Brain Fertilizer

All that article demonstrates to me is this: because a law was passed that is nothing more than a back door way to eventually make abotrion illegal, now a young man has to be in jail.

And I think that sucks on BOTH counts.

I understand why you feel that way, but...

I agree that abortion is a horrid thing. However - I am proChoice. Everyone should be able to make that choice for them selves.

When we start (hell, when we started to years ago) legislating morality we started down a very slippery slope. We are telling people that they are not smart enought to make good choices on their own. This is the crux of what has caused this lawsuit happy culture that we live in. I eat to much, I cannot be at fault - let's sue McDonalds! It's bloody stupid. We need to start letting people stand on their own two feet and think for themselves.

Morality is not universal. Morality depends on the situation, the culture and the people. What we find abhorrent some people find acceptable. That is a fact of life. There is no such thing as universal truth. When we all realise that, and allow others to make their own choices dependant on their viewpoints I think that this world will be a happier place.

I can understand that people don't agree on moral issues. For instance, I don't think pro-choice advocates are evil or stupid or anything. I don't think women who get an abortion are cold-bloodedly, premeditatedly murdering infants.

Ignorance of the law may be no excuse in legal matters, but ignorance of moral issues perhaps can be an excuse.

However, despite logical and reasonable arguments such as yours, some moral issues are not person-specific. Murder is wrong. Theft is wrong. Selfishness is wrong. Narcissism is wrong.

And while you argue well for "choice", you extend "choice" for the woman only so far that it eclipses choice for the father, and obliterates choice for the baby.

And the demonstration of that is in this case right here. Why should she get to "choose" to have him stand on her stomach and thus send him to jail and take life away from the infants? There is no moral argument that explains why he should get jail time and she should not. There is no moral argument that explains why the only difference between murder and 'choice' is the decision of the mother.

It is absolutely not just a question of "a woman controlling her body", because something that only leaves minor bruises on her body will kill the infant inside her.

What pro-choice advocates say is that someone's choice about their body extends to absolute power of life and death over someone else's.

That's like saying the power to control my property includes killing you so I can take yours.

I know these points will flow like water off a duck's back, leaving you unaffected by anything I saw. No problem. I know I won't convince anyone because the battle lines have been drawn long ago. I no longer care, because I'm not arguing about abortion to win friends.

I've finally developed the moral courage to stand up and say what has to be said.

Part of the fun is the discussion, tho :)

Murder is wrong.

Killing is wrong - however there are times that it is justified. For example, war.

And the demonstration of that is in this case right here. Why should she get to "choose" to have him stand on her stomach and thus send him to jail and take life away from the infants? There is no moral argument that explains why he should get jail time and she should not. There is no moral argument that explains why the only difference between murder and 'choice' is the decision of the mother.

If truth is not universal, then you can bet that laws are not all just. Laws are written by people. Those people are trying to codify their vision of truth. Others are trying to put their morality into these codes. Yes, they end up screwed up, but it's the best system we got right now :).

I've finally developed the moral courage to stand up and say what has to be said.

What you belive what has to be said. Others feel diffrent. I would never stop you from saying what you belive, but others belive diffrently. I think one of the signs of a mature culture is when it realizes that divergent opinions are healthy.

Yep, that last addition is absolutely correct. What I believe has to be said.

I absolutely understand what you mean about justified killing.

But is war justified if it is just for someone's convenience? The invasion of Iraq was never about oil, but the Left accused Bush of that, so they understand that one person's convenience does not justify someone else's death.

But in abortion, some people do.

I don't know what the percentages are, but I am sure that only an extremely miniscule portion of the people who consider themselve pro-life would insist on outlawing abortion even if the mother's life were at stake.
On those terms, absolutely: let the mother and father together decide. But that is a choice among lives. A life for a life. A life and death situation does often demand that someone dies.
It's not a life and death situation when someone kills their baby because they don't want to buy gallon jars of mayonnaise from Costco, to cite a ridiculously extreme (but real) example.

So which is closer to the justification for abortion? That it is sometimes necessary to kill some people in order that others may live? Or that sometimes it is necessary to kill so that someone doesn't have to face an uncertain and probably more difficult life?

...and yet, the father doesn't have the choice whether he supports that life or not, much less whether that life is killed or not. Sometimes, the court makes a guy pay even when it's proven he's not the father.

Clearly, the bar is set only for the convenience of the woman, and according to her courage, or lack thereof, to face up to the consequences of her choices.
Consequences can be very harsh, extremely so...and sometimes far beyond what you might think is fair. Still, actions have consequences, and we do no one any favor by trying to make it easy to ignore the responsibility that should go automatically with that choice.

From that perspective, I'm pro-choice. Choose wisely from the very beginning, specifically, when to start dating and who to date and how you act while dating. And never expect someone to save you from the consequences of those choices.

But I suppose that's too much to ask these days, in this era of Entitlements, empty Self-Esteem, Moral Irrelevency, and Rights without Responsbilities.

"Abortion advocates encourage that choice at a time when a woman is feeling scared, confused, and probably vulnerable to suggestion."

What's worse and rarely ever spoken about is that, during this period of feeling scared, confused, and probably vulnerable to suggestion, the choice at the root of "pro-choice" is often presented by family and boy-friend of "the chooser" as not only the "right thing" to do but as the only possible choice. Some choice.
Under this scenario, the boy-friend has no responsibility and/or the family wants no responsibility. The woman would appear to have needed something akin to a "Miranda warning" prior to engaging in sexual activity, when a "proper choice" could have been made.

"To outlaw abortion, we would also need to change the direction of society to stop encouraging sex in our teens."

Changing the direction of our society to stop encouraging teens to be children would go a long way. The real problem is that leaving children in posession of working reproductive organs is a really bad idea, and the solution is to make them into mature, responsible adults with marketable skills before they can get themselves into trouble.

"We would need change attitudes about it being the fault of or a black mark on the girl who gets pregnant. We would need to increase the support to girls who became pregnant."

Why? We've already got a system where people are lined up around the block to take your baby off your hands at birth, as long as you don't dilly-dally and wait till the kid's a toddler or older before you decide you don't want him. And I think they'll cover all your bills connected with the pregnancy and birth while they're at it? What more support could be needed?

"We would need to institute the death penalty for r*pe."

That should solve that problem in a hurry - no r*pist in his right mind would leave his victim and only witness alive, so there won't be a pregnancy to worry about.

"We would need to stop taking a woman's word for who the father is and start relying on science to make that determination."

How would that affect things?

Ken,
You seem to think there is something different about kids than they were, say, 50 years ago. Got any support for that?

If we actually use paternity tests to determine who pays child support, rather than just the mother's say-so, that would be a step toward establishing a father's rights and responsiblities to the child. Right now, it's all squarely and completely on the mother...including who she thinks/wishes the father is. This doesn't encourage rational, mature consideration of the child's life, in my opinion.

If we actually use paternity tests to determine who pays child support, rather than just the mother's say-so, that would be a step toward establishing a father's rights and responsiblities to the child. Right now, it's all squarely and completely on the mother...including who she thinks/wishes the father is. This doesn't encourage rational, mature consideration of the child's life, in my opinion.

Umm.. we already do. If either the father or the mother wish to prove/disprove paternity, it can be done. Are you advocating the goverment forcing paternitiy tests for every child born? I would take great issue with that level of goverment invasion of privacy.

Actually, it's not so simple. In some states, if the mother stipulates that a man is the father, he has to appear in court within a specific time period to dispute her claim. If he doesn't, he's considered the father by default. Even if he hadn't been informed of the court date/deadline. Then it's nearly impossible to get a court to overturn that, even with a paternity test.
Alternatively, if you don't ask for a paternity test within the first few months of the baby's life, then most courts say you've been acting as the father, and so you are now bound for financial obligation until the child reaches adulthood, regardless of the actual paternity.

All of which feeds the culture of marginalizing the father's wishes or responsibility. It also strengthens the hypocrisy that a woman cannot be forced to have a baby she doesn't want, but a man can be forced to be financial responsible for a child he explicitly tried to avoid having, just because that's what the woman wants.

Again, pro-choice advocates are just plain wrong. You cannot coherently hold your position without encountering all these other logical inconsistencies. Apparently, many pro-choice advocates are simply unaware of the actual laws regarding responsibility for children in the various states...but as they say, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

I know none of you will see or accept that. I can live with it.

Again, pro-choice advocates are just plain wrong. You cannot coherently hold your position without encountering all these other logical inconsistencies.

Whaa?

You lost me.

I am pro-choice. I disagree with abortion. However, I feel that everyone should be given the right to choose. Their choice. Not mine. Please point out the "logical inconsistencies" with that.

Re-read the article. See the results of your advocacy. You can lead a horse to water...

tsykoduk
Would you buy the choice of the father not to support a child he did not want to have, or to force the mother to have an abortion if that was his choice?

If we consistently applied the principle of "Can't do the time, don't do the crime" to everyone having extra-marital sex, instead of applying it only to males, I'd be much happier.

Right along with that, we've got to stop having Planned Parenthood pushing condoms as a panacea (creating a demand for their services, no?). We also need to start an education campaign against extra-marital sex just like we did against drugs. Unwanted pregnancies and STDs cause more death and more problems and cost society far more than illegal drug use, so why not?
Why not some plain talk:
"No birth control method is ever 100%, even if used correctly. If you are having sex, chances are you will get pregnant. Assume that you will and act accordingly, and you'll be better off."
"Only condoms prevent STDs at all, and even then the effectiveness isn't that good. If you have sex 5 times with someone with STDs, the chances are nearly 100% you will get it. Assume that you will and act accordingly. The choice is yours."

That's just a start. We could also point out the number of women who encounter depression from abortion. The number of men who make an 18-year-old financial commitment because they can't keep things in hand, so to speak...[grin]

With such information being disseminated, the demand for abortions-on-demand should drop dramatically. STDs should also drop significantly.

And note: not a single moral/religious judgment in any of that. Just common sense. The stuff abortion advocates don't want you to hear, it seems.