The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

[trish]

Buttslinger:

What part of the word ABORTION don't you understand?

To abort is to call off before it's too late: as in NASA called off the mission due to inclement weather. It seems the real issue lies not in the meaning of the word "abort" but a number of questions of the form "What claim does a fertilized egg have on the woman who harbors it?" Or "What claim does a blastosphere have on the woman who harbors it?" "What claim does a two month old embryo have on the woman who harbors it?" Etc. The fact that a sperm, an egg, a fertilized egg, a blastosphere, an embryo are living cells or living tissue does not mean each is "a life." Most intelligent people (except for the strident anti-choice crowed) contend that a living tissue is not "a life" deserving of rights until it attains a modicum of autonomy. To confuse "living" with "a life" is to bias the issue.

Bronco:

There's also a famous and elaborate hypothetical involving life support machines that is an "even if" argument in favor of robust abortion rights. I am not going to look for it.

Perhaps you're thinking of this article first published by philosopher Judith Thomson in the journal Philosophy and Public Affairs in 1971 http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/P...02/thomson.htm

[fred41]

Anyhow, I think as a matter of policy there is nothing wrong with reasonable regulations requiring a woman to get an abortion within a certain period of time. If a woman can get an abortion before the fetus reaches any reasonable threshold of personhood status then it's unnecessary to argue that even in such circumstances a person's autonomy overrides the interests of someone dependent upon the use of their bodily functions for survival. But I don't think there should be any restrictions in the case of a genuine health threat to the mother, which is essentially a choice question, since the mother might otherwise die during childbirth.

Yup, pretty much my feelings too.
Do I want anyone aborting a, ready to go, real life cabbage patch kid...no. Unless I'm wrong, I don't think that's what we're talking about. YES...even that cabbage patch kid might have to go in very rare cases - such as the mother's life being in danger...but other than that, we're usually talking about the "2001:A Space Odyssey" type fetus.
...and in that case scrape away if you have to.
Look, it's usually the best thing for everyone...and I'm sure most people don't make the decision easily, but I've seen FAR too many cases where the decision was made to keep the child and it turned out a cluster fuck for everyone, including the village that had to raise the child.

If you really think there are folks that use abortions as birth control, then do you really want people that use them as such raising children???!!.where's the benefit to that for anyone?. Where's the benefit to 'babies raising babies'?
Are the people clamoring to save those unborn lives offering to adopt and raise those precious lives? I think not, for the most part.

Some of the biggest mistakes in life revolve around sex. It's an overpowering force of hormones and drive. People often risk HIV and other diseases under that mind set...and sometimes wind up dying because of it. Does anyone really want a woman to be legally bound to a decision made under that type of influence?!
I don't.

[fred41]

Anecdotal alert: My ex told me she had an abortion early in our dating days..and it still haunts her to this day. She still realizes it was the right decision at the time (and I totally agree), but she described the the incident and her feelings before and after and there is no way in hell that was an easy decision. I'm not saying it's like that for everyone, but still....

Plenty of women already feel they are murdering a human being when they have an abortion, but they know that it's the right decision to make and are willing to live with that godawful feeling for the rest of their lives.
They don't need for a law or for the screaming masses to , yet again, tell them it's MURDER!.
They have a burden...let's not make it heavier.
I'll never have to make that final decision.
I'm not gonna shove one down someone's else's throat.

[broncofan]

Yup, pretty much my feelings too.
Do I want anyone aborting a, ready to go, real life cabbage patch kid...no. Unless I'm wrong, I don't think that's what we're talking about. YES...even that cabbage patch kid might have to go in very rare cases - such as the mother's life being in danger...but other than that, we're usually talking about the "2001:A Space Odyssey" type fetus.
...and in that case scrape away if you have to.
Look, it's usually the best thing for everyone...and I'm sure most people don't make the decision easily, but I've seen FAR too many cases where the decision was made to keep the child and it turned out a cluster fuck for everyone, including the village that had to raise the child.

I actually had you in mind when I wrote this because I remember you discussing the issue and saying sarcastically something like there were some that believe a child is not a person until kindergarten (I can't remember the exact tongue in cheek remark but you were talking about the most extreme views of pro-lifers and pro-choicers). But if we can find some agreeable definition then the fetus has rights counterbalancing the rights of the mother.

I said in my first post that I actually believe a mother's right to control her body could trump the interest of the unborn even without an emergency and even after the fetus is a moral person (I wouldn't expect anyone to agree and it's a philosophical belief I'm not sure I would endorse in practice).

But as a policy matter I think it's a good idea to have restrictions because there is no need to wait until your are doing harm to a person. Why not require those who are getting abortions to get them before they might do harm to a conscious being? I am assuming there's a significant enough time window that the tough case can be avoided altogether and the mother can make an informed choice.

I think life is extremely valuable, but I think those who make arguments in favor of the sanctity of life end up treating the dividing line between life and death as the only one with significance. Let's say you have two people. One is young, happy, and healthy. He suffers horrible burns and will live the next fifty years disfigured and in agony. Now let's say there is another person who is unhappy, enfeebled, and has a short life expectancy. He dies. Which is a greater loss? I don't think reductions in quality of life are qualitatively different from loss of life. Only sometimes different in value. But this is only a utilitarian calculation. I think individual rights sometimes trump that. Could you force someone to give their kidney to save a life? If life is sacred and can't be balanced against other interests then how can someone refuse to provide something that doesn't kill them for the sake of saving a stranger's life?

[broncofan]

Bronco: Perhaps you're thinking of this article first published by philosopher Judith Thomson in the journal Philosophy and Public Affairs in 1971 http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/P...02/thomson.htm

That is it. Thanks! And I never actually read it…someone brought it up once in a discussion class. I should take a look.

[fred41]

I actually had you in mind when I wrote this because I remember you discussing the issue and saying sarcastically something like there were some that believe a child is not a person until kindergarten (I can't remember the exact tongue in cheek remark but you were talking about the most extreme views of pro-lifers and pro-choicers). But if we can find some agreeable definition then the fetus has rights counterbalancing the rights of the mother.

Wow, someone not only reads, but actually remembers some of my gibberish. Totally cool.
Thank you Bronc.
I actually change my views based on new information...and I always try to admit when I (recognize) was wrong. I don't think my views on abortion have changed much...maybe some of the wording I've used...
been Pro choice (don't like the term , versus Pro-LIFE - like you can't appreciate a living being but recognize a life/death choice has to be made...but meh) my whole life...regardless of political or religious persuasion at the time.

Next time you're in NYC P.M. me.

[broncofan]

Wow, someone not only reads, but actually remembers some of my gibberish. Totally cool.

Next time you're in NYC P.M. me.

Will do. Whether I ever meet other posters on this site, I've given you all personhood status in my head

[Loud Love]

My friend's older brother was target shooting at his country home, and he shot himself in the leg with an old Army .45...With the safety on.It was a bad wound and he had to crawl all the way back to the house. The cop who came with the ambulance accidentally shot the gun in the house, again, with the safety on.

I am too lazy to look up the data, but I'd take a wild guess that the US has so many shootings is because the US has so many guns.

The Romans used to say the people will never interfere in politics as long as they have bread and circuses. Guns are an illusion of power.

This sounds highly unlikely if you refer to the the Colt 1911 and not the Colt 1873. With an Ordinance Department required thumb safety, grip safety and the required pulling of the trigger to fire said arm, these are either the most incompetent and uneducated folks to ever pickup a firearm or not a factual claim. Many of you are living up to your WCA claim.

[buttslinger]

Listen, I'm surprised 100% of the people here aren't Pro-Abortion. Just please don't go all Hippocratic on me, ninety percent of abortions happen because a kid would mess up Mom's plans.

[buttslinger]

This sounds highly unlikely if you refer to the the Colt 1911 and not the Colt 1873. With an Ordinance Department required thumb safety, grip safety and the required pulling of the trigger to fire said arm, these are either the most incompetent and uneducated folks to ever pickup a firearm or not a factual claim. Many of you are living up to your WCA claim.

What?