Supreme Court Justice - Abortion

[grizbeer]

It's all just a matter of where you draw the line. Sperm is alive -- is it "life?" Who knows? Or is something not really "life" until it can survive independent of its host? Who knows? Or is it when egg and sperm combine? Who knows? The embryo starts to replicate cells -- is that life? If we go by that definition, isn't cancer also life? I know that's a vulgar comparison, but I'm just showing that defining life is very difficult and is exclusively a matter of personal belief as opposed to something more rock-solid (which is what makes this such a difficult issue).

I don't know the answers to those questions, so I base my position on a civil liberties position (less government invention in the private lives of people to the extent they aren't interfering with other people's -- fully developed and independently functioning beings -- happiness/rights) as well as from a sociological perspective.

I don't like the idea of people having kids that don't want them or are incapable of taking care of them (and before we hit the reflex adoption debate, tell me how many people are lining up to take FAS or crack babies?). Once we get past a point of worrying whether it is murder or not (I don't think it is, some people do, and I can see their point of view, but I oppose forcing that view on all of society via law), it makes sense to me that our country is much better off by avoiding the births of children who will not be raised in a good environment of under less-than-desired conditions. Abortions (free will of the people having kids) allow that. There have also been compelling studies showing the positive effects of pro-choice laws in terms of our crime rates (and probably also welfare rolls and other social ills) as a result of our ability to more carefully plan pregnancies. It makes sense on an anecdotal level, at least.

http://www.guardster.com/print.php?sid=217

If that sperm on your sheet ever turns into anything other than a moldy stain I guess I could talk about self-genocide, and if those cancer cells ever grow legs and arms and turn into a human we can talk about the right to kill cancer cells. As far as I know only human embryos have ever grown into human beings.

Obviously this is not an easy issue, so I appreciate that you didn't get upset with my arguments. I agree we are better off without unwanted children, but it makes a bad argument to justify abortion - couldn't you extend that argument to any point int he pregnancy, or even after the child is born/ I mean, if the father goes to prison and the mother is on welfare, clearly the child is going to induce poverty and has a higher likelihood of committing crimes - shouldn't society support the mothers right to end the child's life if it reduces the burden on her and society - Wouldn't everyone be better off? How about if she is only 9 months pregnant and realizes she doesn't want the baby? 8 months? 7 months? Should your justification still allow her to end the life to save society from an unwanted baby?

Anyway, I don't have any illusions that I will change anyones mind about abortion, but I did want to explain that when you frame the question as one of "should a women be allowed to take her child's life" as apposed to "at what point do we allow a women to take her child's life" then clearly men as a part of society do have a role in the decision making, and it is no more arrogant or controlling for men to have a say in when a women can abort a fetus than it is for men to have a say in when a women can kill her 2 year old.

[briannell]

grizbeer -

I hope you didn't take my response as an attack. I feel this is a great way to voice opinions and that everyones have value and should be given respect.

I also do think that there should be limits as to when a woman can have an abortion.. Usually we don't know we are pregnant for at least a week after we "miss" our period, so I say within the first month of pregnancy. I do not support abortion, I only support the right to have it as a safe, legal, and regulated option to be given to women. I do however, favor adding to the law that a woman must have the fathers consent (written and witnessed) prior to the abortion. unless noted that pregnancy happened via rape or the woman had an impaired IQ.

I would take all "unwanted" kids if i had my own personal resources to provide for them. I don't care what "disabilities" a child has, ALL children need love. happy to be the little old lady who lived in the shoe who had sooo many kids, she didn't know what to do. Or as i like to refer to myself "happy little broodmare." If I can't have them, i'll take yours

But, my concern is that if you have an all male panel, you wont be plugged into female issues. you get a skewed viewpoint, and as men and women can hardly understand each other on small issues, i don't think on such a large scale this should be decided upon by men.

I understand and respect the right to life campaigns, but if you are going to use religion I wont support you. Not everyone is a Christian (I am) however, i do not think you can impose it on everyone else. although, I believe one thing, I must allow others to choose for themselves their own moral values. The Bible does not discuss "abortion", but as a follower of Jesus I know Thou shalt not kill, therefore i don't abort my babies, nor would i kill anyone. although after 22 hours of labor and feeling like I was being beaten with baseball bats delivering my oldest (Ben age 6) I wanted very badly to injure his daddy.

-rebecca

[grizbeer]

Rebecca I didn't feel attacked, and I agree with much of what you said, but I thought you were making the argument that men had no role, and have seen that argument before. And I know that there are men out there who think their role is to control women, and usually they are the Evangelical Christians who believe that women's belong barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen and preach about morality while they are off screwing someone else in the bedroom or the boardroom. In truth I think much of the backlash against the right to life group is because it is ran by these a-holes, and it is nearly impossible to have a rational conversation

What I was trying to get across is that all members of society have a legitimate interest in the issue, and that religion doesn't have to enter into the thought process.

[SonomaCat]

Rebecca I didn't feel attacked, and I agree with much of what you said, but I thought you were making the argument that men had no role, and have seen that argument before. And I know that there are men out there who think their role is to control women, and usually they are the Evangelical Christians who believe that women's belong barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen and preach about morality while they are off screwing someone else in the bedroom or the boardroom. In truth I think much of the backlash against the right to life group is because it is ran by these a-holes, and it is nearly impossible to have a rational conversation

What I was trying to get across is that all members of society have a legitimate interest in the issue, and that religion doesn't have to enter into the thought process.

I completely respect that approach. As long as someone makes a rational argument on a position like that, I have to respect their stance, even if I come to a different conclusion. Once religion gets mixed in, then I feel like I can no longer have a rational conversation as one person is basing the discussion on faith and the other is trying to use reason, and the two often don't mix well (that's not putting religion down, but just pointing out the difference in the thought processes).

I am conflicted on abortion (as I am on most issues, as so few are black and white and easy to work through). It's one of those things that I think should be kept at a minimum for many reasons (that you articulated well), while at the same time I do believe that it should be kept legal as I don't think the negatives outweigh the personal freedom implications.

Going back to a previous point you made, I have in the past made tongue in cheek advocacy statements for mandatory abortions up through the 60th trimester for certain individuals. That was right after getting off a plane with some really annoying screaming kids.... I guess it's a good thing that I wasn't King of the World at that very moment.

[SonomaCat]

Getting back to the original question, I actually answered that I don't think a judge's views on abortion should be considered, as I don't think a Supreme Court justice should be an ideological appointment. A good judge will rule on the law the correct way even if it conflicts with his or her personal preferences.

And I wouldn't even be all that upset if Roe v. Wade was overturned. I have read pieces that made perfect sense to me at the time that suggested that the holding in the decision was flawed (even though the writers were pro-choice). If this issue reverted to being a state by state issue, that would be fine by me. Most states would keep it legal, some would outlaw it, and then the true sociological experiment would be in place to play itself out on a grand scale.

The only point at which I would go ape is if/when somebody tried to start a constitutional amendment to outlaw the procedure ... and we all know that somebody would. It would fail, but it would win somebody some votes -- those kinds of hollow gimmicks rally the base in a way that fresh ideas will never accomplish.

[briannell]

but I thought you were making the argument that men had no role, and have seen that argument before[quote

of course men have a role, how do you think we get pregnant in the first place

I do think men (the father) should have imput. If he wishes to have the child, and raise the child, he should get the child if the mother chooses not to want to take the parental role on.

I just don't like the idea of an all male court telling me it's not going to be available as an option. I think it (abortion laws) needs to be rewritten and expanded to include protecting fathers rights, unless he's a rapist. I also think limiting time frame to when a woman can have the procedure is necessary. I think there are too many loop holes right now.

I don't like Bible thumpers (which i am one) expecting everyone to live by Christian standards when not everyone is one. I think it is beyond arrogant to do so. Especially when as a Christian you are taught fundamentally to "Love thy neighbor", as well as "hate the sin BUT not the sinner."

-rebecca[/quote]

['93HonoluluCat]

Oh man, I am SO sorry. I was trying to do a reply thing to your post with the quote button, but I must have hit the edit button instead. I accidentally edited your post down to nothing, and I can't repost what was originally there. Your post had a lot of quotes in it, so I know it was a real pain.

I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry... I promise I will be much more careful in the future (and I won't try to post while multi-tasking).

If you by any chance did that post in another program and then posted it, that would save me a lot of guilt if you could repost it. Otherwise, all I can say is that I'm really sorry.

Well, I didn't post it with any software, but I'll try to recreate my post.

as a woman I don't think ANY man has the right to tell me what I can or can not do with or to my body. On the issue of abortion I know that in the 8 girls i knew at MSU that had them (one twice with the same man) all were done out of a sense of desperation. scared to lose the guy, tell the parents, or lose their scholarship. I'd rather it be kept safe and regulated.

The issue still boils down to our societal need of immediate self-gratification, regardless of consequences to our selves and to others.

-on a personal note, I'm crazy about kids, BUT my pregnancies were unplanned. Birth control is not 100%...just because you correctly use protection and are nursing doesn't mean you can't get pregnant.

Agree, and I can attest to that personally. I have two daughters with my wife, both of which were unplanned--but I still dote on them, and love them very much. I also have a daughter through a relationship while at MSU, before I knew better.

as "two to tango" is now irrelevant in a society where sex is as disposable as your partner. most pregnancies that end in abortion aren't between "committed" couples, but between casual sex partners. Most men do not discuss the issue even with girlfriends, I doubt you bring it up with the woman you just met, but screw anyway. people don't think about it. we are a disposable, instant gratification society, and until that changes it's best to keep options open and safe.

To say nothing of the pain of the emotional separation when two people sharing a bed decide to "break up." So tell me again why we think premarital sex is such a great idea?

on the ultrasound issue, i think if you love children you fall in love with that child prior to that point, which is ususally between 18-22 weeks. if you fear the child the ultrasound wont make that much difference.

I think with 90+% of women who see the baby deciding to keep the child, it is either not about fearing the baby, or not a lot of women fear their babies.

['93HonoluluCat]

I do think the morning after pill should be readily available to women, but as a society I think we need to act responsibly about our sexual behaviors. Personally, I think a baby deserves the chance to be born, BUT think men and WOMEN need to be careful whom they bed down.

How is the "Morning After Pill" different than an abortion? Both aim to kill a life, and both are used when contraception either isn't used or fails. One is more attractive because it's not as invasive--people don't have to think as much about the consequences of what they're doing.

Guess I was raised old fashioned, don't sleep with anyone you don't want to have a family with.

I guess my thought on the issue is "don't sleep with anyone you're not married to."

this is not the norm these days, doubt I will ever qualify as normal, but at least I don't have to DNA test my kids to find out whose daddy. For those of you who choose to have casual sex, just try and breakdown the costs of raising one child, and think would you REALLY like to deal with that woman for at least the next 18 years of your life.

Again, please tell me--anyone--why this thing called casual sex is such a good thing--other than for immediate self-gratification at the expense of others?

for those taking a religious stance remember, religious arrogance is the worse kind. God never told you to approve of everyone's beliefs, choices, or actions but he did command you to love everyone. don't be boastful have a teachable spirit. read Eph. 4: 29-5 to learn about gentleness and may be you wont look with distain on another person you are in no position to judge.

I hope you're not accusing me of bringing religion in this. Sure it frames how I think, but I've intentionally left the religious side out of this discussion.

['93HonoluluCat]

And I know that there are men out there who think their role is to control women, and usually they are the Evangelical Christians who believe that women's belong barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen and preach about morality while they are off screwing someone else in the bedroom or the boardroom.

I am an evangelical, and while I understand why you made that statement, I nevertheless find it somewhat slanderous.

In truth I think much of the backlash against the right to life group is because it is ran by these a-holes, and it is nearly impossible to have a rational conversation

I give the militant pro-life lobby no respect. They're cowardly and are no better than the abortion doctors they are so violently against.

[SonomaCat]

Again, please tell me--anyone--why this thing called casual sex is such a good thing--other than for immediate self-gratification at the expense of others?

Well, it is a good thing if it is done right (so I have been told by those who have done it). If you know what you are doing, not only should it not be at the expense of someone else, it should actually make them gratified as well. Then you have two happy unmarried people, and happy people are a good thing.

I assume "casual" sex here is being used to describe any sex that isn't within the bounds of a government-sanctioned marriage contract?

And as to the overarching theme that unmarried people shouldn't have sex ... let's just say that having premarital (or non-marital, as not everyone intends to get married, so premarital is a part of our nomenclature that is a bit presumptuous) sex is a much better way to avoid getting divorced than to get married in order to get laid. Some people don't have to go either way -- an asexual lifestyle is fine for them. Most people, however, do prefer to live life with at least a little sex in it. And getting married just to get it isn't a good way to go.

Besides, using myself as an example, I find myself just as capable at age 33 of having sex with another consenting adult with no adverse results as a pair of 18 year olds who get married right out of high school.

And the one point that is being missed is that, as Rebecca noted, some married people have abortions as well. Not all married people want kids, just like most single people don't want kids. So if married people don't want kids, should they also abstain from sex?

['93HonoluluCat]

If you know what you are doing, not only should it not be at the expense of someone else, it should actually make them gratified as well. Then you have two happy unmarried people, and happy people are a good thing.

Happy until they decide that the relationship "is not working," or they "need more space," or they're "not ready for committment." The problem is, there's an emotional attachment when two people have sex--but as people have more and more partners, the emotional end just gets ignored. It becomes numb, if you will. Just because two people are on their Nth partner and can't feel the emotional pain doesn't mean it isn't there.

I honestly think it takes more of a man to "keep it in his pants" than it does to sleep with a new partner every night, or week, or month, or year.

I assume "casual" sex here is being used to describe any sex that isn't within the bounds of a government-sanctioned marriage contract?

Exactly, without that "government-sanctioned" bit.

And as to the overarching theme that unmarried people shouldn't have sex ... let's just say that having premarital (or non-marital, as not everyone intends to get married, so premarital is a part of our nomenclature that is a bit presumptuous) sex is a much better way to avoid getting divorced than to get married in order to get laid.

Sounds pretty good if you decide to ignore the emotional scarring that happens. Why do you think the marriage success rate for couples who have sex or live together prior to marriage is so low? Why commit to one woman (speaking of guys here) for life when you can have your pick any night at the Rockin' R?

Some people don't have to go either way -- an asexual lifestyle is fine for them. Most people, however, do prefer to live life with at least a little sex in it. And getting married just to get it isn't a good way to go.

And why is that? Let me tell you: it's about that person's self-gratification and getting what's coming to him/her, regardless of consequence.

Besides, using myself as an example, I find myself just as capable at age 33 of having sex with another consenting adult with no adverse results as a pair of 18 year olds who get married right out of high school.

I never said all marriages are the right ones. Unfortunately, there are marriages that are entered for the wrong reasons. That doesn't mean, though, that just because someone didn't get married, or haven't gotten married yet, they should engage in sex.

And the one point that is being missed is that, as Rebecca noted, some married people have abortions as well. Not all married people want kids, just like most single people don't want kids. So if married people don't want kids, should they also abstain from sex?

Yes, if they don't want to use the proper contraceptives.

[SonomaCat]

I think you are painting some pretty broad strokes there. There are some pretty happy single people in the world that have slept with more than one person in their life. There's more than one way to be happy, and marriage right out of the gate isn't the only route.

As to the suggestion that the marriage rate is low between people who sleep together before marriage, let's consider the evidence:

1. Nearly everybody sleeps together before marriage (I'll guess 90%, but it's probably higher).

2. Those that don't almost exclusively avoid doing so due to strong religious views, and;

3. Those same people with strong religious views likely also have a severe personal stigma towards divorce.

Therefore, the people who don't sleep together before marriage are also likely the same group that would remain married even if they were in a miserable marriage (as divorce has such a high threshold). The causal relationship isn't between premarital sex and divorce, it's between extremely strong religious views and divorce. That also isn't to say that the absence of premarital sex leads to a happier life -- it just suggests that the people are probably tending to give themselves fewer options (and if those few options don't make them happy, they will end up unhappy).

It's great that you are content with your life and the decisions you have made, but take it a little easy on suggesting that those of us who have taken different paths are somehow less emotionally fulfilled or that we are doing something wrong. Or, particularly, that we are (in Promise Keepers-esque billing) less of a man if we have more than one sexual partner in a decade. Most of us are pretty big kids now (both the boys and the girls), and we're more than aware of what we are doing with our lives, and we are well aware of the "consequences" of our actions.

[SonomaCat]

And the one point that is being missed is that, as Rebecca noted, some married people have abortions as well. Not all married people want kids, just like most single people don't want kids. So if married people don't want kids, should they also abstain from sex?

Yes, if they don't want to use the proper contraceptives.

Well yeah, that goes without saying. I was kind of assuming that all of our examples assumed the people having sex were using the proper contraceptives. The question wouldn't have made much sense otherwise.

[Hell's Bells]

And the one point that is being missed is that, as Rebecca noted, some married people have abortions as well. Not all married people want kids, just like most single people don't want kids. So if married people don't want kids, should they also abstain from sex?

Yes, if they don't want to use the proper contraceptives.

Well yeah, that goes without saying. I was kind of assuming that all of our examples assumed the people having sex were using the proper contraceptives. The question wouldn't have made much sense otherwise.

personally i do have these questions:

1) why get married if you dont want to raise a family? i mean really? it is a little bit self-serving by saying that you want to spend the rest of your life with somebody but you dont want to have children to share all the goodness of your life with. To be honest, i bet child rearing scares some people out of wanting children

2) actually, BAC, by adding a religious context to this discussion it only adds a angle of which to discuss the abortion topic. If you think that it would not be rational, then that is your decision. However, i feel that it is only rational because religion is a part of society, always has and always will

3) How can anyone equate the morning after pill to be just like an abortion?


I have read this thread at length for some time now and i feel like it is interesting how everybody is painting broad strokes and generalities through the way they experience life, which is what i am basically doing here. Call me prude but i think that sex today can be pretty dangerous outside of wedlock, you know, aids/hiv/std's that can kill you. It is the wise way to stay asexual until you find that person that you want to spend the rest of your life with, whoever it may be.

abstinence works 100 percent of the time it is tried my friends

['93HonoluluCat]

It's great that you are content with your life and the decisions you have made, but take it a little easy on suggesting that those of us who have taken different paths are somehow less emotionally fulfilled or that we are doing something wrong. Or, particularly, that we are (in Promise Keepers-esque billing) less of a man if we have more than one sexual partner in a decade. Most of us are pretty big kids now (both the boys and the girls), and we're more than aware of what we are doing with our lives, and we are well aware of the "consequences" of our actions.

BAC, I didn't intend to point out any "moral superiority" on this matter. Fact is, I've had premarital "relations," and I know personally the pain involved. But because people offer alternative lifestyles, I merely wanted to point out the alternative that I have found.

You're right, to my knowledge everyone posting in this thread is an adult, and can make choices for themselves. But I don't think I've said "you have to live my way, or you won't be happy." If that's what you have inferred from my postings, I'm sorry.

[briannell]

-off topic-

I guess I don't want to chastise anyone (over 18) who wants to engage in sexual behavior among two consenting adults. I feel you can have just as deep and emotional full relationships in platonic relationships as you have in sexual ones. it doesn't hurt any less to me to lose someone you adore who's "platonic". Yes, it sucks to lose someone you have shared your bed with, but more so if you both are not on the same level. I mean if one individual (the man) is looking to date, have fun and mix in some sex, and the other (woman) is "in love" and believes these actions are leading to a forever commitment between the two it can be horribly scarring to the one " in love." I personally know this to well.


This situation I have also seen in reverse where she's playing games, and he's committed. but I think adults know this going in, no matter how lacking your relationship experience is. You should know that if you give all of yourself to another you can end up hurt emotionally. Also, the threat of a disease should get you thinking twice before you lay anyone you don't really know.

I think if adults are up front about what they want from one another in the relationship, sex outside of marriage can be healthy. by the way BAC -it is ALWAYS supposed to be fun and gratifying for both, no matter what situation you are in.

I do not think marriage is the correct situation for everyone to be in. I would never give back my kids, but hate being an Army wife. For both Brian and i it's hard to claim "marriage" when he is deployed so much. he feels almost selfish, because when you leave your spouse on average 6 months a year it is not fair. When you are away 12 -18 months thses days it is cruel. People need emotional relationships more so than sex in my opinion.

However, Sex and sexual well being is key in successful relationships. if you are not compatable in the bedroom, your relationship will not last. It would be hard to share your bed indefinitely (once married) with someone who can not fulfill you.

-back on topic-
i think that the individuals record on abortion should be looked at, but as long as the judge is fair and goes be the spirit as well as letter of the law, I will be happy. I don't want personal bias getting in the way of sound judgement by any candidate.

-rebecca

[gtapp]

[/quote]

2) actually, BAC, by adding a religious context to this discussion it only adds a angle of which to discuss the abortion topic. If you think that it would not be rational, then that is your decision. However, i feel that it is only rational because religion is a part of society, always has and always will
[/quote]

Don't be so sure! Religion is losing its strength rapidly. People are becoming smarter and realize that religion is a marketing ploy used to create power, raise money and control people, Not to mention that 75% of the world's child molesters are Catholic Priest's. Don't confuse spirituality with religion. The Agnostic's and Atheist's are rapidly taking over!!!!!!!!!!!

['93HonoluluCat]

Not to mention that 75% of the world's child molesters are Catholic Priest's. Don't confuse spirituality with religion.

Definitely off-topic, but also GT, don't confuse religion with spirituality.

[SonomaCat]

1) why get married if you dont want to raise a family? i mean really? it is a little bit self-serving by saying that you want to spend the rest of your life with somebody but you dont want to have children to share all the goodness of your life with. To be honest, i bet child rearing scares some people out of wanting children

I don't really understand this question ... some people just don't want kids, but still want to spend their lives together. Self-serving? Well, yes. Everything we do is self-serving, ESPECIALLY having children. We do it because we want to (usually).

There are also people who can't have kids, for whatever reason. I guess you are suggesting that they just aren't worthy of being happily married in a childless relationship?

I kind of see where this philosophy may have sprung from -- I assume it is the remnant of a theory as to why gay marriage is a bad thing. But honestly, a lot of people just want to spend their lives together in a state recognized partnership, with or without kids. Who are we to suggest that there is anything right or wrong with it?

[SonomaCat]

I have read this thread at length for some time now and i feel like it is interesting how everybody is painting broad strokes and generalities through the way they experience life, which is what i am basically doing here. Call me prude but i think that sex today can be pretty dangerous outside of wedlock, you know, aids/hiv/std's that can kill you. It is the wise way to stay asexual until you find that person that you want to spend the rest of your life with, whoever it may be.

abstinence works 100 percent of the time it is tried my friends

And I have noticed that a lot of people are injured in car accidents, so I suggest that nobody ever drive anywhere. If everybody just stays at home until they find a job next door to their house so they can safely walk there, then that's the best way to go.

Did we just step onto the set of a anti-sex video made for Jr. High kids, or what? Be afraid, be very afraid!!!

And for those who have not been single for a long time (or don't otherwise know), they have tests and stuff available for people to determine whether they have any diseases, so one is able to determine whether the person they have been dating is "clean" or not at a level of certainty equal to or greater than simply having a ring on their finger. The world really isn't that scary anymore if you know what you are doing, and it isn't nearly as boring as many people would like it to be.