Rather than sitting here saying, "I'm right, I'm right!", can you show some proof of this?

Uh, perhaps you might want to check out just about every medical book out there on prenatal development. Just what the heck do you think a human being reproduces, a radish?

Secondly, if the unborn child is not human, what is it? A chair? A rock? A horse? A chrysanthemum? It is either human or not.

BTW, if it is not alive, then why do they have to kill it in an abortion? This always perplexed me.

Spare me your sanctimony, horny. One question at a time. I can't answer everything at once.

I know you've been nearing orgasms trying to "trap" me into saying I'm not consistent if I support the death penalty and not abortion. Well, I hate to disappoint you. (Never mind that such positions are not inconsistent or contradictory.)

But, since your panties are all in a tizzy about me not IMMEDIATELY answering your question, I'll do so now.

I fully realize that the death penalty is clearly constitutional, as it is specifically permitted by the document. A person on death row has gone through a trial, appeals, etc., and pursuant to the Law, is not "innocent."

Do certain crimes warrant the death penalty? I'm sure they do.

But emotional arguments make for bad laws (as in abortions). I've grown increasingly troubled by the application of the death penalty, and as such, cannot support it. Further reforms will most likely not change my position on this, either. The machinery of death more and more horrifies me.

I believe life imprisonment with hard labor and/or solitary confinement would be more punishing than a death sentence, most of which will not be carried out. Unfortunately, groups like the ACLU or others would probably whine and bitch that the convict was being treated harshly.

Boo phucking hoo.

[ September 06, 2003, 07:41 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

That's funny MIB, the rest of us were able to answer the questions succinctly without all the bullshit rhetoric and three or four days stalling, but thanks for playing.

I (not the originator of this thread) wasn't trying to "trap" you (paranoid much?), nor be sanctimonious (since you seem to have cornered the market on that trait).

Since you have such strong feelings on a woman's right to choose whether she wants to bare a child, I thought surely you might have an opinion on the death penalty. I didn't realize we had to wait (days and days) with baited breath for your parsed answers.

See that wasn't hard now was it? You are pro-life, don't be embarassed, it's OK not to agree with the Republicans on every single issue, just as I don't feel compelled to be in lockstep with the Democrats on every issue.

Now you can go back to your "I'm right and your wrong" abortion diatribes, even though this thread is not soley about abortion.

[ September 06, 2003, 08:57 PM: Message edited by: HornFan ]

Again, I support MIB's right to hold his views on the abortion issue. And again, the issue is one of opinions, not factual or conclusive data. But I believe he has a his right to his opinions.

I just happen to believe that all the information floating around out there about what constitutes life are open to interpretation. MIB believes that there is no controversy, life is instantaneous. And that's OK. But I think the majority of people understand the complexity of this issue. I readily admit that the issue is one wrapped in all sorts of conflicting opinion on both sides. Its obvious that MIB doesn't admit to this, and believes his opinions to be incontravertible fact. Oh well, I suppose we will have to agree to disagree.

This thread began as an analysis on people's opinions on both death penalty and abortion, and how the two interrelate. It'd be nice to put aside all the venom flying around (from multiple sources) regarding the abortion topic, and return to the vein of the thread.

This is my take on this ... I am pro-choice and this is my reason. It is the choice of the woman AND NO ONE ELSE can make that decision. That is what I believe. Is it a life in the womb? I don't know. That isn't for me to decide. We're men and we shouldn't let our views affect any woman who should want an abortion.

I didn't know there was a time requirement to respond to a post here. Some of us have other things to do besides stomping our feet and demanding an immediate response to a question, horny. I'm sure there are other questions I may not have addresses IMMEDIATELY, or within 24 hours, or whatever time requirement you, in your impatient mood, have set.

Besides, you were the only one who asked that question or covered that topic, while others kept an ongoing, intelligent discussion on something else. Therefore, they were in line ahead of you. There was no need to act childish and demand to be put at the front of the line.

My opinions are irrelevant and subjective. Medical facts are not "opinions." I may have opinions on this issue, but medical fact is incontrovertible, societal opinions notwithstanding.

I agree. No one should have the right to tell anyone else that he/she cannot kill another human being. Choice is far more important than life.

Sometimes, we as a society need to accept some responsibility and common sense rather than be blinded by emotions and money (yes, this is really about money and power).

MIB, for a "federal judge" you don't read too well. Please go back to the original post of this thread and check out the question(S). I'm not the one who brought up the death penalty; it was in the ORIGINAL post plain and simple, so please don't be so disingenuous as to claim I want my questions to be put in front of the line over someone else as that is total "hogwash", as you would put it.

Call me childish and unintelligent all you want...I'll just continue to call bullshit when I see it. You obviously get upset easily when in an environment where people are free to disagree, so your job APPOINTMENT obviously fits you to a tee. Nice try at deflection, but I call your hand on it.

BTW, the handle is HornFan, not horny.

I know very well what the thread's title is, horny. I didn't know you were policing it to the point where contributors HAD to address both topics every time they posted something.

Well, the two of you obviously have points of disagreement. We'll leave it at that. Please don't turn this into a Philly Fan thread.

MIB has opinions on abortion that I will never adopt unless someone can prove them to me, and he's yet to offer any proof. Still, he has his opinions, and I have my mine. Period.

This thread was about the hipocracy of killing both the unborn and the living. It'd be nice to see it return to that vein. If you two wish to vent upon one another, perhaps a separate thread is in order.

Okay, I'll venture back on topics and offer my reconciliation for pro-choice anti-death penalty.

It is my belief that the government should not execute its citizenry. For me, that's not the job of our government. Therefore, I am against the death penalty. If the government went around forcing women to have abortions, I'd be against that too.

A woman is not the government. I believe she has the right to make decisions about her own body. If she doesn't want someone else growing inside her, I won't stop her. I don't think the government should either.

I offered proof to you in the form of any medical text book, gynecological book, or biology book. Every one confirms this irrefutable fact: The offspring of a human being is a human being and nothing else.

Heck, this is even taught in most grade or high schools. I'm sure you didn't raise your hand and say, "Teacher, that's not true. When sperm and egg unit, a frog is the result."

It's not like an unborn child just takes up residence in some random woman. In the vast, vast majority of cases the unborn child is the result of consensual sex in which the woman chose to engage. This is my whole deal - I'm all about the right to choose to have sex, with whom to have sex, when to have sex, how to have sex, etc. Those are choices - choices which can result in unpleasant consequences. All you "pro-choice" guys out there need to remember that the existence of an unborn child is the result of a choice - a result of "decisions about her own body."

Of course I was being glib. If I were to continue being glib, I would say..."That's exactly what happens! No one asked 'May I take residence in your womb and suck precious nutrients out of your bloodstream, make you nauseous and fat?' No, the little bugger just plants himself or herself in the uterus and grows. If any other human did that it would be a violation of the woman's body. This kid is no different."

But I don't think we should poke these silly ideas too far.

I got your point William, and you are correct. There are consequences to actions. I'd just prefer women to have children if they want them, not because they have to bring something unwanted to term.

Originally posted by William1865:
All you "pro-choice" guys out there need to remember that the existence of an unborn child is the result of a choice - a result of "decisions about her own body."

Remember that, PhillyFan.

Here's an interesting question to ponder in light of our spirited debate...

If it was technologically and medically possible to remove the unborn child from the womb--at any stage of his/her development--without harming or adversely affecting the child, and have the child develop normally, how many would favor this? I know I think this would be a great idea. After all, the woman is no longer pregnant, and the child is given a chance at living.

I asked a pro-choice friend of mine this, and her response startled me. To paraphrase her, she said she would not be in favor of this because if the child were to grow up, she'd constantly be reminded of the child being her son/daughter. Julie also told me that this would just play into the hands of antiabortionists.

So I guess it IS all about making sure the child is killed. frown

Who is going to pay for those zygotes? I'm sure the Republicans don't want to pony up any money for unwanted feti. Seems to me there's already a ton of unadopted children in the world to wring our hands over, without adding more to the unwanted list.

[ September 08, 2003, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: HornFan ]

So it's better to kill the child rather than let the child live? Perhaps that child will be the one to find a cure for AIDS, or peace in the Middle East (well, OK, that last one is pretty far-fetched).

I think you've confirmed two things then: (1) It's about making sure a child is brutally killed [abortion ain't pretty], and (2) It's about the money.

The Left is all for spending, especially for the disadvantaged, the poor, etc.--something with which I agree. But for a child? Whoa! Can't have that! No way! KILL! KILL! KILL!

This is appalling, if not downright evil (and no, evil here has no religious connotations, for it is defined as the "absence of good").

BTW, we spend a ton of money already on crack babies, birth defect babies, premature babies, you name it. Spending money on babies removed from the womb because their lives were spared from the executioner's forceps seems to be the logical, most loving way to handle this.

[ September 08, 2003, 07:31 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

So the fanaticism comes out..."the Left" is demonized, without any sense of nuance, as if your friend stands in for all people who are not rabid right-wingers. If you truly are a judge, I just hope you are as fair as you can be when people who hold opposing views appear in your courtroom.

Since the anti-abortion people are always so zealous about saving these foetuses, why aren't they as zealous about taking care of them once they're alive as ex-utero human beings? Most use Christian Scripture as their basis, and Jesus Christ was a strong advocate of supporting the poor and downtrodden. Yet this gets lost in the frenzy of anti-poor rhetoric that comes out of these same peoples' mouths. Pharisaical, to say the least.

All in all, the optimal situation would be that people would only have children when they wanted them and were willing to take care of them; or when society was willing to take care of them. If we could get people to pay attention in sex ed classes and use contraception, we would eliminate the need for abortions (except in rare cases of medical necessity), which are grisly. In the case of rape, if the mother did not want to bring the child to term because of the extremely traumatic circumstances under which the child was conceived, RU-486 or a similar drug should be readily available.

It's a child in your eyes and just a mass of tissue in many others. I've said from the beginning that abortion is not a pretty picture. In reality, women are going to have abortions whether it's legal or not. I would prefer it happen in a safe environment. I don't feel evil for having that opinion.

Oh, what in the world is happening to me? I'm actually reading fantomas posts and nodding my head in the affirmative.

Fantomas succinctly hit several aspects of the issue squarely on the head, IMHO. I still can't believe I'm agreeing with fantomas...where's my long-lost therapist's number. LOL.

Raze, you need to get over your obsession with PhillyFan.

Just because you don't think children should be slaughtered doesn't obligate you to take care of all of them forever.

I love this reasoning, though: Abortion as a cost-saving measure for society. The more kids we abort, the fewer we have to take care of. Priceless.

Except, of course when a woman is raped -- the existence of that unborn child was not her choice.

So this "pro-choice" guy see a little problem there in your argument.

Which is why earlier in that very post, I said, " In the vast, vast majority of cases the unborn child is the result of consensual sex in which the woman chose to engage."

The whole pregnancy-by-rape argument is a red herring designed to distract attention from the fact that most pregnancies ended by abortion are the result of poor planning, not coercion.

Your're right -- only about 1% of pregnancies ended by induced abortions were from rapes. I know you weren't trying to be glib, but it's hardly a red herring -- it's a real moral dilemna (that's 10-15,000 women -- and 10-15,000 fetuses).

Those cases are unfortunate, but I don't believe they legitimize the other million or so abortions that take place each year for the sake of mere convenience. As a political compromise, I would support abortion in the case of rape or incest, as long as there was some sort of system by which a rape claim would be filed, etc. I wouldn't want every pregnant woman who doesn't want her kid to suddenly cry rape. I don't happen to believe children conceived by rape or incest have any less claim to life, but it is a compromise one must make given political realities, etc.

You as usually have completely missed the point, but am I surprised? No.

If you are fanatical about bringing lives into the world, and you use Scripture as your basis, then shouldn't you follow the entire Scripture as opposed to part of it? That is, where is the concern for the children who've been "saved"? And just so you know, no one is a child "forever," at least in biological terms.

Just so you know, economists have quantified the social benefits of abortion in terms of the crime rate (abortion has a positive effect on decreasing crime levels by eliminating unwanted and potentially neglected children, who are more likely to become criminals), an issue that all Americans are concerned about, but that your fellow GOPers usually try to use as a bludgeon when running for office.

I'm still trying to figure out when I mentioned anything about Scripture.

And I'm just speechless about this whole idea of eliminating the bad seeds (and thus eliminating crime) through abortion. Pro-abortionists always end up sounding so creepy.

But Fantomas, I must applaud you. Most people try to wrap their support in abortion rights in some sort of disgust or at least dislike for abortion itself. You actually seem to really dig it. That's brave. Sort of psychotic, but brave.

GOP: Leave no fetus behind.

I have this new game in which, when I see on the main page that Raze has posted on a particular topic, I try to guess what he is going to say. I'm batting a thousand right now.

Congrats!!
"Mission accomplished!"

[ September 09, 2003, 10:40 AM: Message edited by: RazorbackTX ]

Damn, I guessed "Bring 'em on."

I go away for one breeders' wedding and look at the firestorm I nearly missed!

To go back to the original question asked, let me explain my own anti-death penalty, pro-choice position.

Death Penalty:

I don't support the death penalty for two main reasons:

1) it is too likely to kill an innocent person - the most powerful evidence, the kind most likely to convict a person is eyewitness testimony (medical/scientific evidence like DNA is second). However eyewitness testimony is also the least reliable of all evidence presented in court (human beings are just not that good at identifying strangers). For these and myriad other problems (racism, classism) I believe the judicial system is simply too flawed to use this ultimate penalty.

2) criminals are human beings - I realize I have made this argument before and have been roundly attacked, but I will make it again. I don't support giving up on someone who has committed a crime, even a henious one, and believing they can never be rehabilitated in some way. I am not talking about freeing criminals here, but thinking about programs like "Scared Straight" where convicted murderers were at least trying to give back to society. Even from behind bars a person may be beneficial to the larger society, and we should not give up on them.

That value may be no more than as research subjects. We all know that we start as children, and from my psych background I know that there are very few true sociopaths out there (humans who are unable to have normal guilt/empathetic reactions). Only sociopaths are truly beyond hope, as they cannot form the kind of compassion and respect for other people that "normal" humans have. Therefore most criminals, including most violent ones, are "normal" humans who are warped by their environment, and that environment almost always includes child abuse and neglect. We should be studying criminals to determine what went wrong in their lives to at least try to stop that from happening in succeeding generations of kids.

On abortion:

I do not support abortion as a means of birth control, and am powerfully moved by all the arguments above that human life begins at conception. But the key difference between abortion and the death penalty is that the former involves two human lives, not just one. We need to remember that the mother is a fully formed human being with rights, etc., and not just an incubator for future human beings. Unfortunately too much of the anti-abortion rhetoric still treats women as male possessions to be used to have the man's children.

It is because of the addition of the other human life that I can't support anti-abortion legislation. The woman has a right to do with her body as she sees fit. Fantomas is right that if women (and their partners) all choose to act appropriately with regards to contraception, etc., the need for abortion would lessen, but would not go away. Contraceptives do fail, women are raped.

But there are plenty of abortions that would still be necessary/beneficial even if women and their partners make the appropriate (in society's terms)choices. That is because anti-abortion laws do not reflect medical reality. The anti-abortion rhetoric divides abortion into three groupings - to save the life of the mother (grudgingly allowed), in cases of rape and incest (some would allow, most rapid anti-abortion types would not - the child should not be blamed for the rape), and the largest grouping - child killings. If the issue is not the life of the mother or rape/incest, most anti-abortion people regard the abortion as a selfish act by the woman and the murder of a child. That is far from the case, and is the reason that I say leave abortion to the doctors.

In my own case I can find 3 real-life examples of women who did or may require abortions that were medically and ethically appropriate, but would not be allowed under the anti-abortion laws that 1970. I have mentioned them before, but will repeat here.

1) My mother, circa 1971, who was undergoing a horrendous miscarriage (medically appropriate name: spontaneous abortion) but was denied medical care because she was still officially pregnant, and abortions in Mass in 1971 could only be used to save the life of the mother. My mother, according to the courts, was not near enough to death to qualify for an abortion - even thought there was no hope for the pregnancy - she was losing the baby no matter what! This was reprehensible.

2) Friend from high school learned this year that his wife was pregnant, but soon thereafter learned that the "baby" was not viable. They had a case of spina bifida so bad that the spine, the brain and almost all the internal organs were outside the body. There was no hope for the baby, and the pregnancy represented a potential threat to the mother. Under the laws of 1970 - 1971, this woman would have been forced to carry this baby, knowing that it was dead as soon as it was born, and knowing that at any time it could die inside of her (very dangerous for this to happen - but not necessarily life-threatening).

3. The wedding I was at this weekend (see the beginning of this post). The bride is bi-polar, but controlled with (extensive) medication. I give her the world of credit for managing this illness so carefully, and leading an otherwise busy and active life. She is truly a role-model for all of us. She also should not have children. To have a child, she would have to go off all her medication for the duration of the conception period and the pregnancy (even if she got pregnant on the first try, we are still talking 1 year without meds). If she got pregnant while on the meds, the baby would be doomed because of the harshness of her medication regimin. Knowing all of this, the groom decided to have a vasectomy, but what if that was not their choice? A completely reasonable choice could be a long-term form of birth control for her (Depo prevara, or the Norplant, for instance). Yet birth control, even vasectomies, are not full-proof. Should she be forced to cause herself potentially long-term mental health problems (her uncle is an unmedicated bi-polar, and has deteriorated to the point that medication will no longer help, her case is worse than his and a year of the meds could cause permanent mental damage to her) because of an accidental pregnancy?

The real world of pregnancy and delivery is just too complicated for us to determine, a priori, all the laws that should be in place to allow for "appropriate" abortions but not "inappropriate" ones, even if we could define those terms.

A convenient excuse to justify the wanton destruction of what still is factually a human being. What better way to say it's OK to kill someone? Well, legally classify them as nonhuman, that's how.

Where have we heard that before? Let's see...WWII, where an entire group of beings were legally classified as nonpersons. That's right. According to the law then, an entire group of people were no longer legally considered persons/humans. Because of this, it was legally acceptable to destroy them. Sure, it wasn't pretty, and not everyone would be in favor of this, but it was legally permissible to do so.

Another example can be found in our own Constitution, which had to be amended to guarantee that slaves were no longer to be considered property and subhuman, and that they were no longer to be slaves. Even a Supreme Court 7-2 decision of 1857 [Dred Scott v. Sanford](gee, the Court again) legally declared that slaves were not persons or citizens and therefore had no legal rights--no different from a fetus today. Hell, we fought a bloody war over this very subject.

This is no different from those here who call a fetus a "mass of tissue" when medical evidence completely refutes this categorization. (When was the last time a "mass of tissue" had a heartbeat? A sense of smell? A sense of hearing? The ability to feel pain? Functioning brainwaves? etc.) One cannot hide behind this and claim the analogy is improper, either, for legal semantics are being used to excuse the permissibility of abortion.

The parallels are so stark and frightening, yet here we are, 60 years after WWII, and 150 years after Dred Scott later, and we refuse to admit this. Instead, we couch our stances in the feel-good sentimentality of individual rights or personal autonomy when we should make every attempt to protect the lives of the most innocent, most defenseless among us.

[ September 09, 2003, 12:47 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

You can pull out any bizarro circumstance you want, but that doesn't automatically justify every other abortion that has ever been performed.

(I'm not totally familiar with the specific health issues you discussed, but FYI there have been advancements in the field of medical care in the past 30 years.)

OK, so now I'm a nazi and a slave owner because I believe in pro-choice. Is a zygote a viable living being outside the womb? NO.

Ah, the rantings of one who wishes to deflect the real point. Come now, fantomas, enough with the rash generalizations.

Is a 2-month old little boy viable outside the womb? No. He will die without constant care from his mother and/or father.

Try again, horny. BTW, you never answered my original question, that being, if it was technilogically and medically possible to remove the preborn child from the womb and ensure his/her development--thereby providing the woman with what she wanted, to no longer be pregnant--would you favor this?

If not, it is clear you care not about the woman but about the destruction of the baby. How macabre. eek!

MIB, You never told me in your currently impossible scenario WHO is going to pay for this unwanted zygote and WHO is going to raise it in a loving home, but I did answer your question.

I don't see the world needing any ADDITIONAL unwanted children to live in misery and abuse. If not wanting millions more children living in agony is macabre, then color me macabre.

Just how many kids have you adopted in your lifetime? If the answer is even one, kudos and my hat is off to you.

Comparing a two-month old living baby boy to a fertilized egg proves you are a bit over the top don't you think? Demonizing me for not having compassion for an unwanted fertilized egg is not going to change my opinion on the subject. I'm basing my opinion on reality. There's ALWAYS going to be abortion in our lifetime, so I want it to be in a safe environment for the mother.

BTW, again I'll point out my handle is HornFan, not "horny". My partner of over 18 years is allowed to call me that, but not you. Why stoop to childish name calling just because you disagree with me judge?

[ September 09, 2003, 01:45 PM: Message edited by: HornFan ]

William, two of the cases I mentioned are contemporary (the last year in fact) and my mother's case is important because she was having a miscarriage (which still happen - 1/3 of all pregnancies in fact), not because of its cause.

The point I am trying to make is that the issue is not a cut and dried - "are you in favor of killing babies or not" - there is another person involved, and if we are going to talk about abortion, we must realize it is not an issue of one person's (or zygote's) rights, but of the conflicting rights of two people, one of whom is dependent on the other.

Moral absolutes are simply unworkable in this situation because it is not so clear.

Let me give you another example that I have used before - we all know "Steel Magnolias" and I happen to know a couple diabetics personally who also had children although it was a medical risk (they thankfully had no problems). Should a diabetic woman, who gets pregnant in spite of trying not to (e.g., properly using a form of birth control), be forced to give birth although it might mean a complete loss of kidney function? She won't die, but her health will be enormously complicated, and her life could be eventually shortened.

I am not trying to justify every other abortion, just pointing out the explicit difficulties of crafting abortion law, even if we all agreed on what abortions should and should not be allowed.

I work in a predominantly female (and pregnant - 15 kids in the last year and a half) environment. I know as much as a gay man can about the enormous strain pregnancy puts on a woman. I am loathe to force her to go through that physical and emotional difficulty in every circumstance (or, more accurately, in nearly every circumstance).

Hey William - Where's that true American patriot who's always backing you up?

Lookin' a little AWOL, kinda like Bushie.

I think he's defending his poor little Eaglets, and I think we can all agree that in the scheme of things football is more important than politics. Besides, I really don't need backing up. I can take care of myself.

But thanks for your concern Raze!

It really bugs me that everytime somebody says they're pro-life they're automatically accused of moral simlpicity, like pro-lifers are too dumb to know that it's a complex issue (though I don't doubt Capt. thinks pro-lifers are basically dumb).

Can we stipulate that most issues are somewhat complex? Even murder has degrees, circumstances (self-defense), etc. I don't think it's simplistic to say that I'm basically opposed to murder, even though I don't doubt some murder cases are rather complex. Every issue is pretty complex. I think most semi-intelligent people understand that. Thanks.

I concur, William. This thread was about the complex balancing act people do when they support killing the unborn or criminals, but not both. That seems especially dissonant to me. And I don't believe anyone is simplistic if they are pro-life and it is based on religious views AND they also happen to abhor capital punishment. I think that combination makes sense as it holds true to Christian teachings. For someone that holds that view, I actually respect them as they take the whole "love" thing to heart. Unlike all the HATEFUL pseudo-Christians, who by and large are Southern Protestants.

But then, Southern Protestants tend to select the parts of the Bible that they want to obey, and ignore the ones they don't like. Leviticus is a perfect example; Anytime I hear homophobic commentary from that camp I simply say, "better give up raw oysters, fried shrimp and pulled-pork sandwiches before you start on that. Read Leviticus - you, too, are UNCLEAN."

Ugh. Just for the record, my pro-life views are NOT based on religious principles. Just FYI.

Ditto.

Once again you're projecting, and violating the board's rules by calling me "psychotic"--look in the mirror, child--but whatever.

My comment about the statistical relationship between abortion and society was not based on my OWN feelings on the subject, but as a statement about how economists have looked at the issue. I do believe that the economist most closely linked to this study is based in the very conservative economic department of the University of Chicago.

You can keep your applause to yourself, thank you.

[ September 10, 2003, 12:29 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]