Bible thumping teenagers

[bjorn_skurj]

So even when the baby is viable, the mother still has the right to kill it?

I am comfortable with the current Roe v. Wade setup. Dude, looking at it any other way imposes unacceptable restrictions on a woman's freedom. I certainly understand and respect those with religious and moral objections to it, and nobody is saying it's a desirable outcome, but forcing women to have babies they don't want is an even less desirable outcome, an outcome which I will never support the state forcing on a woman.

[ikol]

I certainly understand and respect those with religious and moral objections to it, and nobody is saying it's a desirable outcome, but forcing women to have babies they don't want is an even less desirable outcome, an outcome which I will never support the state forcing on a woman.

 

This is why pro-lifers and pro-choicers can't find common ground. If you view the fetus as a person with the right to life, then no situation that involves killing it can be preferable to letting it live (assuming the mother's life isn't threatened).

[bjorn_skurj]

Yep. A possible scenario is Roe getting overturned, and the blue states keeping abortion legal and the red states not.

[ikol]

That would be more in accordance with the Constitution.

[Reni]

woo! states rights! states rights! if only we didn't have to get rid of slavery.... bloody federal government.

[bjorn_skurj]

Federalism is indeed a two-edged sword.

[Reni]

I was just being silly because it seems that historically when the whole states rights argument comes up - it is to keep in place traditionally oppressive systems.

 

slavery, voting rights, segregation, women's rights, etc......

 

--

 

IMO - legislating against abortion isn't going to eliminate abortion, it will just make it so more women die in trying to get them. It will create a black market, and unsanitary, dangerous conditions for women to terminate their pregnancies. If the pro life position really wanted to make a difference, they would funnel more money into education, assistance for low income women and children, comprehensive health care, etc.......abortion will never not exist, but reducing the need is entirely possible. But with a position that neglects the needs of women and children, neglects the health care needs of millions, and refuses to talk about responsible sexual practice, nothing much is going to change.

[ikol]

IMO - legislating against abortion isn't going to eliminate abortion, it will just make it so more women die in trying to get them. It will create a black market, and unsanitary, dangerous conditions for women to terminate their pregnancies. If the pro life position really wanted to make a difference, they would funnel more money into education, assistance for low income women and children, comprehensive health care, etc.......abortion will never not exist, but reducing the need is entirely possible. But with a position that neglects the needs of women and children, neglects the health care needs of millions, and refuses to talk about responsible sexual practice, nothing much is going to change.

 

You could make that type of argument for anything that gets outlawed.

[jenbobblehead]

You could make that type of argument for anything that gets outlawed.

um. Like guns?

[ikol]

Yeah.

 

Of course the Constitution is a little more specific about guns than abortion.

[Reni]

You could make that type of argument for anything that gets outlawed.

 

 

wow, you really missed my point.

[Edie]

You could make that type of argument for anything that gets outlawed.

 

Alcohol comes to mind. Bathtub gin killed many people when it wasn't regulated.

 

I would venture to say that there are still illegal abortions performed in the US today, like when the legal deadline has passed to get one. Women (or men) that are desperate will resort to desperate measures. Rae Carruth for one....

[anodyne]

when repression is amended into constitutions, it creates problems. the 18th amendment was repealed, and eventually all the same-sex marriage bans will be repealed. constitutions are written with positive statements to protect rights, not negative statements to restrict citizens. a flag burning amendment is exactly wrong based on the template of the bill of rights. the government is restricted, the citizen is enabled.

 

that said, fetuses are not citizens, and we've got a pretty clear track record on how we afford rights to non-citizens in this country.

[Reni]

I would be curious to hear ikol's position on the issue of forced sterilization of poor women, particularly poor women of color. This has been policy within my lifetime, and I still hear stories from time to time that fall into this arena. It still happens.

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

We've had at least a couple of thousand years of groups of people running round the world telling everyone else how they should live their lives. Iraq is just the latest in a bloody long run of examples. I know this one is supposed to be in the name of democracy, but it's being driven by narrow-minded people (and yes, my namesake has to take some of the blame) with the backing of God.

It's not as simple as all that. Religion was also used to campaign against slavery, against child labor, for womens' suffrage, for civil rights, etc. All these things involved telling some people how to live (forbiding people from enslaving others, forbiding parties and local governments from denying women the ballot, forbiding businesses from segregating as well as many other things). My guess is that you don't have a problem with religion informing the debate on these issues. I certainly don't. It's true that religion informed both sides of those arguments, but the more persuasive case won out.

 

President Bush's own denomination, for instance, wanted to tell him how to run his life--specifically that going to war with Iraq was unjustified, but they were denied an audience.

 

The problem, in my mind, is not with religion informing public debate and policy, but the use of religion as the sole justification of a given policy. Everyone's worldview, whether religious or not, informs their political opinions. Certain laws are simply based on morality. Dogfighting, for instance, imposes on no person's rights, but is illegal because it's simply (and correctly) viewed as immoral.

[ikol]

wow, you really missed my point.

 

Was your point that outlawing abortion won't reduce it? I disagree.

 

I would be curious to hear ikol's position on the issue of forced sterilization of poor women, particularly poor women of color. This has been policy within my lifetime, and I still hear stories from time to time that fall into this arena. It still happens.

 

Yes for poor women of color. No for poor white women. Or maybe I'm not insane.

[Reni]

my point about forced sterilization was not an either/or regarding women of color or white women - it was that it has affected PRIMARILY women of color, historically. I don't think that the issue of forced sterilization is discussed enough (if at all) when discussing the issues of reproductive rights. And you didn't even seriously answer my question.

 

As for my point about abortion - the way to reduce abortions is not to outlaw it BUT to create an environment and a culture that supports women and children. It seems people like you are out to cure the symptoms but not the illness. If you valued life, you would make abortion safe and accessible but reduce the need for them. So, if abortion is outlawed and a woman seeks an illegal abortion and dies from it, how about her life? Do you not value that?

 

My position on abortion is totally woman centered. I am not a fan of abortion, it can be very harmful to women - physically and mentally. I would like to see the need for abortion drastically reduced. I wish the need would be eliminated, but I am not naive. This means comprehensive health care, education, and support for women across the board - including affordable child care, more access to college assistance, paid family leave, laws to protect mothers in the workplace, etc. So many people who are vehemently anti-choice also do not want to help foot the bill for more children in the world. Ya know what, those babies cost money when they get here - are you prepared to foot the bill? From what you have said in the past, you want nothing to do with that.

[austrya]

Adoption is a wonderful option when it comes to an unwanted pregnancy. It's just a shame that there is so much red tape involved in the adoption process. I think a lot more people would adopt domestically if it were as easy as adopting from a foreign country. Although, those kids deserve better too.

 

That's one way to foot the bill.

 

One way to reduce the number of abortions is to somehow get it through these girls heads that a boy isn't going to necessarily like you any better just because you put out. I really hope that I can teach my boys to respect girls and teach my girls to respect themselves.

[ikol]

my point about forced sterilization was not an either/or regarding women of color or white women - it was that it has affected PRIMARILY women of color, historically. I don't think that the issue of forced sterilization is discussed enough (if at all) when discussing the issues of reproductive rights. And you didn't even seriously answer my question.

 

Were you really curious about my stance on forced sterilization?

 

As for my point about abortion - the way to reduce abortions is not to outlaw it BUT to create an environment and a culture that supports women and children. It seems people like you are out to cure the symptoms but not the illness. If you valued life, you would make abortion safe and accessible but reduce the need for them. So, if abortion is outlawed and a woman seeks an illegal abortion and dies from it, how about her life? Do you not value that?

 

My position on abortion is totally woman centered. I am not a fan of abortion, it can be very harmful to women - physically and mentally. I would like to see the need for abortion drastically reduced. I wish the need would be eliminated, but I am not naive. This means comprehensive health care, education, and support for women across the board - including affordable child care, more access to college assistance, paid family leave, laws to protect mothers in the workplace, etc. So many people who are vehemently anti-choice also do not want to help foot the bill for more children in the world. Ya know what, those babies cost money when they get here - are you prepared to foot the bill? From what you have said in the past, you want nothing to do with that.

 

Look, we're not going to agree on this. If you saw abortion as akin to murder like I do, then you wouldn't just want to reduce it. You would want it outlawed. You know who should be footing the bill for all this? Both parents. They are the ones acting irresponsibly. Some illnesses can only be treated symptomatically. Paying women to have children would also only be treating the symptoms. It would do nothing to prevent them and the fathers from having unprotected sex when they don't want children.

[Reni]

I am not sure where I said, "pay women to have children." I am talking protections for women in the workplace, affordable options for child care, open and affordable access to birth control and sex education, etc......I am talking cultural and social shifts that place importance on the health and well being of women and children. That is not treating a symptom, that IS treating the illness.

 

So, my next question - are you against the death penalty?

 

and on that note, I am going to bed - have a nice week everyone.

[ikol]

So, my next question - are you against the death penalty?

 

Yeah.

[Good Old Neon]

As someone who feels that the current framing of the abortion debate is a little ridiculous, I think this snippet in the essay "Authority and American Usage," by David Foster Wallace is an especially thoughtful well balanced, reasonable postion to take:

 

This reviewer is thus, as a private citizen and an autonomous agent, both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice.

 

Given our best present medical and philosophical understandings of what makes something not just a living organism but a person, there is no way to establish at just what point during gestation a fertilized ovum becomes a human being. This conundrum, together with the basically inarguable soundness of the principle "When in irresolvable doubt about whether something is a human being or not, it is better not to kill it," appears to me to require any reasonable American to be Pro-Life.

 

At the same time, however, the principle "When in irresolvable doubt about something, I have neither the legal nor the moral right to tell another person what to do about it, especially if that person feels that s/he is not in doubt" is an unassailable part of the Democratic pact we Americans all make with one another, a pact in which each adult citizen gets to be an autonomous moral agent; and this principle appears to me to require any reasonable American to be Pro-Choice.

 

Every time someone I know decides to terminate a pregnancy, I am required to believe simultaneously that she is doing the wrong thing and that she has every right to do it. Plus, of course, I have both to believe that a Pro-Life + Pro-Choice stance is the only really coherent one and to restrain myself from trying to force that position on other people whose ideological or religious convictions seem (to me) to override reason and yield a (in my opinion) wacko dogmatic position. This restraint has to be maintained even when somebody's (to me) wacko dogmatic position appears (to me) to reject the very Democratic tolerance that is keeping me from trying to force my position on him/her; it requires me not to press or argue or retaliate even when someone calls me Satan's Minion.

[ikol]

The problem with that argument is that if the fetus is really a person with a right to life, then you can't just accept that others decide to kill it. It is not merely better to not kill it; it is right. Killing it isn't just worse; it's wrong. We only get to act as "autonomous moral agents" when we aren't violating others' rights. No one would argue that - while I consider theft to be wrong - I must respect the carjacker's autonomy and not do anything to stop him from stealing cars.

[Jay]

An atheist (let's call him "Alan") complains about Christians...

 

 

ikol

[Good Old Neon]

The problem with that argument is that if the fetus is really a person with a right to life, then you can't just accept that others decide to kill it. It is not merely better to not kill it; it is right. Killing it isn't just worse; it's wrong. We only get to act as "autonomous moral agents" when we aren't violating others' rights. No one would argue that - while I consider theft to be wrong - I must respect the carjacker's autonomy and not do anything to stop him from stealing cars.

 

The problem with your retort - who decides when life begins? Who decides when an unthinking, unfeeling fetus becomes a fully functional, lucid, self aware human? Can you, with any amount of certainty, inform us as to when, exactly, that occurs?

 

Due to time constraints