Frank Corte R- San Antonio..

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

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.

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.

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?

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?

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?

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 en y 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[kwhitegocubs]

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 cons utes 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 en y 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 cons ute 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.

[Twisted_Dawg]

.........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.