The Morning After Pill & Politics

[Comrade_Stalin]

@Mother Theresa

Too bad you’ve got nothing to add to the discussion but snide, smart-ass remarks, Comrade Stalin. Instead of dealing with the subject in such a cowardly way, why don’t you stand up, be a man, and give your honest opinions on the subject.

I find it interesting to live in a society in which people like you bleat about “rights” of people like Henry Anthony Sunderman and Zacarias Moussaoui while denying society’s weakest members any rights whatsoever. This discussion isn’t about “rights”…it’s about “convenience.” Thre is a difference.

My comparison to Nazi Germany offends you because your little mind can’t wrap itself around the fact that your lack of belief in this most fundamental of all human rights…that of the right to birth, leads to a society in which no human life is valuable. Expediency and convenience are all that matter.

Your lack of belief leads to you justify your reasoning no differently than the German lawyers who designed and wrote the Nazi eugenics laws. Denying it and dressing it up in “rights” doesn’t change the basic fact that you are advocating genocide.

[Hobbes]

@Mother Theresa

[quote=“spook”]Should the soul belief have any legitimate place in the formulation of just law?

It does presently, doesn’t it? In the US, at least, the highest court of the nation has decreed that no woman may abort a fetus in the later stages of pregnancy because the right of the fetus outweigh those of the mother; but in the beginning of the pregnancy the woman has the right to make the decision based on her personal convictions concerning religion, soul, and other such matters.[/quote]

I

[politbureau]

[quote=“Mother Theresa”][quote=“spook”]If such a thing as the human soul exists, it could be present at any time after the moment of conception and wouldn’t necessarily depend on the state of development of the human organism.

The world’s three great religions, Christianity, Judaism and Islam, are predicated on the belief that the soul exists so it’s not some crackpot theory. [/quote]

That’s not a logical conclusion. Many people are not Christians, Jews or Muslims. Many people feel “the world’s three great religions” are predicated on crackpot theories.

Should the soul belief have any legitimate place in the formulation of just law?

It does presently, doesn’t it? In the US, at least, the highest court of the nation has decreed that no woman may abort a fetus in the later stages of pregnancy because the right of the fetus outweigh those of the mother; but in the beginning of the pregnancy the woman has the right to make the decision based on her personal convictions concerning religion, soul, and other such matters.

Asserting that it’s impossible that the essence of human life is present at the moment of conception though seems clearly unjustified.

I’m not sure what you mean. The essence of human life is present in sperm and eggs. The essence of human life is present in DNA. As for the soul – that’s strictly a religious concept lacking in scientific proof. Those who believe a fertilized egg has a soul and no amount of compelling reasons in favor of terminating the pregancy can outweigh the sanctity of that soul are free to continue with their pregnancies and give birth. Those who don’t harbor such beliefs are free to decide otherwise within the guidelines laid down by the highest court of the land.

To ban all abortions based on the claim that fertilized eggs contain souls is to deprive millions of women of their most fundmental constitutional rights based on subjective, unproven, faith-based religious beliefs that such women may view as nothing more than crackpot theories. That is why the decision must be made by each woman personally.[/quote]

I’m not sure if one belief – no matter its orign – is really any ‘better’ or more well-founded than any other. Why for example is the belief that all people have the right to vote any different intrinsically than the belief that all people have a soul? Is either one based on scientific fact or any other tangible evidence which proves its validity?

A sperm doesn’t contain the essence of life because it’s impossible for it to develop into a human being. Equating a sperm with an embryo is a fallacious comparison.

You maintain that it’s against the law to perform late-term abortions in the U.S. Name a single instance since Roe v. Wade was decided over thirty years ago in which a physician was convicted of a crime for performing a late term abortion. What is the statutory penalty in any state of the U.S. for the ‘crime’ of performing late-term abortions?

[Comrade_Stalin]

[quote=“Mother Theresa”]
To ban all abortions based on the claim that fertilized eggs contain souls is to deprive millions of women of their most fundmental constitutional rights based on subjective, unproven, faith-based religious beliefs that such women may view as nothing more than crackpot theories. That is why the decision must be made by each woman personally.[/quote]

I was just reading the Declaration of Independence.

law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html

[quote] When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.[/quote]

Another one of those “crackpot” theories I guess.

And after reading the Constitution, I seemed to have missed the section concerning abortion being a right.

usconstitution.net/const.html

[Mother_Theresa]

@Comrade Stalin

I find it interesting to live in a society in which people like you bleat about “rights” of people like Henry Anthony Sunderman and Zacarias Moussaoui while denying society’s weakest members any rights whatsoever.

I don’t even know who Henry Sunderman is; I’m sure I’ve never advocated for his rights. Nor have I ever advocated for denying rights to “society’s weakest members.” I’ve said all along that fetuses should and do have legal rights. I’ve said all along that abortion is a difficult and tragic issue.

But, unlike you, I believe that sperm and eggs aren’t the only living tissues that should have legal rights. Actual fully-developed human beings should have rights too. Unlike you, I agree with the Supreme Court that a woman has certain basic constitutional rights concerning her choice whether or not to reproduce and, while those powerful rights don’t outweigh the rights of a well-developed fetus, they do outweigh the rights of a fertilized egg. It’s not that the egg has no rights whatsoever, it’s just that it’s rights are not yet powerful enough to outweigh the fundamental rights of the woman. That’s not my idea. That’s what the US Supreme Court said. I, like most Americans, just happen to agree with them on that decision.

This discussion isn’t about “rights”…it’s about “convenience.” Thre is a difference.

That’s complete bullshit. It’s about two sets of powerful conflicting rights. It’s a rhethorical ploy of the anti-choice crowd to pretend that it’s only a matter of convenience. Every instance of abortion obviously involves different circumstances. Is it convenience for a girl to have an abortion if she’s the victim of rape or incest? You can characterize it that way but you’re wrong.

My comparison to Nazi Germany offends you because your little mind can’t wrap itself around the fact that your lack of belief in this most fundamental of all human rights…that of the right to birth, leads to a society in which no human life is valuable. Expediency and convenience are all that matter.

Bullshit again. I’m not offended by your comparison, I just know its another rhetorical trick – an attempt to subvert a thoughtful, logical discussion just the same as waving photos of bloody fetuses. We all agree bloody fetuses are sad. We all agree the nazi’s ideas on eugenics were horrible. Pointing out such extremes doesn’t contribute to the discussion.

We all agree, too, that human life is valuable. The problem is human beings are not created suddenly, but develop gradually over 40 weeks and not all people agree on whether the rights of a mere egg – which is definitely NOT a human being – should outweigh the rights of a living, breathing human being.

Your lack of belief leads to you justify your reasoning no differently than the German lawyers who designed and wrote the Nazi eugenics laws. Denying it and dressing it up in “rights” doesn’t change the basic fact that you are advocating genocide.

Again, that’s bullshit. Genocide is the killing of people. This is not a person:

If you disagree, take it up with the Supreme Court. I’m only agreeing with their position.

[politbureau]

[quote=“Mother Theresa”]
If you disagree, take it up with the Supreme Court. I’m only agreeing with their position.[/quote]

Which is what, exactly?

[Mother_Theresa]

@spook

I’m not sure if one belief – no matter its orign – is really any ‘better’ or more well-founded than any other. Why for example is the belief that all people have the right to vote any different intrinsically than the belief that all people have a soul? Is either one based on scientific fact or any other tangible evidence which proves its validity?

Interesting point, but I don’t completely agree. Certainly some types of beliefs make a better basis for laws than others. For instance, beliefs based on science and logic form a better basis for laws than beliefs based on radical fringe notions or random chance. And in the US, laws are not supposed to be based on religious beliefs, though they may be based on generally accepted public views of right and wrong (I realize that’s almost the same as religious beliefs in many cases, but it’s not the same).

It’s my understanding that the concept of soul is too much of a religious concept to form the basis for a ruling by the Supreme Court – it’s too unproven, faith based and spiritual. If the Court had decided in Roe v. Wade that, based on surveys that were conducted, the citizens of the US overwhelmingly believed that all abortions are wrong, I feel that might have been sufficient grounds for them to ban them, but reliance on the concept of soul would have been wrong.

You maintain that it’s against the law to perform late-term abortions in the U.S. Name a single instance since Roe v. Wade was decided over thirty years ago in which a physician was convicted of a crime for performing a late term abortion. What is the statutory penalty in any state of the U.S. for the ‘crime’ of performing late-term abortions?

I have no idea. All I know is that’s what Roe says. Do you doubt what it says? Do you believe that late term abortions are common? I don’t. I believe it’s an incredibly difficult decision for most women to choose to abort and it only gets harder as time passes and the fetus develops. I have confidence that most women have consciences and strong maternal instincts, even when they feel unready to bear this particular child, they feel horrible about going ahead with the decision, so if they wait too long they couldn’t bear to abort it. And I believe most clinics obey the law. If you have evidence to the contrary, feel free to share it.

[Mother_Theresa]

[quote=“Comrade Stalin”]. . .after reading the Constitution, I seemed to have missed the section concerning abortion being a right.

usconstitution.net/const.html[/quote]

You should read it again, then, along with the Supreme Court cases interpreting it, such as the following language from Roe v. Wade:

[quote]The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8 -9 (1968), Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 (1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S., at 484 -485; in the Ninth Amendment, id., at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed “fundamental” or “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,” Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 -542 (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S., at 453 -454; id., at 460, 463-465 [410 U.S. 113, 153] (WHITE, J., concurring in result); family relationships, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); and child rearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, supra.

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.
.
.
.
appellant and some amici argue that the woman’s right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree.
.
.
.
Although the results are divided, most of these courts have agreed that the right of privacy, however based, is broad enough to cover the abortion decision; that the right, nonetheless, is not absolute and is subject to some limitations; and that at some point the state interests as to protection of health, medical standards, and prenatal life, become dominant. We agree with this approach.
.
.
.[/quote]
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g … &invol=113

[Gao_Bohan]

The mother’s considerations are always relevant. It’s tragic if a seventeen-year old girl from a poor family has to drop out of school to give birth to a child unexpectedly fathered by some boyfriend who has already abandoned her. That child is more likely to grow up in poverty and hardship than a child born with planning into a stable relationship. Same goes for the mother. To say that the mother’s considerations are irrelevant is cold and heartless.

No one ever said it would be an easy decision. However, I was talking about what kind of laws a nation should carry, not about group therapy sessions. What I obviously meant by “not relevant”, is that a woman does not have the right to abort an unborn child that has grown to the point of being a living human being, regardless of her personal feelings. Yes, it is sad. It may even be a tragedy, if the child grows up in poverty. But I was talking about what kind of laws a nation should carry regarding the issue, not how the woman’s therapist should respond to her.

[Hobbes]

[color=green]MODERATOR NOTE

I have split the last 3 posts from this thread and put them in the Feedback Forum.

The Feedback Forum moderators may decide that the posts don

[politbureau]

@Mother Theresa

Although the results are divided, most of these courts have agreed that the right of privacy, however based, is broad enough to cover the abortion decision; that the right, nonetheless, is not absolute and is subject to some limitations; and that at some point the state interests as to protection of health, medical standards, and prenatal life, become dominant. We agree with this approach.

I think the facts are clear that the current interpretive emphasis of that key concept in Roe is:

" . . . at some point the state interests as to protection of
health
, medical standards,
and prenatal life
, become dominant. We agree with this approach."

It will be most interesting to see the turn the current debate takes when, as seems likely, the newly reconstituted Supreme Court reinterpretes the emphasis in that key passage to be more along the lines of:

“. . . at some point the state interests as to protection of health, medical standards, and
prenatal life
, become dominant. We agree with this approach.”

[TheGingerMan]

Wow. What a wicked thread! As usual 1/2 acute insights, and 1/2 complete gibberish, with some notable posters playing both fields.

1st: Why insist on condoms and birth control? Condoms feels shitty, the pill is unhealthy. What about the old-fashioned pullout? Granted this is not good for teenagers, but for the rest of us it should be a well-practised routine. :scooby:

2nd: God has nothing to do with man’s continuing individual procreation, other than perhaps refraining from sending An Angel Of Death. (to teach us a lesson). In that regard (s)he’s left nature to do it’s thang. :taz:

3rd: Any written law about shagging, and the potential consequences there of, is going to take aeons to write. Most religions, except maybe Islam, are in the process of revising some of their practices. :yinyang:

4th: As in any issue this complex, there are many shades in that gray area between the plus & minus… I guess it all comes down to how we were brought up…

Different Stroke For Different Folks…

[MikeN]

For those who believe that life begins at conception, a thought experiment of one of those Lifeboat Dilemmas so beloved by moral philosophers:

Example:
Two children, one black, one white, fall through holes in the ice and you can only save one. A white racist says save the white child; a black racist save the black one; a non-racist says it doesn’t matter which you save (that’s the only info you have about them).

Repeat for male/female, Russian/American etc… also for Animal Liberationists who accuse you of speciesism, how about a child and a puppy? a chick? a maggot?

Anyway, you’re in an ob/gyn ward that catches fire. You hear two women outside calling “Save my baby!”.

One has just given birth to an infant in the maternity ward, the other has a fertilized egg in a test-tube that she wants to implant. (assume that the implantation will be successful; or you could give the already-delivered baby enough of a life-threatening condition that their odds of survival will be equal )

If you truly believe that life begins at conception, you’d have to be indifferent between the baby and the test-tube. yes?

[bobepine]

[quote=“MikeN”]For those who believe that life begins at conception, a thought experiment of one of those Lifeboat Dilemmas so beloved by moral philosophers:

Example:
Two children, one black, one white, fall through holes in the ice and you can only save one. A white racist says save the white child; a black racist save the black one; a non-racist says it doesn’t matter which you save (that’s the only info you have about them).

Repeat for male/female, Russian/American etc… also for Animal Liberationists who accuse you of speciesism, how about a child and a puppy? a chick? a maggot?

Anyway, you’re in an ob/gyn ward that catches fire. You hear two women outside calling “Save my baby!”.

One has just given birth to an infant in the maternity ward, the other has a fertilized egg in a test-tube that she wants to implant. (assume that the implantation will be successful; or you could give the already-delivered baby enough of a life-threatening condition that their odds of survival will be equal )

If you truly believe that life begins at conception, you’d have to be indifferent between the baby and the test-tube. yes?[/quote]

Solid post. :bravo: What he said.

bobepine

[TheGingerMan]

[quote=“MikeN”]For those who believe that life begins at conception, a thought experiment of one of those Lifeboat Dilemmas so beloved by moral philosophers:

Example:
Two children, one black, one white, fall through holes in the ice and you can only save one. A white racist says save the white child; a black racist save the black one; a non-racist says it doesn’t matter which you save (that’s the only info you have about them).

Repeat for male/female, Russian/American etc… also for Animal Liberationists who accuse you of speciesism, how about a child and a puppy? a chick? a maggot?

Anyway, you’re in an ob/gyn ward that catches fire. You hear two women outside calling “Save my baby!”.

One has just given birth to an infant in the maternity ward, the other has a fertilized egg in a test-tube that she wants to implant. (assume that the implantation will be successful; or you could give the already-delivered baby enough of a life-threatening condition that their odds of survival will be equal )

If you truly believe that life begins at conception, you’d have to be indifferent between the baby and the test-tube. yes?[/quote]

This moral experiment has NOTHING whatsoever to do with Reality.

My Vote Goes With The Maggot!

[MikeN]

[quote=“TheGingerMan”][quote=“MikeN”]For those who believe that life begins at conception, a thought experiment of one of those Lifeboat Dilemmas so beloved by moral philosophers:

Example:
Two children, one black, one white, fall through holes in the ice and you can only save one. A white racist says save the white child; a black racist save the black one; a non-racist says it doesn’t matter which you save (that’s the only info you have about them).

Repeat for male/female, Russian/American etc… also for Animal Liberationists who accuse you of speciesism, how about a child and a puppy? a chick? a maggot?

Anyway, you’re in an ob/gyn ward that catches fire. You hear two women outside calling “Save my baby!”.

One has just given birth to an infant in the maternity ward, the other has a fertilized egg in a test-tube that she wants to implant. (assume that the implantation will be successful; or you could give the already-delivered baby enough of a life-threatening condition that their odds of survival will be equal )

If you truly believe that life begins at conception, you’d have to be indifferent between the baby and the test-tube. yes?[/quote]

This moral experiment has NOTHING whatsoever to do with Reality.

My Vote Goes With The Maggot![/quote]

And nobody was ever imprisoned in a Cave and forced to look at Shadows all their life.

Or placed in a situation where all their outside experience was generated by an Evil Demon.

Or lived in a state of total individualism and had to draw up a social contract with their fellows.

That’s the point of these exercises- to strip away the surrounding circumstances and see what the essence of the position is in the starkest terms. Like I posted earlier about the anti-abortionists who had never thought about the punishment for a woman who had an abortion.

One of the most powerful anti-abortion arguments I ever read was a science-fiction story (can’t remember the name or the writer but he was quite well-known) which posited a situation where abortion (infanticide) was legal up to the age of seven - the traditional Age of Reason.

Or how about this- a Constitutional Amendment is passed in America which states that life begins at conception- women who try and leave the country have to produce a medical statement showing whether they’re pregnant or not- and if they come back not pregnant, they face murder charges.

[Comrade_Stalin]

The only bright spot in the whole abortion issue is that in 20 years there will be just that many fewer Democrats and Liberals to have to deal with.

:roflmao:

[Bodo]

[MikeN]

CFheck out this article in the NYT on the Republican vision of the future of America- or is that the Conservative dream for the future of Canada?

Pro-Life Nation
nytimes.com/2006/04/09/magaz … rtion.html