A friendly political question

[mikey2much]

How do these people who are against abortion manage to get the federal government to bow to their wants so easily? I bring this up now because it may deny all Americans a health care plan.

There are millions of Americans who are against war but they are routinely overruled. Imagine what would happen if they took the same stand as the anti-abortion people have taken, that no federal money could be spent on warfare. We might be able to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure. Most polls show that the wars we are fighting are not supported by the public.

There are millions who are against the war on drugs but they are ignored. If we had the money that is spent on keeping all the drug offenders in prison, estimated to be 30, 000 a year for each one, maybe we could afford health care for our people. How much more protection from crime could the police give us if they were not wasting their time and budgets on this losing effort to stop people from getting high. Isn’t drug use an attempt to find a moment of happiness? What about the promise made by our Founding Fathers, of “Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness. While we are on the subject wouldn’t our founding fathers be considered terrorist under the laws of the land since the Patriot Act?

Why do we as a country cater to the people who want to enforce their moral standards on an unwilling population? I think that if the government really did what the public wanted America would be loved the world over instead hated and feared.

 

[BlackShanglan]

There are three common routes to political power. Either the people espousing the positions you decry have more money than those in your position, or more political back-room sway, or they are simply more numerous than you think. Given that the polls on abortion generally hover right around the 50-50 point, I suspect it is the latter. The government is made up of the general population; it's difficult to see how they could utterly fail to represent the general interests of that population in so many topics as you mention, unless you're envisioning some sort of cabal controlling the country. If that was the case, it would seem to me very odd that they would permit the issue of abortion to stall the health care bill, yet not simply outlaw the practice. I suspect, rather, that this debate reflects the division of the country on the topic.

Personally, I oppose abortion. I would not, however, oppose it through the laws of our country if my objections were rooted purely in my personal religious views. I would raise no objection, for instance, to our government recognizing polygamous or polyandrous marriages, although my personal religious views repudiate those practices. I recognize that the government is not a tool through which I ought to express my personal religious beliefs or attempt to enforce them upon others. That sort of thing tends to end badly.

Rather, my opposition to legal abortion is rooted in our constitution and our laws, which forbid the killing of other people. Our scientific gold standard for determining the presence of another person - the one used in the forensic investigation of every circumstance other than abortion - is DNA testing. From the moment of conception, there is a detectable living presence with DNA distinct from the mother. Therefore, I believe that there is a human being with the right to live.

That's not, of course, to suggest that you ought to be persuaded by my comments - I recognize that both sides of this debate are strongly attached to their points of view, and that we each have reasons for believing as we do. I only wish to point out that religion alone does not account for all opposition to abortion. There's a constitutional argument to be made as well.

 

[mikey2much]

a reasonable comment

You make a good and valid point. I would not try to change your beliefs. It is just that I belive that in a 'free' country, it is hard to justify taking health care from millions to stop other millions from having a choice about how they will have to live their lives. It seems very selfish to say the least.

I do respect your view and the reason behind that view.

 

[Pure]

interesting analogy, mikey

of course some who are 'anti war' withold part of their income tax, the part calculated to be spent on war. naturally, the government collects it, up the road, but the person, in forcing that, has made a point.

what's interesting is that clearly avoidance of killing applies equally to the anti war case.

more common, as during the Vietnam time, someone might oppose *a particular war that's occuring,* and try to withhold taxes calculated. same result as above.

it would be interesting to consider the 'avoid killing' stance applied more broadly: if i lived in FL, might i withhold the portion of state taxes that goes towards their many executions?

also, would you boycott imported flowers if you knew the country didn't protect its workers against the strong [though legal] pesticides?

 

[WRJames]

Rather, my opposition to legal abortion is rooted in our constitution and our laws, which forbid the killing of other people. Our scientific gold standard for determining the presence of another person - the one used in the forensic investigation of every circumstance other than abortion - is DNA testing. From the moment of conception, there is a detectable living presence with DNA distinct from the mother. Therefore, I believe that there is a human being with the right to live.

Most people would oppose killing human beings. The question is when does a fertilized egg attain the status of a human being.

Those DNA samples, flakes of skin or whatever, are not in themselves human beings.

Personally, I believe that what makes us human is the presence of a soul. I realize this is a wildly unscientific postion, but that's where I'm coming from. Anyway, I don't think that a newly fertilized egg has enough of a nervous system to support a soul, to be possibly human. The same for early stages of pregnancy. On the other hand, late term abortions bother me.

The problem with the abortion issue is that we really don't even have the framework to argue it conclusively. There are a lot of people taking extreme positions with little or no factual evidence to back them up.

 

[Katyusha]

Most people would oppose killing human beings. The question is when does a fertilized egg attain the status of a human being.

Those DNA samples, flakes of skin or whatever, are not in themselves human beings.

Personally, I believe that what makes us human is the presence of a soul. I realize this is a wildly unscientific postion, but that's where I'm coming from. Anyway, I don't think that a newly fertilized egg has enough of a nervous system to support a soul, to be possibly human. The same for early stages of pregnancy. On the other hand, late term abortions bother me.

The problem with the abortion issue is that we really don't even have the framework to argue it conclusively. There are a lot of people taking extreme positions with little or no factual evidence to back them up.

And science actually doesn't help. When they say, "A baby's 'x' is developed at only 4 weeks gestation, a baby's 'y' is working at 6 weeks gestation," etc., it can make the case for both sides. For instance, a baby's heart begins beating at roughly four weeks after conception (or week 6 of what your doctor calls your pregnancy). Some say this proves the embryo is a person. Others say that the heart must start beating very early in order for the tissues to keep growing, but because of the lack of other organs, including a brain, it's still just a cell cluster, which can hardly be called a person.

I'm not sure this can be solved with science like so many think it can because I don't believe there will ever be anything definitive that will say, "THIS is when an zygote/embryo/fetus becomes a person." It depends on how "person" is defined, and we don't really have a legal definition of what makes a person a person. How would the word "person" be legally defined anyway?

Further, there are no exceptions to the law when it comes to killing someone. You kill in self-defense, you're still arrested and tried, even though the trial may be short and seem like more of a formality than anything. You kill someone accidentally, you're arrested and tried. It's up to the judge or jury and your attorney, not the police. So this is why it's so important to come to some kind of consensus on when a developing baby becomes a person. I don't think there ever will be any kind of consensus though.

 

[BlackShanglan]

You make a good and valid point. I would not try to change your beliefs. It is just that I belive that in a 'free' country, it is hard to justify taking health care from millions to stop other millions from having a choice about how they will have to live their lives. It seems very selfish to say the least.

I do respect your view and the reason behind that view.

Thank you. I always enjoy a civil discussion, and it's particularly nice to be able to have one about so divisive a topic.

The health care bill issue is a very difficult thing for a horse of my own political and moral persuasions, particularly. I am strongly in favor of universal health care; I am strongly opposed to abortion. I would very much like to see everyone in the United States have access to at least basic health care, but just as in your perspective, denying abortion is defined as denying vital freedoms to millions, in my perspective, supporting abortion means killing millions. Personally, I would like to see them take abortion to a seperate bill, as it would allow those two issues to be disentangled from each other and let the health care bill move forward. We might as well agree on everything that we can agree on, and get on with that.

The problem with the abortion issue is that we really don't even have the framework to argue it conclusively. There are a lot of people taking extreme positions with little or no factual evidence to back them up.

Yes, and I do certainly agree that the answer that works for me doesn't work for everyone. The really difficult part of the abortion debate, and the one that leads to extremism and to rancor on both sides, is that it's one of those rare debates in which there is no middle ground. You can't halfway destroy something; either it lives or it dies, and so the debate is pretty much an all-or-nothing proposition no matter which side you take. I'd very much like there to be some sort of middle ground that protects what I perceive as human life while granting women liberty from the misery of an unwanted pregnancy, but at the moment there isn't such an alternative. It's not a difficult situation to resolve if one assumes that a human life isn't being ended, but if one cannot through reason come to any other conclusion, it's an ugly, near-insoluble mess.

And this all makes me feel how much I miss Colleen. She was always so interesting on this topic.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

The pro-/anti-abortion debate is no where near as clearly defined as it is made out to be. While the media high ground is held by the extreme views on either end (as is ever the case in political debates) subtler examinations of public opinion shows a more nuanced position. The majority of Americans strongly favor abortion in any case where the woman has not had any control over her impregnation. That is to say, in cases of rape or incest, abortion is accepted as a perfectly legitimate recourse. On the opposing side, however, public opinion is equally strong in not believing that abortion is a legitimate form of birth control. These positions are, if I recall the numbers correctly, held by about 80% of the American middle. Unfortunately, newspapers need controversy to sell papers and so the 10% on each end rules the front page.

 

[mikey2much]

All very good points

However, can we agree that abortions are being performed and that they are legal? That it is selfish for the ‘pro life’ people to take health care from the poor just to force that one section of the population into having babies they don’t want and can’t afford. Abortions have always been ‘legal‘for the people with the money to buy an airplane ticket to a country where they are allowed.

So in reality we are talking about stopping the people who really can’t afford the children from having a way to avoid it. At the very least the anti-abortion folks should allow these people to enjoy the same choices that their richer fellow Americans have.

There is a part of me that says everybody’s beliefs should be respected but at what price to other members of our society who so desperately needs this health care plan.

 

[WRJames]

Yes, and I do certainly agree that the answer that works for me doesn't work for everyone. The really difficult part of the abortion debate, and the one that leads to extremism and to rancor on both sides, is that it's one of those rare debates in which there is no middle ground. You can't halfway destroy something; either it lives or it dies, and so the debate is pretty much an all-or-nothing proposition no matter which side you take. I'd very much like there to be some sort of middle ground that protects what I perceive as human life while granting women liberty from the misery of an unwanted pregnancy, but at the moment there isn't such an alternative. It's not a difficult situation to resolve if one assumes that a human life isn't being ended, but if one cannot through reason come to any other conclusion, it's an ugly, near-insoluble mess.

And this all makes me feel how much I miss Colleen. She was always so interesting on this topic.

Saying that human life begins at conception is one extreme, the other would be to say that it starts at birth.

I don't feel comfortable with either of those exreme positions. There are so many paraoxes and contradictions if you try to define human life as starting at conception. On the other hand, my two children were exhibiting definite personalities before they were born.

 

[BlackShanglan]

However, can we agree that abortions are being performed and that they are legal? That it is selfish for the ‘pro life’ people to take health care from the poor just to force that one section of the population into having babies they don’t want and can’t afford.

I'm sure you see, though, how easily this argument is reversed. One can just as well argue that it is selfish to delay the bill by insisting on including abortion funding in it and thereby taking health care from the poor just to force people to pay for murder against their consciences. There is, after all, the solution of removing abortion funding from the bill.

I recognize why a person in your position would not want to remove it; no doubt you can see why a person in my position would. I only say this to point out that I think the real issue here is the question of abortion, not the question of whether people would like to see health care for the poor. Either side is as capable as the other of yielding on this, but as seems inevitable with the topic of abortion, it's very difficult to find a compromise.

 

[DeeZire]

...You can't halfway destroy something; either it lives or it dies, and so the debate is pretty much an all-or-nothing proposition no matter which side you take.

Actually, the fetus doesn't live or die until it's viable. Those who wish to protect the fertilized egg may, in fact, be protecting a future miscarriage, or a flawed fetus with no brain. I don't know the exact numbers, but conception is not a 100% guarantee of a healthy baby. In that respect, the all-or-nothing proposition does not exist until the later stages of pregnancy.

On the issue of "protecting life", there are many areas where conservatives ignore the sanctity of life, for example: war, environmental hazards, work hazards, access to health care, the death penalty. I don't see the validity of protecting an unwanted human life while ignoring those who wish to continue living but, due to conservative obstructionism, are denied the means to do so. This may be a strawman argument, but it goes to the heart of the issue: If human life is sacred, there should be no exceptions. Or, if there are exceptions, then how can it be sacred?

 

[Stella_Omega]

If you are going with a constitutional argument-- which I do not for one minute believe is the basis of your objection, my dear friend-- then I invoke my constitutional right to property. If this blastocyte is in fact a separate entity by way of its DNA, then it's an intruder in my sovereign domain and I have the constitutional right to welcome or evict it as I wish.

The problem for women is one of sovereign domain. Am I chattel? Breeding stock? Do I have the right to use my genitalia for recreational purposes, the way men do?

 

[BlackShanglan]

Well, it was interesting while it lasted. However, I choose not to debate when I will not be granted at least an initial assumption that I am truthful about my own beliefs and motives.

More's the pity; I think it impossible to advance one's understanding when one insists on assigning one's own worst suspicions as the motives of everyone opposed to one's own point of view.

 

[Liar]

To go back to the original question:

It's a matter of priorities.

Most of those who oppose abortion rights do it vehemently. Their stance is absolute, ethical, often religious, and with no room for negotitation. Abortion is to murder babies. Period. Everything that stops abortions is imperative.

This while most supporters of abortion rights are not nearly as absolute in their convictions. They agree that it's problematic, and are often willing to put limits and regulations on those rights.

So you have, on average, one side where abortion is a deal breaker. And one side where it's not. Deal breakers are very important poltitically. They determine elections.

 

[rgraham666]

It's a matter of emotion. War and abortion are highly emotional issues and that emotion allows people to be manipulated.

The war in Iraq had been planned for a decade before it actually happened. But until 9/11 frightened most Americans out of their wits that war wasn't possible to start.

Abortion, since it involves children on one side and personal freedom on the other, also raises strong emotions. Which makes it difficult for the people on the opposite sides to even talk to one another, never mind compromise.

So it's a matter of emotion. The darker ones, unfortunately.

 

[oggbashan]

The law on abortion in the UK is different.

I don't say that it is better. It is based on a different approach.

However it still divides people into those for and those against, with vehement arguments on either side.

For some people there is no possibility of compromise. To them abortion is either wholly wrong or wholly right. That makes it a minefield for anyone who wants a reasonable argument based on facts rather than strongly held beliefs.

Og

 

[Pure]

thoughts: symmetry

i think the issue of presence of individual "human life" or better individual "living human" is being answered, within limits.

person is simply not defined in the US constitution, nor have court cases [or criminal codes] broadened the definition back to conception, hence conception as the start of a human life remains largely as personal choice of defintions, not even one officially endorsed by the Catholic Church up through medieval times at least [Aquinas]. (rather, ensoulment, quickening, as another poster said).

this is evident in regard to laws in just about all nations, including the US. "murder" is not charged (nor is "killing" viewed to have occurred) where there are abortions before the last couple months.

the US gov't has approved use of RU 486 up to about 6 weeks of pregnancy confirmed by sonogram.

http://womenshealth.about.com/cs/abortion/a/ru486pillapprov.htm

so in the legal realm, the issue of 'person' or 'killing' simply does not arise--in the view of the duly constituted civil authorities-- for this example.

i don't see DNA as any kind of 'gold standard' for presently occurring human life; as evidence, i suggest the following thought experiment: your father has an apparent heart attack, and due to the heavy snow, you can't get him to the emergency room for two hours. now, when you ask for resuscitation, do they look at DNA? no, they look for brain waves; if absent, no life. no resuscitation [and no being is "killed" by withholding it].

so i think the outlines of compromise, based in science**, are fairly evident, were both sides not entrenched: brain activity, even the basic stuff, does not genuinely exist till at least week 12. hence there is no individual human life or human person: likewise when your brain ceases its normal activity [which includes sleep, of course], "you" are not a person any longer. this definition of "death" implies a correlative defintion of "life" [of the individual person].

so in principle there could be agreement as to protecting third trimester fetuses, with only the narrowly defined exceptions for rape, incest, and life-risk to the mother. and i think there's wide public agreement as to the privacy of events before week twelve [or six, in some cases], as shown in existing legislation.

==
PS. As to the US federal health legislation, a workable compromise has already been drafted; in any *publically* funded insurance plan, abortion rights are limited as above; this does not rule out private insurance companies offering health plans inclusive of abortion services for those who request and have a legal right to them. reasonableness on both sides seems to be prevailing in this matter.

**scientific findings, of course, do not *dictate* moral and legal definitions.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Pure, that's certainly the way I understand the general public opinion. However, though it may be logical and reasonable, that doesn't mean it will fly politically. Passion overrides reason in almost every case. Sometimes that is regrettable and sometimes it's the only way to manage one's freedom.

 

[WRJames]

Pure -- very nicely put. This should be an acceptable compromise, but of course it won't be. Too many people have invested themselves in the "abortion is murder" position.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

There are three common routes to political power. Either the people espousing the positions you decry have more money than those in your position, or more political back-room sway, or they are simply more numerous than you think. Given that the polls on abortion generally hover right around the 50-50 point, I suspect it is the latter. The government is made up of the general population; it's difficult to see how they could utterly fail to represent the general interests of that population in so many topics as you mention, unless you're envisioning some sort of cabal controlling the country. If that was the case, it would seem to me very odd that they would permit the issue of abortion to stall the health care bill, yet not simply outlaw the practice. I suspect, rather, that this debate reflects the division of the country on the topic.

Personally, I oppose abortion. I would not, however, oppose it through the laws of our country if my objections were rooted purely in my personal religious views. I would raise no objection, for instance, to our government recognizing polygamous or polyandrous marriages, although my personal religious views repudiate those practices. I recognize that the government is not a tool through which I ought to express my personal religious beliefs or attempt to enforce them upon others. That sort of thing tends to end badly.

Rather, my opposition to legal abortion is rooted in our constitution and our laws, which forbid the killing of other people. Our scientific gold standard for determining the presence of another person - the one used in the forensic investigation of every circumstance other than abortion - is DNA testing. From the moment of conception, there is a detectable living presence with DNA distinct from the mother. Therefore, I believe that there is a human being with the right to live.

That's not, of course, to suggest that you ought to be persuaded by my comments - I recognize that both sides of this debate are strongly attached to their points of view, and that we each have reasons for believing as we do. I only wish to point out that religion alone does not account for all opposition to abortion. There's a constitutional argument to be made as well.

There's a cabal in the sense of the organized crime model. Capone controls Chicago, Luciano controls New York, Segal Las Vegas, etc. They certainly brawl amongst themselves but it doesnt put them on the side of the general public, either. Who wins the elections controls the flying monkeys and bureaucrat gatekeepers.

 

[JackLuis]

Ending abortion won't be done with "Faith Based Initiatives," It would be reduced a hell of a lot if condoms were used more often.

"Use a Ramses and save a child!"

 

[mikey2much]

Wtf?

There's a cabal in the sense of the organized crime model. Capone controls Chicago, Luciano controls New York, Segal Las Vegas, etc. They certainly brawl amongst themselves but it doesnt put them on the side of the general public, either. Who wins the elections controls the flying monkeys and bureaucrat gatekeepers.

I am afraid that this went right over my head. Care to take a moment and break this down for me.

 

[Liar]

Ending abortion won't be done with "Faith Based Initiatives," It would be reduced a hell of a lot if condoms were used more often.

"Use a Ramses and save a child!"

Oh no, cause....

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

Let the heathen spill theirs
On the dusty ground.
God shall make them pay for
Each sperm that can't be found.

Every sperm is wanted.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Well, it was interesting while it lasted. However, I choose not to debate when I will not be granted at least an initial assumption that I am truthful about my own beliefs and motives.

More's the pity; I think it impossible to advance one's understanding when one insists on assigning one's own worst suspicions as the motives of everyone opposed to one's own point of view.

You would not hunt for constitutional arguments against abortion if it were not such an intrinsic part of your religious beliefs.

It's so fucking depressing. The attacks, as Liar points out, on women's rights to their own persons are unremitting. And I freely agree that abortions are problematic. But the more problematic issue is that we have to fight merely for the right to begin to approach those problems on our own terms-- leaving us no time to actually make our approach.

to abortion foes, I say shut the hell up and listen.