Yeah, this will become one of those very heated debates since each side has such a vested interest.
In order to have a discussion you want, we would all need to read the actual bill (or at least the reders digest version).
As for the future of abortion, unless a national law gets passed it will always be a per state thing. And with each state having such different views, I don't see a national law being passed any time in the immediate future.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am looking for Date Stamped promos from Khans of Tarkir block so I can finish my set. Check my wants if you have any.
Currently offering 2 non-foil Kolighan's Command for a Date Stamped foil!
“It is the time for the South Dakota Legislature to deal with this issue and protect the lives and rights of unborn children.”
South Dakota has had the death penalty since 1979. So, unborn children, your lives are protected. Once you're born though, all bets are off. At least they failed to enact the abstinence only sex ed classes, and also lost the fight to enact a bill that would ban distribution of condoms and other forms of contraception.
Quote from pokerbob1 »
Yeah, this will become one of those very heated debates since each side has such a vested interest.
The main problem with the abortion debate that I see is that the two sides are arguing about different topics, using different assumptions. Each side will typically disagree about two main premises:
1.) when a zygote becomes a fully-fledged human being therefore having rights.
and
2.) whether a woman's right to sovereignty over her own body outweighs the rights of said entity whose human status is in question.
I don't think either side gives the other side enough credit. Pro-Life people are genuinely concerned about pain and suffering, despite many of their ranks simultaneously holding what I would consider contradictory views about other forms of pain, suffering, and death, such as war and the death penalty, but nonetheless, with regard to Abortion, their hearts are in the right place, IMO. They're trying to avoid what could potentially be a reprehensible act.
But Pro-Choice people are often misunderstood as being "pro-abortion" as if anyone wants to see more abortions being done. Since #1 above is not a settled matter, they're likewise trying to avoid unneccessary suffering. If a zygote turns out not to be a real person, then why ought women needlessly suffer through unwanted pregnancies?
Ultimately though, both sides can agree on one important point: they both agree that we ought to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and the need for abortions. This is why the abstinence-only sex ed bugs me.
Anyway, personally I'm Pro-Choice, if for no other reason than that whatever the law is, rich folk will still be able to afford safe abortions, and making them illegal hurts predominantly the very poor, who are the least equipped economically to deal with an unwanted pregnancy.
As Butterfly of the Digable planets said in 1993 on the Reachin' LP, in a song called "La Femme Fetal" ( a killer track ):
Quote from Butterfly »
It has always been around it will always have a niche
But they'll make it a privelege not a right
Accessible only to the rich
Doesn't this defy the Roe v. Wade precedent that no state can ban abortion? I'm really pissed off because now it's going to be in almost every Republican-dominated state. It's gonna go to the Supreme Court and it'll be upheld because Bush doesn't know the meaning of the word "moderate."
Edit: Just read the article. I guess the fact that the law was made to challenge a precedent makes sense. Well, now we'll see whether Roberts and Alito were full of **** when they said that Roe v. Wade was law of the land. I think they are.
I love how this bans abortions in cases of rape an incest. Methinks that this wasn't thought out very well.
I'm still pro choice.
Random fact that has been upheld in court is that it is not considered an unborn child until the second trimester. Until then, it's considered just and extension of the woman. If it's not considered it's own entity, then it has no rights.
Anyways, what's the saying...."focus on your own damn family"
I'm very pro choice, as some people know from having to "have" one with my girlfriend. I'm very dissapointed by this law. I feel people have the right to choose, and if you're against abortion, don't have one. I feel imposing your opinions on others forcibly (such as this law) is wrong.
Kinda going off of what Ouallada said, it's pretty hypocritical to have the death penalty, yet ban abortions.
Anyway, I think this is pretty dumb. Everyone should have their own choice in the matter. If an unwanted pregnancy happened, there is no reason to put the two future parents in peril, or force the child to potentially grow up in poverty with parents that aren't even close to being ready to act like parents. Hopefully this doesn't spread across America, because that is a joke.
I know a woman who was raped and carried her child to term. Her baby girl is beautiful and very much loved. I still feel that that bastard that did the crime should be castrated, but I can't see destroying life in any way, shape, or form. There is a reason that sometimes, even if you do all the right things, and eat all the right foods, you still have a birth defect baby. It still deserves love.
Kinda going off of what Ouallada said, it's pretty hypocritical to have the death penalty, yet ban abortions.
No, actually, it's a rather progressive stance, if you think about it. Giving individuals an equal chance at living a decent life, with the admonition that certain crimes will lead to the death penalty, is far more humane than the liberals' goal of permitting irresposible parents to have abortions, but not dealing with the problem of existing criminals on our streets in our communities etc.
Abortion doesn't prevent crime, doesn't prevent children from being unwanted and neglected. It does send a message to young women to be careless and irresponsible - society will absorb your shame and burden.
I love how this bans abortions in cases of rape an incest. Methinks that this wasn't thought out very well.
I'm still pro choice.
Random fact that has been upheld in court is that it is not considered an unborn child until the second trimester. Until then, it's considered just and extension of the woman. If it's not considered it's own entity, then it has no rights.
Anyways, what's the saying...."focus on your own damn family"
Agreed. Even excluding rape and incest (usually incest is rape), forcing someone to raise a kid is generally not going to produce a mentally healthy child. The parents are going to resent him/her, and the child will be abused and neglected, instead of it just not existing in the first place, and for the most part not suffering. I don't like dead bloody fetuses either, but forcing a child on someone is no way to punish irresponsibility, and in cases of rape, it is no way to punish someone who didn't do anything. In cases of irresponsibilty, they could create a fine or inflate the price of abortion (the extra money would go to charity or something), so that people would think twice. It seems the other side's usual response is to shake a picture of an unborn fetus in front of our faces (I've had these discussions before, in person). Yes, it is gory, we get it. Its a bad situation, but banning abortion isn't the way, and it will result in unhappiness for the child as well, who will be abused, neglected, and unwanted, as opposed to never living at all.
Doesn't this defy the Roe v. Wade precedent that no state can ban abortion?
Yes; the point is to elicit a Constitutional battle at the Supreme Court.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
forcing someone to raise a kid is generally not going to produce a mentally healthy child. The parents are going to resent him/her, and the child will be abused and neglected, instead of it just not existing in the first place, and for the most part not suffering.
Why does a child have to be raised by its birth parents?
Why does a child have to be raised by its birth parents?
Because, despite the absolute flood of potential adoptive parents, there are not really enough to empty the orphanages.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
Because, despite the absolute flood of potential adoptive parents, there are not really enough to empty the orphanages.
That doesn't really answer the question... the parent's aren't exactly going to raise the child themselves just because they are worried about how quickly the orphanage can get a child adopted.
No, actually, it's a rather progressive stance, if you think about it. Giving individuals an equal chance at living a decent life, with the admonition that certain crimes will lead to the death penalty, is far more humane than the liberals' goal of permitting irresposible parents to have abortions, but not dealing with the problem of existing criminals on our streets in our communities etc.
Abortion doesn't prevent crime, doesn't prevent children from being unwanted and neglected. It does send a message to young women to be careless and irresponsible - society will absorb your shame and burden
I disagree. Abortion doesn't prevent crime or anything else, and the death penalty doesn't necessarily right the crime the person committed. I'm just saying that it is stupid in one instance to say killing this guy is ok, but killing this thing that isn't even alive, and wouldn't know the difference, and who might not make it out alive anyway, is not ok.
Besides, would you rather have all those irresponsible parents try to raise a child that will probably not turn out to well. If a teenage girl gets preganant, should she and her partner be forced to throw their futures down the toilet and raise a child? I don't think so. Don't look now, but accidents happen, even when you take all the precautions in the world. You shouldn't have to be "punished" by being forced to keep the child if you are too young/not ready to be a parent. It's not fair to the child, it's not fair to the parents. And don't tell me about adoption. If you went through a pregnancy for 9 months, and endured all of the ups and downs, and got to see that little face, the last thing in your mind would be adoption. I don't think you would just be like, "okay, see you later kid, I'm giving you away now".
There are enough parentless children already, without more abortion survivors thrown in. Unhappy as it may be, not every child is raised in a happy loving household. Children are rarely happy in orphanages, many foster parents are only doing it because of the money and neglect/abuse the child anyway, and many children have abusive and neglectful parents. In short, there are enough problems with unwanted and neglected children already, and the abortion ban just makes things worse. And I know there is going to be one inspirational feel-good story about a parentless child that found a happy life, but for every one of those there are twenty more about children starving in the streets. One happy ending doesn't mean every ending is happy. In the case of abortions, the child is usually better off not being born at all, and I don't agree that people should be irresponsible, but there are other ways. Charge additional abortion fees (except in proven rape cases) to make people a bit more cautious, but forcing unwanted children into the world is not the answer.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Currently playing:
In Modern:
:symu::symw::symr: Holy Rollers (Geist Tempo)
You shouldn't have to be "punished" by being forced to keep the child if you are too young/not ready to be a parent.
Taking responsibility isn't the same as "being punished". If a man commits a crime, going to jail is punishment, but spending the rest of your life trying to repair the damage/alleviate it/not doing it again/"going straight"/raising the child you created is recognizing that you were at fault and taking responsibility for it.
Okay...some things that ALWAYS arise in these debates.
When does "life" begin? Some that are over religious (from what I've seen) claim it begins at fertilization. There are those that state it is not a "person" until whatever trimester.
Is it justifiable? Accidental pregnancy may not be a good excuse, but I sure believe that rape and *shudderrs* incest sure as hell is. They didn't intend to ahve the sex, why suffer having a child you might not want? I read that a member knows a raped person that kept the child to term,and that's fine, but I, if female, would never do that.
Now....I'm going to have a tad of a biased opinion. I know someone that was the victim of 8 years of sexual abuse by her step father. I also am not religious by any means, so that scraps that angle of idealism. And finally, I don't think it should even be covered by law if it is not yet born, thus not yet a U.S citizen. Until it pops out, it is a nameless person. It holds as much rights as an illegal immigrant.
That doesn't really answer the question... the parent's aren't exactly going to raise the child themselves just because they are worried about how quickly the orphanage can get a child adopted.
It does answer the question, because overwhelmingly the odds are in favor of those children put up for adoption being more or less raised in the orphanages. I think we can both agree that this isn't a desirable event.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
Why does this issue always devolve into swapping horror stories about abortion or on the other end, back-alley abortions and foster-care abuse?
Everyone ignores the real issue: is it right to kill a fetus? It has its own distinct DNA and its cells are by definition, alive. So is is alright to kill them to ease social problems?
I say neuter everyone and insert the chromosomes with a syringe under a microscope. Can't **** it up that way.
Okay...some things that ALWAYS arise in these debates.
When does "life" begin? Some that are over religious (from what I've seen) claim it begins at fertilization. There are those that state it is not a "person" until whatever trimester.
Depends on who you listen to.
The Catholic Chruch, for example, teaches the concept of "potential for life". Hence, condoms as contraception are not allowed because it denies the potential for life. A rather odd way of avoiding discussion as to when life begins.
Some argue that life begins on the first breath. At least one Greek thinker (plato?) believes that, and at least one catholic saint (augustine?).
A few argue that it begins at fertilization, while others argue it begins when the nervous system starts forming.
Some argue that because a fetus is incapable of surviving on its own, then it isn't really alive and is therefore just tissue. I'd like to point out that even babies already born are incapable of surviving on their own.
I don't know how other religous groups view it.
Everyone ignores the real issue: is it right to kill a fetus? It has its own distinct DNA and its cells are by definition, alive. So is is alright to kill them to ease social problems?
Pro-choice has avoided these types of discussion and instead have chosen to argue, well, the choice. It isn't an issue of when life begins or that the fetus is a seperate entity -- what's more important is what women want to do with their bodies.
Feh...if it's killing of an unborn that bothers them, what about other species? People comsume Caviar, fish eggs. Even worse, most the world eats the flesh of live animals that could actually bear witness to their own demise. Should we hold ourselves above that standard simply due to sentiency? I don't think so, not if you're talking ethics such as the state of embryonic developement.
Taking responsibility isn't the same as "being punished". If a man commits a crime, going to jail is punishment, but spending the rest of your life trying to repair the damage/alleviate it/not doing it again/"going straight"/raising the child you created is recognizing that you were at fault and taking responsibility for it.
It would be nice if every accidental parent thought that way, looked at their newborn child and maybe and decided to turn their life around, love their kid, get a job, and stay off of the crack. But let's be realistic. For one thing, most would be abortion clients are young, which means irresponsible and and immature. They're not going to be good parents, even if they wanted a baby they're not going to be good parents because they don't have enough experience in the real world. These overnight parents are going to be lost, angry, and resentful. Those frustrations, those negative emotions, are going to be taken out on the child in one way or another. Lets give the parents the benefit of the doubt and say the parents refrain from physical violence. That child is still going to be raised in a household devoid of real love, because even if the parents try to love their but really do not, it won't matter. Most of these nefound parents won't even try. The child will perceive that it is unwanted from an early age, and it will build on those perceptions. In most cases, abortion survivors (as I will refer to children that would have been aborted but were not due to ban), will be raised unloved and unwanted, neglected and/or abused.
@Jaharu: We don't exactly have the right to take the lives of illegal immigrants, but I get what you're saying. Until birth, the child is neither sentient creature nor an American citizen, so it lacks all rights due to either.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Currently playing:
In Modern:
:symu::symw::symr: Holy Rollers (Geist Tempo)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11510472/?GT1=7756
I am a strong opponent of abortion and am overjoyed at this ruling. I just hope it passes all the way and somehow becomes national law.
I want this to be a thread about the ruling and the future of abortion, not a debate about abortion.
The two are one and the same. This will inevitably be moved to Debate.
In order to have a discussion you want, we would all need to read the actual bill (or at least the reders digest version).
As for the future of abortion, unless a national law gets passed it will always be a per state thing. And with each state having such different views, I don't see a national law being passed any time in the immediate future.
Currently offering 2 non-foil Kolighan's Command for a Date Stamped foil!
convert bulk into good cards? PucaTrade - https://pucatrade.com/invite/gift/21195
Ebay - decks/Promos/DVDs
Trade thread (constantly updated)
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/trading-post/details/337-pokerbob1s-casual-trading-emporium
1.) when a zygote becomes a fully-fledged human being therefore having rights.
and
2.) whether a woman's right to sovereignty over her own body outweighs the rights of said entity whose human status is in question.
I don't think either side gives the other side enough credit. Pro-Life people are genuinely concerned about pain and suffering, despite many of their ranks simultaneously holding what I would consider contradictory views about other forms of pain, suffering, and death, such as war and the death penalty, but nonetheless, with regard to Abortion, their hearts are in the right place, IMO. They're trying to avoid what could potentially be a reprehensible act.
But Pro-Choice people are often misunderstood as being "pro-abortion" as if anyone wants to see more abortions being done. Since #1 above is not a settled matter, they're likewise trying to avoid unneccessary suffering. If a zygote turns out not to be a real person, then why ought women needlessly suffer through unwanted pregnancies?
Ultimately though, both sides can agree on one important point: they both agree that we ought to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and the need for abortions. This is why the abstinence-only sex ed bugs me.
Anyway, personally I'm Pro-Choice, if for no other reason than that whatever the law is, rich folk will still be able to afford safe abortions, and making them illegal hurts predominantly the very poor, who are the least equipped economically to deal with an unwanted pregnancy.
As Butterfly of the Digable planets said in 1993 on the Reachin' LP, in a song called "La Femme Fetal" ( a killer track ):
Check out the blog too.
Edit: Just read the article. I guess the fact that the law was made to challenge a precedent makes sense. Well, now we'll see whether Roberts and Alito were full of **** when they said that Roe v. Wade was law of the land. I think they are.
I'm still pro choice.
Random fact that has been upheld in court is that it is not considered an unborn child until the second trimester. Until then, it's considered just and extension of the woman. If it's not considered it's own entity, then it has no rights.
Anyways, what's the saying...."focus on your own damn family"
Banner by Mr. Stuff
My Trades
Anyway, I think this is pretty dumb. Everyone should have their own choice in the matter. If an unwanted pregnancy happened, there is no reason to put the two future parents in peril, or force the child to potentially grow up in poverty with parents that aren't even close to being ready to act like parents. Hopefully this doesn't spread across America, because that is a joke.
Abortion doesn't prevent crime, doesn't prevent children from being unwanted and neglected. It does send a message to young women to be careless and irresponsible - society will absorb your shame and burden.
In Modern:
:symu::symw::symr: Holy Rollers (Geist Tempo)
My NovelJoy author profile: http://www.noveljoy.com/userInfo?wid=189
I write mainly horror/scifi/fantasy type short stories. Please read and feel free to send me feedback.
Yes; the point is to elicit a Constitutional battle at the Supreme Court.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
Because, despite the absolute flood of potential adoptive parents, there are not really enough to empty the orphanages.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
I disagree. Abortion doesn't prevent crime or anything else, and the death penalty doesn't necessarily right the crime the person committed. I'm just saying that it is stupid in one instance to say killing this guy is ok, but killing this thing that isn't even alive, and wouldn't know the difference, and who might not make it out alive anyway, is not ok.
Besides, would you rather have all those irresponsible parents try to raise a child that will probably not turn out to well. If a teenage girl gets preganant, should she and her partner be forced to throw their futures down the toilet and raise a child? I don't think so. Don't look now, but accidents happen, even when you take all the precautions in the world. You shouldn't have to be "punished" by being forced to keep the child if you are too young/not ready to be a parent. It's not fair to the child, it's not fair to the parents. And don't tell me about adoption. If you went through a pregnancy for 9 months, and endured all of the ups and downs, and got to see that little face, the last thing in your mind would be adoption. I don't think you would just be like, "okay, see you later kid, I'm giving you away now".
In Modern:
:symu::symw::symr: Holy Rollers (Geist Tempo)
My NovelJoy author profile: http://www.noveljoy.com/userInfo?wid=189
I write mainly horror/scifi/fantasy type short stories. Please read and feel free to send me feedback.
Taking responsibility isn't the same as "being punished". If a man commits a crime, going to jail is punishment, but spending the rest of your life trying to repair the damage/alleviate it/not doing it again/"going straight"/raising the child you created is recognizing that you were at fault and taking responsibility for it.
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
When does "life" begin? Some that are over religious (from what I've seen) claim it begins at fertilization. There are those that state it is not a "person" until whatever trimester.
Is it justifiable? Accidental pregnancy may not be a good excuse, but I sure believe that rape and *shudderrs* incest sure as hell is. They didn't intend to ahve the sex, why suffer having a child you might not want? I read that a member knows a raped person that kept the child to term,and that's fine, but I, if female, would never do that.
Now....I'm going to have a tad of a biased opinion. I know someone that was the victim of 8 years of sexual abuse by her step father. I also am not religious by any means, so that scraps that angle of idealism. And finally, I don't think it should even be covered by law if it is not yet born, thus not yet a U.S citizen. Until it pops out, it is a nameless person. It holds as much rights as an illegal immigrant.
It does answer the question, because overwhelmingly the odds are in favor of those children put up for adoption being more or less raised in the orphanages. I think we can both agree that this isn't a desirable event.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
Everyone ignores the real issue: is it right to kill a fetus? It has its own distinct DNA and its cells are by definition, alive. So is is alright to kill them to ease social problems?
I say neuter everyone and insert the chromosomes with a syringe under a microscope. Can't **** it up that way.
Depends on who you listen to.
The Catholic Chruch, for example, teaches the concept of "potential for life". Hence, condoms as contraception are not allowed because it denies the potential for life. A rather odd way of avoiding discussion as to when life begins.
Some argue that life begins on the first breath. At least one Greek thinker (plato?) believes that, and at least one catholic saint (augustine?).
A few argue that it begins at fertilization, while others argue it begins when the nervous system starts forming.
Some argue that because a fetus is incapable of surviving on its own, then it isn't really alive and is therefore just tissue. I'd like to point out that even babies already born are incapable of surviving on their own.
I don't know how other religous groups view it.
Pro-choice has avoided these types of discussion and instead have chosen to argue, well, the choice. It isn't an issue of when life begins or that the fetus is a seperate entity -- what's more important is what women want to do with their bodies.
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
It would be nice if every accidental parent thought that way, looked at their newborn child and maybe and decided to turn their life around, love their kid, get a job, and stay off of the crack. But let's be realistic. For one thing, most would be abortion clients are young, which means irresponsible and and immature. They're not going to be good parents, even if they wanted a baby they're not going to be good parents because they don't have enough experience in the real world. These overnight parents are going to be lost, angry, and resentful. Those frustrations, those negative emotions, are going to be taken out on the child in one way or another. Lets give the parents the benefit of the doubt and say the parents refrain from physical violence. That child is still going to be raised in a household devoid of real love, because even if the parents try to love their but really do not, it won't matter. Most of these nefound parents won't even try. The child will perceive that it is unwanted from an early age, and it will build on those perceptions. In most cases, abortion survivors (as I will refer to children that would have been aborted but were not due to ban), will be raised unloved and unwanted, neglected and/or abused.
@Jaharu: We don't exactly have the right to take the lives of illegal immigrants, but I get what you're saying. Until birth, the child is neither sentient creature nor an American citizen, so it lacks all rights due to either.
In Modern:
:symu::symw::symr: Holy Rollers (Geist Tempo)
My NovelJoy author profile: http://www.noveljoy.com/userInfo?wid=189
I write mainly horror/scifi/fantasy type short stories. Please read and feel free to send me feedback.