Maybe even issues that are (gasp) MORE IMPORTANT.
Disclosure 1: I am a man who will never have or perform an abortion.…
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
SCOTUS Will Consider Much More than Roe v. Wade - Comments Page 2
Maybe even issues that are (gasp) MORE IMPORTANT.
Disclosure 1: I am a man who will never have or perform an abortion.…
Article comments
26 - Dave Nalle
I hate to tell you this, Michael, but I just browsed through your prior BC postings and I don't see much there that I disagree with. We may be closer than you think. Be afraid.
Dave
27 - T A Dodger
Michael,
I skipped over your first point because I thought a big abortion debate would pull this thread off topic. Suffice it to say, I think the right of a woman to control her body is clear, even if you accept that life begins at conception.
I also think that it isn't cental to this topic. We're not talking about the relative wrongness of upholding Kelo and overturning Roe, we're talking about their relative impact. When I think about which would affect me more deeply, the government taking control of my uterus or the government taking my property, I find that the answer is simple.
28 - Dave Nalle
Saying that overturning Roe would be the same as the government taking control of your uterus is a bit of an overstatement. You still have the choice of whether to invite any guests to visit the uterus, so unless the government is going to mandate insemination you still retain reproductive control.
Dave
29 - T A Dodger
No matter how good your birth control is, there is a chance that sperm will meet egg.
Living an entire life without sex is not a real choice.
30 - T A Dodger
I love this though:
You still have the choice of whether to invite any guests to visit the uterus
"Ortho Evra: your womb's way of saying "No Solicitors Welcome"
31 - Dave Nalle
It works for nuns, TAD.
Dave
32 - T A Dodger
At least in theory.
I still say that telling women, "the only way to maintain control over your own body is through a lifetime of celibacy" is unconscionable.
33 - Michael J. West
I still say that telling women, "the only way to maintain control over your own body is through a lifetime of celibacy" is unconscionable.
Nobody actually said that here. However, it was sort of implied -- sort of.
On the other hand, T A Dodger, your own implication that abortion is just another means of contraceptive...not particularly conscionable, either.
34 - alienboy
Why is abortion not just an other means of contraception Michael? It seems to me that it is, in that all forms of contraception prevent or reduce pregnancy...
35 - Michael J. West
Contraception is meant to prevent contraception before it starts. Abortion terminates an already-conceived life.
36 - T A Dodger
I don't understand what you mean Michael.
I'm not saying you can use aboriton to prevent pregancy. So I'm not saying it's contraceptive. If I were saying abortion = contraception, I dont' think that would be unconsciounable as much as just inaccurate.
It's really unclear what you're objecting to here.
37 - alienboy
I was rather under the impression that contraception was simply a way for people to manage their family planning. As such, abortion is just another technique for achieving that entirely legitimate and respectable aim.
38 - T A Dodger
No.
Contraceptives prevent conception.
What you're describing, alienboy, is Birth Control.
Interestingly, anything that prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus is technically also contraception, since the medical definition of conception is implantation of the fertilized egg.
39 - Michael J. West
T A Dodger, I want you to know that I appreciate your thoughtful approach to this discussion.
The real point I'm trying to make here is that the abortion debate is far more nuanced than either side lets on.
The right sees it only as an issue of the life or death of the unborn child.
The left sees it only as an issue of the woman's control of her body.
The truth is, both the mother and the fetus play an important -- maybe even equal -- part in this debate.
Any viewpoint that takes in ONLY the rights of the mother, or only the life of the fetus, is inherently flawed and incomplete (at best).
40 - alienboy
T A Dodger: I find your distinction to be technically correct but such a fine distinction as to be, for all practical purposes, irrelevant. The end result is the same.
MJW: I must respectfully disagree. The issue is do people have the right to decide for themselves if they want to have a child or not. If a woman decides it's not right for her, for whatever reason, the debate ends right there. Period.
41 - Michael J. West
I understand your viewpoint, alienboy, and to some extent I share it.
But the reason I share it is because I do not have a definitive answer on whether life begins at conception, or at birth. Nobody has that definitive answer, which means it's a personal decision. And I don't feel comfortable interfering with personal decisions.
On the other hand, if we could definitively say that life begins at conception, there would indeed be serious ethical complications.
Which is I don't agree that the debate ends right there, period.
42 - Michael J. West
Oh, my God. Anthony Grande agrees that there are more important issues than abortion? What the Hell is the world coming to?
43 - alienboy
MICHAEL J: I don't see the debate as to where or when life begins to be remotely relevant to the abortion debate.
If some people want to live their lives and not avail themselves of abortion or other possibilities offered to us by new technologies, that is their right.
If others do in fact want to use some technology to improve their own lives, what on earth does that have to do with anybody else at all?
People who oppose abortion can deploy whatever specious arguments they like, but the bottom line is they have no right whatsoever to interfere in the lives of others.
Anti-abortionists offend every sense of freedom that there ever was through their deranged efforts to force their own quaint views onto others.
Debate over.
44 - Michael J. West
I don't see the debate as to where or when life begins to be remotely relevant to the abortion debate.
I don't understand how you don't see its relevance.
For example, as you say,
People who oppose abortion can deploy whatever specious arguments they like, but the bottom line is they have no right whatsoever to interfere in the lives of others.
That relates directly to the "where life begins" debate. If life begins at conception, for example, than a parent who receives an abortion is interfering in the life of the unborn child.
The fetus is not an irrelevant consideration in the abortion debate. The fetus is actually kind of a central consideration.
45 - alienboy
MICHAEL: We'll have to agree to disagree here.
I stand by and repeat the two statements you quoted above. The whole "where life begins" argument is irrelevant and designed to manipulate people emotionally.
An unborn child has no life to take into consideration.
46 - Michael J. West
I stand by my position as well: the jury is still out on whether an unborn child has life to take into consideration.
Therefore neither claim, that it does or doesn't have such life, is an illegitimate one.
Hence you are correct, Alienboy. We'll have to agree to disagree.
47 - alienboy
I meant a life in the sense of an inter-linked series of consecutive events that happen to somebody already on the planet.
Therefore, the mother has a far stronger claim to life that far outweighs those of an unborn child and her views are paramount.
Furthermore, your scenario would only be relevant if we were considering compelling women to give birth regardless of all other conditions than the existence of a state of pregnancy. That would be morally repugnant in so many different ways.
So, yes, we may agree to disagree but you still have to re-think the implications of your argument.
As pre-emptive action is all the rage in the USA these days,let's have the pregnancy police in every bedroom in the country, monitoring for signs of life and taking into custody all pregnant women until after delivery of the child.
48 - Michael J. West
So, yes, we may agree to disagree but you still have to re-think the implications of your argument.
Alienboy, if we're going to agree to disagree than there is no reason for us to continue this discussion. It seems here that you do want to continue it until I concede to you.
49 - alienboy
Which is what I wrote in my #45, which you then responded to, yes?
I don't really care what you choose to believe, Michael. You have the right to believe anything you like, but I will, Grissom-like, contain myself to the evidence and the facts...
50 - Michael J. West
In comment 45, you said we would agree to disagree and reaffirmed your position.
In comment 46, I confirmed that we should agree to disagree and reaffirmed mine.
I don't see the problem there.
Bear in mind that we're not enemies here. As I said, I support abortion rights. I'm just looking at both sides of the issue.
51 - T A Dodger
Hey,
I only have a second, so I'll ge quick, and elaborate more later.
The question of whether of fetus is alive or not at conception is irrelivant, I think. The answer is obvious: yes. Even the single-cell bacteria who live in our bodies are obviously life, even when they are of a type that depend completely on their host to survive.
The question is: does this organism (the fetus / embryo) deserve rights?
If the answer is yes, the question becomes:
Does a person have the right to use another person's body, against that person's will, to keep itself alive?
The answer to the first of these two questions is unclear, but I think the answer to the second is an obvious "no."
52 - zingzing
oooh. baby as parasite. nasty.
i think the question really is this: when does the fetus become more than just a clot of cells? when does it become a sentient being? pretty early, i would assume...
i figure that as long as a fetus is just malformed genetic information, it's fair game. god, that sounds horrible. once it has gained some form of conciousness, the idea becomes a bit distasteful.
back to it--> based on what wikipedia has to say on the subject, it seems that somewhere between the 8th and 10th week of pregnancy, the "embryo" becomes a "fetus." those are just terms... but by this time, the brain and nervous system are highly developed (maybe functioning) and all essential organs are developing. hands and feet, mouth and all that. i suppose that this is somewhere in the latter half of the first trimester... from what i know, we aren't sure when hunger or pain can be felt, but it would seem that once the brain is this highly developed... you know?
as a man, i feel that i only have a small role in this argument. but, i also feel that women who claim this is 100% their problem and 100% their decision are wrong. i would be mortified if any baby of mine were aborted without my knowledge... in truth, i would actually like to be blissfully ignorant of the situation... and i would hope to be part of the decision-making process.
oh, and TAD's "I'm not ok with saying petty theft is a bigger problem than rape, just because rape tends to happen to women and theft can happen to anyone" comment surely simplifies the argument, but it certainly is true.
53 - RedTard
"Does a person have the right to use another person's body, against that person's will, to keep itself alive?"
That line of reasoning seems to lead to a sensible compromise. If the baby is infringing it should be evicted, not receive the death sentence. If it is developed to a point where it can live on it's own without serious defects it should be delivered and put up for adoption. If it is early in the pregnancy and cannot survive on it's own it should be aborted.
Of course that would never satisfy the fringes. Those loons on the left would pull a screaming baby out at 8 months 27 days into the pregnancy and bash it's head in with no remorse. Those on the right would deny the morning after pill to a mentally retarded 12 year old who had just been raped by her HIV positive father.
It's those people who destroy the debate and squash any reasonable compromise.
54 - alienboy
RedTard: Your rollercoaster logic has me applauding wildly in your first paragraph and booing and hissing loudly when you completely go and lose it in your second.
Good ending mind you ;-|
55 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Michael, you are right on the money. But there is nothing sexy about nine judges in black robes. Throw abortion in as an issue, and you sell papers because sex sells. It's all that simple.