Poll: Is Georgias new "death warrant" on abortions a good idea?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

OK slow ol buddy,

You and I normally see eye to eye on things except when it comes to football.

I agree with your sentiments that there is a general decline in morals and personal responsibility. I agree that if left to my choice as birth control, abortion is a non option.

Be that as it may tho', if you are so adamant that the right of a fetus to life is paramount, why is it that in the situation of rape is the fetus right to life forfeit? Afterall it didnt' do anything, it wasn't the monster that raped the mother that did the crime?

I never could understand the exceptions folks would allow. If the underpinnings of this stance are so inviolate as the right to human life, why make exception?

All that aside from a macroscopic and totally amoral POV, society is best served allowing abortion as it thus deceased if even only a little bit the burden of unwanted, neglected children. Crime, poverty etc. are at least somewhat mitigated. And now as a fully converted libertarian, I wish to have no part of supporting anymore than is absolutely necessary.


Saying we should all be more responsible is akin to "Just say no to Drugs". It is the right philosophy but before the philosophy can be achieved other things need to be in place, like a 2 parent home.

[David Floyd]

Can it force her to become a mother against her will?

Couldn't it be argued that the act of having sex gave implicit consent?

Given the fact that contraception is not 100% effective, couldn't one say that the woman accepts the risks by having sex, protected or not?

But I think the issue is much more about the humanity of the fetus - can a fetus be considered anything more than a lump of tissue? And until what point can it be considered as such? Why?

[David Floyd]

All that aside from a macroscopic and totally amoral POV, society is best served allowing abortion as it thus deceased if even only a little bit the burden of unwanted, neglected children. Crime, poverty etc. are at least somewhat mitigated.

But, as you pointed out, how is this relevant if it is proved that a fetus is human? Shouldn't a person's rights override these so called "burdens"? After all, as you pointed out for the rape exception, the fetus didn't do anything wrong. So I fail to see how society is served positively by abortion, if it were to be shown that a fetus is a human and as such has certain rights.

That is why I take the position I do.

But it's a difficult subject that not even Libertarians see eye-to-eye on.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
So che is a rarity?

That has got to be one of the most self-evident questions . . .

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by David Floyd


But, as you pointed out, how is this relevant if it is proved that a fetus is human? Shouldn't a person's rights override these so called "burdens"? After all, as you pointed out for the rape exception, the fetus didn't do anything wrong. So I fail to see how society is served positively by abortion, if it were to be shown that a fetus is a human and as such has certain rights.

That is why I take the position I do.

But it's a difficult subject that not even Libertarians see eye-to-eye on.

My point David was Devil's advocacy. I was merely trying to show the flaw in the arguements made, on one hand for right to life for a fetus and on the other hand right to terminate in certain cirumstances. Straw man arguement perhaps, but as I indicated before I don't necessarily buy into the rights for life for a fetus regardless so I see no disconnect in my position that the greater society is served by allowing abortion.

[David Floyd]

Oh, I agree, but my point was that "service to society" is irrelevant if the fetus is, in fact, human.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Couldn't it be argued that the act of having sex gave implicit consent?

Given the fact that contraception is not 100% effective, couldn't one say that the woman accepts the risks by having sex, protected or not?

But I think the issue is much more about the humanity of the fetus - can a fetus be considered anything more than a lump of tissue? And until what point can it be considered as such? Why?

Oh, Oh, Oh, I know. Sex should come with a disclaimer. That way no one will be held to blame!

[Capt Dizle]

As I have followed this debate I am moved to consider that in the slavery debate between North and South one of main points of contention was the issue of whether blacks were property or not.

Now we are discussing whether a fetus is a human being or not.

Hmm.....

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Further, I would have to be convinced that a woman can be forced to use her body to keep someone else alive.

The day when medical technology permits the painless teleportation of a fetus from one woman's uterus, into the uterus of another healthy woman who wants the fetus (or baby to be, if you prefer) and will assume legal responsibility for it -

- is the day when I will support a ban on abortion.



You can't force people to take care of of a homeless person for 9 months - and you can't force women to carry a fetus for 9 months. The issue of whether a fetus is a person or not is a non issue.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
As I have followed this debate I am moved to consider that in the slavery debate between North and South one of main points of contention was the issue of whether blacks were property or not.

Now we are discussing whether a fetus is a human being or not.

Hmm.....

JT,

Another person who I normally agree with, but in not in this case.

I've heard this kind of rebuttal before. "We were wrong back in the pre-civil war era to define slaves as subhumans, so we must be wrong today in classifying fetus's (is the plural fetii?) as something other than human."

Heck the PETA freaks take it even further saying all life forms have inalienable rights.

And as so well posted by Ned the real point of Roe v Wade is not so much the determination of whether the fetus is human so much as whether the fetus is viable and can force its will/rights upon the Mother/host via the Court.

If I remember correctly Roe v. Wade purposely chose to avoid the determination of humanity for the fetus for the very reasons we here at 'Poly see, namely no one will agree with the definition. (thats God's domicile not man's if you ask me.)

[Ben Kenobi]

"It's just an operation to remove an unwanted tissue mass "
-Chevitz Guevara

"Enforced pregnancy is certainly assault by the fetus,"
-Jack the bodiless

How can an unwanted tissue mass commit assault?

"(having an abortion is safer than having a baby), "

Dead wrong here Che- abortion increases both the suicide rate of women, breast cancer rate of women as well as the occasional death due to abortion complications.

"destined to be a human being"
- Ogie Oglethorpe

Right to lifers say that it IS a human being. Don't pick on straw men.

"Is the life of the innocent child any less precious in these circumstances?"
- Ogie Oglethorpe

You seem to say that it is. Why should an INNOCENT CHILD die for the sins of their father?

"that a woman can be forced to use her body to keep someone else alive."
David Floyd

Then why are men required to pay child support?

"If the underpinnings of this stance are so inviolate as the right to human life, why make exception?"
Ogie Oglethorpe

NO exception warranted for rape or incest. Only for a serious risk to the life of the mother.

"You can't force people to take care of of a homeless person for 9 months - and you can't force women to carry a fetus for 9 months."
- Ned

Where else can the unborn child go? It's only home is in the womb!

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man

You can't force people to take care of of a homeless person for 9 months - and you can't force women to carry a fetus for 9 months. The issue of whether a fetus is a person or not is a non issue.

Oh really? Try killing a homeless person in order to remove him from your property and see what happens.

Try just tossing the child aside without reasonabley securing its care after it's born and see how long you remain a free man.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by obiwan18
"You can't force people to take care of of a homeless person for 9 months - and you can't force women to carry a fetus for 9 months."
- Ned

Where else can the unborn child go? It's only home is in the womb!

I'm not Ned

And your question isn't relevant. Just because someone doesn't have anywhere else to go, shouldn't make someone else legally obligated to support him/her.

Moreover, in this debate, there are many good arguments that a fetus is not a 'someone', making the argument for an obligation to support it, weaker.

Incidentally, I would differentiate the obligation to pay child support from a (proposed) obligation to support an unborn fetus, on the grounds that if the parents didn't want to support a child, they should not have allowed the fetus to develop into one. Once they choose to have a child, they've chosen that road, and society has an interest in ensuring that it is supported.(And I know that in a way it's unfair that the woman gets to choose whether or not to have a child, and the man may have no say about that and yet be obligated to pay child support. But that's a risk you take as a man, I guess. )

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


Oh really? Try killing a homeless person in order to remove him from your property and see what happens.

Try just tossing the child aside without reasonabley securing its care after it's born and see how long you remain a free man.

A homeless person doesn't have to be killed to remove him from property... but if that was the only way to prevent you from having to support him... hmmm, could be an interesting case

As for your other point... sorry, I posted before I saw your reply, Doc... please see my preceding post.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe

If I remember correctly Roe v. Wade purposely chose to avoid the determination of humanity for the fetus for the very reasons we here at 'Poly see, namely no one will agree with the definition. (thats God's domicile not man's if you ask me.)

You're not quite correct. In the majority opinion of Roe v. Wade the court argued that there was a balance between the rights of the mother and "the interests of the state" in securing the wellfare of the developing child. They reasoned that early in pregnancy this interest was not as "compelling" as it was later in the preganacy and so the rights of the mother outweighed those of the fetus. There was no denial of the humanity of the fetus at all.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


You're not quite correct. In the majority opinion of Roe v. Wade the court argued that there was a balance between the rights of the mother and "the interests of the state" in securing the wellfare of the developing child. They reasoned that early in pregnancy this interest was not as "compelling" as it was later in the preganacy and so the rights of the mother outweighed those of the fetus. There was no denial of the humanity of the fetus at all.

I think we say the same thing. It is my understanding tho' that SCOTUS decided to avoid the controversial issue of determining if or when a fetus is human and for arguement sake assume it was human and then the rest of the ruling follows as you and Ned suggest. I don't think there has ever been a legal interpretation of when/if a fetus is human other than if you apply this assumption as a precedent.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by obiwan18
"destined to be a human being"
- Ogie Oglethorpe

Right to lifers say that it IS a human being. Don't pick on straw men.

"Is the life of the innocent child any less precious in these circumstances?"
- Ogie Oglethorpe

You seem to say that it is. Why should an INNOCENT CHILD die for the sins of their father?

"If the underpinnings of this stance are so inviolate as the right to human life, why make exception?"
Ogie Oglethorpe

NO exception warranted for rape or incest. Only for a serious risk to the life of the mother.

You at least are consistent. Although even in the last statement you make exception "Only for a serious risk to the life of the mother." Given an either or situation, life of the mother, or life of child, you would allow abortion?

What makes the life of the child less important than that of the mother to make the choice favoring the mother in this situation?

Point is there are lots of strawman arguements both sides of the issue.

[SlowwHand]

Some of the posters here are doing what I thought impossible.
Make me think abortion might not have been such a bad idea.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I'm sure you will be all in favor of a regional policy starting with Filthadelphia.

(or are you looking at a retroactive policy?)

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by obiwan18
"(having an abortion is safer than having a baby), "

Dead wrong here Che- abortion increases both the suicide rate of women, breast cancer rate of women as well as the occasional death due to abortion complications.

A higher percentage of women die from carrying a child to term than die from having an abortion. Furthermore, there are other physical risks to the woman as well. Also, if we're bringing in emotional factors, post partum depression, which effects a significant number of women, is far more likely to occur in a women who has carried a child to term rather than one who has had an abortion. And the breast cancer link hasn't been conclusively proven.

Finally, if you people wouldn't go around telling women they were killing their babies, they wouldn't be getting depressed when having an abortion. You didn't see the same results in the Soviet Block, where abortion was free and legal and available on demand, and Christians weren't around in large enough numbers to mess with their heads.

Confine yourself to moral arguments, because the science is against you.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
You didn't see the same results in the Soviet Block, where abortion was free and legal and available on demand, and Christians weren't around in large enough numbers to mess with their heads.

Where are the gulags when you need them, eh?

[chequita guevara]

Exactly.

[Oerdin]

This is nothing more then an attention ploy being used by a certain Politician from Georia. He, and everyone else, already knows the Supreme Court has ruled that abortions are legal and that unreasonable restrictions upon women seeking abortions or upon abortion clinics constitutes an illegal restriction.