OK, I think we can discount 90% of the conversation so far because:

- sperm is not a human being.

- an egg is not a human being.

- the topic has nothing to do with religion.

>cyba returns to the actual topic...<

Question for you - when is it ok to take the life of another person? 

Given in your wisdom, some of you value the lives of some people over others, what is your definition of a human deserving life?  Clearly disability makes someone less than human, since if a woman is going to have a disabled child, many now give the ok for an abortion.  So disabled people are sub-human - got it. 

What if a woman became pregnant to someone of another race?  Is an inter-racial child also less than human and deserving of death?  What if the ultrasounds show the child to be unusually tall, and therefore posing a painful labour?  What if the baby has an extra finger?  How extreme does the deformity need to be before they are sub-human?

What if the baby was ok, but the woman conceived in a way she now regrets?  What if she was raped?  Does that diminish the baby's right to live?  What if she had strong feelings for the guy she slept with, but the relationship has cooled - does the baby now have less rights?

I know many consider it ok to kill their unborn baby if it's not the sex they want.  There are thousands of girls killed each year because of this, particularly in 3rd world countries?  Are these people any less moral than the western mothers who abort kids out of personal convenience?

It could even be a financial decision - she might think that she isn't exactly flush with cash, and a child will slow down her lifestyle - a smaller TV, only 2 phones in the house etc - is it therefore ok to kill the baby?  If so, then what about parents with large families - shouldn't they also be able to top a kid or 2 to reduce the budget?

The value placed on human lives by some seems so fluid and vague, and imho disrespectful of humanity.

Dbl Post.

I'll take up your challenge, Cyba, but not so fast.  None of the answers to my questions were forthcoming from you as to legal ramifications.  You just say jail prison for murderers.  Nothing about how a country/state would patrol the abuses.  Nothing about how you'd manage the inevitable jury nullifaction from the majority of citizens who would be unwilling to imprison women and doctors.

Maybe you don't want to deal in wild hypotheticals like a criminalization of abortion in the United States.  Maybe  you don't believe that is forthcoming any time soon.  Maybe you're willing to settle for the small incremental cessation of youthful murder victims.  I don't know your stance on that.

I promise you I will address your hypotheticals.  But what about mine from the previous page?

Susan 

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

I'll try to re-write my post, since I've just lost my reply. (Damn me)

There should be some kind of control applied over these abortion clinics, instead of the free-for-all approach where the only condition is the whim of the bearer, and -who knows- worse: other people around her. That was my position, mainly. I'm not saying abortion should be banned because it can still be of help in certain cases. But these cases should be studied by competent authorities. If it is OK to have an abortion, how come most of the time, the woman will invoke privacy and the right to dispose of her body, while a babies'body can be maimed and sucked without questioning? Why can't she come up with better reasons than that? It is not a decision taken in an ethical spirit, in my view. Cybacat's position is a bit extreme, but I feel it is the pendant to an ultra-liberal practice that is prevailing, in the name of rights and liberties. You put it well yourself when you expose the complications found in this question and I am more than happy to see that you actually are taking the time to continue this topic. I hope I am not offending anyone in this forum, for my interventions can sometimes sound like I am trying. Thank you for taking the time to verify my example, Susan, you will see that there is more to it than the pro-life/choice dichotomy taking place. As for realpolitik, I do not have the competence or knowledge for that myself right now. But I am sure we could find acceptable solutions based on a common understanding of law and responsibility, and life.

I wish I didn't lose the first draft of this post... 

The sound wind makes through the pines. The sentience of animals. What we fear and what lies beyond the darkness.

I just found a notebook where I had jotted down stuff, about a year and a half ago.

US

Roe vs. Wade 1973

US Supreme Court

-abortion on demand

1999- Fetal Protection Act

October 2002- Michigan Court of Appeal Dismissal of murder charge on account of protection

Feb.2003- South Carolina Supreme Court

Crack cocaine user gets charged with homicide after her baby dies shortly after birth.

Feb.2003- US Supreme Court

upholds 8 year-old law on informed consent which include face-to-face counselling---risks (mandatory)

Pictures of what the unborn baby looks like at the appropriate number of weeks

Mandatory 18-hour waiting period before abortion can be carried out.

Feb.2003- US Supreme C

held in a 8-1 vote that a federal racketeering law (Rico) cannot be used to prosecute pro-life picketeers outside Abrtn clinics.

Canada

1988- Canadian Supreme Court

Morgentaler case

-abortion on demand

1997-Canadian Supreme Court

Winnipeg Child and Family Services vs. DFG

Woman addicted to glue-sniffing, which resulted in two of her children being born with symptoms of drug withdrawal and abnormalities could not be detained for treatment during the course of another pregnancy because the risk the children were at risk because of the mother unresolved addiction problem. Her children had already been removed from her care by Child Care Services with Court orders of guardianship obtained by the province. When Child Care obtained a new Court order, the Supreme Court held that an unborn child has no legal status until it is born alive and viable. Therefore the mother could not be detained for treatment without her consent.

The decision was massively criticized and deemed unreasonable for economic reasons (!) "in that the taxpayers were required to financially support this unfortunate disabled child throughout his life owing to the legal fiction that, while in the womb, he did not exist i.e. was not a legal person."

1999- Aboriginal teenager boy with fetal alcohol syndrome commits suicide by hanging.

2001- Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Martin vs. Mineral Springs Hospital

Mother of a child that died during delivery because of admitted negligence of the physician seeks compensation for the loss of a part of her body. "This was the logical extension of the position that the unborn child was a part of the mother. The Court did not accept this conclusion and instead denied the claim on the grounds that compensation for loss of the unborn child could not be awarded because this would be a conflict with the principle of Tort Law, according to which there is no compensation awarded against someone who has caused the death of a born family member. In short, the Court was forced to conclude that the unborn child is a separate human being (...)"

Feb2003- Manitoba Provincial Court

Judge Linda Giesbrecht recommended that legislation be passed in order to protect children from the effects of substance abuse by their mothers during pregnancy.

The sound wind makes through the pines. The sentience of animals. What we fear and what lies beyond the darkness.

Raymond

I hear you - there's no upside.  Sounds like some pretty rough days you had.

alleyghost

Yes...and it's curious that if you attack a pregnant woman and her baby dies, it's murder, but if she chooses to do it herself, it's her "free choice"...

Susan

You've posed several red herrings - let's let them sleep with the fishes where they belong.

Nothing to do with religion.

Nothing to do with attacking the US (vague call to patriotism, the last refuge of a scoundrel?)   ;-)

Ok, I thought we were discussing abortion here, but you seem intent on micro-analysing a proposed penalty process, the definition of incarceration types, and the procedural detail of how these penalties may be prescribed and enforced in different jurisdictions??  I'm sure that'd be a fascinating discussion, but the finer points of the US legal system aren't something I've studied too deeply.

As I stated earlier - neither of us live in a dictatorship...the law wouldn't just change overnight.  The public needs to be more informed on the issue, because abortion is only something a mother could do when looking the other way and pretending she doesn't have a living human with unique DNA living inside her.  Of course the changes would need public support - and I wish the issue could be discussed on it's merits rather than people trying to push religious or anti-religious angles, trying to claim abortion is somehow related to women's rights etc.  Let's look at the unborn child and decide it's fate, and the penalties for those who would impinge on his/her right to live.

You asked what I thought the penalty should be for a woman who deliberately chooses to kill her unborn child - I believe she should be incarcerated.  I believe the mother has an absolute right to live...an equal right to that of her unborn child.  Which leads to a far more relevant and challenging  question that doesn't have a simple answer - what happens when the condition of the child threatens the life of her mother?

Now I listen with interest for your answers to my previous questions - what are the different "levels" of human as you see it, and which humans have the right to life...and which can be terminated at will?  Feel free to address the examples I posed earlier.

RED HERRING-VILLE

Cyba, so certain are you of the rightness of your opinion from alpha to omega that it's hard to know where to begin. My willingness to overlook your blasting the US -- one of the "red herrings" as you label it -- was already stipulated to in my last post.

Fine, limit the discussion to the US if you like. Although I took a wee bit of time to point out the US is not unique when it comes to abortion laws, that was not at all my main point. You know, it's not as if I am unaccustomed to slams against the US. Further, you explained to me that your condemnations apply across the board to Aussie child-murderers with the same zeal. Fair enough. Can we leave that part of the discussion behind us now?

I don't see how you can blithely declare that views on abortion have "nothing to do with religion." Fine, if that is your personal stance. Your objection to abortion and your wish to incarcerate the women and abortion practitioners is strictly based on your own common sense, unfettered and uncolored by the teachings of the Catholic Church. You just thought it all over and voila! You came to the same conclusion as the Pope. It's possible. Okay, I accept that too and I'm only serious.

But surely you can see that this may not be the case for others who call themselves "pro-life?" Do we really need to waste time arguing whether some people learn their anti-abortion stance from their houses of worship? I don't think so. That's why there are often preachers and their congregates who carry signs and protest in front of abortion clinics. It's no small part of religious discussion in churches around the US.

CRIME AND PUNISHMENT (GO TOGETHER LIKE A HORSE AND CARRIAGE)

Yes, we are discussing abortion and not merely "micro-analysing a proposed penalty process, the definition of incarceration types, and the procedural detail of how these penalties may be prescribed and enforced in different jurisdictions." But don't you see how crime and punishments are two sides of the same coin? That the two go hand-in-hand, as the Icelanders say. Such a radical change requires some serious thinking about the blowback from dissenters.When it comes to defining life before birth, I can very well understand the views expressed by Alleyghost. Truth be known, if you were privy to some of my journals of a couple decades gone by, you'd find me espousing a similar anti-abortion view. So, as I have said, I understand that. I concede and have never argued otherwise. Human life BEGINS at conception. Call that "human life" what you will. An "embryo", a "fetus," "living human cells merged from the DNA of a man and a woman", or an "unborn baby." Each term imparts a differing impression but I'll also agree with you and Alley that the merger of sperm and egg = beginnings of human life. Even if a full 25% peter out along the way naturally.

WHAT'S WRONG AND HOW WRONG IS IT?

From that point of agreement, we can argue what to do next. How wrong is the wrong if the bulk of us agree it is wrong to have an abortion? Is it as wrong when the life is hours old and unrecognizable as human even by microscopic examination as it would be when the life is 8 months old and completely viable apart from the mother who "houses" this fetus in her womb? Is the issue the pain and suffering of a fetus with a developed nervous system? Or doesn't it matter how much time has passed since that sperm penetrated that egg. It's a human baby even if it cannot be seen with the naked eye. It's a baby as sure as that little 8-pounder with the wristband in a hospital nursery.

WHO DECIDES WHAT'S WRONG?

In a theocracy, the religious dictates would inform us of the measuring stick. In a democracy, the majority is going to decide and for now, it has pretty much been determined that human life is protected after birth, unless a fetus is killed by someone other than the mother. That majority may be right. They may be wrong. But that's the way it is in the US unless the Supreme Court steps in to decide for all 50 states, after half the states have made up their mind, as the others were slowly mulling over their laws. Witness the havoc that has ensued since 1973.

So two things:

Cyba, I suspect you may very well agree with those statements even if they do not describe you or your candidate of choice.

VARIETIES OF LIFE ENDING PROCESSES

Okay, now to your questions on the "different levels of humans." Well first of all I never used that expression. If you read it that way, it may have colored your impression of my meaning so let's backtrack.

This is a perfect example of why real life is more complex than theoretical life. And a perfect example of how a man can be so absolute when not having to face this particular complex problem -- an unwanted pregnancy. I have often wondered if nuance might not enter the head of such an individual when presented with a situation within his own family. What would be the degree of allegiance to that moral code should one's own teenage daughter find herself pregnant and desperate to NOT be so.

Society at large and the individuals within have wildly varying ideas on the importance of preserving life. I gave you the example of a learned academic who believes that mentally handicapped (as I recall he did NOT include physically handicapped in his grouping) children should be able to be "euthanized" by their parents. (Here's a link. I hadn't realized it but he's from Australia!) Most of us, would find that repulsive. Others, perhaps those who have learned to love Professor Singer's stance on animal rights (I know, it becomes bizarre), may stop to consider it in that uninvolved laboratory type atmosphere of a college campus without immediately dismissing the notion. Some may think this a novel approach but perhaps a good one. A tad too Dr. Mengele for my taste but people will differ onthese questions.

Then there are the end of life issues. In the state of Oregon, an assisted suicide law was passed a few years back, where the terminally ill could legally have a medical professional hasten their death. Professor Singer finds this type of killing acceptable as well. The joys of consistency! For time immemorial doctors have "aided" the terminally ill along with that overdose of pain medication and few would judge them harshly for their "murders."

And I will throw in the death penalty as one other example where a life is deemed to be worthy of extinquished by the majority of citizens and hence, by the state.

Yet another example would be the life of a threatening individual committing a crime and ascertained by a policeman or a citizen to be a lethal threat to another. Threatening individual is snuffed on the spot, his life having been instantaneously assessed as being less valuable than the potential victim.

These are examples of individual and societal judgments on life and who is entitled to it.

IMMORAL V. ILLEGAL

Yes, I quite obviously move on to the legal realm because societies determine not only what is simply immoral (adultry, coveting thy neighbor's wife, envy, gluttony, sloth, ...) but also those acts that are immoral enough to merit societal punishment. So clearly, there are a variety of opinions as to individual life and it is the majority of a society that will make the judgment.

ATTITUDINAL SHIFTS

Now, here is where I do agree with you, Cyba. Opinions on abortion seem to be slowly changing and that is a good thing. A columnist had written an article suggesting that Hollywood had gone "right-wing" because in two recent films, "Knocked Up" and "The Waitress," neither of the unhappily pregnant lead characters has an abortion, where in real life they likely would have. This writer was lamenting the attitudinal shift and "blamed" it on the conservative Americans. Another writer discussing this article made more sense when he said this has less to do with Hollywood going right-wing than it has to do with the inherent difficulty in making a "cute" pro-abortion film. This has long been the case too. So that tells me that has common as abortion is, there is a sadness, an emptiness, and a natural remorse linked to ending a nascent life. With the declining numbers, that tells me a gradual change is taking place.

Here's where I think this could go. With a plethora of birth control options available and with the so-called "morning after" pills that prevent the possibility of conception, there will be fewer demands for legal abortions. The option of adoption has its own set of problems. You want to ask a woman to go through the nine-month process of pregnancy, giving birth to a cuddly out of the womb soft-skinned baby, and then have her give the child away or, even more likely to sell the child, which is the common practice here in the US. They don't call it "selling" but the adoptive parents pay for the medical care, the birth and some stipend for the woman's trouble. Oh, and the legal fees. Always a lawyer involved!

Also moving the contemporary opinion toward an anti-abortion stance is the intra-uterine photography and the scientific breakdown on a developing fetus. Where an annoying protestor may block the door of a family planning clinic with gruesome images of bloody full-term infants, there are better methods to reach a broad audience of young people. These methods will necessarily be met with hostility by, oh let's say, public school instructors who will protest that it is indoctrination.

HELPING THINGS ALONG

So, what to do? I think that a non-hysterical approach would work best. That method is used in the book Alleyghost cited. You take an individual down a path without jarring people by calling them murderers who should be behind bars. A Socratic approach. I'm pretty certain that the destination reached will be one where the individual has to concede that abortion is snuffing human life. The next big step from that recognition is for that individual to care. And that will be easier to achieve if the other side is not proposing mandatory prison terms and calling the woman a "baby killer."

Your second question was which humans have the right to life and which can be terminated at will. My answer is that the fully born human being has the right to life. From that point forward when a crying baby emerges from the female womb, their right to continue living is implicit and anyone who seeks to end their life is subject to legal recourse. In Oregon, should the time come when that once crying baby develops a terminal illness, he/she can opt to devalue their own life by ending it prematurely.

REAL LIFE-DEATH STORY

The difference between Cyba and me on the subject of which lives are to be ended and which are to go on is that I am willing to go along with the current law of the land. I would not make abortion decisions for a woman. I might privately say it's too bad she decided to have an abortion after hearing all the extenuating circumstances. But I might just as well say I understand her decision to have an abortion as I did in the case of the daughter of a friend of mine who had a third trimester abortion.  They ended the life of a child whose birth both she and her husband had happily anticipated until prenatal tests determined that the fetus had some sort of physical deformity and that the child could be expected to survive only a few months before dying. The entire process was difficult. The only doctor they could locate in LA who did late term abortions had to conceal his practice without signs on the doors. She felt like she was sneaking around for some sordid procedure. It was not safe for the doctor to openly carry out this abortion, or I'm assuming, others like it on women in this really awful circumstance. And the reason it was not safe was because of the proliferation of the baby-killer mobs.

When it comes down to it, I would not cast a vote for someone who would seek to criminalize abortion as murder. On the other hand, I'm all for doing the slow and steady movement toward the advancing of a more perfect union.

ALLEY'S LINK

Now Alleyghost has gone the extra mile and I appreciate it. I haven't read all the cases he cites but here's the follow-up on the South Carolina case of an eight and a half-month pregnant crack cocaine user charged with a homicide when she gave birth to a stillborn child with cocaine in its bloodstream.

Link

Regina McKnight is still in prison serving a 12-20 year sentence for killing her unborn child although the cause of death was not proven to be the crack cocaine. And she didn't even go to the abortionist! If she had, she probably would not have been charged with anything. Ah but she was a drug addict. Plannling to give birth to her baby and raise it as a single mom. No doubt poorly, but still. An unequal opportunity. But she smoked crack and went to prison for for murder. Seems she is still behind bars. In 2006, the US Supreme Court refused to hear her case. For the record, I think this was a bad conviction.

Sorry I couldn't keep this to a few short paragraphs.  Sigh.  I'm not genetically predisposed to do that.  Now I'm outta here for my Saturday Costco/PetsMart trip.

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

This is in reality a very tough topic.  I'll be somewhat brief because I have no answers, just some feelings.  I will say there has been some very thought provoking content here though.

First, I think religion does enter into this as virtually all religions are against abortion so that's a sizeable chunk of humankinds teachings!  I am a Christian (although Cyba might disagree), I am a pacifist and I am anti death penalty.  I am not anti abortion, however, that doesn't mean I think it should be abortions on demand all around.  I agree that human life starts at conception.

My main "feeling" about abortion hasn't changed in a long time and that is that it should be the individual choice of a woman with the assistance of her doctor/counsellor/paster/rabbi etc.  With that said I do think that might still be a little more loose than I am ultimately comfortable with but I just can't think of anything better.  I have wondered if maybe more people in the process would help.  For instance, should the prospective woman have to consult 2 people before going ahead, a doctor and a counsellor?  Are we doing enough to communicate all viable possibilities and options to each woman considering an abortion?  I just can't see that necessarily working in real life though and can only imagine that if I was in those shoes would I want it mandated how many people I had to talk to before I could proceed?  As I said, I don't have the answers, I do think we should be working towards a path where less abortions are performed, I don't know what that path should look like. 

From my own life, I once was in a long term relationship with a woman who had an abortion back when she was very young.  It was a very tough time when she revealed this to me.  She was the victim of sexual abuse and although the decision took a very real and deep toll on her in the end I simply could not judge her, that was not my place or my right.  Yes, she has struggled with her decision but I truly came to see how that decision was the right one for her.  Do I think she should have done jail time?  Absolutely not.

"We cannot allow a mine shaft gap"

There should be more room for midwifery and proper education. I feel responsibilization of concerned individuals should be a keyword in this issue, too. I agree on the whole that work should be done to decrease abortion, not increase it.

Susan, I am impressed as to how much thought and time you are willing to give to this subject! Bravo!

More to come.

The sound wind makes through the pines. The sentience of animals. What we fear and what lies beyond the darkness.

Susan

Thanks for your lengthy and thoughtful reply - the topic (however black and white I might perceive it as) deserves a thorough discussion.

I don't see how you can blithely declare that views on abortion have "nothing to do with religion."

Pro-life folks come from a range of backgrounds.  I believe the attempt to stereotype them all as religious nutters is disingenuous and designed to skew the debate onto religion.  I'm glad we can get past that red herring.

Human life BEGINS at conception. Call that "human life" what you will. An "embryo", a "fetus," "living human cells merged from the DNA of a man and a woman", or an "unborn baby."

Well that's a good starting point! 

WHAT'S WRONG AND HOW WRONG IS IT?

From my point of view, you don't get any more wrong than taking the life of another human being.  As you acknowledged earlier - when the sperm and egg come together - you've just created a new human life.  How wrong is it to take that life?  Well, here's where people start to get wishy-washy in their attempts to redefine what they've just acknowledged - human life...because it's at times inconvenient to acknowledge that point.

I don't buy into the argument that majority opinion makes something right either.  As in my analogy, the majority of germans might have believed it was ok to slaughter jews.  Does that popular opinion of the day therefore make it right? Or is the value of human life an absolute...above opinion polls and vote-snatching political wind chasers?

So two things:

You may be right on both points Susan - I don't make it a habit of hanging around pro-lifers, or picking their brains, so like you I could only speculate on their opinions regarding the appropriate punishment for taking human life.

As for the politics, well it seems clear to me that many people will vote for what's convenient for them.  They'll vote if the issue is misrepresented to them as one of women's rights.  They'll vote to make something legal that should be illegal...because it's something they have shamefully done themselves.  There are a range of bad reasons why people might vote for something like abortion on demand...and that's why our western nations are where they are today on this issue.

I sometimes think of it as the Ricky Lake generation.  When the loudest, most widely publicised people put forward a view, you are expected to join in their chorus, or get shut down instantly for expressing an opposite view.  I don't hear much debate about abortion anymore, because if you dare to question it, you are labelled some sort of nutcase, rather than just a concerned citizen with a focus on human rights.  If you are someone in govt, you might even encounter wild street protests etc.  The response for daring to discuss this issue is severe and instant...which is possibly why some here can meekly claim human life begins at conception, but can't make the next logical step and therefore condemn the taking of that human life.  The "shunning" would be too severe. 

I have often wondered if nuance might not enter the head of such an individual when presented with a situation within his own family. What would be the degree of allegiance to that moral code should one's own teenage daughter find herself pregnant and desperate to NOT be so.

Wonder no more Susan.  I believe in walking the walk.  This is not some hypothetical debate for me - I have a daughter, and she's being raised to value human life - be the human 2 weeks old or 100 years old, black, white, male, female, australian or iraqi - life is life.

Society at large and the individuals within have wildly varying ideas on the importance of preserving life. I gave you the example of a learned academic who believes that mentally handicapped (as I recall he did NOT include physically handicapped in his grouping) children should be able to be "euthanized" by their parents. (Here's a link. I hadn't realized it but he's from Australia!) Most of us, would find that repulsive.

I suppose one could trot out an economic argument for aborting mentally disabled babies...but as a wise man once said - the measure of a society is how well it looks after it's most vulnerable members.  Yes it is repulsive.  Spend some time with Downs Syndrome kids and you'll find some of the most harmless, loving and affectionate people on Earth.  To suggest they should have been killed because of their disability is simply inhuman. 

You have provided a range of examples of lives that are considered by some people as expendable - of less value than normal human life...ie. sub-human.  I am against euthenasia also, and the death penalty.  Rather than the majority view...what is your view on these issues Susan?  Once again I ask - which people do you consider as having no right to live...and why? 

So far you've stated that a baby only has a right to life once it emerges from a mother's womb.  So a baby that's born prematurely at 35 weeks has a right to life.  But the fully-formed baby that thinks, dreams, feels and reacts, and is about to be delivered...has no right to life?  I just want to be clear - is this what you've advocating?

ATTITUDINAL SHIFTS

I hope you're right Susan, and we may be wishing for the same thing.  Change on an issue like this is never quick - it's a slow turn.  Just as it's taken a long time to convince people from the initial position that human life was important...to the position today where many/most say you should be able to go ahead and terminate your baby simply because it's the wrong time of year for you, or you just don't feel like one now, or your finances are a bit tight...etc.  The pendulum has swung waaaay too far to the side where abortion is now just a convenience like grabbing a drive-through hamburger.  It's a crazy world we live in where people are moved to tears, donations and protesting over the mistreatment of animals...yet many of these same people will glibly write-off human life by promoting the "right" to abortion.  I'll concede our societies may never get back to where they were, when human life was considered something special.  But if we could at least get people away from the cheap sloganeering, to put a little thought in and start appreciating humanity then we might be getting somewhere.

The option of adoption has its own set of problems.

Where I live there is a massive waiting list of adoptive parents who would give their right arm to adopt a child.  Yet, each year there are literally only a handful of babies put up for adoption.  Last time I checked they put up something like 4 babies in my state of WA for adoption in a 1 year period!!  So this is clearly not being presented or considered as an option...rather abortion is now considered the first and only course of action. 

..Are you REALLY sure you want that baby?  I mean, really-really sure?  If not...just kill it.  It's quick, cheap and easy.  What would you go through 9 months of labour for...just to keep a human alive?  Get serious - sounds too much like hard work! 

Also moving the contemporary opinion toward an anti-abortion stance is the intra-uterine photography and the scientific breakdown on a developing fetus.

I agree - it's far easier to kill a baby when you can't see it.  When you can pretend that it's not a person - that it's just a bit of skin, or cluster of cells.  When people can actually see WHO they are about to kill...I wouldn't be surprised if they suddenly rediscovered their conscience and had a rethink.

HELPING THINGS ALONG
So, what to do? I think that a non-hysterical approach would work best.

Ok...point taken.  I actually think my view is a calm and considered one - not hysterical at all, but I can understand you seeing it that way since my view may differ radically from yours.  If you ask me how I think society should treat abortion, I'll tell you.  But I realise that's not realistic, and it's a confronting reality for some who would have to take quantum leaps in personal conscience and rediscovering humanity before they could reach the same view.

I am willing to go along with the current law of the land. I would not make abortion decisions for a woman. I might privately say it's too bad she decided to have an abortion after hearing all the extenuating circumstances.

Yeah go along with it...most people are killing jews so it must be ok.  Privately I kinda think there might be something wrong with it, but I'm just one person, and I dare not put my head up for fear of getting shouted down.  So go ahead - throw a few more jews in the oven.  I'm willing to write it off as popular opinion and swallow my conscience.

But I might just as well say I understand her decision to have an abortion as I did in the case of the daughter of a friend of mine who had a third trimester abortion.  They ended the life of a child whose birth both she and her husband had happily anticipated until prenatal tests determined that the fetus had some sort of physical deformity and that the child could be expected to survive only a few months before dying. The entire process was difficult. The only doctor they could locate in LA who did late term abortions had to conceal his practice without signs on the doors. She felt like she was sneaking around for some sordid procedure. It was not safe for the doctor to openly carry out this abortion, or I'm assuming, others like it on women in this really awful circumstance. And the reason it was not safe was because of the proliferation of the baby-killer mobs.

That's a profoundly sad story Susan.  As in the euthenasia debate, so often doctors are completely wrong in their diagnosis.  They are fallible and only human.  I heard a talk once by a woman who survived abortion - her mother was told that she wouldn't live more than a few months due to perceived terminal disabilities, and that abortion would be the advisable option.  She was in her 20's, and a happy, productive member of society...probably in her 30's now.  Did she deserve to be killed?  Knowing this must be an intolerable weight to bear, and comes back to the absolute right to life that humans must have.  Otherwise parents are basically saying - my child isn't going to be perfect, therefore I determine they should die.

There are no good excuses for abortions - just weak ones.

No woman here has given her insights to having an abortion, Perhaps none here have had one. Understand, I respect privacy and don't ask anyone for their account of an abortion.

I did cop to being envolved in the process. My point was that no woman wants an abortion- drug addicted whores have feelings too and the procedure is a nightmare for ( I am guessing) any woman.

Now, should we split hairs on the subject- I'm just asking. Should third trimester abortions be outlawed( assuming no serious defect to the fetus -that would spell horror to the baby or a danger to the mother.) I think 6 months is plenty of time to act on the procedure and after that arbitrary point -some kind of crime could be imposed -not murder by any stretch!

It is arbitrary, not a perfect solution by any means. But I offer it as a compromise on the abortion question. It is not my idea - it is discussed actively concerning the dilemma. Any pro choice people willing to adopt a 6 month rule?

I think this has turned out pretty darn fine! Calm. Measured. Well, there was this...

...but I know when my buttons are being pushed. Jews in ovens = newly conceived life. Oy vey. In terms of the life equaling life argument, this really does remind me of the PETA ad campaign equating Kentucky Fried Chickens Slaughter of the Innocent Chickens to the Holocaust. Yes, I know. You're speaking HUMAN life. Others like PETA go further in quantifying the sanctity of life.

Upon rereading your above words, Cybe, they actually seems to apply more to you than to me. Since I am not the one privately thinking that abortion is the equivalent of the Holocaust, it would seem it is you who might want to reevaluate the swallowing of your conscience. That is if you see this as a fair analogy.

You say that I (well actually you said "some" but "I" fit the description) might not want to make the next logical step, after (meekly) acknowledging that the merger of sperm and egg is nascent human life. You say I would not judge the taking of that life as murder . Correct. But then to suggest I fall short of condemning the act as murder because I might be shunned? Absurd. Shunning (such a quaint term...) is not a reaction I've ever feared. If I thought that, I'd say it. I don't. The good news is, though, I think we have identified some clear points of departure.

You and I, Cyba, each have our personal limits when it comes to how far either of us would go to prevent an actual abortion while each acknowledging that it is undesirable. We differ on both degrees big time.

You are unwilling to rise above the legal constraints (at least I hope you are!) by physically restraining an abortionist, for example. Probably too, you have never held a pregnant woman against her will and restrained her until she either complied with your request to give birth rather than have an abortion. You've probably never held a pregnant woman captive until she was ready to deliver. I know you are against the death penalty so I wouldn't expect you to have that highest strength of your convictions by smiting a mass murdering abortionist. But what have you done to stop the abortionists? You even claim to not hang out with pro-lifers. Say what you will about my degree of culpability in this current "holocaust" of "baby murder," your own dedication to your cause is also in question because of your lack of concrete action. Basically all you do to counter this mass murder of the innocents is... talk about it. For me, this really causes a cognitive dissonance. My brain hurts. You either DO have your own internal ratings system with abortion being a teeny bit less horrific than the murder of the children in that school in Russia for example or you are just not being very helpful. I would view this as akin to the Kitty Genovese story. Or as Phil Ochs once warbled:

Look outside the window, there's a woman being grabbed.

They've dragged her to the bushes and now she's being stabbed.

Maybe we should call the cops and try to stop the pain.

But Monopoly is so much fun, I'd hate to spoil the game.

And I'm sure it wouldn't interest anybody

Outside of a small circle of friends.

That is IF I believed what you believe. I take you at your word and only say that you and others who profess this view are not quite living up to what would appear to be your human duty by only talking the game. To be fair, you do say you have taught your young daughter that all life is life and that the situation would not ever arise where she might come to you with an "oops". And even if she did, she would know what she had to do. And even if that young woman one day holds a differing view, were she in your household and did desire an abortion, you would be willing to do whatever's necessary to force her to give birth. Although you say you walk the walk, fact is, you do not have a womb so your walking is necessarily compromised. I'm just saying. Hypotheticals are fine but people can surprise you. Even your own children. And when the fit hits the shan, the hypothetical and the reality can easily go their separate ways. Maybe not with a daughter but how about with a niece? A babysitter? A good friend's daughter? Would you be willing to do what's necessary to prevent murder of an unborn baby? Or will you only talk about it? Meek talk.

You ask: Rather than the majority view...what is your view on these issues Susan? Once again I ask - which people do you consider as having no right to live...and why? So far you've stated that a baby only has a right to life once it emerges from a mother's womb. So a baby that's born prematurely at 35 weeks has a right to life. But the fully-formed baby that thinks, dreams, feels and reacts, and is about to be delivered...has no right to life? I just want to be clear - is this what you've advocating?

As for me, my limitations come in my willingness to quantify the degree of crime/sin I believe abortion to be. I'm not going to offer an descending list of which lives are more expendable than others but I will offer a few examples where I would have an opinion. It is not that a fertilized human egg has "no right to live" either. It is just that "it" (not even a "he" or "she" at this point, as the sex has yet to be determined) has less right to decide its fate than the female human who is nurturing it within her body.

It is a case by case basis for me. As with those crimes that are actually crimes according throughout the US statutes, it is still case by case. Stealing is not simply stealing. Taking a pack of gum from a convenience store is not the equivalent of breaking into a house and stealing the family heirlooms. The punishments would vary for me, were I making the rules, as they do in the real world. Setting ablaze an illegal firecracker is not the equivalent of torching a house. BUT setting ablaze an illegal firecracker in a dry brush area is worse than torching a house. Unless that house was occupied by a family of living humans. But it would be better if that torched house had only a vial of fertilized human eggs in the frig. Case by case. How many of us are called upon to make these judgments on our fellow citizens except during jury duty anyway?

I do not consider an emerging human life, in its initial post-conception days of minimal multiplying cells, to be the equal of a newborn child. I draw a distinction between the development of consciousness and latent cells that, should they develop naturally and not be a part of the 25% of conceptions that naturally abort, will later have consciousness. It's not an immovable line but in my opinion, having an abortion within the first month of pregnancy, would not give me great cause for grief, or condemnation. On the other hand, a woman who has multiple abortions within the first month, I might personally judge more harshly. I might think she was sloppy. Careless. Or extra fertile. The last trimester baby in the womb is a horse of a different color. The example I gave is a benchmark for me in the 21st century. Yes, technology and doctors may be wrong but they are less likely to be in this era. Your example was of 30+ year old technology. It's also a little too anedcotal for me to want to base public policy around -- ie. doctors might be wrong about the fetal disability in the final months of pregnancy. In the same way you have not questioned pro-lifers about whether they believe abortion is murder, I don't ask women about whether they've had abortions and if so, what were the circumstances? I don't believe in a Constitutional right to "privacy" but I do believe in a human to human right of privacy, so I'd not intrude.

If I suspected my next door neighbor was popping Jews in the oven, I would act, outside of any existing laws, to prevent it up to and including killing the murderer. If I suspected my next door neighbor were about to have an abortion, I would do absolutely nothing. I have enough respect for the intellect of that woman and would not impose my standard. Even if my standard differed from hers. Would you intervene with the neighbor about to have an abortion, Cyba? Seems to me you would have to if you were true to your convictions. If you weren't meek, that is.

If a teenage girl neighbor of mine (and I'm thinking of a nearby 13-year old to make the hypothetical feel more real) came to me to confide that she was pregnant, I would first try to convince her to talk to her parents. I would be alongside her for the discussion if she wanted me. But I wouldn't offer advice. Nor would I intervene if they made a decision to have an abortion. I would not judge them harshly for that decision. That's just the truth. I cannot and will not make the leap that destroying that emerging human life is the equal of destroying a later stage viable fetus or an infant. At the same time, I would not judge that merger of human cells to be SUB-human either. Maybe not fully human, but not sub-human. But the living breathing human teenage girl's humanity would be of far greater concern to me than the multiplying cells of human life within her. That's just the truth in how I think I'd react knowing me as well as I do.

If a family member was near the end of life who wanted to speed along the process (this is fairly common and I do not judge it to be a statement that the gravely ill individual is "SUB-human" as a result), I would NOT be inclined to participate. I would do what I could to comfort and intervene with the medical team but not assist in killing as an act of mercy. At least I don't think I would. Here too there would probably be circumstances that could change my mind.

All life ends. That fact does not negate the humanity of the living. I do believe in killing humans such as the examples I cited but I do believe in the distinctions between these acts of killing. I do not believe your average convicted murderer is of equal value to your average woman who has had an abortion. She ranks higher on my scale. Nor do I think a soldier who kills men, women and children is necessarily a murderer. Could be. But the context matters just as it does with sexual intercourse being a necessary ingredient to both love-making, procreation (old-fashioned way) and rape.  Distinctions.

Big time example: the men who flew the Enola Gay and bombed Hiroshima. Murderers? Some would say so. I disagree. Popping Jews into ovens? Murders of the most horrendous order. Not equivalent. The suggestion that contemporary societies with legalized abortion are the equivalent to the genocidal regime of the Third Reich just doesn't ring true to me. Again differing views. I still maintain that believing abortion the equal to Jews in Nazi ovens, while doing nothing more to counter the crimes than write/speak against it, is meekness and ineffectuality defined.

As of July 23, 2007, those are my views as best I can express them. We agree up to a point. But we have to live with each other. And with those who have more divergent views as well. Such as the individuals who believe life begins at birth.

Susan

PS I once conspired to have a pregnant cat to have an abortion. I had taken her in at 6 months to be spayed only to learn she was preggers. With no guilt at all, I agreed with the vet (abortionist aka Mengele) that she should have her uterus removed all the same.

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

I think this has turned out pretty darn fine! Calm. Measured. Well, there was this...

Hey, by my standards it's pretty calm!!  :-)  You know I tend to push the nerve a bit to get people's attention on issues...

You question my own reaction to the abortion issue, and fair enough - I could do much more.  I don't do a lot - I am on several internet forums and happily discuss the issue to shed some light on the moral vaccuum that must exist in individuals and society for abortion to be supported.  I also discuss the issue face-to-face with people...calmly and rationally, but I'm happy to listen and also put forward my view.  I've had group discussions at work on the topic - avoiding the far easier topics like religion and politics and heading straight for abortion.  Most people are actually happy to discuss it, and in my experience just go along with the flow/popular opinion without having actually thought on the issue too deeply.  I won't kill abortionists because they are killing children - I think that's just lowering myself to their level of inhumanity.  You attempt to goad me, as though I ought to be committing acts of assault, kidnap, wrongful imprisonment etc - in the name of stopping women killing their unborn babies - I won't go that far.  But I agree there are plenty more things I could do...I don't claim to be perfect.

One thing I'll never do is roll over and agree with abortion.  You can put that on the record.

So in the holocaust you would find me arguing that the killing of jews was wrong.  Publicly, to my friends, to my family, in the workplace - openly, and unafraid of the social repercussions of expressing the unpopular view that what was happening was wrong.  I might not have grabbed a gun and started shooting nazis, but I also wouldn't roll over and just go with the flow because everyone else seemed to think it was ok!

It is just that "it" (not even a "he" or "she" at this point, as the sex has yet to be determined) has less right to decide its fate than the female human who is nurturing it within her body.

But a newly delivered baby is also reliant on it's mother.  It's not self-sufficient.  Leave it on it's own...and it will die - 100% of the time.  Does it need to "decide it's fate"...or should it's mother be able to decide it also?  Why does this baby outside the womb that's reliant on it's mother deserve to live...while another that's still inside the mother deserve to die?

I would do absolutely nothing. I have enough respect for the intellect of that woman and would not impose my standard.

Is it an issue of intellect...or humanity?  There have been some wicked-smart dictators over the years who have taken thousands of lives...being intelligent it didn't make them moral, ethical or humane. You may have a member of mensa next door who delights in disecting live dogs for fun - would you say anything?  They might be super-smart and into kiddie porn...nothing?  So we have an intelligent woman who wants to kill her unborn baby - that just coolio too.

Even if my standard differed from hers. Would you intervene with the neighbor about to have an abortion, Cyba? Seems to me you would have to if you were true to your convictions.

I would - I'd make my views crystal clear.  Here's where you might be misunderstanding/misrepresenting me Susan.  There is currently no law against abortion, so what these "mothers" are doing when killing their unborn babies is legal.  I don't condemn them from that pov.  I think many are just misguided, misled, and not understanding just exactly what they're doing - not 100% anyway.  They probably don't realise that they're destroying a unique - once-only human being with unique DNA.  Not a bit of skin, not part of their own body - a unique other person.  These sorts of concepts can be calmly explained to people, and as you mentioned earlier, the improved imaging systems make it even easier for women to actually SEE and COMPREHEND what they're actually contemplating.  I believe if women were properly informed about the human they plan to kill, far, far fewer would be prepared to kill their unborn babies.

But the living breathing human teenage girl's humanity would be of far greater concern to me than the multiplying cells of human life within her.

The importance of the teenage girl's life?  Are you proposing that her life is in peril here?  I can understand the dilemma posed when the issue of an unborn baby's life is risking the life of it's mother.  BUT that's not what we are comparing in 99% of cases.

Rather, we're comparing the baby's right to live against a woman's convenience, against a woman's choice to keep more finances for herself, against a woman's lifestyle choices.  It's rarely a case of the woman dying if she takes the baby to term...simply of inconvenience to her.  And rather than suffer that inconvenience, it's just more convenient to destroy the life.  Let's compare like with like.

Now we all do have to live with each other...and if it's a difference of opinion on chocolate ice-cream versus vanilla, then my attitude is - to each his own, live and let live.  But when it comes to people being killed - people who are completely unable to defend themselves - then the least I can do is speak out and challenge the perception that if the majority think it's ok...then it must be ok.  Sometimes, as in the holocaust, it's just dead wrong...and impossible to stop alone. 

Public opinion is a big boat to turn around, and takes time.  And when it's so convenient for some women to create babies and then dispose of them at a whim, then that's a convenience many will fight fiercely to retain.  When people have been earbashed about abortion being a "women's rights" issue, then you can understand many women leaping up in support of abortion as a reflex.  When popular opinion is pushed so hard that abortion is simply an "individual choice", then it's not surprising people feel disempowered and too ashamed to speak against it.

What I'm reading between the lines is that human life has been devalued - it's not worth what it once used to be worth.  The world is not a better place because women can kill their unborn babies.  That's a measure of the societies and people we have become...and I think we're all the poorer for it. 

I imagine you standing on a street corner somewhere near Auschwitz in the 19440s, arguing that it is wrong to kill those Jews.  That would be an act of courage (and most likely foolhearty) as non-equivalent to chatting about abortion's evil on Internet forums as is humanity of the morning-after conception to the "jews" you continue to cite. The former is latent with possibilities but vulnerable.  The latter has breathed on its own and is a human being.  Not a potential human being, albeit with human DNA. The differences seem obvious but we've already expressed our views on our respective beliefs. 

Were I walking past you on that street corner near Auschwitz, I'd have advised you that your words would be of less value (SUB-words, in fact) than action.  I'd have invited you to join me in the underground. Hey, if we're discussing with straight faces how brave we'd have been during one of history's most sordid era's, why not go for the gusto of the true moral warriors?  Blabbing about the evils of genocide would have been more likely to find you as a victim of the murderers as well.  Action might have saved a life or two.

Oh, in The Mission, I found myself in greater sympathy with Robert de Niro's character than Jeremy Irons.

Susan 

Susan 

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Acting in Nazi Germany would likely have saved noone.  It's a similarly futile prospect for "taking action" against abortion.  Your proposals of physically restraining women about to abort etc are not only illegal, but rather stupid.

I have strong feelings about the starvation of people in Zimbabwe, about the massacre of innocent civilians in Dafur, about the terrorist attacks in Iraq, about the increase in violent crime in our western countries, and about abortion.

Your fanciful claim that I don't take up a gun or picket and start taking action on all of the above IN NO WAY VALIDATES WHAT'S HAPPENING THERE.  Just need to make that clear.

What have you done for the people of Dafur lately Susan?  Does that mean it's right what's happening there?  Does that mean you don't really care?  Does that mean it also has no comparison to the holocaust?  It's a silly argument.

Dreadful topic, more like.

Sorry to butt in again but I am having trouble comprehending the opinion of someone who advocates action over talking, when we all know that if action was to be taken, the same person would be condemning the acts altogether as another case of extremism, which it would be, and immensely more damaging than any attempt to discuss it.

Can you say you sympathize with our friend Atomic Dog for his taking of action, or are you just reasoning your way out of any possible kind of conscience examination?

I am not sure why these examples are being chosen, but in what way would the ones responsible for nuking Japan be less responsible than the ones who took part of the jewish holocaust? Convenience? Distance? Technology?

Such genocidal activities are far from being judicious examples for the topic at hand but I think it is important that you explain to us what makes the latter so much more worthy of condemnation than the former. Anyway it looks like this discussion has reached its Godwin's Law point long ago (see this word). Debaters should be aware of this law.

I think Cybacat has given good points though and, while your response has been very detailed over what instances are susceptible of affecting a case by case approach, I feel you are quick to discredit some of the finer points he has tried to put forth, by treating him as an half-assed militant to the cause he tries to defend in his own pacific yet bold approach.

This is what I was trying to convey earlier: that there is a whole class of intellectuals like you, and I am not counting you with them yet, that have been talking themselves into an exquisite reasoning that, in the end is bringing down any attempt to come up with a life-affirming approach to lawfulness and being very creative in their rhetorics about finding more ways of what it means to be "human".

The problem is that no one will ever agree totally with one another and that is why we have policies, I think.

Until we have policies that hold up and gives us satisfaction, there will be dissenters and people who will try to make you re-consider our common course of action as a society, without necessarily being in the extremist category which the moral majority wishes to see them fall into, so as to condemn and delete them altogether as what is commonly refered to nowadays as 'terrorists'. That is the kind of logic that is being set up around us. So if you are not a 'true moral warrior' aka a 'terrorist' in more and more circles, you are 'meek'? This logic is the equivalent of saying: 'if you are not right, you are wrong and if you are trying to convince me you are right too, you are not right enough because you are not taking action for your rightness and if you are it is wrong'. Pretty warped too, huh? Well, my two cents and a half.

Hope it makes some kind of sense.

The sound wind makes through the pines. The sentience of animals. What we fear and what lies beyond the darkness.