pro-life or pro-choice?

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by BoutyPunkrAurra, Oct 31, 2001.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Frank Slade Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jul 14, 1998
    star 2
    FoN,

    No reason to cloud the issue - if the life of the pregnant mother is at risk, the baby could be 9 months along, and aborting the child is absolutely defensible. You can call that a concession if you like, but those situations were never under discussion. What if there is no risk to the life of the mother? Either take a crack at the argument or attack one of its premises.

    NB,

    I didn't realize we were talking about 12 weeks or not 12 weeks. I'm happy to discuss that, but what we my post was concerned about was the standard currently existing in this country under the law. The Supreme Court ruling on the matter was brought up by someone else, not me, as the basis for a pro-choice argument. Do you want to address my concerns about that or move on without doing so? So it's only 1% of abortions - what percentage does it take to make it worth addressing, if my argument has merit? If my argument doesn't have merit, then the percentage doesn't matter at all, but the fact that we're only talking about a small number of cases shouldn't have any bearing on the soundness of the law.

    I'm tryin', people. I spent the first 12 posts here asking questions, to understand how people felt about this. Now I have a follow-up. Please answer it.


  2. No blasters! Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Feb 14, 2000
    star 4
    Moving along to this point, addressed to TPM:

    "1) that the fetus is entirely biologically dependent upon one single person (the mother), or

    2) the proximity of the two creatures (meaning one lives inside the other)?

    Don't say both - it's one or the other."


    Why is it one or the other? I see nothing in one that contradicts the other.

    Clearly both are true. One supports the other. The fetus *is* entirely dependent upon just one person on the entire planet. This is obviously because "one lives inside the other". These two statements support each other.


  3. No blasters! Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Feb 14, 2000
    star 4
    "So it's only 1% of abortions - what percentage does it take to make it worth addressing, if my argument has merit?"

    Gotta go for now. I'll be back.
  4. Frank Slade Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jul 14, 1998
    star 2
    NB, they're two different statements. One encompasses the other, but they're not saying the same thing. It's absolutely within the realm of debate for a child to be completely biologically dependent upon specifically its own mother even after it's born. The specifics of this are not under discussion - I could provide examples but they've already distracted from the discussion. All I want to know if if the privacy right of the mother under TPM's argument is specific to the second condition - the fetus living inside the mother, or encompasses all biological dependencies as long as they're specific to an individual person - the mother of the child.

    Unless I'm mistaken, however, you've previously stated, contrary to TPM, that the mother's privacy is secondary to the fetus' viability, hence the whole Supreme Court/7 months/12 weeks discussion we've been having. Did I get that wrong?

  5. No blasters! Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Feb 14, 2000
    star 4
    I am merely pointing out that TPM's statements are not contrary to each other.

    1. The fetus is entirely physically dependent upon just one person on the entire planet, the mother. (See statement number two.) Babies, on the other hand, can be cared for by anybody.

    2. The fetus *is* a part of her body. It is, by it's very condition, a part of her. (See statement number one.) Two entities sharing one body cannot have equal "rights". One will automatically have greater autonomy over the other.

    They do not contradict each other.

    TPM was not referring to infants who are born and are thus cared for by anyone.

    As to your other point, I will return to that shortly.

    PS. "you've previously stated, contrary to TPM, that the mother's privacy is secondary to the fetus' viability, hence the whole Supreme Court/7 months/12 weeks discussion we've been having. Did I get that wrong?"

    I've never used the argument "mother's privacy". "Privacy" is not the word I would ever use, though it's bandied about to refer to a host of rights and issues.

    No, my statements have not been contrary to TPM's. We both support abortion rights for a variety of reasons. I merely stated that I support a cutoff date since clearly at some point in the pregnancy a fetus is capable of surviving outside the womb. I suspect TPM supports the same thing. He stated that he finds abortion before and after 7 months acceptable. I do, too, so long as the abortion after 7 months of pregnancy is in the interests of the mother's health. Her health and well being is tantamount to me. I do not care if the fetus is viable or not if an abortion is necessary to save a woman's life. She clearly *is* a person and it is therefore a greater imperative to save her life if it means losing the other.
  6. Frank Slade Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jul 14, 1998
    star 2
    Ok, this is getting silly. The two statements are not the same thing, even though they do not contradict each other. I'm not saying they contradict each other. I'm saying that an argument in favor of abortion privileges has to rely on one or the other, and I want to know which one the argument relies on. The statements do not mean the same thing. If 2 is true, 1 is necessarily true. If 1 is true, however, 2 is not necessarily true. So I'm asking TPM which statement must be true to make an abortion acceptable.

    And no one has ever said that the fetus is physically a part of the mother's body - it's not. It's separate yet dependent. The mother doesn't control its senses or its movements regardless of proximity. They don't share the same body either - it's two bodies in proximity to one another - it's very easy to see where the mother ends and the fetus begins. But if you think they're the same person right up until the baby is born, why didn't you say that ahead of time so we could discuss that instead of all this other stuff? Because in that case the 7-month thing is absolutely irrelevant. Abortion is fine right up until birth, since before then they're the same body. My problem lies in the fact that that's not what you said. You said it was dependent upon viability.

    You and TPM have indicated different standards - I'll dig up the posts if you want. TPM said abortions post and pre seven months are acceptable based on the mother's right to privacy. You said abortions post seven months were not acceptable based on the fetus' viability as defined by the Supreme Court. Forget the health of the mother - we all agree about that. If she's in danger the whole discussion goes out the window and her rights win out. Adding that condition to TPM's viewpoint doesn't make it the same as yours unless TPM also agrees that an abortion after 7 months is unacceptable if the mother is not at risk. Chime in TPM, but that's not what you originally said, which is why I had one question for you and another for NB.

    We're gaining no new ground here.
  7. Force of Nature Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Nov 12, 1999
    star 3
    FS: "No reason to cloud the issue"

    Not my intention; I was trying to answer your question.

    "- if the life of the pregnant mother is at risk, the baby could be 9 months along, and aborting the child is absolutely defensible. You can call that a concession if you like, but those situations were never under discussion."

    At least we seem to agree that, when push comes to shove, the foetus and the mother do not have equal rights. (I'm not suggesting, btw, that you ever said or even implied otherwise; I'd received the impression - quite possibly mistaken - from some posts by other people along the way that that could be an issue.)

    "What if there is no risk to the life of the mother?"

    In the UK, there are two other exceptions to the 24 week rule:

    '? that the termination is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman'

    I view this in the same way I view risk to her life.

    '? that there is substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.'

    Now, this really is going to cloud the issue, isn't it? Here we have a decision being taken to act in the interests of an individual who can have absolutely no say in the matter. Hardly surprisingly, members of the medical profession are increasingly unhappy at being expected to play god in determining what abnormalities are sufficiently serious to warrant termination. Of course, even if they decide in any given instance that abortion would be preferable, the mother retains the right of veto; they cannot perform any procedure involving her body without her consent. Perhaps that case is not so different after all.

    "Either take a crack at the argument or attack one of its premises."

    And your argument was that "if viability is a test, uncertainty about that viability is potentially dangerous". That doesn't apply in any of the instances I've quoted from the Abortion Act. Indeed, that's the reason they're exceptions to the 24 week rule; it is assumed that, if born alive, the child could be kept alive (although that might not be so in the case of foetal abnormality). Foetal viability, in UK law at least, tends somewhat to restrict the mother's right to an abortion.

    However, I just, belatedly, re-read an earlier post of yours:

    "I'm assuming where we are now is agreeing that a viable fetus, one that could live outside the womb, would be entitled to full Constitutional rights, as a citizen of this country."

    OK, you've got me there. If that's what your Constitution says, then I suppose there are some grounds for your concern about uncertainty with regard to viability. It seems to me a very impractical arrangement but it's none of my business. From a British point of view, such an assumption would be invalid; a child does not become a citizen until it's born alive.
  8. TPMrules23 Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Apr 10, 2000
    star 5
    Slade,
    Well, it is both. They both essentially mean the same thing. The circumstances make it so the privacy rights of the mother come first without a doubt.
  9. Frank Slade Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jul 14, 1998
    star 2
    FoN,

    Allow me to clarify - the Constitution doesn't actually say that. It's only a Court decision that Constitutional rights are afforded once a certain time of pregnancy has expired.

    I'm happy to deal only with issues of healthy babies and healthy mothers. If we could agree on that, or at least understand where each other are coming from, then terrific, but I suspect that in those exception cases we wouldn't disagree all that much.
  10. Frank Slade Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jul 14, 1998
    star 2
    TPM, what's both, and what circumstances? You're reaffirming that the mother's privacy rights come first regardless of fetal viability?
  11. TPMrules23 Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Apr 10, 2000
    star 5
    Yes. That's what I am saying.
  12. No blasters! Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Feb 14, 2000
    star 4
    FS, you seem to imply that there is one overriding reason to approve of legal abortion and one may take a linear path to reach that conclusion. Such complex matters are never that simple.

    Furthermore, if you wish to re-post my statements, feel free, just make sure they remain in context. I did not say that abortion past 7 months is unacceptable period. I said that it is unacceptable unless extenuating circumstances exist. Do you wish me to name any and all possible exceptions?

    Finally, the fact that TPM and I approach the same end from different directions does not necessarily invalidate one point or another.

    More later. (And I will address your earlier point, I promise.)
  13. Frank Slade Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jul 14, 1998
    star 2
    1) I'm not implying that there's only one reason, I'm implying that I can only discuss one at a time. I'm not trying to make a complex issue more simple, but you have a position, and TPM has a position. They are different positions. Read TPM's latest post and tell me I'm wrong. I'm simply trying to discuss the positions one at a time without confusing them.

    2) I'm not discussing the cases in which extenuating circumstances apply - I'm quite certain we don't disagree in those cases, so you need not post the exceptions. Very specifically, I'm interested in why you said 7 months makes it unacceptable as a general principle, hence my analogy about imperfect decision making processes and their consequences. It is about this point and this point alone that I anxiously await your opinion.

    3) Finally, I'm not trying to invalidate anyone's point. You may both be right. But you're not arguing the same case. One argument is concerned with the right to privacy above all else, another is concerned with the right to privacy except in cases of fetal viability. A more skillful debater could perhaps discuss them both at once, but I am not he. Please indulge me, as I'm doing my best to understand both of your opinions.

    And TPM (although I can't believe I'm asking this again), please answer the following question - is the mother's right to privacy supreme because of the fetus's absolute biological dependence on the mother, or because of the fetus's proximity within the mother's body? It is absolutely, definitively, without question, not both. You have to choose a premise for your argument so we can continue this discussion, otherwise we have nowhere to go.
  14. TPMrules23 Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Apr 10, 2000
    star 5
    Slade,
    "is the mother's right to privacy supreme because of the fetus's absolute biological dependence on the mother, or because of the fetus's proximity within the mother's body? It is absolutely, definitively, without question, not both."
    Both.



    What I mean is, it doesn't matter what the damn circumstances are, the baby is inside of her. Everything else is irrelevant. Those other two things you keep focusing on are just ways of restating that its inside of her and under her right to control.
  15. Cailina Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 18, 1999
    star 4
    TPM- he means that with the first statement it is not neccessary to be inside the mother, ie with that argument any child who for one reason or another is solely biologically dependent on the mother, could be killed.

    Basically your saying that your reason is because of the second statement.
  16. AnakinsGirl Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 2, 2001
    star 4
    have we all been blinded by the law???? we are acting like just because it is a law we should just let it go and forget about it. are we really like sheep? are we just going to roll over and play dead? screw the american legal system. i dont care about it. basically i beleive abortion is WRONG no matter what and that the law is a feeble excuse to make it ok for us to give in to lies and give up our responsibilities. no law is ever going to change my mind, and i am shocked and appaled that some people basically think that since its a law we should let it go. just because its a part of our stupid and sensless legal system, doesnt mean it's right!




    can you tell im in a bad mood???
  17. Cailina Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 18, 1999
    star 4
    Anakinsgirl- If you want to try to get a constitutional amednment past banning abortions than fine, go ahead. I don't think it constitutional to ban them and we're not just "rolling over and playing dead" we are sticking by what we believe in.

    And you can't legislate morality. If we made laws based on what I think is "right" or "wrong" than we'd all be vegetarians.
  18. AnakinsGirl Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 2, 2001
    star 4
    true.
    but why use "its the law" as an excuse? i think it is an extremely weak point.
  19. TPMrules23 Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Apr 10, 2000
    star 5
    I don't believe abortion is wrong. I believe its a right. I don't see the logic in it being wrong.
  20. No blasters! Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Feb 14, 2000
    star 4
    AG, I believe it is just and right, too. Whether is was legal (like it was for centuries) or illegal (as it was for decades), I would still feel the same way.

    Answer to Frank's question forthcoming, but it will be a long post...
  21. Frank Slade Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jul 14, 1998
    star 2
    Anakin's Girl, I don't think anyone's using it's the law as an excuse, they're just trying to explain why they think they law is a good one.

    TPM, since I appear to have frustrated you, I'm backing off - you win. Thanks Calina for clarifying the point, but I give up, life's too short for this nonsense. I think I get where TPM's coming from anyway, although he (she? sorry I don't know) doesn't appear to be interested in considering anyone else's opinions seriously.

    NB, thanks for taking the time on this - I really am looking forward to continuing this discussion.
  22. TPMrules23 Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Apr 10, 2000
    star 5
    "TPM, since I appear to have frustrated you, I'm backing off - you win."
    You haven't frustrated me, I just feel like you don't understand what I was trying to say.
  23. Frank Slade Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jul 14, 1998
    star 2
  24. No blasters! Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Feb 14, 2000
    star 4
  25. Darth_Digital Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 29, 2001
    star 4
    Depends who got mother nature pregnant.

    God, or Satan?

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.