On abortion

[All-American]

I have no idea how a libertarian or even a true conservative could want government restrictions on early-term abortions. You think about all the potential medical scenarios alone that may cause a family to decide abortion is the right choice, and why on earth should the government be involved in that decision in any way?

Isn't potential viability outside the womb the common-sense cutoff for legality of abortion? Once the fetus could potentially live outside the womb (around 24 weeks or so?) I would say it has rights independent of the mother and abortion should be illegal.

If you don't think a libertarian or conservative could possibly want to defend the rights of those unable to defend themselves, you may not understand libertarianism or conservatism that well.

But sure, line drawing is tough, especially when it's between two strong interests. Yet we do it all the time. Take medical malpractice, for example. We have a strong interest in getting high quality care, but we also know that demanding too much of our doctors raises costs to prohibitively high levels. We try to balance those factors against one another to determine what standard of care we can reasonably expect of medical professionals. It's messy, it's complicated, and it's far from perfect-- I happen to think we are too demanding of doctors at present-- but we certainly don't refuse to hold any bad doctor accountable for malpractice.

As it applies in the abortion context, we are drawing lines whether you are squeamish about it or not, so might as well try to draw them in the right places. My feeling is that we are either weighing the baby's right to life far too lightly or we are weighing it against the wrong interest-- i.e., we should be weighing a baby's right to life against a mother's health, not her right to avoid the consequences of her decisions.

And there are plenty of problems with your "common sense" solution, not the least of which is the fact that you can't tell me when it applies. "Around 24 weeks or so"? That doesn't exactly pin it down-- especially as medicine improvements cut down the number of weeks before viability.

[CardiacCoug]

As it applies in the abortion context, we are drawing lines whether you are squeamish about it or not, so might as well try to draw them in the right places. My feeling is that we are either weighing the baby's right to life far too lightly or we are weighing it against the wrong interest-- i.e., we should be weighing a baby's right to life against a mother's health, not her right to avoid the consequences of her decisions.

I personally think abortion is a tragedy and it's disgusting -- I would never have anything to do with an abortion, just like I would never steal to feed my family or immigrate illegally to another country to support my family, or deal drugs to feed my family.

In fact, I'm sure that abortion (and all that other bad stuff) would never happen if every woman in the world was as fortunate as the women in my family and your family.

But why do you think so many women choose to have abortions? Sounds like you think these women are just morally inferior to you and the women in your family -- they just want to "avoid the consequences of decisions." By which you mean having sex I guess.

People are all pretty much the same -- I would posit that women who choose to have abortions are innately exactly the same as the women in your family and my family from an ethical and moral standpoint -- they just suffer from horrible external circumstances. These are women in comparative crisis, just like the women who steal, immigrate illegally, or deal drugs.

Women who choose to have an abortion don't have the physical/emotional/financial resources to prevent a pregnancy and/or to have a child and that's sad. But it's seems awfully arrogant of men and women who are incredibly fortunate to be able to easily support 6 kids (for example) to tell a woman in crisis "just do what we do. Suffer the consequences of your decisions."

[All-American]

I personally think abortion is a tragedy and it's disgusting -- I would never have anything to do with an abortion, just like I would never steal to feed my family or immigrate illegally to another country to support my family, or deal drugs to feed my family.

In fact, I'm sure that abortion (and all that other bad stuff) would never happen if every woman in the world was as fortunate as the women in my family and your family.

But why do you think so many women choose to have abortions? Sounds like you think these women are just morally inferior to you and the women in your family -- they just want to "avoid the consequences of decisions." By which you mean having sex I guess.

People are all pretty much the same -- I would posit that women who choose to have abortions are innately exactly the same as the women in your family and my family from an ethical and moral standpoint -- they just suffer from horrible external circumstances. These are women in comparative crisis, just like the women who steal, immigrate illegally, or deal drugs.

Women who choose to have an abortion don't have the physical/emotional/financial resources to prevent a pregnancy and/or to have a child and that's sad. But it's seems awfully arrogant of men and women who are incredibly fortunate to be able to easily support 6 kids (for example) to tell a woman in crisis "just do what we do. Suffer the consequences of your decisions."

And yet we are quite comfortable as a society having laws against theft. We are rethinking drug and immigration policy, yes, but near as I can tell, that has less to do with the plight of those offending the laws than with a general sense that we have overstated the harm that offense causes.

If I come across as arrogant or out of touch, so be it; I just don't understand how we as a society have placed so little value on the human life at the other end of the scale.

I get your position: it's all so complicated, and involves so many things I don't understand that it may be better for me (and the government) to butt out. I was a bit closer to where you were before my girl was born. She came out of the womb knowing the sound of her mother's voice. That was mind-blowing for me, but it didn't surprise my wife in the least. There's plenty of research showing that babies in the womb can hear and recognize their mother's voice very, very early into the pregnancy-- perhaps as early as 16 weeks, almost a month and a half before you say it should no longer be permissible to snuff that life out.

[ERCougar]

I think I've said my piece here, but I did want to respond to cardiac's points, because I'm curious about his opinion.
imo, we are a less than a decade away from not needing a womb to raise an embryo. Then what happens to the viability standard? Does Roe v Wade become obsolete? What about ivf (and discarded embryos)? Stem cell research? Morning after pill? Progestin based birth control (which don't really prevent ovulation)? IUDs? This "practical solution" becomes very messy quickly with all kinds of ethical implications.

I'd like to turn the table on this discussion a bit. Give me another point where abortion should be illegal and then let's discuss it. You don't like birth, you don't like viability. So where should it be? Any exceptions?

[Moliere]

I think I've said my piece here, but I did want to respond to cardiac's points, because I'm curious about his opinion.
imo, we are a less than a decade away from not needing a womb to raise an embryo. Then what happens to the viability standard? Does Roe v Wade become obsolete? What about ivf (and discarded embryos)? Stem cell research? Morning after pill? Progestin based birth control (which don't really prevent ovulation)? IUDs? This "practical solution" becomes very messy quickly with all kinds of ethical implications.

I'd like to turn the table on this discussion a bit. Give me another point where abortion should be illegal and then let's discuss it. You don't like birth, you don't like viability. So where should it be? Any exceptions?

This would be a perfect compromise. The embryo can be removed from the woman and raised in incubation then adopted by someone who wants it. That way the woman still gets to control her body and babies are made available for people that are willing but unable to have kids. Win/win!

I personally really liked Cardiac's response. It's made me rethink some things, which is the reason I come to this damn place.

[ERCougar]

This would be a perfect compromise. The embryo can be removed from the woman and raised in incubation then adopted by someone who wants it. That way the woman still gets to control her body and babies are made available for people that are willing but unable to have kids. Win/win!

I personally really liked Cardiac's response. It's made me rethink some things, which is the reason I come to this damn place.

I'm not criticizing cardiacs response. It's what the law is based on right now. I just think that in ten years, we'll have to rethink it.

It does offer a solution for that scenario (sort of...Who pays? ) but if we're claiming that any entity that is "viable" has a significant right to life, then what do we do with unused embryos from ivf, for example? Do we allow embryonic stem cell research....ever? Do we allow the use of birth control methods that don't prevent fertilization? Seems like a pretty wanton destruction of human life...

[imanihonjin]

And yet we are quite comfortable as a society having laws against theft. We are rethinking drug and immigration policy, yes, but near as I can tell, that has less to do with the plight of those offending the laws than with a general sense that we have overstated the harm that offense causes.

If I come across as arrogant or out of touch, so be it; I just don't understand how we as a society have placed so little value on the human life at the other end of the scale.

I get your position: it's all so complicated, and involves so many things I don't understand that it may be better for me (and the government) to butt out. I was a bit closer to where you were before my girl was born. She came out of the womb knowing the sound of her mother's voice. That was mind-blowing for me, but it didn't surprise my wife in the least. There's plenty of research showing that babies in the womb can hear and recognize their mother's voice very, very early into the pregnancy-- perhaps as early as 16 weeks, almost a month and a half before you say it should no longer be permissible to snuff that life out.

Yeah, but a baby at 16 weeks in utero doesn't really understand the humor of Phineas and Ferb. So they have that working against them.

[ERCougar]

Yeah, but a baby at 16 weeks in utero doesn't really understand the humor of Phineas and Ferb. So they have that working against them.

Stop mocking AAs silly terms. He's going to feel bad.

[All-American]

This would be a perfect compromise. The embryo can be removed from the woman and raised in incubation then adopted by someone who wants it. That way the woman still gets to control her body and babies are made available for people that are willing but unable to have kids. Win/win!

I personally really liked Cardiac's response. It's made me rethink some things, which is the reason I come to this damn place.

Maybe we can even plug them in somewhere and use them to generate power.

[imanihonjin]

I'm not criticizing cardiacs response. It's what the law is based on right now. I just think that in ten years, we'll have to rethink it.

It does offer a solution for that scenario (sort of...Who pays? ) but if we're claiming that any entity that is "viable" has a significant right to life, then what do we do with unused embryos from ivf, for example? Do we allow embryonic stem cell research....ever? Do we allow the use of birth control methods that don't prevent fertilization? Seems like a pretty wanton destruction of human life...

You seem to implying that because there are difficult questions to answer it is better to simply adopt the easiest solution based on administrative ease rather than what is the right thing to do. Perhaps you are right and it is the right thing to do to give a baby rights at birth, but I don't think the method for arriving at the answer should be what is the easiest and least difficult way to deal with the problem.

[ERCougar]

You seem to implying that because there are difficult questions to answer it is better to simply adopt the easiest solution based on administrative ease rather than what is the right thing to do. Perhaps you are right and it is the right thing to do to give a baby rights at birth, but I don't think the method for arriving at the answer should be what is the easiest and least difficult way to deal with the problem.

Nope. That's not what I'm implying.

[byu71]

There is the political aspect to this which is determined by activists and eventually what the public wants. I am in the minority when it comes to this and since I support the democracy we live under, I accept a womans right to choose. In other words I am not going to be someone out protesting in front of clinics or throwing paint on doctors.

Then there is the moral aspect. The way I see it, the life and health of the mother comes ahead of the fetus. If she can find a Dr. who says her health is in danger, then I have no problem with her terminating the pregnancy. If she gets pregnant through consentual sex and her health in not in jeopardy, then I think the fetus rights take precedent over the mother wishes. We all make choices and have to live with the consequences. Too little responsibility taking these days in my opinion.

I don't think abortion is murder. I doubt even if the child is viable, the spirit has entered the body yet. As with many confusing things, I believe God will sort it out. So my Pro-life stand is not a religious one. I just can't see how progressives are so worried about climate change and protecting species and yet a fetus can be treated as a mistake that just gets erased.

[All-American]

Stop mocking AAs silly terms. He's going to feel bad.

I do think we've given ER enough grief for the Phineas and Ferb flub. He's already disavowed it as silly.

On the other hand, I'm happy to stand by my use of the word "child."

[ERCougar]

There is the political aspect to this which is determined by activists and eventually what the public wants. I am in the minority when it comes to this and since I support the democracy we live under, I accept a womans right to choose. In other words I am not going to be someone out protesting in front of clinics or throwing paint on doctors.

Then there is the moral aspect. The way I see it, the life and health of the mother comes ahead of the fetus. If she can find a Dr. who says her health is in danger, then I have no problem with her terminating the pregnancy. If she gets pregnant through consentual sex and her health in not in jeopardy, then I think the fetus rights take precedent over the mother wishes. We all make choices and have to live with the consequences. Too little responsibility taking these days in my opinion.

I don't think abortion is murder. I doubt even if the child is viable, the spirit has entered the body yet. As with many confusing things, I believe God will sort it out. So my Pro-life stand is not a religious one. I just can't see how progressives are so worried about climate change and protecting species and yet a fetus can be treated as a mistake that just gets erased.

This is one of the more reasonable posts in this thread, one that to me makes more sense than the viability standard, without the ethical implications. I don't mind the "health" standard, as it leaves some room for gray areas and human judgment. It still puts a woman's decision over her body in the hands of another (likely male) authority, and that's a little distasteful to me, but so is abortion. I also think there are physicians who will use a very broad definition of "health", but I'm actually fine with that. We do the same thing with "disability".

This would also address the other exception that conservatives often just gloss over as a given without really thinking about the mechanics of it--cases of rape and sexual assault.

I still think there would be a pretty large objection on privacy grounds, and really, I'd rather the government stay out of protecting the rights of non-citizens at the expense of those of its citizens, but this seems like a decent pragmatic compromise.

[imanihonjin]

This is one of the more reasonable posts in this thread, one that to me makes more sense than the viability standard, without the ethical implications. I don't mind the "health" standard, as it leaves some room for gray areas and human judgment. It still puts a woman's decision over her body in the hands of another (likely male) authority, and that's a little distasteful to me, but so is abortion. I also think there are physicians who will use a very broad definition of "health", but I'm actually fine with that. We do the same thing with "disability".

This would also address the other exception that conservatives often just gloss over as a given without really thinking about the mechanics of it--cases of rape and sexual assault.

I still think there would be a pretty large objection on privacy grounds, and really, I'd rather the government stay out of protecting the rights of non-citizens at the expense of those of its citizens, but this seems like a decent pragmatic compromise.

I think most pro-lifers would agree with the exceptions of the health of the mother and cases of rape.