On abortion

[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.

[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.

[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]

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...

[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]

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?

[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.

[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 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.

[myboynoah]

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.

Stop it with all your common sense solutions.

[CardiacCoug]

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.

[All-American]

All abortions make me queasy.
I hate watching surgery but personal liberty is the highest virtue in society.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Locke and Jefferson would beg to differ. Well, maybe just Locke. But Jefferson agreed with Locke.

[Topper]

All abortions make me queasy.
I hate watching surgery but personal liberty is the highest virtue in society.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[All-American]

I understand the position and I cant think of a practical reason for a third trimester abortion. I am still uneasy that men so unashamedly regulate women.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

And what goes on in the clinic doesn't make you uneasy?

[Topper]

I understand the position and I cant think of a practical reason for a third trimester abortion. I am still uneasy that men so unashamedly regulate women.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk