When does "life" begin?

[Ender]

Although the summation of your post seemed to be pro-choice, I take issue with the above comments - actually many of your points about choice.

In general, I'd like to say that your points are indicative of educated, sexually aware and repeatedly active females and do not account for the MANY abortions sought after by under-age, inexperienced and uneducated girls. And as for your insulting comment on rape and incest, perhaps you need to research some data on just how few rapes and incest are actually even reported, and the small percentage that are successfully prosecuted.

The arguments you posted are idealistic at best.

Actually I did do the research for a college paper. I was taking the stance of Pro-Choice, but the data didn't bear out the position. The whole "poor minority woman" scenerio is pretty much a myth. As well as the "Rape/Incest" cases, these cases accounted for one in every ten thousand abortions. The typical profile of a person seeking an abortion is:

White, middle class, ages 17-27, 1 or no kids, unattached. in school or some sort (high school or college)

Reason for an abortion: inconvienient at this time

Those were the facts. Now granted, these stats are now over 10 years old, but I'm sure an honest data-filled research would find about the same thing. And I now stand with the position that the federal government should not be involved in abortions. It should be a states rights issue.

 

[rmcrobertson]

1. Could you give the sources for these facts, please?

2. Could you explain why you apparently consider a well-educated, well-off section of our population incapable of reasonable moral choice?

3. You do know that the, "State's rights," claim has, a) a long, ugly history; b) remains a smoke screen for making abortion illegal? But perhaps you could explain why you consider a state government better-qualified to pry into women's private lives than the Feds?

 

[shesulsa]

Actually I did do the research for a college paper. I was taking the stance of Pro-Choice, but the data didn't bear out the position. The whole "poor minority woman" scenerio is pretty much a myth. As well as the "Rape/Incest" cases, these cases accounted for one in every ten thousand abortions. The typical profile of a person seeking an abortion is:

White, middle class, ages 17-27, 1 or no kids, unattached. in school or some sort (high school or college)

Reason for an abortion: inconvienient at this time

Those were the facts. Now granted, these stats are now over 10 years old, but I'm sure an honest data-filled research would find about the same thing. And I now stand with the position that the federal government should not be involved in abortions. It should be a states rights issue.

For one, I don't think anyone here has presented a "poor minority woman" scenario, though am intrigued by the rape/incest case figure and your assertion that an honest data-filled research would find the same thing. I know of few women who have not lied on their application for the procedure. And again - since most rapes and incest do not get reported in any fashion the statistics for those are moot and inapplicable.

 

[Tgace]

My biggest concern on this subject is that if we are not really careful with our parameters and limits, that this can lead us into complete moral subjectivism in which we are prone to justify as ethical whatever it is we want to do. The whole "who are you to make my moral decision" argument. Cant that be applied to any topic? You can decide to do whatever you want, that doesn't automatically make it right, justified or above the law....its a big, important issue with many shades of acceptance/unacceptance. Moral/Ethical/Lawful its a complicated thing...

 

[rmcrobertson]

Would this moral subjectivism in any way resemble the Bush government's cavalier assertion that the treaties we've signed, the international accords to which we are signatory, and our own Constitution's strictures concerning illegal arrest and physical abuse, can simply be ignored because they're inconvenient for us?

 

[Tgace]

Wanna keep it on topic..for once.

 

[raedyn]

My biggest concern on this subject is that if we are not really careful with our parameters and limits, that this can lead us into complete moral subjectivism in which we are prone to justify as ethical whatever it is we want to do. The whole "who are you to make my moral decision" argument. Cant that be applied to any topic? You can decide to do whatever you want, that doesn't automatically make it right, justified or above the law....its a big, important issue with many shades of acceptance/unacceptance. Moral/Ethical/Lawful its a complicated thing...

So, you're worried about starting down a slippery slope? Is that correct?

You are right, it is complicated. But pro-choice people such as myself aren't advocating for anybody to be able to do anything they want. I am (and others like me are) advocating for people's right to make informed choices about medical issues affecting their own health - like, for example, if a woman would continue with a pregnancy.

 

[Tgace]

And the health of their "fetuses"....the issue of the separateness of the "other involved party" either is ignored or dealt with as a "we dont know". Thats what the issue revolves around IMO. Its either another life and "moral" issues abound. Or its not..the debate goes on and I guess will depending on where the majority of the populace lands.

 

[raedyn]

the debate goes on and I guess will depending on where the majority of the populace lands.

Actually, in both your country and mine, our highest courts have determined it is a basic civil right for a woman to make the determination for herself. I don't know how it works in the US, but in Canada, sometimes the will of the majority must be over-ruled to protect the rights of the minority.

 

[Tgace]

Actually, in both your country and mine, our highest courts have determined it is a basic civil right for a woman to make the determination for herself. I don't know how it works in the US, but in Canada, sometimes the will of the majority must be over-ruled to protect the rights of the minority.

Not to put too crass a point on it but (sorry but its the easiest way to express the following point)...like the lives of children who have no voice?

 

[rmcrobertson]

When one raises the larger issues--

"My biggest concern on this subject is that if we are not really careful with our parameters and limits, that this can lead us into complete moral subjectivism in which we are prone to justify as ethical whatever it is we want to do. The whole "who are you to make my moral decision" argument. Cant that be applied to any topic? You can decide to do whatever you want, that doesn't automatically make it right, justified or above the law---it's a big, important issue..."


--one really shouldn't be overly surprised if others discuss them.

Here, it looks to me as though the argument boils down to saying that men have responsibilities that go beyond clear moral choices because of their Big Responsibilities, but women have no right to exercise situational ethics even when it comes to their own bodies...

 

[Tgace]

If men are disqualified from the abortion issue, they should be disqualified on both sides.

 

[Tgace]

I also believe that it was a predominately male supreme court that ruled on Roe v. Wade hmmmm?

 

[arnisador]

So, you're worried about starting down a slippery slope?

This whole thing is a slippery slope. There's no final answer to be reached--just better udnerstanding for both sides.

When does life begin? It's not a scientific question. There's no right answer.

 

[arnisador]

If men are disqualified from the abortion issue, they should be disqualified on both sides.

I see the fairness argument here, and I have some sympathy for it--that a father who wanted to abort should be exempt from child support. But, the ramifications of that are very expensive for society.