March For Life

[ICantSpellDawg]

I fully agree.

The first comment is a good one;

Because in the end, they don't really care enough to be bothered with it.

Like slavery in America, which was opposed by the majority almost from day one, the Presidents and candidates played lip service to it. Too afraid to take a strong stance on ANYTHING so as not to get caught up in it.

It's telling that abortion has been an issue in every election since roe v. wade, yet not a single thing has been done about it. It is convenient to keep it a dividing issue to mask the lack of contrast between the two parties on most issues.

This is a huge issue and it needs to be addressed. Again, the tables are turning - more and more, people are coming over to the idea that something needs to be done. Ultrasound was a wakeup call.

[Strike For The South]

I'm not listening to anything that compares abortion to slavery. If you need to use that to win hearts and minds then you've already lost. Do I think abortion is abhorrent? yes but I have no right to govern your body or what you put in or take out of it. I can sit on my pedastal and raise hell. I can yell at women for there bad decisons I can yell at doctors for there poor ethics. I can go on the side of the highway and put up the 34 crosses for dead babies but it all means nothing. Even if the law changes abortions will still happen and at the same rate. For me this issue comes down to realism and idealism. In an ideal wrold every baby would be born and put up for adoption in the real wrold you're looking at 2 dead people instead of 1

[Mikeus Caesar]

I'm not listening to anything that compares abortion to slavery. If you need to use that to win hearts and minds then you've already lost. Do I think abortion is abhorrent? yes but I have no right to govern your body or what you put in or take out of it. I can sit on my pedastal and raise hell. I can yell at women for there bad decisons I can yell at doctors for there poor ethics. I can go on the side of the highway and put up the 34 crosses for dead babies but it all means nothing. Even if the law changes abortions will still happen and at the same rate. For me this issue comes down to realism and idealism. In an ideal wrold every baby would be born and put up for adoption in the real wrold you're looking at 2 dead people instead of 1

THANK YOU, VOICE OF REASON, THANK YOU.

Why am i so overjoyed at strike's statement? Because he says that despite finding it abhorrent, he realises he has no right to govern what other people do with their bodies, and also realises that abortions always happen, no matter what.

If only the rest of the world was like Strike, it would be a better place.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I'm not listening to anything that compares abortion to slavery. If you need to use that to win hearts and minds then you've already lost. Do I think abortion is abhorrent? yes but I have no right to govern your body or what you put in or take out of it. I can sit on my pedastal and raise hell. I can yell at women for there bad decisons I can yell at doctors for there poor ethics. I can go on the side of the highway and put up the 34 crosses for dead babies but it all means nothing. Even if the law changes abortions will still happen and at the same rate. For me this issue comes down to realism and idealism. In an ideal wrold every baby would be born and put up for adoption in the real wrold you're looking at 2 dead people instead of 1

First - Why is it abhorrent? If it is just a corrective operation, what is the big deal?

Second - Find me legitimate data to suggest historic abortion levels nearing those today.

Third - Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of NARAL, abortionist and main proponent of the Roe and Doe cases later changed his ways. He claimed the number of deaths linked to illegal abortions were "false figures"

Last - I think that the issue has quite a bit in common with the Slavery issue. Both problems originated in ones convenience trumping the life of another. I'd agree that this is an issue, very similar to the one posed in the early U.S. People came up with reasons why freeing the slaves was "bad for the economy", "Not fair to those who's businesses primarily used slaves", "Would only cause freed slaves pain because they wouldn't be able to find jobs or feed themselves".

I can use any similarities that I believe to be applicable.

Whenever the convenience of one is used as an excuse to de-humanize or murder another, that is our business and it has quite a bit in common with the major evils of our history. Why should we concern ourselves with Darfur, the Balkans, "future genocides"?

This is a balancing act - a womens body and another human being overlap and sovereignty is in question. I realize that, but the current laws pretend that it really isn't an issue and that your humanity and life depend on your location.

[Lemur]

I see The New Republic also has coverage of the march.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I see The New Republic also has coverage of the march.

The page didn't load.

Ron Paul was at the March as it turns out. The President delivered a speech. Hundreds of thousands of marchers. An election year where abortion plays a major part. That makes it news.

and No MSM coverage.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Strike:

The comparison was not of abortion to slavery but of one Supreme Court decision to another.

You'll note that my comment was strictly on that level.



Mikeus:

Using Pro-Choice data, there have been more than 30 million abortions in the United States since the legalization of Roe v Wade. Compare the growth in US population (not from immigration) and you can discern some of its effect. To argue that legalization has not impacted the rate of occurrence for that procedure flies in the face of data.

Did abortions occur in the USA prior to Roe v Wade? Yes.

Would abortions occur in the USA were Roe v Wade overturned? Yes. The issue would be remanded back to the individual states to decide. A number of them would keep the procedure legal.

Would abortions occur in the USA were all abortions made illegal? Yes. But to argue that the rate of occurrence would remain roughly the same is spurious.


Your basic point -- the idea that legislating morality for others is poor law -- has a lot of merit. However, all laws, to some extent, do just that and are necessary for the regulation of a society. Moreover, most societies have exercised the principle that human life is the "property" of THAT individual.

Therefore, for those of us who believe in the concept of a soul and that the child-to-be is imbued with a soul from the moment of conception, we MUST oppose abortion for precisely the same reason you claim to support it -- no other has a right to take that individual's life from them. Obviously, there are many who do not share that definition of life, and therefore construe a different result vis-a-vis abortion from the same principle.

[Whacker]

Therefore, for those of us who believe in the concept of a soul and that the child-to-be is imbued with a soul from the moment of conception, we MUST oppose abortion for precisely the same reason you claim to support it -- no other has a right to take that individual's life from them. Obviously, there are many who do not share that definition of life, and therefore construe a different result vis-a-vis abortion from the same principle.

And I would be one of the adamant pro-choice people, because I believe what you outlined in bold and reject the underlined statement. And I have and will continue to fight you pro-lifers every step of the way.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Strike:

The comparison was not of abortion to slavery but of one Supreme Court decision to another.

You'll note that my comment was strictly on that level.



Mikeus:

Using Pro-Choice data, there have been more than 30 million abortions in the United States since the legalization of Roe v Wade. Compare the growth in US population (not from immigration) and you can discern some of its effect. To argue that legalization has not impacted the rate of occurrence for that procedure flies in the face of data.

Did abortions occur in the USA prior to Roe v Wade? Yes.

Would abortions occur in the USA were Roe v Wade overturned? Yes. The issue would be remanded back to the individual states to decide. A number of them would keep the procedure legal.

Would abortions occur in the USA were all abortions made illegal? Yes. But to argue that the rate of occurrence would remain roughly the same is spurious.


Your basic point -- the idea that legislating morality for others is poor law -- has a lot of merit. However, all laws, to some extent, do just that and are necessary for the regulation of a society. Moreover, most societies have exercised the principle that human life is the "property" of THAT individual.

Therefore, for those of us who believe in the concept of a soul and that the child-to-be is imbued with a soul from the moment of conception, we MUST oppose abortion for precisely the same reason you claim to support it -- no other has a right to take that individual's life from them. Obviously, there are many who do not share that definition of life, and therefore construe a different result vis-a-vis abortion from the same principle.

Right - most states would have abortion legal until the 3rd trimester. Some would allow it until the end of the first trimester. Some would allow it in the case of Rape or incest.

In the case of a necessary abortion to save the life of the mother ALL would have that. I wouldn't support one that didn't.

[TinCow]

Moreover, most societies have exercised the principle that human life is the "property" of THAT individual.

The United States plays lip service to this principle, but is far less open in practical terms. In this country the government can put to death people who want to live and prevent people who want to die from killing themselves. The government also heavily regulates what you can put into your body. Americans certainly own their own bodies in a property sense, but they cannot use that property as they wish in all situations. While technically the government does not interfere in personal ownership of the body, their limitations on use are essentially property limitations which impact ownership. Your physical body belongs to you, but your life/existence itself does not, since you are not free to do with it what you wish.

If you want to use the property law analogy, you own your body in fee simple, but the government has an irrevocable, lifetime easement on several aspects of its use. In property law, an easement is itself property. Thus, you would not own your entire body 'property' outright.

[ICantSpellDawg]

The United States plays lip service to this principle, but is far less open in practical terms. In this country the government can put to death people who want to live and prevent people who want to die from killing themselves. The government also heavily regulates what you can put into your body. Americans certainly own their own bodies in a property sense, but they cannot use that property as they wish in all situations. While technically the government does not interfere in personal ownership of the body, their limitations on use are essentially property limitations which impact ownership. Your physical body belongs to you, but your life/existence itself does not, since you are not free to do with it what you wish.

If you want to use the property law analogy, you own your body in fee simple, but the government has an irrevocable, lifetime easement on several aspects of its use. In property law, an easement is itself property. Thus, you would not own your entire body 'property' outright.

That doesn't help your argument, it just highlights that the U.S. legal system needs to be corrected over time. In fact, the whole idea of a "woman's body" should have never served their cause at the exclusion of ours - merely highlighted the issue. The same "Unborn child's body" argument could be made convincingly.

Listen, I like Ironing out the kinks in the system to make each individuals life and liberty as secure as possible. I don't believe that our current abortion laws do that because they de-humanize a large amount of people. People on the other side take a blind eye to unborn kids because they don't have to see them walking around town or feeling pain and stress.

[TinCow]

That doesn't help your argument, it just highlights that the U.S. legal system needs to be corrected over time. In fact, the whole idea of a "woman's body" should have never served their cause at the exclusion of ours - merely highlighted the issue. The same "Unborn child's body" argument could be made convincingly.

It's not my argument because I haven't made one. I am simply discussing the relevant laws as they exist in the US at this time. I still have made no comment on my opinion on the propriety of abortion. I am posting these things because there is a great deal of misunderstanding in the general population about what the laws are and what their rights are. Knowledge aids in decision making and it especially is useful when two sides want to reach a compromise, which you seem very keen on. Thus, I'm trying to help everyone by laying out the situation as it stands.

For instance, it is a common misconception that suicide is illegal. It is not. Attempted suicide remains a crime in a very small number of jurisdictions that rely on old English common law (where it was illegal). However, most jurisdictions have no criminal punishment for persons who attempt, or succeed, to take their own lives. The law simply prevents other people from aiding in the suicide attempt, and the resulting legal problems arise when people wish to commit suicide (which is, again, legal) but are unable to do so because of some physical disability. They are being, in essence, denied their right due to a handicap.

Similarly, the law generally does not prevent a person from using any substance of any kind, as that would be direct violation of a person's absolute ownership of their own body. The government has used a loophole to get around this, though: possession. It is not illegal to use a restricted substance (i.e. marijuana, cocaine, heroin), it is only illegal to possess it. However, since you have to "possess" the substance in order to use it, it effectively removes your right to use it since use is presumptive proof of possession.

It's no surprise that this country has so many lawyers. The laws have grown so complex and obtuse that they prevent a lay understanding.

[ICantSpellDawg]

It's not my argument because I haven't made one. I am simply discussing the relevant laws as they exist in the US at this time. I still have made no comment on my opinion on the propriety of abortion. I am posting these things because there is a great deal of misunderstanding in the general population about what the laws are and what their rights are. Knowledge aids in decision making and it especially is useful when two sides want to reach a compromise, which you seem very keen on. Thus, I'm trying to help everyone by laying out the situation as it stands.

For instance, it is a common misconception that suicide is illegal. It is not. Attempted suicide remains a crime in a very small number of jurisdictions that rely on old English common law (where it was illegal). However, most jurisdictions have no criminal punishment for persons who attempt, or succeed, to take their own lives. The law simply prevents other people from aiding in the suicide attempt, and the resulting legal problems arise when people wish to commit suicide (which is, again, legal) but are unable to do so because of some physical disability. They are being, in essence, denied their right due to a handicap.

Similarly, the law generally does not prevent a person from using any substance of any kind, as that would be direct violation of a person's absolute ownership of their own body. The government has used a loophole to get around this, though: possession. It is not illegal to use a restricted substance (i.e. marijuana, cocaine, heroin), it is only illegal to possess it. However, since you have to "possess" the substance in order to use it, it effectively removes your right to use it since use is presumptive proof of possession.

It's no surprise that this country has so many lawyers. The laws have grown so complex and obtuse that they prevent a lay understanding.

I appreciate the info and the attempt at impartiality.

The old adage that "ignorance is no defense" is so wrong. Most lawyers don't know even know certain laws. What is the alternative?

[Ironside]

Therefore, for those of us who believe in the concept of a soul and that the child-to-be is imbued with a soul from the moment of conception, we MUST oppose abortion for precisely the same reason you claim to support it -- no other has a right to take that individual's life from them. Obviously, there are many who do not share that definition of life, and therefore construe a different result vis-a-vis abortion from the same principle.

IMHO every argument of that "life" starts at a speciffic moment is either going down as absurd or hypocritical, making a pragmatic solution recommendable.

But anyway, what do you consider happening with the souls lost by an abotion, miscarriage or simular? Reborn? Condemn to hell, heaven, asphodel fields or whatever?

Would you disallow contrampments that doesn't allow the fertilized egg to attach to the uterus?

What's your opinion on that the natural rates of spontanous abortions (that according to wiki is about 25% of all pregnacies and considering the uncertaincy to determine the really early ones it's probably higher, and I doubt they even can count the ones that fail because the fertilized egg doesn't attach)? This one is really evil from the "a fertilized egg should have the same rights as a grown human" position.

Well uhm bit of a side track there.
TuffStuffMcGruff what do you suppose will happen if abortion is a state right and banned in pushed in state A, while allowed in state B, when a person travels to state B to get it done? No punishment? Extradiction (well according to some (all?) pro-lifers it's equal to murder)?

[Strike For The South]

First - Why is it abhorrent? If it is just a corrective operation, what is the big deal?

Second - Find me legitimate data to suggest historic abortion levels nearing those today.

Third - Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of NARAL, abortionist and main proponent of the Roe and Doe cases later changed his ways. He claimed the number of deaths linked to illegal abortions were "false figures"

Last - I think that the issue has quite a bit in common with the Slavery issue. Both problems originated in ones convenience trumping the life of another. I'd agree that this is an issue, very similar to the one posed in the early U.S. People came up with reasons why freeing the slaves was "bad for the economy", "Not fair to those who's businesses primarily used slaves", "Would only cause freed slaves pain because they wouldn't be able to find jobs or feed themselves".

I can use any similarities that I believe to be applicable.

Whenever the convenience of one is used as an excuse to de-humanize or murder another, that is our business and it has quite a bit in common with the major evils of our history. Why should we concern ourselves with Darfur, the Balkans, "future genocides"?

This is a balancing act - a womens body and another human being overlap and sovereignty is in question. I realize that, but the current laws pretend that it really isn't an issue and that your humanity and life depend on your location.

1. Its abhorrent becuase we're not sure what we're killing

2. http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/305689.aspx There at there lowest in 30 years.

3. They still happen not to mention the rate of infection or other diease figures.

4. Slavery and abortion are no where near applicable. Without the mother the "baby" cannot live black people can live without being enslaved at least I think.

To me this is an issue of all or none. Why is a baby a clump of cells at 12 weeks and a human child at 13? I guess it makes people feel better when the cant distinguish human features. I find it a dispicable and horrid act but I will not trample the rights of my fellow Americans to have my laws changed

[Xiahou]

What's your opinion on that the natural rates of spontanous abortions (that according to wiki is about 25% of all pregnacies and considering the uncertaincy to determine the really early ones it's probably higher, and I doubt they even can count the ones that fail because the fertilized egg doesn't attach)? This one is really evil from the "a fertilized egg should have the same rights as a grown human" position.

This line of reasoning is a red herring. It has no bearing on the argument. People are constantly dying everywhere, that doesn't make any sort of justification for killing.

I find it a dispicable and horrid act but I will not trample the rights of my fellow Americans to have my laws changed

So you think abortion is murder, but don't think it's right to pass laws prohibiting people's "right" to murder?

[Lemur]

This line of reasoning is a red herring. It has no bearing on the argument. People are constantly dying everywhere, that doesn't make any sort of justification for killing.

Not entirely true. The only birth control method advocated by the Catholic Church, the rhythm method, is believed to be effective due to spontaneous abortion. In other words, sperm meets egg, egg meets uterus, but conditions ain't right, so the dividing cells get knocked loose. If you are an absolutist who believes that life begins at conception, you should be even angrier about the rhythm method than state-assisted abortion. Even a back-of-the-envelope estimate of how many blastocysts have been killed this way would be eye-popping.

So you think abortion is murder, but don't think it's right to pass laws prohibiting people's "right" to murder?

I think Strike has a nuanced view that includes rather a lot of doubt about when and how intelligence/life becomes viable. As I said in another thread about abortion, go ahead and define what it means to be "alive." The answer is only simple if you're not thinking very hard.

Life starts somewhere, and intelligent people can disagree about when. A sperm and an egg, separately, are not life. But if we accept that life begins the moment they meet, all kinds of extreme positions arise out of logical necessity. As I said, the rhythm method amounts to mass genocide on an epic scale if you accept that reasoning.

So is the blastocyst life? The fetus? When? Brain development begins at week three, but organ formation isn't complete until week seven. But at this point the fetus is still a parasite, completely inviable without its host, i.e., the mother.

I think there's broad agreement across all lines that third-trimester babies are, in fact, alive. It helps that so many are able to survive (at great expense) when pregnancies end early. That's why an overwhelming majority of people are opposed to third-trimester abortions.

But let's face it, the issue is difficult, and any attempt to get all absolutist about it ends in absurdity. As I said in an earlier thread, technology will make abortion obsolete long before the culture warriors sort it out.

[Xiahou]

Not entirely true. The only birth control method advocated by the Catholic Church, the rhythm method, is believed to be effective due to spontaneous abortion.

I'd love to see your data for that. I've heard the charge, but haven't seen any data that looked statistically significant, and even then spontaneous abortion was found in a small percentage of conceptions. Hardly effective due to spontaneous abortion.

Personally, I don't value NFP much. I know the theological hurdles that allow for it and not, say condoms, but it really does seem like splitting hairs to me.

I think Strike has a nuanced view that includes rather a lot of doubt about when and how intelligence/life becomes viable.

I was directly responding to his statement that abortion is abhorrent- there wasn't much nuance there.

Life starts somewhere, and intelligent people can disagree about when.
....

You see, the problem is that there is no room for dialog or compromise. Roe v Wade decided that abortion is a right. As such, any limitations on it are unconstitutional. This is also why the pro-abortion activists are unwilling to give an inch. Any acknowledgment that abortion can and should be restricted erodes the concept of it as a right- and they can't have that. Roe v Wade should be overturned and abortion should be regulated democratically on a state-by-state basis. I think it's wrong and would love a virtual ban nationwide, but I'm willing to make my case and let the people decided, rightly or wrongly.

[Ironside]

This line of reasoning is a red herring. It has no bearing on the argument. People are constantly dying everywhere, that doesn't make any sort of justification for killing.

But the difference is that we're trying to keep people alive from unnecessary deaths all the time. You treat people with cancer, you're not just leaving them to see which survives or not.
This is not the case when it comes to zygots or embryoes.

[TinCow]

So you think abortion is murder, but don't think it's right to pass laws prohibiting people's "right" to murder?

Human society has almost unanimously agreed that murder is acceptable in the right circumstances: specifically war. In addition, with the exception of 4 years in the 1970s, the US government has always held that murder of civilians is acceptable, resulting in capital punishment. The question is not whether it is acceptable to murder, it is when it is acceptable to murder. Clearly the vast majority believe that murder is acceptable in at least some circumstances.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Human society has almost unanimously agreed that murder is acceptable in the right circumstances: specifically war. In addition, with the exception of 4 years in the 1970s, the US government has always held that murder of civilians is acceptable, resulting in capital punishment. The question is not whether it is acceptable to murder, it is when it is acceptable to murder. Clearly the vast majority believe that murder is acceptable in at least some circumstances.

So much so that we do not label killing in combat situations, or the use of a death penalty as a sentence of court, as a "murder" at all. You're being just a little "snarky" by not noting the distinction -- even if your point is that there should be no distinction drawn.

[LittleGrizzly]

So much so that we do not label killing in combat situations, or the use of a death penalty as a sentence of court, as a "murder" at all. You're being just a little "snarky" by not noting the distinction -- even if your point is that there should be no distinction drawn.

What word is used seems to depend on the poster's support for the topic, Anti war crowd will call it murder, Anti death penaty crowd will all it murder and Anti aborton crowd will call it murder.

Its a word we like to use in our arguments as it seems to be as bad a word as Nazi.

Not sure what to believe when it comes to the abortion debate, I believe a woman should have a right to it but i struggle to put a figure on it, can it really be ok one day then the nex day wrong...

[TinCow]

So much so that we do not label killing in combat situations, or the use of a death penalty as a sentence of court, as a "murder" at all. You're being just a little "snarky" by not noting the distinction -- even if your point is that there should be no distinction drawn.

That's a fair point and I was certainly off-base in using the word "murder." By definition, murder is an illegal killing and since both capital punishment and (most) wartime killings are legally sanctioned, they cannot, by definition, be murder. I should have substituted "killing" for "murder" in every line of my previous post, so please accept my apologies for that.

[ICantSpellDawg]

That's a fair point and I was certainly off-base in using the word "murder." By definition, murder is an illegal killing and since both capital punishment and (most) wartime killings are legally sanctioned, they cannot, by definition, be murder. I should have substituted "killing" for "murder" in every line of my previous post, so please accept my apologies for that.

Legally allowed homicides. That's what the death penalty, wartime killings and abortions are.

You can kill an animal, a radio, a plant, the lights, a beer, etc. Homicide works when speaking about killing human beings.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

That's a fair point and I was certainly off-base in using the word "murder." By definition, murder is an illegal killing and since both capital punishment and (most) wartime killings are legally sanctioned, they cannot, by definition, be murder. I should have substituted "killing" for "murder" in every line of my previous post, so please accept my apologies for that.

Of course. TSM may be a bit pickier with his "homicide" point, but I understand your re-wording completely.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Homicide

Believe what you will about abortion, but it is clearly a homicide - the the act of killing another human being. (not directed at Xiahou, Seamus or CR)

In spite of the logical absurdity of this, abortion it is not classified as filicide or infanticide by wikipedia. Anyone who would like to try to explain this, please do so now.

[Productivity]

Homicide

Believe what you will about abortion, but it is clearly a homicide - the the act of killing another human being.

That statement is far too general, unless you are going to take the rather extreme view that a human being begins when a sperm and egg join together. If a view is taken that life begins later in the pregnancy process, then there is significant potential for abortion not to be homicide. As the point of when life begins is a point highly debated and still unresolved, I cannot agree that abortion is clearly homicide.

[HoreTore]

Bah. Haven't they realized yet that banning abortion just isn't possible?

And, should you do that, instead of being lumped together with industrialized countries like France, Germany and England, you'll get lumped together with glorious countries like Talibanistan, Nobodycaresistan and Mudhutland...

[rory_20_uk]

I'm reminded of the song "Every Sperm is Sacred"...

I've probably come closer than most to the bundles of tissue that are very early pregnancies (abortions in the sense that the foetus was aborted, not often intentional except in non-viable pregnancies).

Medical abortions they don't even get that far but causes the pregnancy to fail, must like many early pregnancies fail anyway.

If there are people that think a sac of a few hundred or thousand cells is equivalent to a human bieng then I'll have to agree to disagree. I loose that may cells all the time as we all do.

[Ser Clegane]

Homicide

Believe what you will about abortion, but it is clearly a homicide

Interestingly, if you apply the definition of "human being" that your wikipedia-article on homicide links to, your statement that abortion clearly is "homicide" is quite incorrect.