Abortion

[Danoff]

It's irresponsible to have sex without considering the possibilities of outcomes. I mean, if someone had sex and contracted and STD, most people would consider that irresponsible.

Who said anything about not considering the possibilities? Perhaps it was a calculated risk. Sure, you might get pregnant... but if you do, just have an abortion.

Considering that our gov't acknowledges a "creator"...

Seriously? That's a yes?

 

[Young_Warrior]

No one wants to talk about my sperm?

Either way I think thet the pro life belive do have a argument on their hands but so do the abortionists if that is even a word. However I can never see abortion being made illegal unless its proven that it puts the baby in pain.

What about concetraception such as the pill and morning after? Do the pro lifers want to get rid of that too?

 

[DJ-CiviC]

Well about my sperm. My sperms are a life they are my future babies. Did I needlessy murder them everytime they get used for non baby making? I think unless the baby is about 4 months into pregnancy that it is living.

well if it is, I must have been a murdurer when I was a kid... lol

 

[Swift]

Who said anything about not considering the possibilities? Perhaps it was a calculated risk. Sure, you might get pregnant... but if you do, just have an abortion.

That's a little bit immoral to me. You can't just get rid of AIDS or some other STD's. So why would you be stupid enough to get into a calculated risk that can end your life when it's extremely feasible to completely avoid.

I know Famine has made the point clinically, but an unborn child is not a disease or a virus. It's a person being ready to be born. Of course, if there was another way to make people naturally I'm sure all women would go for it.

Your argument is akin to saying, "Sure, you might be married, but if you don't like it, get a divorce" How about THINKING before you get married?

Seriously? That's a yes?

No, it's not a yes. You said that we live in a society that has serperation of church and state. I simply replied that it's not in any part of our constitution.

 

[Danoff]

That's a little bit immoral to me.

I know... and that's the core of the discussion. Not whether you think people should think ahead of time and decide not to have sex in order to avoid an abortion. The core of the discussion is that you think no abortion > abortion. You think it's immoral to have sex with the intent to have an abortion if pregnancy occurs... all of the rest of this is a distraction from that core concept.

No, it's not a yes. You said that we live in a society that has serperation of church and state. I simply replied that it's not in any part of our constitution.

Bill of Rights
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

U.S. Constitution - (Article VI) states that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Thaat last one is also known as the "separation" clause. In a land with freedom of religion (or freedom from religion) how can we base law on religious beliefs?

 

[Swift]

I know... and that's the core of the discussion. Not whether you think people should think ahead of time and decide not to have sex in order to avoid an abortion. The core of the discussion is that you think no abortion > abortion. You think it's immoral to have sex with the intent to have an abortion if pregnancy occurs... all of the rest of this is a distraction from that core concept.



Bill of Rights
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

U.S. Constitution - (Article VI) states that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Thaat last one is also known as the "separation" clause. In a land with freedom of religion (or freedom from religion) how can we base law on religious beliefs?

What does article VI have to do with the laws? It said for any position in government. So, that doesn't apply.

I still maintain that a wife should let the husband know if she's getting an abortion. She would let him know about laser eye or skin surgery or just about everything else that you mentioned. So why keep the abortion of they child a secret?

 

[Danoff]

What does article VI have to do with the laws? It said for any position in government. So, that doesn't apply.

It has to do with the establishment of a national religion. It has to do with the separation of church and state.

I still maintain that a wife should let the husband know if she's getting an abortion. She would let him know about laser eye or skin surgery or just about everything else that you mentioned. So why keep the abortion of they child a secret?

She should. She should let her husband know about all of those things. But that doesn't mean it should be law.

 

[Swift]

It has to do with the establishment of a national religion. It has to do with the separation of church and state.

Nope, it has to do with keeping the government from telling people how to exercise religion. Not saying religion can have no part in government.

EDIT: Next time, please quote the entire clause.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

She should. She should let her husband know about all of those things. But that doesn't mean it should be law.

Well, I think it should. As life changing of a decision that abortion is.

 

[Danoff]

Nope, it has to do with keeping the government from telling people how to exercise religion. Not saying religion can have no part in government.

It most certainly does not. It has nothing to do with keeping the government from telling people how to exercise religion. Article VI is specifically about separation of church and state - removal of a requirement to have a certain religion to hold office - something our president seems to have forgotten about.

The part that keeps the government from telling people how to exercise religion is the bill of rights ammendment I quoted.

Well, I think it should. As life changing of a decision that abortion is.

Based on this you want to make it a crime for a wife not to tell her husband. You see that as a violation of his rights... what rights are those?

Why is an abortion a life changing decision? It's a decision to refuse to change your life. Having a baby is a life changing event. Having an abortion is a life preserving event - it is the process of aborting the change.

Prior to the abortion the husband had no child. After the abortion he still had no child. What's the change?

 

[Swift]

It most certainly does not. It has nothing to do with keeping the government from telling people how to exercise religion. Article VI is specifically about separation of church and state - removal of a requirement to have a certain religion to hold office - something our president seems to have forgotten about.

The part that keeps the government from telling people how to exercise religion is the bill of rights ammendment I quoted.

Excellent, so how does that directly apply to the laws created by Congress?

Based on this you want to make it a crime for a wife not to tell her husband. You see that as a violation of his rights... what rights are those?

If I'm forsaking all others to be with my wife, and I will. I have a right to know when she's going to do something of this magnitude to herself that WILL directly effect me.

Why is an abortion a life changing decision? It's a decision to refuse to change your life. Having a baby is a life changing event. Having an abortion is a life preserving event - it is the process of aborting the change.

That totally depends on your point of view. An abortion IS a life changing event. Talk to anyone that has had one or been in a relationship with a woman who's had one. I'm not saying good or bad. I'm saying it's a life changing event.

Prior to the abortion the husband had no child. After the abortion he still had no child. What's the change?

Right, the father had no rights to the child at all. It just happened to be his seed that was extinguished.

 

[Danoff]

Excellent, so how does that directly apply to the laws created by Congress?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"

You can establish a religion simply by making a law based on religious beliefs.

If I'm forsaking all others to be with my wife, and I will. I have a right to know when she's going to do something of this magnitude to herself that WILL directly effect me.

It will not directly effect you. It may indirectly affect you depending on your beliefs, but you should have thought of that when you got married. If you marry someone, you should be able to trust them enough that you don't need to make it criminal for them not to tell you something.

Take some responsibility for your choice in marriage. Your wife should tell you on her own or you shouldn't have married her.

That totally depends on your point of view. An abortion IS a life changing event. Talk to anyone that has had one or been in a relationship with a woman who's had one. I'm not saying good or bad. I'm saying it's a life changing event.

Prior to abortion, no child, after abortion, no child. I'd call that the absense of change. Any change you percieve is one based on your beliefs.

Right, the father had no rights to the child at all. It just happened to be his seed that was extinguished.

That's right. The father has no rights to the child until the child exists. Prior to the existance of the child the father cannot have rights to it (because it doesn't exist).

Example. I am going to make a bowl out of clay. Once I have made the bowl, I own it... it is mine... I have property rights to it. Until I make it, however, I have no property rights to it. If, for example, the clay supplier didn't want to sell me the clay, I cannot go to that clay supplier and say "but you're robbing me of my bowl, it's mine! You're taking it from me!".

 

[Swift]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"

You can establish a religion simply by making a law based on religious beliefs.

My beliefs aren't religious. I've believed this since way before I was a Christian. Life is sacred. And innocent life must be protected. Especially when someone isn't willing to own up to their own actions.

It will not directly effect you. It may indirectly affect you depending on your beliefs, but you should have thought of that when you got married. If you marry someone, you should be able to trust them enough that you don't need to make it criminal for them not to tell you something.

Take some responsibility for your choice in marriage. Your wife should tell you on her own or you shouldn't have married her.



Prior to abortion, no child, after abortion, no child. I'd call that the absense of change. Any change you percieve is one based on your beliefs.

Ok, it will directly effect you. Saying that it won't is extremely naive. Again, ask anyone on this forum that's been in a relationship with someone that has. It's like a car accident. Before, your car worked, after your car worked. But now it's different in a few ways.

That's right. The father has no rights to the child until the child exists. Prior to the existance of the child the father cannot have rights to it (because it doesn't exist).

Example. I am going to make a bowl out of clay. Once I have made the bowl, I own it... it is mine... I have property rights to it. Until I make it, however, I have no property rights to it. If, for example, the clay supplier didn't want to sell me the clay, I cannot go to that clay supplier and say "but you're robbing me of my bowl, it's mine! You're taking it from me!".

That's just not right. I put into it but I don't have any say over it's very existance? No, sorry. I'm really not going to buy into that one.

 

[Danoff]

My beliefs aren't religious. I've believed this since way before I was a Christian. Life is sacred. And innocent life must be protected. Especially when someone isn't willing to own up to their own actions.

Ah, we're getting back to the core here. You believe life is sacred? That it must be protected? What about cows? Do you eat cows? They're alive, why are you not willing to protect them?

Ok, it will directly effect you. Saying that it won't is extremely naive. Again, ask anyone on this forum that's been in a relationship with someone that has. It's like a car accident. Before, your car worked, after your car worked. But now it's different in a few ways.

As I said, "It may indirectly affect you depending on your beliefs".

What about my "take responsibility for who you married" argument. You didn't like that one? It doesn't deserve a response?

That's just not right. I put into it but I don't have any say over it's very existance? No, sorry. I'm really not going to buy into that one.

You put into it, but that's not all there is to it is there? She has to bring it to term before the project is complete. You do a minimal amount of the work in creating a child. Your role is mostly supportive - and to share your genetics. The woman bears the vast majority of the effort in successfully creating a new human being. When finished, it is genetically equal parts you and her - but the physical task is hers. You don't get any say as to whether or not she performs that task - because it is her body, not yours.

Not until the child is successfully brought to term does it exist as "your child" rather than "part of the mother" - at which time you have some say (and legal responsibility) in its welfare.

 

[Duke]

Considering that our gov't acknowledges a "creator"...

Not in the Constitution, it doesn't.

 

[Swift]

Not in the Constitution, it doesn't.

It does in the declaration of independence. But you're right it's not in the constitution. But then again, neither is seperation of church and state.

 

[Swift]

Ah, we're getting back to the core here. You believe life is sacred? That it must be protected? What about cows? Do you eat cows? They're alive, why are you not willing to protect them?

Come on man, you know I meant human life.

As I said, "It may indirectly affect you depending on your beliefs".

I've never seen a guy inderectly effected by his girl/wife getting an abortion.

What about my "take responsibility for who you married" argument. You didn't like that one? It doesn't deserve a response?

I addressed that earlier.

If I'm forsaking all others to be with my wife, and I will. I have a right to know when she's going to do something of this magnitude to herself that WILL directly effect me.

You put into it, but that's not all there is to it is there? She has to bring it to term before the project is complete. You do a minimal amount of the work in creating a child. Your role is mostly supportive - and to share your genetics. The woman bears the vast majority of the effort in successfully creating a new human being. When finished, it is genetically equal parts you and her - but the physical task is hers. You don't get any say as to whether or not she performs that task - because it is her body, not yours.

Not until the child is successfully brought to term does it exist as "your child" rather than "part of the mother" - at which time you have some say (and legal responsibility) in its welfare.

I'm not against women or even a woman's choice. I'm against her doing it without even saying, "Husband, I'm getting an abortion" That to me would be on about the same level as cheating. It's very deciteful and deceptive. But then that goes back to the foundation of what a marriage is. If you can't/don't trust your spouse, why are you married?

 

[Swift]

I really like what Foolkiller posted about abortion and the father's right's/role

My issue with this situation comes from the fact that if that baby is born then the father is required to provide for that child even if he doesn't want to. If they get a divorce and the father says he wants nothing to do with the child a court can still make him pay child support. So I feel that if a woman can abort a baby without the father knowing or even if teh father knows and opposes then he, even if married, should be able to absolve himself of all responsibility of that child.

That's why I think the wife should tell the husband.

 

[Danoff]

Come on man, you know I meant human life.

I do, but how do you distinguish human life from other forms of life? (could it be a soul??)

I'm not against women or even a woman's choice. I'm against her doing it without even saying, "Husband, I'm getting an abortion" That to me would be on about the same level as cheating.

But cheating isn't a criminal offense, it isn't illegal. So if it's akin to cheating, it shouldn't be illegal.

That's why I think the wife should tell the husband.

I agree with Foolkiller's assessment. The father should be able to absolve himself. He still doesn't have any say in the matter.

 

[Swift]

I agree with Foolkiller's assessment. The father should be able to absolve himself. He still doesn't have any say in the matter.

Well, that's the problem, he can be bound BY LAW on the back end but have no say on the front end. How is that possibly fair?

I do, but how do you distinguish human life from other forms of life? (could it be a soul??)

From a spiritual standpoint, certainly. But even from an evolutionary standpoint you can say that humans are the superior "animal" on the planet. Hence, new human life is sacred.

 

[Danoff]

Well, that's the problem, he can be bound BY LAW on the back end but have no say on the front end. How is that possibly fair?

It isn't. Which is why the father should be able to absolve himself of the baby - saying he wanted her to have an abortion but since she refused the responsibility is hers. The law needs to be changed in that respect as well.

See? No inconsistency over here.

From a spiritual standpoint, certainly. But even from an evolutionary standpoint you can say that humans are the superior "animal" on the planet. Hence, new human life is sacred.

From an evolutionary standpoint it's hard to say that a fetus is superior to a dog. If you want ME to distinguish it, the answer will end up supporting the pro-choice side. So I figure I'd like to hear how YOU can distinguish a human fetus from a cow... so that it's ok in your mind to kill a cow but not a fetus. What makes it different to you?

 

[Swift]

It isn't. Which is why the father should be able to absolve himself of the baby - saying he wanted her to have an abortion but since she refused the responsibility is hers. The law needs to be changed in that respect as well.

See? No inconsistency over here.

I never said you were inconsitant. I'm saying the LAWS are inconsistant. The current way it's setup is so lopsided that it bearly gives fathers a chance.

 

[Danoff]

I never said you were inconsitant. I'm saying the LAWS are inconsistant. The current way it's setup is so lopsided that it bearly gives fathers a chance.

OH!!! Why yes. You are correct. Though making a wife tell her husband before getting an abortion isn't going to change that. My suggestion actually closes the loophole while yours does not.

 

[Swift]

OH!!! Why yes. You are correct. Though making a wife tell her husband before getting an abortion isn't going to change that. My suggestion actually closes the loophole while yours does not.

Well, as far as the laws go. There needs to be full disclosure on one side(when making abortion decision) AND the ability of the father to disown the child should the mother have it anyway.

That's part of the reason why I'm very much for the wife telling the husband about the abortion. Because if she stays quiet and then has the child, he's bound to it for the next 18 years.

 

[Danoff]

Well, as far as the laws go. There needs to be full disclosure on one side(when making abortion decision) AND the ability of the father to disown the child should the mother have it anyway.

That's part of the reason why I'm very much for the wife telling the husband about the abortion. Because if she stays quiet and then has the child, he's bound to it for the next 18 years.

Well while we're changing the law, we can simply have the father opt-in rather than opt-out.

If she tells him up front, she can get him to legally bind himself to the child. If she doesn't then he has the option of not doing so.

^^ In fact, I'm starting to like that idea since it would encourage more abortions.

 

[Swift]

^^ In fact, I'm starting to like that idea since it would encourage more abortions.

I think it would encourage more thinking before hand. But yes, I like that idea as well.

 

[Danoff]

NOOOOOOOO!!!!

You mean we actually came to an agreement???!!!??

Man! What WON'T we agree on?? I even threw in that bit about encouraging more abortions to try to bring out any disagreements but all in vain....

Oh well Swift. I guess we'll just have to agree to agree.

 

[Danoff]

So an abortion is essentially like getting a tumor removed or an appendix taken out? I've heard some people talk about it lik it is a parasite.

So, when it is wanted it is a part of the mother, but when it isn't wanted it is an appendix or parasite or tumor? This is what I don't get. From my point of view it seems like it is a crime to kill it when it is wanted but perfecly legal to kill it when it is not wanted.

If the mother wants part of her body removed, that's fine. If someone else removes it against her will, that's a crime.

See the difference?

It's hers, she owns it.

Try this. If you burn your house down, that's fine. If someone else does, it's a crime.

 

[Swift]

NOOOOOOOO!!!!

You mean we actually came to an agreement???!!!??

Man! What WON'T we agree on?? I even threw in that bit about encouraging more abortions to try to bring out any disagreements but all in vain....

Oh well Swift. I guess we'll just have to agree to agree.

Heh heh, I noticed that. But I decided to take a deep breath and think instead of seeing red.

We still disagree on the abortion issue itself. But at least we agree that the laws governing abortion and the legal responsibilities of the fathers need to change.

 

[FoolKiller]

If the mother wants part of her body removed, that's fine. If someone else removes it against her will, that's a crime.

So then the laws should be adjusted to some degree of assault and not manslaughter/murder?

 

[Danoff]

So then the laws should be adjusted to some degree of assault and not manslaughter/murder?

That's really only a matter of convention. It depends on how bad a crime you think it is to rob a mother of the possibility of bringing that potential person to term. I can see pretty harsh penalties for that.

Example:

What if the mother and father had been trying for years. They were starting to get older and realized that it was now or never. Somehow, they managed to get pregnant and had a chance at becoming parents... when out of nowhere the mother gets injured by someone who wanted to steal her wallet. She then miscarries.

What crime has the mugger committed? He might have just robbed the couple (not just the mother) of the opportunity to become parents AT ALL. He at the minimum wasted years of trying to conceive.

It's a pretty bad crime... I think it's possible that it should be its own category, but putting it under murder doesn't bother me so much. I think the penalty should be harsh.