Death Penalty & Abortion

[Gary Sisco]

Any pregnant woman's life is at stake, as, if brought to term, a child renders one a parent for life, an awesome responsibility in the best of circumstances, and not just a "consequence" of behavior that itself may not have been entirely conscious to begin with. Producing another human life changes one's own life forever, regardless of the outcome, and not necessarily in a way that one desires.

It also -- and this is way too often forgotten -- renders one related for life to the other parent, who is also a parent for life, whether absent or present.

If those aren't life-stakes, I don't know what is.

[tippy]

In relation to the other parent, I was talking to my friend last night and she recommended a DNA bank for all males to determine fatherhood so that the invasion of privacy extends more fairly to both parents and is not just the shame and responsibility of the woman. She said we could put this measure in Patriot Act II.

[GoodSpeak]

Originally posted by tippy
Goody also made a good point about education and prevention. A society that is truly serious about limiting abortion would provide means to both.

Thanks, Tip'.

[GoodSpeak]

Getting back to Jazzzoline's point about chosing which artificially inseminated fetuses should be removed in order that one or two babies might live a heathy life...I am of the opinion that this process should in itself be eliminated.

My feeling is that there are hundreds of babies born each year to unwilling [unwtting?] parents and are given up for adoption. And though my heart absolutely bleeds for women in this situation, IMHO, abortion is just bad as artificial insemination.

There was this case where a woman refused to have any of her fetuses removed because of her stance against abortion. Two died and six were born under weight and premature. The strain on the parents must be enormous and, IMO, those children will ultimately suffer for it. Then the insurance/medical communties are further taxed beyond any resonable limit and we, as a society, must pay for this act of selfishness.

But the real issue here, I believe, is if the parents are so steadfastly opposed to abortion [they said it is against God's Law] how in prodition can they possibly justify having an artificial procedure giving life to babies [applying their logic] that weren't intended for them to have as a gift from God in the first place? It makes no logical sense to me.


It is the very same way I view abortion and the DP...I oppose them because I believe all Life is sacred and should not be ended arbitrarily by human hands. Again, incest, rape and the life and age of the mother would be the only extreme circumstances I think would be justifiable.

[Al in NYC]

Originally posted by walto
to the anti-abortion type, this decision is precisely not an allowable remedy to something that his happening "to their own body" since there's another person's body involved.

Well, there's a fetus involved. Whether or not the corpus of that fetus rises to the level of "another person's body" is precisely the question.

To be clear, I am not at all deaf to the proposition that a fetus is a "person" in some sense. And I do understand the position of those who feel that abortion is an categorically immoral act. Where the anti-abortionist and I part company is in the location of the decision-making power over what is happening to a pregnant woman's body.

As with so many other moral/religious/philosophical matters of conscience in our presumably non-theocratic country, I see no grounds for the state to make this decision. In the absence of any definitive answer to the question posed at the beginning of this post (or even a social consensus on it), I see no reason not to allow the only "person" involved capable of making a decision on the question -- the pregnant woman -- to make her own decision.

So that's why my earlier posts didn't come off as true arguments -- they weren't meant to be. I am not trying to pose an argument to Crawjo's central assertion: that a fetus is a person. I have no objection whatsoever to his belief in that assertion, or to his moral opposition to abortion, or to his urging women not to abort their pregnancies. My sole objection is to his assumption that the state has the right to impose his beliefs on others who may or may not share them.

[GoodSpeak]

Originally posted by Al in NYC
Well, there's a fetus involved. Whether or not the corpus of that fetus rises to the level of "another person's body" is precisely the question.

To be clear, I am not at all deaf to the proposition that a fetus is a "person" in some sense. And I do understand the position of those who feel that abortion is an categorically immoral act. Where the anti-abortionist and I part company is in the location of the decision-making power over what is happening to a pregnant woman's body.

As with so many other moral/religious/philosophical matters of conscience in our presumably non-theocratic country, I see no grounds for the state to make this decision. In the absence of any definitive answer to the question posed at the beginning of this post (or even a social consensus on it), I see no reason not to allow the only "person" involved capable of making a decision on the question -- the pregnant woman -- to make her own decision.

So that's why my earlier posts didn't come off as true arguments -- they weren't meant to be. I am not trying to pose an argument to Crawjo's central assertion: that a fetus is a person. I have no objection whatsoever to his belief in that assertion, or to his moral opposition to abortion, or to his urging women not to abort their pregnancies. My sole objection is to his assumption that the state has the right to impose his beliefs on others who may or may not share them.

Exactly.

Nice post, Jazzzoline.

[crawjo]

Originally posted by Al in NYC
Well, there's a fetus involved. Whether or not the corpus of that fetus rises to the level of "another person's body" is precisely the question.

To be clear, I am not at all deaf to the proposition that a fetus is a "person" in some sense. And I do understand the position of those who feel that abortion is an categorically immoral act. Where the anti-abortionist and I part company is in the location of the decision-making power over what is happening to a pregnant woman's body.

As with so many other moral/religious/philosophical matters of conscience in our presumably non-theocratic country, I see no grounds for the state to make this decision. In the absence of any definitive answer to the question posed at the beginning of this post (or even a social consensus on it), I see no reason not to allow the only "person" involved capable of making a decision on the question -- the pregnant woman -- to make her own decision.

So that's why my earlier posts didn't come off as true arguments -- they weren't meant to be. I am not trying to pose an argument to Crawjo's central assertion: that a fetus is a person. I have no objection whatsoever to his belief in that assertion, or to his moral opposition to abortion, or to his urging women not to abort their pregnancies. My sole objection is to his assumption that the state has the right to impose his beliefs on others who may or may not share them.

But doesn't the state impose its beliefs on people who don't share them all the time? What makes abortion any different? The number of people who think it should be legal? At what point does a law's unpopularity make it unwise, and is there ever an instance when a law should be instituted regardless of its unpopularity?

[GoodSpeak]

Originally posted by crawjo
But doesn't the state impose its beliefs on people who don't share them all the time? What makes abortion any different? The number of people who think it should be legal? At what point does a law's unpopularity make it unwise, and is there ever an instance when a law should be instituted regardless of its unpopularity?

You're kidding...right?

Are you equating reproduction with, say, traffic tickets...???



[ohmigod]


I think I'm going to be sick...