Baby killer pill approved

[Warthog]

http://www.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/women/09/28/abortion.pill/index.html

That sucks http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/frown.gif http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/frown.gif

Go through the "How it works", etc. using the arrows. Very informative.

"Side effects: birth defects" that's great

The woman poops out the baby, right (basically)?

Disgusting.

Warthog

[Savant]

it certainly
abortion is killing, which is commonly known as MURDER. it's that simple.

So murder is sorta illeagal most of the time now???

[jad1097]

Good!

[alondra]

am listening to an interview with a girl 16 who has a child, she goes to a school for girls who have a child or are pregnant. as young as 12.
If girls were brought up in a society where, morality and modesty, were incouraged, it would not be needed with the exception of rape.
virginity still exists, in the dictionary

[This message has been edited by alondra (edited 09-28-2000).]

[jpheg]

Overturn "Roe vs. Wade"!!!

[barry glisson]

jpheg just which law is it that needs to be overturned in the U.K. or is abortion illeagle over there? barry

[Fingers]

Unfortunately Alondra, that is about the only place it still exists. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/frown.gif

[Dputiger]

Virginity still exists. I am--and proud of it.

[SysOpt]

Sigh. The never-ending pro v. con abortion debate. It will never end since we are all so different and have such varying opinions! To each his/her own.

Yay for the pill though, as it gives more options and makes the process easier for those women who CHOOSE for their OWN BODIES to go through it. If you don't want one, don't have an abortion. That is okay with me.

Warthog: you might need a sex ed refresher course. A woman's uterus/vagina is not quite connected to the colon. The pill keeps the fertilized egg from adhering to the uterus and is flushed out, just like the unfertilized egg is flushed out every 28 days in every woman - no pill needed for that process.

I don't think men should even be allowed an opinion on this issue personally. It's about women, not men.


[This message has been edited by SysOpt (edited 09-28-2000).]

[BBA]

I believe that we as a society need to improve our morals, especially in our children.

I further believe that is only possible with proper positive and negative reinforcement discipline. I do not mean to beat kids abusively when they disobey, but physical punishment IS one of the most effective tools in instilling discipline.

It is aparent that this drug has medical benefits, as oppossed to abortion, and only those who use it as an abortion tool are guilty of child slaughter. This is the sole reason I say it should be allowed.

[voogru]

Thats Horrible its like a right too kill http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/frown.gif

[thekingofpain]

It will make it a much more personal and private situation for a woman that makes the decision to abort, she is gonna do it anyway...PLUS in January it will be legal to abandon your newborn baby within 72 hours of birth at ANY hospital emergency room, no questions asked... I think both are good "alternatives"...

[BBA]

Actually, I agree with the "abandon" policy...there is no death involved and someone who can not have a child will adopt the child before the child is old enough to be mentally scarred.

[tonym]

Fratricide is not a men vs. women issue. It is a societal issue. A human issue. We shouldn't -- cannot --reduce this to an action that takes on the same importance as grooming or taking cold medication. There is a temendous gravity attached to abortion. The womb isn't a capsule that contains a cancer or a disease, it's a vessel that holds a human life. We begin to "devolve" as a species if we allow such inhumane practices to occur.

If we've achieved such a high state of evolution that we can decide who lives and who dies, then we don't have much hope. The same folks who advocate the "cleansing" of a fertilized egg from the utereus are the same who clamor for the jailing and punishment of Dr. Kevorkian. I understand his mission -- my dad is 75 years old with MS and a degenerative neurological disorder, and he lies 24/7 in a nursing home connected to a trache/breathing machine and a feeding tube. His sole means of communication is with the index finger of his left hand (on an alphabet tap-board)...his right arm and legs are withered/atrophied. He cannot eat, cannot sit upright. Just peer at the TV all day long. It's sad watching a person who was go-go-go-go his whole life reduced to the function of cord wood.

He would use Kevorkian if he could. He's VEHEMENTLY tapped out this fact almost every time we visit him. "Get Kevorkian." "Get Kevorkian."

The same hypocrites who think that abortion and abortive techniques are OKAY deny my dad the only peace left to him! I don't want him to go, but I would have lost my mind in the first 20 minutes of my interment in that condition. I could not help him do what he wants, but if HE made the decision, and he found a compliant doctor, they how can we assume to know what's in his best interests? I mean, the fertilized eggs/fetuses never got the chance to voice their assent or dissent to the decision to eradicate them. It's done to them, versus soneone doing it to themselves (with the help of a clinician at THEIR REQUEST)!

My dad isn't the only person stuck in this circumstance. In the facility where he now lives there are dozens of folks in the same situation...repeat this many, many times across the USA and you have a major injustice being done to those that simply can't tolerate the hand that they've been dealt.

So, we kill our babies and torture our elders...what a world! In either case it makes the majority of us feel good, politically correct and righteous.


Tony

[alondra]

dputiger..altho I dont know your age or gender.
may I offer my deepest respect. and congratulations.
Alondra
tonym.. at 77 in fair health. what you say about your Dads position. is scary. conditions as they are. my thoughts are with you both.
Alondra

[BBA]

tonym...My thoughts with you and your father as well.

[Bazango]

The first seven weeks of pregnancy hardly qualifies as a "baby", it's hardly even a fetus. Even so, that's a lot of chemicals for a women to be using. The good thing is that it could be easier to end the pregnancy earlier and reduce complications that way. It becomes a much easier decision to make. It also makes surgeons less vulnerable to terrorists.

[shocksyde]

the question that i always wanna ask "pro-lifers" is: what happens to a woman that is impregnated by a sexual assaulter? according to you guys she HAS to have that baby because aborting it would be MURDER. nevermind the extreme mental anguish the woman would have to deal with having that horrid child. and dont tell me, "she could put it up for adoption." yes, adoption is an alternative method to abortion. but face reality, adopted kids generally have crappy lives and turn out to be criminals, alcoholics, drug abusers, etc. i dont see the problem with aborting a child that would just cause problems for everyone. then again, i'm pro choice all the way.

shock

[SysOpt]

tonym: Not sure how you equate pro-choice with anti-Kevorkian. Two totally separate issues. I wholeheartedly believe Kevorkian's mission: that is, that there comes a time when a person's life should not be sustained, either at their own request or to spare them pain and suffering.

[barry glisson]

I have stated my opinion on this issue before it is a female decision. barry

[Snuffy!]

Well I think it is a great that the pill to be able to do this has finally come out, and if my girlfriend wanted to use it, i would totally support her. I don't understand, if a woman terminates a few week old pregnancy, what has this got to do with anyone else? It's her decision, it's her body, it's her pregnancy and it's her choice. It's as simple as that.

[jad1097]

No it is not only her choice if she is aware that she is pregnant at the time she takes the pill. I think it should be discussed between the couple not just her choice if she is aware she is pregnant.

If I were single the last thing I would do is have unprotected sex so this pill would not be necessary unless I had a defective condom. A single person having unprotected sex is like playing Russian roulette! Do you want a baby or AIDS? No? Then slap one of those things on!

[Mntsnow]

Well I just had to toss in my 2 cents so here goes.

I personally don't belive in Abortion. (for the shear fact that I was adopted out also because it's against my religious beliefs. With that being said I will say that I can't stand by and vote "pro-life" as I can not force my beliefs upon someone else! The way I see it is up until the time that a fetus can sustain life OUTSIDE the womb it is a parasite as it lives on the Host. So up until the point that the fetus can live outside the host body it is not a "person". Preventing a woman from having a abortion is to me the same thing as someone telling my wife and I "you cant have a child". It's none of their business what my wife and I choose to do in the way of familyhood. Truthfully whats the real difference between the RU486 pill and wearing a condom? Truthfully NOTHING in the BIG PICTURE...They BOTH prevent a child from being born...The difference comes down to just timing.

edited becuase of my fingers didnt typoe it right the first tiem http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/biggrin.gif lol

[This message has been edited by Mntsnow (edited 09-28-2000).]

[bobcat]

It thins the herd. More people should do it.

[jacobnero8196]

I thought we all had a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I guess the constitution goes out the window when it's inconvenient for certain people.

I do believe a man is forced to support the baby even if he is infavor of an abortion and the woman keeps it. I think us guys should get a optout clause. A legal clause that allows us to decide not to support a child before it is born. That way the decision is half a man's and half a woman's instead of the woman deciding she'll do what ever she wants and us stupid guys will just have to go along.

[Fingers]

While I don't entirely agree with that jacobnero8196; it certainly would be fair.

If she decides to "keep it" by herself; neither society nor the father (err sperm donor) should be held responsible for "her choice"...after all...Her body; her choice; her problem = not his body; not his choice; not his problem. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/frown.gif

Devil's Advocate

[bdunn]

While I don't condone abortion it is legal in this country. I agree with Colin Powell's statement on the subject about how it should be "safe, legal, and rare" There are even cased in religious law where it is not only allowed but mandated.

I am Jewish and under Jewish Law if a woman's life is in danger by being pregnant then she is not only allowed but required. Also in rabbinic liturature the first 40 days of pregnancy are considered different than beyond that point.

I would hate to have to take an abortion case to the supreme court under the free exercise clause but suspect that someday somone will have to.

[BBA]

edit~ Just seemed like I was mindlessly babbling...stupidly also.



[This message has been edited by BBA (edited 09-29-2000).]

[bobcat]

Opt out clause? I guess when we men are forced to do something we don't want to, support a child, it's not fair because we never intended to get the woman pregnant; but it is ok to dictate that they must all carry to full term and some how they have to provide for it too. Sounds like a double standard to me.

If you don't want to support it and don't support abortion - keep it zipped.

[socalgal]

<OT>

Tony - My heart and thoughts with you and your father.

It's baffling and very sad that the powers-that-be in this country are disposed to treat suffering animals more humanely than human beings.

</OT>

[krusty the klown]

* DITTO!! *

[socalgal]

I think if a woman wants an abortion, give it to her free, and permanantly tie her tubes at the same time...therefore preventing her from having to suffer the inconvienance of ever going through it again.

And, to be fair, snip the one who got her that way. After all, he's just as responsible - it takes two to tango, right?

It would prevent him from suffering the inconvenience of having to pay for another abortion, or financially supporting another unplanned child for the next 18 years of their lives.

[Edit: In case it's not obvious, my above statement is meant to be facetious, with a generous dollop of sarcastic satire on top.]

"Now that would bring a little morality to society."

I disagree. It would just allow those one less consequence (pregnancy) of their actions, and increase other consequences (STD's, for one).


[This message has been edited by socalgal (edited 09-29-2000).]

[tonym]

abortion = unchosen death
Kevorkian = chosen death
x * death = y * death = death

The two are logically equivalent because the result is contained in the same set [death]!

This whole issue would be MUCH different if babies were delivered by the stork! [Just an outlandish example, I'm not insane yet!] Or if they were created through a third-party mediative process (like a incubation in an artificial womb).

However, the result of the union of male and female zygotes is now unfortunately stuck in a place that offers a wildcard to it's existence. It is the ward of a single individual woman who might see value in it's existence or might not. If it were in an artificial womb, unconnected to either gene donor, then abortion would take on with more clarity the wrong that it is.

If an abortion were desired, either person would have to go to the "womb" and make an in-your-face terminating action against the embryo/fetus. Makes the process less antiseptic because it's not hidden behid all that viscera! It's right there before your eyes.

But, unfortunately, nature and biology have deemed that women have a higher responsibility in the procreative process. They are the gatekeeper of human life. And the creation of this life isn't just a family planning decision -- children (even "proto-children" are "wards" of your judgement and care during their formative years. They are individual, sentient human beings nonetheless. They are not chattel or belongings. [My best frind is an assistant DA in my county and he is by law charged with the advocacy of every human being that draws a breath. An equal advocacy, regardless of their age. Unfortuantely, THE LAW has decided the draws a breath part as the distinction of human life.]

We need to educate and foster an attitude in people that focuses on the gravity of the situation in regards to how it affects another "person". I think for a human being, abortion is the ultimate selfish act (except in the case if the pregnancy will kill the mother, obviously) because the needs/feelings of one individual, independent person are considered by society much greater than those of another dependent, individual person.

[And BTW, socalgal is ABSOLUTELY correct! This is not a chauvanistic issue. It does take two to tango. But there's a screwy inequity when it comes to "reproductive rights". Whatever consequences happen have to be symmetric and reciprocal for both parties involved. We need to get back to Civics 101 in society. Freedom = responsibility. For all parties!!!]


Tony

[This message has been edited by tonym (edited 09-29-2000).]

[bdunn]

About 15 years ago a close friend of mine, we were 17 then, was raped. Because she is catholic and her parents devout she was forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy care of a deranged stranger who is still at large to term before she and her parents decided to put this kid up for adoption.

She didn't do anything wrong, didn't want to do be pregnant, didnt want to carry this thru did not want to give up the child after holding it for a few minutes.

During the term of her pregnancy she made two attempts at suicide, which I am aware of. She was never like that before.

Lisa would probably had an abortion and beem better off if she could have however she couldn't cover the cost of that and her parents would not help her.

[This message has been edited by bdunn (edited 09-29-2000).]

[ablang]

I can see the pro life vs. pro choice discussions now.

Personally, I'm pro choice. If a woman gets raped and becomes pregnant, she should have a choice on whether it should be allowed to live. Why be forced to keep it (an unwanted life)?

[Jeff7]

Another thing, along the lines of what shocksyde said about situations involving sexual assault:
what happens if the woman is forced to give birth anyway. Then, the baby grows up, but wants to know who his/her father was. If the person does enough investigating, and does find the truth, well, that would probably really hurt them. "My father was a brutal animal with no respect for anyone." That can't be good for anyone's well-being to know that.

[biikman]

shocksyde, I'm adopted and don't have a crappy life and I'm not a criminal, alcoholic or drug abuser. Thank God my birth mother didn't listen to you are other pro-choicers out there or I'd have been sucked out myself.

[Dputiger]

Alondra: I'm 21 and male, just so you know. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

Abortion is NOT just a female issue unless the male simply is not present. Although the courts may have ruled otherwise, any child I might father is MY child as well as hers.

I would never ask any woman to abort a child of mine and I would fight to stop her from doing so. Then again, I'd also be putting my money where my mouth was and paying for the cost and care of that child from day one.

My birth nearly killed my mother and contributed to her own death three years later. I regret her death--but I thank God she didn't abort me. My life has not been easy--in fact in a lot of ways its been **** difficult. But my life has never been so difficult that I regretted having one at all.

[tantone]

This is always a really interesting discussion. It raises SO many questions.

How do we define murder? Is it okay to kill in war but not have an abortion?

I'm very much pro-choice.

[Warthog]

That's really cool, Dputiger http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif. I'm 16 and plan to stay that way until marriage.

Thanks for clearing that up Scott.

Warthog

[daveleau]

My question is where do you draw the line...

So many "Pro-Choice" supporters say it is not killing. A senator from California recently suggested giving the mother a one month deadline to determine if the child was wanted and could kill it within that one month period. WTF?!? Soon it will be law that a mother has the right to kill her offspring at any time.

A child is a child once conceived and should not be killed. Period. No partion birth murders, no pill, no abortion period. It IS the mother's choice to have a baby or not. That choice ends after conception. If a person doesn't want a baby, then there are plenty of forms of contraception to prevent a pregnancy.

How would this world be if we got to kill after a mistake?

This type of immorrality really makes me wonder how much longer we will be here to enjoy the earth...and our beloved computers that rule our lives. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif
Dave

[Fingers]

How about a combination of BBA and Socal's ideas..."snip" them both and sentence them to community service as restitution for wasting health care resources due to their irresponsibility.

IMHO, There are precious few abortions that are performed that aren't a direct result of "irresponsibility"

Maybe the fear of sterilization would restore the respect that should be associated with pre-marital & extra-marital sex?

Devil's Advocate

[Fingers]

Dave, when I'm not being sarcastic, I am right behind you. Right On http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

The only thing I would add is that the "best" form of birth control is abstinence. Not for married couples of course, but for all others, is totally reliable. 100% effective, with no side effects.

[BBA]

Fingers, I agree.

Socalgal...Hmmm...what was I thinking?

[Ygor]

An aspirin works equally well... held firmly between the knees!

[Mr.Goodbytes]

Just to step aside from the debate here, I'd like to remind everyone that this pill was not intended for abortions; the German company that manufactures it designed it to treat cancer victims. Along the way, they discovered that about 96% of pregnant women who took the pill aborted their babies. This company is also opposed to marketing the RU-486 pill as an abortion drug.

To quote Rush Limbaugh from way back in February of 1993:

Our President, in ordering Donna Shalala to get the abortion pill here, disregards the moral position of the German maker - who would rather sacrifice profits than make money on drug induced abortions.

Yet, while attacking American drug companies for the cost of medicine here, Bill Clinton said, "Saving lives must come before making money." How do you explain this contradiction?

end quote

Chalk up another point for a pretty lousy President. I don't recall if this was mentioned already, but Clinton pushed for the FDA to work on approval of this pill just 3 days after he first took office.

Personally, I think we should have a contest similar to guessing how many jellybeans are in the jar. However, we should substitute the number of times Clinton has shown his lack of character.

[Mntsnow]

Mr. Goodbytes.....Maybe he (Whitehouse billy) "needed" it available for his own future needs as it would be easier to keep from Hilly?! lol

[socalgal]

Fingers, I wasn't really suggesting that ppl be "snipped" <see my Edit>. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif My point was: what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I was trying to get my thoughts across to BBA and others, that what was said was unfair to women http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif

I surely agree that ppl need to be more responsible about sex; not only is there the pregnancy aspect, but sexually transmitted diseases as well.

There are true accidents - broken condoms, birth control not working - and even with properly administered and used birth control, there is always a failure rate/percentage. The ONLY method that's 100% for avoiding pregnancy is abstinence. There really is always an inherent risk in having sex, even with the best laid <no pun intended> plans http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif

So, with the snippers hanging over the heads <no pun intended> of those wanting abortions, how will the truth be determined? -the truth: was the pregnancy truly accidental, or, was it "in the heat of passion, lost control, didn't care, etc.," Give everyone a lie detector test?

Anyway, the snip thing is a pretty harsh penalty, IMO, and I doubt the threat of it would be an effective deterrent for the irresponsible. If the very real threats of pregnancy and STD's aren't, then that won't be either.

I don't think there's anything nice about abortion, but to say one can never have kids, esp. when one is ready - emotionally and financially - is a bit hardball, IMO.

And finally, I also firmly believe that any victim of violent crime of rape should always have a choice.

[This is why I don't like getting involved in these threads - it takes me waaay too long to put my thoughts down, I edit and edit again, and as it is I have cut this post way short; believe me, I could go on, and on... http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif )

[ILC]

Ive gained, and lost alot of respect in this board. Socalgal, your one of the ones ive gained respect for, along with you D, and Warthog, etc.

but face reality, adopted kids generally have crappy lives and turn out to be criminals, alcoholics, drug abusers, etc.

Hmmm, aunt - adopted, nicest lady you will ever meet, will do anything for anybody and wont want anything in return

girlfreind - adopted, nicest, prettiest, and best christian girls you will ever meet. I thank God every single day that her birth mom didnt decide to abort her, (she was adopted at 3 hours)

This drug = murder
It isnt a birth control method.

Abortion is NOT a womans decision, it is a socities decision. Unfortunetly society is deeming it OK to kill an unborn baby, yet illegal to kill convicted murder's and rapists.

ILC

[Savant]

I firmly believe women have the right to choose...

not to have sex that is (obviously she doesnt necesarily with rape but that is a tad differant), basicaly that is the point where the choice is made. After that she is, in my opinion bound to keep it. Likewise the man to support her in that.
All this garbage about it being her body etc... well, it's the childs body and life we are talking about! duh! so we are saying the woman has more right not to be inconvenienced than the child has to live? personally I don't see what could be more obvious.
And where do we go from here? next time somebody's kid is being a brat just kill em? It's little differant. And then where? ya can kill anybody just because it would be convenient? Admitidly we're not that bad yet, but frankly, the way our society, and our morals are going is scary.

Of course if it's a rape it's not quite as clear-cut, and I don't think there they should be forced to keep it, though it would still be the right thing to do.

Savant

[SuperHappyFunMan]

I noticed someone say: Thats Horrible its like a right too kill " Hmm, intresting, but enough of the nra and the second amendment.

Its intresting how hypocritical people are, they cry out in horror about abortion, then just say hey why dosent the mother just ABANDON them instead, oh yeah thats gonna be real great for a child isnt it. The simple fact now is, whether you overturn the law or not, the pills will be widely available and there will be NO way to prevent people from having abortions. This isnt an issue of lack of morals, it is an issue of people who think they know everything trying to shove their beliefs on others.

[Dputiger]

I don't think it's ever right to kill someone--but that doesn't mean I wouldn't do it.

To me, though, murder IS wrong. It's a weird hair to split, I know. I'll pull the trigger on a man I think's about to kill me or my family--but I'll always regret it.

[Fingers]

Sorry for putting you in that position Socal (no pun intended). I never actually believed that you were suggesting sterilization, but the bait was just too tempting for me not to take. Sorry, I should have done better. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/frown.gif

[SysOpt]

Okay so for those of you who have girlfriends or wives and use some form of birth control, if in one time out of 1000, the BC failed, you wouldn't want this choice? Personally, I think this is more humane than an abortion. It is far from being birth control, but it is a last resort kind of thing if someone is definitely not ready to have children.

If you practice abstinence by choice or simply because you are not currently or have never been in a relationship, you really don't have the perspective on the above to properly comment on that kind of situation.

Those of you who argue that flushing out a 1-3 week old fertilized egg is murder, ponder this: why not call all women who don't ever try to have children murderers for neglecting to create life when they are more than capable of doing so? Or, are they murderers anyway every time they have a period and flush out an egg naturally? Perhaps men who masturbate are murderers for wasting millions of sperm? What defines a human being? Is a human defined at the instant of conception, or does it take 1, 2, 5, 10, or 20 weeks for their consciousness to form? Who knows - if you claim to, you're kidding yourself.

The bottom line is that yes, it's not fun to think "gee, that fertilzed egg would have grown up into a person with all kinds of traits and abilities". But by not electing to get pregnant, millions of women are neglecting to create life every day (not by abortion, but simply by not having sex or by using birth control) - it's their choice.


[This message has been edited by SysOpt (edited 09-30-2000).]

[socalgal]

Fingers, no need to apologize, NP whatsoever! http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

[tantone]

I happen to agree with SysOpt, but the devils advocate in me has to wonder if consciousness is really the defining moment in a humans life. For example, how about someone who was in a severe accident and now lives their daily lives in a vegetative state, or in a coma. What about the consciousness level there?

Now, what about someone on a life-support machines? Should we really be allowed to pull the plug and let them die naturally? Some might say that the word "naturally" is what makes pulling the plug okay. But if naturally were the main concern, then why would we put them on life support to begin with? Could it be for our own satisfaction?

I used to understand the arguements against abortion when abortions were being performed at a much later time during the pregnancy. But taking a pill that will allow a newly-fertilized egg to flush itself from your system isn't the same thing.

[Dputiger]

Here's my answer to that, Mr. Sysopt-Editor-in-Chief, Sir! http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

If a couple does not wish to have children, they should practice birth control which, as you've pointed out, is very effective--but not perfect.

If there is a 'slip' and a child is conceived, adoption is a far more humane option than abortion.

Is adoption as good as staying with the birth family? Generally, I'd say no, though I recognize there are many extenuating circumstances. However, ask any adoptee if they'd rather their parents had simply taken a pill and ended any chance of their existence. I'm willing to bet you'll get nothing but 'no's.'

I'm not arguing a woman's right to 'choose', but choices still have responsibilities.

If I 'chose' to steal your car, you'd expect me to pay the consequences of that choice.

If I drove your car with your permission but slammed it into a tree, chances are you'd still expect me (or my insurance) to pay for it.

I could quite reasonably protest that I didn't mean to total your car, it was an accident, I'm very sorry....and I'd expect you to quite reasonably reply that it was ok, you weren't upset, but you weren't paying the twenty grand for a new car either.

We don't always get to choose our responsibilities in life. Sometimes they come when we don't expect them and don't want them. The mark of character, then, is what we do. This, I believe, is true in every facet of life--not just an abortion debate. Do I rise to the situation and grow to meet it, or push it away?

[Bazango]

It is irresponsible to suggest that a women should complete a pregnancy, have a child and send it off to be adopted just because somebody thinks that abortion is wrong. A women who gets an abortion when she gets pregnant accidently is being responsible.

[mgordon99]

Indeed, the quality of that baby's, and later adult's, life is paramount.


I have to respectfully disagree with this realm of thinking.

I have a son who is almost four years old, and has had a painful, illness-plagued life to this point. Here is my point; my wife and I WANTED him! Did we have any idea of the health problems that would beset him? No! We are waiting on test results performed on my son that may determine a very rare disease with only eleven known cases. The prognosis is fatal if it is the disease that doctors suspect.

I guess what I am saying here is that NO ONE can foretell the future quality of a child's life, period. I don’t care if the baby is born in a trash can in Harlem, OK?

Unwanted children die, and wanted children die. But we are certainly NOT physics with crystal balls of wisdom, able to foresee every child’s future.

Having said all of that, do I believe abortion is a woman's choice, yes. Do I think the choice is ethical? No.

[voogru]

hey jad1097,
what if ur mom would have aborted you where would you have been?

[ILC]

Nice point Gordon.

Look, if you cant support a baby then DONT HAVE SEX! That is true responisblity. Responsiblity isnt running down to the clinic and pissing the baby out.

Ill agree that the pill isnt as bad as true abortion, but I still find it immoral and un-eithical, and dont think it should be approved.

ILC

[SysOpt]

Look, if you cant support a baby then DONT HAVE SEX!

No offense, but that's spoken like someone who has, A.) never had sex, and B.) has never been in a loving relationship. There is a VERY BIG difference between being ABLE to support a baby and being READY to support one. Birth control (of all kinds) was invented so couples could have sex without having children - I'm sorry if you don't like that concept but you'll really have to get past it because whether in marriage, single partner committed relationships, or casual relationships, people the world over use birth control, and IMO, that's a responsible thing to do.

Unfortunately, although "the pill" is something like 98% effective, and other methods are nearly that effective alone, it does occasionally fail. The penalty for failed birth control should not be the obligation to raise a child, period. Couples should be able to be intimate BEFORE they are actually ready to give birth to a child. We as humans were designed to procreate, but intimacy is very important to A LOT of people for reasons far beyond procreation and should not be banned altogether..

[BBA]

Sysopt...I actually tend to agree that if you cant support a baby, don't have sex.

I can not feel comfortable giving any other advice. I am not unrealistic enough to believe young adults can control the urge with common sense then.

I guess I just have to mind my own business on the issue, live by MY morals and live with the consequences of MY choices.

I do not think abortion is ethical, but I am not worried that people do it. If you want to kill your child, at any age, there's no way I could stop you, or even would desire to ( besides, it might clean up the gene pool a little ). Heck, if I cared about that, I'd have to take the whole worlds problems as my own. I'm not near liberal or near compassionate enough to try that.

Besides, I am under the firm belief that people are like dogs, some deserve to live, some don't. ( I love my dog's by the way...)

On that note, to each their own.

~edit...Spelling was not my forte.

[This message has been edited by BBA (edited 10-01-2000).]

[SuperHappyFunMan]

Irresponsible is an understatement, they just figure as long as the baby is alive it dosent matter what hell it goes through.

[SysOpt]

Indeed, the quality of that baby's, and later adult's, life is paramount. We take "vegetables" off of life support due to their paltry quality of life, even though they are technically "living".

[barry glisson]

My only problem with abortion is most people that should abort don't. barry

[Fingers]

I'm hoping it wasn't intended that way, but I don't think ILC has to first stick his "finger" in a "light socket" to fully appreciate the consequences associated with said action. (I apologize for using you as and example, ILC)

Persons who abstain from sexual contact outside of marriage should be commended for their character. There are many problems and risks associated with sexual promiscuity, and virgins don't contribute to any of them.

It's just different ways of thinking I guess. Those who believe that there is nothing wrong with recreational sex between any two (or more) consenting persons, also will oppose those who think they should be held accountable for the result(s) of their actions.
It's natural human behavior I guess; drunk drivers feel that they have been treated unfairly when the result of their behavior results in arrest or the suspension of their license. Drug dealer don't think there is anything morally wrong with supporting themselves by selling dope to kids, even the President feels it is unfair to be held accountable for intentionally "deceiving" a Federal Grand Jury.
The key here is to avoid the types of behavior that will put you in a situation that forces you to deal with the (unintentional} result of your action.


I do not oppose abortion on a life/death basis, although the thought of discarding a partially formed fetus is sickening to me. I primarily oppose it because it further serves to remove the consequences of behavior that (I believe) is damaging to our society.

I don't know what the solution is, but I am sure that it's not passing out condoms at the high school nurses office, and it's not an abortion pill either. We have to deal with the problem at the source instead of trying to counteract the result.

**My opinion only, and I'm certainly entitled to it, regardless of its popularity.

[Ygor]

Hmmm, dealing with the problem at the source is simple and logical, but once the process begins, it can't be reversed.

With this pill, it can be stopped.

Once the cat vacates the bag, it's not likely to go back in, either. As SysOpt said, sexual intimacy for humans is much more than an instinct for procreation.

Obviously the problem has grown for some time now. We have to deal with the results in many ways.

This is not the ideal solution. It is a step along the way for now.

[Bazango]

The whole idea that you can somehow avoid or abstain from sex is a misnomer. Even abstaining from sex is a sexual activity and takes some kind recognition of your own sexuality. A good part of your personality revolves around the potential for sexual gratification, it is absurd and even unhealthy to suggest that people who are not interested in raising kids should avoid sex when means of controlling fertility and terminating pregnancy exist. Kids who are not competent in forming the necessary relationships or in handling the technology of birth control have to be supervised and counseled by their parents until they are competent. Adults who are irresponsibly having children need to be confronted as a public and civic matter. We are far too encouraging of people having kids.

[tangluva]

You know, it's sad for me to see that they're going to make a pill that's going to kill babies, but it's more sad to see the girls at my school take those **** things during lunch with a cherry coke!

Terrible, just terrible *shakes head in disappointment http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/frown.gif *

[This message has been edited by tangluva (edited 10-01-2000).]

[Dputiger]

I think this argument may come down to how you view children.

Children--even deformed ones, retarded ones, or unwanted ones, are not 'things' to be thrown away at the convenience of any individual. They aren't physical garbage that you get rid of when it gets inconvenient.

I'm not against people who dont' want children engaging in sex. But taking a pill to get rid of a problem because you just don't want to deal with it isnt' responsible. It's just easy.

There are valid reasons for abotion. Inconvenience isn't one of them.

And giving your child up for adoption doesn't have to mean dumping it in an emergency room.

If you want to see responsibility, take a look at some of the young, unmarried girls who chose to keep their children. Their lives are **** hard, but you'll find a number of them are working hard to improve life for them and their child. Somewhere along the line people in this country decided that the easy life was the only good one. But some (certainly not all) of these women are the true unsung heros. They made mistakes but they paid the price--and DIDN'T take the easy way out.

[BBA]

Anyone forced to raise a child on their own should get applause. I know a few single men with children also, raising them as best as they can.

It's still not the best answer, a single parent is not quite the "unsung hero" just the most common. The real heros are the ones that stay married civicly as long as the children are in the home. That is aparently a very hard thing to do...so most give up and go for something easier, like a divorce. I think divorced with kids is ok, but only in situations where domestic violance make it impossible to sustain a marriage, otherwise convienance just is not a reason for divorce when kids are involved.

It still comes back to the same thing...responsibility for your actions. Something few prefer any more.

[Bazango]

There are definitely valid reasons for getting an abortion and inconvenience is certainly one of them. The more trivial your reasons for getting an abortion the more you should get one. Giving birth is a serious responsibility and the slightest reservations about doing it are the best reasons for backing out. And just because you decline child bearing doesn't mean your life is going to be easy. Easier, maybe, but not necessarily easy. If a women gets an abortion because she is too lazy to raise kids, I say, "Great!" She is not going to work any harder just because she is pregnant. And adoption is an agency best left to different circumstances, such as the loss or incapacity of both parents.

Divorce is actually a kind of abortion too. Although divorce is a far more tragic affair, you have two people who have invested a certain amount of real hope and planning, even if for just a few minutes, who decide to give it all up. Pregnancy is something you get from a guaranteed and overwelming imediate gratification. People fall pretty easily into sex. Marriage takes a little more effort. Still, marriages go bad. People change. Sometimes divorce represents an improvement in character in both parties.

[ILC]

Sysopt....sorry i made my point unclear...birth control is responsible, and its great that its used.

You got me on your part A, but not on your part B, ive been with the same girl for the past 3 years, and im madly in love w/ her, as she is with me, we basically plan our whole lives around each other. You think we dont want to have sex? You think we dont have sexual desire? Lol im 17! BUT the main reason we dont have sex is becuase we know we cant support a baby, and we dont want one yet. Sure birth control would be responsbile if we were having it, but its still flawed, and the most mature thing/responsible thing in this case is to abstain. Thats the point I was trying to argue. I wasnt saying people shouldnt have sex, but if you cant afford the consequences, then dont do the crime.

ILC

[Mntsnow]

ILC...Your last statement I feel is slightly flawwed.....You state. I wasnt saying people shouldnt have sex, but if you cant afford the consequences, then dont do the crime. To that I would ask...Do you drive a car? Ride a bike ect ect? If you answer yes then you are willing to "risk" the "consequences" The same hold true to those who choose to have sex.. I will say that I belive that there should be some regulation concerning abortion but in the end it's "their" choice..Not mine.

[Bazango]

ILC, you are confusing your own decision to conduct your sex life a certain way with a basic sense of reponsibility. The fact that you made a deliberate decision is responsible, but just because you decided to abstain wouldn't necessarily make sexual activity in your situation irresponsible. What would definitely be irresponsible would for you two to be bearing children at such a young age. But, obviously, sexual activity doesn't necessarily mean bearing children. Even if you were to get married and have kids, if you had any sense you would still be using birth control. Birth control and family planning are a basic component of human sexual relations except where contries are unfortunate enough to be constrained against it by religious authorities.

[Dputiger]

Bazango: Your post honestly makes no sense to me.

What you seem to be saying (basically) is this:

The more immature, stupid, and self-centered you are, the more the government / and (or) society should pick up after you.

Now, I do understand your point--people who aren't ready for children shouldn't have them. That I can agree with (though we may disagree on how they should go about not having children).

But if we take your logic of allowing people to abort children because they aren't completely ready and we santify their trivial reasons as to why, then we open the door to a very odd form of logic.

There's no reason for me to get a job--I'm not ready for that kind of stress.

I shouldn't have to go to school--I need to sleep in late--it's good for me.

Hopefully I've made my point clear. I understand your over-arching point but your explanation is very flawed.

[ILC]

Ok, I believe in birth control and family management! When did i say I didnt, im just saying in pre marital situations....ah heck, now im confused on what i mean, but abortion is still wrong IMO.

ILC

[RataToo]

nuthing wrong with abortion.. the entire argument is so...republican anyway... people and their politics... I dunno if i could have an abortion...I suppose if i were a pregnant woman I would simply have to consider all of my circumstances and weigh all the options...of course it would be nice if their were options... but then again there are so many republicans out there... republicans and cristians... our society is maturing so slowly because of them... yuk

[krusty the klown]

Hmmm.... remember the 'anti SUV' thread a while back?

Well I seem to notice many who are on the 'it's murder, shouldn't be allowed' side were on the 'how dare you tell me what I can and cannot do - you are infringing on my rights' side in the SUV argument.

Seems to smack of double standards to me - some want to dictate what choices others should be allowed to make, but get so upset when someone else objects to their practices....

(mentioning no names http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/redface.gif )

[Bazango]

Dputiger, I don't see how you can draw those conclusions from the fact that abortion is most justified when it is most trivially desired. When you are in a position where you can't assume certain responsibilities, then avoiding those responsibilities is the most responsible thing to do. It doesn't mean you have no responsibilities.

[This message has been edited by Bazango (edited 10-02-2000).]

[Szech]

I don't like abortion, and I don't think I could ever tell anyone I know or love to get one.

But that's my belief, and I don't feel as though I have a right to tell others what they can or can't do. Besides that, I'm not the one who has the child in my body for nine months. Like Scott, I don't think it's my power to decide on something like this. The fact is, a man can get a woman pregnant, and walk away. He's not the one physically attached to the child, and though the woman can go to the courts to get child support, the man can be completely absolved of the child's life if he so chooses. My father walked out on my mother, so this has been something I have had to deal with my whole life. As a child, I hardly saw my mom, because she'd always be working (he didn't pay child support), and my sister and I were left to ourselves. I once asked my mom why I didn't have a father, and she started crying. I've seen this happen to others (my age), and I hope their children don't have to go through half of what I did. I don't think that every woman that's put in this situation has to abort the child, but I think it should be an option for her to choose. If you're wondering how I would feel if my mother had aborted me, well, I wouldn't really be here to feel anything, now would I?

My understanding of the matter (from what I have read), is that abortion clinics are becoming fewer and fewer. They are being pushed out of their offices by building owners, who are being paid off by pro-life groups. This pill would make clinics unnecessary.

Also realize, that if a woman is desparate to do so, she's going to abort the child by any means necessary. Can you say coathanger? Back alley abortions are unsanitary and dangerous. But there are still women who are willing to risk their sexual organs and their lives, because of how desparate they are.

That all said, I think abortion should be used to terminate an unexpected pregnancy, not as birth control. In my mind, birth control is condoms, pills, diaphrams, IUD's, and spermacidal creme. Pulling out doesn't count, because of the "whoops" rate.

[BBA]

Lets see...All you need to do is look at common sense facts:

SUV's are not murder tools. Driving one does not make you a murderer.

Abortions are the act of murder, just at the earliest age possible...so no one notices.

Allowing an invalid to choose death over prolonged suffering which results in death is not murder.

Expecting a positive role model ( not a sexual deviant or psychopathical liar ) for a president in NOT wrong.

EARNING your own money is not wrong.

Having both parents is not wrong.

Believing in religion is not wrong.

Defending ones self is not wrong.

Being responsible for your own actions is not wrong.


All the above are statements that liberals just cant live with. It escapes me the logic ( well, I cant call it logic can I ) the common liberal uses to negate all the above, but I cant stop it.

The act of raising a child at a young age is nature. We are trying to control natural reproductive behavior, because of economics alone. This brings the point that family values are just not present in m odern society. This also indicates that modern society is becoming unsustainably self destructive.

Oh well.

[BBA]

It is not a common sense fact?

Maybe you dont think so, but what about the guy who kills a pregnant woman? He not only gets chaarged with murder, but capital murder at that.

Come on, why would you think we could have it both ways? The truth is, if you do not abort, then a new person will most likely emerge from it.

That could have been YOU for instance. Hmmm......I know some irresponsible drug addicted criminal people are around town...why don't we just get their mothers to poison them and call it a "late life abortion".

Although I might not criticize that action ( heck...some need that procedure, lol ) I still see it for what it is. I can be comfortable in knowing young people are killed and it does not bother me, because I simply can not prevent it, and it might be doing the world a favor.

Oh...and the comment above about making the decision to abort is showing responsibility...well, I geuss any decision would be responsible then...right? Like the decision to cheat on your spouse, or the decision to rob a convienance store and heck, shoot the clerk on the way out...yea, all responsible decisions arent they?

Come one folks...stop living in a dream world and call a spade a spade!

[Bazango]

I have heard that people have been charged additionally with the murder of a fetus, but since the mother is typically murdered anyway the whole issue is of no consequence. The murderer is prosecuted in the murder of the women, not the fetus.

How can you conclude that any decision is responsible when abortion is a responsible decision? One does not naturally imply the other. And the other idea that a mother going around poisoning a mature offspring is like abortion doesn't make any sense either. The whole idea that the life of a fetus is anything like even the life of a baby has no merits.

[Fingers]

I don't think that's correct Bazango; he may be charged with two counts of murder. A person who injures a pregnant mother, may be charged with murder if the baby dies as a result of her injuries.

It is murder when a third person kills a "wanted" baby while it is still in the womb, but it is not murder if the mother kills an "unwanted" baby while it is still in the womb... Ummm?



[This message has been edited by Fingers (edited 10-02-2000).]

[ILC]

republicans and cristians... our society is maturing so slowly because of them... yuk

OH so saying its OK to not be responsible for your actions, and its OK not to responsible for your life, and its OK to be immoral, and its OK not to waork hard = a maturing country?! Uh ok...if you say so.

ILC

[Bazango]

Fingers, that is definitely a strange law. For example, why is it that somebody who "kills" a wanted fetus in the womb can be charged with murder, but cannot be charged in any way for victimizing the woman. Yet it is her physical body and its functioning that is being assaulted. It reflects the anti-abortionist sentiment that a women is just a passive baby factory that has no feelings or status in child bearing.

[Amarok]

ok here I go..... IMHO.....

1st people say abortion is murder. What is the definition of murder.

mur·der (mûrdr)
n.

The unlawful killing of one human being by another, especially with premeditated malice.

Slang. Something that is very uncomfortable, difficult, or hazardous: The rush hour traffic is murder.

Now what is a human being?

human being (hymn bng)
n.

A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.

Now what does a human do? They have a life, and what is the definition of life?

life (lf)
n., pl. lives (lvz.)

Biology.
The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.

The characteristic state or condition of a living organism.

Living organisms considered as a group: plant life; marine life.

A living being, especially a person: an earthquake that claimed hundreds of lives.

***The physical, mental, and spiritual experiences that constitute existence: the artistic life of a writer.***

****The interval of time between birth and death: She led a good, long life.****

*****The interval of time between one's birth and the present: has had hay fever all his life.*****

A particular segment of one's life: my adolescent life.

The period from an occurrence until death: elected for life; paralyzed for life.
Slang. A sentence of imprisonment lasting till death.

The time for which something exists or functions: the useful life of a car.

A spiritual state regarded as a transcending of corporeal death


My point is here when is a feralized egg considered life? Well in the Roman Catholic church a fertilized egg is not considered a life as they can not be burried on consencrated ground. The meat of this debate is when is a fetus considered alive??? There are many sides to this argument.

Religiously speaking.... who has what right to tell someone of another religion what to do? Roman Catholic tell a Jewish person that they can not do something that they must according to their religion?

My point here is simple. No one here is perfect, but we all have a responsibility to ourselves. We are all able to choose what we feel and belive to be right for ourselves. No one has the right to take that away from us. If a woman chooses to have an abortion, I belive that is her right.

I have been put into a situation of an unexpected pregnancy. My ex and I were already seperated when she found out she was pregnant. We sat down and talked about what was going to happen, as we both knew that we were not going to be getting back togeather. We made a choice, and that is our choice to live with. That choice is my blonde haired blue eyed demon spawn 3 year old of a son who loves to torment his Dad every chance he gets.

People have to have the RIGHT to choose what they need. Not have others to tell them how to live their lives. But they also have to live with the choice that they make.

Amarok

[Warthog]

Good points, BBA.

Warthog

[Bazango]

Sorry, but the notion that abortion is murder does not qualify as a "common sense fact".

[Fingers]

Bazango, I'm not sure if you mis-understood my message, or if you're just being ignorant about it, but I suspect the latter. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/frown.gif

I certainly never suggested (as you implied) that the crimes committed against the pregnant mother should go unpunished. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/frown.gif Your last two messages both indicate that you think a person cannot be charged with crimes against more than one person at a time. NONSENSE! Charges may be filed on behalf of each and every victim involved, and also for different crimes that were committed during the same act.

Your "baby factory" theory, is a clear indication that you don't understand the moral position of those who oppose abortion.




[This message has been edited by Fingers (edited 10-03-2000).]

[RataToo]

Rember back in the day before abortion was legalized? Back when there was no doctor or hospital that would help a woman. Ah those were the days. While our ignorant society smiled righteously to itself and ignored the injuries, suffering, and deaths resulting from the lovely home made abortions. As a matter of fact, not only have good christian people been duped into giving women the right to have an abortion, the darned democrats have been letting em vote, work, and even wear pants! Pretty soon our fragile baby machines will begin to believe that they are EQUAL to men! Men should be the only ones who can ignore their own child. We are fortunate to still be able to make a woman pregnant and live in a world that automaticly gives her custody and makes her failure as a mother criminal. If women think they are gonna hang that responsibilty on us men they got another thing comin, republicans will fight till the last breath for smaller child support payments and fewer ways for a women to back out of a pregnancy. THe child is the main resposibility of the woman cuz thats what women are for...we men can't be expected to be completely resposible for our own children. MEn have a choice..because men are better than women...men can walk away from a pregnancy...women just can't handle that kind of power. As long as there are christians and republicans roaming this earth, you might wanna make sure that you have a few metal coat hangers in the house, not just plastic ones. Because your mother and sister don't need rights and options...just a coathanger and maybe a little hydrogen peroxide...theyre just women after all.


can you smell my fecitiousness?

[Fingers]

Yeah, I do smell something http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif

[tantone]

BBA...

Weren't you in the military? How would you feel killing another human? Isn't that murder?

[Ygor]

Guess I'm not a liberal, I only see problems with 2 of BBA's statements.
I really don't see that abortion is murder. Until a baby is actually born, it is not independant life. As long as it is inside the mother's body, she is the one responsible for whether it is brought to term. She may consider other input, but the decision is her right as an individual.
Those who choose to keep a baby when they are not able to support one do increase the welfare budget. Do the republicans support that now? Is that a good role model?
"Expecting a positive role model ( not a sexual deviant or psychopathical liar ) for a president in NOT wrong.".
I've no problem with that one, either.
Unless it's a statement about our current president. (I think you meant "pathological", not "psychopathical".) If you were referring to the current president in that statement, what is deviant about heterosexual sex?
The fact that the other party was not his wife doesn't mean much nowadays. Just like divorce used to be a scandal that was hushed up, now it seems to be the norm.
I think most people who had such an experience outside of their marriage would deny it happened, can't blame them for that. Not something I'd do, but I'm not throwing stones.
Now is there any new ground?

[Bazango]

Fingers, you said,

".... A person who injures a pregnant mother, may be charged with murder if the baby dies as a result of her injuries.
It is murder when a third person kills a "wanted" baby while it is still in the womb, but it is not murder if the mother kills an "unwanted" baby while it is still in the womb... "

I said,

"... why is it that somebody who "kills" a wanted fetus in the womb can be charged with murder, but cannot be charged in any way for victimizing the woman."

The whole idea that the fetus is deserving of any kind of legal protection is absurd. It is enough that the law protects the women. If the law respects the fetus, then the law has been infected with the same lack of morality that is what the anti-abortion movement represents.

[Szech]

I'm going to reiterate my points, nice and short this time:

1) If a woman is desparate to, she will abort her child by any means necessary.
2) There are fewer and fewer abortion clinics because they are being pushed out by pro-lifers. It's getting harder for a woman to get it done professionally.
3) Coathanger abortions are dangerous. If you're a female, you know how sensitive your vagina is. If you're a guy, can you imagine sticking a toothpick in your tip? Not too pretty of a thought, hunh?

I think the pill will help women who are in a desparate situation from hurting or killing themselves. Do I think that's good? Yes.

[RataToo]

i love how everyone is playing with the definition of murder....there are many ways of defining things....like.....if a fetus depends on its human host...doesnt that make it a parasite? So if we are goin to be literal....sure...abortion is ending a life....therefore:

Abortion is literaly: murdering a parasite...

[Fingers]

Bazango, if you're suggesting that a man who assaults a woman who is 6 months pregnant resulting in a miscarriage, should not be charged with anything other than simple assault against the woman?

[Bazango]

Fingers, yes, assault of some kind, certainly not murder.

RataToo, a fetus is like a parasite, but reallistically a parasite is a fully developed organism and a fetus in not even that. A fetus represents a different aspect of biology all together, which is, "How do you get a complex organism together out of nothing?" The problem is solved differently in different animals. Birds and most reptiles lay eggs. Even there a certain amount of gestation occurs inside the mother. But for mammals all of the important development occurs in the womb. Development During gestation the organism rapidly accumulates as much tissue, differentiation and organization as possible. When the organism has developed to the point where it can function independently, vast metabolic and organ based changed kick in, stimulated by hormones, no doubt, and either birth occurs or the creature smashes out of the shell.

Arresting that developement is not murder.

[SysOpt]

ILC: I admire you for your conviction - I can imagine how difficult it must be for the both of you. Here's the thing: one of the great things about this country is that you can have a belief, live up to it, and I can respect that. I think it's great that you're doing what you believe in. We should ALL do what we believe in, and that belief varies from person to person.

[Dputiger]

I'm going to respond to a few posts here, so I'll list names next to responses:

Szech:

You are correct that if a woman wants an abortion desperately enough she'll take any steps necessary to get one. However, you cannot infer from this that abortion should be legal or illegal.

If I want to kill a man badly enough I'll find a way to kill him regardless or whatever laws or social conventions seek to stop me (or I'll be killed myself). Nevertheless, no one is advocating repeal of homicide law.

The truth is, any human being that wishes to do anything badly enough will find a way to do it regardless of societal laws and prohibitions. This does not mean, however, that we should have no laws against certain types of behavior.


Bazango:

I believe it is fundamentally wrong to force innocent human beings to suffer for the mistakes of another person, though I admit it happens frequently.

When a woman becomes pregnant, in the VAST majority of cases, it is because she was engaged in consensual sex. That said both she and her partner should accept the possible consequences--i.e., children.

The couple involved are exercising a right--the right to have sex. All rights, however, have consequences. By exercising my right to smoke cigarettes (assuming I did) I incur the possibility of a consequence--lung cancer.

People are free to exercise rights--but there are (and definitely should be) consequences. In my mind, frankly, a human life is infinitely more precious than the inconvenience it imposes upon the parents--especially when those parents will, if they so choose, be able to walk away after nine months.

[ILC]

Alright, so according to you all, as long as the baby isnt out of the womb yet, then its not murder.....or life doesnt start till you can take care of yourself? If thats the case, a mother can abort her child up to a couple years. Hmmmm, ok.

Also, if someone does do something to a pregnant mother, and harms/kills the baby, it IS murder.

ILC

[Dputiger]

Let's make this even muddier: How about partial-birth abortion?

Interesting fact on partial birth: If the doctor makes a mistake and the baby's head emerges from the womb, he can't kill it--it's now a born baby and the woman that entered to have an abortion goes home a mother.

[BBA]

Hmmmm...

I see this will never end.

If YOU want to kill your child, please do so, I wont care!

If I was in a war, and killed someone, I would be doing it for a reason, and I am sure it would not be out of convienance.

If I was in a grocery store, and someone started shooting, so I killed them, I would not feel bad about it at all!

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that it is not as "inconsequential" as pro choice people might think.

As far as any of this needs to go about what I think, just realize I see what is going on, and I will not paint any pretty picture to soothe you conscience about it. I see it for what it is, in unbiased observance.

In otherwords, I will live the way I see fit, and whatever you do, you have to live with it, not me.

And as for the current president...that is exactly who I am talking about...he even admitted he has sexual disorders...making him a deviant.

And as for the liar, well, as much as it fits the clinton's, gore is worse, and it is gore who I attack for lying. The man can not say something true even if it's good for him!

( as I lullaby myself to sleep with the "look for a union tag" song...LOL )

[bdunn]

If you consider a fetus to be legally a person does can it count as a dependent on your Federal Income tax form before the time it was actually born?

Would then a miscarriage be concidered a partial year dependent?

[Fingers]

Can you claim a child as a dependant when it is 3 months old? If so, that amounts to 9 months in the womb, 3 months outside the womb. Clear enough?

That's right, maybe we can impregnate our wives, claim a tax deduction, then feed her some RU486. I guess there wouldn't be anything immoral about that either.

When you respond, just rembember who made abortion a tax issue. (hint-it was the poster immediately above me-hint)


[This message has been edited by Fingers (edited 10-03-2000).]

[Fingers]

RRR.... http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/frown.gif Guess I was due for a double post.

[This message has been edited by Fingers (edited 10-03-2000).]

[BBA]

I heard along with the RU489...the french hand out an aphrodesiac drug along with it....RU469

http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/biggrin.gif

[Fingers]

Oh... I thought it was U-R-469!

Clever, BBA http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif

[Bazango]

Dputiger, imposing child bearing on people is considerably more than an "inconvenience" and your argument is fatally flawed in that you consider the source of the inconvenience a human being when it is nothing of the kind. Couples who have sex without birth control and who had no intention of bearing children should suffer the consequences of hauling their butts down to the local clinic to get an abortion.

ILC, you are also erroneously confusing abortion with murder. Just because you use the word "abortion" in a sentence in place of the word "murder" doesn't make abortion the same thing as murder.

The partial birth abortion debate needs to first confront the fact that the whole purpose of formulating the procedure was to save a women who was giving birth to a fetus so horribly deformed that it could not be birthed safely by the women. A women who elects to have an abortion that late is not likely to have one because she just doesn't want to have a baby. Most women are not going to wait that long.

U-R-469. Yuck, yuck. Well, at least if U-R-469, you don't have to worry about anyone getting pregnant.

[embalmerd]

There is no perfect solution. In order to eliminate unwanted pregnancy, society should provide cheap birth control, pill form or whatever, to all. Is the "day after pill" a form of birth control or abortion? I think that it depends on when it's taken. It will be regulated by Doctors, as any other drug, to determine this.

The question of when life begins will be debated by "so called" theologians for centuries. But, it won't be answered in a moment of mistaken passion.

Dead Man Walking

[Warthog]

From October 9 "U.S. News and World Report" on p.22 (bar graph)


When abortions occue in U.S. (in weeks since last menstrual period):

6 or less - 16%
7 - 17%
8 - 21%
9-10 - 23%
11-12 - 11%
13-15 - 6%
16-20 - 4%
21 or more - 1%

Figures are for 1996 and do not add up to 100 percent because of rounding.


So....at what point is a an embryo considered a human being? Judging by those facts, I still think it's murder. The majority of baby's aborted are several months old. The new pills must be taken before 7 weeks. Not much time to decide, huh? Those pills still don't really change the date of the murder. The only part that is changed is the method.

The cost is the same ($300 or so). "Most women experience instense cramping and heavy bleeding soon after taking the second drug. Bleeding and spotting can last from nine to 16 days, and sometimes as long as a month. Nausea, headache, and diarrhea are also common side effects". Holy poop. I wouldn't want that if I was a woman.

Additional facts:

Abortions in France attributed to:
RU-486 - 33%
Surgery - 67%

1998 figures


Think it will be the same in the U.S.?

All info is from said source.

Warthog

[This message has been edited by Warthog (edited 10-03-2000).]

[Dputiger]

Bazango:

You're correct about partial-birth. Fortunately, they are a rare type of abortion but I feel they truly are criminal unless performed as an absolute task of last resort to save a life.

At that stage of development a baby is fully-formed and self-aware. Jamming a needle into a small child's head and disolving its brain is a truly disgusting process.


That said, to your other point:

I will admit to being uncertain on the RU-496 pill. However, most abortions are done at a much later date than merely a few days. Once a fetus has begun to develop a brain, a skeletal structure, etc, to me that IS a human being.

My argument is not flawed based on the definition of humanity I accept. If we change to your definition of humanity, where a fetus is nothing but an inconvenience, yours is also restored to logical status.

[Fingers]

"If we change to your definition of humanity, where a fetus is nothing but an inconvenience, yours is also restored to logical status."

Probably the same problem I was having while trying to make sense of your messages. Once I began to grasp your convoluted definition of humanity, I was able to see the logic in your arguements. ...Absolute nonsense in my opinion, but at least now I know where you're coming from.

[Bazango]

What do you think my definition of humanity is and what is convoluted about it?

[Bazango]

Dputiger, yes it is a pretty disgusting procedure as is most surgery. The way I understand it, the reason the needle is used is because this procedure is usually undertaken when the fetus is hydroencepholitic. The brain of the fetus is so swolen with fluids that is behaves rather like a solid that cannot pass out of the vagina despite contractions in the mother. There is the danger that the birthing canal will rupture with accompanying hermorraging and the women will quickly bleed to death. Draining the brain of the fetus is the only way to protect the mother.

You are wrong that the fetus is self aware at this stage of development, although as a baby, it certainly is fully developed else birth would not be occuring. Part of what changes at birth is that the baby starts breathing on its own and starts getting a ready supply of oxygen that the mother could never really supply enough for a fully operating nervous system, a big brain especially, which uses a lot of the baby's blood supply. The brain of a baby is huge in proportion to the rest of its body compared to any other point in the life of a human being. Is it any wonder it is? It is our most important part. In a cow or deer, it is the legs that are out of proportion with the mature animal and they have to start walking as soon as they are born in order to survive.

You said,

"If we change to your definition of humanity, where a fetus is nothing but an inconvenience, yours is also restored to logical status."

I don't understand what you are saying here.

[barry glisson]

You girlies get them shoes off and get your pregnant self in the kitchen and stay there. barry

[grumpyglb]

Someday we'll all be Dead. And then we'll see
how stupid we were!

[eq.rights]

Only women should be allowed to make a decision on the "abortion pill".
Men should decide by abstinence or use of
a condom.

[RataToo]

LEGALISE POT!....heh

[blind to truth]

<INCOHERENT RANT>

Well im not surprised. In today's society, it is taught to teenagers that you should not have sex, but it teaches you how to. (i know sex ed is ment for you later on, but now its for teens who cant take a cold shower). I am niether pro-choice or pro-life, but a child isnt an incovienence, it is a life and shouldnt be aborted just because it doesnt pertain to some one's preciouse little agenda. And from a moral point of view, this country is going to hell in a handbasket as we get stupider, and we kill off our "incovieneces". On the other hand, I think only rape victims should abort (and for those whom the baby may cause the mother death or what not), but not for the people who dont want to use condoms because they can just get an abortion later. Dont want to use a condom and get pregnant? Oh well, shouldnt have had sex at all. But thats just my opinion

P.S. no man= no baby, so yes it is BOTH the women's and the man's decision, not just the womens. But i can see if they were using a condom, and it broke, were they should decide if they want to abort.

P.S.S That pill is evil, it pretty much just lets death to an unborn baby even easier so abortions will become less "rare".

*EDIT* That 'weeding out the people because were so overcrowded' is ****. Come out to Arizona and drive from Tucson down to the mexican border, and see how "crowded" it is. You could fit millions there.

</INCOHERENT RANT>



[This message has been edited by blind to truth (edited 10-06-2000).]

[Variable]

At first I tried to stay away from this topic for it looked like one of those topics where you are either pro or con. And nobody will be persuaded to change his/her opinion on this board. It sure looked like one of those topics that would lead to a flaming etc.

But here are my two cents worth:

I think every women should have the option of deciding whether to have the baby or have an abortion.
I think the man should have the option to say whether he wants her to have the baby (then he will have to pay but it will be his baby too) or he doesn't want her to have the baby (no payments and fatherly rights here).
Of course finally it will be the woman's decision whether to have the baby or not.
So you could say I'm PRO-abortion and PRO-"Opt-out".

I'm also PRO-"Kevorkianism". I think if a person in his/her right mind decides to commit suicide (no matter the reason) she has every right to do so. I also think he/she should be given the option of donating their organs or considering Crygenics.

cool°
Variable

[Variable]

At first I tried to stay away from this topic for it looked like one of those topics where you are either pro or con. And nobody will be persuaded to change his/her opinion on this board. It sure looked like one of those topics that would lead to a flaming etc.

But here are my two cents worth:

I think every women should have the option of deciding whether to have the baby or have an abortion.
I think the man should have the option to say whether he wants her to have the baby (then he will have to pay but it will be his baby too) or he doesn't want her to have the baby (no payments and fatherly rights here).
Of course finally it will be the woman's decision whether to have the baby or not.
So you could say I'm PRO-abortion and PRO-"Opt-out".

I'm also PRO-"Kevorkianism". I think if a person in his/her right mind decides to commit suicide (no matter the reason) she has every right to do so. I also think he/she should be given the option of donating their organs or considering Cryogenics.

cool°
Variable

[Bazango]

blind to the truth, you really don't need to teach anyone how to have sex. The whole point of sex education is to explain to kids how sexual reproduction works and to straighten them out on any misconceptions they might have about sex and reproduction. As for the rest, you are making the common mistake of confusing the life of a fetus with that of a baby and there really is no comparison.

[BBA]

A fetus and a baby are the same...just in different phases of growth.

Trust me, every baby there ever was was a fetus first. You can not have a baby without a fetus.

Just as you can not have an adult without a teenager, nor a senior citizen without an adult first...all originally from a fetus.

So, I see a fetus as a baby, an adult and even perhaps a president! Just have to look further than the moment your stuck in.

[blind to truth]

Without the egg, you have no chicken. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif

[Bazango]

And they are not the same thing.

[BBA]

Bazango...so you would be a cynic instead of optimist. You only see what is in front of you...not what can be from it.

Sad

Very sad

[BBA]

Oh...next your gonna tell me ice is not water...

[Bazango]

All the optimism in the world is not going to make anyone confuse a chicken with an egg.

[BBA]

So youve never cracked a "too well matured egg" open?

Happens more often than you think.

I can tell you it pretty much looks like an egg on the outside, but has feathers inside, and does not make a good breakfast http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/frown.gif

[barry glisson]

How odd that none of the ladies on the board comment on this subject . Maby it's because they think it is stupid for men to try to tell them what to do with their body. If you really want to stop abortion put your money where your mouth is and give 200.00$ per week About what it cost for the next 18 years into a trust fund to be used to raise an unwanted baby. I feel sure you can find a suitable agency to administer the funds. You want to complain about tax deductions for children I'm sure you can get a tax break as long as you contribute more than 50% to the childs support but that might be more than 200.00$. I think this dead horse has now been beaten enough. barry

[Bazango]

Well, seriously, if you didn't think it was an egg, then why did you crack it open? You wouldn't try to crack open a chicken would you? What was what you found doing in there? For some reason, a highly developed chicken empryo wound up with your breakfast eggs. Eggs are typically collected early enough after they are laid to make sure all you get is a yolk and the white. In either case the egg has been aborted. (Unless the eggs are unfertilized.)

[Warthog]

Barry - What is wrong with adoption?

I know we've been over this already. That's why I don't understand why you don't figure that the woman could put it up for adoption. They don't HAVE to raise a child. Plus, the child will go where it is wanted - by some couple which may not be able to have children.

Warthog

[blind to truth]

Fetus>baby>adult

Take out any one and that life is prettt much gone. You kill a baby, doesnt grow up to become and adult. You kill a fetus (Abortion) it cant become a baby, thus it cant grow up to become an adult. Pretty simple.

[Bazango]

blind to truth, you have it nearly right, except the part about "killing" the fetus. A fetus is not really functioning enough on its own so that you could kill it. An abortion is just arresting the development of the fetus and removing what is left having done that. This is what the pills are supposed to do. The first hormone cuts off support from the mother and the second induces a period which expells the fetus or whatever is there.

Warthog, the thing that most people forget about adoption as the correct response to accidental pregnancy is that the women still has to go through the nine months and giving birth. This is no picnic. Giving up your own living flesh and blood to some total stranger isn't anything I could rationally suggest to a woman either. Not to mention that she is the one who should really be breast feeding the infant as well. A baby is just not some independent object that can be hustled around like a stray cat.

[Bazango]

No that just doesn't work

A sperm and egg cell both exist before the fetus and you would not confuse these with a baby would you? These fuse to form a fertilized ovum that starts dividing, it is not even a fetus, you would not confuse this with a baby either. Eventually the egg divides enough to become a fetus, but it is still not a baby. Eventually, you do get something that is like a baby and when it becomes enough like a baby you really do have a baby - literally. As long as the pregnancy remains in the womb, it is not a baby, it is becoming a baby.

It just doesn't make any sense to confuse a fetus with being anything but a fetus.

[barry glisson]

People are lined up all around the block to adopt right.Either put up or shut up. barry

[thekingofpain]

France (and other European countrys) now offer the "morning after pill" free from the school nurse in Jr and Sr high, no questions asked...another good idea im sure we will see here...

[Bazango]

People are lined up around the block to smoke crack too, that doesn't make it a good idea. Babies need to be with their mothers.

[barry glisson]

You missed the point people are not lined up to adopt.Only the white blonde haired blue eyed are in high demand. barry

[Fingers]

Bazango wrote: Giving up your own living flesh and blood to some total stranger isn't anything I could rationally suggest to a woman either. Not to mention that she is the one who should really be breast feeding the infant as well. A baby is just not some independent object that can be hustled around like a stray cat.
Bazango, that is the absolute height of hypocrisy for someone who claims to support the "woman's right to choose".

I finally realized just what your agenda here is, you don't support the right of a woman to choose; you just support abortion. You're so hardcore on this issue that you even seem to suggest that a woman automatically abort every unplanned pregnancy rather than consider adoption.

Bazango wrote: As long as the pregnancy remains in the womb, it is not a baby, it is becoming a baby.
Bazango, Just what happened during the trip through the birth canal that suddenly makes that baby so valuable in your mind? You clearly state it is not a viable life while it is still inside the womb, so what amazing transformation happens to the baby during labor? I would suggest that an expectant mother can have just as strong a connection with her baby at 8 months as she does when she holds it in her arms. What about the baby that is born prematurely? Is a premature baby that is only surviving because it is attached to a heart and lung machine a baby or not? If it is, then why wouldn't a full term baby that still in the womb and using the mother for its "heart and lung machine" also be a baby?

You claim to have such high an noble concerns for the life of a baby once it draws it's first breath, yet you were perfectly comfortable with sucking the brain out of the very same "life form" just months, days, and even minutes before the actual birth.


Now you should understand what I meant when I used the term "CONVOLUTED"


Sorry for the rant, I have already stated that I don't oppose abortion strictly on the ability to determine when life begins, there are other social and moral issues that come into play. This message was directed at only the one member who continues to suggest that abortion is justifiable based on the "medical" issues.

[Bazango]

Whistler, yes that is exacly what I am suggesting. A women should automatically abort every unplanned pregnancy rather than consider adoption. That is what I think she should do. I don't think there should be some kind law demanding that she abort every accidental pregnancy and nothing I have said could lead anyone to imagine otherwise. No one should coerce a women into any medical procedure.

I have already explained what happened during the trip out of the women's vagina that distinguishes a fetus from a baby. That baby is now using its own blood supply that will need nourishment as soon as possible to sustain the dramatic metabolic changes that have occured during birth. Especially the new demands on the nervous system now that a fully functioning personality has begun to be formed. Recall that this issue was what motivated this part of the discussion. It is weirdest kind of fantasy to imagine that a woman hreast feeding an infant has the same relationship with the baby as she does with an eight month old fetus inside her womb.

And premature babies? A premature birth is still a birth. All those mechanisms that kick in can be stimualated to induce the fetus to assume as much physiological self dependence as it can. Still, tragically, it is so feeble that it is too weak to breath on its own and function normally like a healthy baby can. Furthermore, the necessary development that a healthy fully grown organism will need at this stage never occurs. If the fetus did not need to be in that "heart and lung machine", it would never be there and if it can't be there then much at a physiological level is lost and can never be compensated for.

I think it is pretty despicable to cite over and over again the idea that somehow people are running around sucking the brains out of perfectly normal babies about to be born. Please see the above discussion about hydroencephally.

Abortion is justified every time a women asks for one. Morally, medically, spiritually and logically.


[This message has been edited by Bazango (edited 10-07-2000).]

[BBA]

Bazango...you ideas and opinions are very tasteless to me.

I wonder if you were a "unplanned" pregnancy...they should have aborted.

[ILC]

Ok....so what about all those pre-mature babies? Are they not babies? Are they not human beings becuase they arent fully devoloped?

Abortion is justified every time a women asks for one. Morally, medically, spiritually and logically.

Maybe logically and medically in SOME intances, butn ot many. As for the other two...maybe in your wacked out world.

ILC

[Bazango]

ILC, about the pre-mature babies, see my third paragraph in the previous post,

"And premature babies? A premature birth is still a birth. All those mechanisms that kick in can be stimualated to induce the fetus to assume as much physiological self dependence as it can. Still, tragically, it is so feeble that it is too weak to breath on its own and function normally like a healthy baby can. Furthermore, the necessary development that a healthy fully grown organism will need at this stage never occurs. If the fetus did not need to be in that "heart and lung machine", it would never be there and if it can't be there then much at a physiological level is lost and can never be compensated for."

Does that sound "whacked out" to you?

BBA, you think I should have been aborted? I was born in the fifties when abortion was illegal, so that would have been difficult. If you think we waited too long to legalize abortion, just say so.

[ILC]

Ok, correct me if im wrong, but ive read it twice and it sounds to me that you think that a non-fully devoloped baby isnt a human being? If that is so...then yes that is WAY whacked out.

ILC

[BBA]

Did I say you should have been aborted?

I just posed the question as to whether your incubation period would have qualified for your reasoning to abort... I mean: morally, medically, spiritually and logically.

http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif Have a nice day!

[Bazango]

ILC, yes, a non-fully developed baby isn't a human being and it is the simple truth, it isn't whacked out. It isn't even a baby and a baby has a pretty hard time being a human being.

BBC, you just posed the question as to whether your... what? ...qualified your reasoning to abort? I can't figure out what you are trying to say. Why would my reasoning be qualified to abort?

[ILC]

Oh ok, so I could go into a hospital and kill all the premature babies, and only get charged for tresspassing or vandalism since there "not" humans yet......oh ok.

I try to stay away from name calling but you were dropped onyour head on to many times to think a premature baby isnt a human. If it isnt human what exactly is it? And oh yea, it IS whacked.

ILC

[BBA]

A women should automatically abort every unplanned pregnancy rather than consider adoption



I mean, were you a planned pregnancy?

How do you really know?

[Bazango]

ILC, you are speaking out of both sides of your face at the same time. First you say "non-fully developed baby" and imply fetus and then you say "premature babies" as if that was what you were talking about in the first place. Then you pose the whole argument to make it sound like I would approve of going around killing prematurely born babies. This is clearly deliberate, kindly restrain yourself.

Again, once a baby is born, whether it is premature or not, dramatic changes have kicked in. The fetus has been transformed, physiologically from something that could exist only in the womb into something that can exist only independently. See my above posts.

BBA, what difference does it make? Who cares?

[BBA]

I was just wondering if you cared...maybe you wanted to be aborted, and you got cheated? I could understand some resentment in that case.

( J/K, don't take it seriously http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/biggrin.gif )

[Bazango]

Wanted to be aborted?

My earliest memories don't go back that far since no one can remember being in the womb anyway. Not enough is happening in the brain to induce memory.

My biggest regret about being born is not being born fabulously wealthy. Otherwise is was an extremely fortuitous birth.

[This message has been edited by Bazango (edited 10-09-2000).]

[GenePG]

The seem to be three positions represented here:

(1) Pro-lifers who would impose their personal beliefs upon others, i.e., ban or highly re-strict abortions by law.

(2) Pro-lifers who have strong personal beliefs against abortions, but who would attempt to persuade those who disagree with them to change their mind rather than have the State make the decision for everyone.

(3) Those who believe that the matter is entirely one of personal choice.

The genius of Roe vs. Wade is that the United States Supreme Court has removed the issue from political consideration and has left the matter where poll after poll has disclosed the American public wants it -- in the hands of those represented by (2) and (3) above.

After an issue is declared "unconstitutional" the only way to change it is to amend the Constitution or to change the composition of the Supreme Court sufficiently to overturn the decision, despite the Court's usual reluctance to do so on doctrinal grounds of stare decisis. Consequently, all the posturing by presidential and other legislative candidates amounts do just that. They no longer have a say in the matter.

The history of the ERA should convince most people that there is little chance of constitutional amendment. The United States Supreme Court is paradoxically the most powerful, autocratic, deliberative, and untainted judicial body in the history are of modern secular jurisprudence. Many people may question the wisdom of a particular Supreme Court decision, but few question the authority of the Supreme Court to make that decision. Historically, presidents who have appointed Supreme Court justices have found that upon taking office the justice has not voted in a predictable manner. This seems to be natural upon taking an office with awesome power and responsibility and no practical possibility of being removed or even questioned regarding any decision. If you doubt the wisdom of this setup consider other ramifications of the electoral process and read the complete text of a Supreme Court decision addressing an issue of fundamental rights and decide where you want the last word to be.

[Bazango]

If the Supreme Court has upheld human rights in spite of prevailing public opinion and I mean if, it is a lucky accident. Institutionally, if the public cannot grasp the basics of human rights, then the Supreme Court is no hope. Recall the recent decision there to allow the government to pay for computers going to a private religious school? The Supreme Court decided that was not a violation of church and state. The Supreme Court is capable of error and the moral and institutional backbone of the United States will always be in its elected officials. Judges have to have real legal skills and so maybe should be immune to a certain extent to elections. What do you think the Supreme Court would look like if they were elected? Better? Worst? How would you do it?

[tantone]

I'm not so sure that outlawing abortion would make things any better. What does a law really do?

Nothing to a young girl who is too afraid to admit to her family and her parents that she--a nice, upstanding, upper/middle class white girl--had let things go WAY too far with the Hispanic boy her parents forbid her to see. Now she tries to find someplace that will perform the illegal abortion; so now not only will she have to suffer her conscience eating away at her for making the mistake in the first place, but she has become a criminal. And in her eyes, that's still not as bad as the wrath her family would have brought down upon her.

The illegal clinic she finds doesn't have the money to keep it's facilities up to current medical standards, potentially risking her life now too.

I agree that we need to find ways to reduce the need for abortions, because that means we're reducing unwanted pregnancies, but abortions should not be outlawed.

[GenePG]

Bazango

The First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits Congress from passing a law with respect to the "establishment" of religion ( the "establishment" clause) and also protects the freedom of the practice of religion. The separation of church and state is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution; most people learn it in civics classes.

I read the case you are referring to. The government has a program where, pursuant to certain conditions, it provides money earmarked for computers and other school supplies available to all schools: public, private, sectarian, and private nonsectarian schools. Reasonable minds can differ as whhether or not such aid tends to "establish" religion. A deeply divided court rendered a "plurality" decision (as opposed to one with a majority of the justices agreeing on both the analysis and the outcome) that basically says such aid is not unconstitutional. The Court is called upon to render such decisions with great regularity. The issues always seem to nibble around the edges of the establishment clause and it seems that Americans are in no great imminent danger of the "establishment" of a legal national religion. Much of this controversy is fueled by fairly recent scholarly commentary suggesting that the "founding fathers" had no intention of creating laws affirmatively antagonistic to the practice of religion. Many people think that the White House Christmas tree violates the establishment clause.

You asked that a reference be made to a decision by the Supreme Court that is generally opposed by most Americans. Most Americans would agree with the following propositions:

In 1604, an English court made the now-famous observation that
"the house of every one is to him as his castle and fortress, as
well for his defence against injury and violence, as for his
repose." Semayne's Case, 5 Co. Rep. 91a, 91b, 77 Eng. Rep. 194,
Page 610 195 (K. B.).

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against the unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Fourth Amendment.

Imagine a police officer walking his beat. He hears maniacal laughing coming from a house. He has a hunch, a bad feeling. He knocks on the door and no one answers. He pushes on the door and it opens. He observes what turns out to be the owner of the house stabbing a woman and right before the man is able to inflict the lethal wound he arrests the man. The police department gives the officer a medal; the media hails him as a hero.

Eventually, the arrested man is released, literally free to finish the job. There's the usual public outcry against the coddling of criminals, more law and order, the "liberal" justice system, etc.

In fact, what happened is merely the garden variety application of the "exclusionary rule" which was established by the Supreme Court in order to compel law enforcement to adhere to the Fourth Amendment. The public hates the exclusionary rule; everyday evil criminals are set free on a technicality. In fact, this application as I described is a rare occurrence. Nonetheless the public perception is that it happens every day. The Supreme Court has consistently upheld the exclusionary rule despite public sentiment against it. "Miranda" is another variant of the rule applied to the Fifth Ammendment. It has been adopted by other countries. Criminals in countries where it does not exist, and to watch too much American TV, demand their "Miranda" rights.

Of course the Supreme Court can make mistakes. A look at some of its decisions regarding slavery are good examples. They are, after all, just people. Certainly perfection cannot be expected.

If it's not broke...

[This message has been edited by GenePG (edited 10-11-2000).]

[Bazango]

Thanks for your excellent post.

Giving money to religious institutions is a pretty agregious violation of church and state. Restraining the government from giving money to religious schools is not being antagonistic towards religion. No one on the Supreme Court should ever have offered otherwise.