Are vasectomies for men covered by the new health care bill?

Lee, while I wish there were a good constitutional argument against the Stupak amendment, I don't think it raises any 10th Amendment issues.  The Stupak Amendment doesn't interfere with states' regulation of medical practice; it conditions private insurance plans' ability to enroll persons receiving federal subsidies on those plans not covering most abortions.  An odious result to be sure, but not one that commandeers state government or interferes with sovereign state functions.

Furthermore, the 10th Amendment explicitly is about powers NOT given to Congress, and I'm fairly certain any defender of the Stupak amendment is going to point to the Commerce Clause as the source of Congressional power.  Which, incidentally, we'd better hope is right, because if the Commerce Clause doesn't give Congress the power to regulate the services covered by health insurance plans, then a pretty sizable chunk of the health reform bill is unconstitutional.

They always do...

Just as the bible thumpers have done so as well as targeting those who are different from them.

I have to wonder how they sleep at night being so full of fear and hatred ?

My Thomas,

How bigoted of you.  One might wonder how you sleep at night, also.

Non-inclusive?  Not hardly.  Anyone who has the ability to be responsible for themself is welcome.  Embracing diversity?  You mean like your personal Satan (G.W.Bush) appointing more minorities to his Cabinet and other positions of power than any other President?  Promoting tolerance for what?  And they do respect "tax-paying Americans" more than an administration that proposes TRILLIONS of new taxes upon same.

And exactly what is this garbage about " Republicans prefer to identify and label certain groups of Americans as threats to our nation and society, and then fiercely fight to deny said Americans their entitled rights"?

And their "share of wealth and resources"?  I don't like to throw out labels, but this sure sounds like the "Communist Manifesto" to me...

You receive a "share" because you have EARNED it.  It is NOT a RIGHT.  You have the RIGHT to PURSUE your DREAM, there is NO guarantee you'll get it.

Have you ever read the Declaration or the Constitution?  They are fascinating documents.  Full of interesting ideas like LIMITS on Governmental power.  They even mention, (GASP) God.

Why do people like you insist on harping on the problems.

Use that intellect to find a solution.

It's why God gave it to you...

"Have you ever read the Declaration or the Constitution? . . . They even mention, (GASP) God."

One hates to be picky, but although the Declaration of Independence does refer to "Nature's God", there is no reference to God in the Constitution.

One is reminded of this week's Onion article "Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be": http://www.theonion.com/content/news/area_man_passionate_defender_of 

The comment you're replying to and the main topic both remind me of it.

Mr. ruble...

Neither the declaration of independance or the united states constitution mentions any god whether it be of the abrahamic faiths or of any pagan faiths.

Perhaps you should re-read those documents again.

No.

There are lots and lots and lots of things that the government does with my tax dollars that I am absolutely, fundamentally against. Welcome to Democracy, John, that's how it works.

Jennifer, there is already a law in place that says public funds will not be used for abortions. Most members of Congress are OK with that, and this is going to remain in the bill. What the Stupak Amendment does is put in a provision whereby any person receiving government subsidies to help them pay for insurance cannot even use a PRIVATE plan if that plan pays for abortions. (Most insurance plans pay for abortions, so this limits options for many, many people). This is wrong on so many levels.

Basically, as I have said above, the Republicans once again are targeting the poor. See Peggy Jarvis' comment below. Just because you don't approve of abortion or government funded abortions, one should still have access to affordable health care, and if a person needs subsidies because they would not have health insurance otherwise, who are you to tell that person that they cannot have medicare care for their specific needs because they happen to need subsidies.

I meant to say "medical care", not "medicare care", because obviously Medicare is government run.

How is it misleading? "But RNC staffers can" is what it reads. You seem to have strung together a rather comprehensible two paragraphs so I'm inclined not to believe you don't know the difference between "can" and "do".

Are you sure that it prohbits using other means to do so?

Here is the full text of the amendment, which at first reading seems to me that it does not do what you just said it does , Barbara

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/15284081/Stupak-Amendment-to-HR-3962-Rev-108

The more is given the less the people will work for themselves, and the less they work the more their poverty will increase. ~Tolstoy

Miss schambaugh...

Its very hypocritical of the repugnicons or even the demoncraps to deny resources to american citizens even as they continue to have access to those resources themselves.

Its also very wrong and I dont believe it ever would have been implemented without the undue and unconstitutional influence of the catholic bishops.

Well, thank YOU for that little ray of sunshine.  Do us ALL a favor and actually THINK before you start to type again.  I would have hoped to have a rational discussion about this subject but your words just sent me searching for some "mental floss".  Don't you DARE say you're a Conservative.

You are single handedly setting your "cause" back decades because of your narrow minded viewpoint.

Where in the heck do you teach? It is certainly not a normal school. "We spend our time trying to calm children who have suffered some sort of abuse"??? You need to move.

As long as it is my tax money you want to pay for these abortions with I still get a vote lady. Whether I am against abortion on a moral or purely monetary basis I have a right to differ. The whole Healthcare Bill has no Constitutional leg to stand on let alone public funding for abortion. The worm appears to be turning on this atrocity at any rate.

Hi Lynn: Excellent post. I am retired from education, due to a disability. I was an Art teacher and later worked as a paraprofessional for Special Education, which I did for over ten years. I can relate so well to your story, as I have experienced these things as well. It is very difficult and troubling. I agree that abortion is a woman's decision, and that only women should be able to vote on this legislation on their behalf. Perhaps from a strictly women's perspective, this will not become political; it should not be, yet it is. This is a human rights issue, that is, one that encompasses personal freedom. There are far too many unwanted children in this world who suffer all kinds of things at the hands of those who refuse to allow women to have control of their own bodies and who set up laws that make sure women are still considered property.

Abortion is NEVER an easy decision for any woman to make, yet is is sometimes the best one; I just wish the Pro-lifers would try to understand this. This is NOT about them. It is personal and reflects a woman's ability to assess the situation and make a decison that is necessary, although it may be conflicting, even to her.

I said in another post that if men had babies, laws would have been written a long time ago to give them reproductive rights, including the ability to have an abortion, from the very beginning.

You're right.  It's not about us pro-lifers.  It's about one person - a BABY who has a right to live.  Who are all of you people to decide that it is better to kill a baby that let them MAYBE, POSSIBLY have a miserable life?  I would rather have any life than no life at all.  If that's how you decide things, where do you draw the line?  Are you going to start executing Alzheimer's patients next because their quality of life is not up to your standards?

By the way, if a woman feels she can't give a child the life he or she deserves, abortion is not the only choice.  She can choose to put the child up for adoption.  It is not difficult for babies to get adopted.  It's usually the older kids and those who have medical problems who are difficult to find adoptive parents for.

Scooze me, but a BABY, by definition, is already BORN.

My body. My right. Butt out.

There are laws against child abuse but I see my tax dollars going to groups that routinely abuse children.  Since it is the Government who is giving my money to these groups then the Government makes laws with one hand but ignores its laws with the other.  As an abuse survivor I don't like this one bit.  Being anti abortion merely makes you pro birth.  But 'pro birth' doesn't sell like 'pro life' & Americans do like a pretty picture.

This is to "Shawna"...

Absolutely, your body, your right. 

And your RESPONSIBILITY.

If you DEMAND that I PAY for YOUR abortion, I have a RIGHT to disagree.

That is what this is about.

But, when does that bundle of cells acquire rights?  Conception?  2 weeks?  5 months?

18 years?

The government has no right to seize my money to give to someone who hasn't earned it except by powers it has granted to itself.

As has been stated, no Federal money (mine!) can go for the funding of abortion.

This is not about your "right to choose".  But, seeing your opinion, I'm certain you will have no problems saying what an ogre I am and continuing to shout that it is...

I agree miss morris.

Better a baby should be aborted than abused and untill we as a society truly begin to care more about children than we do about money, status, power and/or influence...

This sad situational choice will continue to be neccessary.

Mr. ruble...

I dont like for any of my tax dollars to go via federal funding to the churches that are willing to lie and misrepresent the truth in order to deny equality to the G.L.B.T. community nor do I want my tax dollars being used by these same churches to lobby our representatives and senators in order for them to be able to legislate their "morality" into secular law. 

Like i said, at first glance, it doesn't seem to prohibit the private plan.

However, I do see how it can indirectly restrict it, as money is generally not available to those who need to buy supplemental insurance specifically for abortion, and this supplemental insurance is not necessarily available or widely purchased.

I did not see language directly restricting the use of a private plan using one's one funds and that what I was getting at.

I am certainly not for likening abortions to something supplemental, like nonessential comestic surgery.

The Stupak Amendment, if incorporated into the final version of health insurance reform legislation, will:

Prevent women receiving tax subsidies from using their own money to purchase private insurance that covers abortion;

Prevent women participating in the public health insurance exchange, administered by private insurance companies, from using 100 percent of their own money to purchase private insurance that covers abortion;

Prevent low-income women from accessing abortion entirely, in many cases.

http://www.now.org/press/11-09/11-08.html

The Stupak-Pitts amendment makes it virtually impossible for private insurance companies that participate in the new system to offer abortion coverage to women. This would have the effect of denying women the right to use their own personal private funds to purchase an insurance plan with abortion coverage in the new health system - a radical departure from the status quo. Presently, more than 85 percent of private-insurance plans cover abortion services.

The Stupak-Pitts amendment forbids any plan offering abortion coverage in the new system from accepting even one subsidized customer.  Since more than 80 percent of the participants in the exchange will be subsidized, it seems certain that all health plans will seek and accept these individuals.

  In other words, the Stupak-Pitts amendment forces plans in the exchange to make a difficult choice: either offer their product to 80 percent of consumers in the marketplace or offer abortion services in their benefits package.  It seems clear which choice they will make.

Stupak-Pitts supporters claim that women who require subsidies to help pay for their insurance plan will have abortion access through the option of purchasing a "rider," but this is a false promise. According to the respected National Women's Law Center,  the five states that require a separate rider for abortion coverage, there is no evidence that plans offer these riders.  In fact, in North Dakota, which has this policy, the private plan that holds the state's overwhelming share of the health-insurance market (91 percent) does not offer such a rider.  Furthermore, the state insurance department has no record of abortion riders from any of the five leading individual insurance plans from at least the past decade.  Nothing in this amendment would ensure that rider policies are available or affordable to the more than 80 percent of individuals who will receive federal subsidies in order to help purchase coverage in the new exchange.

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/news/press-releases/2009/pr11072009_househcrbillstupak.html

Even if the riders existed, the people who would need them most -- women who could not afford to pay out of pocket for an abortion -- are likely to be those least able to afford the additional premiums.

Furthermore, they would likely be quite expensive riders because everyone who won't need an abortion (men, women not of childbearing age or otherwise infertile, women philosophically opposed to abortion) will self-select out of the risk pool.   

If you are receiving subsidies, you are paying for insurance with your money and public funds.

If you're going to compare abortion to war, at least do it fairly.  Over 1 millions babies are killed in this country each year by abortion.  How is killing over a million babies a year less violent than killing hundreds of thousands in a war?

You can't kill what isn't alive. What's with all the ignorant bullshit about "it's a BAYBEE!" anyway? Medical science has determined that it becomes a BABY at BIRTH.

Shawna,

            OK, then let's not call it a baby if that makes you happy.  However, it does nothing for your argument.  It's a human life just as yours is a human life.  When a person leaves the womb does not determine when their life begins or when their right to life starts.

            It's always interesting when you visit someone you know is adamantly for abortion rights, who has then become pregnant and decided to keep the child, and they show you the ultrasound picture on their fridge and say "That's my baby!"  Did I hear the word "hypocrisy" used somewhere on this blog?

Ahh, Nicole.  Spoken like a true statist drone.  And, your proof of this "LIE" is what exactly?

Mark L,

"It's always interesting when you visit someone you know is adamantly for abortion rights, who has then become pregnant and decided to keep the child, and they show you the ultrasound picture on their fridge and say "That's my baby!"  Did I hear the word "hypocrisy" used somewhere on this blog?"

That's because the decision to have an abortion is an incredibly difficult one. Contrary to what you may believe, women are not using abortions as a form of birth control. I'm sure there are many who *do*, but they are a minority. Don't punish everyone for the mistakes of a few.

Are you OK with abortion when it comes to rape and incest? Those are innocent lives, too, you know. Do you believe in the death penalty? Those are "human lives just as yours is a human life". Or do you just pick and choose what is a life and what isn't? Now THAT'S hypocricy.

Gabrielle B

"Are you OK with abortion when it comes to rape and incest " Nope - No exception for rape or incest.  It defies logic and all standards of civilized justice to punish a third party for the crime of the first party against the second party.  I certainly do not want to minimize the horror of these crimes, but it is immoral to punish the resulting child.

"Do you believe in the death penalty?"  I do.  I shouldn't, but I do.  However, I can accept the Catholic Church's position on the death penalty (an almost complete, though not total, prohibition).  I would have no problem banning it in principal (though I might from a Constitutional perspective, but that's another issue).  However, the key distinction is that those sentenced to death are guilty! Guilty, that is, according to our imperfect legal system.  Unborn people are guilty of nothing except being an inconvenience!  Boy, if inconvenience were a legitimate crime, think about how big our prisons would have to be...or how busy the mortuary industry would be.

"Or do you just pick and choose what is a life and what isn't? Now THAT'S hypocricy."  --- No.  I don't pick and choose what is a life. Therefore, no hypocrisy. Life is an absolutely indisputable fact of science.  The debate(s), of course, center on who should have a right to life under what conditions, not whether a person is a life.

"Medical science has determined that it becomes a BABY at BIRTH."

What science is that?

My views on abortion, war, and health care are irrelevant. If Congress is going to remove abortion from the public plan on the grounds that it shouldn't be funded by taxpayer dollars, it will have to pass the amendment if in order to be consistent (not that consistency has ever mattered in DC anyway). They should either pass the amendment or add abortion to the public plan, but pretending that subsidizing abortion isn't in violation of the principles (not that they actually matter in DC either) that led them to remove it from the public plan is a joke.

Dave, well I agree with you there. It should be an option in the public plan as well. I think many Democrats decided to exclude it from the public option to appease the conservatives. It doesn't matter though, because they won't vote for any bill anyway, so the Democrats should just re-write the bill to make health care available and affordable for all Americans, with NO RESTRICTIONS. Now that would be fair.

No it wouldn't. They would be taking people's money and using it on things that not all of the people paying the bill gave their consent to.

They're already taking people's money and doing things we disagree with. *cough*IRAQ!*cough*

Mark,

"make it legal for women to get one". It's already legal to get an abortion and many women already do pay for it themselves.

Elective medical procedures like the ones you mentioned are cosmetic and they have no impact on one's quality of life. Abortion is completely different and it's shocking that you compare abortion to cosmetic surgery. You are so morally opposed to abortion, but are you morally opposed to cosmetic surgery? Probably not, but If you're going to equate these two procedures at least be consistent.

Often times abortion is necessary if the life of the mother is at risk. Often times cosmetic surgery is necessary to improve quality of life for the patient (such as cleft palata surgery).

You say that abortion is morally wrong, and then you cite murder, larceny, battery and child abuse. While all of those crimes and terrible and definitely illegal, the punishment isn't the same. Anti-abortionists would force a woman to go through 9 months of stress, hormonal changes, and the pain of giving birth, just because they feel morally superior. Abortion only affects one person; the crimes you mentioned affects many.

Mark, have you ever been pregnant? Have you ever had to decide if you should keep your baby or not? Do you know what it's like to go through 9 months of pregnancy, ending in excruciating labor? No? Thought so. Until you walk a mile in someone else's shoes, you have no business making judgements.

Miss G, maybe you should go back and READ the post you are trying to pick apart...

He is stating that if obstacles are removed, the practice will become more readily available, less expensive and safer.  Simple economics.

It's called "Capitalism".

Just because he referenced other, "cosmetic" procedures does not mean he is equating them.  They are examples where once the government got out of the way, things became more efficient.

Your circular argument about equating abortion to cosmetic surgery doesn't hold water.

YES, abortion is morally WRONG.  Taking the like of another is wrong.  And you are absolutely right, the punishment is not the same.

Murder someone outside of the womb, 20 to life.  Or the death penalty.

Murder someone inside the womb, pay your bill, call us if there is excessive bleeding.

Where is your high handed moral equivalency here?

TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR ACTIONS!

"Abortion only affects one person."

CRAP.

Where would we be if Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's mom decided to have an abortion?  JFK's?  Einstein's?  Barack Obama's?

Yours...?

Think of all we would have missed out on.

No, I haven't had an abortion.  I am anatomically incapable of requiring one.  But, my wife decided that it was important enough to US that I be involved in the decision on whether or not to keep our baby when it was determined that carrying him through to term was a "significant risk" to her life.

I thank GOD every day that my wife had the strength to do so.

His 25th birthday was yesterday.  He is a Sergeant in the US Army and has been in Iraq defending your RIGHT to make your opinion heard.

Have you ever been in the position to hear a doctor tell you that there is a better than 50-50 chance you'll be leaving the hospital ALONE?

Until you walk a mile in MY shoes, don't you DARE make judgements about me.

Gabrielle B,

            Michael Ruble is correct in that I was explaining through examples that the free market works for medical procedures where the free market exists, and that I was not equating those procedures with abortion (thanks Michael). 

"Anti-abortionists would force a woman to go through 9 months of stress, hormonal changes, and the pain of giving birth..."Ummm, when a woman is pregnant, that is what she is supposed to go through - mother nature and all.  It is hard being a woman, and at the same time, an incredible blessing as well.  If a woman is pregnant, the morally correct thing to do is to bear the child to term, unless doing so would legitimately threaten her life (that does not mean BS reasons like mental distress, depression, or other psychobabble). The life of the mother is the only exception that is permissible. 

"...just because they feel morally superior."  No, not because they feel morally superior, but because they are fighting for the rights of the unborn.

" Abortion only affects one person; the crimes you mentioned affects many."  First, then if an act only affects one person, then it can never be considered a crime?  Second, abortion affects the killed baby, the mother, and the father, at least.  That's three people there, so we've exceeded the one-person test, so I guess we can make it illegal.

"Mark, have you ever been pregnant? Have you ever had to decide if you should keep your baby or not? Do you know what it's like to go through 9 months of pregnancy, ending in excruciating labor?"

No, but I've been an unborn child!  The mother's inconvenience is nothing in relation to the life of the child.  Furthermore, that is beside the point, because this issue is about what's right and wrong, moral and immoral, and these facts don't depend upon whether you are a man or a woman or whether you've ever been pregnant. To deny this is akin to saying that no one can say whether it's right to kill Jews unless he's a German Nazi, or whether it's right to have a slave unless he's a white American living during the time of slavery.  If males can't talk about abortion, then the Supreme Court ruling in Roe vs. Wade, which legalized abortion, is null and void, because the justices were all male.

"Until you walk a mile in someone else's shoes, you have no business making judgements [sic]."  Please don't be ridiculous.  It doesn't serve your argument well.  We make judgments every day without walking in the shoes of others.  That is how we survive and thrive.  I've never walked in the shoes of a murderer.  Does your reasoning mean I can never serve on a jury in a murder trial?  I've never walked a mile in a professional painter's shoes.  Does that mean I should never try to pick out the paint I want for my living room?  If we were never to judge, that means there would be no rules in life, effectively.

Wow Mark,

You started out with such a reasonable paragraph, then poisoned the well with two short sentences.

I'm OK with your moral opposition, you should be free to preach and protest and plead...  But your *opinion* is not worthy of a *law* that restricts what a woman can do with her own body. 

That's why *legalizing* it was necessary!

Lynn, 

Yes. We differ greatly.  I can't fathom how people consider it morally permissible to kill an innocent baby because of inconvenience, whether that inconvenience is slight or immense.

Bravery fighting for something is something is NOT laudable if one is fighting for the wrong thin.   Bravery fighting for what is just is far more praiseworthy.  If they are fighting for abortion rights, they are simply fighting for the right to kill a person out of convenience.  I would not consider that laudable.  

As for the RNC, I surely can't speak for them.  Odd and peculiar that their insurance should cover abortions, and I certainly agree that it appears hypocritical.  There may be a reasonable explanation as to how abortion coverage got there, but that does not really matter. It's there and it looks and is ridiculous.

Sorry.  I can't join you in your fight for abortion.  I probably can't help you with birth control much either.  I can only oppose your fight for the right to kill the innocent.  I hope and pray that I will be an honorable opponent, but win my side must, for it is the only just outcome.

Open mind?  Well that works with what pizza to order or whether to buy the red sports car or the blue working truck.  For some things, though, an "open mind" is not a virtue. 

However much we debate over it and argue as though we have absolute certainty, no one knows for certain whether abortion kills a self-aware human being or a collection of tissues or at what point the latter becomes the former. Because it is not something anyone can know with absolute certainty, it is only the business of the people who will be affected by it. No one knows for sure whether the baby is or isn't affected by it, but it is clear who is definitely affected by it and who definitely isn't. That is why it the matter is not the government's decision.

I'm not saying I support abortion. I think it is better to do what is definitely not wrong than what may or may not be wrong, but whether someone else does it or not isn't my decision to make. Because the decision belongs to the individual alone, it should be funded only by the individual or those who want to help the individual fund it, which is why taxes shouldn't be used to fund abortions.

As a practical example:

Lynn, if you want to have an abortion (I'm not saying you do or don't because I know nothing about you personal life), it is your decision. Mark has no say in that. However, if you didn't have money for it, you have no say in whether or not Mark will help pay for it. That is his decision.

That said, this article and most of the comments on it have a very condescending, self-righteous tone. I think it's kind of ridiculous considering the lack of absolute certainty as a possibility, and it only hurts the arguments on the sides it comes from.

I marked this with a GA, because of the practical example.  It puts both sides in their place, and *that* is what I consider a good answer.

Condescension, whoa yeah!  It's hard not to descent to that level when no one is listening to anything other than the blood rushing in their ears.

Warning Issue Grenade:

On the issue of self awareness... I don't believe a "person" is self aware until they can control their bowels and bladder.  I'm not talking about the occasional nocturnal bed wetter, just conscious control during normal waking activity, even if that's just making raspberries with the tongue & soft palate.

I thought I'd toss that little booby trap out there to keep things interesting.

Ian: And this, my friend, speaks volumes. Many thanks for taking the time to write this.

Its sad that situations like that happen...They never should.

One thing you may have overlooked in your very moving testemony is that in the old testement, theres a story about how jehovah killed all the first borns of egypt after giving instructions to the israelites on how to protect their own...

That story illustrates to me that jehovah doesnt have a problem with killing babies and/or children which would then imply that he isnt pro-life or rather anti-choice...At least not in regards to the abortion issue.

Mark,

The single fact that you were born with a Y-Chromosome, means you get an opinion, but should *not* have a vote in what is *purely a woman's issue*.

The woman has to carry the fetus/child, a metabolically expensive committment. She has to give birth, a painful and potentially risky, occasionally fatal, endeavour.  Then She is expected to raise the child for 18 years, putting her life on hold.

The guy gets to brag to his friends and often resorts to childish displays and comments like pointing to her abdomen and uttering the phrase: "Hey guys, look what I did!". 

You may be a great dad... I don't know.  But the only thing that spearates you from the aforementioned neanderthals is the oh so thin veneer of civilization.  And how often and easily that folm is wiped away, means that *men* shouldn't be allowed to even comment on a woman's reproductive rights!

Your statement that a person is a person has a place in society, but like all things, it must have limits.  And since there is *zero* risk to the father during the entire gestation period, the corresponding amount of opinion and input should correspond.  If other words *zero input*.

I often find my self wishing that men who feel it's their right to dictate policy on forced gestation would hold their breath for the duration, that way we'd have a lot fewer hypocrites.

CTYankee Aeon,

            HOGWASH, red herrings, and straw men!  By your logic, neither you nor anyone, including the government, should have any say in whether or not I decide to kill the meter reader next time he visits, nor should I be punished for it.  If no one can dictate to a woman whether or not she may kill her child, nor punish her for it, then NO ONE can dictate whether or not I kill the cable guy, nor punish me for it.

...still waiting for that rational argument I mentioned earlier.

Mark,

Go ahead, the sacrifice of one meter reader to rid the world of your attitudes just might be worthwhile. {slowly} ha... ha... ha.

I didn't say no one, but I'd limit the class of people that have the right to pass judgment to those that can truly understand the the situation.  That's not you!

I don't know what you have against utility workers?  But clearly the prohibitions against killing them falls under what any sane person would consider common sense.  Besides being covered by the EEOE rules... ;^)

So let's look a little closer to determine whose arguments are straw.

"No one screams innocence louder than a guilty man."-anon

CTYankee Aeon,

            I hope it was obvious that I offered a ‘reductio ad absurdum' argument, in order to show the fatal flaw in your argument. 

"I didn't say no one, but I'd limit the class of people that have the right to pass judgment to those that can truly understand the the situation."     Everyone has a right to pass judgment!  We make such judgments every day in order to discern what is necessary and right.  You have passed judgment on me as evinced by your posts, here.  We would not survive as a species without making dozens/hundreds of such judgments daily.  The "right to judge" argument is such malarkey...I'm sick of hearing it...but I guess I must suffer through it.

This implies that you believe there is a group of people who understand a woman's situation in these cases, and that you believe should dictate her and her baby's fate. 

I totally understand such a person's situation.  I just do not think such situations provide sufficient justification to kill someone.  You obviously do.   Talk about the "right to judge".

With all sincerity, I pray that no one with the power and inclination to do so ever judges your existence inconvenient to them. 

It is not rational to say I do not understand a pregnant woman's situation simply because you disagree with my conclusions.

Mark,

Having an opinion, and passing judgment, are two entirely different things.

I have an opinion about your ability to debate, but I'm unable to pass judgment and ban you from the thread...  See the difference?

then you said: "This implies that you believe there is a group of people who understand a woman's situation in these cases, and that you believe should dictate her and her baby's fate."

Wow!  You know the terms for rhetorical fallacies, and then you jump in with both feet and use them.  That's not what I suggested at all.

Read this, I'll use small words.

"A woman has the right to determine (choose) the use of her own body, and no one else on earth has the authority to dictate(control) the outcome in any way."

Now if you want to speak, picket, preach, cajole, taunt even... That's your right. but keep your hands off, and keep your grubby mitts out of the political system that has the power, but not the *right* to take that choice away!

I never even said that other women have the right to effect a woman's right to choose.  But being women, I suggested that they are *qualified* to contribute to the *discussion*; you are not.

you said: "It is not rational to say I do not understand a pregnant woman's situation simply because you disagree with my conclusions."

Again, you try to put words in my mouth... You might understand it, just like I understand the calculus and the subtlties of quantum physys as applied to a grand unified theory of evertyhing...  We each have our skills.

You seek to control women, while I seek to control the particles and fields of time, space, matter and energy.  C'est le vie.

We might actually agree on some topics Presbo is a disaster, Global Warming is bunk, smaller conservative government is better than bigger liberal government.  But you and I, neither of can *ever know* what it means to be a woman.  And on the issues of freedom I *always* default to individual liberty.  A woman can assert it, a fetus cannot.  You, me, the church, the state, don't even deserve a voice in the general argument.  Be as anti-choice/pro-life with your girlfriend or spouse as you want; that's your (as a sexually active couple) individual liberty.

P.S. Now are you going to try to dismiss my arguments again with more rhetorical flaws?  You're fighting like a Liberal ya know...  Ignore logic, appeal to emotion...

Your exchange demonstrates why most (if not all) arguments about abortion wind up begging their own premises.

The argument that "men can't get pregnant so they don't get to decide about abortion" only holds water if you've already concluded that abortion is not murder.  If abortion were murder, of course every member of human society would have the right, indeed perhaps the duty, to prevent it from happening.

Likewise, the argument that a pregnant woman's "situation [doesn't] provide sufficient justification to kill someone" necessarily assumes that a fetus is "someone" in the sense of a person with a right not to be killed.

All abortion-related arguments eventually reduce to opinions about the fundamental nature of the act. 

CTYankee,

The quote you challenge: "then you said: "This implies that you believe there is a group of people who understand a woman's situation in these cases, and that you believe should dictate her and her baby's fate.... Wow!  You know the terms for rhetorical fallacies, and then you jump in with both feet and use them."

...was not supposed to be posted.  I recognized its problems and thought I had deleted it. I apparently didn't proof read well.  So please disregard it. 

Let's take it back a step.

We need a hypothetical, yet not impossible situation:

A woman chooses to conceal the fact of a pregnancy, and has sufficient knowledge to terminate the pregnancy without anyone else knowing?

you said:  "If abortion were murder, of course every member of human society would have the right, indeed perhaps the duty, to prevent it from happening."

To what degree is the duty of the public to determine if the woman is pregnant a superior right to that woman's right to privacy.  To be secure in her person and papers, to refuse unreasinable search and seizure???

Would you have her pee in a cup on the first of the month?  Would you have me pee in a cup to maintain equal protection under the law?  You're heading down a slippery slope.  That's why as I man I can't just sit idly by and allow you to infringe on the rights of half of hoomanity[sic].

CTYankee,

            "Having an opinion, and passing judgment, are two entirely different things." Well, I can't say that I necessarily agree with your definitions of opinion vs. judgment, but at least I understand what you believe them to be. 

CTYankee,

            "A woman has the right to determine (choose) the use of her own body, and no one else on earth has the authority to dictate (control) the outcome in any way."

            Sure we do.  A person (man or woman) may not use their fists, feet, or other body part to assault or kill another (with the exception of self-defense, and such, of course).  Society places that and plenty of other restrictions on how people use their bodies.  By your logic, I have the right to rape and impregnate any woman I want; that's me choosing how I use my body, and "no one else on earth has the authority to dictate (control) the outcome in any way." 

            I think that you, but certainly most pro-abortionists, simply believe that an unborn child is a lower class of person who does not have the same rights as any other person.  It is a disagreement over a foundational premise.  I do not see the soundness of that (pro-abortion) premise.  Therefore, it is logically impossible for me to reach the same conclusion as the pro-abortionist.

The step back post was for Doug... (sorry I forgot to address it)

the rest is for Mark...

Marquess of Queensberry rules.  You thought it, you tried to throw the punch, you missed.

"Would that it were possible to unring a bell." -- John Cleese in "A fish called Wanda"  (of course the origin is considerably older, but that one is funny)

See, the core assumption in your arguments is that society has a superior right to impose or enforce a behavior when no indication to society has been made.  Like judging me for thinking about the despicability of your proposed rules.

Individual freedom *must* be absolute, when only one party is affected.  No matter how you try to justify the existence of a fetus, if determining its presence requires an action by the mother in conformance to an external restriction, then that intrusion is too much.

A fetus is not a person, unless the mother asserts it is.  So in the case of a pregnant woman being assaulted, and the attack resulting ion the death of the baby contrary to the mothers wishes, then damn straight it's murder!  The death of a pregnant woman as a side effect of the commission of a crime would then be double murder.  A woman seeking an abortion and the doctor performing it are not criminals, they are engaged in commerce or barter -- both legal activities.

Well, CTYankee, first of all I wouldn't restrict abortion anyway, as I don't think it's murder and I don't think a fetus is a human in the sense of a person with the right not to be killed.

But even assuming I thought it were murder, I'm not positing that the government would have a right to go around checking if particular women were pregnant or not, on the off chance that they might have an abortion.  (Just as the government doesn't have a right to subject you to a lie detector test every month to check whether there's anyone you're angry enough with to consider murdering.) 

What I meant was that if abortion were murder, society as a whole would have the right, and perhaps the duty, to "prevent it from happening" in the usual way that we try to prevent people from doing bad things to other people, which is to outlaw doing those things.

And such a law wouldn't properly be subject it to some kind of woman-only vote that would require a doctor's certification of fertility before you'd be handed a ballot--any more than people who are not parents should be excluded from voting on a law prohibiting child abuse.  My point is that once we've determined something is a gross infringement of a human right, everyone has the right to weigh in on whether to prohibit that, not just the group of individuals against whom the law could be enforced.        

Of course the government's ability to enforce such a law would be limited by the usual constraints on law enforcement -- probable cause, etc.  

And of course I think such a law would be disasterous in its consequences, for all the obvious reasons.  But again, that's only because I start from the premise that fetuses aren't co-equal human beings with a right not to be killed. If I thought they were, almost any negative result of an abortion ban (including hundreds or thousands of women dying from botched abortions) would pale in the face of a million co-equal human lives saved per year.

That, my friend, is what we're up against.  People who honestly believe that we are murdering a million human beings a year.  I don't think that they're bad people; I just think that they're honestly mistaken, in a way that has the potential to be very damaging to many, many women.  

Doug,

Outlawing an action is not an affirmative protection.  It simply defines the punishment for violating the prohibition.

So outlawing aboution simply defines a 'punishment' for a woman that chooses to terminate a pregnancy -- the pregnancy is still terminated.

I understand your objections to abortion... They are... complex? overlapping? inconsistent? (not a dis-)  It's "life" versus "metabolism" and there are no black-n-white rules. 

The route to the least conflict is that society remains silent on what could be the mothers secret, if she's intelligent and wealthy enough, and extent that 'courtesy' to all women regardless of socio-sconomic status.

Mark,

The difference etween opinion and judgment is one of gravitas.  Everyone has an opinion.  Judgment carries the threat of action.  Opinions are like....   Well that's where your opinion seems to be coming from.

And how on earth can you confuse "quiet enjoyment" with "aggrevated assault"?  There's *your* strawman showing his ugly head again. 

Mark, You're beat, stay down.  Thar ringing in you ears is supposed to be a personal warning system; pay attention.

CTYankee,

"Would that it were possible to unring a bell."   I officially retracted it. If you choose not to accept that retraction, I can't do much about it.  If that is your position, then it reveals plenty. 

"Individual freedom *must* be absolute, when only one party is affected."  ---- Again, we disagree on the premise.  I believe at least two parties are affected; the mother and the baby.  You do not accept this. Our arguments both make sense, given our different premises.  I believe that the child in the womb is a person deserving of full right to life from the moment of conception.  The right to life for the child trumps the mother's desire for convenience. 

"Individual freedom *must* be absolute, when only one party is affected."  ---Individual freedom is not absolute.  I believe in *maximum* individual freedom, but not to the point where one can violate the natural rights of others, without due process.  Furthermore, absolute individual freedom is an impossibility. 

"A fetus is not a person, unless the mother asserts it is."  A person's humanity, and therefore, their rights, is not defined by, or conditioned upon the capricious opinions of another person; how the mother or others feel on a particular day.  A person's rights either exist or they don't.  I understand that you do not believe that a person has rights until it leaves the womb, or some other arbitrary point.  I judge it not to be a just or moral position (don't assume too much by my use of the word ‘judge'), but also not to be a reasonable one given all scientific evidence. 

CTYankee:

But I don't HAVE any objections to abortion!  Read everything I've written here and that should be obvious.

What I object to is the glib simplicity with which fellow pro-choicers imagine that anti-abortion people can be made to compromise on things like federal funding of abortion with platitudes like "you don't have a uterus so you don't get to decide" or "against abortion, don't have one."  My point is that these and similar statements necessarily assume the truth of the premise that abortion is not what anti-abortion people think it IS: the killing of a co-equal human being.

A large scale change in views on abortion would require mass religious deconversion, coupled with rather advanced instruction in embryonic neurology.  Unless that happens, a lot of people are going to continue to believe that fetuses either have souls or that their desire to live and experience of being killed are no different than yours or mine would be.

As to the idea that outlawing an action and threatening a punishment for doing that action are not affirmative protections against it happening -- surely you don't completely discount the concept of deterrence? 

CTYankee,

"The difference etween opinion and judgment is one of gravitas.  Everyone has an opinion.  Judgment carries the threat of action."  --- I did a quick, cursory check, and don't find that definition of judgment.  It might be in a dictionary as the 5th or 6th definition, and I may find it later, but not so far.  However, again, I understand your definition and for the sake of argument, could provisionally accept it.  So fine. 

"And how on earth can you confuse "quiet enjoyment" with "aggrevated assault"?  There's *your* strawman showing his ugly head again." --- I'm not sure what "quiet enjoyment" you are referring too.  Please explain. 

"Mark, You're beat, stay down. " --- Sir, you have yet to land a blow.

CTYankee,

   I just realized that I do not believe you have identified yourself as male or female, sojust in case, replace "Sir" in the previous post with "Sir or Ma'am"

Hey Doug,

Yes, I'm able to distinguish your opinion on the issue, that's why I'm responding to your posts with civility, respect, and just a hint of an expanding horizon of issues to contemplate.  I believe simpatico is an appropriate term.

Mark,

I'm not going to explain any more terms to you.  You clearly are over the edge.  You took the premise that legalized abortion is equivalent to allowing the freedom to cut down any person whose behavior causes them to cross your path.  A common conclusion drawn by folks following a diagnosis of schizophrenia... How's you blood pressure?

Farewell.

CTYankee,

According to Wikipedia, which seems to comport with what I've always understood a "troll" to be, a troll is: "In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant, or off-topic messages ...with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. .."

- Controversial? The entire subject matter is controversial, so essentially all posts on this blog are controversial. I guess we are all guilty.

- Inflamatory? No more than any other posts here. Of course, if a reader has no idea what "reductio ad absurdum" means, and I believe most people would clearly understand them to be "reductio ad absurdum" arguments, then I suppose some of my remarks would *appear* inflammatory. Reference, your assertion that I "...took the premise that legalized abortion is equivalent to allowing the freedom to cut down any person whose behavior causes them to cross your path."

- Irrelevant? Since I was responding to specific assertions by specific authors on the blog, my comments cannot be irrelevant.

- Off-topic? See, ‘irrelevant', above.

- ...intent of provoking other users into an emotional response? Should you be assuming such things about my intent? Talk about passing judgment! My intent has always been to simply counter certain assertion with rational arguments and to show others the errors in their arguments.

- ... or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion? Everything was on-topic.

As to your specific assertions:

- No profile? You assume that means I'm here to cause trouble. I welcome a good debate with those who disagree with my arguments. I'm not here to talk about my name, birth place, eye color, etc... My purpose is to engage in debate, and hopefully win a convert or two to my side of an argument through reason. It's not about me. It's about the argument.

- One topic? I've participated in three or four of these discussions at change.org. Not sure what my profile says about that, but again, it is not about me or my profile. I'm a busy guy. I'm sorry I can't live at change.org.

- Impervious to reason? I've clearly proven the contrary.

- armed with rhetorical flaws? False, but perhaps arguable, since rhetoric and logic are not the same thing. Logical flaws? None.

- here to enrage? No. you are making judgments again.

- here to twist the logic away from the rational? Again, you are making judgments concerning my intentions that are clearly not in evidence. I'm merely making an argument, the premises of which you, and most participants here, disagree with. Furthermore, some of the other participants have posted comments that are clearly NOT rational.

- To "cause disarray in the forum"? Again, you are *judging* my intentions. See my previous assertions about my intentions, above. If I *HAVE* caused disarray, first, my apologies to all, and second, the disarray is due primarily to the reactions of others, and not due to my comments.

- No, I do not think you are trying to get me to change my convictions. I think that you merely do not agree with my premises.

- "So Shawna, watch your temper, it doesn't help, it only allows the other side to claim points for style, but not substance." --- I don't necessarily mind an emotional response as long as it is respectful, and acknowledged as emotional. It is an issue which has much emotion attached to it, by both sides. We should not base an argument on that emotion, though, or simply use that energy to try to shout down or shut up the opposition. You don't win arguments that way. We win an argument by making an argument, and by demonstrating the logic of the argument, not by yelling at each other.

- "I'm not going to explain any more terms to you." I simply used the tried and true system of looking up the words in the dictionary. I fail to see the error in that method. Furthermore, you did not direct me to any source which defines the terms in the ways you were asserting. If you do, I will read and consider them. Additionally, I did state that I could provisionally accept your definitions for the sake of argument. I do not see the problem.

- "You clearly are over the edge." An unsubstantiated assertion.

- Resorting to unsubstantiated accusations of mental illness or similar maladies? Sounds like an ad hominem argument to me. It might be appropriate for one to ask: Who is REALLY over the edge?

Shawna,

The government does not grant such rights.  The government's only legitimate responsibility is to protect our right to life, something it has failed to do for those still in the womb. 

"And, seeing as you don't have a uterus, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO TELL ME WHAT TO DO WITH MINE. So STFU and go away."  Ah! I see. You can't make a choherent rational argument, so you are just going to try insulting us and shouting us down.  ... Very intelligent.   Very mature.

Sorry, no uterus, no input.

My body. My uterus. MY CHOICE. NOT YOURS. CAN'T HAS.

Thing is, men like you want to control what I do with my body, and that's just not right. In fact, you pro-birthers are just as bad as rapists, in that respect, by taking away my autonomy. I submit that, like rapists, you are not, in fact, worthy of being called men -- you are monsters.

Shawna,

            So I'm picturing the conversation in kitchens all over the country where the proud mother to be points to the ultrasound picture on her fridge and says, "Look at my beautiful tapeworm! I'm very excited!  I'm just not sure how I will get those tiny little diapers on my sweet little slug."

            As for the rest, very adult - very a dolt. 

            You are good for so many laughs - a very fine comedy break from all the serious discussions.  Thanks again.

Shawna,

Mark is a troll no doubt; No profile, one topic, impervious to reason, armed with rhetorical flaws...  But don't take the bait.  He's not here to listen, he's here to enrage, he's here to twist the logic away from the rational and cause disarray in the forum.

For some reason he thinks I'm trying to get him to change his convictions on abortion, and get him to accept it as morally acceptable, or beyond that as imperative.  He's wrong.

I believe that a woman, or a couple, that *chooses* to become pregnant *should* carry the baby to term and be parents to that child.  However if the woman or couple *become* preganat at a time that is not of their choosing, then they have every right to *decide* whether or not to bring that child to term.  (Mark, did you catch the slap in the face to your religious dogma?)

Every other situation is simply a variation on the two ends of the continuum.  A woman that is raped clearly had no intention of becoming pregnant.  A couple that conceives a child with Downs or a multitude of other diseases never had that outcome in their future plans.

So Shawna, watch your temper, it doesn't help, it only allows the other side to claim points for style, but not substance.

What worries me about this piece of legislation is the "exception clauses." One of them being, that if a women is rapped, then her abortion will be covered.

I have two sons. How can guarantee that they won't be prosecuted for rape, if the get someone pregnant? Furthermore, does this mean that all rapes, resulting in pregnancy, will have to be recounted by the victim?

I don't like this clause. It leaves men vulnerable and women re-victimized. Actually, I don't like this piece of legislation.

Finally, something we can agree on, your premises are flawed, er, um, sorry... we don't agree to them.

1) The fertilized egg of a Homo Sapiens might become a Human Being(aka Person) if it can survive independent of its mothers uterus.

2) All Persons have a right to life, but no Person may assert  an obligation onto another Person to be kept alive.

3) No person shall kill another person without due cause.

Those are my premises!

Now, ya wanna get into it???  I can rip your premises to shreds.  I have ripped them several times already.

Take a shot at mine.  You might be able to expose some small gaps; this is just a fast exercise AFIAC.  They are moral without invoking the word.  They are rational, because things happen that are out of the control of deliberate actions.  They are just because they are very hard to violate without everyone in the theater shouting "Foul!"

So when we smash you premises what are you going to do? Declare your premises are *inviolate* and say the argument is done?

---

Oh BTW: I was only typing these thoughts to think, so they don't really count...  They're not even spell checked. ;^)

The reductio ad absurdum can only serve to validate or discredit the premise *if* the logic is sound.  I didn't address your reference to the technoque, because you botched it.

You've begged the question as the platform for the premise.

No investigation can possiblly, logically, lead to a conclusion.

You've stated your premises, now move along...

For some reason this site is refusing to post my comments now. I'm going to try once more, then go pester the webmaster.  Ian

Mark,

Your premise is that a fetus is a human being from the moment of conception, with full rights, I assume, as the Constitution asserts that "all men," have those rights as a result of having been born human. In that usage, "men" is generally assumed to be used in the general case and refers both genders, even though the Founders, due to the culture of the time, most likely meant it literally as women were never even considered for becoming voters.

So where do you get the idea that a fetus is human? A human being is more than just a set of chromosomes, which are only potential. Even primitive societies recognized that those alive and functioning NOW had priority over another potential person the advent of which could make the difference between borderline survive or even failure to survive, and a thriving family. Women who became pregnant with an infant still at the breast often exposed the latecomer to keep the family out of their society's definition of poverty. There's no justification in the Bible, though if you're Catholic there's ample justification in Canon law. That, however, is forcing a religion on others, something frowned upon in this country by most.

An abortion of a nonviable fetus that will never be normal, or that could or even would kill the woman before expiring itself, or of a fetus not developed to the point where it could survive independently, or as is usual, before it's more than just a conglomeration of undifferentiated cells, is not harming a developed, thinking, functioning human being. It's the removal of whatever potential is there, and it's a woman's right.  It's her right especially since it's her health at stake, and/or it's a decision not to be sentenced to abject poverty for the rest of her life and to preserve her own potential so that it can be used on her own behalf and perhaps on the behalf of a later child she will then be able to support. Especially in the case of rape, which is often incestuous, her right to make choices about her own life that count has already been stolen from her. Stealing her health, her youth and the rest of her life along with the ability to explore her own potential makes no sense at all. It's using a mostly religion-based set of imperatives that have no business being enacted into law in the first place to take away the rest of her choices on behalf of a person that doesn't even exist as a person except in the fantasies of religious fanatics who don't know or understand their own holy book or biological science.

If the state is going to force such a choice on women, then it also needs to provide for the raising of any results, including the necessary caring nurture that creates a responsible citizen out of the clinically insane little animals that all children are, also providing any needed education for same and the woman, plus support at a reasonable level of comfort in society until she is able to do so on her own, and the same for any child, however warped physically if that's what happens. Although even then, the state cannot return to her the physical state she was in prior to pregnancy; any changes caused by it are done and there's no going back, and a monetary settlement is a poor substitute for healthy youth.

If her life is endangered it shouldn't even be a question; it should be automatic unless SHE chooses to take that risk.  There is simply no real justification for forcing a woman to carry an unwanted and potentially physically, economically and socially dangerous pregnancy to term.

Ian

CTYankee,

   In which instance to you believe I "botched" the reductio ad absurdum technique?  I used it several times. 

  I plan to respond to the rest of your most recent post, but your answer to this question will help me do so.

Ian,

    Most of your post appears to deal with the situation in which a fetus is threatening the life of the mother. If that is *legitimately* true, I agree that is the one exception that can be allowed; where abortion is morally permissible.  I believe this is true in most religions and moral philosophies that address abortion (certainly in mine).  However, it has to be a legitimate threat and not the "Gosh my life will be a little tougher with a kid" excuse.  To the extent that your post addresses this situation, I think we agree.

not the rest.

CTYankee,

"I have ripped them several times already." --- Please direct me to the instances (you say 'several times') where you have 'ripped' my premises ( assume by 'ripped' that you mean proven my premises false).  For my convenience, I ask that you please paste in the date-time stamp of the post so that I can find them easier.

No Mark,

I'd say: "Go find them yourself."  But right above this post you created an exception in you premises.

Therefore you proved your own premises flawed in a way so elegant that I couldn't match it in 100,000 words.

Now I'm done!

CTYankee,

            So sad, but you are wrong again.  Note the wording of my premise: "2. ALL humans have full rights to life which may not morally be violated without due process."  The ‘due process' part is the key here; it covers the ‘life of the mother' exception, as well as self-defense, just war, etc.  ‘Due process' means, of course, the administration of justice according to established rules and principles; based on the principle that a person cannot be deprived of life or liberty or property without appropriate legal procedures and safeguards designed to protect their rights.  That is a rather legalistic definition.  Instead of ‘due process' it would be better to say ‘just cause' (which is closer to your term, actually).  There are a number of cases where it is just (morally acceptable) to kill a person.  The grave threat to the life of the mother, properly interpreted, is one of those exceptions.  If the facts of a case warrant, as determined by due process, then in such a case, an abortion can be morally acceptable.

Sorry about your luck.  Try again if you like

...therefore, my premise still holds.

CTYankee,

            Finally, we get to the premises. So you acknowledge that my argument was sound, given my premises?

In any case:

“1) The fertilized egg of a Homo Sapiensmight become a Human Being(aka Person) if it can surviveindependent of its mothers uterus.”  --- Why are rights conditioned on a person’s ability to surviveindependent of another person’s organs?   A new born clearly cannot survive on it’s own.  Does that mean if that newborn dies in a day or two, it was never human?  That is what your premise implies.  Furthermore, there are millions of post-birth humans dependent on others for their survival?  Can we kill them too?  And if it is not a human being, what is it?  A chipmunk?  A lizard?  Just random tissue?  What is it tissue of? A human being! And no preborn child consists merely of tissue. Very quickly, fingernails are present, hair develops, bones are starting to grow, etc. So you would be wrong in saying that it's tissue because you would be implying that it is tissue only, kind of like just a bunch of cells randomly gathered together and floating around. But that is not so, unless you wish to refer to yourself as just a blob of tissue, a meaningless product of conception.  I see serious logical flaws with your premise.   ---  Now, this premise, at least, I can understand people of good will disagreeing on.  I don’t think the facts support their arguments, but I can understand their arguments.  We could debate the elements of life and personhood down to the nth level (what is a person and when is he or she endowed with rights – conception, when the fingers and toes appear, sentience, etc.).  The evidence leads me to the conclusion that human life, and human rights, begin at conception.

“2) All Persons have a right to life, but no Person may assert  an obligation onto another Person to be kept alive.”  ---  This assertion is clearly impossible.  By this reasoning, if A is a passenger in B’s car, B has absolutely no obligation to take reasonable precautions to preserve the life of A while A is his passenger, such as by driving safely, making sure A has his seat belt on, etc.  Boy, you just invalidated thousands of tort cases.  No, B clearly has a moral obligation to take all reasonable steps necessary to preserve the life of A during the period of responsibility (during the drive).  I would be very interested to read more from wherever you got this assertion – not that you copied it, but it is probably from an established moral framework.  It sounds like some of the Libertarian language I’ve heard before.  Perhaps you can get me to understand it better, though I doubt you will sway me.  We are almost daily placed in situations where we are obliged to keep another person alive through our actions.

“3) No person shall kill another person without due cause.”   ---  I think we agree on this one.

“You've stated your premises, now move along...”  Unless you are the Administrator of this blog, I shall stay if I like.

Mark,

No, I didn't say your argument was sound.  Flawed premises, flawed arguments, you keep *trying* to put words in my mouth, your constant use of strawman arguments, and then trying to reclassify them as other rhetorical 'tools' {guffaw}

I'll indulge you just a bit more...

A newborn *can* clearly survive.  Sure it requires the help of others, but that help is *often given freely* or in exchange for adding the newborn to one's own family i.e. adoption.

A 6 week fetus *cannot* survive, and given the current state of technology, any attempt is likely to result in a grotesque immitation of a human being, e.g. blind, deaf, paralyzed, brain damaged, etc...  that's not a life, it's metabolism.

you said: "The evidence leads me to the conclusion that human life, and human rights, begin at conception."

All you've done is beg the question again.  You've made that assertion.  I reject that assertion.  But even if I accept it, the only thing your assertion does is to greate *guilt* that you can use to manipulate another persons actions.  To many that is *immoral*.

Ready for another hole in your premise? What if one twin kills the other in the womb?  Which twin has committed *murder*, or was it the mother?

Whoops, you need another exception.  Your stretched interpretation of process, don't go that far.  The pre-born is a person and it's actions caused the death of another preborn person.  The mothers liability in the death is harder to define, but like robbery homicide, even the getaway driver is guilty.  And she gets charged with concealing the corpse too.

Well, if you allow the thoughts and wishes of the mother to include process -- then you will have forfeited your premises again!

HOW MANY TIMES CAN YOU WITHSTAND THE LOGICAL ENDS?

Protectiing the health and safety of another is not the same as being obligated to keep the other alive.

Let's lookat your car & passenger again.  The vehicle is damages and the passenger loses his liver or kidneys...  Does the passneger hage a right to demand the liver or kidney of the driver?  Id the driver obligated to keep the passenger alive bu donating part of his liver or a kidney?  See the flaw in the attack?  Oh, and the driver can tell the passenger to get out of the car!

Stay, go, eat, fart, burp...  No one here cares.  Your agenda is exposed.  No one will recognize you as a legitimate voice, just a proselytizer exposed.

CTYankee,

-  Failed again.  I could, and probably will, knock down each of your counter-arguments (if one can call them that).  They are each rediculous.  However, I'm at work now, and probably won't have time for a while.  Enjoy your day and maybe check back later.

You, I like.

Thanks, Shawna; been enjoying your logic, also.    Mark: I suspect you've never been poor or even close to it. I addressed "unwanted" pregnancies as well, for whatever reason. It isn't so simple or comfortable a procedure that many would use a D&C for contraception, so set that aside. Being locked into crushing poverty by a child she didn't want in the first place and knew she couldn't provide for due to another child already there, or because of youth and no skills yet or prospects is a great deal more than your mocking, "...my life will be a little tougher with a kid" excuse" crack. The woman loses everything and gets to live in a cardboard box with kid she has to raise on next to nothing, and these days even that's shrinking. And how do the kid's chances look? Not good.

Caught in the first couple or even few weeks it's NOT "a person"; it's something that MIGHT become one. Still a pile of bricks, not a house. It's always a hard choice for a woman to make, but in that situation - as in others - an abortion is reasonable. If the assistance for women in that situation was better and actually afforded her a chance to go to school, gain the skills she wants so she can make her living at what she wants (the pursuit of happiness; and security is a good thing to go for too) I'd guess a lot fewer women would make that choice. But welfare or other "help" programs aren't really help, They're indentured poverty with no way out. The door doesn't open from that side. 

You and I have no possible right to make that choice for anyone else. And with all my posts I've practically written a book here. You insist that what isn't a human being is. I really don't understad, though, how this could possibly be anything but deliberate blindness.  Policy; certainly not reason. I'd bet money (and don't bet - for practical reasons) that you don't call that pile of bricks a house. It MIGHT be. And that film of cells isn't a person.

Without legaal delays, it would never even come close. And that is a slimy violation on legalisms versus LIFE.

And I need to be done here. I have enough frustration in my life without talking to a tape recorder. And BTW, please answer the whole post next time, not pick one point, claim it represents the whole thing and dismiss the parts not chosen. That's a bit like reviewing a book saying the first page contains the whole book. Not kind and not true.

Ian

Ian,

    I wasn't blowing off the rest of your post.  Just haven't had time yet.  Just like you just alluded to in your post, I've got other stuff going on in my life other than change.org....work, kids, life...  I hope to get to it.

It is always FAR, FAR better to AVOID unwanted pregnancies, than to kill a child.