Should Medical Abortion Be Restricted?

[LeSellers]

Yes [Thomas Jefferson] was [in France while the Constitution was being written]. So What? Letters were being sent long before Adams and Jefferson were gleams in their great great grandfathers eyes.

Yes, and Jefferson wrote several letters about it. Of course, the fact that the Convention took only a couple of months, and a letter from Europe to USmerica took nearly as long, each way, limited any serious correspondence between Jefferson and the conventioneers.

However, your assertion was that he disapproved of the Document, and that he threatened to pull the Virginia delegation from the Convention. He had nothing to do with the delegation.

Nor did he have anything directly to do with the writing of the Constitution. His influence was indirect, and there are few, if any, scholars who disbelieve that the Document is a very different thing from what it would have been had he been there in person.

As to the Bill of Rights, I am convinced that it has become a destructive thing, that we suffer more because our rights were written down, rather than their being implicit—in what I call "the negative space" of the Constitution. Because, irrespective of anything else, it is plain from the Document itself and The Federalist, as well as dozens of other sources, that the Founders' underlying philosophy was that government has no legitimate power unless and until the people formally cede that power to it, and that the federation/union was a creation of and subordinate to the states.

Lehi

[katherine the great]

I believe that all third trimester abortions should be illegal for all reasons unless the fetus is already dead. If the life of the mother is in peril, she can have a C section. I believe that third trimester abortions are murder and show a crass and blatant disregard for human life. I don't believe that a first trimester abortion even begins to approach the seriousness of a late abortion, and I think they should be legal and available (although I am personally opposed to all abortions.) I'm not sure how I feel about second trimester abortions. I think this is something that is "like unto" murder, but not exactly the same. Something that I have a very, very hard time grasping is why there are any unwanted pregnancies at all in the United States. Various forms of birth control are widely available and very easy to access and if that fails, there is the morning after pill. We are just pathetic I guess.

[AmorLibertas]

I was obviously messing with you . . . why so serious?

I consider the subject matter of serious import. If you don't I ask that you refrain from further comments.

Many of the Founders were, as you recall, untroubled by the lack of a Bill of Individual Rights in the original version of the Constitution because they were all implicit in the Preamble and elsewhere.

That's sort of right. In truth, some. Elieved a Bill of Rights would not be necessary because the Federal Government was forbidden from doing anything it was not expressly given the powers to do, but others realized the nature of those who aspire to power or are put in positions of power tend to abuse or overstep their authority and therefore refused to ratify the Constitution without an assurance that there would be a Bill of Rights expressly limiting the powers of the Federal and State governments to infringe upon certain individual rights as well as limiting the powers of the Federal government from infringing upon the powers of the state governments.

Clearly you do not understand my "Weltanschauung" at all to lump me in with the "folks on the left" you inaccurately and uncharitably refer to as misanthropes.

Let me explain why it's silly: That something unique and alive is not being disputed by me.

A unique yet wholly dependent organism has an interest in its own continued existence: it has an expectation of life.

It only has such an expectation if it is capable of cognition.

A human organism in its iteration as fertilized ovum has the same expectancy as a human organism that is born but not yet self aware, and a non-self-aware just-born human organism has the same expectancy as a fully cognizant 25-year-old.

That's absurd. Will you next be suggesting the zygote in the petri dish that has yet to be implanted expects to graduate from college one day? Non-thinking organisms have no expectations anymore than non-thinking non-organisms like rocks.

The same argument that makes a dependent human organism in its iteration as implanted mass of undifferentiated cells flushable is the argument that makes the mentally retarded 25-year-old who will never hold a job, never be permitted to marry or father other children, and always and ever dependent upon others for his wants and needs flushable.

Not only is that not my argument, it's a rather poor excuse for a strawman argument to replace my argument.

This line-drawing the misanthropic Left engages in is cynical and highly dangerous: we're relying on unelected but highly politically successful individuals to draw those lines. Why?

Again more strawman argumentation. Is it because you are unable or simply unwilling to address my argument?

[USU78]

I consider the subject matter of serious import. If you don't I ask that you refrain from further comments.

That's sort of right. In truth, some. Elieved a Bill of Rights would not be necessary because the Federal Government was forbidden from doing anything it was not expressly given the powers to do, but others realized the nature of those who aspire to power or are put in positions of power tend to abuse or overstep their authority and therefore refused to ratify the Constitution without an assurance that there would be a Bill of Rights expressly limiting the powers of the Federal and State governments to infringe upon certain individual rights as well as limiting the powers of the Federal government from infringing upon the powers of the state governments.

Clearly you do not understand my "Weltanschauung" at all to lump me in with the "folks on the left" you inaccurately and uncharitably refer to as misanthropes.

Let me explain why it's silly: That something unique and alive is not being disputed by me.

It only has such an expectation if it is capable of cognition.

That's absurd. Will you next be suggesting the zygote in the petri dish that has yet to be implanted expects to graduate from college one day? Non-thinking organisms have no expectations anymore than non-thinking non-organisms like rocks.

Not only is that not my argument, it's a rather poor excuse for a strawman argument to replace my argument.

Again more strawman argumentation. Is it because you are unable or simply unwilling to address my argument?

I kinda did already. Look, kiddo, I'm not calling you on your particularly nasty way of engaging others, but have, rather, tried to get you to loosen up and engage folks hereabouts on a more personal level. Your response is to turn up the nastiness. But let's lay that aside.

Ultimately your "libertarian" viewpoint ignores the science that makes the genetically unique human organism that is in existence, respirates, and does everything else that living things do, as "human." She is human in every way that is significant biologically. The motivation for doing so is to cover the fact that a human organism is being killed.

Now, there's nothing particularly wrong with one life giving way to others' or another's. It happens all the time, and there's nothing particuarly morally repugnant about that happening. I happily give my life in defense of my family, the Temples, and my neighbors. I have a choice, however, in so doing. The human organism that is flushed, often for the convenience of feckless folks who know better, has no such choice. Supporting fecklessness' choice to take the choice of the most profoundly helpless and calling it "pro-choice" is a vicious piece of cynical newspeak.

True libertarianism does not mean anarchy. License to harm others is not what libertarianism is all about. "An ye harm none, do what ye will" is what libertarianism is supposes to mean (and, interestingly, Wicca also holds). Prevention of harm to others is among those permissible uses of the State's police power under libertarianism. Vicious fecklessness is not okay with true libertarians.

Assuming arguendo a Mormonness that I do not assume you possess, but which other posters surely do possess, consider the effects upon the spirit both before and after entry into the zygotic vessel: What harm is done to those innocent spirits? Why no discussion of the effects on them?

[Vance]

Yes, that's right, once they have achieved the physiological capacity differentiating them from a non-sentient, non-cognizant being they are accurately termed babies.

So, about age 3 then?

[mfbukowski]

So, about age 3 then?

Thanks. I was just tired of it.

[thesometimesaint]

Vance:

Some times I wonder about teenagers.

[USU78]

Vance:

Some times I wonder about teenagers.

There's a reason that nobody under the age of 25 may rent a car . . . the insurance companies have read the studies on the unformed human brain, which doesn't really get "formed up" until about 25. Calling teenagers "young adults" and making the fanciful leap that they're fully sentient is foolish, but I guess it doesn't do much harm.

Where does the river begin?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

So, about age 3 then?

I am told that the present or former head of the ethics department for Princeton University says that abortion should be legal up to two years of age. Not sure if it one of those made up facts about abortion.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I believe that all third trimester abortions should be illegal for all reasons unless the fetus is already dead. If the life of the mother is in peril, she can have a C section. I believe that third trimester abortions are murder and show a crass and blatant disregard for human life. I don't believe that a first trimester abortion even begins to approach the seriousness of a late abortion, and I think they should be legal and available (although I am personally opposed to all abortions.) I'm not sure how I feel about second trimester abortions. I think this is something that is "like unto" murder, but not exactly the same. Something that I have a very, very hard time grasping is why there are any unwanted pregnancies at all in the United States. Various forms of birth control are widely available and very easy to access and if that fails, there is the morning after pill. We are just pathetic I guess.

Once the child is moving, when it’s soul enters the body, I believe it is then murder. Up until that time it is certainly killing. Since I lack the knowledge to know for sure, I defer to Church policy. All the women in my family believe it to murder no matter when.

[Vance]

Vance:

Some times I wonder about teenagers.

Well, when I first read that statement I thought, 'Oh, you mean about age 21', but then I read it more carefully.

I think that around age 3, children are "capable of sentiency or cognition", in that they really begin to exercise their own will.

Maybe even as early as age 2.

It wasn't totally tongue-in-cheek.

[blueadept]

Here's some facts that may help on where efforts I believe will help lower the number of abortions that are performed. No matter which side one is on on this topic, everyone would like to see the number of abortions at least decrease. I believe there's room for improvement on point #3 that out of the total number of pregnancies, 24% end in abortion.

Abortion Facts - Top 10 Abortion Facts and Abortion Statistics

Essential Abortion Facts for Pro-Life and Pro-Choice Advocates

By Linda Lowen, About.com Guide

The following abortion facts drawn from annual statistics for abortion in the United States - as reported by the Guttmacher Institute in May 2006 - are helpful in understanding the basis of the pro-life pro-choice debate:

1. Unintended pregnancies account for almost half of all pregnancies.

2. Four out of ten unintended pregnancies end in abortion.

3. Out of the total number of pregnancies, 24% end in abortion.

4. For women ages 15-44, two out of every hundred have an abortion.

Of these, 48% have had one or more abortions previously.

5. For women choosing abortion, 52% are under 25.

Teenagers account for 19%, and women 20-24 account for 33%.

6. Black women are almost four times as likely to have an abortion as white women.

For Latino women, the number is 2.5 times.

7. Women who have never been married account for 2/3rds of all abortions.

8. The majority of women who choose abortions have already given birth.

Mothers who have had one or more children comprise over 60% of all abortions.

9. Women who have never used any birth control method account for 8% of abortions.

10. For women having abortions, 43% are Protestant and 27% identify as Catholic.

I highlighted a couple of the stats that jumped out for me. I've read somewhere of the undertones of Planned Parenthood in regards to racism and have tried to dismiss the whole thing as simply being ludicrous. While the connection may be ludicrous, there is obviously an issue to address on why black women are 4X more likely to have an abortion than whites. In today's US society, the discrepancy shouldn't be so drastic.

The fact that 60% of all abortions are by women have already given birth is an astounding fact to me. That's not the image I had of the majority of women who uses abortion services. Wow...

[Jeff K.]

Women who have never used any birth control method account for 8% of abortions.

Which opens the question whether sex education reduces abortions, has no effect, or increases them.

[blueadept]

Which opens the question whether sex education reduces abortions, has no effect, or increases them.

While the pro-lifers are definitely against the abortion services that Planned Parenthood provides, the Pro-Choicers usually point out that they offer so many other things that promote Women's health. They say more condoms = less abortions. The stat of only 8% never used ABC and are getting an abortion sort of shoots that down IMO.

Why is their government funding for Planned Parenthood? The reasons (excuses) I use to listen to has taken a big hit...

[Jeff K.]

While the pro-lifers are definitely against the abortion services that Planned Parenthood provides, the Pro-Choicers usually point out that they offer so many other things that promote Women's health. They say more condoms = less abortions. The stat of only 8% never used ABC and are getting an abortion sort of shoots that down IMO.

So of the high abortion rate, only 8% of the total number have used no contraceptives, which leaves a large gap that use contraceptive AND have abortions. This to me undermines the issue of sex education leading to less abortions.

[AmorLibertas]

So, about age 3 then?

Well, I can't speak to your relatives, but for most human babies it appears to occur in utero around the beginning of the 2nd trimester.

[mfbukowski]

Where does the river begin?

You are just too cool, dude!

[AmorLibertas]

I kinda did already. Look, kiddo, I'm not calling you on your particularly nasty way of engaging others, but have, rather, tried to get you to loosen up and engage folks hereabouts on a more personal level. Your response is to turn up the nastiness.

actually, you are calling me on it. I only give as good as I get. When people fling insults or make uncharitable insinuations, I tend to make them right back. I'm not the one to start the nastiness, but I'm not one to let others dish it out and not return it to them in kind until warned by a moderator.

But let's lay that aside.

Happy to

Ultimately your "libertarian" viewpoint ignores the science that makes the genetically unique human organism that is in existence, respirates, and does everything else that living things do, as "human." She is human in every way that is significant biologically. The motivation for doing so is to cover the fact that a human organism is being killed.

It doesn't ignore the science at all. It simply disputes the non-scientific decision to consider a non-sentient, non-thinking human fetus a person with constitutionally protected rights.

Supporting [feckless] choice to take the [life] of the most profoundly helpless and calling it "pro-choice" is a vicious piece of cynical newspeak.

I agree with your general sentiment when it applies to the terminating of pregnancies past the first trimester for any reason other than self-preservation. Where we clearly disagree is during the first trimester and possibly the exceptions that might be made during the 2nd trimester based on the circumstances of conception. I'm not sure whether you stand with the Church with respect to murdering the unborn child during the 2nd trimester for the sin of its father.

True libertarianism does not mean anarchy. License to harm others is not what libertarianism is all about. "An ye harm none, do what ye will" is what libertarianism is supposes to mean (and, interestingly, Wicca also holds). Prevention of harm to others is among those permissible uses of the State's police power under libertarianism. Vicious fecklessness is not okay with true libertarians.

I agree, but would add that true libertarianism holds that the individual may also utilize force in response to force, the individual is simply not permitted to initiate force against another.

Assuming arguendo a Mormonness that I do not assume you possess, but which other posters surely do possess, consider the effects upon the spirit both before and after entry into the zygotic vessel: What harm is done to those innocent spirits? Why no discussion of the effects on them?

But that's the whole crux of the matter. As a Mormon you identify personness with a spirit, and the spirit is hypothetically present from conception (although there is no doctrine declaring this to be the case). With such a belief, the arguments against abortion are understandable (except those which allow for abortion in the cases rape or incest). My point is that such a belief about spirits being present from conception is an individual religious belief, not a verifiable fact, and as such should not be used as the basis for making secular law that affects belie er and non-believer alike.

It has been my experience that certain religious types of people are inclined to impose their religious beliefs and values upon the whole of society through force of law. I am strongly opposed to such behavior and seek to quell it wherever I find it. Your right to live your life according to your religious beliefs ends where it begins to infringe upon my rights to live my life according to my own philosophical and spiritual beliefs and vice versa.

[AmorLibertas]

Dup

[Vance]

Well, I can't speak to your relatives,

Winning friends and moving people to your side, eh.

The problem is YOU DON'T HAVE A CLUE when that might really be. ALL YOU CAN DO is speculate.

[AmorLibertas]

Winning friends and moving people to your side, eh.

glass houses and stones

The problem is YOU DON'T HAVE A CLUE when that might really be. ALL YOU CAN DO is speculate.

You might like to think so, however science has a pretty good idea, i.e. a clue, as to when thinking occurs in the brain. It's indicated by sustained changes in electrical potential in specific areas or regions of the brain. Developing human fetuses have been shown to begin exhibiting such signs around the beginning of the 2nd trimester. You'd do well to not make accusations from ignorance.

[Vance]

glass houses and stones

You might like to think so, however science has a pretty good idea, i.e. a clue, as to when thinking occurs in the brain. It's indicated by sustained changes in electrical potential in specific areas or regions of the brain. Developing human fetuses have been shown to begin exhibiting such signs around the beginning of the 2nd trimester. You'd do well to not make accusations from ignorance.

So you ASSUME that "sentiency or cognition" of a being MUST have "changes in electrical potential in specific areas or regions of the brain". This is something you DO NOT KNOW but ONLY ASSUME.

You would do well to recognize the limits of your own assumptions. Or maybe, for you, ignorance is bliss.

[mfbukowski]

You might like to think so, however science has a pretty good idea, i.e. a clue, as to when thinking occurs in the brain. It's indicated by sustained changes in electrical potential in specific areas or regions of the brain. Developing human fetuses have been shown to begin exhibiting such signs around the beginning of the 2nd trimester. You'd do well to not make accusations from ignorance.

You know, I would not have even commented if you had not made that "ignorance" slam. Why do you do that? Man, could I zing you right now, but I won't.

So a comatose person with "sustained changes in electrical potential in specific areas or regions of the brain" is "Thinking"? Electrical activity in the brain is "thinking"? Electrical activity defines "sentience"?

He is "thinking"? What, pray tell, is he thinking about? I mean if you can read minds you should know that, shouldn't you?

Let me stop you before you come back with something about "thinking is electrical activity"- THAT is not what I am disputing. What I am disputing is that ANY electrical activity in the brain defines "sentience" or "Thinking", or that you can prove anything about a phenomenological state from electrical activity.

That is unknowable in principle. Period.

[mfbukowski]

My point is that such a belief about spirits being present from conception is an individual religious belief, not a verifiable fact, and as such should not be used as the basis for making secular law that affects belie er and non-believer alike.

Sentience itself is not a "verifiable fact" - in such cases and takes as much faith to believe in as the infusion of spirit.

Is a person out cold on anesthesia "sentient"?

How is such a person's electrical brain activity different from a fetus'?

Why all the legal hoopla about comatose people's family "pulling the plug"? Because no one knows these answers!!

There are no "facts" in this regard!

[mfbukowski]

glass houses and stones