Eugenics drives many abortion defenders
Kathryn Gray’s online letter of May 15, simply headlined “Abortion,” illustrates the thinking of many abortion champions. Gray wrote that unless you have experienced an unwanted pregnancy, adopted or fostered a child, you are not entitled to an opinion on abortion.
If we ignore Gray’s bizarre notion of how the franchise should be limited in a democracy, we are left with her argument that abortion is necessary as birth control.
Gray’s logic argues that a healthy mother has the right to abort a healthy fetus simply if the mother thinks that the child’s life would be a burden or, in other words, would be an unwanted life.
Gray’s position hearkens back to the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, who reasoned that society would be stronger if the surplus population of the unfit or unwanted were weeded out prior to birth.
A small percentage of the 800,000 or so abortions that occur in the United States annually are related to health concerns. And yet many proponents argue for abortion not as birth control but for health. This is a diversion that is used to confuse the question.
Gray’s letter is helpful in that it brushes away the rationale of health and reveals the unvarnished motive that truly animates the abortion industry — eugenics. Apparently that is true even in the Barbara Davis Center at Children’s Hospital with whom Gray made a point of identifying herself.
James Jones, Littleton
Wrong again Jim Jones. Ms. Grey's letter was directed at folks like you who want to control other peoples lives but don't want the attendant responsibilities. Why don't you adopt ten or twelve snowflake babies so you can show us all what a wonderful compassionate war loving person you are. Lead the way Jim Jones or are you just another war loving fraud who only believes in justified killing based on your safe at home priorities.
Posted by Wes on May 30, 2007 07:04 AMThere was nothing in Grays letter that even suggested eugenics and your letters are nothing but imflammatory rheortic. Given the difference between the two, I would weigh the opinions of those who had an unwanted pregnancy or needed to comtemplate have abortion over you who just moralizes without becoming involved in their lives.
A better solution is to go to those woman and encourage them to choose life by letting them know they'll be supported during and after the pregnancy. Taking care of a child alone and unsupported is very hard on a woman.
Posted by D on May 30, 2007 07:25 AMThis guy drank too much kool-aid.
Posted by just sayin' on May 30, 2007 07:25 AMI am strongly against abortion especially as a way as birth control. And according to Ms. Grey's letter I have a right to protest or have an opinion. I raised two unwanted children and adopted another. And I always informed my adopted daughter that she should love her birth mother as SHE loved her enough to allow her to live in this age of abortion. All 4 of my children are themselves considering adopting children, one has adopted 2 children along with the 4 she already gave birth too, and another is in the process of adoption. Abortion is nothing but the selfishness of the individual seeking one.
Posted by Joan on May 30, 2007 07:28 AMI agree with James Jones that having an abortion because the mother has changed her mind about having a baby and decided that a baby would be too expensive or too much of an inconvenience is bad and something we should strongly discourage. But I don't think it is something that we can fully regulate by law. I might favor a law which banned abortions during the third trimester except in cases of rape and in cases in which an abortion would be of significant benefit tot the health of the mother. And I certainly would favor a campaign to discourage abortions. But I think in general that what we need is a societal attitude that looks down on abortions of convenience, rather than a law which seeks to regulate people's morals or spiritual beliefs.
In fact, the polls seem to show this societal attitude already. Most people don't like abortions and would like to see the number of them reduced. But the battle of the extremists has taken center stage and tended to eclipse the feelings of the majority.
The extremists have created the impression that one should be either pro-abortion, that is, in favor of all abortions, or pro-life, that is, against all abortions. They tend to approach the issue as though there is simply no middle ground. I am no more pro-abortion than I am pro-war. I no more think that there is never a justification for abortion than I think there is never a justification for war. And I think I am at the same place as most Americans.
In sense, it is not abortion that is the problem but extremism. Extremism tends to exclude any compromise, and when you have large bodies of people with disparate views of an important issue, compromise is almost always necessary to resolve the issue. One need not forgo one's principals to seek compromise. Rather, a person can stick to his principals about abortion and still recognize that he may not be able to make his principals the law of the land. I don't think a person is justified in saying that because he thinks certain behavior is a sin it should also be against the law. Or that because he thinks certain behavior is not a sin the law should always allow it.
I think it is fair game for the "pro-life" element to argue that allowing abortions is not good for the country, and for the "pro-abortion" element to argue that outlawing abortions is not good for the country. But that is different from arguing that my morals should also be your morals. And it is likely to permit of a more civil discussion of the issue in which compromise might be available. It might allow the big marjority of Americans to have their voice heard.
D,
Of course a healthy mother aborting a healthy fetus suggests eugenics. In fact it suggests nothing else.
The difference between us is that you want to encourage the mother to allow her young to live and I want to forbid her killing them.
People of the more accommodating perspective will have to learn to accept some of the more distateful terms (i.e., eugenics) of the abortion industry to continue championing abortion at any time for any reason.
That's not because these unpleasant terms are inaccurate but just the opposite - they are precisely accurate.
D,
Of course a healthy mother aborting a healthy fetus suggests eugenics. In fact it suggests nothing else.
The difference between us is that you want to encourage the mother to allow her young to live and I want to forbid her killing them.
People of the more accommodating perspective will have to learn to accept some of the more distateful terms (i.e., eugenics) of the abortion industry to continue championing abortion at any time for any reason.
That's because these unpleasant terms precisely describe the reality that is abortion.
Joan,
Thank you for reminding us of the value of the ittle ones. They too often get lost in this debate.
The Germans have a saying, "You cannot raise an orphan" meaning that when you bring a child into your home it is completely and wholly your child - nothing less.
Posted by James Jones on May 30, 2007 08:40 AMTruth,
We should decide these questions legislatively not in the courts. Roe prevents that from happening.
Posted by James Jones on May 30, 2007 08:44 AMTruth,
Excellent presentation, sir. Unfortunately, however, this is a subject where reason, judgment, and discussion are nearly impossible today.
The anti-abortion fanatics - such as the writer of the original letter - make wild assertions, and even wilder comparisons, to distort the meaning of even the most reasonable of arguments for a woman's right to choose, in order to enhance the premises of their own propaganda; the "eugenics" motif being just one of the false-faces put on for the purpose of hiding their own basic, and base, motives.
And in the end, it always boils down to an assertion of "moral superiority" in some way; a "moral superiority" founded upon, and existent in, only the imagination of the over-inflated ego of the one claiming it.
In fact, they do not want "the big majority of Americans to have their voice heard". Were that to happen, the "moral" stance of the anti-abortionists would be shown up for what it is. And their fanaticism would be relegated to its proper place, among the rest of the fringes and failures who want, desperately, to make over society into their own pitifully warped and twisted image and likeness.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 30, 2007 09:06 AMThank the Goddess for Roe.
God aborts over 50& of all pregnancies, is that Her form of eugenics?
Most 16 year old girls don`t even know what the word means. But they know what a pregnancy means to their lives.
To compare a woman's right to prevent government intrusion into her own reproductive system to the Social Darwinism that was championed by the Nazis is a new low, even from the far right. And how does "a healthy mother aborting a healthy fetus" suggest eugenics? Eugenics focused on the promotion of life for the healthy at the expense of those considered "weak" and "sickly" both mentally and physically. How does this square with aborting a "healthy fetus?"
I suggest you research your theory a little better before making ignorant proclamations. And I would suggest that people like James Jones are less concerned with the "unborn" than they are with exerting social control over women, which gives them a feeling of power.
Posted by drew on May 30, 2007 09:14 AMNone of us has ever been shot and killed, so we can't have opinions on murder. I've never played major-league baseball, so my opinion on the Rockies is invalid. And I've never been president, so I'll withhold my vote next time.
The assertion is just as silly in a matter of debate such as abortion.
Posted by prima facie on May 30, 2007 09:35 AMAll power and control of women. Using the poor unborn to justify their opinion.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 30, 2007 09:57 AMI have not researched the matter, but just from my general knowledge my impression is that some people have a profound mental or perhaps physical defect that is inheritable and maybe the same is true for disease. Discouraging such a person from having children is eugenics. Desirable and understandable eugenics. I expect there are a number of people who practice eugenics, that is, decide not to have children because of probably bad consequences of doing so. And in the case of incest, the marriage of brother and sister, eugenics is prescribed by law. Desirable and understandable eugenics.
The point is that not all eugenics is bad, just as not abortions are bad. The inclination to attack a word rather than a particular practice of it should be avoided.
I wish that people such as James Jones would devote their energy to creating a society in which unwanted children, or children with serious mental or physical defects, were well cared for, and in which the parents of such children were well cared for. That would require more than letter writing, more than protests. Accepting some of the burden would be much better than simply complaining about people who refuse to accept the burden. To me, that would be the Christian thing to do.
Posted by Truth on May 30, 2007 10:03 AMNot in possession of a womb and unable to rent one let alone buy one: See y'all June 2 and I'll park your bike.
Posted by Richard Grimes: Deicide: Risen Ape managing a cemetary called Mythology r22037@yahoo.com on May 30, 2007 10:13 AMJames, your letter and posts here are nothing but cheap theatrics.
You are conflating “children” and “embryos” again, and then putting on an emotional show about “little ones”.
No reasoned discussion can follow from this.
You may have an ideological commitment that requires you to see fertilization as marking the start of personhood, but many other people do not share this commitment.
Your concern over eugenics is also a bit thin.
Are you saying that many of these abortions are being carried out due to the fetus having the “wrong” eye-color, or features, or … ?
If the abortion is as you say, a system of contraception and a matter of frivolous convenience, then eugenics wouldn’t enter into the picture, no?
Maybe I can shed some light on the whole 'eugenics' vs 'abortion of convenience' debate.
I have Type 1 Diabetes, have had it since I was 10, and nearly died from it before I was hospitalized. I inherited the condition from my father, who also suffers from it. This disease have been a heavy burden, moreso because of the ignorace about Type 1 diabetes amoung empoyers, educators, and the general public and what living with it entails. Every day is a battle to try to balance food, medication, multiple shots, blood testing and exercise and it's rare that I can be the 'perfect diabetic' everyone seems to expect me to be. I don't know what hurts worse, the disease itsels or the attitude I get from those who don't suffer from it about how 'this is my fault for eating too much sugar'. this is an immunological disease, not the more common Type 2 diabetes and there is NOTHING a Type 1 can or could have done to prevent it manifesting. The hypoglycaemic lows that I suffer from are terrifying - I cannot get into a car and drive unless i have tested my blood sugar first. The complications that accompany living with this disease for over 20 years have begun to show up, despite my best efforts. The insulin that keeps me alive also has some nasty side effects when it comes to my heart, my arteries and my ability to function the way society expects me to. There is no real cure in sight, despite the nes headlines.
I made a decision long ago, when I was about 12, that I would never let a child of mine suffer the way I do. Even though the docotrs sya that there is a chance that I might not pass on this disease to a child, I will not take the chance that I would infict this on some innocent child. I use birth control religiously. However, if the two methods I use should fail, I am prepared to abort. For those of you screaming 'eugenics', I ask you:
Are you willing to pay for the medicine and medical care that will keep both I and the child alive until birth and the expense of a pump and continual monitoring? Will you pay for thie inevitable increase in my insurance bill, at a time when it is nealry impossible for a Type 1 Diabetic to obtain insurance of any kind? I would have to quit my job if I had a child, in order to take care of it and would thus lose the work provided insurance that keeps me alive. I've had no pay raise in a long time and yet the money that I am paying toward my medical care continues to eat away at my pay. Are those who are against abortion willing to shell out money for me to keep a high-risk pregnancy going and are they willing to supplement my income for 18 years so that raise a sick child while I am ill myself? I don't think so, since the same people who are so vocal about being anti-abortion are also vocal about not wanting to pay taxes or to expand Medicare.
When a diabetic child grows up, they face a reduced future, due to the expense their disease incurs for both themselves and their employers. It is perfectly legal to fire us because we 'cost too much'. Why the hell would I want to bring any child into the world knowing the environment they will face as a Type 1 diabetic? While there are programs to help children with this, there is almost nothing for them when they grow to adulthood. why would I wnat to inflict such a fate on my child?
Unless you live with this nightmare on a daily basis, or something similar, you have no business crticizing a difficult decision based on knowlege gleaned from a lifetime of deailng with our healthcare system (or lack of one) and a potentially deadly chronic condition. I am hoping, that because I have chosen not to bring any children into this world, that this disease's hold on my family will die with me. If that has to involve abortion, so be it.
Posted by CJ on May 30, 2007 10:34 AMOf course James Jones is against eugenics--even primitive animals are concerned for their own survival and take threats to their simple existence seriously.
But he does run a mean discussion board doesn't he? Look at him, directing questions, answering people and whatnot. I bet he made a really good hall-monitor too!
Posted by shaupeen on May 30, 2007 11:08 AMI stopped reading the comments from everyone else, because this is something that I think a reasonable compromise can indeed be worked out.
Here would be my "platform" on abortion:
I think abortion is not a good thing, but the means for a safe abortion is necessary. I would propose these limits:
Basically it is a 3 strikes and you are out rule. The first abortion is no questions asked. The second, would come with a caveat, that if you do indeed have a third, your reproductive rights will be hindered for 2 years. After the third abortion, within 5 years, you loose your reproductive rights by either having a depo provera shot, or a reversible tubaligation for 2 years. Should you not follow through with this procedure, a full histerectomy will be performed.
Obviously, this would only apply when abortion is used as a form of birth control and not when the health or safety of the mother is at risk, or in the cases or rape or incest. With the ruling of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, the "right" to an abortion has been granted, but as we see restrictions on abused rights, so should we see restrictions on abused reproductive rights.
I am sure that I will get slammed by the Christian right, because abortion is murder, as well as by the nazi women's groups who feel there should never be any limits on anything women do, but, this is a reasoned compromise that would take into account mistakes, but still have consequences if we don't learn from those mistakes.
I understand that this is a fairly radical idea, but I feel at least, a good compromise. We can't, as a society, say that it is ok to continue to allow for abortion after abortion, and we also, as a responsible society, must understand that while it may be terrible, and horrible, abortions are an unfortunate necessity in this world. Thoughts?
My stance, just like that of another person posting comments on this topic a week or so ago, is that life begins at conception; just as water is created the moment hydrogen meets oxygen. Why would human life be any different?
Mr. Jones, keep up the good work. People on this site love to kill the messenger. Many fail to recognize that most of our laws are based upon moral values.
A strange paradox is that most pro-abortion people are anti-capital punishment. They see killing a convicted murderer as immoral, but see no problem with killing an innocent little kid. And it is true that the vast majority of abortions involve perfectly healthy babies and perfectly healthy mothers. But, hey, what the heck, right?
Then there are the ones who try using the weak argument that God aborts 50% of all pregnancies. Where Sharon B. gets that statistic is anybody’s wild guess. She has been asked about it on this site on this very subject before, but I have yet to see her answer. I think she just pulled out of her…well I’ll keep it clean.
Ok, I read the rest of the comments to see everyone else's opinion on this.
I can say, because we are not expecting our first child, that I was unbelievably excited when I saw the heart-beat at 7 weeks. That is amazing. It really is. It totally changed my world.
But that is just me. I can not judge others on when they feel that life starts, just as I would hope no one would judge me for being excited to see my son or daughter growing, heart beating, arms and legs forming... The experience, I would imagine, is different for everyone, based on where they are in life.
Such a hard topic, because no matter what, the experience of being pregnant is different for EVERYONE, and NO ONE is able to feel the way anyone else does about their specific pregnancy.
Oops, should have previewed. It should read:
because we ARE NOW EXPECTING, not "not expecting" Stupid fingers...
Posted by Dan2 on May 30, 2007 11:38 AMAbortions are caused by unwanted pregnancies. In this day and age there is no reason to have an unwanted pregnancy. Mr Jones, is it safe to assume that you support sex education and the ready availability of birth control?
Posted by Obvious on May 30, 2007 12:48 PMPat, your lack of insight should not be the determinant of other people’s freedom.
Just because you think that it makes sense that conception marks the event of personhood does not mean that this position is either right nor that it even makes sense to other people.
You choose to invest emotive terms like “little kid” in an embryo, but I happen to view things very differently.
For one, I find your view to be misguided, simplistic, and frankly, just downright childish. I acknowledge that you may feel this earnestly, and that you wish to live your life according to this view, but it holds no water (sic) for me, and the view and your analogy are complete nonsense from where I stand.
To me it is obvious that there is no personhood in an embryo, and that personhood is a nascent process that can only be declared once there is a functioning nervous system with a brain capable of at least rudimentary cognition. Why you don’t understand this is to my mind only explicable as ignorance or a specific set of religious beliefs.
I choose to let you believe what you will, but you seem intent on denying me the same courtesy. If you think abortion of an embryo is murder, fine, don’t have an abortion then.
If you want to discuss personhood and try to understand why I pick a different point in gestation to you, then I am happy to discuss it.
Jim Jones pulls the shopworn eugenics card from his sleeve.
Eugenics is a theory of improving hereditary qualities by socially controlling human reproduction. Clearly a healthy mom aborting a normal pregnancy is no such thing. Eugenicists, including the Nazis, were opposed to the use of contraception or abortion by healthy and "fit" women. In fact, Sanger's books were among the very first burned by the Nazis in their campaign against family planning
Sanger, however, clearly identified with the broader issues of health and fitness that concerned the early 20th-century eugenics movement, which was enormously popular and well-respected during the 1920s and '30s — decades in which treatments for many hereditary and disabling conditions were unknown. But Sanger always believed that reproductive decisions should be made on an individual and not a social or cultural basis, and she consistently and firmly repudiated any racial application of eugenics principles. For example, Sanger vocally opposed the racial stereotyping that affected passage of the Immigration Act of 1924, on the grounds that intelligence and other inherited traits vary by individual and not by group
Sanger:
“Eugenists imply or insist that a woman's first duty is to the state; we contend that her duty to herself is her first duty to the state. We maintain that a woman possessing an adequate knowledge of her reproductive functions is the best judge of the time and conditions under which her child should be brought into the world. We further maintain that it is her right, regardless of all other considerations, to determine whether she shall bear children or not, and how many children she shall bear if she chooses to become a mother. . . .”
Nevertheless, anti-family planning activists continue to attack Sanger, who has been dead for nearly 40 years, because she is an easier target than the unassailable reputation of the contemporary family planning movement. However, attempts to discredit the family planning movement because its early 20th-century founder was not a perfect model of early 21st-century values is like disavowing the Declaration of Independence, which Jimmy is so fond of quoting, because its author, Thomas Jefferson, bought and sold slaves.
“We should decide these questions legislatively not in the courts. Roe prevents that from happening.”
Posted by James Jones on May 30, 2007 08:44 AM
Why?
Civil rights are not subject to popular vote.
Should the question of civil rights have been decided legislatively in 1956 Mississippi? The right to a lunch counter or a bus seat is certainly weaker than the right to control one’s own reproduction, no?
Or do you deny women have such a right?
In 1966, the year Sanger died, the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. said
There is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger's early efforts. . . . Our sure beginning in the struggle for equality by nonviolent direct action may not have been so resolute without the tradition established by Margaret Sanger and people like her (King, 1966).
CJ makes a great point about eugenics regarding Insulin dependant Diabetes.
Until pharmacologic Insulin was produced in 1922, almost half of pregnant diabetics died of medical complications of pregnancy, and fetal wastage was even greater. (Reece “Medicine of the Fetus and Mother”)
So Jimmy, either evolution is real or your god is a practicing eugenicist.
“Then there are the ones who try using the weak argument that God aborts 50% of all pregnancies. Where Sharon B. gets that statistic is anybody’s wild guess. She has been asked about it on this site on this very subject before, but I have yet to see her answer. I think she just pulled out of her…well I’ll keep it clean.”
Posted by Pat on May 30, 2007 11:28 AM
Pat, you leave Sharon B’s A$$ out of this because you’re the guilty party. 50% is low:
“…the rate of human pregnancy loss is probably much higher; it has been estimated by Leridon to be as high as 70%. Therefore the process of human reproduction is inefficient. However because most early pregnancy losses are the result of chromosomal or genetic abnormalities, the high frequency of (spontaneous) abortion, as stated by Austin, is “an important and valuable provision of Nature…and…is in the best interest of the race,” because “disadvantageous features from gene mutation are prevented from being incorporated into the overall hereditary pattern.” (Mishell et al Comprehensive Gynecology 3rd Ed. p.404)
So again, evolution or a eugenicict god is at work.
“I can say, because we are expecting our first child, that I was unbelievably excited when I saw the heart-beat at 7 weeks. That is amazing. It really is. It totally changed my world.
But that is just me. I can not judge others on when they feel that life starts, just as I would hope no one would judge me for being excited to see my son or daughter growing, heart beating, arms and legs forming... The experience, I would imagine, is different for everyone, based on where they are in life.
Such a hard topic, because no matter what, the experience of being pregnant is different for EVERYONE, and NO ONE is able to feel the way anyone else does about their specific pregnancy. “
Posted by Dan2 on May 30, 2007 11:36 AM
Well put Dan. Congratulations, and best wishes for a healthy pregnancy and delivery.
If I may use you as a horrible example for the pro-birth crowd, if your partner was mortally wounded in a car accident, no-one would think to do an emergency cesarean to save a seven week fetus. Things change as pregnancy progresses, and the calculus of Roe in which the relative rights of woman and fetus change by trimester is eminently reasonable.
“Abortions are caused by unwanted pregnancies. In this day and age there is no reason to have an unwanted pregnancy. Mr Jones, is it safe to assume that you support sex education and the ready availability of birth control?”
Posted by Obvious on May 30, 2007 12:48 PM
Sorry Obvious, but you’re late to the game on this one.
Jimmy has previously declared himself opposed to anything but Abstinence Only education. Not because it reduces rates of pregnancy or sexual activity (it doesn’t); But because it teaches people to strive for an “ideal” behaviour.
He’s more interested in saving souls for the afterlife than reducing suffering caused by unwanted pregnancies here in the real world.
All people should be provided the education, information and services they need to make responsible informed decisions about their own personal private medical choices.
Obvious,
Good point. isn't it funny how the right - who are forever getting all teary about the 'unborn" are the same ones who want to cut funding for women's health clinics, family planning, contraceptive education and the like. To them, giving hormone-riddled teens solely "abstinence - only" sex education is great - and when these misinformed and under-educated teenagers have out of wedlock kids, the righties are the first ones to point fingers and lay blame. And, of course they have great compassion for the out of wedlock fetuses, but they really don't show any compassion for these unfortunate women and their REAL CHILDREN
I remember our "compassionate conservative" president's first act in office was to deny funding for family planning & contraception to poor women in the third world. What a guy.
Posted by drew on May 30, 2007 03:31 PMBango Skank,
Pat's argument is simple but not simplistic. In order to present a simple argument you have to a comprehensive understanding of the topic. I hope that clears up the distinction.
In re personhood: you told me previously that personhood is established when the fetus is able to demonstrate a cognitive response which we agreed is typically around 6 months. You told me that once that anatomical level is attained to demonstrate a response, that you are opposed to the abortion of a healthy fetus by a healthy mother.
You do not however offer any support for your statement that it is obvious that there is no personhood in an embryo.
We know that the nervous sytem is physically present in the embryo - it is genetically encrypted. You ignore that fact and take the arbitrary position that the personhood becomes endowed when the fetus can, for instance, respond to sound.
Therefore, a gentically encrypted nervous system does not endow personhood but, the ability to respond to sound does.
You have informed Pat that her inability to "understand this is to my mind only explicable as ignorance or a specific set of religious beliefs."
That statement is quite odd since Pat is clearly not ignorant (she's penned a clear, logical post and agrees with me)and has offered no religious argument. The simple fact is that your postion is arbitrary. You have offered no moral or scientific basis for your "beliefs" other the to tell us it is so because Bango Skank says it is so.
We're looking for something more persuasive.
Posted by James Jones on May 30, 2007 03:33 PMHey Bango, don't pretend to know where my beliefs come from, okay. I am about as non-religious as one can be. Even if my beliefs did come as a result of a religious background, what would make my opinion less valid than yours?
And really all I did was express my personal opinion. I didn’t direct anybody to reduce their freedoms. What I am doing is just trying to make someone think. Maybe that hurts your brain and it made you angry with me.
Many abortions are performed long after the nervous system is fully functional. Many abortions are performed long after the fetus has begun showing signs of cognitive thought, such as smiling, dreaming, recognizing voices, etc.
You choose to use the term “embryo” because it dehumanized the very subject of the topic. If we don’t use the term “little kid” it makes it sound less like a life we are talking about. It makes it sound like we are talking about some inanimate object, like a table or a shoe or something. It’s a heck of a lot easier to keep emotion out of it that way, huh?
“I choose to let you believe what you will…” Wow! Thanks. That’s so big of you. I owe you big time! I never said you cannot believe any silly notion you want to believe.
What is interesting is how you lack the ability to simply discuss the issue without personal attacks. I don’t mean simply making comments against mine; I mean personal attacks. Now that really is childish. And from all the other posts I have seen of yours, it is a tactic completely typical of you. I guess it makes you feel like you really told me off a good one and that I’ll go away with my tail between my legs.
What makes your position any less ignorant than mine? Because it’s different? Or, are you the subject-matter expert here? Are you THE one with all the insight? I think you are far more impressed with yourself and your opinion than other people are.
Posted by Pat on May 30, 2007 03:33 PMHey Bango, don't pretend to know where my beliefs come from, okay. I am about as non-religious as one can be. Even if my beliefs did come as a result of a religious background, what would make my opinion less valid than yours?
And really all I did was express my personal opinion. I didn’t direct anybody to reduce their freedoms. What I am doing is just trying to make someone think. Maybe that hurts your brain and it made you angry with me.
Many abortions are performed long after the nervous system is fully functional. Many abortions are performed long after the fetus has begun showing signs of cognitive thought, such as smiling, dreaming, recognizing voices, etc.
You choose to use the term “embryo” because it dehumanized the very subject of the topic. If we don’t use the term “little kid” it makes it sound less like a life we are talking about. It makes it sound like we are talking about some inanimate object, like a table or a shoe or something. It’s a heck of a lot easier to keep emotion out of it that way, huh?
“I choose to let you believe what you will…” Wow! Thanks. That’s so big of you. I owe you big time! I never said you cannot believe any silly notion you want to believe.
What is interesting is how you lack the ability to simply discuss the issue without personal attacks. I don’t mean simply making comments against mine; I mean personal attacks. Now that really is childish. And from all the other posts I have seen of yours, it is a tactic completely typical of you. I guess it makes you feel like you really told me off a good one and that I’ll go away with my tail between my legs.
What makes your position any less ignorant than mine? Because it’s different? Or, are you the subject-matter expert here? Are you THE one with all the insight? I think you are far more impressed with yourself and your opinion than other people are.
Posted by Pat on May 30, 2007 03:40 PMQueen Gorgo,
Where do you get a statistic that shows 50% is low?
Posted by Pat on May 30, 2007 03:44 PMJimmy clearly doesn't like Roe, but the Queen shows how the SCOTUS got it right.
Nervous systems and reaction to the outside world aren't valid criteria for personhood that guarantee a right to life supreme to a woman's right to reproductive self determination.
Viability is.
Until then a fetus is fully dependant upon the woman for survival. It is a potential life with rights subservient to hers.
Posted by Yo Mamma on May 30, 2007 03:46 PMPat, did you miss the next paragraph and citation of a standard reference text?
“…the rate of human pregnancy loss is probably much higher; it has been estimated by Leridon to be as high as 70%. Therefore the process of human reproduction is inefficient. However because most early pregnancy losses are the result of chromosomal or genetic abnormalities, the high frequency of (spontaneous) abortion, as stated by Austin, is “an important and valuable provision of Nature…and…is in the best interest of the race,” because “disadvantageous features from gene mutation are prevented from being incorporated into the overall hereditary pattern.” (Mishell et al Comprehensive Gynecology 3rd Ed. p.404)
Posted by Queen Gorgo (For only Spartan Women Give Birth to Real Men!) on May 30, 2007 02:50 PM
Posted by Queen Gorgo (For only Spartan Women Give Birth to Real Men!) on May 30, 2007 04:00 PMYo Mamma
When you say that the rights of the fetus are subservient that means that the fetus has no right ot life.
According to your approach a viable fetus is a person entitled to the protection of society and abortion by a healthy mother of a healthy fetus should be sancationed. That is not the case under Roe.
What is the moral or scientifc basis (as opposed to the Roe decision) for your claim that rights are endowed at viability?
Posted by James Jones on May 30, 2007 04:15 PMQueen Gorgo,
If Roe were overturned, what would be the legal statusof abortion in Colorado?
Posted by James Jones on May 30, 2007 04:17 PMJames said ” Pat's argument is simple but not simplistic.”
James, I really do understand the difference, and no, Pat’s argument is simplistic.
Oxygen + Hydrogen = water is bad enough, but then to think that the same can be said that Conception = “little kid” goes so far beyond simplistic as to be more like underhanded.
” You do not however offer any support for your statement that it is obvious that there is no personhood in an embryo.”
True, as I said, it’s obvious. If there is no neurosystem in place and active there can be no personhood. There is simply no medical reason for thinking that an embryo is a person.
Pat may prefer a religious or metaphysical underpinning, but then that’s a matter of personal belief operating outside of any scientific framework.
” We know that the nervous sytem is physically present in the embryo - it is genetically encrypted.”
Nonsense on stilts, James. If every encrypted sequence in your own genes had been actualized you would be a great heap of deformed tissue and also be unable to live.
Encrypted code does not equal actual phenotype. A cake recipe is not the same as a cake.
Just because there are encrypted sequences for a child doesn’t mean that a child is present.
You seem impressed with Pat’s level of knowledge, but I have not seen any evidence of that so I reserve ignorance as a viable explanation for why Pat thinks that personhood starts at conception. The only other explanation that comes to mind is a dogmatic commitment to some religious belief of some kind.
Either way, I find it rather poor grounding for the accusations and claims Pat makes.
If you can think of an alternative, I am all ears.
I will address Pat’s fanciful and petulant response in due course
Pat, the 50% or more figure is so widely accepted that I didn`t reference it. Lot like saying "since the sun rises in the East, etc"
Go to ask.com, click on spontaneous abortion and miscarage. Hit what is miscarrage and scroll down to stats.
Easy enough? JAMA has more articles then I can remember all stating that figure or higher.
Don`t like the stats? So you get nasty. Maybe it is the little kid in you.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 30, 2007 04:57 PMBango,
So Pat's "Oxygen + Hydrogen = water is bad enough" while your "A cake recipe is not the same as a cake." is rigorous science?
A cake recipe is not to a cake as a zygot is to a human being. The cake recipe is the instruction on how to make a cake. The zygot is a human being at the initial stage of developement. Pat has the superior analogy.
Look we've already been over the elementary embryology: the product of conception is a human being as opposed to, say, a wart.
The genetic code is programmed to turn the zygot not into a great heap of deformed tissue that is unable to live but into a human being. That is exactly the point.
All you have done is state a premise and then ignore contradicting data. If we're looking for a nervous system it's there, coded in the chromosomes.
But the question is not humanity but personhood. You take it upon yourself to stop the natural, pre-determined gestation process by ending the life of the fetus because, you tell us, it isn't sufficiently developed - yet.
How did you establish the threshold? That is the question and "it's obvious" is not an answer.
Pat, it’s curious that you get all bent out of shape but like to dish it out.
No matter, you may be as petulant and pout as much as you like.
Nobody said your opinions are less valid, I said that your assertions are simplistic and perhaps childish too. Your water analogy is a good example. If you think that this is a good analogy then what else do you expect but scorn?
Using that to buttress the existential claim that something without the requisite neurological structure is nonetheless a person goes beyond just simplistic and makes me wonder if you are just being dishonest.
This is like saying that somebody without a brain is nonetheless able to think.
I am eager to hear what foundation you use to propose such an obviously contrafactual thing.
Going off with your tail wherever you please to put it is fine with me, but if you plan to come back without thinking your argument through and then still taking an aggressive course, then expect a response that is less than congratulatory.
” What makes your position any less ignorant than mine? Because it’s different?”
Different is fine.
My position is less ignorant than yours because mine is well laid out, based on science, supported by evidence and study, and verifiable, whereas yours is poorly thought out, sloppily laid out, based on belief, cannot be verified, and contradictory.
I don’t think that you even believe your own story, or at least are unlikely to behave in a way coherent with it.
If you think that I have you wrong, feel free to expand on your explanation so that your supporting thought can be seen.
James, nice try but the analogy comparison was your claim as follows:
” We know that the nervous sytem is physically present in the embryo - it is genetically encrypted.”
So “encrypted” is to actualized as recipe is to cake.
Fair enough?
I reject your claim that the encoding affords the embryo personhood, if there is no functioning neurological system capable of basic cognition and sensory processing then you simply don’t have a person. Encoding cannot process sensation nor can encoding have cognition. No amount of encoding equates to qualia until that encoding is turned into actual tissue. No actual tissue, no qualia. No qualia, no person.
”How did you establish the threshold? That is the question and "it's obvious" is not an answer.”
Nice contextual control there James. You take a comment from one context and apply it in another? Not very sporting of you old bean.
The comment of "it's obvious" is made with regards an embryo not being a person.
It is pretty obvious to me James. The embryo lacks any sort of neurological apparatus to experience qualia, to process sensation, or to have cognition.
Since these are absent it is plainly obvious that no personhood exists.
You are trying to argue that if left to gestate there will probably be cognition as development produces the requisite neurological apparatus.
Sure, I agree, however the salient fact is that until that happens you do not have a person.
Bango,
So “encrypted” is to actualized as recipe is to cake.
Fair enough?
Of course it's not. A cake recipe lays inert on the counter and no cake ensues unless the baker show up to put the ingredients together and make the cake. A fetus left unattended in the womb it progresses to a child.
Maybe you should avoid analogies altogether.
You are trying to argue that if left to gestate there will probably be cognition as development produces the requisite neurological apparatus.
If you substitute inevitably for probably then we agree.
The point is not that the child is present - of course it isn't. The point is that you are intruding to work your will and contravening a natural, identifiable process that will leads to a child.
This is nothing more than your hubris of convenience absent moral justification.
But, you tell me, we only have that right until such time as the fetus demonstrates cognitive ability. Then our right to destroy vaporizes and the fetus right to life is animated.
The definition of personhood must be arbitrary. We have to decide when social protection is warranted. You have yet to offer a moral or scientific basis for your beliefs.
All you have offered is the world according to Bango and that just isn't good enough.
Posted by James Jones on May 30, 2007 06:50 PMOne thing that makes this so difficult to discuss is our hidden agendas.
I frankly admit that I resent men telling women how to handle pregnancies, wanted or unwanted. I fear that many men and some women want pregnancy as a punishment for "sinfull sex"
I see that pro-choice people actually care about families, while pro-birth people care for their own moral opinions first, and families last.
Abortion is linked woth religion for many, and yet they hesitate to say "God hates abortion" since God causes so many.
Eugenics, pesonhood etc, all good arguements where we hide our real concerns from each other.
I saw how the laws treated women, I like how things are now. I value women and girls over their unborn children.
In a perfect world each pregnancy could go to term, but we live in the real world, not a personal, religiously moral world.
Push birth control in every way if you are opposed to abortion . If you oppose abortion and won`t help birth control efforts, you are a moral midget.
And you are that "H" word.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 30, 2007 06:58 PM
James,
Analogies can only do so much, and I use them for illustration, not proof.
I am quite happy to drop the use if you feel that they are unhelpful.
” If you substitute inevitably for probably then we agree.”
I would be misrepresenting the facts of the matter if I did that since a significant proportion do not and abort spontaneously. Some even just stop developing and get reabsorbed. So unless we agree on some suitable ceteris paribus clause, I can go no further than probably. I would stretch it to “usually” but then the clause would have to set time fences to cater for the rather high failure rate early on.
” The point is that you are intruding to work your will and contravening a natural, identifiable process that will leads to a child.”
Indeed, no argument there, but then isn’t any and all medicine or any medical procedure pretty much doing this?
I freely acknowledge that abortion is intended to prevent any possible resulting child, but the emphasis is on “possible”. At the time of destruction it isn’t a child by any medical meaning of the word.
The moral justification is that no personhood has accrued at the time that the abortion is carried out and that we can know this based on what neurological structures and functions are needed for sensing, sensory processing, and cognition. So there you have both a moral and a scientific basis.
I am afraid that I find the argument that the fetus “will lead to a child” to be weak, inaccurate, and above all, irrelevant.
What basis do you offer as an alternative?
A theological basis perhaps? Maybe a soul or spirit of some kind?
” The definition of personhood must be arbitrary.”
um.. I assume you mean that my choice of what to use to mark personhood is arbitrary.
No, it is what I find intellectually and emotionally satisfying.
I can conceive of no way that personhood could accrue in any other way given the evident nature of this universe.
"Queen Gorgo,
If Roe were overturned, what would be the legal statusof abortion in Colorado?
Posted by James Jones on May 30, 2007 04:17 PM "
Jim,
Since the premise of your letter has been so clearly debunked as a logical fallacy (healthy woman/ normal pregnancy is the exact opposite of eugenics, and Sanger was not a eugenecist) you head in another direction.
How about you use the Google on the internets your computer is connected to and do your own research. The Pro Choice Colorado site would be a good place to start.
My post had a question for you which you've ignored, so why should I be answering yours?
"Should the question of civil rights have been decided legislatively in 1956 Mississippi? The right to a lunch counter or a bus seat is certainly weaker than the right to control one’s own reproduction, no?
Or do you deny women have such a right?"
I also made several assertions about your previously expressed views which you have ignored, so for the sake of argument, unless you rebut them, we can assume that you've conceded the points:
"either evolution is real or your god is a practicing eugenicist." (or both)
"Jimmy has previously declared himself opposed to anything but Abstinence Only education. Not because it reduces rates of pregnancy or sexual activity (it doesn’t); But because it teaches people to strive for an “ideal” behaviour.
He’s more interested in saving souls for the afterlife than reducing suffering caused by unwanted pregnancies here in the real world."
WIll you debate or will I continue to hear the crickets chirping?
Posted by Queen Gorgo (For only Spartan Women Give Birth to Real Men!) on May 30, 2007 09:27 PMBango Skank,
You should stay away from analogies(e.g. comparing a cake recipe to a fetus) because they don't illustrate anything useful.
Abortion has no meaning as an issue unles we are concerned with the fetus that would otherwise come to full term. The fact that the fetus may not come to full term for natural reasons contributes nothing to the question.
Unless of course you subscribe to the Sharon B school of thought that miscarriage authorizes abortion.
Medical treatments are indeed intrusive and are just to the extent they are therapeutic. It should be obvious that the medical treatment that intends to end life is a different matter. So the fact that abortion is a medical procedure does not make it, ipso facto, just.
We observe that a fetus at around six months appears to move in response to sound. Based on that physical movement you claim some undescribed, but somehow dispositive, moral and scientific basis for the dawn of personhood. In fact this is nothing more than the observation of an unexplained physical reaction to an unusual stimulus.
You repeatedly look for a theologic argument which of couse you would dismiss with even less consideration then you've given your own position. You will find no solace here.
The point of extending social protection from conception to grave is based on the first law of justice - Do no harm to the innocent. It has nothing to do with souls or spirits.
Finally you come to the truth. We expose the fetus to sound, the fetus moves and - hey presto! a person exists. And of course according to your tautologic reasoning, it simply could not be otherwise. Of course it must be, that's the definition of a tautology.
Human rights are endowed, not by the Creator as Jefferson thought, but by the evident nature of the universe as understood by the emotions and intellect of Bango Skank.
Queen Gorgo
"(healthy woman/ normal pregnancy is the exact opposite of eugenics, and Sanger was not a eugenecist)"
Yes she was.
Margaret Higgins Sanger (September 14, 1879 – September 6, 1966) was an American birth control activist, an advocate of negative eugenics, and the founder of the American Birth Control League (which eventually became Planned Parenthood.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger
"Should the question of civil rights have been decided legislatively in 1956 Mississippi?"
Yes, beginning with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We should resolve abortion with the same process.
"either evolution is real or your god is a practicing eugenicist."
Probably an interesting question for an imbecile.
"Jimmy has previously declared himself opposed to anything but Abstinence Only education"
A lie
If Roe were overturned abortin would be legal for cases involving the health, rape or incest. Which corrects one of your earlier lies.
Do enjoy the crickets. You ought to listen, they're smarter then you.
Posted by James Jones on May 30, 2007 10:47 PMEvolution is real, and uses a kind of eugenics, but also allows los of mal and mis-formed babies to be delivered.
Miscarrage does not authorize abortion.
Those of us who think God is distant and impersonal , guess we must make our own rules in llife.
Women had it pretty bad in the past, things are better now.
If birth control is the outcome of some or even many abortions, then lets work for more and earlier birth control.
Pregnancys and babys should not be used or even seen as punishment for "sinning".
Sweet JJ, I am so happy that you are no longer calling me names.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 31, 2007 03:52 AMJames,
Your opinion on the usefulness of analogy is duly noted.
” Abortion has no meaning as an issue unles we are concerned with the fetus that would otherwise come to full term.”
You are welcome to suppose that the term “has no meaning” for you under those circumstances, but your concern with what may still happen versus what is the case at the time of the abortion seems to me to be simply your personal preference.
You obviously have some kind of teleological commitment, but if I don’t agree and focus instead on the reality of the situation at the time of the abortion, then on what grounds do you object?
Just on the grounds of your emotional preference?
You avoid either claiming or denying a religious basis for your position, but what else explains it?
You have proposed no reasoning for why it is important to consider that the embryo that has no personhood should be protected because it would otherwise have personhood at some future date. I suggest that instead of weaseling about the issue, you simply state your argument and offer it for scrutiny.
” The point of extending social protection from conception to grave is based on the first law of justice - Do no harm to the innocent. It has nothing to do with souls or spirits.”
Talk about tautologies, I had to smile at this one.
“Innocence” would be a conditional based on personhood, not so?
So all you have done is assume what you claim to prove.
I am happy to abide by the rule, but since an embryo clearly has no personhood, it cannot be an “innocent” and therefore gets no protection. I imagine that you will wish to claim it has a future innocence.
I put it to you that your insistence that an embryo is a sort of protected placeholder for future personhood is just another way of saying it has a soul.
Bingo Skunk ??
I'n not certain who you are but you make interesting points that I am happy to address.
"You are welcome to suppose that the term “has no meaning” for you under those circumstances, but your concern with what may still happen versus what is the case at the time of the abortion seems to me to be simply your personal preference."
The point isn't that complicated. The argument that abortion is just because the fetus may not come to full term anyway is illogical. The frame of reference for the debate must be limited to the fetus that would otherwise come to full term or the question has no interest.
"You avoid either claiming or denying a religious basis for your position, but what else explains it?"
There is a distinction between theology (the study of God) and ethics (study of moral principles) that you routinely fail to acknowledge. I argue nothing that would offend the atheist on account of his atheism.
Talk about tautologies, I had to smile at this one.
No, that is not a tautology that is an assertion of an axiom. If you would like to challenge the axiom, as I have challenged your definition of personhood, then you should do so. Or, if you think your definition of personhood is axiomatic, then say so. But don't pretend you have performed some exhaustive ethical study and formed a conclusion based on the weight of the evidence when your reasoning is tautological.
"Innocence” would be a conditional based on personhood, not so?"
Not so. Innocence is condtioned on whether the individual is blameless. I think that personhood must be considered to begin at conception because we have no ability to establish the threshold for some point between conception or birth.
For instance, you have established a threshold based on neurological devopment. But your reasoning is tautological and therfore unsatsfying.
"I put it to you that your insistence that an embryo is a sort of protected placeholder for future personhood is just another way of saying it has a soul."
I am insisting that the embryo is entitled to social protection we would extend to any other person. A religious person might rephrase my position as you describe. The atheist would descirbe it as meeting the primary requirement of justice.
You can take your pick - I am agnostic on the selection.
James Jones: "If Roe were overturned abortion would be legal for cases involving the health, rape or incest."
Jones makes that statement without comment or criticism. Thus, he seems to approve of making the the fetus subservient to the mother in those situations. He seems to condone rather than forbid abortion in such situations. That seems to me to make the following statements of his specious and hypocritical:
"When you say that the rights of the fetus are subservient that means that the fetus has no right ot life."
"The difference between us is that you want to encourage the mother to allow her young to live and I want to forbid her killing them."
In effect, Jones tries to empower himself to say that the fetus is subservient in certain situations, and that the mother can abort in certain situations, and at the same time forbid others from making judgments on those matters which differ from his. He does not try to justify the way he thus tries to elevate his judgments about others.
On the one hand, Jones attempts to portray himself as an absolutist, against all abortion of fetuses. On the other, he admits he is not an absolutist but rather a relativist who insists that only his version of relativism is valid, but without saying why. To me, that is rank hypocrisy.
Correction: "He does not try to justify the way he thus tries to elevate his judgments about others." should read "He does not try to justify the way he thus tries to elevate his judgments above others."
Posted by Truth on May 31, 2007 09:22 AMAnti-choice people often find themselves in a quandry: is abortion always wrong, and if so why? Or is abortion only wrong sometimes, again why?
If wrong or right, moral or imoral is removed from the descussion, then what is left is: Under what circulstances should society approve of, or not make illegal, abortion.
In a secular, humanist society, the wishes of the woman would come before the unborn.
In this case, a pregnant 12 year old, whose family wanted her to abort, would have the final say, not her parents. She could not be forced to abort. She could not be forced to remain pregnant.
The number of children born to young un-wed women argues that most women want their young.
If society makes it easier to raise children when the father cuts and runs, there will be fewer abortions. Yet the middle class mother is told to stay home and raise your children, while the single or abandoned woman is told to get off welfare and work.
How to reduce abortions. (1) better birth control (2) more child support from fathers, (3) more child friendly schools and work places, (4) easier adoption for mixed-race children.
Take away the social punishments for being pregnant and abortions might just drop off considerably.
Why don`t we do these things? Because too many people want to control other peoples sexual behavior.
Imagine your a 16 year old girl who is pregnant and all your future plans must be put on hold or dropped. How tempting would a legal abortion be to you?
This is where society can step in and make a difference. Anything else is just empty talk.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 31, 2007 09:59 AMTruth,
It's not complicated.
Question: What would the legal staus of abortion be if Roe were overturned.
Answer: Abortion would be legal for reasons of health, rape or incest.
All the rest is the product of your fanciful imagination. You may very well be the most self-deluded poster on this page. And that is pretty self-deluded.
If you have any interest in what I actually think, then you might try reading some of my posts.
Posted by James Jones on May 31, 2007 10:08 AMJames Jones: "If you have any interest in what I actually think, then you might try reading some of my posts."
What a silly comment. How do you think I could copy and quote your statements without having read them first?
You might want to try that out, Jones. Your post may be a response to some post, but it is far from a reply to mine. My post pointed out the hypocrisy of your two irreconcilable positions. But I can understanding your avoiding that issue.
Posted by Truth on May 31, 2007 02:04 PMTruth,
How do you quote without reading a sentence? Easy
1. highlight the sentence
2. right click and select copy
3. scroll down to Post a Comment
4. right click and select paste.
You can't play dumb with me. I happen to know that you do it all the time.
But I don't want you to fret about me being a hypocrite so I'll give you the answer.
I am not "an absolutist, against all abortion of fetuses." Not only that, I don't know anyone who is.
Prior to Roe decision every state had provissions for abortion for, at a minimum, health concerns. The Catholic Church acknowledges that abortion is just when performed to save the life of the mother. But, (excepting of course Sharon B.) this is commonly understood.
The interesting question is how you come to understand that an "absolutist" position is held by me or for that matter anyone else among the anti-abortion crowd.
JJ, I know the Catholic churchs position, have you wasted all out time debating from that point of view?
I don`t give a rats behind for the RC position on anything.
I thought you had some ideas or opinions of your own.
And Eugenics was all you could come up with?
Posted by Sharon B. on May 31, 2007 04:29 PMSharon B,
I should have known I couldn't fool you.
Posted by James Jones on May 31, 2007 04:43 PM”Innocence is condtioned on whether the individual is blameless”
By pointing at an “individual” all you are doing is bringing personhood in through the backdoor again under a new name. You are playing a game of endless placeholders, you simply shifted from “an innocent” to “an individual” where both are placeholders for a future allocation of personhood.
Posted by Bango Skank on May 31, 2007 05:20 PMBango Skank,
Again no - I am not asserting that the fetus is a "placeholder" for a future person. I am asserting that the fetus is a person.
In my view, everyone is entitled to that dignity from conception to grave.
The fetus is innocence defined but that's not the point. Innocence is only important because we have the ability, by our actions, to forfeit the right to life; e.g. if you are attacked, you have the right to shoot the attacker to protect yourself.
Posted by James Jones on May 31, 2007 06:17 PMJames Jones, are you really that dense?
You say:
"The difference between us is that you want to encourage the mother to allow her young to live and I want to forbid her killing them."
That is an absolutist statement that does not admit of any exceptions. Forbid is an absolutist word unless it is conditioned with an exception, which is not the case here.
"When you say that the rights of the fetus are subservient that means that the fetus has no right to life."
I had the impression that it was your position that all fetuses have a right to life, which would be an absolutist position. But apparently you think that only some fetuses have a right to life. The question of when life starts becomes moot because the question then becomes, regardless of when life starts, when may it justifiably be ended.
Posted by Truth on May 31, 2007 07:11 PM
Jim,
Thanks for the insults. It’s a powerful form of argument.
Wikipedia is now considered an authoritative source?
The article you cited states “This article or section may contain inappropriate or misinterpreted citations which do not verify the text.”
Your stance on civil rights is frightening. You’re to the right of even the Scalia wing of the Supreme Court. According to your logic, Brown v. Board of Ed. was a bad decision, and those black kids in inferior schools should have waited until the majority deigned to give them equal rights. Disturbingly scary to me, and most others I would imagine.
You also continue to ignore my question whether a woman has a right to reproductive self determination.
Is there such a right, or should women’s access to birth control be subject to plebiscite as well?
This is an important question, as much of the anti-choice movement is opposed to birth control, and I imagine that in certain jurisdictions, such access might be curtailed if subject to popular vote.
‘ "Jimmy has previously declared himself opposed to anything but Abstinence Only education"
A lie’
I’d better characterize it as a mis-remembrance of a previous interaction.
I should have said: Jimmy’s been asked this question before and artfully dodged giving a direct answer, but has advocated nothing but teaching young people about abstinence. Sorry.
http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/denver/letters/2007/02/abortion_bill_a_waste.html#comments
Hey Jim,
Do you support access to birth control and sex ed, or should the little hussies just cross their legs?
Posted by on February 27, 2007 01:38 PM
Unknown 2
I would advise a young woman in the same way that I would advise a young man.
Based on sociological data we know the the top indicator of whether a child will grow up in poverty is not race or social status of the parent's family - it is the marital status of the mother. That is, children living in poverty are overwhelmingly likely to have an un-wed mother.
We also know that adults living in poverty have a similar profile. People who have children before they are married or before they have graduated from high school are overwhelmingly likely to live in poverty.
Consequently, the best advice I can give you men and women is to abstain from sex until they are out of high school, married and able to look after themselves…
Posted by Jim J on February 27, 2007 06:58 PM
Why is that the best advice? Why not tell them about birth control? Abstinence Only is not effective at reducing pregnancy or sexual activity rates, and many of the curricula contain inaccurate information.
I hope we’re all in agreement with your previously stated statistics about delaying childbearing until one is emotionally, socially and economically best able to. So I’ll once again pose the question asked by Obvious:
Do you support sex education and access to birth control as a means to allow people to avoid childbearing until they’re ready?
Queen Gorgo,
You must be my biggest fan.
Apparently you have learned that Sanger was indeed an advocate of eugenics even though you can't quite bring yourself to acknowledge your error.
Apparently you also accept that abortion would not be illegal in Colorado if Roe were overturned.
I call that progress.
Your claim that I think Brown was wrongly decided is hopelessly irrational. As is your claim that I am opposed to sex education.
I don't place as high a value on sex eductation and so on as you do because I think that young people currently have a pretty good idea where babies come from and the options that are available to prevent pregnancy. In fact, I think it would be next to impossible to remain ignorant of these facts in today's culture.
On the other hand there is clear, sociological data which I adduced (and I appreciate your replaying in full) that indicates exactly the source of the problems.
So I advise that instead of relying on demonstrations of how to put a condom on a cucumber, we also instruct the youth about the pitfalls of , for instance, becoming impregnated prior to high school graduation.
Simply put, the condomn adorned cucumber just isn't getting the job done. Since the status quo is not working, how trying about moral instruction ?
Posted by James Jones on May 31, 2007 08:41 PMWhatever.
You said civil rights in the Jim Crow south should have been subject to plebiscite, not judicial review. Stretching that to Brown is hardly "hopelessly irrational."
I also removed my claim that you are opposed to Sex education, since you usually just avoid the question, but you still keep falsely accusing me of saying things I didn't say.
You continue to ignore a direct question.
Do women have a right to reproductive self determination?
You also failed to answer a direct question with a yes or no answer.
"I don't place as high a value on sex eductation and so on as you do because I think that young people currently have a pretty good idea where babies come from and the options that are available to prevent pregnancy. In fact, I think it would be next to impossible to remain ignorant of these facts in today's culture. "
I think you're quite wrong on this one, as I actually work with pregnant teens.
All people should be provided the education, information and services they need to make responsible informed decisions about their own personal private medical choices.
Bye.
Posted by Queen Gorgo (For only Spartan Women Give Birth to Real Men!) on May 31, 2007 08:54 PMQueen Gorgo,
I see now. You thought that the Jim Crow laws were nullified by the Brown decision. That's not true. Brown struck down one aspect of Crow (separate but equal) but the body of the laws remained in place until the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That Act was passed by the US Congress: it was not subject to a plebiscite.
I just pointed out the history of the events. It is odd that this history earns your contempt for the legislative process.
But to be fair that may change now that you actually know what happened.
"Do women have a right to reproductive self determination?" That's very clever. Cute in fact. The answer is yes.
I will offer you one with the equal intellectual integrity:
Does a woman have the right to kill her young?
A direct yes or no will do.
You might be able to silence the teens with a dismissive "Bye" but it won't wash here.
Posted by James Jones on May 31, 2007 09:51 PMJames
"Again no - I am not asserting that the fetus is a "placeholder" for a future person. I am asserting that the fetus is a person.
We are then full circle.
If you stick to this as an axiom then the question is, why?
Why do you think personhood starts at conception?
If your argument is that it will one day be a person, then why do you think this is relevant.
(again, this is the "placeholder" argument).
You are claiming two axioms and then saying everybody should take these to be law.
I see nothing in any of your posts that justifies why you hold these things to be true, or why it amounts to anything more than your personal conviction - rational or irrational
Posted by Bango Skank on June 1, 2007 10:26 AM