I don't really want to get into the same damned arguments on the subject. But I had a couple questions, one for each camp that I had buzzing in my head. So I will ask that you start by answering the question based on your philosophy and beliefs and don't start the same damned battle that comes up every time the subject surfaces. I will be the moderation Nazi if necessary.
For the Pro-Life crowd:
If abortion were made completely illegal, what force of law would be applied to those who were involved in an abortion? For the doctor? For the woman? Would there be conspiracy charges brought against the guy who shot the load and family who supported the woman in her decision. Would it just be fines, or jail time? Would sterilization be part of the package?
For the Pro-Choice crowd:
If abortion was made wholly legal nationally (without restriction by the states), what kind of support would Washington provide for this new right? Monetary support? Government-run clinics? A chapter on abortion in health classes in high school? TV spots sponsored by the Department of Health and Human Services and the Ad Council?
Believe it or not, I would like a serious answer, despite taking my questions to somewhat of an extreme. I did come with some more ridiculous things, but I would have gotten too tasteless for such a serious topic (unless you're me).
So have at it.
52 comments:
Coming from the pro-life angle....If it were completely illegal than I would probably make them face what they do now when a baby is murdered after birth.
Woman is charged with murder. If the husband helps, he would face conspiracy charges.
Sterilization would never enter the picture because there are no penalties right now besides the obvious death penalty that are permanent, in a physical sort of way. Like for instance, cutting off someone's hand for stealing.
If this somehow became illegal which I highly doubt will ever happen, then that means that a baby from conception would still have the same worth as a baby that was born and the same consequences would apply as they do now.
I think it would be hypocritical to say one murder is less than another providing it becomes illegal.
This question is a lot more difficult then we might think. Could there be any kind of compromise regarding abortion, I don't know...just kind of throwing that out there.
For the Pro-Choice crowd:
If abortion was made wholly legal nationally (without restriction by the states), what kind of support would Washington provide for this new right?
No more support than it gives to other medical procedures. In other words, none.
Monetary support? Government-run clinics? See above.
A chapter on abortion in health classes in high school?
Do high school classes include chapters on other medical procedures? Not that I know of. So this question is irrelevant. Why would a chapter on abortion be needed if say, a chapter on heart transplants isn't?
TV spots sponsored by the Department of Health and Human Services and the Ad Council?
Again, this is absurd, since the Department of HHS doesn't sponsor ads for other medical procedures.
To reduce the number of abortions, more education on pregnancy prevention and more birth control is needed.
(If Jennifer is serious about believing that voluntary sterilization is the same as cutting off someone's hand for stealing, she needs to do more in the area of educating herself on the obvious differences. And Jennifer, I'm not being sarcastic or flippant. It just astoundes me that you would equate the two.)
I think my answers would be the about the same as Shaw's.
Although while I am generally pro-choice, I am anti abortion. For me, I want the woman, hopefully her pastor, and her doctor making this decision.
I do not want our government involved involved in this. I am not one to put that kind of trust in such an institution.
I might ask the make it illegal crowd, if that desire for criminality also extends to abortions in cases of rape and incest?
Also, should medical personal offer the morning after pill, which in purest terms induces abortion, if someone is raped.
Finally, if you support the death penalty, which many "pro life" people do, would you favor killing the woman who aborted her baby as punishment? How about her doctor? Or her husband if he helped her get the abortion?
Just askin' is all...
Dave said: "Although while I am generally pro-choice, I am anti abortion."
That sounds like you are trying to have it both ways? Like saying "I am anti-death penalty, but am pro-choice when it comes to the criminal justice system deciding whether or not to use it."
Let me help out here, dmarks.
No one is FOR abortion, at least the people I know.
But we have to acknowledge that human beings are flawed, will make stupid mistakes, and certain circumstances happen through no fault of the woman, and medical conditions will occur that put the woman's life in danger.
To outlaw and criminalize something that deals with those human conditions is well, inhumane.
When we go to war we accept the horrible fact that innocent children, babies and pregnant women will be killed, yet we go to war as a means of, well, securing the peace. And we accept the wholesale slaughter of innocent lives as a consequence.
I have never in my life seen any "pro-lifers" demonstrate against war because it destroys human.
I'm for universal education in birth control and the use of birth control to eliminate as many abortions as possible.
We won't be able to stop abortion completely because we are human.
To criminalize and possibly kill people for that reason sounds extreme to me.
Well said Shaw. DMarks, no I am not for abortion. I'd love that no one would willingly choose abortion, but it ain't gonna happen.
Any thoughts on my questions?
Although I think birth control should be free and available to anyone who wants it and covered by, well, actually should be covered by insurance companies as a condom cost less than a delivery, I don't think any government money should be used to pay for abortions assuming we don't have a national health care plan. Should Planned Parenthood get federal funding? I think it's a good organization which provides valuable services so it is debatable but I don't think abortions per say should be funded but perhaps only places like planned parenthood which also happens to provide abortions. And we can all agree that it’s cheaper to fund contraception and abortion than it is to put a kid through the welfare system, schools system, medical system, penal system, etc. So in the long run, funding these services would be cheaper over all; just like treating drug addiction is cheaper than not treating it and just arresting and incarcerating the offender every time he robs someone to get drug money. The crime rate started falling almost exactly 18 years after Roe v Wade which is exactly the age most unwanted children start turning to crime.
Contrary to popular belief I don't think anyone uses abortion as a form of birth control. Almost no one says, "fuck, it Ill just have an abortion if I get pregnant". Most people use abortion as more of a "oh shit, how did that happen" situation. Morning after pills shouldn't be so hard to get either.
Why would we need TV spots? It’s not like someone doesn't know where to go when they need an abortion. How many bakeries have pregnant teenagers coming in looking for abortions?
Dave:
What business is it of her Pastors? What if she doesn't have a Pastor? I know what he is going to say; why does the church not believe in birth control? The fewer people, the fewer dollars in the collection plate.
Actually Toad, many churches do indeed believe in birth control. Though not the Catholic church.
I used pastor because most people in our country at least claim some level of religiosity.
So... if this is true, and they are committed to their religion, be Hindu, Islam, Christianity, or whatever, in this case,please understand pastor to be their spiritual adviser, leader, or mentor type person.
It was generic.
Off topic I know, so maybe it will be deleted, but to the pro-choice and pro-Obama crowd, why is it okay for the government to tell a company how much to pay people, but it's not okay for them to intervene and save an unborn human life?
Beth: why is it okay for the government to tell a company how much to pay people ...
Because bailout money is public money, taxpayer money, your money, my money ... and how dare CEOs help themselves without limitation as if this were their money.
Beth: but it's not okay for them to intervene and save an unborn human life
Because this is a religious issue; your denomination does not agree with my denomination; and your denomination has no more right to dictate the laws of the land than my denomination does. There is a separation of church and state specified in the U.S. Constitution, in case you haven't noticed.
Beth: A little off-topic, yess, but an interesting question. I'll ask you the inverse. Why can people do all kinds of other things to their body but they can't have final say when they may have been raped?
8pus: While I agree with you, I do have to correct one point: There is no separation of Church and State in the Constitution. That was referred to in a letter by Jefferson. The First Amendment has an establishment clause and free exercise clause that has been perverted into this "separation" thing.
To Beth,
Your question also has to do with the right to privacy. The government has no right to stick its nose into what a woman and her physician believe is best for her in her particular circumstance.
We do not ask the government to be the step in in cases where people make a DNR decision. We allow the patient and his/her doctor to decide that issue. And that is an issue about a human life.
bETH: Because I am not on the governmetn payroll so they don't get to tell me what to do. The minute they send me 800 billion dollars, Ill start taking their orders and even if that means I can't have an abortion.
The same question could be asked why the government can tell a person who they can and can't marry.
Patrick:
Yes there is a separation of church and state, just read the 1st amendment. It specifically says the US government cannot endorse any religion. That pretty much leaves out a country being ruled under Christian law doesn't it? Compare that with the laws in Iran where they very clearly have no separation of church and state.
And just as the Supreme Court does every day of the week, the constitution and its amendemnts have to be interpreted within the context of it's framers. Jefferson, being the author of the Declaration of Independence and the guy who came up with the idea of a bill of rights, having written such letters at no protest from other founding fathers, shows clearly their intents when coming up with the idea of what America was to be and how it was to be run. Thus, Jefferson's writings, along with the other founding fathers is relevant when determining their state of minds and intentions whether or not all of these things made it into print in the constitution or not.
Dave:
Many people also believe in clean teeth but that doesn't mean they consult their dentist when it comes time to decide whether or not to have a baby. The choice to or not to procreate is a decision a woman and then her husband have to make; them and them only. Sure, if they want to involve friends, doctors and pastors then so be it but it is no ones business, including the federal government, except their own.
I'm not just talking about the CEO bonuses, but about minimum wage laws. And as to the religious argument (which is stupid) it has nothing to do with what my denomination says, I base my arguments on science which proves to me that an unborn child is every bit as human as you and I, and so Shaw who says its about decisions on a human life, I say agreed, but you forget the baby's life in there.
Otherwise, to comment to some of the responses here, at least I am glad to see that the pro-choice crowd does not think federal funding should go towards abortions, that is something we can agree on. And I don't believe in the dealth penalty either.
The First Amendment has an establishment clause and free exercise clause that has been perverted into this "separation" thing.--Patrick
And every citizen in this country is free to practice his or her religion all day long and every day of the year. Every religious person has the right to bring up his or her children in the religion he/she wants, every religious person in this country has the right to go to church anytime h/she wants--with no inteference from the government.
What religious people don't have the right to do is to promote their religion over anyone else's. We're a multi-religious country now--and if the government were to favor only Christian prayers, ceremonies, traditions, etc., then that would be establishment. It would also be establishment if public schools were to insist on only Christian prayers and readings from the Christian Bible in school.
To be fair to every religion and avoid the establishment of only one religion, majority or not, over another religion would mean that the government would have to allow prayers, ceremonies, traditions in all government functions, on all government property by Christian, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jainists, Wiccans, Ba'hais, and Bokononists.
Therefore, Jefferson was very wise when he wrote to his friend and spoke of the famous separation.
Very wise.
Beth,
You missed my point.
Are you also not in favor of a patient and his/her doctor's DNR decision?
I think you missed my point, with a DNR the doctor and the patient get to decide, in an abortion the baby gets no vote in the decision.
So if a pregnancy would have no fatal effects on the life of the mother, are you saying a doctor should never give that mother an abortion?
Shaw: The "separation" has been taken to a level where it disallows the free exercise of religion, which is protected. That's why I argue the point.
I'm saying it's none of our business.
I wish the morning after pill were available free for every woman who needed it. We wouldn't be having this conversation if it were.
Zygotes are NOT babies. Just like apple seeds are not apples.
I don't think Patrick wants us to get into this sort of discussion. So we should stick to what he asked us.
Actually, I'll clarify: One of the main contentions on abortion is the question: When does life begin?
And we're not going to be able to answer that here, just wind on down the road of the same old arguments.
Shaw: The "separation" has been taken to a level where it disallows the free exercise of religion, which is protected. That's why I argue the point.--Patrick
Save this for another discussion.
I think you're wrong, for the reasons I set out above.
No one is prevented from exercising his/her religion in this coutry.
The problems comes in when some people want THEIR religion to be exercised in public places.
Why do they need this, when they have all the right to do it privately in their homes, or with their own communities in their places of worship?
I believe it's because THEY are the ones who have an agenda.
PatrickM repeats one of the great right-wing myths of the day:
Shaw: The "separation" has been taken to a level where it disallows the free exercise of religion, which is protected.
Nope.
Not even close.
Arthurstone. I didn't say that, Patrick did. You made a mistake.
Arriving a little late, but better than not at all......
"(If Jennifer is serious about believing that voluntary sterilization is the same as cutting off someone's hand for stealing, she needs to do more in the area of educating herself on the obvious differences. And Jennifer, I'm not being sarcastic or flippant. It just astoundes me that you would equate the two."
Who said anything about voluntary? I took it as a penalty against an illegal abortion scenario. Cutting off a hand is done as a penalty so would this.
You actually picked two very interesting questions here Patrick.
My first answer.....would be if we used the same penal system as we do now. I think if it ever actually got that far as to be illegal (which it won't), there would have to be a lot of compromises. There should be certain situations, incest, and when the life of the mother where there would have to be exceptions.
If we went by the laws for assisted death, only the doctor would be charged, I am guessing? But that is only between the doctor and patient. If other people were involved, then they would have to be held accountable.
There is no black and white answer to your questions, but I am interested in any further discussions......
I'm still waiting to here your take Patrick..........
But jennifer, why would "pro life" people allow for an exception? Isn't abortion wrong and murder in all cases?
Why should it be okay to kill an unborn baby, if that is your view, just because that baby was made by rape or incest?
This is one of the problems with this viewpoint.
If it is murder if we kill a voluntarily conceived baby, it is so if it that baby was forcefully conceived. Right?
And yes, we are still waiting for Patrick.
Shaw:
Patrick was addressing you. I cut and pasted the entire line in my response. Sorry for the confusion. I know you wouldn't make such a silly remark.
Cheers!
I am one of those pro-life who don't think there should be exceptions for rape or incest, why should it be the baby who pays for the sins of his or her father?
And comparing an unborn baby to an apple seed? Huh? The fertilized human egg is a whole new set of chromosomes starting to multiply from the moment of conception, hardly like an apple seed inside an apple, Shaw.
I'm just going to continue to let Shaw channel for me here because I am just going to get too worked up and that will just keep me up all night again.
Shaw... you got it goin on.
Actually, an apple seed can be compared to a zygote prior to implantation in the endometrium, as it is the product of the fertilization of the flower, and merely waits to be put into the ground to begin to grow.
It's spot on as analogies go.
"But jennifer, why would "pro life" people allow for an exception? Isn't abortion wrong and murder in all cases?"
No, I think there are different circumstances beyond there control like incest and rape.
If I used your theory, it would imply all killing is wrong regardless of the circumstances but what about self defense??
Patrick M: 8pus: While I agree with you, I do have to correct one point: There is no separation of Church and State in the Constitution ... The First Amendment has an establishment clause and free exercise clause that has been perverted into this "separation" thing.
Wrong again: “Free expression” turns into “established religion” when any one denomination insinuates itself upon an unwilling minority, especially on public property or in an official context. In fact, your interpretation changes the meaning of the Constitution altogether.
Patrick M: That was referred to in a letter by Jefferson.
Patrick, are you referring to this letter:
“... no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods [my bold], nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief.” - Thomas Jefferson
Patrick:
Name one individual, besides maybe Rasta farians and Mormons who want to marry 8 12 year olds, who is not free to practice their religion in this country whilst in their home, church, on the street or in private. Name one instance where an individual who was not trouncing on someone elses right of free religion or hurting anyone else or forcing their religion on a minority, was unable to practice his religion.
I'll bet you can find one example.
Remember your rights stop when you start infringing on mine. It's why we have freedom of press but you aren't allowed to print a story about me having sex with animals or why we have freedom of speech buy you are not allowed to yell fire in a crowded theatre or why we have the freedom to own firearms but you aren't allowed carry a gun without a permit. Limits apply to all of our freedoms.
Shawn, Great example, dont forget about blastocysts, unfertilized eggs, sperm, embryos, etc.
A human isn't life, or doesn't have life without a heart beat or a brain. If you can survive without a heartbeat then maybe I would change my mind on the subject
You can really only start arguing that it is life from the time it becomes a Fetus; until then, it's just a seed.
Here's a question that I didn't see addressed (or maybe I did and I don't remember):
Assuming that abortions are illegal and the penalty is death:
-if the woman was raped, does the assailant go free? Many rapes are unreported. Does the fact that it was not previously reported negate that it happened? Is there an investigation launched to find the rapist if not already found, and are they given due process? Does the rape conviction carry automatically with it the additional penalty of the abortion?
-at this point let me anticipate the cry of 'but it wasn't HIS decision to abort the baby!'. If he hadn't raped her and gotten her pregnant she would not even be in a situation where abortion was thinkable.
There is no good answer here.
The best I can come up with is this:
1. Abundant and free education on sexually transmitted diseases and forms of birth control including abstinence. Abortion is not a method of 'birth control', nor should it be presented as such. However, people still have the right to know about it and to understand what it is and does, including the risks thereof.
2. Birth control should be absolutely free.
3. There should be no restrictions on the 'morning after' pill. What this pill does is prevent implantation of any fertilized ovum, assuming that there was one. It doesn't 'kill' or 'stop' a pregnancy; it prevents it from happening.
I do not believe abortion should be illegal. I also do not believe it should be unrestricted. I would never in any way support a third trimester abortion unless a doctor had visualized proof (ultrasound, etc) that the fetus was irreparably defective to the point that it could not sustain its own life. By this I would mean those fetuses that develop without absolutely necessary parts such as heads, brains, spinal cords (these do happen). I do not mean a fetus that is underdeveloped but would eventually develop to a point where it could sustain on its own, with some surgical intervention or with minimal assistance (oxygen, etc).
In the case of a medically unremarkable pregnancy, by the time you hit your third trimester you've had six months to make a decision. If you really had a reason to not continue this pregnancy you would have done it by now. At this point your options redact to adoption or acceptance.
At the same time, adoptions should be made easier and less expensive and databanks could be set up for people who want babies to connect with women who are pregnant to offer them that option. Laws protecting adoptive parents' rights should be strict and any monetary exchange should be carefully controlled.
I can't do better than this. At least not right now.
And Beth, we have to have minimum wage laws because otherwise companies would force people into accepting third-world wages and it would spiral the country into an even larger economic imbalance than it is right now.
Because that's what capitalism IS.
And before you start in with 'no one is forced to accept'.... go out and see how many people are looking for work right now, and see if the level of desperation they are experiencing couldn't be manipulated and exploited. I'm not 'forced' to breathe, but if I don't, I die, so to say I 'choose' to breathe is a bit of a reach. Get it?
Toad734, if I am not mistaken, the Bible (or at least the one I was taught) defines life as beginning with the first breath. Conceptualizations of egg, sperm, zygote, and fetus issue from modern science, not Biblical readings. Yet, arguments against abortion are predicated on interpretations of scripture that would have been impossible millennia ago. I wish this stupid abortion argument would just go away. Let believers believe whatever they want, practice what they want, live the way they want - just leave the rest of us alone. I don't appreciate religious doctrines of others being forced upon me.
SSD: "And Beth, we have to have minimum wage laws because otherwise companies would force people into accepting third-world wages and it would spiral the country into an even larger economic imbalance than it is right now."
Let's try it. What you say would not happen. Instead, the unemployment rate would go down some, as more people with low skills would be able to move off the unemployment rolls. As it is now, the minimum wage laws discourage companies from hiring such people because to hire them, the company would have to pay them wages they never worked to earn.
The real victims of the minimum wage laws are the people that are kept unemployed. For the impoverished, this is a tragedy, because the minimum wage laws say "$15,000 a year? You are better off with $0. No job for you!!!"
I'd rather let those involved make this decision, rather than the government with its destructive one-size-fits-few wage levels pulled from thin air.
Octopus: Perhaps the bible does define "life" as first breath. I would love to see the scripture that says that. I mean, I already know the the bible does not consider abortion murder but I didn't know it considers life to begin at the first breath. This is the only time you will see neo cons say that we dont' live under the laws of the Bible.
DMarks:
Who cares if unemployment would go down, if those people are making $3 per day, what's the difference. I would rather not work and make no money that work 50 hours a week and make $15. Its kind of a waste when $15 can only get you one or two meals. Those people would still need government assistance to survive and there would be even fewer jobs that paid a livable wage. If workers can't make any money, how would they buy stuff to keep the economy going? Rich people aren't going to have enough babies to keep Pampers and Johnson and Johnson in business.
It is by no means a proven fact that minimum wage increases lead to job losses.
Ask Paul Krugman for one.
because to hire them, the company would have to pay them wages they never worked to earn.
What does that mean?
Arthur: How does Paul Krugman work around the fact that if you increase the price of something, it reduces demand if other factors are held constant?
SDD: If the real-world value of a certain job were $5.00, but the company was forced to pay $7.00 for the job due to minimum wage requirements, that's $2.00 per hour that is a welfare payment.
What's wrong with this?
1) Business, most often small business, has been forced to become a welfare agency.
2) Most of minimum wage earners are not from needy families, with most going to people in families with total income at least twice the poverty level, and most of the jobs being held by teenagers with starter jobs. The minimum wage policy, which is supposed to help the poor, ends up mostly involving people who aren't needy.
---------
I strongly favor a social safety net, a welfare system. I know that many (most?) of the conservatives here do not, but that is another issue.
I also believe that these programs should be means-tested, and not given to everyone. Food stamps are means-tested as they are not supposed to go to the rich. Are we in agreement on this? Yet, the minimum wage is not means tested.
Toad said: "Those people would still need government assistance to survive". Well, in cases where the minimum wage means a higher wage than otherwise, there already is government assistance, only that government is forcing business to pay it, and most of the payments go to people who aren't even poor.
The solution? Completely abolish the minimum wage. Instead, rely on the earned-income tax credit or something similar, which is a means-tested welfare-related program. I don't see what would be so objectionable about this idea.
Not most, maybe in some suburban community or small town but when I go to any type of Kinkos, Fast food joint, Mall type department stores (except for Mag Mile), Best Buys, etc. These aren't suburban teenagers whose parents are rich. Mainly they are non white, city dwellers who are low income and more than likely have children. It may be different out in a rural Iowa college town but most of this country lives in an urban area and that is what we see. Shit, even in the suburban areas of Detroit, Chicago, Gary, etc you see people commuting to the suburbs for those retail jobs there because they pay more. The rich suburban white kids don't do shit.
Most of minimum wage earners are not from needy families,
You don't live where I live.
The median household income here, last time I looked, was somewhere under $30K.
At least 80% of the local economy revolves in one way or another around tobacco. If you don't own the farm, work on the farm, or otherwise work in some area pertaining to the farm, then you are either struggling or you work out of the county. Plenty of the farmers struggle too if there's a bad year, like when we had the drought.
The average minimum wage worker around here is supporting a family.
Assuming 'family' to mean mom and two kids, the 2008 federal poverty guideline was $17,600. Now, if you work 40 hours a week for $6.55/hr, which is the current minimum wage, you come up with $13,624, which is substantially, prior to taxation, below the federal poverty guideline.
If we further assume that you live in a ratass trailer like the one I lived in for $300 a month, have a further $300 in electric bills (I paid $309 in January, 2005, and never got the indoor temperature over 55), and spend $300 a month for food, this will leave you with $148 for childcare, gas, healthcare, and so forth. Of course, in reality, that $148 has been deducted in taxes.
I'm just saying. This is where I live.
There are no priveleged teens here bringing in their minimum wage salaries simply to spend on beer, car bling, and drugs.
These are grown up people trying to support their families. Think you could do it on that kind of income?
"Most of minimum wage earners are not from needy families"
I think we are probably looking at some regional differences also. I see so many Buffys and Tiffany's at these retail jobs everwhere. Some careworn-looking mom types, but it seems to be mostly the teens around here.
"These are grown up people trying to support their families. Think you could do it on that kind of income?"
This raises another question: if a minimum wage is enough for one family, and not others, what then? Boost it for all so it covers the most costly family situation? Means-tested minimum wage? Or means-tested welfare programs regardless of wage?
What's better for these struggling families, means-tested government welfare programs or a blanket minimum wage for all which will help just some of the families (assuming the companies keep the jobs)?
I hope you can see that I'm not talking about cutting anyone loose- sink or swim. I just see the minimum wage as a program where, when it works, benefits too many who are not needy, and where people are needy, it is an arbitrary fixed amount that does not fit the diverse needs of struggling families..... and I would prefer targetted and flexibile programs.
the real-world value of a certain job were $5.00
How do we calculate this? Do we base it on what a company would pay Asian children when they outsourced labour overseas?
Because in the real world, we can't compete with below-subsistence-level third-world labour costs.
Well, for simplicity's sake, why not calculate it locally?
And besides, it is mind-boggling to imagine how a 7-11 would outsource its clerk jobs to Asian children in Asia.
Dmarks:
Again, regional differences perhaps. Go to a fast food restaurant, a best buy or a blockbuster in NYC, Chicago, Detroit, Memphis, L.A., New Orleans, etc. I am talking city limits, its not white suburban kids with wealthy parents. Which one is in the majority I don't know but around here that isn't the case, not even in the immediate suburbs.
Have you been to a 7-11?? Those are Asians who work there, not white teenagers. (Subcontinent)
I see people of all races at 7-11's. To me, the whole thing with there being only southern and western Asians at the places has been a just a stereotype, one which has often had racist overtones from some (not you).
Post a Comment