On abortion

[ERCougar]

I don't think there's any theological objection in terms of the fetus. Taking an eternal perspective the soul would be saved. The objection would be the mother committing murder

Ok, but I was responding to your statement that you'd rather give the fetus a chance at life. That doesn't really have any meaning if you believe that God doesn't prevent the pre-existent spirit to come down in another body. I'm shooting from the hip here as I haven't thought through this much, but I would guess that that is the rationale behind murder being so serious--the premature ending of a spirit's chance at life.

[imanihonjin]

There are plenty of women who find the idea of the government telling a woman what to do with her own body just as or more repugnant as you find the idea of terminating a pregnancy at 6 months, which only highlights the messiness that NWC points out. Roe v Wade suggests the line should be at the point where the fetus can survive outside of the womb. However, this cutoff is going to move earlier and earlier until we don't even really need a womb. And then where would you draw the line? Fertilization? Well, throw out an entire class of birth control pills, which do little to prevent the fertilization of an egg.

It's really a mess just left alone. And we haven't even touched the messiness associated with alleged sexual assault (does a rape exception encourage false accusations? At what point does abortion become legal? Conviction?) or health jeopardization of the mother (Does this include mental health? Why not?). Again, I find abortion morally wrong in many if not most cases. But I'm not at all comfortable with the government making a blanket moral standard to apply to all cases.

I think you misread what I wrote....I don't think there are many that would find terminating a 6 month pregnancy with terminating a six month old (already been born). That is beside the point. You act as if I haven't acknowledged the issues a woman faces. I have.

[ERCougar]

I think you misread what I wrote....I don't think there are many that would find terminating a 6 month pregnancy with terminating a six month old (already been born). That is beside the point. You act as if I haven't acknowledged the issues a woman faces. I have.

I didn't say anything about a six month old baby.

[Topper]

I think you misread what I wrote....I don't think there are many that would find terminating a 6 month pregnancy with terminating a six month old (already been born). That is beside the point. You act as if I haven't acknowledged the issues a woman faces. I have.

You want to control what a woman does to her body using the authoritarian card, namely, you are on the side of angels. And then you wish to ascribe human rights to entities which have not been born. The law has not evolved in that direction. If God wants the unborn to have rights, then he will grant them rights. As long as man is deciding, we can see man and government have not recognized the rights of the unborn, or at least are not superior to the rights of women.

We heathen are not on the side of angels, but we acknowledge what has been decided on behalf the born and living. Those have superior rights under the law of man than the unborn. There are many practical reasons for this declaration.

[imanihonjin]

You want to control what a woman does to her body using the authoritarian card, namely, you are on the side of angels. And then you wish to ascribe human rights to entities which have not been born. The law has not evolved in that direction. If God wants the unborn to have rights, then he will grant them rights. As long as man is deciding, we can see man and government have not recognized the rights of the unborn, or at least are not superior to the rights of women.

We heathen are not on the side of angels, but we acknowledge what has been decided on behalf the born and living. Those have superior rights under the law of man than the unborn. There are many practical reasons for this declaration.

So tell me, why is the actual birth the moment that we should grant a baby rights? Is a baby one our before born deserving of any less rights/protection than a baby who was just born? Tell me what justification there is for that? As it is now, there is a recognition that a baby is gestation is afforded some rights as state are able to ban abortions from occurring in the 3rd trimester. So I am not sure what your last paragraph has to do with anything.

Society (you should check your misogynistic references to "man") makes moral determinations in connection with the law all the time, in fact laws are moral determinations of what is right and what is wrong, aka moral determinations. As noted above, most states afford the unborn protections under the law after a certain point in a pregnancy. I understand both sides to the debate and understand why both sides feel so strongly about their respective positions. At one point in my younger days, I firmly believed that anyone who tolerated abortions were simply evil people. I don't believe that any longer; I think I have come to a position where I understand that they just don't see the fetus as a life and as such they don't see any moral consequences for destroying a mass of tissue. My point is simply, that it is my opinion that when life begins....whenever that is....the unborn baby should have rights that supersede the rights of the mother. I don't think it is unreasonable for society to determine the point in time that an unborn baby is afforded rights.

[Topper]

So tell me, why is the actual birth the moment that we should grant a baby rights? Is a baby one our before born deserving of any less rights/protection than a baby who was just born? Tell me what justification there is for that? As it is now, there is a recognition that a baby is gestation is afforded some rights as state are able to ban abortions from occurring in the 3rd trimester. So I am not sure what your last paragraph has to do with anything.

Society (you should check your misogynistic references to "man") makes moral determinations in connection with the law all the time, in fact laws are moral determinations of what is right and what is wrong, aka moral determinations. As noted above, most states afford the unborn protections under the law after a certain point in a pregnancy. I understand both sides to the debate and understand why both sides feel so strongly about their respective positions. At one point in my younger days, I firmly believed that anyone who tolerated abortions were simply evil people. I don't believe that any longer; I think I have come to a position where I understand that they just don't see the fetus as a life and as such they don't see any moral consequences for destroying a mass of tissue. My point is simply, that it is my opinion that when life begins....whenever that is....the unborn baby should have rights that supersede the rights of the mother. I don't think it is unreasonable for society to determine the point in time that an unborn baby is afforded rights.

Society has already made that determination. And despite what proponents hope and pray for, it is unlikely to be rolled back. Yes, men have made the determinations, not women. If women had written the laws, I suspect there would have been much more compassion than forcing abortions into quacks with hangers in back alleys.

Society makes practical decisions, not just decisions on right or wrong. At birth, the child is physically separated from the mother. While in utero, it is not independent at all. Once it has achieved physical independence, the unborn achieves an identity for legal purposes. That is a very practical decision. I recognize men can pontificate about what women should do, but it is very patronizing and self-serving.

[imanihonjin]

Society has already made that determination. And despite what proponents hope and pray for, it is unlikely to be rolled back. Yes, men have made the determinations, not women. If women had written the laws, I suspect there would have been much more compassion than forcing abortions into quacks with hangers in back alleys.

Society makes practical decisions, not just decisions on right or wrong. At birth, the child is physically separated from the mother. While in utero, it is not independent at all. Once it has achieved physical independence, the unborn achieves an identity for legal purposes. That is a very practical decision. I recognize men can pontificate about what women should do, but it is very patronizing and self-serving.

Actually society didn't....a few judges did. The judges undid what society decided. You are still acting like a baby in utero is afforded no protections....you are wrong....read this next part really slowly because it hasn't yet sunk in....most states afford a baby in utero protection in the third trimester. Why is that?

[wuapinmon]

Could we reduce abortions significantly if we ended our insistence on abstinence as the best birth control when educating our youth? Also, would free birth control be cheaper than the costs of WIC, SNAP, Medicaid, and potential foster care and other costs of being a ward of the state?

I imagine that abortions might drop considerably if we didn't insist on denying that young people have sex before marriage and gave them access to free or affordable preventive measures. However, I'm still shocked at how many of my college students get knocked up. Some get married, though my anecdotal experience is that minorities typically decide to keep their babies without wedding.

[Topper]

Actually society didn't....a few judges did. The judges undid what society decided. You are still acting like a baby in utero is afforded no protections....you are wrong....read this next part really slowly because it hasn't yet sunk in....most states afford a baby in utero protection in the third trimester. Why is that?

IT is to balance the competing interests in the state legislatures to appease the religionists for whom this is a battle cry against the argument that the fetus ex utero is viable. And I am not advocating third trimester abortions, but I believe the physical separation from the mother's womb is the logical time to start affording rights. It is a brightline; whereas viability is not.

The liberties of the mother in most instances should prevail.

[imanihonjin]

IT is to balance the competing interests in the state legislatures to appease the religionists for whom this is a battle cry against the argument that the fetus ex utero is viable. And I am not advocating third trimester abortions, but I believe the physical separation from the mother's womb is the logical time to start affording rights. It is a brightline; whereas viability is not.

The liberties of the mother in most instances should prevail.

While you are not advocating third trimester abortions you apparently believe that a mother who is 40 weeks pregnant, but just hasn't delivered her baby should be able to terminate the pregnancy because the baby isn't born yet and therefore doesn't have rights? That baby, with near certainty, is viable, but you believe that the mother should not have to be inconvenienced with the baby. I am sorry but at that point there is no question that performing an abortion at that point in time should be murder.

[ERCougar]

Ah, but the devil's the details. What the hell do you mean by life? You keep saying you have no idea when it starts but it's kinda important, dontchathink? The only universally agreed standard at which a fetus' right to life equals the mother's is birth. Anything before--even third trimester fetus--relies on some extra worldly logic.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

The morning after pill isn't anywhere near 100% effective. There are also the cases where there are severe anticipated healthcare/resource needs that aren't apparent immediately, or the cases of a traumatized rape victim who isn't in the right frame of mind to think immediately to the morning after pill. Really, there are a hundred other scenarios we could point out, ranging from very selfish to not. As a fellow pragmatist, I'm not particularly interested in the government becoming involved in judging those decisions, as I'd prefer to leave them to the person and God. Also on a pragmatic level, an unwanted baby, even (especially?) in those cases of selfishness, is not going to be raised in a healthy loving home, and may end up costing a lot more in the long run.

Leave it to the individual, educate her thoroughly on both her options and consequences and let her choose. Politicizing the issue too often puts women into the position of political pawn (see Norma McCorvey).

This is one of the more disappointing things I've read on here in awhile. While there are privacy and constitutional arguments in favor of allowing women to choose to terminate a pregnancy, I don't think a utilitarian argument like this should ever be employed. I know a guy like you looks at yourself 15 years ago and thinks you were an ignorant rube and therefore you look for every opportunity to kick against the pricks (majority LDS thought) as a result, perhaps you're in anguish over what you were in that period of time like Julie Stouffer did on the Real Word while she was lamenting her latent and previously undiscovered personal racism a few weeks after she left BYU. Perhaps CS has lifted the scales from your eyes. But try not to let your new found extreme pragmatism lead to fascist thought.

[ERCougar]

This is one of the more disappointing things I've read on here in awhile. While there are privacy and constitutional arguments in favor of allowing women to choose to terminate a pregnancy, I don't think a utilitarian argument like this should ever be employed. I know a guy like you looks at yourself 15 years ago and thinks you were an ignorant rube and therefore you look for every opportunity to kick against the pricks (majority LDS thought) as a result, perhaps you're in anguish over what you were in that period of time like Julie Stouffer did on the Real Word while she was lamenting her latent and previously undiscovered personal racism a few weeks after she left BYU. Perhaps CS has lifted the scales from your eyes. But try not to let your new found extreme pragmatism lead to fascist thought.

I found it!
Yeah, this was really funny!

I'm not getting the BYU reject connection, but I'm sure it's super funny too.

(Also...psst...I've been pro-choice for a very long time.)

[Vic Vega]

I found it!
Yeah, this was really funny!

I'm not getting the BYU reject connection, but I'm sure it's super funny too.

(Also...psst...I've been pro-choice for a very long time.)

The Freakanomics guys have some interesting stats about this. YouTube has this section from their movie.

[Topper]

This is one of the more disappointing things I've read on here in awhile. While there are privacy and constitutional arguments in favor of allowing women to choose to terminate a pregnancy, I don't think a utilitarian argument like this should ever be employed. I know a guy like you looks at yourself 15 years ago and thinks you were an ignorant rube and therefore you look for every opportunity to kick against the pricks (majority LDS thought) as a result, perhaps you're in anguish over what you were in that period of time like Julie Stouffer did on the Real Word while she was lamenting her latent and previously undiscovered personal racism a few weeks after she left BYU. Perhaps CS has lifted the scales from your eyes. But try not to let your new found extreme pragmatism lead to fascist thought.

Come now, advancing an argument for purposes of discussion does not mean he is doing anything more than floating a balloon. It is true an unwanted child costs society a lot of money and often causes other problems.