Say Anything Blog

Regardless, the obvious answer to the question is: The woman should be charged with premeditated murder and sentenced with whatever punishment is associated with that in the jurisdiction she’s being tried in.

No Rob, that is completely incorrect.

The doctor is performing an illegal medical proceedure.  And there are existing laws to handle this including loss of his/her medical license, jail time, and fines.

Inside their apartment on the East Side of Manhattan and in another in a two-story home in Queens, Iris and Eliezer Fernandez made grand promises—youth, delivered in a series of injections—and generally asked for only a small amount of cash in return, the authorities said. Men and women came to their door seeking fewer wrinkles, pouty lips, larger breasts.

Instead, the authorities said, the patients ended up scarred, disfigured and in most cases hospitalized after the Fernandezes, who held no American medical licenses, injected them with a drug similar to Botox. Ms. Fernandez told investigators she had a dental license in Venezuela, the police said.

The Fernandezes have admitted to two cases of performing medical procedures without a license, and they are suspected in two more, the authorities said. But they are not believed to be the only ones in the city performing the procedure.

In all, the authorities said, nine cases have been reported since mid-June, and in eight of them, those who had undergone the procedure ended up being hospitalized with life-threatening infections. The police said at least two of those were believed to have been performed by a transsexual named Natasha in Washington Heights, but they provided few details on those cases. One investigator said the total number of victims could grow to 50 or even 100.

This is akin to performing a medical procedure without a license.  Two sides of the same coin.

And that is the real issue.  This is a medical procedure.  States are allowed to regulate the medical procedures in their states based on existing laws.  Medical procedures do not constitute interstate commerce and therefore are a province of the state because of the 10th Amendment.

There is no need to target the patients that go to an unlicensed provider to get breast implants or botox or steroids or whatever.  The provider of drugs is who we target.  And states have the regulatory authority to charge unlicensed providers or providers providing illegal services and do it for all other medical procedures.

You treat abortion just like any other medical procedure and then by authority of the executive and legislative branches, you regulate the medical community and define the terms of practice.

So then what happens to a doctor that performs abortions in a state illegally or an individual without a medical license who does one?  In the first case the doctor loses their medical license and ability to practice in the state.  In both cases, they get fined significantly and sentenced to jail time. 

You start doing that and all the sudden women will not be able to find someone to give them an abortion.  Doctors that want to do it will go to states where they can.  Planned Parenthood will shut down or change their habits and recommendations.  They may refer women to cross state lines, then it is a crime of transporting a minor across state lines for an illegal medical procedure if the parents are not involved.  (solves parental notification issue)

And assume that several states will allow it still.  How do you propose mandating a first degree murder sentence in South Dakota for it while North Dakota allows it?

Why don’t you do some homework and find out what the penalties were.  After all, it was illegal for a long time in this country.  While you are at it, find out how many children died while getting abortions and how many were sterilized. 

Why don’t we move even further.  It should be attempted murder for a man to masturbate.  After all, each one of those sperm had a chance to become a life and he killed them all.  When a woman loses an egg it is because the egg is no good anymore and she has takes no action, so you can’t blame her.  But the men!  Do we add up the death of each sperm as a separate count in the penalty phase?

I also think we should force the government to follow every pregnant woman to see what she eats, if she smokes or drinks.  Since living in NYC is the equivalent of smoking 3 packs a day, I think that all pregnant women in NY should be sentenced as well.  Perhaps not life, but whatever you get for child endangerment.

And all those rape victims.  Well, we should just go right ahead and tie them down for the 9 months because you just know that they are going to be really problematic and fight back as hard as they can. 

Now, what to do with those pesky idiot who tried to use birth control and failed.  They have created a life not wanted.  I think there should be a penalty for that as well. 

Women are chattel anyway.  We all know it. They always have been.

As soon as there is a law that if a woman gets pregnant and doesn’t want the child, the father will be forced to become the main caregiver, have to give up on his career, and make sure he spends at least 14 hours of every day at home with the child all this nonsense would stop.

But it is so easy to force another person to do what you want them to do.  Especially women. As I said before:  women are chattel:  property:  and nothing they desire has any right entering the discussion.

If she has cancer and the cancer treatments would kill the fetus:  too bad.  If she is gang raped:  too bad.  And if you are going to allow an abortion in either of those instances you are a sniveling spineless coward who has no courage of your convictions.  So pick one:  either women mean nothing or they mean everything in this equation.  You can’t have it both ways.

/what about the men who pay for the dirty deed. Ever hear of brain damage if you beat her enough because the whole family are part of a drug cartell. She will get one. cnn Barbara Star you are part of this whole problem Why do you not want to level with the prez and talk about the Native American flag you follow. Hermin how about your following of Star. I was raised by a war hero of two wars. A volunteer How dare any of you put him down in Belcourt and work with Warner Bros stealing info from my copyrights where god is mentioned and my grandfathers servic. and passing them on to people who know how to roll a good joint and thats it.

I see abortion protesters as I do Cindy Sheehan. They protest thinking that if they stop one thing from happening then the entire problem is solved and the world is a perfect place to live in. Reality bites and just because they stop abortion or the war from being legal (per say) that doesn’t alleviate any of the extremely crucial and serious issues that remain.

It should be attempted murder for a man to masturbate.  After all, each one of those sperm had a chance to become a life and he killed them all.

Sperms aren’t life.  They have the potential to become life.  As opposed to a fertilized female egg that is implanted in the womb and growing.

I love it when a bunch of red-faced pro-abortion women show up for an abortion thread.  So many people rationalizing the murder of unborn children because that’s more convenient than actually taking responsibility for one’s actions.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Women are chattel anyway.

No, we are treating you like an adult.  If you choose to have sex you need to accept the result of your actions.  You are treating the baby like chattel.  It is not your property to be disposed of because it is part of your body.  It is not part of your body it is a separate human being with its own genetic code.  In fact, hormones are needed to suppress your immune system to keep it alive and your body from rejecting it.  If you don’t want a baby, don’t have sex.  It is simple.

The woman should be charged with premeditated murder and sentenced with whatever punishment is associated with that in the jurisdiction she’s being tried in.

That’s certainly one way to look at it however I tend to side with Justin who wrote that the person committing the abortion is the principle culprit. It can be done but it’s very difficult for a women to abort by herself without injuring herself sometimes seriously.

On the legal side, when the abortion question was a states issue (which is really is) the states independently dealt with it based on the desires of their constituents.  I think that is where the abortion question belongs and the Federal government should butt out.

One of the most important talents for success in politics is the ability to make utter nonsense sound not only plausible but inspiring. Barack Obama has that talent. We will be lucky if we escape the catastrophes into which other countries have been led by leaders with that same charismatic talent.
-Thomas Sowell

Very true Greg .. I also believe that there would be a lot less desire for abortions if the mother could count on the father taking his share of responsibility.
You see Greg, our society does mothers such an injustice by raising their boys to believe sex is a game and go out and have your fun .. sew your wild oat before you get tied down etc.
Society neglects to teach boys what is expected of them. Until we teach them what is expected and morally correct of them ... they will continue to avoid responsibility for their actions.
Perhaps an excellent start could be showing the boys the very wise statement I once heard someone say:

If you don’t want a baby, don’t have sex.  It is simple.

On the legal side, when the abortion question was a states issue (which is really is) the states independently dealt with it based on the desires of their constituents.  I think that is where the abortion question belongs and the Federal government should butt out.

Ditto.

1% of Americans pay 40% of the income tax.
5% of Americans pay 60% of the income tax.
10% of Americans pay 70% of the income tax.

Abortion is a Sin.
Abortion is and should stay legal.

It is not the governments place to say what a woman does with her body.

Abortion is a burden that the bearer will carry for life.  We are not her judge, that job is filled.

I’m actually not at all certain that abortion is a state’s rights thing.  We pro-lifers believe that an unborn child is a life, no?  Well the 5th amendment states that no person may be denied life without due process of law.

Thus, I think abortion is pretty explicitly unconstitutional.  Though I’d support the overturn of Roe to return the issue to the states as a step in the right direction anyway.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

It is not the governments place to say what a woman does with her body.

Abortion is murder.  An unborn child is not part of a woman’s body, and it is very much the government’s place to protect the innocent.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Abortion is a Sin.

So is murder.

Abortion is and should stay legal.

So all sins should be legal?  See above.

It is not the governments place to say what a woman does with her body.

But it may be the governments job on what she may do with her offspring which may be in her womb at the time.

Abortion is a burden that the bearer will carry for life.  We are not her judge, that job is filled.

Perhaps we’ll be judged for standing by and doing nothing when we could prevent a sin.

Rob said:

I’m actually not at all certain that abortion is a state’s rights thing.  We pro-lifers believe that an unborn child is a life, no?  Well the 5th amendment states that no person may be denied life without due process of law.

Well that’s a fair point.  However it’s logical that the mothers life is wound up inseparable from the life of the babies.  It seems to me the decision on how their two interests should interact must be left to the state legislatures according to the constitution.  Besides most murder prosecutions are held in state courts unless the murderer crossed state lines to commit their evil deeds.

1% of Americans pay 40% of the income tax.
5% of Americans pay 60% of the income tax.
10% of Americans pay 70% of the income tax.

Furthermore I would read the 5th amendment being a prohibition from the government killing me, not a fellow citizen or family members.

That doesn’t mean state laws keeping family and friends from murdering me aren’t a good idea.  Otherwise I wouldn’t be here writing this.

1% of Americans pay 40% of the income tax.
5% of Americans pay 60% of the income tax.
10% of Americans pay 70% of the income tax.

Furthermore I would read the 5th amendment being a prohibition from the government killing me, not a fellow citizen or family members.

I’m not so sure.  It reads “no person shall be denied life, liberty or property…without due process of law.”  It doesn’t, like other amendments, prohibit Congress or the President or whatever.

Fair point about states separating out the life of the mother from the life of the child.  Clearly that’s the sort of sticky social issue the founders felt wise to leave up to the states per the 10th amendment.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

It seems to me that if you read the 5th amendment as applying to all parties that I might not be able to defend myself against a homicidal-liberal-maniac without getting court approval.

1% of Americans pay 40% of the income tax.
5% of Americans pay 60% of the income tax.
10% of Americans pay 70% of the income tax.

Well in a situation like that we’ve got rights overlapping.  Your right to live, and the guy who is trying to kill you’s right to live.

To me, your right trumps his.  Because he’s a criminal trying to kill you.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

A hypothetical.  If the person isn’t trying to kill a person but “only” to rape that person.

In my opinion shoot him without due process.

1% of Americans pay 40% of the income tax.
5% of Americans pay 60% of the income tax.
10% of Americans pay 70% of the income tax.

I. can’t. make. myself. disagree. Rob.

And I’ve tried.  But killing your own baby?  Killing a man’s own son?  That’s cold—not chattel, just cold!

I’ve even offered my liberal friends a chance to trade my support of capital punishment for their support of a woman’s right to kill her baby.  No takers.

Jennifer is silly:

But it is so easy to force another person to do what you want them to do.  Especially women. As I said before:  women are chattel:  property:  and nothing they desire has any right entering the discussion.

Yep.  If i get you pregnant, then I’ll be responsible for child support for my son or daughter for the next 18 years.  That is, unless you decide to kill him/her.  You hold my Fatherhood and the life of my son in your hands, and yet you still whine about being powerless.

You’ve got the same power to keep your legs closed as I do.  When do I get to decide who lives and who dies huh?

Life in prison, out in 20 years.  And I’ll agree to abandon the death penalty. Deal?

[Feet make good soup!]

A hypothetical.  If the person isn’t trying to kill a person but “only” to rape that person.

In my opinion shoot him without due process.

Touche.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Rob,

While I am sympathetic to you Constitutional argument with regard to abortion, I have to say that it is flawed. The Constitution has a clear history of defining Americans as only having rights after birth. For instance, the 14th Amendment states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

In American history, abortion laws didn’t start coming into effect really until the 1820s. Even years after the 14th was ratified, many states still permitted abortion. Since this is the case, it seems pretty clear to me that Equal Protections and Due Process were never intended to cover unborn children. This may be the result of a lack of scientific understanding or other factors, but it was and is the case.

For it to become a Federal issue, the Constitution must first change.

Good point, Frasco.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Perhaps an excellent start could be showing the boys the very wise statement I once heard someone say:

  If you don’t want a baby, don’t have sex.  It is simple.

I agree 100%.  I had my first child three years after I was married, you see, my wife would not let me have sex with her until we were married.  I respected her decision.  That is what I am going to teach my one year old son when he gets old enough to understand what I am telling him.

I’m sure most of the protesters weren’t there to punish women, but instead wanted to reduce the number of abortions through not encouraging women to have them “because it’s legal”.  I think having the baby instead of killing it would lead to some life lessons much more valuable than just being able to avoid the consequences of uncaring sex.  If abortion were not legal, the women might have to care about the consequences of their actions; it’s not about punishing them, it’s about making them think before they act.  Seems like we all might benefit from that.
It might also be a good thing to remove the incentive of taxpayer subsidization of abortion, as well.  Just a thought.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Hows all my old acquaintances?

I do feel somewhat sorry for these young girls who are trying to grow up so quickly by having sex, Yea but I have no pity for an adult female who had consensual sex.

I think capital punishment is suitable for both the abortion doctor as well as the female who aborted her child. I do believe it is a constitutional issue as well.

Abortion has to be illegal across the board. Rape victims as horrible as the situation is, must suffer the same consequence. Abortion can not be right sometimes.

The rapist being found guilty should without a doubt receive the death penalty immediately after His conviction. with all that said, it is my opinion that Roe Vs. Wade should be overturned.

Mr WETBACK…

Yea but I have no pity for an adult female who had consensual sex.

and now please allow us the pleasure of knowing what it is you feel for the adult male who is having consensual sex with the consenting adult female.

I also believe that there would be a lot less desire for abortions if the mother could count on the father taking his share of responsibility

. Anna, I think it would help if women would not have sex with a man until they were married.  With marriage comes the responsibility that most men have to raise their children and care for the family.  On the other hand, premaritial sex does not have the same binding especially if the women gives it freely to a number of different men.

Hi, wetback, what you’ve been doing?  Swimming across the Rio Grande and dodging the INS? /joke As you can read, we are still at it raising cane on the difficult issues.

One of the most important talents for success in politics is the ability to make utter nonsense sound not only plausible but inspiring. Barack Obama has that talent. We will be lucky if we escape the catastrophes into which other countries have been led by leaders with that same charismatic talent.
-Thomas Sowell

Speaking of murdered fetuses.
Four fetuses found at woman’s home—

OCEAN CITY, Md. (AP) - July 30, 2007
Searchers have stopped work for the night at the Ocean City home where four dead fetuses have been discovered.
Investigators at the home of 37-year-old taxi-driver Christy Freeman say no further evidence of human remains has been found in the home, or in a vacant lot next door. The search will resume Tuesday morning.
Freeman is charged with murder in the death of her 26-week-old fetus, which was found wrapped in a towel under a bathroom sink after Freeman went to a hospital, where doctors found she had recently given birth.
Investigators later found three more sets of fetal remains, two in Freeman’s home and one in a Winnebago in the back yard.
Investigators have not charged Freeman with killing those fetuses, although the investigation is continuing. Freeman is being held without bond while the search is conducted

You see Greg, our society does mothers such an injustice by raising their boys to believe sex is a game and go out and have your fun .. sew your wild oat before you get tied down etc.

I think that is just plain wrong.  I think it is our society that is doing mothers an injustice by putting forward the idea that liberated women should be free to have sex at the time of their choosing as part of the Liberation Movement.  We have the promiscous habits of men, but the reality is that these are only useful if women are encouraged to also be promiscuous by our society.

There was an entire movement pushing women towards rejecting the cultural norms that said premarital sex is wrong for women and their justification was that society doesn’t view it as wrong for men to cheat or fornicate, but it is bad for women—therefore we need to destigmatize premarital sex for women too.  Kinda backwards way to get equality.  Why not encourage men to abstain… well that never occured to the feminists.

Women in society did this damage to other women by fighting to change societal norms.  This is not society’s males fighting for the rights of women to f* anyone they want.

Rob,

Don’t federalize abortion.  Certainly don’t federalize the forbidding of abortion either.

Once we agree that it is a Federal Government responsibility to dictate how and when an abortion is murder, your hypothesis relies on the legislature in DC to define that (which is a tar baby they will never touch) then on the Courts to determine how the Constitution handles things (and that changes as the dynamics of the court change as hopefully we will soon see thanks to Alito and Roberts).

We need to simultaneously fight for the states to have the right to decriminalize marijuana and allow it for medicinal purposes (which the SCOTUS defeated because of the LIBERALS).  We need to fight for states to be able to regulate the conditions or matters that occur solely within their jurisdiction.  Unless a crime transcends state lines or is only illegal under Federal Law, it should rightly belong to the state to prosecute. 

I like the 10th Amendment more than the 1st and it is tied with the 2nd in my mind.  The first is meaningless without the 2nd and 10th.

Well Anna

If the appropriate test determines the father, and marriage is out of the question, than obviously the father should be obligated to pay child support.

The amount obviously has to be determined by His income, with limitations of course. I mean there can’t be a set minimal amount. but there’s no reason it can’t have a set maximum amount.

And if this man is a bum, well then I guess being that it was consensual, there would be no case. When the bum gets a job He will have to pay appropriately to His Child’s mother, or the state if the mother is also a bum.

I think that is where you were going with that question, if not please be more specific

docdave, I am not disagreeing with that at all but what is kind of bothering me is how you all comment.

With marriage comes the responsibility that most men have

What does that mean ... guys are permitted and socially accepted to be irresponsible, juvenile, twits until marriage?

premaritial sex does not have the same binding especially if the women gives it freely to a number of different men.

and this means what pray tell.. are you suggesting that society expects virgin brides and grooms who, prior to the marriage are expected to screw anything that has the necessary anatomy?

and this means what pray tell.. are you suggesting that society expects virgin brides and grooms who, prior to the marriage are expected to screw anything that has the necessary anatomy?

yes, for practical reasons.  The process to satisfy a woman involved experience and creativity.  Satisfying a man requires… well, 5 minutes.

We are doing this for you.  And if you know nothing of intercourse, we can hide our inadequacies.  Win-Win.

Kudos to Justin for nailing the answer the protestors should have offered in the 1st post to this topic!  Well done! 

Anna,

While I certainly agree that males should provide support for the children they take part in bringing into this world, it is the female that has the most control of whether or not she conceives.  We must not skip past opportunities for responsibility in debate as in this instance where we debate who is responsible for taking care of a child after they already exist.

society doesn’t view it as wrong for men to cheat or fornicate

You are wrong Justin. The only people that view it as acceptable are guys .. oh and also the girls that were used for practical reasons, deemed unworthy of matrimony and then discarded.

Why not encourage men to abstain… well that never occured to the feminists.

That is an out right lie. Women have demanded this since the dawn of cheatin’ ass men. I do believe it has been the men that are responsible for convincing the women that “it’s what the guys really want, don’t be so old fashion”. You can bet there are a lot more men out there saying those lines then there are feminists.

This is not society’s males fighting for the rights of women to f* anyone they want.

Men are not out there fighting to convince women to have sex?

we can hide our inadequacies.

au contraire,  ... Men believe they can hide their inadequacies but in reality it is the womans ability to hide disappointment that keeps others from knowing the failure you really are.
vous échec dans le lit, oui? lol

vous échec dans le lit, oui? lol

She’s speaking French….which…makes here…A COMMUNIST!

She’s speaking French….which…makes here…A COMMUNIST!

Here, her....it’s all the same

What does that mean ... guys are permitted and socially accepted to be irresponsible, juvenile, twits until marriage?

Anna, such an off the wall statement coming from you.  It seems that you have deliberately misunderstood my posting.  What I was saying is that there is not the level of responsibility in premarital sex as there is for those that are married.  This is true for BOTH PARTIES, man and women.  It’s ridiculous of a woman to expect a man to be more responsible than her after she have exposed herself to the possibility of pregnancy in premarital sex.

One of the most important talents for success in politics is the ability to make utter nonsense sound not only plausible but inspiring. Barack Obama has that talent. We will be lucky if we escape the catastrophes into which other countries have been led by leaders with that same charismatic talent.
-Thomas Sowell

for the ske of poetic justice, nine months.fullterm.

Why not encourage men to abstain… well that never occured to the feminists.

That is an out right lie. Women have demanded this since the dawn of cheatin’ ass men. I do believe it has been the men that are responsible for convincing the women that “it’s what the guys really want, don’t be so old fashion”. You can bet there are a lot more men out there saying those lines then there are feminists.

Perhaps I didn’t clarify.  I lumped cheating and pre-marital sex into the same category.  Cheating has a stigma all its own, but in the context of abortion, these are usually not the result of cheating, but rather of premarital sex between unwed couples.

http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=9971

New Jersey announced last week that it will not accept $800,000 in federal funds to teach abstinence-only sex education. Sex education programs in states that receive the federal funds are not allowed to teach students about contraception, must describe sex before marriage as “potentially mentally and physically damaging,” and must teach that “sex within marriage is ‘the expected standard of sexual activity’,” the Associated Press and Kaiser Daily Women’s Health Policy report. According to the Associated Press, New Jersey officials wrote in a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt that the requirements tied to the federal money violate the state’s sex education and AIDS education programs.

State Health Commissioner Fred Jacobs said of the state’s decision to refuse the funds, “Monogamy is not a bad idea, but having the government of New Jersey dictate these things for families is not something we wish to do… It isn’t the function of the state government to create standards [for sexual activity],” Kaiser Daily Women’s Health Policy reports.

New Jersey joins three other states – California, Maine, and Pennsylvania – that have rejected federal money for abstinence-only sex education. According to William Smith, a vice president of SIECUS writing for RHRealityCheck.org, almost $200 million is spent on abstinence-only education annually.

The feminist movement is against the abstinance movement because it seeks to further stignatize women who engage in promiscuous sexual activities as unworthy whores, yet men who engage in similar activities do not suffer from the same stigma.

Now you can argue that there has always been a stigma against men doing it, but come on, outside of cheating on your spouse, men have always been allowed a far different standard than women when it comes to premarital sex.  Whole industries have sprung up to service these needs.

Womens libers are against the abstinance movement because most of the targetted demographic are young women since they are undoubtedly in the most control over their bodies prior to the point where they choose to have intercourse.  Short of being raped, they have the ability to say no, thereby preventing abortions from ever being necessary.  The Women’s Lib movement is not about preventing or even trying to reduce the level of premarital intercourse as a natural way to decrease abortion numbers, but instead are for freely available and unrestricted abortions.  Why is that?  You do the math.

Justin,  Setting aside my lack of respect for your amoral standards for men, you can not deny the fact that there would be less need for abortions if perhaps men had any aptitude of keeping their pecker in their pants!
Given the biological proof that both woman & man, (using the term “man” loosely) create babies and both have the ability to prevent babies, why do you continue to present the issue as if it’s solely the womens fault for unwanted pregnancies?

From a male’s perspective it seems that when an unwanted pregnancy occurs that the female is treated as a victim where they might both be at fault.

I think that this phrase you used is an illustration:

if perhaps men had any aptitude of keeping their pecker in their pants!

I would add to it that the female should keep the ‘pecker’ out of her pants.

It also seems that in the case of casual sex the guy doesn’t know if the woman is using birth control but the woman would obviously know that the man is using birth control.

Add to that that the father has no rights IF the woman decides to abort or he has limited rights if she decides to live separately.  On the other hand he has full obligation to support the child generally at a monetary level far above her obligation.

Anyway I don’t have an ax to grind and I’m not trying to have a nasty debate.  I’m just saying that we have a long ways to go in this area to be fair to all parties.

1% of Americans pay 40% of the income tax.
5% of Americans pay 60% of the income tax.
10% of Americans pay 70% of the income tax.

The Whistler, I am sure everyone is aware that I have never EVER said that females are not responsible for getting pregnant (unwanted or not). Fact, I find it extremely difficult to understand how accidental/unwanted pregnancies still occur at such high rates. Granted, there are the rare occasions the birth control fails but I repeat that is rare.
About your “the case of casual sex the guy doesn’t know if the woman is using birth control but the woman would obviously know that the man is using birth control.” That is so very true ... so all the more reason to protect yourself from any deception on her part.

long ways to go in this area to be fair to all parties.

The main issue of concern (the thread anyway) is abortion so for that matter I believe the best and only fair way is:
If you are having sex for pleasure only you, yourself must use birth control. If you do not use birth control then you are responsible of the consequences.
Men do not need to worry about whether the woman is using birth control because he knows for a fact that he is.
Having “casual” sex means trusting no one but yourself.

That is so very true ... so all the more reason to protect yourself from any deception on her part.

That’s very true.

1% of Americans pay 40% of the income tax.
5% of Americans pay 60% of the income tax.
10% of Americans pay 70% of the income tax.

Historically speaking, Justin nails it.  It was the doctor who was punished for abortion, not the mother, because the doctor wielded the knife, and the mother was believed to generally be acting at the request of her rake/boyfriend.  Hence, the doctor, not the mother, is guilty.

There is evidence that this isn’t a bad assumption today—I’ve been involved in crisis pregnancy centers for over 15 years now, and this is commonly reported by young ladies coming for help.  Not the only theme, to be sure, but it’s certainly a very common one.

Also, if boyfriends weren’t pressuring girlfriends to hide the evidence, why would we be arguing at times whether Planned Parenthood is legally and morally bound to reveal known cases of statutory rape? 

Finally, historically speaking, older feminists often DID campaign against acceptance of male promiscuity.  However, a new generation today, exemplified by Planned Parenthood’s “Teenwire” site, seems to accept and even glorify both male and female promiscuity.

Setting aside my lack of respect for your amoral standards for men, you can not deny the fact that there would be less need for abortions if perhaps men had any aptitude of keeping their pecker in their pants!

I never argued that historical context is correct.  That is like saying slavery happened or white supremecy was a historical view of the world.  They are fact.  Stating facts is not saying I agree with those viewpoints, just that they were commonly held views.

I will say that I believe that premarital sex is just as wrong for the male as the female.  These are moral issues of right and wrong in the context of my moral beliefs that are grounded in Christianity.  I am not making an argument that adultery in any form is morally ok, but our society sets cultural norms and in that context, our society and actually most societies since the beginning of mankind have viewed male promiscuity differently from female.

Finally, historically speaking, older feminists often DID campaign against acceptance of male promiscuity.  However, a new generation today, exemplified by Planned Parenthood’s “Teenwire” site, seems to accept and even glorify both male and female promiscuity.

And yeah, look at planned parenthood’s teenwire.  13 year old girls should feel OK about sucking their bf off.  or even having oral sex in a friends with benefits situation.  It is just harmless fun.

society doesn’t view it as wrong for men to cheat or fornicate

You are wrong Justin. The only people that view it as acceptable are guys .. oh and also the girls that were used for practical reasons, deemed unworthy of matrimony and then discarded.

Why not encourage men to abstain… well that never occured to the feminists.

That is an out right lie. Women have demanded this since the dawn of cheatin’ ass men. I do believe it has been the men that are responsible for convincing the women that “it’s what the guys really want, don’t be so old fashion”.

Here is a teenwire article on abstinance pledges:

http://www.teenwire.com/infocus/2004/if-20040511p288-virginity.php

Virginity is a personal choice, and there’s nothing wrong with waiting to have vaginal intercourse — or to abstain from sex play completely — until you’re married. But if you’re thinking about pledging, here are some questions you may want to consider:

What are you pledging? Many teens agree that some level of physical involvement is important in an intimate relationship. So find out what the limitations are before you pledge. Is all sex play prohibited? Or only vaginal intercourse?

Why are you pledging? Will signing a pledge help you stick to your personal goals and values? Or, are you just doing it to please someone else? If you don’t take the pledge seriously, why bother?

How can I best protect myself? Be real. If you think you may be in a situation where you end up having sex, by all means, protect yourself! Latex and female condoms are the only methods of birth control that also reduce the risk of infection. And luckily, they fit easily in a pocket or purse.

Choosing to have sex is a very personal decision, and so is choosing to take a virginity pledge. Either way, make sure you go into it with your eyes wide open!

Boy, this sure promotes abstinance don’t it.  Figure out what the loopholes are in your pledge so you can give your bf a bj after school if it is allowed.  And lots of girls are having unprotected anal sex now because pp promotes that this is an acceptable alternative to vaginal intercourse while avoiding the whole religious angle of morality.  And since you are only doing it to please someone else anyway and “many teens think sex is ok (not quite their words, but close)” just figure out the loopholes or don’t sign the damned thing.

Explain how this is them promoting a value and morality structure that says anything other than promiscuity is a fact and girls should feel just as fine about it as guys do.

If you are having sex for pleasure only you, yourself must use birth control. If you do not use birth control then you are responsible of the consequences.

Let me expand that—if you are having sex for any reason other than to make babies intentionally, then you yourself need to be responsible.

I see a lot of situations (and forgive the slightly misogynistic tone) or women who fully intend to create a baby for their own pleasure, just ‘cause they want one, because they are lonely, because they think it will strengthen the relationship, because they want attention, because they want a larger welfare check or child support, to trap the dude, or because the guy is successful and one of the above.

Guys should NEVER AND I MEAN NEVER make the assumption that their partner has the same intentions as they do.  One persons sex just for recreation may be their female partner’s sex for procreation.  NEVER EVER leave the door open for a conflict of expectations or results.

I see a lot of situations (and forgive the slightly misogynistic tone) or women who fully intend to create a baby for their own pleasure, just ‘cause they want one, because they are lonely, because they think it will strengthen the relationship, because they want attention, because they want a larger welfare check or child support, to trap the dude, or because the guy is successful and one of the above

I am a woman and I will confirm that this is fact.  A friend of mine did it to another friend and now he’s trapped paying over $600/month child support.  I feel bad for him, but he should have known better than to fall for that old trick.  “Don’t worry about it, I’m on the pill” should be the scariest sentence a guy will ever hear.  What that means is “I’m craving your seed for my own evil intentions.”  The only time you EVER go without a condom is if you’ve been a couple long enough where you see her take the pills every morning and can trust each other and have been tested.  People who don’t know that rule are retards and probably shouldn’t be parents anyway.

Justin, I am not sure if you are addressing your question to me but I will say that pp is definitely promoting immoral and unsafe ideas ... but then I never said they did’t. 
The only thing I have stated is if everyone ( yes, .. men too) if every individual was expected to be responsible for the consequences of their actions, perhaps our society would not have such a desire for abortion clinics. (or many other controversial programs)

Promiscuous behaviors and heteropaternal superfecundation Abortions. No, the simplest remedy to this problem is to criminalize abortion. Debating the cause for the womens decision on this matter serves no purpose.

Debating who is guilty (the pressuring boyfriend,etc) serves no purpose, infact it just proves even more why abortion should be illegal. In my opinion it is the only solution.

Anna,

Above you insinuated that my ideas about society’s values were somehow equivalent to my own feelings on the matter.

Again, my real point was the the feminist movement is an even bigger problem than men who want to get in girl’s pants.  The feminist movement seeks to completely destigmatize any acts of a sexual nature and it is very clear that they are completely against the abstinance movement.  In their attempt to liberate women in this patriarchy that is our society, their solution was to liberate the female libido and allow women to be as sexually empowered as men and take away the social stigma attached to women that engage in sexual relations with multiple partners for pleasure.  Their view was that in this regard society did not treat women as men’s equals when it came to women having sex just purely for recreation.

I want women’s equality.  I want women to have opportunities in the workplace.  I want them treated as equals.  But that does not equate to wanting every single societal norm broken down so that women can have sex without consequences and are free to head to pp to dispose of the unwanted child just like men who duck child support do.  Equality means that women have responsibility for their actions AND SO DO MEN, not that neither do.

Just want to make it clear that I am not in favor of men being able to eff anything that moves, but rather that this has been far more acceptable historically.

Debating who is guilty (the pressuring boyfriend,etc) serves no purpose, infact it just proves even more why abortion should be illegal. In my opinion it is the only solution.

I still come back to criminalizing the person performing the abortion. 

We get to the point where we are no longer concerned with punishing the woman for having the procedure than with upholding the law enforcing the ban.  Stronger consequences for the women have little effect on the availability and frequency of the procedure.  Punishing the providers does.  Women will always have a vested interest in taking the risks to dispose of an unwanted pregnancy, but we want to take the monetary reward away from organizations like pp that derive significant revenue from performing them.  If we do that, it makes the availability of an abortion considerably rarer and pushes the price up.  Those two things will significantly cut down on the rates.

Reality is that in Rob’s model, he would inundate the court with cases of bringing charges against poor unwed mothers and selective murder prosecutions on an overburdened court system.  Most would choose jury trials and lawyers would have a field day.  Taking away medical licenses is an executive decision by the state boards and there is no jury trial or lawyer circus or parading around poor mothers who had no choice in front of sympathetic citizens.  How long do you think the ban will last when society sees poor women, especially black women since they are three times as likely as whites to have an abortion, being tried for murder?  I mean seriously Rob, take this to its logical conclusion.  How long does your model last before the outrage over poor women in prison outweighs the societal outrage over poor women killing their babies that about half of our society does not agree even constitute a human being.

Let’s get over the guys versus girls and values discussion that we have been in and take Rob’s suggestion to its logical conclusion here.  I hope Rob will answer my hypothetical scenario.

I simply responded to some of the comments that were made. My original comment had to do with how little most people think things through before attempting to solve a problem.
I don’t have an answer to Rob’s question.

Rob writes:

1) We pro-lifers believe that an unborn child is a life, no? 

2) Well the 5th amendment states that no person may be denied life without due process of law.

Statement one states that a fetus is a “life.”

In statement two you point out that the Constitution protects “persons.” Thus, the Constitution does not protect unborn children, as you’ve defined them.

Justin B: Do you really believe the abortion doctor is the root of the problem? Are we actually going to make a ladder of guilt here? I mean surely that mixed up and scared to death teenaged girl is hardly to blame.

But if we are going to end this crises, abortion must be in all cases illegal. There is no ifs ands or buts, there is no other solution.

And capital punishment should be the penalty for all who willfully participated in the abortion. Abortion SHOULD be considered murder, why not just throw out all the murder cases in the court system right? After all it’s overburdened as it is right, are you kidding?

It is in Americas best interest that Abortion should be illegal, Let them cry. America is a Republic and not a democracy. Mob does not rule.

It is in Americas best interest that Abortion should be illegal, Let them cry. America is a Republic and not a democracy. Mob does not rule.

Which part is the mob? 

First, let’s define the problem.  We have conflicting spheres of responsibility here.  First, the right to an abortion is clearly not a “defined” right in the eyes of the Constitution anymore than the right to healthcare or the right to social security, so we figure there is no Constitutional “right to privacy” as interpreted by Roe.  So the start of things is that Roe is undone.

So then where do we stand?  There is no Federal Statute banning abortion, nor a statute expressly allowing it.  So clearly the Federal Government would be required to pass a law defining what is legal or illegal in regards to abortion because Roe would be gone.  Therefore, at the Federal level in order to prohibit abortion we would need one of the following:

—a SCOTUS action to reinterpret the Constitution to find a reason to ban abortion and define the Constitution as making an implicitly INTRASTATE process that is handed in the state by a citizen of the state a Federal issue, not a state issue.
—A Congressional action to regulate what a state can and cannot do, again by people living in that state that occurs solely within that state itself.

Ultimately, you come back to the role of the Federal government as outlined by the Founding Fathers.  If you see each state as an incubator where they make their own laws and band together as loosely federated states for the purposes of Interstate Commerce, Foreign Relations, and National Defense, this idea of federalizing abortion is the core of all that is wrong with our bloated Federal Government.  And it also leaves open the Feds having a change of leadership or opinion and once we establish that a simple Federal Majority in Congress (short a veto) is all that is required to reverse course, or even better yet, a simple change of a 5-4 majority is all that is needed, we end up constantly allowing Abortion to be a hotbutton issue and ultimately make it more important than national defense, the budget, or any other topic.  When we start throwing teens into prison for years and years, there will be outrage and as long as the outrage is great enough, these laws will be change on a whim.

So that leaves two options.  Constitutional Amendment and State’s Rights.  I am OK with either of these and would support both.  The overturning of Roe back to the States or a Constitutional Amendment clarifying this tricky legal issue and taking it out of the hands of the courts and out of the political realm of fear campaigning by both sides.  Certainly out of the hands of lawyers that use it as a wedge to raise money for the Democratic Party and bring back the role of Feminism as a prominent political force.

Make the argument that this is a Federal Issue, despite being Intrastate Commerce and not defined in the Constitution as right to either have one or outlaw it.  Get your magic decoder ring and come up with some logic that prohibits it based on a combination of depriving the unborn of due process.  Let the judges decide that.  Then let them way the due process of fetuses versus the right to privacy every time a justice changes so that the ultimate decision on it is made every 5-6 years and every time there is a new appointment.

And when you break out your “depriving of due process” and the pro-murderers say “right to privacy”, I will actually read something that actually defines this completely and is unambiguous:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Either amend the damned thing to define the Abortion debate, or if you cannot do it (and no one has been able to in the last 30+ years), then come back and read why this does not belong to the SCOTUS, but rather to the people or to the State Legislatures.

If you want to disregard the Constitution because abortion is so abhorrent to you that you ignore the Federalism debate, you are no protector of the document.  It is a “living document” to you too and you support the tyranny of 9 men and women to dictate what this very clear and unambiguous document says.  And we are at the whim for everything and the Federal Government always trumps the State’s.

Statement one states that a fetus is a “life.”

In statement two you point out that the Constitution protects “persons.” Thus, the Constitution does not protect unborn children, as you’ve defined them.

Life = person.

Why do liberals always try to win this debate by definition?  They think that if they can just find a way to twist the definition of who is and is not a person it will make abortions not murder.

It’s…sad.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Rob, come on now.  Answer my questions—

Is this a Federal Issue or a State issue?

Reality is that in Rob’s model, he would inundate the court with cases of bringing charges against poor unwed mothers and selective murder prosecutions on an overburdened court system.  Most would choose jury trials and lawyers would have a field day.  Taking away medical licenses is an executive decision by the state boards and there is no jury trial or lawyer circus or parading around poor mothers who had no choice in front of sympathetic citizens.  How long do you think the ban will last when society sees poor women, especially black women since they are three times as likely as whites to have an abortion, being tried for murder?  I mean seriously Rob, take this to its logical conclusion.  How long does your model last before the outrage over poor women in prison outweighs the societal outrage over poor women killing their babies that about half of our society does not agree even constitute a human being.

Short of Constitutional Amendment, how do you constantly fight a Federal battle to write and then maintain a law charging mothers with murder?  As long as you are in a dream world where we can fantasize about writing laws to fix all of society’s problems—why don’t you solve social security, homelessness, and gay marriage with the stroke of a pen.

Get out of the “If Rob could snap his fingers and abortion were illegal” mode and let’s talk reality.  Every time a pro-lifer says charge them with murder, it makes our pro-life cause seem downright nutty.  Be a realist here, not an idealist.  How do you effectively end abortion for the long term and not have it constantly overturned or have the majority simply vote it out?

Rob:

Life = person.

Clearly untrue. A rabbit is a life, but it is not a person.

I’m sorry, but here I thought this entire thread was about human babies and not rabbits.

I guess the context to my comments means nothing, right?

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Justin, first I’d point out that I haven’t been avoiding your question.  I didn’t know you’d asked it.  I’m terrible about reading all the comments in a thread.  I typically just keep track of recent comments on the sidebar and respond when I feel like it.

As for your suggestion that I stop calling abortion murder for the sake of political expediency, I’d respond by saying that it is what it is.  If you feel life begins at conception, what else can you call abortion but murder?

As for my stance on abortion in the constitution, it would hardly “federalize” the issue.  No more than the 5th amendment makes murder in general a federal issue.  Recognizing that abortion is unconstitutional does not make abortion a federal crime, no more than homicide is a federal crime.  It would still be up to each state to set the punishment for murder, etc.

What the 5th amendment does is prevent states from allowing murder to be legal.

As for the spectacle of “poor mothers” going to prison for abortion, I hardly think that a woman who kills her unborn child is a sympathetic figure.  We should hold those women in contempt.

But from the perspective of practical politics, perhaps punishing the doctors would be more palatable.  Seems like a cop-out to me, but then I’m not one to ever be ashamed of my personal opinions.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

I am not saying they aren’t murderers (they are) and I am not saying not to call them murderers.  But that is quite different from charging someone with murder.  Remember that within the context of what constitutes murder, there are all kinds of defenses.  Heat of passion.  Mental condition.  So is it First Degree?  Manslaughter?  Innocent by reason of insanity brought on by hormonal changes of pregnancy and mental circumstances?  And trust me, lawyers will make up even more reasons than this.

So all the time, prosecutors drop charges because they cannot get a conviction or don’t have the evidence to support it.  It is just a disaster waiting to happen to charge them with murder.

Note one thing about the anti-abortion rabid fanatics that bomb people over abortion… they bomb clinics.  Why—cause that is where the abortions happen.  Let’s say an abortion doctor performs an illegal abortion, do we think it is a one time situation?  Not a chance.  So the prosecutors change him with 50 counts of performing an illegal medical procedure.  Same with illegal clinics.  You work there, you are an accomplice to it.  You refer someone to an illegal clinic, you get charged too.  And the net is that the dr. loses their license, the entire clinic staff goes to jail for a while, and entire industry either disappears or goes so deep underground that the availability of Canadian procedures or Mexican ones takes over the lucritive market.

But as soon as we do that, we dry up the federal funds for any organization that even thinks about refering a woman to have an illegal abortion.  And we send folks in undercover with cameras and arrest everyone involved at those clinics if they dare.  Board the place up.  Seize their assets.  We dry up the providers.  And that is on a state by state basis, so maybe MA does not do it but the voters make the choice.

Your interpretation example relies on simple changes of 5-4 on the SCOTUS.  Unless it is a Constitutional Amendment, if we make it a Federal Issue, 5 voters make law.  I want it to be state legislatures or in the case of AZ, referrendum.  At least then, we have our say.  And then I follow the will of the people, like it or not.  If we support murder via popular vote, that is infinitely better than by Federal SCOTUS mandate.  Plus if we do it right, we can allow zoning regulations by cities to zone abortion out of their cities.  Or even states to narrow the definition to such a small window that it effectively stamps it out.

Justin, one reason I hesitate to remove responsibility for killing the unborn child away from the mother is that it leaves the woman free to try and kill the child herself.  I also feel that one problem with the abortion issue in this country is that we’re not scornful of mothers who want to kill their unborn children.

I’m also hesitant to dismiss the 5th amendment in all this.  It’s pretty clear on the idea that life cannot be denied without due process.  But again, the point of this is going over your head.  The 5th amendment would simply bar any state law making abortions legal, just as it bars any state law making homicide legal.

Your fear of the courts making a 5-4 ruling to change that is naive.  For one, a SCOTUS ruling already made abortion legal (or, more accurately, made banning it unconstitutional) anyway.  For another, do you really think any Supreme Court ever is going to rule that our life can be taken away without due process?

From a practical standpoint, I see your point, and I’m not saying I wouldn’t support it.  I’m just not so quick to abandon principle.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

In statement two you point out that the Constitution protects “persons.” Thus, the Constitution does not protect unborn children, as you’ve defined them.

The real definition:

Human fetus=human=person.  How dumb can you get?  Trying to deny the humanity of a human fetus for the purposes of killing it to avoid responsibility is lower than whale shit.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

None. Abortions won’t be illegal. Keep wishing though. Cross your fingers… or just go down to the abortion clinic and throw rocks to show everyone how compassionate you are.

For truth is named after the daughter of time, not of authority.

-Francis Bacon

Trying to deny the humanity of a human fetus for the purposes of killing it to avoid responsibility is lower than whale shit.

More like usurping the rights of a mother (clearly a human) for some not-quite-a-human is lower than whale shit. It exposes not only a lack of mental fortitude, but also misogyny.

For truth is named after the daughter of time, not of authority.

-Francis Bacon

r108:

Human fetus=human=person.  How dumb can you get?  Trying to deny the humanity of a human fetus for the purposes of killing it to avoid responsibility is lower than whale shit.

How dumb can you be? I’ve never denied the humanity of human fetuses—human fetuses are humans by definition. I deny their personhood.

I deny their personhood.

How can a human not be a person?

Sparkie: How can a human with complete human DNA be considered as “not quite a human” by you?

For both of you, this is a specious semantic argument to justify the killing of children for birth control purposes.  It’s about a cowardly avoidance of responsibility on the part of the parents, and should not be enshrined in law as a “right”.  That’s just disgusting.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Rob, the reason I suggest punishing the doctors instead of the mothers (and/or fathers for that matter) is that the stress of becoming a parent in a poor situation (= most abortions) qualifies as a mitigating circumstance.  You would at most be able to argue for manslaughter, not capital murder, here.

Moreover, since the doctor literally and figuratively wields the bloody knife, they’re the Mafia goon here, not the mother.  Finally, if we punish those who actually wield the knife, we have the problem solved inasmuch as it can be.  Going after the mothers does nothing but create a situation with a lot of litigation without much value.

As horrible as this is, morally speaking, I just don’t think that we have much of a choice in the matter; the biggest bang for the buck is to put the doctors out of the business.

Justin, one reason I hesitate to remove responsibility for killing the unborn child away from the mother is that it leaves the woman free to try and kill the child herself.

Pragmatically, that requires a world-wide ban.  And even moreso than things already are, this frees anyone with the requisite $400 for airfare, $400 for the procedure, and $200 for a short hotel stay to travel to any country that allows the procedure.

We already see cancer victims that leave this country to go somewhere else and pay cash for extremely expensive treatments that are not yet FDA approved.  And they justify the cost because they view it as holding their own life in their hands.  They are desperate and are willing to take most any risk.

So you in effect deny the opportunity to have an abortion to the poor (who are having most of the abortions anyway) while allowing the rich to travel to exotic locations (or better yet, the children of middle class parents when the parents support abortion and are willing to pay), and at the same time you end up with a situation where you have to attempt to build evidence against women who self abort so that you can prosecute them.  I just cannot see how you can obtain sufficient evidence of a self induced abortion, and especially with the widespread availability of pharmaceutical abortion pills, figure that this would drive a black market for these pills and that women that are early in the first term would probably not demonstrate signs of being pregnant.

In these cases you would have to establish that a woman was pregnant, that she either purchased a pill or other device and/or medication for pain, and that she induced herself to abort the child as opposed to claiming that the abortion was spontaneous.  The defense lawyers would be able to get almost every single case thrown out so we would have laws that we unenforcible and useless at accomplishing our goals.  Well, at least with first trimester abortions.  Second and third would be easier to prosecute, but our purpose is to prosecute all abortions, not just a selected few or at least the purpose you define is to do that.

Again, the only pragmatic method is to target the doctors with prosecution.  I know it leaves the mothers unpunished and that bothers you, but it avoids all of these issues.

Pragmatically, that requires a world-wide ban.

There I think you’re letting the good be a victim to the perfect. 

We can’t regulate what happens outside of our borders and frankly it’s a waste of time and effort to try.

1% of Americans pay 40% of the income tax.
5% of Americans pay 60% of the income tax.
10% of Americans pay 70% of the income tax.

Actually, regarding the issue of self-abortion, doesn’t that place the knife in the hand of the mother, and then legal culpability lies there as well?

And yes, if you wanted to end ALL abortions, you’d need to to some pretty drastic things.  However, reasonable legislation doesn’t try to do this, but rather tries to address items #1 and #2 on a Pareto chart of problems without causing nasty side effects.  Making the commission of an abortion a crime for the person holding the knife here in the USA (perhaps using Rob’s 5th Amendment argument as justification) certainly qualifies.

How can a human not be a person?

By lacking the characteristics of personhood.

I can only assume that you, by asking that question, are completely ignorant about the debate over personhood. For a primer, check out wikipedia!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person

Or read books. But I don’t want to push you too hard so soon.

Ok, I wanted to do a breakdown on the top two justifications for abortion. Where does the idea that passing through the birth canal or out of the stomach area grants personhood originate? I think its core comes from the legal idea of possession. When the fetus escapes its mother’s body, it is no longer within her possession and can no longer be treated as part of her. The idea of possession here is similar to the Old West where trespassers could be shot by land owners. The idea “Its my body” is the same as saying I have complete sovereignty over my body and all actions I might take towards my possession are permissible. So the fetus has either desired guest status or undesired trespasser status. The women, then, has the right to kill or keep at will. Here is the interesting aspect. Forced pregnancy, and by this, I mean rape or incest is an actual trespass. Even given the fetus is given person status from the beginning, the pregnancy can be viewed as an uninvited and hostile presence. So justifying abortion from this perspective in the case of rape and incest is possible. It is true that the fetus did not rape, but the fetus is a result of the violation. But here is the clincher. Sex is mating. A woman who chooses to mate with a man is a like a person sending out invitation to a party. If someone shows up, does she have the right to shoot them?

From a religious perspective, you can see why some Christians have gaping mouths at liberals condemning God for his earth management skills (they assume his existence in order to critique Him). A woman didn’t make her own body and the materials in it and she didn’t feed and raise herself. But somehow God isn’t allowed to say, “It’s My Earth!”

This is getting pretty long… The second idea deals with experience and brain development. It essentially asserts that until a fetus has gained experience and formed neuron connections it is a blank nothing. From this perspective, it is the data in the mind and the processing of that data that gives the human personhood. The question needs to be asked; how much experience and what kind of experience gives a human there personhood? A newborn baby does not have the developmental ability to process its birth. Is it not yet a person? People from this camp actually have little problem with infantacide because they think (rationally I might add) that the baby is a nonperson. It has no memory (memory according to what?). It has no self-awareness. It 99.9% (in their estimation) blank, empty, human tissue without a thought. Unlike the people who defer to the fetus leaving the mother’s body, people who favor this argument do not have a clear line. In fact, it is so vague that they just draw arbitrary lines. The newborn opened its eyes and took in its first look of the room!!! It has had an “experience”!!! It is now a person!!! This whole perspective is absurd. Anyone who questions the distinction between experiences within the mother and external experiences will quickly be able to justify infanticide and maybe push the boundaries by degrading the value of experiences babies have in their first years.

I wonder if people who use the second criteria ever apply it to themselves? Their brains are so eroded with multiple standards that are often completely conflicted. They are held together by duct tape like one liners they repeat to themselves. Memes run back and forth through their minds like a fast replicating virus as they repeat to themselves, “I know the “truth”. I am a free thinker. I am rational. I do not rely on faith….” They don’t understand the principles of their faith drive their logic through a predetermined rational course. They can without a doubt say that a fetus’ experience is of no value. They can without a doubt support the destruction of them. Their brains are like corrupted hard drives. They don’t realize their experience and programming is worth less than nothing. And yet, they look at a relatively blank hard drive and say, “Destroy it if it suits your purpose.” Can they really blame Christians for believing in a God that looks at their virus infested hard drives and says, “It suits my purpose to destroy you.” This is all part of having double standards. After all, couldn’t God say your experiences and self-awareness are neither real nor aware and, therefore, according to your own standards you are not a person? I bring up God because all of the people who follow this line of thought condemn God as an evil tyrant. It is ironic that they provide him with the very justification needed to condemn them. More importantly, if they are so sure that God cannot determine what is a person and what is not a person, shouldn’t they withhold judging a fetus to be nonperson?  My main point is that both tools used to determine personhood by the pro-abortion crowd are horribly inadequate and that there certainty is more a sign of intellectual sickness than reason.

Dave,

How many aspects of personhood must a newborn possess in order to be considered a person? By the way, your mocking a person for subscribing to a spiritual source of personhood is noted. Maybe when they get smarter like you they will be able to see more in the parts than in the whole.

Dave: If a fetus is not a person, then if I kick a pregnant woman in the gut and she loses the child I should not be able to be charged with murder, after all I am doing nothing more violent than any damnable abortionist would do, and since a fetus is not a person, being a lump of tissue, a non-person, it cannot be murdered, right? Same thing if a pregnant woman falls down in my store because the carpet was loose and she tripped, I cannot be held liable for the death of a non-person, a thing, can I?

Either a fetus is a person all the time or not a person any of the time, it cannot be a person when convenient and a lump of tissue not unlike a benign tumor when it is not convenient for it to be a person. Now what is a fetus, a lump of tissue, a non-person or a person?

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

Neiman,

You should read my post above. The reason a fetus is considred a person when it is killed sometimes and not other is due to its status with the mother. If it is wanted, the mother who is in possession of it gives it personhood by acknowledging it. If it is unwanted, it is considered worthless by the mother rejecting it. Since it lies within the domain she controls completely, she has the right to define the action done to her supreme possession or her person. The mother from this form of rational justification is the one who decides whether the fetus is a person or not. No one else can make that decision. Sick logic? I think so. Inconsistant? Not at all. The crowd who favors the “attributes” of a person arguments get very angry when a mother grants personhood to her wanted fetus. Dave, for instance, would most likely get upset when a man who kills a mother and her wanted a fetus gets charged with a double homocide.

Again, I don’t think that we even need to engage in the moral implications of murder or personhood or anything else in order to effectively ban the procedure.

We pass it back to the states and say that the Federal Government by way of the 10th Amendment has no say in the matter.  We state that the regulation of medical procedures within their own borders is the sole province of the state legislatures.  And we state that abortion is no different from a regulatory perspective than breast implants or botox.  Prohibit it or allow it based on your own state voters.

But I certainly like Rob’s idea that instead of applying the right to privacy that basically says all first term abortions should be allowed via this made up right that the justices concocted to justify the Roe decision, we instead say that in addition to the states regulating their own medical procedures, the due process clause applies.  But again, due process applies only to government actually committing the act:

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

My interpretation is that the only way this would be applicable is if the government mandated that certain women are forced to have abortions or if the government funds abortions.  This clause does not trump the states regulatory rights to pass laws to allow medical procedures.  And further, one might argue that the law simply requires that a procedure be established to have a judge stamp every abortion with his seal of approval saying “Yep, due process was served” and to set up some kangaroo abortion court where fathers and pro-lifers and parents could go and have their concerns heard before a judge and the judge would issue a ruling allowing or disallowing the abortion.  Then we would have judge shopping and a whole new due process system to provide for Rob’s idea.

Am I wrong?  The 5th says they can be deprived of life so long as there is due process.  So short of John Edwards channelling their thoughts, their inability to defend themselves means perhaps we appoint a proxy, but again, due process means that they can actually be aborted so long as we provide a procedure to allow it.

DBdowner:

The reason a fetus is considred a person when it is killed sometimes and not other is due to its status with the mother. If it is wanted, the mother who is in possession of it gives it personhood by acknowledging it. If it is unwanted, it is considered worthless by the mother rejecting it. Since it lies within the domain she controls completely, she has the right to define the action done to her supreme possession or her person.

What gives the mother that right? Is it the state? If so, when was a law passed that defines personhood as being the sole discretion of the pregnant woman? We know it is not a God given right, not by any religion! Maybe it was the Neo-Nazi femist movement, if so, what gives them that right?

Sorry, but I neither recognize that personhood is to be decided by a pregnant woman or that abortion is anything less than first degree, cold-blooded murder!

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

Justin,

Due process for what purpose? Due process refers to taking proper care when enforcing the law and depriving someone of their freedom, etc due to something he or she did or because of some serious threat they pose. What did the fetus do? Bother its mom?

The moral arguments matter simply because abortion is a huge convenience. You don’t have to fill out adoption paperwork, avoid alcohol, abstain from drugs, abstain from risky sex, carry around a big belly, pay for doctor visits, get stretch marks, spend time preparing for delivery, dieting to get rid of weight gain, endure symptoms of pregnancy, buy baby stuff, etc. It is just so much easier to take a few hours out of your day and just kill it. Without moral justification, there is no way such a huge service to the important aspects of human life could be torn away.

Neiman:

If a fetus is not a person, then if I kick a pregnant woman in the gut and she loses the child I should not be able to be charged with murder, after all I am doing nothing more violent than any damnable abortionist would do, and since a fetus is not a person, being a lump of tissue, a non-person, it cannot be murdered, right?

Neiman: If you killed my dog, I would press charges. This does not make my dog a person.

Now what is a fetus, a lump of tissue, a non-person or a person?

A non-person. If the people who created this non-person wish to keep it, the law should protect them, in much the same way the law protects people who own pets, houses, and other things. However, if the people who created this non-person have no desire to allow it to enter personhood, they should be allowed to end its life painlessly, via abortion (before it exits the womb) or euthanasia (after it has exited the womb). Such an act has no negative consequences, as it provides equal consideration for all relevant interests.

Neiman,

I was describing what justification of personhood our legal system defaults to most of the time. My undeveloped mind believes in spirit and that the spirit is imparted to the unique life at conception. Dave and his kind of thinker have yet to gain control over the justice systems definition of person.

Due process for what purpose? Due process refers to taking proper care when enforcing the law and depriving someone of their freedom, etc due to something he or she did or because of some serious threat they pose. What did the fetus do? Bother its mom?

Due process is only when the government does it.  Unless it is criminalized or prohibited, private citizens are not required to provide due process to others.  The only reason I can’t deprive someone of property without due process is because we made it illegal, but the government’s prohibition on the government doing is not a justification in and of itself to pass laws prohibiting private parties of doing it.

Rob is trying to say that due process means that the government should be mandated at some level to pass laws on the penalties for depriving a fetus of life despite this is something that the government has the ability to completely distance themselves from.  Short of funding the abortion or running government clinics, as soon as the government is not involved in the transaction, the procedure is no long subject to the due process clause at least as far as my understanding.

Dave,

Thanks for not answering my question.

“A non-person. If the people who created this non-person wish to keep it, the law should protect them, in much the same way the law protects people who own pets, houses, and other things. “

Last time I checked, burning down a house, killing a pet, or breaking someones stuff never results in murder charges unless someone is murdered. Your idea that is it legal protection of nonperson possessions breaksdown at this point. The people are prosecuted for killing a person not a thing. The mother’s desire (not the father’s) makes the fetus a person. By wanting it, it is elevated to the status of person to everyone but the mother (she retains her authority over it).

“However, if the people who created this non-person have no desire to allow it to enter personhood, they should be allowed to end its life painlessly, via abortion (before it exits the womb) or euthanasia (after it has exited the womb). “

I’d like to thank Dave for being logically consistant with his belief attributes of personhood is what makes a person. He rightly states that it is justifiable to kill a newborn given its lack of these attributes and that there is no cost to society. Of course, killing Dave would be a net gain to society but that doesn’t mean it is OK. Now if only Dave would share how many attributes of personhood a human must gain before Dave can kill it at the request of its owners.

DB:  Your points are interesting but it seems to me that the question of whether or not a baby in the womb has or does not have rights separate from the mother is in the purview of the state legislatures. 

There are some considerations each way, many of which you’ve discussed.  I know where I stand but I should advance my views through the political process.

1% of Americans pay 40% of the income tax.
5% of Americans pay 60% of the income tax.
10% of Americans pay 70% of the income tax.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendV_due_processs13.html

Hamilton described what “due process” means:

It is there declared that, no man shall be disfranchised or deprived of any right, but by due process of law, or the judgment of his peers. The words “due process” have a precise technical import, and are only applicable to the process and proceedings of the courts of justice; they can never be referred to an act of legislature.

The 5th was not sufficient to ban slavery, therefore, the 13th was necessary.  The 14th clarified what the 5th meant and was also necessary as part of the ending of slavery.  So let me post the 14th:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Pretty clear that the definition of person and citizen in a Constitutional context applies only to the “born”.

I don’t disagree with your premise, simply believe that in order to codify that in the Constitution, it needs amended.  You are reaching in trying to use either the 5th or the 14th to ban abortion because the interpretation should be very clear—a person or citizen is “born”.  One would assume based on the 14th that the unborn are not actually citizens because that is the definition used in the Constitution, but in Rob’s mind would be “persons”.  So a fetus whose parents are citizens or even not citizens suddenly only becomes a citizen at birth but a person at conception?

Explain the contradiction.  And then do it in a way that takes more validity and makes more sense than the clearly worded text of the 14th Amendment.  Give me an argument that trumps the 14th’s definition of a citizen by extension a “person”.

Justin,

Got ya. Sorry I misread.

BTW, it’s enjoyable to have a constructive debate rather than a flamefest.

Thanks.

1% of Americans pay 40% of the income tax.
5% of Americans pay 60% of the income tax.
10% of Americans pay 70% of the income tax.

Dave:

If you killed my dog, I would press charges. This does not make my dog a person.

That is the single most asinine arguement I have ever read!

I couldn’t be charged with murder for killing your dog! The fact is either by a deliberate act or an accident if the fetus is killed the courts define that fetus as a human being; but if an abortionist kills it, then it is not a human being and that is a wholly untenable position.

if the people who created this non-person have no desire to allow it to enter personhood, they should be allowed to end its life painlessly,

Who made that law? Who said the pregnant woman has the right to decide whether or not her fetus can enter personhood? You? How do you enter personhood? You either are or are not a person, you are a person at the moment of conception and no one can change that simple fact!

I find it fascinating and quite telling that you keep comparing a fetus to a dog or cat, a lower order of animal, thus dehumanizing the fetus entirely. So, I go back to my original point, a fetus is either a human being all the time, absent anyones consent, or as you assert it is an animal all the time and cannot be granted personhood. It cannot be both!

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

Whistler,

I agree. Property rights in the US used to allow for killing of trespassers at one point. Since then, if someone walks on your lawn you can’t shoot them. I used the analogy of inviting guests over and then killing them for trespassing. I too believe the government should remove some of the woman’s authority in relation to the fetus by giving the fetus rights seperate from the mother’s preference. I am heart broken by the shallow people who screw each other and then shred and burn the only life that came from their selfish union. When I lost my 10 week old fetus(baby) I cried with my wife and was grieved. I can’t imagine what being so souless, as to will for its death, would be like.

Neiman,

Dave is toying with you. Don’t waste your typing. Dave doesn’t care about the fact you believe I fetus has a spirit. Dave knows that the brain activity in a fetus is not contemplating its self-creation. He also knows that the fetus has no measurable value to society (economists would disagree). So Dave knows that killing it with or without a soul/spirit is perfectly cool. Notice he answered you right away. He answered you because he wanted to demonstate his superior intellect and ability to “reason”. If I were Dave, I would trade my trash intelligence for your wisdom in a heart beat. But then again wanting to make such a trade requires wisdom.

Let the record note that Dave felt my question was to pathetic to answer.

DBdowner: Advice accepted!

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

When I lost my 10 week old fetus(baby) I cried with my wife and was grieved. I can’t imagine what being so souless, as to will for its death, would be like.

It is ironic that the beauty of creating a life that springs forth from a loving union is a quickly discardable as the very idea of love of that magnitude that we feel over our children in the first place.  The value of love and the role that it plays in a relationship is lost on the left that believes in and pleasure as the only reason for having sex.  The results of sex should be as narrowly defined as the couple minutes spent achieving orgasm and sex should be meaningless except for that purpose.  And when one is burdened with the unwanted consequences of an act that should contain more meaning than getting one’s rocks off, that consequence should be as quickly discarded as possible.

My kids mean something to me.  My wife and my child that was lost due to miscarriage meant something to us.  And the fact that my wife is now barren because of a D&C done post-birth due to complications of retained placenta means something to me.  A D&C (medical term for an abortion or any act of scraping the uterus) has real consequences.  It prevents my wife and I of bringing more children into this world for us to love and enjoy.

And viscerally, the thought of someone throwing away something as useless trash that my wife I an I can never have again is about as vile of an act as going down to the nursery in the hospital and jabbing a fork into the skull of an hour old baby in an incubator. 

But laws are not made based on my visceral reactions.  Hate Crime laws were justified based on emotional responses to crimes like gay bashing in Wyoming or dragging folks behind vehicles in Texas.  And gut responses tend to make for bad laws.  So the point is not how we satisfy our own personal (and by extension some within our society’s) desire to demonstrate how evil Roe and the murder of millions of babies was.  The point is how we stop this practice permanently moving forward.  And targeting mothers makes little sense in this context.  Poor mothers are infinitely more sympathetic as human beings than abortion doctors who do not deserve the distinction of being classified as human.

The Dave’s of the world support abortion as a “right” and use the “right of privacy” and the SCOTUS to implement their “right” via the hand of the Federal government.  Dave’s idea of a right is suspect, but let’s go back to the Constitution and let’s review—

The Constitution’s definition of a citizen and by extension a person is one that is “born”.  The Constitution does not deal with abortion explicitly.  Therefore, it makes little sense to apply a document that does not specifically outline how abortion plays into things.  If we amend said document, then it leaves no interpretation to judgment.  Short of that, we apply the 10th Amendment back and realize that this is the job of the states.  Find another justification for overturning Roe and I am all ears.  But there is no other legal justification.  Rob’s 5th and 14th just don’t hold water.  The 10th does.

BTW, we have 3 beautiful kids, so it ain’t like life is bad.  I would love to have one more or at very least have that available to us.  Maybe as a midlife crisis baby when our oldest starts college.  =)

But some 18 year old girl is throwing what could be our potential child or at very least its equivalent away in a dumpster behind planned parenthood because her one-time boyfriend or some one night stand decided it was too inconvenient to go to the drug store and by a condom.  And now he is dating someone else or claims the baby isn’t his, so she is gonna just throw it away so that she isn’t burdened in the future by having to deal with a kid that will get in the way of her going out clubbing on Saturday nights.

It is amazing that in Dave’s eyes my kids were as meaningless until they passed through the birth canal as the Sunday newspaper once you go through all the ads and Monday rolls around.  Toss the fucking thing out or maybe recycle it as stem cells if you really want to feel good about yourself.  Little bastards are as disposable as a cheap camera until you develop the pictures.

The process of being relocated to outside of the mother’s body as the defining charateristic of personhood is part of the possession argument. It is not surprising that this terminology was used. Because the fetus goes from being completely dependant on the mother to being largely dependant on the mother.

This formulation is archaic. I would support for it being changed. The difference between a late term fetus and a newborn is so small it clearly demonstrates how this line of reasoning is not reasobable when viewed apart from dogmatism based on fetal location. If someday people are grown in a container, would those humans never attain personhood because they were never born?

Justin said,

“It is amazing that in Dave’s eyes my kids were as meaningless until they passed through the birth canal as the Sunday newspaper once you go through all the ads and Monday rolls around.”

Dave said,

“However, if the people who created this non-person have no desire to allow it to enter personhood, they should be allowed to end its life painlessly, via abortion (before it exits the womb) or euthanasia (after it has exited the womb).”

Justin,

I think you have too high of an opinion of Dave. It appears surviving birth isn’t enough to justify not allowing for the killing of it for Dave. Dave does not buy the birth makes a person argument. He wants the baby to develop its personhood before he says the owners cannot kill it.

My mother having one baby girl in the early 1920’s traveled by train with my grandmother from Kansas to California, on the way my mother miscarried twins and at a long stop along the way, she and my grandmother buried those babies alongside the tracks, and they came on to California, they had no choice. Here she lost two more children as when they were very young. All her life she lived in incredible emotional pain and suffered a sense of great loss of 4 of her dearly loved children, even though 6 more of us survived. Even the twins, never named, were her children and she would never have considered they were not persons even though they never drew a breath in this world and I believe that for the past 10+ years she and those four children, plus two of my siblings now having passed away, have been together as persons.

My son is with them now, has been since March 18, 2005; and I am selfish enough to wish he was still here with me, a real person. I can convince no one of my beliefs, but I cannot understand how anyone can look at a fetus in a mothers womb and deny it is a real human being, a person of value and that anyone terminating that life is guilty of murdering a human being. I just can never understand such people.

In keeping silent about evil, in burying it deep within us, so that it appears nowhere on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousandfold in the future.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The Gulag Archipelago

Neiman,

What you have is love. You behold someone and you love them despite their place and lowly stature. People like Dave have passionate preference at best. Their love is a logical construct of self-servitude. These loveless people are the real source of evil in the world. Not Christians and religious folk as Dave and his kind would like us to believe. Fall outside their paradiagm of self-establishment and they will grind you up and dump your remains somewhere in the name of the motherland, god, idealism, truth, rationalism, or whatever else works.