So you think the US is in a moral downfall....

Slavery was legal.

 

Some good points just raised...

1. Abortion should be legal until we know for sure if the fetus is truly alive. By that logic, it is okay to execute an accused criminal even if we're not sure (s)he's guilty or not.

2. Since when do we ignore justice in favor of existing laws?

 

JediFlyer, you're taking everything I say ridiculously out of context. I said "Law deals only with science that has been introduced as evidence in a court of law". Please don't misquote me again.

You need to re-read my post about the definition of life in each state. Fetuses don't breathe, so they're not legally alive in most states. End of story.

Palpazzar, you said: "What happens to a society were 'law' becomes more important than justice?"

I thought the law WAS more important than justice in the US. Frankly, this is one of the problems I've always had with the US legal system. But I can admit I don't have a better one to suggest off hand. Unfortunately the law can't always be just, because it has to rely on precedence and consistency, not justice.

Fierce, we can discuss abortion on a moral/ethical level if you like. I'm not sure I have much to contribute - I find it immoral under most circumstances, but that's due to a personal bias, not something I can rationally explain.

 

I agree, we are a legalistic society and not a just one.

 

And I think that's because justice is open to interpretation, which can be dangerous (it's "just" to beat slaves in the context of believing they're not people, to borrow from JediFlyer's example). But the law is... well, blast it, it's still open to interpretation, but there are more obvious checks and balances, despite the fact people often sing and dance their way around them.

 

When I talk about justice over the law, I'm talking about the type of justice that was granted to the slaves, even though the law at the time allowed slavery. Just because something is law doesn't mean it's automatically just and shouldn't be questioned. If that were true, abortion might still be illegal.

Come on now. Everyone is taking everyone else's arguments out of context.

EDIT: To clarify, my take on this was that people were saying abortion is ethical because it's legal. That's were my argument came from. I've tried to trace this argument back to see where it got off base, and it gave me a headache.

 

Never mind, accidentally posting under my roommate's ID. Gergh!

 

I'm out of it for a little while and....

Wow!! 17 pages!! I need to check this board more often!!! I came back and had 5 new pages to read! lol

Three points... 1) where has the feminist movement hurt someone else by "protecting" the rights of women?
Well, a man carries the responsibility of fatherhood, yet has no right to choose that fatherhood. In fact, a woman legally chooses whether he will be a father or not.
No one thinks twice about saying a man "should keep it in his pants", yet suggest a woman should keep her legs together and people start screaming "repression." A bit hypocritical, aren't we??

2) There must be a different definition of life than independant breathing, otherwise you could freely rape a person on a resparating machine.

3) What created the "me first" attitude?
In my very humble opinion, the New Deal. Before the socialist programs of FDR, no one had ever heard of an "entitlement." If you wanted something, you worked for it. If you couldn't afford it, you did without until you could. Needed your own house... well, if you couldn't afford it, you lived with your family until you could. Those who were completely down and out went to their church or local charity organization for help.
Nothing was "deserved" just because you dropped out of your mom. However, as with all socialist programs, The New Deal played to the weakest of society by giving out "bread and circus" freebies. Now we ALL think we are entitled. God help us when we learn that the government can not possible afford to baby us from cradle to grave.
Charles

 

Darth Fierce: I had originally said that I don't see where my beliefs have hurt anyone. I'll agree with you on your example about the liberal agenda, although the liberal agenda is still far less repressive and hurtful than the conservative agenda, which wants to force a bunch of regulations on everyone.

Charles: The only time I would tell a man to "keep it in his pants" is if he is either a) impregnating and then deserting several women, or b) raping women. Aside from that, you'll see a lot fewer people telling a man to "keep it in his pants" than you will telling a woman to "keep her legs closed." Somehow, if a woman gets pregnant, it's always her fault, even though she obviously couldn't do it by herself. The way society has been, if a man sleeps around, it's a power issue, and somehow considered a good thing. If a woman sleeps around, she's somehow "dirty".

As far as whether or not a fetus is alive, I'll stick to the argument about brain waves, which appear at about 12 weeks of gestation. Otherwise, we get into issues about whether or not birth control is ethical. Sperm and eggs are alive, aren't they? Do we have a right to keep them from forming a life?

 

"I thought the law WAS more important than justice in the US. Frankly, this is one of the problems I've always had with the US legal system. But I can admit I don't have a better one to suggest off hand. Unfortunately the law can't always be just, because it has to rely on precedence and consistency, not justice."

We have lawmakers for a reason. They are there to change unjust laws. If a law is not just, it does not deserve to be a law and should be changed.

 

No one thinks twice about saying a man "should keep it in his pants", yet suggest a woman should keep her legs together and people start screaming "repression." A bit hypocritical, aren't we??

Charles, if I ever, once in my life hear a Republican politician suggest men need to "keep it in their pants", I'll kiss him. I promise you. No offense to those here who are Republicans and have that much common sense - but I have seriously never heard anyone running for office say that. Gingrich cheated on his dying wife and that was okay. Remember when all his potential replacements had to step down because they, too, failed the "Monica" test?

So far, in the media and in politics, I've heard very few people suggest men need to curtail their sluttiness. I've heard tons of folks, on the other hand, suggest that women need to "keep their legs closed".

We have lawmakers for a reason. They are there to change unjust laws. If a law is not just, it does not deserve to be a law and should be changed.

I agree. Unfortunately, this doesn't work very often because those making the laws are making too much money from passing the bad laws.

 

Sorry I wasn't around for the last little bit.

Two things. First to Darth Fierce's comments to me last page. The key difference, is that those who feel a fetus is a living child, they are not repressed or oppressed because they don't have to have an abortion. IF they don't agree with it, then they don't do it. Simple enough.


Also, I think it is safe to say that no one feels it is right for abortion in the final trimester. This is where the distinction of living outside the womb comes into play.

Also, in reference to cy:

SOME people on the left treat a "woman's right to choose" as if abortion is the most beautiful heartwarming thing a woman could do.

I'll be honest, I have never met anyone who thought that abortion was a heartwarming, beautiful thing. It is an option for those who have few or no other options. The key for defenders of the right to choose is that the option remains open.

 

I saw a statistic a while back that blew me away with regards to abortion- apparently, in the 30 or so years since Roe V. Wade, 100 million kids have been born, and 40 million have been aborted. That means an additional 40% of what would have been my generation has been wiped out by their own parents.

 

The key difference, is that those who feel a fetus is a living child, they are not repressed or oppressed because they don't have to have an abortion. IF they don't agree with it, then they don't do it. Simple enough.

I think this same argument could be used for genocide.

Nazis: "You don't like killing Jews, don't kill them, but you have no right to tell us we can't kill them, your repressing my rights!"

The debate is over if this is genocide or not, and if it is, then is it all that unreasonable to stop people who are, in 'your' view, to stop them from commiting in your eyes something equally 'evil'?

 

But Kessel, I would stand up for the wife who is raped by her husband, even though I'm not repressed or oppressed by his actions. To me, standing up for the wife is the same as standing up for the unborn child. Why is my belief valid in one instance, but not the other?

 

Just because a woman is raped doesn't mean she has the right to go kill her baby. She may not consider it hers (and rightly so) and it may cause her a great deal of additional pain, but that doesn't justify the taking of another human life.

 

Darth Fierce: Because the "unborn child", as you call it, is just that--unborn. When you stick up for the wife, you are sticking up for someone who has brain waves and a heartbeat.

Coolguy: For the reasons listed above, your Holocaust analogy doesn't work.

Jediflyer: I find it disgusting that you have such blatant disregard for the horrific pain that a woman who has been sexually violated is going through, and place more importance on the bundle of cells that the monster left inside her.

Aside from that (and there are some personal issues in that argument there), I'll just say this: not everyone believes that a woman who gets an abortion is "killing her baby."

 

ag You're missing the crux of the argument. I'm saying that your belief that the unborn child is not human is being forced upon me, when I'm trying to stand up for the oppressed.

 

Darth Fierce: OK, I get it; and that shows just how complicated this issue is.

So my question is, where do we draw the line, if making abortion illegal represses a woman's right to choose, and keeping it legal represses those who are trying to stand up for the rights of the fetus? Is this down to making a choice between who is more important--the woman or the fetus?

 

"I'm saying that your belief that the unborn child is not human is being forced upon me, when I'm trying to stand up for the oppressed."

1) The North forced its belief that the slaves deserved to be free on the South. We repressed the poor southern farmers who could no longer make a living without their slaves.

2) The allies forced their belief on Germany that the Jews should live. We didn't let the poor Germans live out their Arayan destiny.

I will continue to try force my belief on you as long as you continue to support the killing and destroying of human life in any form.

 

Slaves=born, with heartbeats and brain waves

Jews=born, with heartbeats and brain waves

fetuses=not yet born, no heartbeat or brain waves before 12 weeks

Your argument ain't working, Jediflyer. If it were, you would have to also repress people from using birth control. Sperm and eggs are also alive.

 

Jediflyer, watch your phrasing. You're walking a thin line there.

 

sperm and eggs don't divide and multiply or have their own genetic code and will not grow into an adult human being with time.


Slaves= unique person with their own genetic code and grow to become adult human beings with time

Jews= unique person with their own genetic code and grow to become adult human beings with time

fetuses= unique person with their own genetic code and grow to become adult human beings with time

 

ag Exactly, it's just such a complicated issue. That's why I don't like either side making it so black and white, as some do. I don't know where you draw the line, because the fact is, mother nature has decided that the freedoms of women and their children are directly counter-dependent upon one another for at least nine months. No laws we make can change that.

 

AG, let me ask you something.

Suppose you were to go back in time to Elizabethian England. You meet a young boy affectionally called Billy. Billy likes to write. What would you think of young Billy Shakespeare? At this point he is not a playwright. He is just some kid. Yet would he be just a kid to you?