Imagine N/A

[Sonar5]

I have participated in this debate personally twice as a father/potential father. On one occasion the pregnancy was terminated, the other time it continued to term. In both cases, the emotional stake involved was huge. My personal views on the moral implications of the matter have been fluid over time and circumstance, but at no time have I ever thought it's something the government has any right to get involved in.

Ken,

Thanks for the comments. And I can appreciate where you are coming form and don't wish the decision on anyone.

But to continue your analogy, in my example above should anyone ever be prosecuted for killing a child inside the womb when they kill the mother?

Government needs to get involved in some issues of life and death. IMHO, this is necessary for the success and continuation of society and civilization as a whole.

I sometimes think about Patrick my lost son, and what he would be like, in comparison to my other two sons who are different in their own ways.

Does one feel guilt, or in your case of the killed child, did you have a say in it, or no decision at all?

Do you feel like you should be entitled to a decision by law, and if not, why not since you actively chose to do the deed which created the pregnancy?

And if the Government has no right involving cases of life and death, then where does it end. In Chaos, because then others justify their means to an end.

Need a life saving technique. Sorry, you lived 50 years already, so we're letting you die.

Child born with cleft pallete, too bad, we can't and should not try to rectify that because its inconvcenient or a drain on society.

If someone chooses Suicide, and fails, should we simply put them back on the street, or do we get people involved, like the government case workers, that try to help the person out, and prevent them from killing themselves in the future, even getting them committed.

Government gets involved in life decisions all the time, and shouldn't the goal of a society as a whole be to protect life and continue civilization, or just pick and choose the perfect child with no abnormalities, no cancer genes, no heart history problems in the gene pool.

Where does it end. As technology and science emerge, we are living longer and longer compared to our ancestors only a century ago.

Someday there will no doubt be pre-natal testing to determine a person's risk level with certain diseases. And if the trend continues, there will be mothers only having a choice to abort a child because at somewhere over the age of 50, a child may develope prostate cancer, so you might as well kill the child now in the owmb instead of putting them through that phase of life.

Where does it end with choice. What choices are allowed and which are not. None???

 

[Ken Ibold]

Where does it end, indeed? I was speaking with a rocket-scientist-turned-liberal-arts-college-president recently about similar topics, and he believes that children born today will have the option to never die. He is convinced that within a few decades we will have the technology to download consciousness itself into a machines. The medical questions you pose are, in my opinion, very similar to the abortion issue, with the exception that "dead babies" has such visceral emotional impact. Presently, technology is blurring ethical lines in just about every area of human endeavor, as the inventiveness of the human species overwhelms our intellectual ability to comprehend the ramifications of what we do.

We routinely kill animals for food and sport, yet evidence is emerging that holds that the concept of "self" is not such a uniquely human thing afterall. And at what point is one "self" more valuable than another or more worthy of
"saving"?

 

[Dave Siciliano]

You should read some of the cases winding or that have gone through local courts and will probably be appealed:

Invitro fertilization: Do those eggs have any rights if a donor expires? Big case where the husband and wife split, the husband expired; Mom's attorneys sued to protect the egg's rights to their part of his estate.

Euthanasia: Active v. passive. Because the State won't allow someone to choose to end their live with some dignity and medical advise, that person smears their brains on the wall of their mobile home with a .357 magnium over Christmas while family is visiting.

What about tissue transplants? If certain parts of one person's body are transplanted to another does identity or rights change?

C.M. V. C.C. Juvenie and Domestic Relations Court, Cumberland County, NJ: May a semen donor obtain visitation rights with respect to a child born as a result of artificial insemination? (no physical contact involved--you really should read this case) does the man become dad? Have any visitation rights? Have any support requirements?

There is a concept called Wrongful Life. Let's not even get into that one.

Dave

Want to read a fun one?

 

[AdamZ]

First: I don't want to speak for Missa but I read her "parasite" comment as sort of a technical issue. In essence a fetus lives off a mother. As a lawyer I know word are funny things they can be weapons, invitations, complements or descriptions. I took Missas use of the word to be "clinical" much as I took Sonar's use of the work "killing" to be clinical and not meant to inflame

Second: Lisa, how do you give women a say if you would need both the man and woman to consent to terminate? The way most of the laws are now the Woman can override the mans wishes. If the law is changed the man will always beable to override the womans wishes. Such a difficult issue! This is one of those situations were you really can't have it both ways.

Third: Sonar I don't think that the potential for a womans emotional distress or a man' s for that matter should be a consideration in outlawing abortion. If one says (paraphrasing) that gov't shouldn't be in the business of giving them an out for a pregnancy that they supposedly created by concioius choice ( having sex as some have put the choice) then gov't shouldn't be in the business of protecting someone who may become distraught by thier concious action of terminating a pregnancy. This is said understanding my belief that some women and men elect to terminate a pregnancy with great thought, debate and consideration and are surly very saddened by the choice they feel they have to make while others terminate a pregnancy as if they were getting a haircut.

Fourth: I have to complement every single poster to date in this thread. This is a very emotionally charged issue!! This issue can rip communities at the seams and has at times lead to tragic violence while proponets of the issues confront eachother. While I have not divulged my position, simply becasue I don't want to now, I do want to say that each of you have proffered your position in a very civl and respectful manner. It has actually been a pleasure to read your debate and well articulated points of view which are not littered with demeaning commnents. So Thanks to you all.

 

[alaskaflyer]

Well for one reason I believe there is nothing left to discuss on this topic. All of our minds are made up. Right now it is legal, as this case progesses through the courts there will also be legaslative chances to voice one's concerns via the ballot box and that is where I will focus my attention.

Agree. People have about as much chance of changing my mind on this issue as about any other political issue, which is to say somewhere just on the other side of zero.

All the gynecologists in the surrounding states are out shopping for toys today, as their profit margin is about to improve considerably. Which is why the law is so stupid (well, one of the reasons...)

 

[alaskaflyer]

Ken,

Thanks for the comments. And I can appreciate where you are coming form and don't wish the decision on anyone.

But to continue your analogy, in my example above should anyone ever be prosecuted for killing a child inside the womb when they kill the mother?

You know, though as a member of the CJ system I am bound to enforce the laws as they are written, I always had a real problem with this. I don't believe they should be on the books. Many feel (including me) that they are simply a back door way to bolster the anti-abortion legal playing field and nothing more.

My 2 cents. I don't begrudge anyone their beliefs in this, though I have pretty strong opinions on the subject. But related to the first post of the thread...if we are going to use that perspective on the situation...ok, where would this country be now if abortions had been criminalized for the past 20 years? Ozzie and Harriet? A whole abortion industry in Canada and in the Caribbean? Abortion clinics next to the casinos on Indian reservations? Some of the same people, organizations and political parties that want to push their abortion beliefs on me and my (theoretical) wife/girlfriend/sister etc etc are the ones screaming about having same sex marriages "pushed" on them. Like Sonar said...hypocrites.

It comes down to legislating a moral belief that is not widely held by the vast majority. If there is not wide consensus it doesn't work. Criminalizing abortion will last about as long as prohibition did, for many of the same reasons.

 

[ausrere]

Second: Lisa, how do you give women a say if you would need both the man and woman to consent to terminate? The way most of the laws are now the Woman can override the mans wishes. If the law is changed the man will always beable to override the womans wishes. Such a difficult issue! This is one of those situations were you really can't have it both ways.

Oh I know it would be a legal nightmare, that's why I say "in a perfect world". Just one of the many reasons I'm glad I never went to law school . I don't have to worry about writing the laws, just enforcing them [though thankfully, not in this area of law enforcement!]

I'm not quite sure how the logistics should work, but I don't think it's fair that a woman can chose to terminate a pregnancy where the father desperately wants and is ready, willing and able to care for the child. I think about my brother, who recently became a father after 10 years of dreaming about it. I can't imagine him having a wife/girlfriend/S.O. decide to get an abortion and him not have a say in it. But again, it would be in my "perfect world" and we live in a world very far from that.

Fourth: I have to complement every single poster to date in this thread. ..... It has actually been a pleasure to read your debate and well articulated points of view which are not littered with demeaning commnents. So Thanks to you all.

I have to agree with you on this point. I rarely get involved with these types of discussions. I still can't figure out why I jumped in to this one. Especially when the topic is not something I ever have to worry about happening to me. But I do have strong feelings about the issue, and it's nice to be able to express those without worrying about a flame war. I've been pleasantly surprised with the threads tone.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Last week my brother and his wife had a beautiful baby boy. He most definately cannot survive without feeding off of or being fed by his mother. He is definately not independent, left alone he would be dead in a few days. So I guess he is a parasite, and throwing him in the trash tomorrow would be completely acceptable?

No, but it's also quite possible after birth for someone else to take care of the kid. Good point, but the analogy doesn't work 100%.

I think that abortion needs to remain legal. As tragic as it is that anyone should have an abortion, IMHO the vast majority of our social problems today can be traced to bad parenting. How on earth is someone who doesn't even WANT to be a parent going to be anything other than a bad parent?

(Sorry for bringing up an old thread, I'm about a week behind in this forum!)

 

[Richard]

No, but it's also quite possible after birth for someone else to take care of the kid. Good point, but the analogy doesn't work 100%.

I think that abortion needs to remain legal. As tragic as it is that anyone should have an abortion, IMHO the vast majority of our social problems today can be traced to bad parenting. How on earth is someone who doesn't even WANT to be a parent going to be anything other than a bad parent?

(Sorry for bringing up an old thread, I'm about a week behind in this forum!)

Kent, they LEARN how to be a good parent. Lots of folks have had surprise babies and they have done alright. But the motivation to do what's right has to come first. And for that to happen there needs to be a mind set already established which would promote doing the right thing.

Lots of people say they have that mind set but if you were to examine them you would see it's mostly about doing right for themselves exclusive of others. Having a baby forces one to step outside of themselves and those bad parents of which you speak seem to be unwilling to do that.

I would say a 'vast majority' of our social problems stem from laws which make it okay for a person to screw up. By diminishing the consequences of bad choices/habits, a person is less motivated to examine themselves or to choose differently next time.

BTW: I used 'vast majority' in a post a while back and Harley jumped on me for it. He was right, of course, but don't say I didn't warn you.

 

[woodstock]

in the book Freakonomics (forget the author) he pointed out that something like 16 years after abortions became legal again, the crime rate dropped inexplicably. something to chew on. (incoming! duck!)

 

[alaskaflyer]

 

[alaskaflyer]

How can a cartoon be "not truthful"? Oh well...

 

[Richard]

How can a cartoon be "not truthful"? Oh well...

It's not truthful because it brandishes emotion as if it were as solid as the law. It's not truthful because it implies that the SD ruling has denied equality to an entire class. What's ironic is that it could be said that the SD ruling has given equal rights to an entire class.