Posted on 10/15/2004 5:33:37 PM PDT by RogueIsland
This is a serious question. I am posting it because I have come to the conclusion that I quite literally do not have the neural wiring to even conceive of the pro-choice point of view and I need it explained to me. I know many intelligent, otherwise decent people who are passionate about the "right" to abortion. Some of them will even concede that the fetus is a human being and they still favor abortion-on-demand.
I simply can't grasp this. Not all of these people are simply selfish. Some of them seem deeply committed to this on a philosophical level and even a Constitutional level (although the ludicrous Roe aside, how the Constitution can be construed in this fashion is simply beyond me -- at best all you can say is it is silent on the subject of anything but state-sponsored execution).
So what's the deal here? What "nuance" am I missing that these seemingly intelligent people appear to grasp? I can usually at least intellectually understand those I disagree with on political issues -- this one utterly eludes me however.
You are wrong about that. I'm saying that it's an option that COULD be used by any woman at any time she or her doctor decide it's best for HER. And I am surely giving my blessing to that and only that.
So you believe, anyway...
It is not a subjective belief, but an objective fact.
You believe it is an objective fact. That doesn't make it so.
regarding the strong argument, perhaps the following facts may help (please note that the below is factual, though I may be off on the real numbers)
Prior to RvW, government studies showed there was a trend in (then illegal...) abortions of roughly 3-4000 per year.
As we all know, RvW was an act of judicial activism, legislation from the bench.
Part of the reasoning which led to the USSC decision was the utopian reasoning that this small number of abortions would not significantly change.
Another factor was that the state of technology could not then conclusively that an embryo was in fact "alive" and therefore could be classified as a human being with all attendant rights as specified in the USC. Technology has gotten better now, to the point where we can see into the womb and now know that life does begin at conception. God was (and is, always...) Right.
Now, we have what Thomas Sowell classically defines as the "Law of unintended Consequences"; upwards of 44 million babies killed (where the estimates should have panned out to be less than 100,000) over the past 30 years...
Feminist (which really means Mysandrist) disfiguration of the english language (thus, the common-speak ergo the common thought of society) that has made words like "baby" or "child" be reduced to politically incorrect terms in this issue. Just as they call abortion "pro-choice", just as the MSM calls a ruthless terrorist who kills innocents "an insurgent/rebel/militia, etc...".
And a scar upon the heart of the Nation.
My feeling on this, morbid as it may be, is that the only good thing about abortion is that the kind of people who believe in it strongly enough will soon breed themselves out.
CGVet58
It's not "which" God, there is only one.
Let's say a person has a set of what they determine to be moral and ethical rules. What would the guidelines be, what would the basis be for those rules?
What determines what is wrong? If it has negative consequences for the community? For the individual? Does the good of the many trump the good of the one?
I think I understand your point, I just don't see it that way.
It can't. Any intelligent person reading our Constitution can see that the killing of the unborn was the farthest thing from the minds of our Founding Fathers. If they had thought that their posterity would be killing off the future citizens of this country I'm sure they would have chucked the whole idea.
But, today the Constitution is what our Black Robed oligarchs say it is, and that is a slippery slope leading to tyranny.
What "nuance" am I missing that these seemingly intelligent people appear to grasp?
Everyone has their own ideas on this subject, but mine is simply that liberals have their own religion called "The Law".
Liberals/Democrats/Socialists, whatever term you want to use (they're all the same), have based most of their ideology around what is and what isn't the law. That explains why we have such a hightly litigious society, and why the left is so enamored of the Judiciary. If the left tried to get legislation passed through the Legislature they'd fail most of the time.
Add to this the fact that liberals see expanded government as the only true "church" of man -- without limits set by the common people.
Subtract the morality of religion with its codes of conduct, and its respect for life from a power higher than nine black robed overpriced lawyers.
Mix in a "liberal education" with educators who push their own, sick, agenda on impressionable young minds, and you have "intelligent and nuanced" liberals who are unable to rationally understand life as we on FR know it.
I have trouble understand those people too. I do know that a lot of them, when they sign on to "being a liberal", take on ALL the liberal positions. Abortion is one of the liberal positions, like being anti gun or pro animal rights. It's a package.
1. Say that you believe in preserving human life in the womb as a tenet of your faith.
2. Reflect that since this is a tenet of your faith, you cannot put into poltical action.
3. Then, refer to James 2:17, "In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead." (NIV)
See? Very simple.
I agree with you. It's not a choice I'd like to even have to consider, but I'm a guy, so I'm not directly involved. But, it's also not my place or my style to stick my nose where it doesn't belong, in somebody else's business.
Javelina --- I've been following your arguments & you are wrong on nearly every point you have made.
In 1972, the year before Roe vs. Wade, 49 women died from abortions in the US --- 24 illegal & 25 legal.
For further info see:
http://www.roevwade.org/illegalmyths.html
Multiple other sources back up this data. The "back-alley" myth is completely unsupported.
*****I suppose that you are referring to the risk to a woman of childbirth versus the risk of having an abortion. *****
I work with Pregnant Women. I've had ONE person abort in over 12 years. I've probably assisted 8,000 pregnant women. Some had miscarriages. Those who miscarried except for ONE, "lost a baby." It didn't matter that she was 1 month pregnant or 5 months pregnant. It HURT to lose that baby. The majority of pregnant women I assisted were NOT married. Many of them I assisted through more than one pregnancy. Most of the women did NOT use any contraceptive -- every excuse in the book used. And then there was the woman who had had her tubes tied last year who showed up in my office pregnant -- the doctor was giving her a pass on the bill. There was the woman at 52 who thought she didn't have to worry about getting pregnant and did, lost her baby, was devastated, they tried again and she had her baby at the ripe old age of 53 (all her other children were grown).
TWO out of 8,000 pregnancies in 12 years where the "fetus" (which in Greek means "little person" I'm told) was not considered a baby.
About 800 to 1000 of those pregnancies were HIGH RISK to mother or baby. All of them followed doctor's orders and had a baby by C-Section or early delivery to protect the health of both baby and mother. Not a one of those babies was unwanted. And there was NO need for an abortion to protect the "health" of the mother. Momma did as she was told (stayed in bed, got 'sewed' to prevent early delivery) because she was protecting HER body and HER baby.
I am opinionated, but I think most of the "abortion" talk is in the self-interests of MEN who don't want to be implicated or have to pay child support.
Highly Opinionated I am.
Let me answer your question with another question..why is it that probably 95% or more of those who favor abortion also are strongly OPPOSED to the death penalty?
I used to be a pro-choice feminist....I was brought up by very socialist, very pro-choice people. My mother is a rabidly anti-male lesbian--we are estranged now.
I am now very pro-life, but here is how I recall that the reasoning went in my prior life:
Back when I was growing up and in the generations before, women *were* oppressed by men. Especially in the area of sex and childbearing. Young women would be pressured by young men for sex, sometimes give in, and wind up pregnant (as they do now)....and back then they would be viewed as a disgrace. The young man was rarely viewed this way. In the days before DNA testing, he could simply deny parentage, thus avoiding the disgrace factor and also any financial liability.
She was often tossed out of school and sometimes out of her home. If she kept the baby, she bore the social stigma of unwed mother, as well as the financial and child care burden, and often received no help from the father of the child. As I said, deniability for the young man was extremely easy back then. No DNA tests, no swollen belly.
Otherwise, there were special homes for pregnant girls, so her family could get her out of town (the disgrace factor) until the birth was over and the baby given up for adoption.
I think the pro-choice people believe abortion evens the score for this type of past injustice. Wrongly, of course, but that's what I believe underlies much of the mad hysteria on the pro-choice side.
Just MHO.
I made no argument about whether it was convincing or not.
If a mother wishes her baby to come to term, and it is harmed, even in the first or second trimester, then the person who harms the baby can be arrested and/or sued. If a fetus is not viable until the third trimester, then why is this so?
For the same reason that someone can be arrested, and I can sue them, for injuring one of my kidneys, even though my kidneys will never be viable on their own no matter how long we wait.
Hint: Just because the State gains additional interest in something when it achieves viability, that doesn't mean that it doesn't have any other kind of value prior to that point.
Your "reasoning" is backwards.
Typical liberal inconsistency and hyprocrisy perhaps?
Or maybe you just misunderstood it.
Maybe not with a coathanger, but a dear friend of mine died in 1958 from an abortion performed in a dirty room in New Orleans. Deaths from illegal abortions were not unusual. I know of three myself.
This post is simply mischievous. Everyone knows by now where they stand. This issue brings out the worst in people when it is discussed on this thread. Eventually people end up calling people godless murderers or reactionary over controlling concrete cretins.
Why is the poster starting this? There is no point other than to cause flames.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.