I've been thinking about the issue of abortion long and hard. As constitutionalists, it isn't hard for me to determine that the federal government should have no say in the issue whatsoever, it should be left up to the states.
But on a state issue, as a liberty minded person, do I have more of a moral obligation to support maximum individual liberty and allow abortion, or to support a ban on abortion. My conclusion has been that a state ban on abortion is morally justified, because if we don't have a respect for life and protect it, we cannot protect liberty either.
What are your thoughts?
Subscribe to this thread- Flag as offensive
- Login or register to post comments
- 502 reads
****
The Father's right's ? If it takes 2 to pro-create then it's not just the woman's decision. The child, fetus or whatever name you'd like to give that life . Everytime I ask this question , women ALWAY'S come back with,
"It's the woman's body."
Here is something to think about......Why is it that when the pollen from genetically modified crops that Monsanto produces , pollenates crops in another field that gives Monsanto the right to sue the farmers for growing Monsanto's Frankenfood ? Farmers should sue Monsanto for rape. Silly comparison I know but a man's DNA is HIS , so why is he financially liable if the woman births the child but not entitled to say "no" to an abortion if "HE" wants the child ?
>>"a man's DNA is HIS , so why is he financially liable if the woman births the child but not entitled to say "no" to an abortion if "HE" wants the child ?"
From my perspective, which I think is fairly libertarian, a father should be able to waive his parental duties at any time during the first four weeks of pregnancy when the woman can still obtain an early abortion, and she should be required to inform the father early on that she is pregnant, or else waive her right to support for the child.
If neither the mother nor the father are aware she is pregnant until it is too late to have an abortion, I guess they should both be financially responsible for the child. If the woman knew, but was deceiving the man, then he should not be liable. If the man told the woman that he would be responsible for the baby, he can't change his mind later.
Marriage contracts would include a clause that makes the father responsible for any children he fathers with his wife during the marriage. What if a married woman is pregnant and wants an abortion, and her husband wants her to have the baby? What if the "father" of an embryo wants his girlfriend to have the baby and she wants to abort? Well, given that there is no child yet (assuming it is still very early in the pregnancy), the man does not yet have any parental rights, and I don't think any mentally competent adult should require permission from someone else for a medical procedure, so bottom line, it's the woman's decision at that point.
My advice is to women is: If you are going to have sex with someone, make sure you love that person, that he loves you back, and that should you get pregnant he will stay with you and help you raise the baby. If you don't want to get pregnant, use contraception. If you get pregnant and the guy is not committed to you or the child, either get an abortion EARLY, before your embryo begins to develop into a sentient human being, or have the baby and give it up for adoption, or if you are able to raise the baby yourself (without help from the state) you can do that too.
My advice to men is: Only have sex with someone you love, who loves you back, and with whom you might want to have children. If you don't want children, use a condom. The way parental support laws are now, it may be very foolish to trust a woman when she tells you she can't get pregnant right now.
You kind of skated around my question though. If the woman is pregnant and she wants to get an abortion and the man wants the child....reguardless of there being a marriage......Why should she be able to abort the child when it isn't 100% hers , it's 50% his ? And I've heard the ole "If men carried the baby for 9 months" thing before. It would still be 50% the womans.
I'm not wanting to start any fights here just curious as to why the men lose all thier rights ?
So who ends up being right?? This has been debated since the beginning of time.
http://hinduism.about.com/od/hindugoddesses/a/makali.htm
Other Goddesses
http://inanna.virtualave.net/indian.html
When the conscious rules; then we shall know what is the truth!!
In my opinion, whether or not abortions are acceptable is an issue that should exist solely between the man and woman directly involved and whomever they choose to involve. As for myself, I had always taken a stance that needless slaughter is unnecessary until I came across a case of the baby having a different blood type than the mother in which case something has to give.
That said, I do not believe that it is the job or responsibility of the government to be playing doctor. The reason being is that members of a properly or improperly functioning government change frequently so if it should be the case that we find ourselves represented by, say, a member of the House whom practices medicine. His or her would be great if it weren't the case that the bills that may pass under their insight as brilliant as it may be, will still be enforced by someone else entirely. This is how our system works. If this someone else is not as medically qualified as our example House member, his or her interpretations will without doubt be skewed.
This is why our Constitution was written even after weeks of intense debate with such simplicity as to encourage future defenders thereof maintain its basic structure. Let the government serve its purpose as the foundation of our country and not the foundation of individual wellbeing.
As for the children, I am a little old-fashioned. We are all born free in this country. Our Constitution states this as such and it comes at no charge. That said, children still need to be taught to respect our freedoms and to respect the world around them. In other words, they need to be raised. When I was a child, for better or worse, my parents acted much like regents and I do not disagree with this. In one way shape or form I was always told that when I reached adulthood, I could make my own decisions. At the time I had thought that that sucked but now I know better. I am not saying that kids or people without the ability to reason should die but there comes a time when the adults need to step up to the plate and stop searching for blanket solutions for everything. My shirt is not one-size-fits-all so why should my government be?
When we learn to reason and function as adults, then we can decide whether or not it makes sense to decide what women do with or to their bodies.
What do you think about Dr. Paul's take on this? He tends to obey the Constitution, Fight for liberty and have some medical credentials as well:
"In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman. In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, H.R. 1094. I am also the prime sponsor of H.R. 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn. I have also authored H.R. 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called "population control." Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken and will continue to advocate direct action to restore protection for the unborn."
I know he has rightly said that states should decide, but if his "Sanctity of Life Act" were ever to be passed (which would define life as beginning at conception declaring the person hood of unborn babies)
would it become a federal issue under homicide laws?
I'm no lawyer and maybe someone more knowledgeable could comment on this.
>>"which would define life as beginning at conception declaring the person hood of unborn babies"
Life and person-hood are not the same thing. Dr. Paul is not saying that an embryo is a person, just that it is alive, which is true, of course, in the same way as any other collection of cells in your body are alive. The only significant difference between those cells and the embryo is that the embryo has the potential to become a thinking, feeling person. But let's be clear: A four week embryo can not feel, much less think, because it does not have a brain. To want the state to protect it is completely unreasonable, in my opinion. It also opens the door to the state banning certain forms of birth control like IUD and oral contraceptives that may prevent the implantation of fertilized eggs. This takes us perilously close to the state legislating private morality. I think abortion should be a lot EASIER for women to obtain in the first four weeks of pregnancy, before the issue becomes whether to kill a sentient human being.
first, let me say I am no lawyer either so I have no idea whether it would become Federal or not. If it did, I believe that it then would become something that Dr. Paul would not support as I am relatively certain (though I have no link for proof) that he has made it clear that these are his feelings but that they should be kept at the state level.
That said, this is one of the areas (one of the few) that I disagree with him on. I absolutely respect his opinion, especially given his background and I think that his definition is a good one and is the one that I essentially use in my own personal life. I just do not think it is the only one, as I have stated previously.
>>"She and her partner chose to be irresponsible with their bodies and create a life that's unwanted. The choice was made. Now they should face the consequences instead of thinking they have some right to destroy a living thing because of their irresponsibility."
What if she was raped? What if she was being responsible and using contraception and the contraception failed?
Consider this scenario: A married couple intentionally conceive a child, only to find out 18 weeks later the fetus has Down syndrome. They have to decide whether to abort a 19 week old fetus (fully formed and almost viable outside the womb)
Now this scenario: A young woman goes out partying and decides to have casual sex with a man she just met. They don't use contraception and the woman gets pregnant. Two weeks later when she finds out she is pregnant, she decides to have an abortion. The embryo at that point is little more than a group of cells with the potential to become a fetus. It has no brain, or even a neural tube yet.
Which of these abortions would be worse, in your opinion? For me, it's a no-brainer [pun intended].
If a woman has been raped and wants to have an abortion, does it make no difference to you whether she has the abortion at two weeks or at 20 weeks of gestation?
"... all men are created equal... that they are endowed with certain unalienable rights, that among these are LIFE, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness".
There is a reason "Life" comes before "Liberty". In order to protect Liberty, one must first protect and respect Life. Who are we to say and justify which life can be destroyed? A fetus is a living human being and it has a right to live. How can one begin to claim that they want true liberty while at the same time disrespecting life?
As far as the woman being able to have a choice... this is correct. But she already made her choice. She and her partner chose to be irresponsible with their bodies and create a life that's unwanted. The choice was made. Now they should face the consequences instead of thinking they have some right to destroy a living thing because of their irresponsibility. There are other ways of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy besides abortion... more positive ways (such as giving up for adoption) which is a win-win situation instead of the lose-lose situation presented with abortion.
At this point, States should definitely decide. This would prevent those who are morally opposed to this practice in having to pay for them.
To me (and the beauty of liberty is that each person will have a say) the answer to the Abortion question is pretty simple. It seems to me that the government (state, local, federal) should not have any say in the matter, simply because it seems to be clearly more of a moral decision than it is anything else. And moral decisions should never be decided by anyone other than the individual (s) involved.
That said, neither Pro-Choice nor Pro-Life follows that line of thinking. In the case of Pro-Life, obviously the government restricts peoples rights. In the case of Pro-Choice the government not only allows them to make a choice (which is a good thing) but also decides whether everyones tax dollars can be allowed to fund this decision (not a good thing).
The answer is simple to me...abortion clinics should absolutely be allowed as a service to those who do not have issue with it morally but no tax dollars should be used to fund them. The problem is that neither of the two sides fits with this paradigm.
aren't all laws based upon morality? The question here is whether abortion should be considered murder, like any other taking of human life outside of self defense against aggression. While I would certainly use your logic for a great many things where there is no victim, there is definitely a victim here - the unborn child. What are the unambiguous grounds (if there are any) upon which to distinguish between killing the unborn child and killing a person that has been born? Some might say, "one is born and one is not," but we have already eliminated that. No one wants to support abortion on the day before birth, for example. So, if not born/unborn, what is the distinction between a person with rights and a person without rights? Claire suggests a functioning brain. What do you suggest?
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God" - Thomas Jefferson
Ultimately, I agree that laws should be based upon individual rights. However, isn't the proposition that individual rights be respected a morality? Also, you say that it is up to the individual to determine whether or not the fetus is a person. This is where the pro-choice argument is unconvincing to me. It is not up to each person to decide whether the fetus is a person, or to decide when it becomes a person. The existence of the fetus is an objective, verifiable fact. It is true regardless of the observer. It is a human fetus, that is also an objective, verifiable fact. It is alive - another fact. THe question is, does the mother have the right to end that life? Does anyone besides the mother have that right? What if my wife were of the opinion that she had a right to end that life the day AFTER the baby was born? What, besides morality, prevents her from doing so? Did the baby acquire rights at birth? How, by traveling about 1 1/2 feet, did this transformation take place? It is still not able to survive on its own, so that argument would not hold water.
I would like (and often have tried to) put this issue to bed the same way you have, which is leave the govenrment out of it and let each woman decide. However, protecting life is one of the few things that the government is SUPPOSED to be doing. I am not really arguing the pro-life position, but rather that I remained unconvinced by the arguments for abortion. My instincts usually are similar to yours on this, but every time a debate is raised, I feel the same ambivalence.
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God" - Thomas Jefferson
Great post. And here's why the federal government SHOULD get involved (you'll rarely hear me say that): The 14th amendment guarantees that each State must give EVERY person under its jurisdiction equal protection under its laws. In other words, IF a State has a law saying that you can't murder, then it must be illegal to murder ANYONE. They can't say it's a crime to murder whites but not a crime to murder blacks.
The argument that this only applies to citizens fails because it IS a crime to murder illegal aliens.
The only way to get around this is to suggest that there is a category of living human being that is not also a person. This is a very dangerous and inherently religious line of reasoning that has been used to deny rights to blacks, American Indians, and indeed the unborn. The objective, scientific approach would be to guarantee these rights for all living human beings.
in my opinion anyway, is that what is a human being? Does an fetus become a human being at conception? By your definition, perhaps but by someone else's perhaps not.
And this is precisely why the government should not step in at least not until someone can say without a shadow of a doubt when the fetus becomes a human being, which at the moment is a highly subjective and argumentative thing.
is that I am more than comfortable with your ambivalence. In fact, I think many people feel similarly and it is why this should not be strictly defined.
When it comes down to it for me, when in doubt, don't leave it to the government to decide. By trying to define something that when you ask 10 people, 8 give you a different answer I feel that it basically just ends up continuing the process that the Republican and Democrat parties are currently doing, and that is forcing people to do things because they feel it is "right", even though right can not be defined. To me forcing someone to pay for abortion clinics is equally wrong to making abortion criminal. But either of them is not different than the Patriot Act giving the government the right into all aspects of our lives without cause or the government completely controlling the healthcare industry (as if they don't already have enough control over it).
The fact that you and Claire and I all three have different perspectives should raise some eyebrows. Given that we are three people who are all on this website which means that we are probably at some level "like minded" yet all three seem to see this differently should be a massive red flag that this is an issue that the government needs to stay the **** out of.
Excellent conversation, by the way. I truly enjoy these sorts of debates. They make us grow as people.
For me personally, I would not want my wife to have an abortion even the day after conception. However, I think in terms of law there should be no definition, because of the fact that so many people have different definitions. Claire's suggestion of a functioning brain is a good one.....for her. For someone else that may not be a valid definition and there are still many mysteries behind the science of what makes a brain a functioning one.
So long story short, I believe that by trying to define something where so many people have so many different definitions (or basically something that may not be definable) you in essence end up limiting individual liberties.
You mention that all laws are based on morality, I am not sure if that is completely true, but then again I am also of the belief that many laws do impede upon our individual liberties. I do not do drugs, but I do not see how it should be against the law for an individual to take drugs as long as the only person that they hurt (or affect as the case may be) is themselves. The same goes with speeding. I do not see how these arbitrary numbers that vary from place to place have relevance in our lives. What one person is able to do behind the wheel is completely different than what another can do, and as long as neither one is hurting the other I do not have issue with it. I see abortion as a similar thing. For a woman who believe that the unborn child is simply another part of her body, I do not see how the government should have the right to force her to keep that just because the government has decided that it is morally incorrect. When a person starts to hurt another person, then I have problems. Because there are so many people who do not see the unborn child as another person, I think it is inappropriate for the government to start making that definition for them.
>>"there are still many mysteries behind the science of what makes a brain a functioning one."
What if we could solve those mysteries scientifically, and define the point after which we can be certain that a fetus has a functioning brain, can feel pain or pleasure, fear or contentment? Would the fact that people don't want to believe it make it less true? Whether person-hood can be defined by social consensus or whether there is some more objective way of defining it, is the fundamental question.
Before you jump in with your answer, consider that it is possible for a majority of people decide that a minority of people are not people at all. In fact it has happened many times in history, and has often resulted in genocide.
>>"Whether person-hood can be defined by social consensus or whether there is some more objective way of defining it, is the fundamental question."
Absolutely the case, and clearly as you point out throughout history many societies have defined "person-hood" differently. It was more than OK to kill Jewish people if you were in Nazi Germany because they were essentially seen as less than human.
And no, I do not think that whether people want to believe something or not makes it less true. Someone can argue that 1+1=3 but that does not make it so. However, at this point there is no 1+1=2 in the highly subjective and opinionated area of abortion. If ever there is, and we can truly define what makes a person a person and not something else, then I will likely change my stance considerably.
ETA:
>>"Before you jump in with your answer, consider that it is possible for a majority of people decide that a minority of people are not people at all. In fact it has happened many times in history, and has often resulted in genocide."
I realized I did not initially comment on this, but I think this is actually one of the main reasons that I think that issues that can not be defined as 1+1=2 (without question) need to stay out of the governments hands. When we leave these things to the government (or the majority as it were), very bad things can happen as you very eloquently point out.
follow logically from certain assumptions, but I there is certainly a perspective to look at this from where one might say, "Listen to you people! Are you monsters?"
No matter how I try to justify it, there is always something in the back of my mind (my conscience?) saying, "you are making rationalizations to justify taking a life."
I fully recognize that this is a problem I am never (well, probably! LOL) going to face personally, so that may make it easier for me to go the other way on it.
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God" - Thomas Jefferson
>>"you are making rationalizations to justify taking a life."
I don't think anything I wrote justifies having an abortion. I have never had one and would never have one myself, at any stage of pregnancy, because I wouldn't have the heart to do it. Even if it were just an embryo, I would love it already. During my second pregnancy at age 36 I could have had amniocentesis, but I decided not to because it poses a slight risk to the baby and there was no way on earth I could ever abort a fetus in the later stages of development, even if she had Down syndrome or some other abnormality.
I think the best thing for a woman to do if she finds herself pregnant and doesn't want the baby would be to carry the baby to term and then to give him up for adoption. But I have no right to FORCE a woman to carry a baby.
It's an important issue, an issue of both life and liberty. You can avoid talking about it if you like, but that won't make it go away.
Actually, that is what irks me the most, this denial of reality. Women seeking abortions just want the fetus to disappear. Well that is NOT what happens in real life. Maybe if doctors did not kill late term babies during the process of terminating the pregnancy, and parents knew they might deliver a baby that was struggling breathe and trying to stay alive-- maybe they would think twice about having this done.
But perhaps the discussion had become unbalanced. I had defended the right of women to have abortions, but I hadn't expressed my condemnation of anyone who would do it.
So here goes: Don't abort, ladies. It's wrong. your baby is completely dependent on you and will die without you. Have your baby and love him and take care of him. If you can't love him and take care of him give him to someone who will. It is the only decent thing to do.
If a woman can be forced to continue a pregnancy because otherwise the baby will die, what stops us from forcing a father to give a kidney to his child, if the life of the child should depend on it?
I think it is wrong for the state to forcibly take control of anyone's body. On a gut level, it feels even more wrong to me than the state taking a person's money-- but I'm not sure how I could defend that position... Maybe it's just a matter of a person's body being more a part of himself than his property is. I think it is for this reason that theft is considered to be less bad than physical assault.
The conflict between two lives with equal rights.
The difference in the kidney transplant and the abortion, however, is that the abortion is an act committed directly against the baby, while the transplant is merely refraining from having yourself cut open. I don't think the two are really analogous. It's hard, though. My cop out answer has always been to leave government totally out of it and let each woman make a moral decision on her own. It doesn't always work for me, though, as the government's prime purpose for existence is to protect life, in addition to liberty and property. See, I'm still useless on this. :)
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God" - Thomas Jefferson
My main hope would be that women who want abortions would get them very early on in the pregnancy, before the fetus is sentient, and most certainly before he becomes a person capable of living on his own, independently of his mother (even if only for a few seconds) .
>>"the abortion is an act committed directly against the baby"
What if the baby could be removed without any harm to it beyond cutting the umbilical cord (which has no nerves in it and although it is a life line for the baby, is not a part of the baby)? Late term abortions are often accomplished by inducing labor. In these instances, the baby could be delivered alive, but in order for it not to be murder technically, the doctor has to kill the baby while he is still inside the mother. My personal view is that a woman should be allowed to induce labor whenever she wishes, but that beyond cutting off that lifeline to the baby she should not have the power of life or death over him.
"The brain doesn't have to be perfect, as long as it functions even a little. So someone with brain damage, or even hardly any brain at all, just enough to keep the body alive, is still a person."
This isn't the minimum requirement for "person," it's apparently the minimum requirement for President of the United States.
Sorry! Couldn't resist! I know you guys are having a serious discussion. Abortion is THE hardest issue for me philosophically. I openly admit that on this I flop around like a John Kerry bobble-head doll.
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God" - Thomas Jefferson
:-)
Having a baby, becoming a parent isn't something that should be decided on in a split second but many times when birth control fails, people are faced with a 20 year commitment in the blink of an eye. A child is a byproduct of two lives. It's no different than the male lion killing the cubs of another male lion so he can mate and have his own young. Biology gives us the option of deciding what's right for each of us individually.
Humans have been doing this since the beginning of time. They did it in private and risked their lives many times for survival. Legislating morality is not in the vein of freedom. We do it and people still get abortions only in unsafe places and risk their lives. The fact is they will do it no matter what kind of laws we pass which should tell us we probably shouldn't be passing laws.
It's a personal freedom like any other out there. Its something between the woman and her God, period. The whole gist of freedom says once we encroach on anothers freedom the line is drawn. The child in a woman's stomach is hers. Her body, the child needs her to be alive. Since the two can't be separated without death to the fetus, she calls the shots. Anything that grows as a result of her life is her domain. If she can live with aborting a fetus, that's for her to come to terms with. God obviously gave women that mechanism to be able to abort a child because if it were unnatural we wouldn't have 42 Million abortions a year.
86.7% of all women getting abortions identify themselves as Christians. They don't seem to be listening to God's teachings or abiding by this morality everyone assumes they should have.
We can so easily decide when a loved one should die by pulling the plug, yet the idea of protecting the rights of the person in a coma alludes people, this is a living breathing human being, someone that laughed and loved, how are they not as important as a fetus? Because of the financial burden? If life is sacred it has to be an all or nothing proposition. We can't use it interchangeable when we see fit. It's OK to kill a convict or pull the plug on the comatose but get the hell away from the unborn?
When protection of life becomes selective for the purpose of power, we have crossed the line. We have to acknowledge in individual cases we do it, and we even condone it. If we allow life not to matter in any case, we have no leg to stand on in trying to prove the opposite.
>>"Having a baby, becoming a parent isn't something that should be decided on in a split second but many times when birth control fails, people are faced with a 20 year commitment in the blink of an eye. A child is a byproduct of two lives. It's no different than the male lion killing the cubs of another male lion so he can mate and have his own young. Biology gives us the option of deciding what's right for each of us individually."
A male lion kills cubs, so people should have the right to kill babies once they are born? That is not abortion you are talking about, it's infanticide. Infanticide is utterly and legitimately illegal in all states. No one is even considering that.
If people don't want a baby, it doesn't mean they have to raise him. He could be given up for adoption. Parents who don't want their child are only responsible for him up until the point that they can transfer custody to someone else. Once a person is born, no one has the right to kill him. I think that woman should have the right to have a baby removed at any time, because no one should be forced to maintain the life of another person. We don't force people to give blood just because someone else will die if they don't, for example [although parents are not allowed to neglect their children, they can't be forced to support them if they are able to get someone else to adopt them]. Removing a baby from his mother's womb during pregnancy doesn't necessarily kill the baby. Many babies are aborted so late in the pregnancy that they are able to live outside the womb. If a woman has waited so late in the pregnancy that the baby is able to live and breathe outside the womb, once the baby has been separated from the mother neither she nor the doctor should have the power of life or death over him IMHO.
My advice to women who find themselves pregnant and don't want the pregnancy is to get an abortion before the embryo becomes a person (in my opinion if there is no brain yet it's not a person, and a fetus's status as a person thereafter becomes more definite as the brain continues to develop), and at the very least to do it before the baby is viable outside the womb.