Frank Corte R- San Antonio..

...wants to take away a women's choice what to do with her body...maybe TX women should vote for mandatory castration for Corte?

Quote:

---

AUSTIN - Women who want to terminate their pregnancy in Texas would be required to listen for the heartbeat and get ultrasound images made of the fetus before undergoing the procedure, under new anti-abortion measures proposed Monday.

It was one of dozens of measures unveiled on the first day to file bills before Texas lawmakers meet in regular session early next year.

State Rep. Frank Corte, R-San Antonio, filed the bill seeking the new “informed consent” requirements for women who seek an abortion. Corte’s policy director, Kathi Seay, said the legislation “is not to encourage or discourage anything, it’s just to make sure they have all the information they need.” Abortion rights advocates called the legislation “politically divisive” and vowed to mount a vigorous effort to defeat it.

“It’s something that we will absolutely be fighting,” said Sara Cleveland, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Texas. Cleveland predicted that conservatives would have a tougher time this year passing abortion curbs because Democrats, generally more liberal on reproductive rights, increased their numbers in the state House and Senate.

Representative Frank J. Corte, Jr. repeatedly refused to provide any responses to citizens on the issues through the 2008 Political Courage Test when asked to do so by national leaders of the political parties, prominent members of the media, Project Vote Smart President Richard Kimball, and Project Vote Smart staff.

Corte always receives Abortion Issue Endorsements from Right To Life Groups

2007 Based on a point system, with points assigned for actions in support of or in opposition to NARAL Pro-Choice Texas’s position, Representative Corte received a rating of 0.

2005 supported the interests of the Texas Right to Life Committee 100 percent.

---

Link

Fuck it, this is the issue that divides me.

I would consider myself very liberal, as I pine for social democracy, single payer health, gay marriage, and all that. Just as a primer.

I do not base my beliefs on religion either (I am between atheism and agnosticism towards deism).

Why is it just a part of a woman's body? I mean, it is clearly and without doubt a separate organism. You can say that it is parasitic or dependent, but the idea that it is not a separate life is intellectually dishonest.

Now I am all for an exception for rape, incest, and the life of the mother. The latter because I don't see merit in killing two for the price of one. The first because the mother is LEGITIMATELY without choice in the endeavor.

However, in all other cases, one entering into the act of consensual sex is at least AWARE of the fact that vaginal intercourse leads to pregnancy. By having voluntary sex, one is accepting the risk of pregnancy. THAT is where the choice should be.

To me, it smacks of someone inviting someone into their house, only to suddenly become displeased and shocked, and summarily disposing of them.

I also see no logical or non-arbitrary point where a "non-person" is suddenly replaced by a "person". We see infanticide as wrong, correct? Obviously, the fetus undergoes no significant change in ability, comprehension, etc... simply by passing through the birth canal, yes?

Why is viability the issue? Fetuses over 6 months ARE likely viable. Not to mention that viability is an arbitrary construct. A newborn is not able to find food, to walk, has a very weak immune system, is incredibly reactive to temperature extremes. If anything, a newborn requires considerably more care and attention in order to survive than that same child did just before it exited the wound.

I'm ready and willing to debate.

If someone else has a different opinion than yours does your opinion trump their's? Do you have the right to interpret god's will for them? Will you deny them a choice on something so personal?

I'm not sure who you are referring to, byrontx, but I'll assume it's me for the purpose of defending my statement.

My point is that the bill of rights and other aspects of our government are primarily based on individual freedoms being unfettered by others. However, when the other takes away one's property, access to services, life, or other freedoms, we find a necessary conflict. My argument was based on the idea that the right to life must take primacy over other rights, as without life no rights can be granted. Thus, since I can see no logical distinction as to why an unborn fetus/child is not a life, and the freedom of choice comes in the act of sex (and not abortion), that I see no "right to choice" when that choice takes away life or its potentiality.

Unless they are putting themselves in harms way, no way do I support anyone telling me or any other person what they can or can't do with their own bodies....while it's true that if you engage in unprotected sex the risk is there that you may get pregnant, a woman should continue to have a choice whether she wants to carry the pregnancy to full-term - they have to deal with the weight-gain and bloating, they have to make sure that the child has a future safe and nurturing home, they have to run the risk that they will be ostracized by family and possibly the community for having a child out of wed-lock, they have to provide for the financial security of the child....there are so many personal reasons why this choice should be made by the person who it is most going to effect and not left to individuals who want to take away that choice based on their own personal beliefs ..

Quote:

---

My point is that the bill of rights and other aspects of our government are primarily based on individual freedoms being unfettered by others. However, when the other takes away one's property, access to services, life, or other freedoms, we find a necessary conflict. My argument was based on the idea that the right to life must take primacy over other rights, as without life no rights can be granted. Thus, since I can see no logical distinction as to why an unborn fetus/child is not a life, and the freedom of choice comes in the act of sex (and not abortion), that I see no "right to choice" when that choice takes away life or its potentiality.

---

Your assuming that everyone believes as you believe that 'life' exists before birth...we have no scientific proof to support that...we have no way of testing when a soul enters a human fetus...

My argument was that it is not her own body, but that of another individual as well. The child is being put in harms way, which is why I made my point!!

As far as I can tell, you totally ignored the entirety of my argument (dealing with when life comes into play, arbitrary distinctions of many kinds, etc...) other than the part about a woman choosing to be pregnant.

Not to mention the fact that being put in peril of discomfort or social ostracization(once again, that discomfort is the result of a choice) is hardly a justification for the termination of life.

Lastly, they DO NOT have to provide financially necessarily. Though I believe that if the woman wishes (after carrying to term) to keep the child, that much tighter and more restrictive child-support laws need to be put in place. I am all for responsibility when it is possible.

That's why we have adoption! I also think adoption laws need to be reworked heavily, as they are too restrictive and cause a huge gap between the number of parents (large) who wish to adopt, the number of children waiting to be adopted (large), and the number of adoptions that take place (too small).

Umm no, scientifically, the definition of "life" clearly exists before birth. I also CLEARLY stated that I have no religious stake in this as I am areligious and do not believe in "injection of a soul" NOR did I make that a point in my argument!

The argument is personhood. I made the argument in detail in my first statement, while you seem to be arguing with my reference and summation of the first statement.

If you are going to engage in academic discourse, you need to base your arguments on the discourse, and not on constant abstractions, misapplications, misunderstandings (request clarification), and strawmen.

The definition of "life" being significant to the reasoning to support or deny abortion rights is what the blurring is. Scientifically speaking, yes, the idea of life is at the fetus living in very early stages of embryonic development. However, whether or not people summarize that beginning stage as truly "life" is what starts this age-old debate.

The fact is I want women to make their own choices. Males have no real idea what it is like to carry an unwanted child and despite women needing to be aware of precautions of having sex unprotected -- there is always the risk of accidents with the condom, rape or even just a human error.

To put this into a perspective that cannot be swayed by doctrines, how would you treat someone who has stumbled into a bad neighborhood with lots of jewelry and money? Would you let them have their rights to have the police come and protect and try to solve the crimes of who stole what, or would you go "well, you should have known better, this street is known for criminals and thievery"?

Nobody in favor of pro-choice favors abortions. I wish pro-lifers would realize that we who are pro-choice do not love killing babies or fetuses, rather we see that women are the ones holding the child, and need to undergo almost a year of changes in their life to subsequently provide for this child. If a mother is doing it out of need, it's a great experience... if the baby isn't wanted, that is subjecting torture to that young woman.

What about pregnant 12 year old girls? Should they have their kids, despite the numerous complications that can arise due to the underdeveloped woman involved with the child birth? What about the health risk for the mother?

I certainly see where pro-lifers are coming from, a life that is aborted could very well be the one life that ends up being a proponent of world peace, but that can be said about anybody who dies for a reasoning beyond our control.

We as pro-lifers want women to have their rights as they deserve, and I can guarantee no male would be pro-life if they had to carry the baby and do what the woman has to do involved with the procedures of labor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kwhitegocubs

Umm no, scientifically, the definition of "life" clearly exists before birth.

---

There is no set definition in Biology, or the study of life on life. Some scientists believe that it has to do with entropy, or avoiding decay into equilibrium, still others believe that life revolves around Darwinian Evolution, or self-sustaining systems...there has yet to be a single definition of life accepted by everyone. Every definition has had to face down challenges to its validity because definitions are concerned only with symantics and concepts; they can't expand our understanding of the world. We can only define things as we already understand them....

Quote:

---

The fact is I want women to make their own choices. Males have no real idea what it is like to carry an unwanted child and despite women needing to be aware of precautions of having sex unprotected -- there is always the risk of accidents with the condom, rape or even just a human error.

---

Exactly, we are laying judgment on women who have unprotected sex who may just want to have sex for reasons other than wanting to get pregnant. Many abortion opponents also oppose the use of contraceptives and morning-after pills....should the enjoyment of a natural healthy sex life be defined by a person's sex set by law?

I would like to say that I am all for contraceptives. That's a way of taking responsibility. Abortion is not.

Of course, there are very few pro-choice advocates who WANT abortion. They don't think it's some great good (though there are a few extreme feminists who see utilizing abortion as a positive - I can link you to some statements, BUT I admit it is a very small fringe).

"To put this into a perspective that cannot be swayed by doctrines, how would you treat someone who has stumbled into a bad neighborhood with lots of jewelry and money? Would you let them have their rights to have the police come and protect and try to solve the crimes of who stole what, or would you go "well, you should have known better, this street is known for criminals and thievery"?"

First, I find it very distasteful to act as if pregnancy is akin to thievery and criminality. That being said, even admitting the thought experiment as it is, I find it faulty. Condoms, abstinence, birth control, etc... are the protections. Additionally, the word "stumble" connotates that it was accidental - consensual sex is NOT accidental - it is walking into the neighborhood INTENTIONALLY, with the knowledge that the primary result and purpose of walking into the neighborhood without protection is the thievery or assault.

Yes, I think the 12-year old should come to term unless there comes into existence an immediate threat to her life or it comes to knowledge that she did NOT understand the consequences of sex OR it was due to statutory rape. Once again, the primacy of life must take precendence!

And I'll say it again - as much as I sympathize with the mother and her plight, there has to be some point where responsibility is a motivator. Moreover, "torture" is FAR too great a word for this. Bloating, morning sickness, and various other aspects of pregnancy hardly connotate torture any more than contracting a bad flu or having a migraine constitutes torture. Even accounting for this rhetorical flourish - health and comfort MUST subside against the termination of life.

There is no law I am of aware of that allows for murder or euthanasia against those who simply annoy us or bother us. Even if there was, that law would be grotesque.

Also, I'd like to give a primer on my life personally, and on a personal level, especially as a response to "and I can guarantee no male would be pro-life if they had to carry the baby and do what the woman has to do involved with the procedures of labor".

First, my stepmother had an abortion at age 18. She has since become a pro-life advocate, speaker, writer, and even has a bumper sticker that reads "I regret my abortion". She also volunteers 20 hours a week at a crisis pregnancy center. For her it was the fear of disapproval from the father, social ostracization, and a whole host of other factors that led her to abortion, but that the psychological effect has led her to believe that a supporting family and carriage to term is very important. She and my father are also strong adoption advocates and were attempting to adopt until my stepbrother and his wife had a child.

In yet anothe connection to abortion, my father and his girlfriend (four years before I was born) conceived. My father proposed marriage, proposed any and all kinds of child support, even if he had to raise it on his own. She had an abortion anyways. I think that it crushed his spirit in many ways. The child was wanted, and the woman was supported. Shouldn't the father have rights in this case? All I know is that my father's increasing religiosity and opposition to abortion was likely spurred in great deal by his experience.

Lastly, my mother, when I was 15, became pregnant. At just short of five months her water burst and she had an infection. Despite conferring with specialists, it was decided that she would have to have a late-term abortion, and the child was not far enough along to possibly be saved. She miscarried two days before the procedure, but that point is moot in terms of evaluating the nature of the whole thing. It is a complicated story, but this event caused very strong rifts between my father (divorced by then for 11 years from her) and mother, as well as myself and each one of them.

I have personally experienced and seen some of the most difficult (and unusual) circumstances involving abortion. Therefore, please know that my opinion about this divisive issue is not so cold and emotionless as to disregard the merits of the mother's plight.

I have already gone round and round on this issue in other threads, but being as you're generally a rational sort, cubs, I'll present you with an opposing point of view that isn't dan-based.

For a person like me, the abortion debate has two distinct issues.
1. The moral issue of life
2. The civil issue of the rights of a woman's body

Before I go further, I will say that I believe this issue cannot be solved by tackling abortion and must be solved on the education/prevention front, and, to a greater extent, the medical research front. If pro-lifers really wanted to solve this issue, that is where their money and their efforts should go. I cannot imagine this issue being settled with the status quo. We need viable technology and radical changes in sex education and disease/pregnancy prevention to solve this problem. And it is a problem. I don't know anyone on either side of the debate that thinks of this issue with any joy.

First, I will address for you the issue of life. I've been called a number of names on this form (the oh-so-popular intellectually dishonest being the kindest of them) for claiming, quite truthfully that I don't believe a fetus is a human life. I personally do not believe that there is human life without human consciousness. Is a fetus a living thing? Most certainly. But then so are viruses, plants, and non-human animals. I do not believe there is any definitive way to know whether a fetus has human consciousness. I do not know that we'll ever know. And until it can be proven scientifically by common medical and legal standards there is just no way to be sure. For all intents a purposes a fetus is like a parasite (though not a true parasite because it does not invade, but spawn within) with a human iv and breathing machine. It is this lump of cells until it is not. I do not know at what point it is not. No one does. And until someone is able to provide proof that meets the necessary standards, this issue remains a matter of feeling and opinion. There is merit to the belief that we should err on the side of caution and I have a great deal of sympathy for reasonable people that believe a fetus is a life from conception. I simply don't agree with them and contest that they cannot support their position with any forensic certainty. (This statement will likely result in the posting of shock-happy fetus photos, which has already gone round on this board when I've made this claim).

My personal compromise on this side of the debate is that we cannot know for sure and each case is different and there needs to be a line in the sand somewhere somehow. I believe a reasonable compromise is the time at which a fetus is able to exist outside the womb. At that point, the likelihood of consciousness is greater and this position also manages a reasonable (not fair, but reasonable) compromise for the civil issue.

The civil issue, of course is the right of a woman over her own body. You appear to believe, as do others like you, that the separate lifeform inside the womb trumps the rights of the host/mother. But nowhere else in law do we obligate anyone to put their own body at risk (however minor) to save someone else. You cannot compel someone to donate body organs or blood. You cannot force someone to give up the rights of their body for the sake of another. There is no way around it. If you were dying and a pint of my blood was the only thing that could save you, you would have no legal grounds to take it from me. My good will is all you have to pin your hopes on.

There are those who think that because the dangers of pregnancy are greatly reduced in modern society that means there are none. But the risk factors are significant. Blood volume massively increases and the strain placed on the heart is great during both pregnancy and delivery. Anyone with even a minor cardiac issue can face serious dangers during pregnancy. Diabetics face serious challenges during pregnancy. People with schizophrenia and bi-polar issues have to forsake vital medications while they are pregnant (not to mention the hormonal changes that a patient with a history of depression will encounter). The overwhelming majority of pregnancies result in safe delivery for the babies and mothers. But that is in no small part due to the fact that the overwhelming majority of pregnant women want to be pregnant and have a motivation to deliver a healthy baby. Even in safe deliveries, however, the toll a pregnancy takes on a woman's body is no small matter. And I am not merely referring to the cosmetic issues.

Obligating someone under law to put their own health at risk for the sake of another is the denial of a basic civil liberty. Period. This cannot be refuted from a forensic standpoint.

There are other compelling issues on both sides of the argument. But I find that when I return to this issue for serious consideration, the only compromise I can come up with is the point when a fetus can reasonably expect to exist outside the body of the mother. I don't feel that compromise is right. I believe forcing someone to come to term at any stage violates their basic civil rights. But, I can see the wisdom in some compromise on this issue until medical science catches up to help us with the definitive answer on the morality issues. I believe the 100% pro-choice position is the only civil defensible position. But given the ambiguity of the moral issue, I could accept a compromise.

The 100% "pro-life" position, given our current technology and social make-up would have horrific consequences. Personal responsibility is all good and well for those of us who understand what it is and what it entails. But you cannot thrust it upon people and expect it to stick because you want it to.

Attitudes are changing. Look at movies like Juno which signal to youth that there is merit to carrying a child to term and offering adoption. I don't think anyone in mainstream thought is really pro-abortion. We all want a solution to the problem. We just don't want to violate civil rights in the face of ambiguous moral arguments. My biggest hope for this issue is technology and I truly believe education and technology is the answer to this stalemate. In the meantime, I'm willing to compromise so long as the other side doesn't over-reach.

Just so you know how I come to my standpoint (since you shared some of your own personal information). The women in my family have a history of difficult conception and delivery. My mother nearly died giving birth to my brother in 1975 and for years after it had a staggering effect on her metal state (thanks to medical science her depression is now handled by medications and she's a whole new person in many ways). I was little and had lots of loving family around me, so I didn't understand the full impact of my mother's depression until I was older, but it was clear the pregnancies each took their toll. The pregnancy and delivery of me a few years earlier had also been dangerous. In her case she wouldn't have had a second child, but back then (1972) her doctor had refused to tie my mother's tubes citing an objection of conscious (he was catholic). While I'm sure she could have gone elsewhere or raised legal objection, my mother was raised to be diminutive and go along. The result was my brother. While I love him dearly, I understand the cost he and I took on my mother's physical and mental health and I do not believe that should be forced upon anyone. I have had friends who have had abortions and who have opted against abortions as well. Until recently I regularly volunteered at women's health clinics where I often came into contact with at-risk pregnant women as well as women seeking abortions or other options. Your personal story is very compelling. But I will never believe a man can completely understand this issue. It's not about discrimination. It's just the way the world works. I will never understand what it's like to have a penis no matter how hard I try.

There are other questions that bear addressing.

Thorough my various volunteer work I have encountered many women who have been sexually assaulted both by strangers and known associates. Rape clauses are a matter of great debate, but there are different kinds of rape and many of them occur everyday in marriages and relationships. Rape is no where near as rare as people seem to think. They are not just acts of strangers. Expecting a woman to carry a child of such an act to term is a monumental violation of these women who have already been violated.

Further, if you define "life" as moment-of-conception then you are condemning every rape victim that ever took a morning after pill (most of which seek to prevent fertilization, but which also serve to unseat the implanted fertilized egg if there is one). And how does this apply to frozen embryos? And does a fetus have the rights of an American citizen when the definition of citizenship includes being born, not conceived? And if it's illegal to abort an embryo/fetus that cannot sustain life on it's own, how would that standard of law translate to situations like a coma patient on a respirator?

I understand and even sympathize with the righteous indignation of those who believe fully that an embryo/fetus is a human life. If they truly believe that, then they have every duty to their conscious to do what they must. But their righteous indignation does not have conclusive proof to deny someone their civil rights, and even if they did, they still wouldn't have grounds failing a Constitutional amendment of some sort.

Look, what the abortion issue comes down to is pretty simple.

A fetus, whether alive or not, is not self aware to the point that a fetus (within the legal time frame for abortion) cannot feel, or comprehend, pain.

In anticipation of the conservative calling card, aka logical fallacies, slippery slope arguments do not apply. Sure you could make the argument that fully formed and healthy infants aren't self aware--but no one is advocating killing infants (or eugenics, because that one inevitably pops up too).

The point is that the state doesn't have a legitimate right or interest in forcing a woman to have a child she can not provide for emotionally or financially. It's funny that all of you conservatives are terrified by the idea of the US federal government regulating capitalism, or the environment, or anything else that would take away the ability of the "free" market to redistribute wealth upward--yet you seem to have no problem with the state regulating the basis of a free society, an individual's control over their own body.

There are two million abortions that happen in the US every year, you're either incredibly naive or incredibly stupid if you believe adoption or government foster care could handle an additional two million kids each year; it's even more retarded to think those kids would have some great life in that system.

Furthermore, we know that abortions wont stop if they are criminalized. In countries where abortion is illegal, women who want abortions still get them, but the number of women who die from infections, or poorly done procedures, is very high.

BTW--i know that fundies like to claim that abortion is banned by god, could anyone provide me a specific verse in the bible where god says "and thout shalt have no abortions" or anything close? I'm pretty sure the best anyone would be able to do is that each person is made in god's image.

Well I tell you what, i can directly quote Christ telling his followers that capital punishment is wrong "let ye who is without sin cast the first stone," and the people all of you love to put to death are living, breathing, self aware human beings with fully formed emotional makeups.

why take the moral highroad with abortion and the moral low road with capital punishment?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaryAnnKilledGinger

I have already gone round and round on this issue in other threads, but being as you're generally a rational sort, cubs, I'll present you with an opposing point of view that isn't dan-based.

For a person like me, the abortion debate has two distinct issues.
1. The moral issue of life
2. The civil issue of the rights of a woman's body

Before I go further, I will say that I believe this issue cannot be solved by tackling abortion and must be solved on the education/prevention front, and, to a greater extent, the medical research front. If pro-lifers really wanted to solve this issue, that is where their money and their efforts should go. I cannot imagine this issue being settled with the status quo. We need viable technology and radical changes in sex education and disease/pregnancy prevention to solve this problem. And it is a problem. I don't know anyone on either side of the debate that thinks of this issue with any joy.

First, I will address for you the issue of life. I've been called a number of names on this form (the oh-so-popular intellectually dishonest being the kindest of them) for claiming, quite truthfully that I don't believe a fetus is a human life. I personally do not believe that there is human life without human consciousness. Is a fetus a living thing? Most certainly. But then so are viruses, plants, and non-human animals. I do not believe there is any definitive way to know whether a fetus has human consciousness. I do not know that we'll ever know. And until it can be proven scientifically by common medical and legal standards there is just no way to be sure. For all intents a purposes a fetus is like a parasite (though not a true parasite because it does not invade, but spawn within) with a human iv and breathing machine. It is this lump of cells until it is not. I do not know at what point it is not. No one does. And until someone is able to provide proof that meets the necessary standards, this issue remains a matter of feeling and opinion. There is merit to the belief that we should err on the side of caution and I have a great deal of sympathy for reasonable people that believe a fetus is a life from conception. I simply don't agree with them and contest that they cannot support their position with any forensic certainty. (This statement will likely result in the posting of shock-happy fetus photos, which has already gone round on this board when I've made this claim).

My personal compromise on this side of the debate is that we cannot know for sure and each case is different and there needs to be a line in the sand somewhere somehow. I believe a reasonable compromise is the time at which a fetus is able to exist outside the womb. At that point, the likelihood of consciousness is greater and this position also manages a reasonable (not fair, but reasonable) compromise for the civil issue.

The civil issue, of course is the right of a woman over her own body. You appear to believe, as do others like you, that the separate lifeform inside the womb trumps the rights of the host/mother. But nowhere else in law do we obligate anyone to put their own body at risk (however minor) to save someone else. You cannot compel someone to donate body organs or blood. You cannot force someone to give up the rights of their body for the sake of another. There is no way around it. If you were dying and a pint of my blood was the only thing that could save you, you would have no legal grounds to take it from me. My good will is all you have to pin your hopes on.

There are those who think that because the dangers of pregnancy are greatly reduced in modern society that means there are none. But the risk factors are significant. Blood volume massively increases and the strain placed on the heart is great during both pregnancy and delivery. Anyone with even a minor cardiac issue can face serious dangers during pregnancy. Diabetics face serious challenges during pregnancy. People with schizophrenia and bi-polar issues have to forsake vital medications while they are pregnant (not to mention the hormonal changes that a patient with a history of depression will encounter). The overwhelming majority of pregnancies result in safe delivery for the babies and mothers. But that is in no small part due to the fact that the overwhelming majority of pregnant women want to be pregnant and have a motivation to deliver a healthy baby. Even in safe deliveries, however, the toll a pregnancy takes on a woman's body is no small matter. And I am not merely referring to the cosmetic issues.

Obligating someone under law to put their own health at risk for the sake of another is the denial of a basic civil liberty. Period. This cannot be refuted from a forensic standpoint.

There are other compelling issues on both sides of the argument. But I find that when I return to this issue for serious consideration, the only compromise I can come up with is the point when a fetus can reasonably expect to exist outside the body of the mother. I don't feel that compromise is right. I believe forcing someone to come to term at any stage violates their basic civil rights. But, I can see the wisdom in some compromise on this issue until medical science catches up to help us with the definitive answer on the morality issues. I believe the 100% pro-choice position is the only civil defensible position. But given the ambiguity of the moral issue, I could accept a compromise.

The 100% "pro-life" position, given our current technology and social make-up would have horrific consequences. Personal responsibility is all good and well for those of us who understand what it is and what it entails. But you cannot thrust it upon people and expect it to stick because you want it to.

Attitudes are changing. Look at movies like Juno which signal to youth that there is merit to carrying a child to term and offering adoption. I don't think anyone in mainstream thought is really pro-abortion. We all want a solution to the problem. We just don't want to violate civil rights in the face of ambiguous moral arguments. My biggest hope for this issue is technology and I truly believe education and technology is the answer to this stalemate. In the meantime, I'm willing to compromise so long as the other side doesn't over-reach.

Just so you know how I come to my standpoint (since you shared some of your own personal information). The women in my family have a history of difficult conception and delivery. My mother nearly died giving birth to my brother in 1975 and for years after it had a staggering effect on her metal state (thanks to medical science her depression is now handled by medications and she's a whole new person in many ways). I was little and had lots of loving family around me, so I didn't understand the full impact of my mother's depression until I was older, but it was clear the pregnancies each took their toll. The pregnancy and delivery of me a few years earlier had also been dangerous. In her case she wouldn't have had a second child, but back then (1972) her doctor had refused to tie my mother's tubes citing an objection of conscious (he was catholic). While I'm sure she could have gone elsewhere or raised legal objection, my mother was raised to be diminutive and go along. The result was my brother. While I love him dearly, I understand the cost he and I took on my mother's physical and mental health and I do not believe that should be forced upon anyone. I have had friends who have had abortions and who have opted against abortions as well. Until recently I regularly volunteered at women's health clinics where I often came into contact with at-risk pregnant women as well as women seeking abortions or other options. Your personal story is very compelling. But I will never believe a man can completely understand this issue. It's not about discrimination. It's just the way the world works. I will never understand what it's like to have a penis no matter how hard I try.

There are other questions that bear addressing.

Thorough my various volunteer work I have encountered many women who have been sexually assaulted both by strangers and known associates. Rape clauses are a matter of great debate, but there are different kinds of rape and many of them occur everyday in marriages and relationships. Rape is no where near as rare as people seem to think. They are not just acts of strangers. Expecting a woman to carry a child of such an act to term is a monumental violation of these women who have already been violated.

Further, if you define "life" as moment-of-conception then you are condemning every rape victim that ever took a morning after pill (most of which seek to prevent fertilization, but which also serve to unseat the implanted fertilized egg if there is one). And how does this apply to frozen embryos? And does a fetus have the rights of an American citizen when the definition of citizenship includes being born, not conceived? And if it's illegal to abort an embryo/fetus that cannot sustain life on it's own, how would that standard of law translate to situations like a coma patient on a respirator?

I understand and even sympathize with the righteous indignation of those who believe fully that an embryo/fetus is a human life. If they truly believe that, then they have every duty to their conscious to do what they must. But their righteous indignation does not have conclusive proof to deny someone their civil rights, and even if they did, they still wouldn't have grounds failing a Constitutional amendment of some sort.

---

all of that to say you're a liberal who supports unfettered abortion rights.

btw, I believe Corte is just asking women to make fully informed decisions.

The scientific evidence is that the unborn child does indeed feel pain, as early as 5 weeks, IIFC.

And "fully formed emotional makeups"??? WTF does that have to do with killing? Is it okay to kill someone with Autism? I didn't think so.

Quote:

---

incredibly naive or incredibly stupid if you believe adoption or government foster care could handle an additional two million kids each year; it's even more retarded to think those kids would have some great life in that system.

---

-- population control argument -- in fact, I guess we're doing a service to society by killing 2 million children each year -- not to mention putting each child out of his or her certain misery of being born into this world.

State interference? Obama's FOCA denies doctors the objections of conscience concerning abortions. It would be ILLEGAL for a doctor to NOT perform an abortion that his or her patient requests. THAT is an infringement on and control over a person's fundamental ethical, moral, religious, human beliefs. I agree that the fed govt. should not mandate morality -- but it's gotta go both ways. The abortion issue should be legislated (if at all) at the community level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

...wants to take away a women's choice what to do with her body...maybe TX women should vote for mandatory castration for Corte?




Link

---

So a more fully informed decision is undesireable? No matter what side one is on, why would one NOT want the most information available when contemplatiing such an emotional and life changing action?

We don't know when life begins, when humanity begins, etc...so why error on the side of killing what MIGHT be a human being?

That would be like a scheduled building demolition, and before we push the button we ask "is there anyone in there? Well, there MIGHT be, we don't know for sure, but just go ahead and detonate anyway because that building is in the way."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaryAnnKilledGinger

I have already gone round and round on this issue in other threads, but being as you're generally a rational sort, cubs, I'll present you with an opposing point of view that isn't dan-based.

For a person like me, the abortion debate has two distinct issues.
1. The moral issue of life
2. The civil issue of the rights of a woman's body

Before I go further, I will say that I believe this issue cannot be solved by tackling abortion and must be solved on the education/prevention front, and, to a greater extent, the medical research front. If pro-lifers really wanted to solve this issue, that is where their money and their efforts should go. I cannot imagine this issue being settled with the status quo. We need viable technology and radical changes in sex education and disease/pregnancy prevention to solve this problem. And it is a problem. I don't know anyone on either side of the debate that thinks of this issue with any joy.

First, I will address for you the issue of life. I've been called a number of names on this form (the oh-so-popular intellectually dishonest being the kindest of them) for claiming, quite truthfully that I don't believe a fetus is a human life. I personally do not believe that there is human life without human consciousness. Is a fetus a living thing? Most certainly. But then so are viruses, plants, and non-human animals. I do not believe there is any definitive way to know whether a fetus has human consciousness. I do not know that we'll ever know. And until it can be proven scientifically by common medical and legal standards there is just no way to be sure. For all intents a purposes a fetus is like a parasite (though not a true parasite because it does not invade, but spawn within) with a human iv and breathing machine. It is this lump of cells until it is not. I do not know at what point it is not. No one does. And until someone is able to provide proof that meets the necessary standards, this issue remains a matter of feeling and opinion. There is merit to the belief that we should err on the side of caution and I have a great deal of sympathy for reasonable people that believe a fetus is a life from conception. I simply don't agree with them and contest that they cannot support their position with any forensic certainty. (This statement will likely result in the posting of shock-happy fetus photos, which has already gone round on this board when I've made this claim).

My personal compromise on this side of the debate is that we cannot know for sure and each case is different and there needs to be a line in the sand somewhere somehow. I believe a reasonable compromise is the time at which a fetus is able to exist outside the womb. At that point, the likelihood of consciousness is greater and this position also manages a reasonable (not fair, but reasonable) compromise for the civil issue.

The civil issue, of course is the right of a woman over her own body. You appear to believe, as do others like you, that the separate lifeform inside the womb trumps the rights of the host/mother. But nowhere else in law do we obligate anyone to put their own body at risk (however minor) to save someone else. You cannot compel someone to donate body organs or blood. You cannot force someone to give up the rights of their body for the sake of another. There is no way around it. If you were dying and a pint of my blood was the only thing that could save you, you would have no legal grounds to take it from me. My good will is all you have to pin your hopes on.

There are those who think that because the dangers of pregnancy are greatly reduced in modern society that means there are none. But the risk factors are significant. Blood volume massively increases and the strain placed on the heart is great during both pregnancy and delivery. Anyone with even a minor cardiac issue can face serious dangers during pregnancy. Diabetics face serious challenges during pregnancy. People with schizophrenia and bi-polar issues have to forsake vital medications while they are pregnant (not to mention the hormonal changes that a patient with a history of depression will encounter). The overwhelming majority of pregnancies result in safe delivery for the babies and mothers. But that is in no small part due to the fact that the overwhelming majority of pregnant women want to be pregnant and have a motivation to deliver a healthy baby. Even in safe deliveries, however, the toll a pregnancy takes on a woman's body is no small matter. And I am not merely referring to the cosmetic issues.

Obligating someone under law to put their own health at risk for the sake of another is the denial of a basic civil liberty. Period. This cannot be refuted from a forensic standpoint.

There are other compelling issues on both sides of the argument. But I find that when I return to this issue for serious consideration, the only compromise I can come up with is the point when a fetus can reasonably expect to exist outside the body of the mother. I don't feel that compromise is right. I believe forcing someone to come to term at any stage violates their basic civil rights. But, I can see the wisdom in some compromise on this issue until medical science catches up to help us with the definitive answer on the morality issues. I believe the 100% pro-choice position is the only civil defensible position. But given the ambiguity of the moral issue, I could accept a compromise.

The 100% "pro-life" position, given our current technology and social make-up would have horrific consequences. Personal responsibility is all good and well for those of us who understand what it is and what it entails. But you cannot thrust it upon people and expect it to stick because you want it to.

Attitudes are changing. Look at movies like Juno which signal to youth that there is merit to carrying a child to term and offering adoption. I don't think anyone in mainstream thought is really pro-abortion. We all want a solution to the problem. We just don't want to violate civil rights in the face of ambiguous moral arguments. My biggest hope for this issue is technology and I truly believe education and technology is the answer to this stalemate. In the meantime, I'm willing to compromise so long as the other side doesn't over-reach.

Just so you know how I come to my standpoint (since you shared some of your own personal information). The women in my family have a history of difficult conception and delivery. My mother nearly died giving birth to my brother in 1975 and for years after it had a staggering effect on her metal state (thanks to medical science her depression is now handled by medications and she's a whole new person in many ways). I was little and had lots of loving family around me, so I didn't understand the full impact of my mother's depression until I was older, but it was clear the pregnancies each took their toll. The pregnancy and delivery of me a few years earlier had also been dangerous. In her case she wouldn't have had a second child, but back then (1972) her doctor had refused to tie my mother's tubes citing an objection of conscious (he was catholic). While I'm sure she could have gone elsewhere or raised legal objection, my mother was raised to be diminutive and go along. The result was my brother. While I love him dearly, I understand the cost he and I took on my mother's physical and mental health and I do not believe that should be forced upon anyone. I have had friends who have had abortions and who have opted against abortions as well. Until recently I regularly volunteered at women's health clinics where I often came into contact with at-risk pregnant women as well as women seeking abortions or other options. Your personal story is very compelling. But I will never believe a man can completely understand this issue. It's not about discrimination. It's just the way the world works. I will never understand what it's like to have a penis no matter how hard I try.

There are other questions that bear addressing.

Thorough my various volunteer work I have encountered many women who have been sexually assaulted both by strangers and known associates. Rape clauses are a matter of great debate, but there are different kinds of rape and many of them occur everyday in marriages and relationships. Rape is no where near as rare as people seem to think. They are not just acts of strangers. Expecting a woman to carry a child of such an act to term is a monumental violation of these women who have already been violated.

Further, if you define "life" as moment-of-conception then you are condemning every rape victim that ever took a morning after pill (most of which seek to prevent fertilization, but which also serve to unseat the implanted fertilized egg if there is one). And how does this apply to frozen embryos? And does a fetus have the rights of an American citizen when the definition of citizenship includes being born, not conceived? And if it's illegal to abort an embryo/fetus that cannot sustain life on it's own, how would that standard of law translate to situations like a coma patient on a respirator?

I understand and even sympathize with the righteous indignation of those who believe fully that an embryo/fetus is a human life. If they truly believe that, then they have every duty to their conscious to do what they must. But their righteous indignation does not have conclusive proof to deny someone their civil rights, and even if they did, they still wouldn't have grounds failing a Constitutional amendment of some sort.

---

Wow -- looks like you have been reading up on Pete Singer. SO what is human consciousness ? I mean are you like Pete Singer and think the magic age is around "2" and that parents of mentally handicapped children should be allowed to "terminate" them to because they are not aware they are alive ? And then would this also extend to the elderly and others who are "incapacitated" medically ( in spite of all those who come out of comas etc..) ? Where does it end for you ?

oh and you can take your sympathy for me and others who feel that life begins at conception and reserve for all those murdered babies or fetuses -- or parasites as you like to refer to them. -- and perhaps save a little -- I like how you share an emotional story with the burden of pregnancy -- should I share one of the thousands of stories of women who carry a similar and mpossibly much worse emotional burden after having an abortion when they were led to believe it was just a "parasite"?

I am also curious if your feelings of abortion extend to animals , plants , the environment ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lebowski Brickowski

The scientific evidence is that the unborn child does indeed feel pain, as early as 5 weeks, IIFC.

---

This is why forensic debate on this issue is nearly impossible. There is no evidence. There are indicators. And the indicators do point to the fetus responding to painful stimuli. But this has only been observed at 20 weeks at the earliest. Another reason why the 3rd trimester compromise is reasonable to me. This element does not address any of the civil rights concerns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lebowski Brickowski

Obama's FOCA denies doctors the objections of conscience concerning abortions.

---

This is propaganda and untrue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lebowski Brickowski

So a more fully informed decision is undesireable? No matter what side one is on, why would one NOT want the most information available when contemplating such an emotional and life changing action?

---

Matters of health are, by law, between you and your doctor. It is the doctor's responsibility to provide information and the patient's right to get a second opinion and/or research on their own if they wish. In theory, I would actually have no problem with the doctor/clinic being required to hand out a pamphlet of information approved by the mainstream medical community. But it is one thing to inform, it is another thing to harass. And making someone go through an additional physical exam where they have to listen to take sonograms, etc is harassment. Should all cancer patients be forced to sit through documentaries about Gerson Therapy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I Love Me Some Me

We don't know when life begins, when humanity begins, etc...so why error on the side of killing what MIGHT be a human being?

---

Because to make something illegal you have to have proof it is a crime. Not the other way around.

Why is the 3rd trimester reasonable to you ? Those parasites are not aware yet...
Asking someone to take a sonogram is harrassment ?

Well, I think she is referring to the idea that a fetus develops a more complex cerebral cortex at around 20 weeks.

The reference to Pete Singer is very interesting as well, and I'll admit that the "slippery slope" (which I HATE HATE HATE as a term, but it just works so well) can go either way when using an arbitrary determination of consciousness or level of consciousness as a point of argument. I tend to err on the side of no distinction on the point of life, because, as I said, it must take primacy over all other rights by the nature of its absolutism. Without life, no other argument can be made.

I'd also argue potentiality here. It's a rather technical distinction but one that I cannot help but point to. All the points in fetal development are fluid - there is no sudden substantial change in development beyond conception - it is linear and continuous. Thus, if the potential for all other points are intact and the course is immutable, then to subjectively stop the course at any point must merit the same societal or moral response than as at any other point.

MAKG, I tried to make it clear in my statement that in cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother, I am all for exceptions. However, your rehashing of Judith Jarvis Thompson's old "violinist" postulate rings false to me because (as I said) consensual sex is introducing and creating the dependant entity by force of one's own volition. If the child was indeed a random creation whose parasitic nature was unfounded by a conscious decision involving knowledge of its creation, then yes, I would have no qualms before the fifth month or so.

To void personal responsibility to such a degree that there is no merit in it seems at least as counter-productive. Of course education, support, tougher child support laws, and general societal compassion are necessary aspects of the macroscopic challenge abortion represents. They shouldn't function alone - some civil restrictions on abortion are necessary. Even many of the European countries have restrictions on late-term abortions that are stronger than ours. Dilation/Extraction is the most heinous of these currently being utilized.

I also realize (sadly) that an all-out abortion ban would a) never work on a national level, and b) dissolve the argument into even greater chaos and conflict. I still must hope for a unified theorem and solution on the matter, though, as not to do so would

As you know, I am a determinist, and I hold no ill will towards those who disagree nor do I blame those who participate in abortions. That doesn't mean that I wish it to continue nor find justification in its justifications.

Lastly and perhaps most pertinently, I find your assertion about "males" not being able to understand it somewhat sad. Now I know that it is a common feeling and perspective. I, as an asexual (orientation or lack thereof :)) and someone with some strong physical and mental conflicts on the issue of sex/gender (though I am sterile in either direction at this point), feel that a blanket statement of "you can't identify" to be dismissive of the human capacity for empathy AND a point for ending all debate without having a burden of proof.

Women who want to terminate their pregnancy in Texas would be required to listen for the heartbeat and get ultrasound images made of the fetus...

You can't hear a heartbeat usually until about 8 or 9 weeks of pregnancy, and the ultrasound won't even show a fetal pole for at least a month and a half.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ploto

Women who want to terminate their pregnancy in Texas would be required to listen for the heartbeat and get ultrasound images made of the fetus...

You can't hear a heartbeat usually until about 8 or 9 weeks of pregnancy, and the ultrasound won't even show a fetal pole for at least a month and a half.

---

Right, but there are a great number of abortions that occur after those points in time. I admit that it would have some limits, and be relatively useless in some cases, but the time barrier could be introduced as an informed amendment to the bill and not effect its intention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kwhitegocubs

Well, I think she is referring to the idea that a fetus develops a more complex cerebral cortex at around 20 weeks.

---

Meh, no. Please do not represent me to the little fundie that has a crush on me.

My reasoning is because the odds of the fetus being able to survive on its own outside the mother is viable at that point (the earliest successful premature birth was 21 weeks). My personal position is that the civil rights of the mother trumps all else - and that is how I would vote if I were personally to be required to do so. However, since social compromise on this issue seems more and more required lately, I see the wisdom in some reasonable (if arbitrary) line to make inroads for better education and medical funding to combat this issue at the source.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kwhitegocubs

The reference to Pete Singer is very interesting as well, and I'll admit that the "slippery slope"...can go either way when using an arbitrary determination of consciousness or level of consciousness as a point of argument.

---

Pete Singer poses many logical philosophies that are interesting aspects of the debate, but which I find lacking in practical application. It is worth noting, however that one of his basic premises (that it is not always wrong to take innocent human life) is a moral loophole that is generally accepted by the majority of Americans in other areas. As you know from previous discussions, I don't believe that the majority is always right - I simply find it an interesting element of this particular social debate.

During times of conflict you often hear people talk about how civilian casualties are an unfortunate but accepted loss for the greater good. And, of course, there is the evidence that we know innocent men have been sentenced to death by the state -- however it is widely accepted by capital punishment advocates that the smaller percentage of innocent deaths is acceptable in the name of whatever greater good they support.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kwhitegocubs

I tend to err on the side of no distinction on the point of life, because, as I said, it must take primacy over all other rights by the nature of its absolutism. Without life, no other argument can be made.

---

But this is an arbitrary call necessary only because it supports your other views. Isn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kwhitegocubs

I'd also argue potentiality here. It's a rather technical distinction but one that I cannot help but point to. All the points in fetal development are fluid - there is no sudden substantial change in development beyond conception - it is linear and continuous. Thus, if the potential for all other points are intact and the course is immutable, then to subjectively stop the course at any point must merit the same societal or moral response than as at any other point.

---

I understand the logic here, but you don't address any of the implications of this in regards to things like frozen embryos and morning after pills. Moreover, if a women behaves recklessly and it results in a miscarriage, has she now committed negligent homicide?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kwhitegocubs

MAKG, I tried to make it clear in my statement that in cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother, I am all for exceptions.

---

You did and I appreciate that. But a lot of people throw around rape clause advocacy without really understanding the underlying implications. Are you aware that such a social construct creates an environment where a woman will be forced to "prove" she was raped?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kwhitegocubs

However, your rehashing of Judith Jarvis Thompson's old "violinist" postulate rings false to me because (as I said) consensual sex is introducing and creating the dependant entity by force of one's own volition.

---

I'm not rehashing Thompson. Thompson proposes a difference in the right not to be killed vs the right not to be killed unjustly. My personal logic makes no such distinction. The foundation of my reasoning is that your right to life does not trump my civil rights over jurisdiction of my own body.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kwhitegocubs

If the child was indeed a random creation whose parasitic nature was unfounded by a conscious decision involving knowledge of its creation, then yes, I would have no qualms before the fifth month or so.

---

This is a logic detour from right to life to blame and accountability. While I understand why it's made, it has no bearing on the basic reasoning of the more important factors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kwhitegocubs

To void personal responsibility to such a degree that there is no merit in it seems at least as counter-productive.

---

Abortion is an act of personal responsibility. It is a medical procedure and, as such, has physical and psychological risks. Abortion is anything but an easy out. The act is, in and of itself, a consequence of an action. Made more so by the pro-life's dedication to making it as traumatizing as possible. I understand this aspect gets blown off by the pro-lifers, but it is nonetheless true.

Moreover, as personal responsibility goes, you're talking about something that has a 10% (less with any precautions taken) probability and which is in direct conflict with the second biggest human instinct. Yes, everyone knows there's a chance you could get pregnant every time you have sex, but they also know that there's a chance you could kill someone in a car accident, or be killed yourself every time you get behind the wheel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kwhitegocubs

They shouldn't function alone - some civil restrictions on abortion are necessary.

---

I don't agree they are necessary. The only reason they exist is to appease the pro-life movement. There is no civil benefit to abortion restrictions in and of themselves. There are, however, several civil benefits to abortion itself regardless of advocacy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kwhitegocubs

I also realize (sadly) that an all-out abortion ban would a) never work on a national level, and b) dissolve the argument into even greater chaos and conflict. I still must hope for a unified theorem and solution on the matter...

---

As do we all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kwhitegocubs

As you know, I am a determinist, and I hold no ill will towards those who disagree nor do I blame those who participate in abortions. That doesn't mean that I wish it to continue nor find justification in its justifications.

---

I feel the same way about reasonable pro-life advocates by and large. It is the middle of this debate that will advance progress, if there is any to be made. Thus my willingness to compromise late-term restrictions for medical funding and education.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kwhitegocubs

Lastly and perhaps most pertinently, I find your assertion about "males" not being able to understand it somewhat sad...a blanket statement of "you can't identify" to be dismissive of the human capacity for empathy AND a point for ending all debate without having a burden of proof.

---

I do not dismiss that you can have a logical point of view or that you can have empathy for the situation. But you can never put yourself into the same position and completely understand the implications from a woman's point of view. Let's be honest - all the ramifications of the personal responsibility of this situation fall on one of two people engaged in a theoretically consensual activity.

I am white. I will never understand what it's like to be African American, Latino, etc. I will be able to logically understand and empathize. But I will never fully understand. As such, I don't think anyone that is male (no matter their sexual status or orientation) can completely understand this issue from a woman's perspective. I'm not dismissing you, I'm simply saying you can't appreciate this issue fully because it has no consequence for you as an individual.

MAKG - First off, sorry for misrepresenting you. Shouldn't have assumed, because the cliche is right.

I am rather tired, and the impasse we have reached is the one that nearly all academic discussions on the subject of abortion tend to reach - civil rights of an individual vs. personal responsibility vs. right to life, etc.... I forgot his name, but a professor from Duke basically said that the initial assumptions around abortion never genuinely mesh, even if they are agreed upon at the beginning of a debate, and as such it is nearly impossible to come to a middle ground. At least absent an injection of non-ideological pragmatism. Even that last bit is often unlikely.

I'd still like to make a few rebuttals and clarifications. I also know that I suck at formatting, because I don't use quotes. Since I am primarily answering you (MAKG), it's probably not that big of a deal.

The reason why I admitted the possibility of justification for abortion in the case of the fetus arising spontaneously is that, in that case, the threat to the mother's civil rights and health would be involuntary. Sort of like how it is generally accepted that if someone breaks into your house you can shoot them. As (personally) a pacifist and an altruist, I'd like to be against this, but it's an impossible position to argue from in the realm of reality.

If I were to devise a thought experiment regarding abortion it would be like this: Imagine that you see a child outside and tell him that, if the need arises (which you accept as possible but do not know for certain), he may come inside and lie on your couch. When you wake up the next morning and find the child unclothed on your couch, you are outraged/schocked/annoyed, fly into a rage, and kick him into a -50 degree day where he will surely die of hypothermia within minutes. It is your (not YOU, of course, but the thought experiment you) action that made him vulnerable and your action that exploited the vulnerability. Is this justified?

Weirdly enough I use the getting into a car analogy for MY argument rather often. Once can walk, get on an airplane, take a train or ride a bike if one wants to greatly reduce the risk of death. Each one decreases the risk to a larger or smaller degree. To me, an even more fitting macro-analogy is the "responsibility for actions committed while drunk/high". While one may not be able to take responsibility for one's actions at a certain point of intoxication (lack of reasoning skill), the decision to become intoxicated is directly related to the next levels of action. Therefore, the culpability is still on the person who chose to drink, assuming they were the perpetrator of the act and not the victim. To me, someone becoming pregnant is the perpetrator and creator of the situation and is therefore responsible (but you know that I believe that at this point :)).

I understand that abortion is not an "easy out" and I am definitely well aware of the physical and psychological implications of a decision either way. Just because it constitutes a difficult decision doesn't mean it is a responsible act.

I can, however, support the use of the morning-after pill, because the immutable course of action doesn't begin until implantation. The fetus and placenta are both pat of the blastocyst until this point, and thus the individuality of the entity does not become existent until then. It's a technical distinction, but one that I can feel okay about. Same goes for the frozen embryos. In fact they are even easier, because the first division hasn't even taken place, meaning even an extended argument for the linear and continuous course can be disputed. The medical community, including the FDA and AMA, tend to see implantation as the beginning of pregnancy as well, so I am sated.

Yes, I believe that a miscarriage that resulted from the consciously irresponsible actions of a mother would constitute negligent homicide. I'm sure that that sounds unduly harsh, but it is consistent with my beliefs on the issue. I also hold that the only function and purpose of a justice system should be to rehabilitate the criminal and protect the public. Not to punish. Not to seek revenge. Therefore, I have a feeling my implication on the matter holds less dire consequences than a similar hard-line stance from many pro-lifers.

I am always against the death penalty - just as a note in regards to your anecdote about capital punishment justifications.

I would disagree that the idea that abortion has "no consequence" simply because I do not have the capacity to get pregnant (at least yet - advances in technology may make that possible before I am over 40....but I digress and am likely weirding people out in an enigmatic way). I do feel that the father, though he is not the physical bearer, should have some sway over the situation if he is willing to support the child. The example involving my father makes me emotionally biased, I'll admit.

Though this is a tangent, I believe that if the father is responsible for child support upon the mother's decision to bear the child, then he must logically have some sort of counter-influence over the decision not to abort. Otherwise the weight of culpability swings too far based solely on the mother's nine-month burden. It's a scary point that I haven't been able to solve - a catch-22 with an imbalance either way.

If all abortions were outlawed (outside of the exceptions I've already agreed to), I would strengthen child support and deadbeat father laws further. If the woman didn't give the child for adoption, I would also require the father (assuming he is not still with the woman or married) to either engage in X number of hours of constructive interaction with the child or X number of hours of general community service (sort of like a cap-and-trade with unruly or abusive fathers). This would nearly eliminate, imho, the nature of the catch-22 by equal imposition of responsibility for a conscious act.

I respect your standpoint and find your points well-reasoned. I at least hope that I have been relatively civil and responsible in my arguments.

.........As a sidebar, Frank Corte is an unabashed, big, pro-toll road supporter clearly getting his pockets filled by all the vested interests who stand to make billions off toll roads.