Politics
 

First that injured person may have left a living will asking to be disconnected under the circumstances. If not, it\'s a closer question, but there is a huge difference. The injured person is being kept alive artificially. Without a machine, the injured person would die.

With the unborn child, the mechanism keeping the child alive is natural and a natural part of life. Without artificial intervention it is 100% certain that the child will either live or die by natuaral processes. The mother is not medical treatment. The mother is the beginning place of life. Thus, I don\'t have a problem with disconnecting the person from the machine because that is simply a refusal of medical care.

I think the \"when does life begin\" question is much more simple than you want to admit. For a human and other animals it is either at one of two points. (1) At conception, i.e., the meeting of the egg and sperm in such a way that the formation of a cell that will eventually develop into a living being begins, or (2) at the implantation of the egg into the uterus of the mother. At one of these two points the small individual is doing everything that is required to be considered life.

Politics
 

You didn\'t get shot. You got shot at. ;)

I went to the same law school Gator is attending now, but I\'ll admit that I didn\'t care too much for criminal law and he probably knows more about it than me simply becuase he has taken it more recently.

Here\'s how I think your scenarios work when used in terms of the woman getting pregnant: Woman sets her goal as finding a man to have sex with knowing that she is not on any preventive medicine, he is not wearing a condom, she is not using any device to prevent pregnancy, and she knows she is ovulating in the hopes of becoming pregnant. She becomes pregnant.- First degree.

Woman is making out with guy and gets carried away, but does not ensure use of a condom or other prophilactic (sp?) or pill. She becomes pregnant. - second degree

Woman uses all available means to prevent pregnancy BUT does have sex. She becomes pregnant. - second degree.

Woman and man are participating in mutual masterbation which results in the accidental exposure of her vagina to sperm. (You could never shoot straight!) she becomes pregnant. - manslaughter

In all of these she bears responsibility for her pregnancy just as the shooter bears the responsibility for the shooting. However, the shooter pays the price for the shooting and the baby pays the price for the pregnancy when the mother chooses abortion. Where is the justice there?

Politics
 

OK - I like that. Valid point. You\'re saying that in one case artificial means of survival are being discontinued and in the other, artificial means are being implemented to terminate a natural situation that would continue otherwise. Good point. What about the death penalty? If your opinion is that a life is a life, you must oppose the death penalty right? A situation in which artificial means are being employed to kill someone?? My guess is that you don\'t oppose capital punishment, but I\'ll let you answer. If my hunch is right, why isn\'t a life a life?

No it\'s not. It\'s doing everything it needs to do to be considered an embryo or fetus. There is a reason that it\'s not called a baby. To me, life requires at very least breathing and a heartbeat. That does not exist at conception. Further, that cannot be done without significant help from \"artificial\" and \"outside\" means before the seventh or eighth month. Even some normally delivered babies require incubators and the like. Point is, how can you call it life if it cannot survive on its own, and has never been able to do so? Would it be OK if a 4 month old fetus was delivered, hooked up to machines to keep it alive by artificial means, and then the mother decided to \'pull the plug\' that way? How is that a different situation from the one in which is a person is injured and on life support?

The issue of life is not so simple. If a wife and mother of two who was 4 months pregnant in an intended pregnancy and she got shot, I know a whole lot of people that would want the shooter prosecuted for TWO murders. Likewise, many of those SAME PEOPLE would feel that if an unwed 17 year old was raped she should be able to abort the pregnancy. The issue is NOT a simple one, let\'s just agree on that right now.


Lastly, in your scenario above there is NO CRIME. C\'mon Scotty, if you went to the same law school as Gator then you should know - in order for there to be murder there mst be a life taken. In law, you could not establish that the woman took a life, so she is innocent of all charges! ;)

By the way, what kind of law do you practice?

Politics
 

You\'re right, I do not oppose capital punishment, but I have struggled with it. The thing is there are three purposes for any sentence given to a convict: (1) punishment, (2) deterance, and (3) protection of the public. I think 1 and 3 could just as easily be satisfied by life imprisonment in the case of first degree murder as the death penalty, although whether life imprisonment is adequate punishment is arguable.

The law is supposed to be a deterent. The greater the crime, the greater the sentence. IMO, this aspect is not working very well in out country right now, but it is a part.

Obviously, the death penalty is taking a life, no question. However, we\'re talking about a life that got to make the decisions to participate in the first degree murder for which it is being put to death. That is vastly different that the decisions made by the unborn child. Add to that that the government takes 10 to 20 years in most cases to kill a convicted killer with all the appeals and everything. That\'s a lot of extra time making sure that everything was done right. (Not that there aren\'t errors.)

To sum up I\'ll just say, they are both lives. One deserving of death, the other not.

Another very close question. I am not a medical doctor, but I believe I am correct to say that most injured people on life supprt do not improve over time and there is no outlook for them to do so. The injured person could live for many years without improvement. The four month old baby on the other hand is not likely to survive even with help of machines, but, IF it does, there IS going to be significant improvement in its status from day-to-day, week-to-week, in most cases.

I call it a baby. Embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, pre-teen, teenager, adult, middleaged, senior citizen. All terms for stages of life. Fetus is the word typically used by pro-abortionists because they don\'t want to think about what it is they are killing.

I saw my daughter\'s heartbeat at 5 weeks via ultrasound. It was likely to have been there before that but she was too small too see with the machine we were using.

Breathing can be accomplished in many different ways. It is whatever way you receive the atoms of gas required to sustain your life. The unborn child receives it through the umbilical cord. When the mother\'s oxygen supplies drops the baby immediately responds with a droop in its heartrate.

Fish do not breathe like you, but they are alive. Plants have neither a heartbeat nor breathe like you, but they are alive.

Again, you,re right. This is not a simple example. I suggested in a post above that we keep it on the more simple level than bringing in rape, risk to mother\'s life, etc., to try to keep from getting overbroad in the discussion. My question is even if the raped girl were completely blameless, i.e., she wasn\'t out where she shouldn\'t have been, she was home asleep, why is the baby the only one in the scenario to pay the ultimate price? The rapist goes to jail. The woman either goes through the abortion or the pregnancy at a minimum. The child dies, if she chooses abortion. For the innocent party that seems a bit harsh to me.

Unfortunately, divorce and such. I started my own practice as soon as a passed the bar so I pretty much have to take what I can get right now. I am also licensed to sell real estate so I hope to combine the two and start doing real estate related law exclusively in the next couple of years. I\'ve only been at it a little over two years so there\'s still a long way to go yet.

Funny thing is, there are two major misconceptions about law school graduates. First, everyone thinks they have money when they leave school. So not true! With the cost of school itself I\'ll be paying the rest of my life. Second, everyone seems to think that the law school graduate knows everything about the law. You think you\'re learning so much when you\'re in school, but when you hit the real world and start getting asked questions, you realize that what they taught you was the tip of the tip of the iceberg.

I keep saying one of these days I\'ll get one of those multi-million dollar personal injury cases and I\'ll never miss another Saints game, but I\'m not holding my breath.

Politics
 

Scotty, let me first say this. Thank you. Seriously. This is one of the best discussions I\'ve had in a LONG time on this board. You make very strong points, support them well, and do so without mentioning my anti-life agenda or suggesting I\'m high on some type of anesthetic.

Additionally, good luck with your practice. As a small business owner myself, I know how difficult it can be. Also, after nearly a decade in the IT field I have just started part-time at Loyola Law School up here in Chicago. Might have to ask you a question from time to time. Just getting started and Lord knows why I want to change careers all of a sudden (not really all of a sudden, but...), but I\'m doing it. So far I\'m loving it.


In any case, back to the subject at hand. It\'s interesting that you make a distinction between justifiable killings. You say that capital punishment is a good deterent, and that, amongst other things, makes that killing justifiable. (We could get into whether or not it truly deters anyone, which I doubt, but that\'s another matter all together). In essence, it seems to me that you\'re saying that it is OK to take one life in order to fulfill a perception that others will be saved or made better as a result.

Can the same argument not be made for abortion, in certain cases? The welfare mother with too many kids already and a drug habit - does the taking of one life not, at least theoritically, help the others? I may not be making this argument as well as I mean, bt hopefully you get the point. Why is it justifiable to kill in one instance, if it will supposedly help others, but not in another similar/comparable instance?

Politics
 

PS - I think we\'re a little off-topic here. The issue to me is choice. I personally am not a big fan of abortion (though I do think there are times when it is justified). Still, no matter how I feel, unless someone can PROVE to me when ife begins (rather than SPECULATE as to its beginning or offer PERSONAL BELIEFS as to when it starts), than I cannot condone banning the procedure. Civil liberties my friend - in the event there is no clear answer, I will always err on the side of giving people choice.

Politics
 

Wow, I\'m starting to feel sorry that I don\'t have a bit more time to devote to this these days.

Here are somethings:

(1) ScottyRo, your points about the law confuse me a bit. I thought we were discussing whether or not it is ok for a woman to get an abortion - not whether or not it should be legal. I think that morality and legality can be easily separated. For example, I don\'t think that racist language is ok, even if it is defended by the law. I also don\'t think that slavery was ok for awhile just because it was legal. I only mention this, since I\'m not really all that concerned about what laws we should have - I was more interested in what is morally good/bad.

(2) I agree that Jones is \"somewhat\" active. He forms an intent. Try the reverse of the case then. Two guys, Smith and Jones, are hurring to an important business meeting. Smith and Jones pass by a pond every morning on their way to work. Today there is a boy drowning in the pool. Smith looks and sees the boy, but decides that the meeting is more important - thus, he lets the boy die. In Jones case, he his hurring by the pond and accidentally bumps a boy who falls in the pond and drowns. Jones knows that the boy fell in the pond but doesn\'t care since he\'s in a hurry. The boy dies. In this case, Smith makes a decision not to save the boy - but doesn\'t actively do anything. Jones actively does something, but doesn\'t make a decision regarding the life of the boy at all (as he is roughly unaware that the boy will drown). Who is worse Smith or Jones? In this case the active/passive distinction, it seems, is only one of the many factors that enter into a moral judgement.

I like your earlier point, but I\'m not ready to grant it just yet. This new case shows that simply being the cause of something (causally responsible) is only a small part of the picture, since someone can be responsible without being the cause (Smith). Thus, I don\'t think that a moral argument can be made on the grounds that the woman is \"responsible\" alone. There are two problems with that: (1) \"responsible\" is ambiguous, and (2) active vs passive is not a simple two place decision tool - without a bunch of other information, it is hard to say what role it plays in a moral judgement.

(3) My point about \"intention\" was that it alone is insufficient to make moral judgements. You seem to agree - since you think the consequences of the action also matter (at least that was my understanding of your response above). Thus, I think my point stands (though I\'d be happy to hear more) that a woman\'s having sex is not the same as intending to have a baby. If intentions truly matter for punishments/consequences, then the woman\'s having sex is irrelevant without additional context. She did not intend to get pregnant, even if she did intend to enjoy some sex. If \"having to keep the baby\" depends on \"her choosing to have sex\", then I think there is a mistake - she intended to have sex but took precautions to avoid pregnancy (a foreseeable but small possibility) then she did not \"choose\" to get pregnant and cannot be required to keep the baby on those grounds.

(4) WhoDat, I don\'t think the abortion issue needs to be decided on the grounds of when a fetus is a person. We make choices that cause people to die all the time. If the circumstances are right, it may be ok to kill the child (before being born) EVEN IF the fetus is a person. That was the argument I tried to make earlier concerning \"right to life\" versus \"right to use\". I think that ScottyRo replied to that in decent fashion for one version of such an arugment, but there is much more to be said about that.

(5) ScottyRo, I like your point against my view about the value of death, but I think we\'re talking past eachother. This goes back to my separation of legality and morality. I don\'t think that there should be exceptions in the law for killing someone who is of little relevance, but I do think there is a moral difference. I\'ll think more about this, but I think that your reply missed its mark (not in a bad way, I haven\'t been very clear yet).

Politics
 

Just one other question: is anyone a vegetarian?

If not, what is the difference between a baby (embryo, or what have you) and a cow?

Without religious arguments, I think you\'ll see how this might make some points to back up the pro-abortion side.

This was just a thought, so please don\'t take it the wrong way. I am not a vegetarian (though, sadly, I\'ve considered it a few times); I think it may well be inconsistent to eat meat and be anti-abortion (without some good arguing).

For the record, I\'m pretty well on the same page as WhoDat regarding choice in this case. I don\'t think that is central to any of the arguments we are currently considering, but I thought I\'d put that out there.

Politics
 

PS

I\'m not in favor of abortion as birth control. However, I think that laws that outright block abortions are not sensitive to cases which it should be sensitive too (and, yes, here I\'m going to talk about the law, even if that makes me a bit uncomfortable). It seems to me that abortions in the following cases should be allowed (and I\'m sure there are others): rape, incest, and high risk to the mother\'s life. In those cases, it doesn\'t seem that the child\'s life (which is difficult to value, since we have no idea how it will turn out) is not worth the very serious psychological and physical damage that is usually inflicted on the mother by having to bear these children. (Nnot to mention the fact that the woman\'s life is a known value, since she is probably over 13 we have a good idea of her psychological traits, family life, future quality of life and so on; so if we were making some sort of comparison argument you have a virtual unknown versus a pretty well known.)

Politics
 

I would be more than happy to answer any questions you may have. I\'d probably be better to relate my experiences to you than figuring out some highly intellectual fine point in the law, but I would love to try as well. I hope that the Loyola part0time program isn\'t as competitive and cutthroat as some of the schools I\'ve heard about, specifically LSU. MC was pretty laid back and most of us tried to rally together against the professors rather than tear each other down. I wish you the best of luck.

It is easy to get off topic on such big issue as this. I want to respond to some of the most recent things and I\'ll start forming my purely choice arguments.

What\'s wrong with erring on the side of saving the child - just in case it is alive?

The are everyday examples of this outside of this debate. Self-defense is a justifiable killing. It protects the life of the person being threatened. Defense of a third party is also a justifiable killing. It protects the life of others. War is justifiable killing. It keeps Saddam from using WMD, er, I mean... he needed to be taken out a long time ago.

All of these, including capital punishment, are tragic deaths, but justified by the circumstances.

I only went into the law on the intention question because that was all I knew about intent so I used those examples. Same with justifiable killing.

In the woman\'s mind, just because she has sex does not mean that she intended to get pregnant. I\'ll admit that as true without using the way intent is used in law. I\'m going to use \"responsibility\" in the next example even though you think it is vague because I can\'t think of a better phrase.

I decide as a gag to shoot you in the leg. There is no intent to kill and, being a good marksman, I take every precaution to make sure that hit you in a place not likely to kill you. You consent to this action. Unfortunately, you die from the wound anyway. Am I not responsible for your death? It may not be first degree murder but I think it qualifies as scond (no matter what I might be able to plead it down to). Thus, I will have to take responsibility for your death by going to jail.

The woman decides to have sex for pleasure. There is no overt intent to get pregnant and, being a good girl, she takes every precaution to prevent pregnancy (pill plus condum). The man consents to this action (as always). Unfortunately, she becomes pregnant anyway. Is she not responsible for the pregnancy in the same way as the murder above? The consequences should be different, obviously, but I say a short nine-month \"sentence\" of pregnancy is not cruel. (It is unusual considering society\'s present stance.) All without injuring the innocent party.

The same difference as there is between you and a cow. On even the most basic level, DNA and such, there is a vast difference. Vast might be an overstatement, but even if 99.99% of the genes are the same, the difference is a completely different organism.

I assume you mean this in conjunction with your \"cow\" statement above. I\'ll need more if you disagree with my response. Otherwise, I\'m sticking with steaks!

Politics
 

Unfortunately, I\'m going to be away for about two weeks, so I won\'t be able to keep up with this (though it is fun). Here are some parting thoughts:

(1) Good example for \"responsibility\". Of course, that illustrates the way in which it is vague - there are different degrees and kinds of \"responsibility\". My first concern is that without a better idea of what kind (and degree) of responsibility a woman has to the baby, it is hard to agree with arguments of the following kind: the woman chose to take an action that might result in a child (even if she did not intend to make a child); therefore, she is responsible for it. It is not clear what the connection between choice-intention-responsibility is, especially when (as we have argued) intention is not clear and responsibility is not clear. I think the burden of proof is not on the anti-abortionists (who seem to think that it is PERMISSABLE to get an abortion under certain circumstances).

(2) I think that one way of talking about the debate generates an interesting argument. When we start talking about the child as a \"sentence\", as a \"consequence\", or a \"responsibility because of a \"bad\" choice\" - we\'ve already done an interesting harm to the baby: it is viewed negatively. It is folk wisdom that having a negative attidue toward a child will lead to self fulfilling prophesies. I just thought I\'d try this argument out, since I just thought it up - what do you think?

(3) Whether or not a nine month \"sentence\" is cruel depends on the situation the woman is in when she becomes pregnant. It could cause her to lose a job (or job potential), burden a job search, damage her body and possibily self esteem, create emotional distress (depending on the circumstances of the pregnancy this could be permanently and deeply damaging), and so on. I guess, I think you\'re right in general that it shouldn\'t be a big deal, but I do think that there are cases where the \"sentence\" could be quite cruel.

(4) On the cow argument, which is still in the works: if you think that it is ok to terminate the life of a living thing years before it would die naturally, merely to eat it, why is the termination of a different kind of living thing (separated only by its place in the chain of being) for other, perhaps much better, reasons, wrong? I think the idea is this: what is it that makes human babies so special - cows feel pain, belong to a social structure, have relatives, and so on? (More to follow, but your thoughts are appreciated.)

Cheers.

Politics
 

PS

(1) Great discussion!

(2) On the cow thing, I think that I was asking for a MORAL difference - a genetic one is probably not sufficient (children with Down\'s or other chromosomal differences from you or I still have moral standing - even if there is a somewhat dramatic difference in how our DNA is set up). That is, even if I am from an entirely different Order or Genus, it is not clear that I shouldn\'t have the same moral standing as a human.

For example, imagine a race of Aliens just as intelligent as us but with an entirely different DNA structure - we wouldn\'t think it was ok to abuse them just because there DNA is not the same.

Intelligence won\'t do as a criterion either, since there are some humans who are not as smart as some cows.

Politics
 

Nothing is wrong with erring on the side of the child. Nothing is wrong with erring on the side of choice. It is a PERSONAL decision until it can be otherwise objectively decided in fact and law. Thus, in one instance you remove choice. In the other you give it. Thus the latter is the better option. Giving choice does not equate to condoning any action, it means you have a choice.


Come on Johnny Law, you should know that this example is not analogous with pregnancy/sex. Using a firearm has inherent danger, and deciding to shoot someone is irresponsible whether that person consents or not. That is very different than sex, which is not done with any immediate intent of causing some degree of harm.

I mean, what you\'re saying suggests that the following two scenarios are equal:

Scenario 1:
I am walking my 700 pet tiger on a lease. I know that the tiger is untrained, highly aggressive, and doesn\'t like being around people. I see you and approach. You tell me it would be full to be mauled by a tiger. I tell you to scream at the beast and make wild gestures. I take the tiger off the leash and let it at you. It attacks and kills you, even though my intent was only for it to mame you.

Scenario 2:
I am walking down the street and happen to touch a door handle on which a person with a terminal illness has just directly sneezed. I see you, approach and offer my hand. You gladly take it an we shake. You contract the illness and die. My intent here was to shake your hand not get you sick, just like the woman\'s intent in yor example was to have sex, not to get pregnant.

C\'mon Scotty - you know there is a difference in these cases. You cannot apply criminal intent here. Seriously, do you think women go out looking for sex with the intention of getting pregnant so that they can abort the child? Maybe you can make some argument for some degree of negligence if no birth control method is used but you still have to show a life was taken, which you cannot do. ;)

Politics
 

I am fisically conservative, but socially liberal.

This election needs to reach out to the people who are TRULY moderates.

Politics
 

Very true. I don\'t think that there are many people out there who believe that a right wing nut job, or a left wing pinky commie is the best way to go. However I\'m sure that you will also find that there is probably a good sum of people who believe that both Bush and Kerry are moderates. Personally I don\'t know if Bush or Kerry are as extreme as a lot of media make them out to be.

Back to the matter at hand... or at least the matter that started this friendly debate. (and thanks for keeping it friendly)
Does this mean the people who murder physicians who perform abortions are justified?

Politics
 

Right. Obviously, one is criminal and the other is not. There is an inherent danger in becomeing pregnant following sexual activity so they are also a bit similar. The woman who chooses to have sex is aware that regardless of the precautions she may become pregnant. It is foreseeable result of her choice just as using a dangerous weapon on someone creates a situation where the victim\'s death is foreseeable. Both actors should have a responsibility placed on them for the act.

All I\'m trying to assert here is that she should be accountable for her actions - not the conceived child. I\'m not advocating criminal liability for becoming pregnant.

If you can come up with retorts as good as this on your feet, think Trial Attorney for your career path.

It may be in certain circumstances. Since abortion is legal, I do not think so. If abortion were illegal, then it\'d still depend on the circumstances.

If I were the father of the child and my wife went to a doctor to perform the abortion, the killing of the doctor may be justified if I do it as he is performing the abortion. Thus, I acted in defense of a third party. This would require that the law sees the unborn child as a person. I still don\'t think this would make it, but it is the best example of when it might that I can come up with.

All of the cases I have heard about involve completely different circumstances than what I mentioned above. The killers in those cases are murderers, in my opinion, and deserve whatever sentence they get.

Politics
 

Yeah, I can be kind of quick on my feet every now and then. ;)

I still think your point lacks merit. For example: if a woman intends on engaging in sexual activity, and does so with full knowledge that she is using the birth control pill, shot, IUD, or even a condom, she can reasonably conclude that her odds at getting pregnant are less than 1%. If you get in your car, put on your seat belt, follow all applicable trafffic laws, your odds of injuring yourself or someone else are probably that high. In other words, a person must then also know that an accident may well be the result of choosing to drive. If I hit you in a motor vehicle accident, I used every safety feature that I know of, should I be HELD RESPONSIBLE for your death? I won\'t be tried criminally, I\'ll tell you that.

Politics
 

No, you wont be found criminally liable absent something else.

In this instance one of us is going to have some civil liability. Since you hit me, my wife is going to file a wrongful death and damage to property suit against you and your insurer, if any. She\'ll likely win to some measure whether you settle out or not since you admit that you hit me. Thus, your insurer at least is going to bear part the burden of your responsibility to my wife. Without the insurance you have to pay it yourself. You accepted all of this even though the chance of it occuring was miniscule because it is a foreseeable occurence even though you took every possible precaution to prevent it.

The abortion equivalent to this would be that you would get to choose whether or not to kill my wife in order to block the lawsuit and avoid responsibility. (There is a fictitous law that makes this legal for this discussion.)

Let\'s go ahead and tackle the other side...We both took every precaution as above. We\'re driving and I hit you. I become a quadraplegic as a result. Didn\'t I accept this as a possible outcome of driving even though the chances were miniscule? You sue my insurer/estate and recover an award or settlement based on property damage.

The abortion equivalent to this is that I get to choose whether or not to hire a hit man to rub you out before you file suit to avoid the award having to be paid.

In the first example you got the CHOICE so it shouldn\'t matter that my wife died so you could avoid the responsibility. In the second I got the CHOICE. We\'re erring on the side of choice right? JK says we\'re not different than cows which are killed everyday so this must be ok.

JKool brought up a point about discussing the pregnancy is negative terms. My response to that is that we\'re talking about abortion which, it seems to me, presumes that the pregnancy was not a good thing or the woman would not be considering aborting the pregnancy. Thus, to the woman who did not want to be pregnant it is a negative thing - the pregnancy is a sentence, so to speak, to her anyway.

Politics
 

Forgive the lack of \"leagle ease\" here, but the underlying thing for me is that regardless of whether or not humans and cows are on the same level and regardless of all the hypothetical stuff going on here the FACT remains that:

(a) when life actually begins is debatable.
...and
(b) anti-abortion folks aren\'t given permission by society or the government or God to tell someone else whether they can have an abortion or not.

***It is my opinion that those folks that think God gives \'em the right to make such decisions for other people are livin on the wrong side of the Atlantic***

Those are facts. Everything is debatable, which remains the point. One person\'s opinion of when life begins does not equal everyone else\'s. A condom prevents \"potential\" life does it not? Is preventing that life (potentialy) wrong ethically, spiritually, morally, or politicaly? And who gets to decide?

Politics
 

Alright, so I found a computer this fine afternoon.

ScottyRo,

This is a good point:
I thought, though, that my point was that this alone is a reason to consider allowing for an abortion.

I don\'t remember saying this:
I thought my point was this: if we think that abortion is impermissable on the grounds that \"right to use\" never outweighs \"right to life\", then we shouldn\'t eat cows - since they don\'t seem to have any different MORAL standing than a person, they should have a right to life that outweighs our right to use. I didn\'t mean to imply that there is NO difference between us and the cows - I was merely asking what the MORAL difference is (as ScottyRo had provided a quite valid Metaphysical difference - namely our DNA).

Politics
 

Saintfan,

If they were given PERMISSION by the government, or their traditions, or what have you, would that make preventing abortions morally ok - or even make abortions morally bad. I\'m sure you had something a bit stronger than \"permission\" by some person(s) in mind, right?

Politics
 

ScottyRo,

You don\'t really think that it is ok to kill abortion doctors (even while in the act of aborting) do you? I think you\'ve raised an interesting example; however, I don\'t think that is morally permissable. When is it that you have the right to take a life to save an unknown quantity (like the potential child). Would you feel safe in assuming that your wife was not aborting a child with a serious congenital defect, who may not live more than a few days in pain (consider a anencephaletic child?). I just don\'t think that the killing (of the doctor) in this case could ever be a justifiable trade off. I guess, practically speaking, I don\'t see a case where killing the doctor (who is a known human being of some moral value) and saving the child (of virtually unkown value) would ever be the case.

Politics
 

First, you don\'t need legal ease to discuss this, it just helps me explain my points sometimes.

Second, if when life begins is debateable then, you must concede that I may be correct that it begins either at conception or implantation. You cannot prove me wrong. Since it is a possibility that it is a life at that stage, why ignore this and favor killing someone that might be alive?

Third, you don\'t know that anti-abortionists aren\'t given permission by God to tell someone they cannot have an abortion. You cannot prove that God does not exist, so you cannot prove this cannot happen. The other two may or may not at some point.

Fourth, it is my opinion that you\'re missing the point. My views aren\'t intended to restrict people\'s rights as much as they are about saving what I believe are lives. The restriction of rights would be a consequence of saving them.

Lastly, the rest is so speculative that no one can decide such. Sure, Catholics (to my understanding) believe that the use of a condom is immoral for the reasons you suggest. The problem is there are so many acts that prevent the sprem from coming into contact with the egg that there\'s no way this can be debated. Is \"puling out\" the same? Is simply not having sex when you had the opportunity the same?

PS, I did not bring religion into this, you did.

Politics
 

All I meant was that there is a defense of a third person justification for killing a person. Whether that is morally ok is debateable. But so long as the situation with the doctor can be considered defense of a third person, a case can be made that it is justifiable.

I clearly stated that the recent cases a people killing abortion doctors was murder.

I have to say that I strongly disagree that the unborn child is of an unknown value. My wife is pregnant now and due in september, but the pregnancy started off badly. Without getting graphic, there were signs at first that the pregnancy might self-abort. Needless to say, we were scarred stiff every week we went to the doctor\'s office to see if everything was proceeding well. Even early on we would have felt an immense loss had the baby not survived.

Just because the survival of the child is an unknown doesn\'t reduce the child\'s value.

btw JK, Where are you that you that you have to find a computer? On vacation somewhere with Loomis?

Politics
 

The words \"what I beleive\" are the key words. It\'s what YOU believe...and not, for a fact, what everyone believes. Right or wrong isn\'t the issue...the issue is whether or not you or I get to make the decision for someone else based on our beliefs rather than theirs.

Not really. Why is it that you think abortion is wrong? Upon what do you draw that opinion?

Politics
 

There are plenty of laws that exist which restrict people\'s rights based on beliefs of people. Seatbelts save lives. Taxes are reasonable. Children of illegal aliens deserve public education. In each of these and many others the government makes the decision for people based on our beliefs - whether everyone agrees or not.

You\'re suggesting that no one can be anti-abortion and not be religious? That the only reason I am against it is because of my religious beliefs? I don\'t think that\'s accurate but your suspicion about my belief is accurate. Maybe the religion only gives me the courage to speak out against something such as this even though I know that in the particular forum I am not in the majority.

Still, I discussed this issue in purely legal and moral terms before you mentioned religion. I am confident that WhoDat and JKool would agree to that.

Politics
 

This is THE weak link in your argument, and the basis upon which we rest ours. You MIGHT be right. We MIGHT be right. No one knows right now. Thus, it becomes an issue of what you believe to be right or wrong. You cannot make a law preventing something that MAY injure you or another person. There has to be solid evidence. You know this Scotty. It would be like the legislature banning sugar b/c if you eat enough of it you may die.

This is exactly why it took so long for anyone to win a suit against the tobacco companies. I mean, everyone knew that they caused cancered, but the courts couldn\'t rule in favor of any plaintif until they showed a) cigarettes contained the carcinogens (easy), and b) that they carcinogens directly and on their own caused cancer in smokers (hard). In essense, the courts couldn\'t rule on what they believe MAY or even PROBABLY was true.


Of course - but these are based on hard evidence. They use crash tests to show that seatbelts save lives. They can easily show a government\'s ability to provide services, defense, etc. for its citizens with NO money - and in theory, the citizens have decided that these are services that they are willing to pay for. The point is that any law banning abortion would have to show where life begins - it is based on an answer to that question which does not exist. Further, from a legal standpoint, the courts have already ruled on this issue and chosen to make it legal. As a lawyer you know that the courts and legislature take cues from one another. If a court has ruled on an issue, it has set precedent which it must follow. Thus, any law the legislature makes should be cognizant of that. If it is not, the law is likely to be overturned - in the absence of some new evidence (i.e. when life actually begins).


As for the religious issue... I\'m torn. I do agree that a person can be anti-abortion without being religious. I do agree that Scotty has kept talk of religion out of this debate. However, Saintfan makes an excellent point. I would guess Scotty, that your anti-abortion beliefs are based at least in part on your religious beliefs.

I think what Saintfan may have been trying to say is this: look around, how many pro-lifers do you see fighting to ban abortion who aren\'t religious? Therein lies the problem. You live in a country in which the vast majority is Christian and because of that we hold similar moral/ethical ideals. However, that religion, and those beliefs that rely on a Christian God have NO PLACE in political issues. Don\'t mean to put word in your mouth Saintfan - I just think that is what you were getting at. I agree.

Politics
 

I disagree. This is where we get back into \"church and state\". You want to suggest that because the first amendment says the gov can make no laws establishing a religion then it follows that I cannot propose laws and have them passed, if I can, if they reflect my religious beliefs. That may be true, if you want to ignore the passage that says \"prohibiting the free exercise thereof\".

As a Christian I believe that my actions and my government\'s actions should reflect Godly principles. Thus, I favor laws that restrict certain things. Remember, it\'s freedom of religion. Thus, to prohibit me from trying to live in a society that upholds my beliefs is to prohibit my exercise of religion.

Another problem with saying there\'s no place for God in politics is that many of the documents that brought this country into existence rely heavily on belief in God. You\'ll need to re-write the Constitution, throw out the Declaration of Independence, and burn much of the commentary on these documents written by leaders of the day because they refer to God many times.

I\'d continue this and make my argument stronger, but I \'m going to church now.

Politics
 

Well I never thought I\'d have to thank you for such a thing Whodat, but thanks, cause that\'s just about what I was trying to say.

ScottyRo -- I\'m not trying to beat down your argument...not really. I\'m not attempting to say abortion is OK. I\'m pro-choice, more than anything else, because I don\'t think your wife\'s or my neighbor\'s situation is any of my business. It\'s similar to my view on gays. I don\'t care if two people are gay, and whether it\'s right or wrong isn\'t my decision. Let \'em get married. What do I care? I personally know many gay couples very devoted to their relationship...some have been together more than 20 years. Flamers turn my stomach so I try not to look. ;)

I guess I\'m one of those \"You do your thing and I\"ll do my thing\" type folks. As long as my thing doesn\'t directly harm you, and as long as your thing doesn\'t directly harm me, then we\'re ok. In my opinion, if getting an abortion or being gay is wrong then those commiting the sin will have to deal with a higher power regarding their sin eventually. If there isn\'t a higher power then oh well...no harm, no foul...so to speak.

Politics
 

Actually, since people who do not smoke and are not regularly subjected to secondhand smoke do still get lung cancer, the court is actually guessing that there is a probability that smoking causes cancer since there is evidence that non-smokers get it too.

Most laws were developed over time based on the beliefs of the legislator or judge. It\'d probably be a shorter list for you to tell me which laws weren\'t, than for me to tell you which laws were. But, let\'s take the justified killing rule. Here\'s a rule of law based completely on people\'s belief that there are situations in which it is ok to kill another person. (Let\'s not debate the morality again.)

Politics
 

Just in case you haven\'t heard...

On Thursday, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 233-194 in favor of the Marriage Protection Act (MPA) which would take away from activist federal judges the power to declare the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. DOMA says that no state has to accept another state’s marriage laws which legalize homosexual marriage. DOMA was passed overwhelmingly in 1996 by both the House and Senate and signed into law by then President Bill Clinton.

Politics
 

Scotty, I do not think that the government should be banned from making any law that may have religious signifigance - or maybe better put, if you think killing is wrong b/c it\'s one of the ten commandments, that\'s OK. Why? B/c the same argument can be made without God.

Here\'s what I see on the abortion issue:

I see one side saying, we don\'t know when life begins, but our church tells us it is wrong. It should be banned. Some, and from what I\'ve seen this number is very small, but some people, like you, say, \"I don\'t know either way on abortion and since it may be wrong we should deem it wrong.\"

The opposite side says, \"I don\'t know one way or the other on abortion, and since it cannot be decided outright, I am happy to allow it to remain a personal decision.\"

Now, I don\'t mean to be inflamatory, but one of these seems in the spirit of individual freedom, and the other seems religiously backed, if not entirely based.

I mean, I\'m not sure whether or not my microwave is giving me and my family members cancer. Should we outlaw that b/c it MAY give us cancer?

In any case, there is one major point that the pro-lifers seem to miss. Many claim that the child should be given a chance. What chance would these children have being born into situations where they are unwanted? Further, should abortion be outlawed in the US, do you think that it would actually stop? It won\'t, it will simply put more women at risk, as they have to perform procedures \"under ground\" or fly to Mexico or wherever to get the procedures done. A law banning abortion won\'t stop abortion, it will put more people at risk though, and cause even more suffering for the women and families who have them.

Politics
 

I don\'t think your observations about religious people are inflamatory, it\'s just wrong.

I see some religious people thinking they way you say above. But there are others who know that just because they can\'t tell you the moment the combination of sperm and egg becomes a life doesn\'t mean that it\'s not so early on as to be irrelevant. (I was just about to go into my reasons for why it\'s true, but we won\'t agree or settle it so why bother at this point). It seems clear enough to me that by the time the woman knows she is pregnant, it is a life.

The opposite also has people that think as you say above - that it is about freedom. But there are also people that want it to be legal just in case they ever need it to be. They\'ll be as sexually irresponsible as they want to be and kill any child they might create in the process.

Just because the congregation is told they should not be in favor of something doesn\'t mean that they blindly follow. There are plenty of intellegent people who can figure these things out for themselves that also believe in God and go to church.
Maybe. But is the microwave a life or just a mass of cells?

Talk about weak links in the argument. So you\'re saying that they\'re better off not having been born. I suppose since they\'re born into tough situations, there\'s no chance that any good can come from them or their lives. Certainly none of them will grow up to win the superbowl for the Saints.

Ahh, the old \"we can\'t stop it so we might as well make it legal\" argument. Not your proudest moment here either. How about these: Drugs? Prostitution? Illegal immigration? Don\'t all of these laws drive people underground and put them at risk simply because they\'d rather take the risk than abide by the law?

Politics
 

Yes, they do, and I am in favor of legalizing drugs and prostitution, for the record. Want to find the safest prostitute in America? Go to Vegas, where it is legal. The UK has programs where addicts can go to hospitals and slowly be weened off a drug. The hospital will administer a clean, safe dose of the drug and monitor the user. They get stepped off the program. Those are both MUCH BETTER situations than what we have here now, yes.


In any case, I\'m quite sure you understand now. Here\'s the problem:

Well it\'s not CLEAR to ME that is true. So who is right? Both of us, or neither of us, however you want to put it. In that case what do you do? There is no right or wrong. I say take power from the state and leave it where I think it belongs, in the hands of the people to make their own decisions. You think it should be a federal issue to protect the potential life. Neither of us is right, or wrong. I rest happy knowing that right now, the law supports my view. ;)

Politics
 

So, hypothetically, if it was proven to be life at implantation would that change your thinking to not allowing the procedure?

You said in an earlier post that breathing and a heartbeat are the requirements for life. Is there anything else?

Politics
 

Not waking into that trap! ;)

Let me put it to you this way: I have seven doctors in my family. If they cannot agree and tell me when life actually begins, if the entire medical profession can\'t answer that question, then I am smart enough to know that I am not smart enough to answer it myself.

I can tell you that I FEEL that a month old embryo/fetus bears more resemblance to a cyst than a human being. Right now, without further proof, I think it is the mother\'s choice.

Here\'s another key difference. Let\'s assume for a moment that the medical industry came together and supported a view that life begins at \"implantation\". Would I change my view? Given good evidence and the respected opinions of experts, yes. I would.

Now consider the opposite. If the medical industry united to say that a child is not alive until it is born, would you change your view? Would other pro-lifers? I doubt it.

Politics
 

You may be right that it looks like a cyst at that stage, but it has a heartbeat and a spinal column at that time too. I know the cyst doesn\'t have its very own heartbeat.

You could gather all the scientists and doctors together and debate this for eternity and never come to a conclusion. But I guarantee that if only as much of a person as a recently implanted baby were discovered on some other planet, they\'d generally agree that they found evidence of human life on that other planet. It is taken for granted as being such on Earth because it is so plentiful.

Politics
 

Er, I\'m new to this board, and have been scrolling through the topics to check it out. Just thought I\'d add my two cents here while I wait for the season to start in earnest... ;)

I think what you\'re all missing is the idea of human dignity. It spans both the abortion and euthanasia arguments, and applies equally to both. I am unabashedly pro-choice, as I am pro-euthanasia, for many of the same reasons. It boils down to control over your own body. A woman, as a human being, shouldn\'t be reduced to being an unwilling incubator, any more than a terminal patient should be reduced to being a guinea pig or the victim of a risk management policy by a hospital. Are you saying that somehow a pregnant woman, no matter what stage of pregnancy she is in, is somehow in some different category of humanity than she would be otherwise? In other words, because she is pregnant, she loses her ability and right to make decisions about both herself and the fetus she carries, and in many ways, her own destiny as well? At what point does she regain the integrity of her rights as a person?

It\'s a sad situation, no doubt about it. But the reality is that there are some women out there who should never be mothers, especially if they aren\'t going into it willingly. I don\'t think it does the sum of human dignity any good to have a child raised by a mother who sees its existence as ruining hers. I\'ve heard enough stories about abuse and neglect from friends and family members who work in hospitals to make me strongly convinced that no child should be dealt that particular hand.

Carrying a pregnancy to term isn\'t as easy as a lot of the \"adoption option\" advocates want to pretend it is. I knew a girl who was pregnant in high school - twas a big shock and scandal in my home town, even in the 80\'s. When her father found out, he beat her and kicked her out of the house - 16, pregnant, no job, while pregnant she had no prospects of getting one. She wound up hundreds of miles away at a shelter for teenage mothers, and gave her child up for adoption. My understanding was that there were problems finding a family interested in adopting her child due to its race (not all races are equally adoptable - she is Filipina, the father is white) and the health problems it had due to having a very young mother. She moved back home and had to try and get her life back into gear - go back and finish school, try to move on - with her parents still not supporting or speaking to her. Do you think it would be right or advisable to remove the option of legal, safe abortion for that girl if she\'d chosen that route?

The argument over choice seems to be muddied with the morality of abortion. Personally, I feel that it\'s wrong to create an environment where a woman is forced (by law or coersion) to carry a pregnancy to term when she clearly is in no position to raise a child. I think y\'all have beaten the \"legal does not always mean morally correct\" view to death - there is often a gap between the two. Even in Nevada, you have a personal moral choice to make about prostitution, the legality aside. Oftentimes, women who seek abortion do so not because they really want to, but because they are forced to by circumstance or medical reasons. Having an abortion isn\'t exactly a skip through the park. You don\'t flip a coin and decide to have an abortion one afternoon because there\'s nothing on TV - it isn\'t that simple a decision. Put it this way - if a married couple in their third pregnancy was told that the fetus likely had significant health issues via amnio, would you force them to carry the child to term? To prove what point? At what cost, to them, to their family, to that child?

Politics
 

Hey Girlscout, you damn sure don\'t talk like one and don\'t get too bent out of shape about some of the debates on our board. Everyone here is very passionate and has to be, we are all Saint\'s Fans.

I don\'t believe in abortion, but that is my personal belief. I do believe a person has the right to kill themself, if they wish when they are of legal age. My separation on both of these issues is, I believe the child doesn\'t have a choice and I believe it is a child at the time of conception.

Only my opinion and I guess that makes me no demcrate.

Politics
 

First off, welcome to the boards Grrlscout. Second, your post was very well though out and nicely written. I disagree with your sentiment and logic, but still, well done. I hope you post on some Saints issues comments as thoroughly worked through as this one.

I\'m going to argue my points from the basis that the unborn child is a life at conception since none of your arguments seem to rely on the allegation that it is not.

No doubt that the woman\'s body is greatly effected here, but the control is also over another individual\'s body as well. You\'ll never hear me say that pregnancy is easy, but does that difficulty demand the death of the unborn? Not in most people\'s minds since they do carry full term.

A child, as an unborn human being, shouldn\'t be reduced to a pile of medical waste just because its life may cause the unwilling parent difficulty.

Yes. While pregant, she is exceptionally changed from an individual human being to a human being that is the sole life support system for another. Obviously, this is a vastly different existence for her than the life she\'ll lead otherwise.

Yes, she loses the right to make decisions for herself and the fetus in many situations. The right to make decisions even for yourself when not pregnant is not absolute. You can test this by calling the police and making a serious threat to kill yourself. You\'ll find that your ability to commit suicide will be severely curtailed by the government. You could accomplish it by keeping it a secret but that doesn\'t mean you had the right to do it.

She\'ll regain her rights as an individual person when she delivers the child or the pregnancy naturally aborts.

Safe? It is deadly to one and injurious many times for the other. The rest of the paragraph that preceded the above quote is tragic. However, consider all the people that made mistakes in that scenario. The dad. The boyfriend. The pregnant girl. The peeple who allowed prejudices to affect their decisions about adopting a child. At what point do all of these bad decisions reasonably condemn the only innocent party involved to death?

Also, if the child is never adopted and had to live a sad life, not even with foster parents, but always in an orphan center, that is still preferable to death. It cannot be truthfully stated that one would have been better off having never been born.

Yes, they should carry the child to prove the point that life, especially all human life, is precious. You ask about the costs to the parents and family. I have to say it\'s apparent that you don\'t know any families that have children born with these difficulties. Certainly, it is a dificult thing to handle, but you\'re on the cusp of saying here that even without the test if the child is born with these difficulties the parents should be allowed to kill it then to avoid the challenges of raising this child.

What is the cost to the child? I have a good friend that was born with spina bifida. I have only known her for about 3 years (she is now 25), but I do know that she has struggled her entire life with the difficulties brought on by her problems. In fact, this entire week she has been in the hospital with these problems.

I can\'t speak for her entirely, but I think I know her well enough to say that she is much happier simply being alive than the alternative. I\'m equally sure she would say that she\'d accept these struggles and more again in order to live.

You are one who seems to ignore that abortion is not some medical procedure to rid the female\'s body of some tumor or cancer. The abortion is the killing of a human. It deprives the child of something I\'d bet you hold as the most precious thing you have...life. Where is the human dignity in that?

What I am coming to understand about pro-abortionists is that it seems, simply, that your priorites are out of line. I don\'t mean to sound condescending here, but I think, if you were asked to rank the importance of life against things such as choice issues and sickness issues, you\'d always rank life first in any other discussion except abortion.

Would you fight to save the habitat of some extinction-threatened species? Would you call the humane society on a neighbor who shot or severely beat his dog because it p\'d on the floor? Yet you won\'t back the protection of unborn children.