"Our legal system is constructed in such a way..."

God damn our legal system, and God bless Wisconsin!

Don Corleone

06-10-2005, 02:39

I never said I liked it. I said it's how it is. I'm sure Pindar could explain to you how the legal rationale works, and Aurelian could explain to you how wonderful all this is. Personally, I'm sickened by all of this, but I guess that makes me un-American because make no mistake about it, unlimited abortion on demand in the 3rd trimester is as American as apple pie.

bmolsson

06-10-2005, 03:22

This is not an abortion. It's self mutilation. The fetus is irrelevant in this case and if the woman doesn't file a report, I can't really see that there is a case here.....

GoreBag

06-10-2005, 04:24

This reminds me of one of my favourite songs. Three cheers for death metal.

NP: Severed Savior - Steeltoe Abortion.

Kanamori

06-10-2005, 04:33

I don't see how they can nail him on murder, as long as we have abortion on demand allowed while the woman is in labor, let alone 4 months pregnant.

How can they nail the boyfriend on murder? By law, abortion is not murder. According to the way our laws are written, all he did was assist the woman in executing a choice she made regarding her body and two parasitic lumps of tissue that she wanted removed.

Because it is a court in Texas -- this case went through a jury -- and both sides want it to go to higher courts, or at least to establish a precedant of murder charges w/ abortion, which won't, and shouldn't (I'd hate to see a woman having an abortion to save her life qualify as murder) stick. Don't get me wrong, we can all pretty much agree Roe v. Wade was a crappy case, but the other side should only go so far in their limiting of abortion.

Phatose

06-10-2005, 05:26

3rd trimester abortions on demand?......I do not think that is the case.

Murder charges for abortion won't go anywhere, simply because the Texas law in this case specifically exempts mothers and medical personnel. That's the reason why he's getting jail for murder and she's getting nothing. In all likelyhood, the law had nothing to do with abortion when it was passed, and was intended for situations where a pregnant woman gets violently assaulted and the baby dies.

Wonder if the Texas parental notification laws had anything to do with this. 16 year old girl, abortion by unsafe and brutal means. Especially when you consider her family cheered at his conviction, well, this certainly has all the signs of being an act of desperation.

KafirChobee

06-10-2005, 05:30

Yep, only in Tex-ass. Where DNA evidence that clears condemned men (and women) is ignored and where never having to say your sorry for being wrong is a long honored tradition. Matter of fact to say you are sorry is a misdemeanor in Texas. J/K

This is a joke? Right?

As a wise old man once said, " Only steers and queers, live in Texas." Queer, as in odd philosophies toward others.

BTW, life is an egg now - embrio, that is. One cell is now the rights new definition of life (I suppose, ameoba is a life form).

doc_bean

06-10-2005, 09:03

Don Corleone

06-10-2005, 11:57

Slightly of topic, but I felt that the verdict on Roe vs. Wade was against 3rd trimester abortions, I never understood how it made them legal.

3rd trimester abortions on demand?......I do not think that is the case.

For those of you who don't believe we have 3rd trimester abortion available without restriction, please consult the following:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/09/national/main611168.shtml

Please note, the 'health' in question is mental and/or economic health, as the Partial-Birth-Abortion-Ban Act of 2003, and all the previous ones Clinton refused to sign, had exemptions where the physical health of the mother was at risk.

For a justification on 'why', here's a position paper on the pro-life side

http://www.lifeandlibertyforwomen.org/issues/issues_partial_birth_abortions.html

Understand, to the pro-abortion side (NOW, NARAL, the ACLU), ANY limitations placed on abortion are intolerable, and through much plotting in the courts and judicial activisim, that is the way the law of the land is these days. Roe v. Wade itself did not guarantee 3rd trimester abortions, abortions for 12 year old minors without parental notification, etc., but subsequent decisions have. Taken in whole, there is absolutely NO legal curbing of the abortion procedure. None. Anyone who says otherwise is misinformed or being disingenous. This procedure is more solidly enshrined in law then any other action which is guaranteed as a right, including free speech and free practice of religion, which the government can and does regulate.

Proletariat

06-10-2005, 16:43

In all likelyhood, the law had nothing to do with abortion when it was passed, and was intended for situations where a pregnant woman gets violently assaulted and the baby dies.

Interestingly, this happened in Texas, and the boy "was prosecuted under the state's new fetal protection law." Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't laws like that pushed by the "pro-life" crowd? *sarcasm* These laws of course aren't supposed to be Trojan horses to get your definition of human life codified into the law.

Goofball

06-10-2005, 17:09

And FTR, I don't see this as a "Christian" issue in the least. It's just a matter of basic fairness that anyone with a brain can see.

Really? That's an interesting argumentative tactic: "Anybody who does not see the truth of my position does not have a brain."

Let me propose an alternative position.

Abortion rights are a very tough issue for just about everybody to make their minds up on, no matter which side they eventually land on.

I myself am pro-choice. This is not a position I take lightly. Extremist conservatives try to paint me as a person who is in favor of (and even takes delight in) the ripping of unborn babies from their mothers' wombs. This is not so. I (and I believe, most moderate pro-choice folks) actually find abortion to be a very terrible thing, and believe it should always be the absolute last option considered. But we want it to remain an option for women.

I believe it is the same with pro-life people. I do not believe that being pro-life is a position that most of them have taken on lightly. I believe they have made careful consideration of the issue and have taken the position that their consciences steered them toward. Extremist liberals try to pain them as intolerant Bible-thumpers who want only to subjugate women by making them slaves to the child-bearing process, but for the most part, that is not true. Like the majority of pro-choicers, the majority of pro-lifers have simply made a tough decision about a gray issue based on what they believe to be right.

The problem is that neither side (in the U.S. at least) will give the other side the benefit of the doubt. That's because of the "all or nothing" mentality your politicians have instilled into the argument around abortion rights. They do this because it serves their purposes to have it so, and they don't really care whether it's good for women or their unborn babies.

Proletariat

06-10-2005, 17:13

But we want it to remain an option for women.

They already have that option.

This idea that a woman is robbed of her "choice" if abortion is illegal is horseshit. If you don't have sex, you can't get pregnant. This is undeniable. By choosing not to have sex, a woman chooses not to get pregnant, and short of rape, she is not "compelled" to serve as anyone's life-support system. The truth -the truth- is not that women would be denied a choice; it's that some women simply don't like the choice Nature has presented them. They want to have sex without having to deal with the consequences.

Killing babies has become a way for the women's rights movement to try and equal themselves with males by assuming as little responsibility as men do when it comes to babies.

The right solution would be to make men be just as responsible for the lives they create as women are. (Child support is just a start.)

Goofball

06-10-2005, 17:28

They already have that option.

Yes, they do. Because fortunately, abortion is legal.

Don Corleone

06-10-2005, 17:59

Her point is, choose not to get pregnant in the first place.

I agree with you that this 'all-or-none' debate gets us nowhere, because clearly it's the radical pro-choice 'even when the baby has desceneded into the canal, she should have a choice' crowd that has won the day. Even most pro-choice people don't agree with the positions we take on abortion in this country. A big part of the reason for that is the same reason we haven't made any headway into registering guns. In American politics, the slippery slope is not a metaphor... people are always coming back for the next piece in their agenda. And this is the only reservation I have about gay marriage, btw... I can't see the next move, but I know I won't like it.

And by the way Goofy, it may be that Canadian women are much more enlightened than American women. God knows, you are so much ahead of us on everything else. So maybe you don't know this, or could even dream of this... but 30% of all abortions performed last year were done and described by the woman as 'part of normal birth control'. This kinda shoots your 'it's a terrible choice' theory out of the water. And if it doesn't, this sure should (granted, it's a bit dated, I'll keep looking for more up to date ones)

The repeat abortion rate in the U.S. has risen rapidly since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973. In 1973 it was estimated that only about 12% of the induced abortions were repeat abortions. By 1979 the national repeat rate had risen to 29.4% and by 1983 it had reached 38.8%. In 1987 the Alan Guttmacher Institute took a survey of 9480 women at approximately 100 abortion clinics throughout the U.S. and found that 42.9% of the women said they were having repeat abortions. 26.9% were having a second abortion; 10.7% were having a third abortion; and 5.3% were having a fourth abortion or more. (Henshaw 1987, 1988)

In fact, abortion in America is like plastic surgery, and it receives about roughly the same consideration. It's about making money for a specialized practice and finding a way to market that to an audience.

Found a statisctic from this year, but it's in UK, so don't compare it to the numbers I posted above:
Oops I did it again (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44299)

One in three abortions is now carried out on women who have had at least one before, according to the British Pregnancy Advisory Service.

Don Corleone

06-10-2005, 18:13

Maybe Candaian women aren't all that enlightened after all and you just don't understand the issue properly:

Oops we did it again too... (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3634/is_199701/ai_n8748633)

In any case, this idea of abortion as a 'terrible, horrible but necessary choice that happens at worst once in a woman's life' is a dishonest myth that does not portray the reality. In reality, there is a percentage of women out there that don't use conventional birth control and when their number comes up, they deal with it through abortion. Why they don't have themselves sterilized once and for all and save themselves the bother is beyond me.... :dizzy2:

Steppe Merc

06-10-2005, 20:31

The point is, it has to be an option. Other wise, it will be done in a back alley with a rusty coat hanger.
There are always extreme cases were it has to be left open: rape, health risk to mother, etc.

I agree, it shouldn't be so taken lightly. I think it should have to be done in first three months or so, unless it the mother will die or something. But you can't illegalize it. That would be far worse, becuase it will still happen, but increase the chances of both the mother and the baby dying, which isn't really that "pro life" when both die.

Don Corleone

06-10-2005, 20:48

Steppe,

I usually respect what you have to say, more than you probably know, even if I disagree with you (which granted, is frequently). However what you just said is hogwash. Using this same argument, I could argue for legalizing burglary. Well, I'm going to break into the house, no matter what... if you don't want anybody to get hurt, you better just let me have my way and do as I please and keep that pesky homeowner out of my way...he'll be responsible for getting shot, I'm not responsible for shooting him...

I find it amazing that we have such a nanny-state that a 17 year old can get expelled for bringing a cough drop to school for violating the no-tolerance drug policy, yet a 12 year old can go out of state to get an abortion without her parents' knowledge in the 9th month of her pregnancy... all in the name of 'choice'.

Honestly Steppe, if you have that little respect for human life that you think 3rd trimester abortions ought to remain legal and unregulated, why stop there... when the baby gets to be a cramp in the mother's style, shouldn't she be free to practice infanticide for the first year? We wouldn't want her to be impositioned now... she might do something that harms herself as well.... :dizzy2:

Steppe Merc

06-10-2005, 21:00

I should have been more clear on my policy (though it is very unclear anyway.)

All abortions after the first 3 months out to be illegal, unless the mother will die.

That is what I meant by having to have abortions legal. It has to be legal for them to be able to get them, but if they're too stupid to figure out that they don't want that baby in 3 months, I hope they will put it up for adoption cause they'd be piss poor parents.

I meant to say that you can't illegalize all abortions. Now looking at my post, it makes no sense at all, and doesn't tell what I meant to say. I hope this makes a bit more sense, if it doesn't, I can try and elaborate again. :bow:

Goofball

06-10-2005, 21:07

Her point is, choose not to get pregnant in the first place.

I'm a pretty sharp guy, Don. I know that was her point. My point is that there will always be circumstances where women take all conceivable (no pun intended) precautions, and still end up pregnant. I believe they should have the option to end the pregnancy if they wish. Do some people abuse this right and treat abortion as a form of birth control? You bet. But the majority do not.

I agree with you that this 'all-or-none' debate gets us nowhere, because clearly it's the radical pro-choice 'even when the baby has desceneded into the canal, she should have a choice' crowd that has won the day.

And one of the reasons is that the radical pro-life "no abortions, ever, for any reason, even if the mother has been raped or is in danger of dying" do the loudest yelling on the pro-life side, and they scare moderate pro-choicers away from any yielding as far as restricting late-term abortions, even though many pro-choicers (myself included) actually agree that mid to late-term abortions should be restricted. They are just as afraid of that "slippery slope" that you talk about in your next paragraph.

Even most pro-choice people don't agree with the positions we take on abortion in this country.

Agreed, as I said above.

In American politics, the slippery slope is not a metaphor... people are always coming back for the next piece in their agenda. And this is the only reservation I have about gay marriage, btw... I can't see the next move, but I know I won't like it.

Agreed, as I said above. But both sides are guilty of this.

And by the way Goofy, it may be that Canadian women are much more enlightened than American women. God knows, you are so much ahead of us on everything else.

Oh I don't know about that. I'm a big fan of American women. Always have been. I don't think our women are really different from each other at all. And yes, we are ahead of you in many things (beer, hockey, maple syrup, natural resources, wide open spaces, to name a few), but you guys leave us behind in a number of areas (bourbon, just about every other sport besides hockey, bbq sauce, white sand beaches with 100 degree weather, plus I'm pretty sure an American invented low-rise jeans for which I am profoundly in your debt).

So maybe you don't know this, or could even dream of this... but 30% of all abortions performed last year were done and described by the woman as 'part of normal birth control'. This kinda shoots your 'it's a terrible choice' theory out of the water.

I suggest you take a remedial business statistics course if you think that blows my theory out of the water. Let me explain: As I said above, it is my belief that the majority of pro-choice folks believe abortion is the absolute worst option available and should not be taken lightly. You have provided figures that show that only 30% of women in a given year considered the procedure to be part of normal birth control. So, even if I grant you that this means that these women undertook the abortion decision lightly (which in itself is a questionable conclusion), it is still only 30%, and 30% does not a majority make...

Maybe Candaian women aren't all that enlightened after all and you just don't understand the issue properly:

Oops we did it again too... (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3634/is_199701/ai_n8748633)

Maybe you should pay better attention to your own articles before posting them to support your arguments. From the first page:

In 1993, fewer than 2% of abortions were obtained by women who had had three or more previous procedures, suggesting that abortion is not widely used as a primary method of birth control.

Oops!

In any case, this idea of abortion as a 'terrible, horrible but necessary choice that happens at worst once in a woman's life' is a dishonest myth that does not portray the reality.

In your mind perhaps. Your own figures/research have shown that it is only a minority of women who perhaps view abortion as routine. And anecdotally Don, I can think of three women off the top of my head that I know personally that have had abortions. In every case, they agonized over the decision and did it because they felt they really had no other choice. While they all expressed guilt over what they did, they all believe they did the right thing. And none of them had a second abortion.

In reality, there is a percentage of women out there that don't use conventional birth control and when their number comes up, they deal with it through abortion.

Mostly correct, but let me do a quick edit for you:

"In reality, there is small a percentage of women out there that don't use conventional birth control and when their number comes up, they deal with it through abortion."

There, that's better...

Don Corleone

06-10-2005, 21:08

Sorry, Steppe, I thought you were saying:

Elective abortion SHOULD only be done in the first trimester. After that, women SHOULDN'T have them, but as they will anyway, we ought to keep it legal.

I'm actually somewhat pro-choice myself, at least during the first few weeks. I think the way you get rid of abortion is to educate people & offer them viable alternatives to the point where it's unheard of.

My apologies sir. :bow:

Don Corleone

06-10-2005, 21:17

Well, honestly Goof, I had to quit posting statistics. As I'm sure you've been Googling away as much as I have, you've seen that the numbers dont' correlate from one source to another, even from groups that should agree with each other. Example, the Family Rights Council numbers don't agree with the numbers from the National Right to Life. The numbers from NARAL don't agree with the numbers from Emily's list.

I'll make an admission that the original 30% number I tossed out there was my own summation of what I was seeing, and I was actually pretty conservative with that figure.

According to most sites, over 90% of abortions are performed for elective reasons (not right time for mother, relatioship difficulties with the father et. al.) You could argue that all of those are birth control, but I took the 30% number from what I estimated to be a cross section of multiple (more than one) abortion recipients and women who specifically listed birth control as the reason.

All I'm trying to say is you're trying to paint a picture that the average woman getting an abortion is a scared 18 year old without a pot to piss in. In fact, I think the numbers and the attitudes would frighten you, at least what I saw did me. Hell, there was a woman who wrote a 2 week series of Lifestyle articles for the NY Times (or maybe the Post) that decided to abort the boy in her fraternal twin set and keep the girl, in the 6th month, and write all about her decision making process. It essentially came down to 'well, I can still go out nights if I've only got one kid, but two will slow me down, and I like little girls better'. That doesn't sound like alone, terrified and not knowing which way to turn to me.

Steppe Merc

06-10-2005, 21:21

No need for apologizing. I would have come to the same conclusions myself if I had just read it, since it is very vague and this:

I think it should have to be done in first three months or so, unless it the mother will die or something. But you can't illegalize it.
seems to say that you can't illegalize it after 3 months.

I'm actually somewhat pro-choice myself, at least during the first few weeks. I think the way you get rid of abortion is to educate people & offer them viable alternatives to the point where it's unheard of.
I agree. However, it is easier sad than done (which I'm sure everyone knows).
I'm a Junior, and I know a whole bunch of kids younger than I am who have already had sex. And we have a pretty comprehensive Health class (it's not like all absteninace or anything).
I don't know if they used protection or not, but a bunch probably didn't. It's gonna be a bitch to solve, but we ought to, because I agree, having an abortion should always be the last option.
All I can say is that no one in my (very small) circle of friends has gotten pregnat or impregnated a girl to my knowledge. But I don't listen much to gossip. And if so many people in a very rich, high education school have sex, poorer school systems and unedecated people probably get it really bad.

Don Corleone

06-10-2005, 21:24

Okay, if the moderators think I'm getting out of bounds here, by all means, please smack me around... but I was under the impression that the current generation of Youth actually lean more towards Clintonian acts, and that this is actually leading to a reduced teenage pregnancy rate. Is that true?

Steppe Merc

06-10-2005, 21:41

Yes. Up the arse too. In my town's middle school, it is particullary popular I've heard. I don't have as much problems with upper classmen doing it, but middle schoolers is just sick.

But people still do normal sex, mainly I think those that have been going out for a while, or hook ups. At least that's what I've heard... I am the worst person to be asking, believ me. :embarassed:

doc_bean

06-10-2005, 22:46

Non-vaginal intercourse has become an accepted way of birth control amongst the younger generations apparently (I'm 23, and at least where I live, it wasn't that way when we were teens).

Proletariat, I think your argument is fundamentally flawed. If people skydive and have an accident, should they be denied surgery ? People have always tried to improve things for themselves, essentially, making it so they can do what they want to do. It's a bit silly to apply a 'natural limit' argument here.

The real problem is the value of the fetus, wether or not it should be considered a human being, or (a weaker condition) whether or not it has value in itself that justifies forcing a woman through pregnancy.

Let's not kid ourselves here, only a few people believe that a fetus has no value and is just a parasite feeding on the mother. Things like this are often said by the pro-choice camp, and can be defended from a scientific point of view, but I doubt many believe it to be morally correct.

Which leads to a second question, if a fetus has value by itself, how do we determine what this value is, and how does it compare to the 'value' of the mothers right to choose.
The first problem here is assessing the value, how do we determine the value of human life. Is it valuable because it is human or is it an aspect of being human that makes it valuable ? And since a fetus isn't a human yet, how much value do we place on potential, and how do we define that potential ?

Both are hard questions. In regards to the first one, I would say that humans have (human) value because they can reason, reflect, or religiously speaking, have a soul. This is an aspect of being human, however, it leads to other questions: Are babies born with it ? Does it develop during the fetal stages, and if so, when ?
If humans have (equal) value because they are human, a rather abstract concept, then how human are fetuses ?

This leads to the second question, how do we account for potential ? A fetus has the potential to become human and to become self conscious. However, we have no guarantees that it will (and what do we do if we know if won't realize this potential ?). And should potential be defined as something that can be fulfilled, or as an abstract concept ? Does a coma patient in vegetative state still have potential ?

I think most 'reasonable' pro-choicers, and perhaps some pro-lifers too, will say that a fetus has more value the more it approaches a human being. It's potential, whether for becoming a human being or for developing self consciousness is being realized more.

This implies that it is possible to weigh the value of the fetus against that of the mothers right to choose. And determine a point where the mothers right to choose doesn't weigh up against the fetus' right to live. The problem still remains, how do we determine those values ?

Personally, I'm for the three month period, I think it's long enough for the mothers and short enough so that the fetus is still far enough away from a human being. Of course, this choice is subjective,

Proletariat

06-10-2005, 22:50

I'm a pretty sharp guy, Don. I know that was her point. My point is that there will always be circumstances where women take all conceivable (no pun intended) precautions, and still end up pregnant.

Too bad being a sharp guy isn't going to make sure you see what I've already said.

You even skipped the part I bolded.

If you don't have sex, you can't get pregnant. This is undeniable.

So, no. There is absolutely no way a woman can ever claim she took 'every conceivable precaution' and pretend she didn't anticipate whatsoever being pregnant.

Please, go through my post and tell me where I'm wrong, or just agree to disagree. Just telling me I'm wrong with no explanation is insulting and a bit beneath you.

Proletariat

06-10-2005, 22:56

Proletariat, I think your argument is fundamentally flawed. If people skydive and have an accident, should they be denied surgery ? People have always tried to improve things for themselves, essentially, making it so they can do what they want to do.

No. And for you to suggest that is to go against everything I thought you believed about the nature and individuality of human life.

A fetus/baby/whatever is not a broken bone or punctured lung or anything to do with a skydiving accident. It is not a part of a woman. It is a distinct being unto itself. The money, care or other provisions are for the baby, not for the mother.

Not much more disgusting than the practice of killing people for convenience and rationalizing it as an element of fundamental liberty. It is not. It is mass killing - nothing more or less.

Alexander the Pretty Good

06-10-2005, 23:19

If you don't have sex, you can't get pregnant. This is undeniable.
Pro, that requires personal responsibility. It is illegal in this day and age to make people take responsibility for their own actions.

doc_bean

06-10-2005, 23:30

That's exactly the problem. At whom's cost can they do what they do? (This is why your skydive example is flawed at it's core.)

Well, you are proving my point here. The question of abortion can not be asked without asking what the nature of a fetus is.

There is a huge difference between saying 'women who don't want children can choose to not have sex' and 'abortions are wrong because they are a crime against the unborn children'.

Your statement is of course right, although practically a bit dodgy. I would have included contraception in their options (with an accepted risk). But I feel that it's besides the point. By saying that you have already made a judgment about the value of the unborn child (it exceeds the right of choice of the mother, I'm not arguing that this is wrong).

Basically, you're saying abortion is always wrong, now here are your options. You are not making a (convincing) point about WHY abortion is wrong.

Proletariat

06-10-2005, 23:34

Sorry, I just completely re-did my reply to while you were typing.

Goofball

06-10-2005, 23:40

Too bad being a sharp guy isn't going to make sure you see what I've already said.

You even skipped the part I bolded.

If you don't have sex, you can't get pregnant. This is undeniable.

So, no. There is absolutely no way a woman can ever claim she took 'every conceivable precaution' and pretend she didn't anticipate whatsoever being pregnant.

Please, go through my post and tell me where I'm wrong, or just agree to disagree. Just telling me I'm wrong with no explanation is insulting and a bit beneath you.

You obviously don't know me very well. If you did, you'd know that there is very little that is beneath me....

~;p

Where we disagree is that you are saying a woman having the choice to simply abstain from having sex until she is prepared to have a child if she should become pregnant somehow offers her the same level of freedom as knowing she has the choice to abort an unwanted pregnancy.

That is not true.

Your theory, although you disguise it as a "choice," is actually a lack of choice. Your proposal would limit all women by denying them a basic human need/pleasure until such time as they are ready to start a family. That may have worked a few hundred years ago, but today it is not only impractical, but in my opinion, unfair and unhealthy.

Yes, I am disgusted with the small percentage of women (and men) who think of abortion as a substitute for responsible sex. But I am not willing to punish the rest of the female population for the irresponsibility of a few idiots.

Proletariat

06-10-2005, 23:50

Your theory, although you disguise it as a "choice," is actually a lack of choice. Your proposal would limit all women by denying them a basic human need/pleasure until such time as they are ready to start a family. That may have worked a few hundred years ago, but today it is not only impractical, but in my opinion, unfair and unhealthy.

The 'winds of change' is a brutally flawed way to define murder, Monsieur Shallow.

Btw, the left claiming to be 'pro-choice' is the biggest sham I've heard. They won't let you choose a Christing, frigging thing unless it involves yanking someone's plug or vacuuming out a human from a womb. All in the name of Practicality, Dignity, and Liberation, eh?

Goofball

06-11-2005, 00:26

The 'winds of change' is a brutally flawed way to define murder, Monsieur Shallow.

Only if you accept that it's murder to remove a clump of cells that isn't a human being, Mademoiselle Self-Righteous.

:charge:

Btw, the left claiming to be 'pro-choice' is the biggest sham I've heard. They won't let you choose a Christing, frigging thing unless it involves yanking someone's plug or vacuuming out a human from a womb. All in the name of Practicality, Dignity, and Liberation, eh?

It's almost as silly as the right claiming to be 'pro-life' as they initiate war after war, fight for the right for private citizens to own assault rifles, and execute the mentally handicapped.

:duel:

Happy Friday everybody, there's a bottle of scotch at home with my name on it...

~:cheers:

Proletariat

06-11-2005, 00:36

Only if you accept that it's murder to remove a clump of cells that isn't a human being, Mademoiselle Self-Righteous.

Hey, Monsieur Jerk, I was just making a joke at your own self-effacing (a truly admirable quality) jest.

It's almost as silly as the right claiming to be 'pro-life' as they initiate war after war, fight for the right for private citizens to own assault rifles, and execute the mentally handicapped.

Absolutely agree. ('cept this thread has nothing to do with your examples. well, maybe the last one can be tied in.)

Happy Friday everybody, there's a bottle of scotch at home with my name on it...

~:cheers:

You seem like a Black label guy. How far off am I?

ICantSpellDawg

06-11-2005, 00:44

It's almost as silly as the right claiming to be 'pro-life' as they initiate war after war, fight for the right for private citizens to own assault rifles, and execute the mentally handicapped.

what are you talking about?
i am against the death penalty for the most part, my "conservative" parents didnt know what to think about the war in Iraq (i supported it for various reasons), i DO support the ability to own assault rifles (without automatic capabilities) and other arms and i dont know WHERE execution of the mentally handicapped was proposed by anyone whose opinion i respected.

you are as guilty of the stereotypical villification of others as anyone on the 'right" that i know (including myself)

proletariat - i agree with many of your ideas (that was a top-notch post), but i am not so sure that they, nor the "Basic human rights" that prop them up can exist when one is not a "believer" that some sort of judgement awaits us in this life or the next (with any omnipotent authority). I am also an atheist, but only because i am without a belief in a higher power. i still have hope (sometimes in the face of all common sense and logic). If there is no God/judgement, i believe that everything that the west stands for is illogical and useless for anything but self-preservation (which is as worthwile as trying to fly while falling to your death). Humanitarianism, freedom, right to life are all constructs of ignorant and optimistic people in that case. It is the hope that there is some sort of plan and the belief that there must be that keeps me fighting for what i believe to be right

without the superlative, all of the "rights" we have would unravel and be shown as dancing around the fact that all we do is meaningless

the right to life is, imo, the fabric of everything else we stand for. all other humanitarian ideas hinge on the sanctity of life and it is worth fighting for simply because if it isnt then nothing we have seen is.

Steppe Merc

06-11-2005, 02:08

I would disagree. You can still care, and love others without believing in any sort of higher power. Just because there isn't a god, doesn't mean that life is pointless. As long as you somehow interact with someone postively, you made an impact. Not a huge one in the long run, but even the smallest pebble creates a ripple in the river of life (wow... deep... ~:handball: )

My dead dog might be considered "pointless" because he just lived and died, and I don't think that he is now in any sort of heaven or hell or anything, but he put a positive impact in my life, and that of my families.

Proletariat, it has to be kept legal during the first three months. There are always extremating cirumstances. Always. And to just refuse to even to consider any of those cases would be unfair.
And I honestly don't believe that during the first trimester, it could be considered a human being. I think it is far worse to be massacaring countless of animals for pointless and cruel purposes than to allowing abortions during the first three months, but I am weird.

ICantSpellDawg

06-11-2005, 02:24

[bI would disagree. You can still care, and love others without believing in any sort of higher power. Just because there isn't a god, doesn't mean that life is pointless. As long as you somehow interact with someone postively, you made an impact. Not a huge one in the long run, but even the smallest pebble creates a ripple in the river of life (wow... deep... ~:handball: )

you "can" do anything that you want in that case - but it would be naive to think that it really mattered whether you cared or loved. it wouldnt be less "right" to kill or destroy as inevitably all is killed or destroyed

the logic doesnt seem to be on your side, (from my understanding of life at the age of 22). It may seem to make sense then to be good and kind, but it makes equal sense to dominate, harrass and destroy those who are displeasing to you

in fact, that would seem to make even more sense if you could get away with it

i simply reject that kind of a world even if most all evidence points to it as truth and choose to defend unborn human life - because in the end, if i am "wrong" imy actions will not have mattered anyway

Steppe Merc

06-11-2005, 02:44

Well, not much really does prevent people from killing each other. That's why it happens all the time, I think.
That said, I think it does matter, because life is precious. Do I get this from my Mom and Dad raising me with "Christian" values, if you will? Possibely. But then, many American Indians had a great reverence for life, even though they weren't Christian. I suppose their belief system would be religious. Buddhists worship life, the "circle of life", I believe.
But is there a judgment in higher life in any of the numerous American Indian belief systems, or that of Buddhists? I'm not, sure, I'm honestly asking, but I thinkthat there may not be... anyone know?

And mabye logic isn't on my side... never had much use for it anyway.

bmolsson

06-11-2005, 03:49

This idea that a woman is robbed of her "choice" if abortion is illegal is horseshit. If you don't have sex, you can't get pregnant. This is undeniable. By choosing not to have sex, a woman chooses not to get pregnant, and short of rape, she is not "compelled" to serve as anyone's life-support system. The truth -the truth- is not that women would be denied a choice; it's that some women simply don't like the choice Nature has presented them. They want to have sex without having to deal with the consequences.

Well, according to the Bible, virgin pregnancy is a fact. Which would mean that our young virgins can get pregnant without having sex and without choice or consent....... ~D

Xiahou

06-11-2005, 04:55

Well, according to the Bible, virgin pregnancy is a fact. Which would mean that our young virgins can get pregnant without having sex and without choice or consent....... ~D
Cute, but if you read the Gospel of Luke, Mary actually does consent.

Other than that, well said Proletariat. I have nothing to add. :bow:

doc_bean

06-11-2005, 18:21

Proletariat I never said a fetus had no intrisic value, or that abortions should be taken lightly. Like Steppe Merc I argue for the right to first term abortions, nothing more (well, unless there are medical implications) and nothing less.

People have always tried to improve things for themselves, essentially, making it so they can do what they want to do.

I simply wanted to say that people, as a rule, don't let themselves be limited by nature. We jump out of airplanes, or from bridges hanging on a rope. When people go hunting, they don't kill with their bare hands do they ?
We use technology to improve our lives, not just fulfill our basic needs, but to raise the amount of 'pleasure' we can get out of life.

You say people who don't want babies shouldn't have sex, and use this as a way to justify the pro-life argument. I say people shouldn't jump out of planes if they don't want to get hurt. Yet we treat them when they do.

You correctly point out the difference between the two cases. One involves a fetus and the other doesn't. BUT if you follow the pro-choice argument that a fetus is just a bunch of cells. Then what is the difference between both procedures ?

Now I don't agree that a fetus is just a bunch of cells, kinda like a cancer, and neither do you. But WHY you are opposed to abortion certainly has little to do with the fact that women don't have to have sex (a skydiver doesn't need to jump) but with the fact that you regard the fetus a as a human being (unlike a broken bone.)

TuffStuffMcGruff, you aks the question if there can be ethics if there is no God that will judge us. I believe the situation in Europe proves that there can. I think less than half the population beliefs in a higher being, yet we certainly have morals. They differ from US morals, since we don't mind homosexuals, drugs or nudity as much. But our crime rates aren't higher than the US ones (at least I think not) and there is a stronger socialist morality than there is in the US.

Kanamori

06-11-2005, 21:43

I believe there is difference in the definition of God here. I think you are too strictly identifying "God" with The Bible or modern Christianity and all of the loaded feelings that come with it. I believe morality and belief systems are loosly one in the same. In this case, Europe has a more individualistic belief system that is now influenced by a "non-religious" society that has its roots in Christianity. In this case, I think a reference to God is a reference to an existence of "right" and "wrong", outside of our conceptions, i.e. that "right" and "wrong" are things that are constant and are more than just fabrications of our being.

doc_bean

06-11-2005, 22:19

You can't abstract the idea of a God to a morality. A God is a Creator, a Divine Being. With God, there is a propose to the universe, without God, we're just some random fluke.

If you ask people in Europe whether they believe in God, a lot will say no, or say they don't really care. I don't think this has much to do with Christianity. You either believe in a God or you don't.

This doesn't mean they don't subscribe to a (christian) morality, or that they aren't religious (if religion is viewed as a tradition, or as a series of rites).

from http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_2_28/ai_114090210
(googeld )

For instance, more than 95 percent of Americans claim to believe in God or a universal spirit or lifeforce, compared to 61 percent of the British; nearly 80 percent of Americans claim to believe in heaven, compared to 50 percent of the British; 84 percent of Americans believe that Jesus is God or the son of God, compared to 46 percent of the British (Gallup and Lindsay 1999). Comparing additional traditional religious beliefs, over 70 percent of Americans believe in life after death, compared to 46 percent of Italians, 43 percent of the French, and 35 percent of Scandinavians (Gallup 1979). And over 70 percent of Americans believe in bell, compared to only 28 percent of the British (Greeley 1995). Concerning traditional religious participation, nearly 45 percent of Americans attend church more than once a week, compared to 23 percent of Belgians, 19 percent of West Germans, 13 percent of the British, 10 percent of the French, 3 percent of Danes, and only 2 percent of Icelanders (Verweij, Ester, and Nauta 1997).

Kanamori

06-12-2005, 01:11

TuffStuffMcGruff, you aks the question if there can be ethics if there is no God that will judge us. I believe the situation in Europe proves that there can. I think less than half the population beliefs in a higher being, yet we certainly have morals. They differ from US morals, since we don't mind homosexuals, drugs or nudity as much. But our crime rates aren't higher than the US ones (at least I think not) and there is a stronger socialist morality than there is in the US.

I believe, in TuffStuffMcGruff's post was the implication that there is a distinction between what we consider morally right, and what may actually be morally right. In this model, assume a person holds some morality "A" to be right, in reality though, morality "B" is right. Within the model, ethics can, certainly, exist. But I believe that he is saying that, if no form of absoluteness exists, those moralities hold no actual value, besides the practical.

TuffStuffMcGruff, forgive me, and correct me, if I placed words in your mouth that are not actually there.

You can't abstract the idea of a God to a morality. A God is a Creator, a Divine Being.

Allow me to explain why I made the connection I did. First, there is a difference in the definition of "God" and "god". "God" is singular and the use of the word originated in Judaism, as I understand it. "God" was the definition of all that was right -- anything that is not God, is not always right -- and was also the creator. In Christianity and Islam, God has those same characteristics, but what is right and what is wrong are different; what is inherent in God is different in those religions. So, there can never be "a God" (implying the existence of others) but, rather, there can only be different conceptions of what "God" is, or what is absolute. (This is why I say "God" and not "ethics"; God is the absoluteness that is outside of our conceptions of ethics. We can think our concept of ethics is correct, i.e. in-line with what really is right or wrong, and we may be correct, but there is no way to KNOW we are right.) Lowercase "god" impliesthe possibilty of more than one. I can best describe "god" through the Greek gods. They were powers personified in a human-like existence, in order to explain why the world was the way it was. E.g., Zeus threw lightning when he was pissed. People were struck down by gods out of vengance not because the smiter was absolutely right or absolutely moral, but because the smiter felt angry.

A belief in what is inherent in God does not have to be marked the word "God".