It's not really a nice conversation. I do believe that a future generation is going to look back at us in horror the way we view slavery and The Holocaust for how callously we are treating unborn life. I also think that it is merely another symptom of our current societal ill, what we argue so much about, caused by the same diseased root, an immoral disrespect for human life. Much is said in sincerity and in snark about it from both sides of the political spectrum, but I do believe It all comes from the same place, and I don't know that politics, nor philosophy, nor religion have the power to alter it.

At risk of starting something, I believe that adoption should always be the default option unless there's a risk to the life of the mother, or if the child is a product of rape, incest, domestic abuse or another violent crime and the mother doesn't want that child brought into the world. In all other cases, I would rather see adoption used as the default, and I don't have a problem with requiring a doctor to discuss adoption first, or to put a two-day waiting period on abortions (outside of the examples above) to force the prospective mother to really weigh out what she's about to do before she legally does so. Ultimately, though, I don't have the right to tell a woman--or anyone, for that matter--what she can and can't do with a part of her own body. I also don't know exactly when it stops becoming a part of her own body and when it becomes another human, and I'm damn sure a panel of justices isn't the right group of experts to make that determination. I do think Roe v. Wade needs to be tested, and my preferred outcome would be that the Supreme Court does what it should have done in the first place: refer the matter back to the states for them to resolve individually. In that scenario, everyone's a little pissed off, and that's how you know you've done something fairly.

About 60 to 65% of the population concurs.

---

It's not really a nice conversation. I do believe that a future generation is going to look back at us in horror the way we view slavery and The Holocaust for how callously we are treating unborn life. I also think that it is merely another symptom of our current societal ill, what we argue so much about, caused by the same diseased root, an immoral disrespect for human life. Much is said in sincerity and in snark about it from both sides of the political spectrum, but I do believe It all comes from the same place, and I don't know that politics, nor philosophy, nor religion have the power to alter it.

At risk of starting something, I believe that adoption should always be the default option unless there's a risk to the life of the mother, or if the child is a product of rape, incest, domestic abuse or another violent crime and the mother doesn't want that child brought into the world. In all other cases, I would rather see adoption used as the default, and I don't have a problem with requiring a doctor to discuss adoption first, or to put a two-day waiting period on abortions (outside of the examples above) to force the prospective mother to really weigh out what she's about to do before she legally does so. Ultimately, though, I don't have the right to tell a woman--or anyone, for that matter--what she can and can't do with a part of her own body. I also don't know exactly when it stops becoming a part of her own body and when it becomes another human, and I'm damn sure a panel of justices isn't the right group of experts to make that determination. I do think Roe v. Wade needs to be tested, and my preferred outcome would be that the Supreme Court does what it should have done in the first place: refer the matter back to the states for them to resolve individually. In that scenario, everyone's a little pissed off, and that's how you know you've done something fairly.

Roe v Wade did overturn a state law relating to abortion.
Any of the 50 states could pass a law that restricts abortion and cause the Supreme Court to reexamine Roe v Wade. But the federal government could also do this.
To me, simply allowing some states to allow abortion under all circumstances, while others restrict it to very few circumstances, is the least good option.
You would not substantially reduce the number of abortions because traveling to the next state is not that difficult.
And suddenly the question of abortion would crowd out all the other things that voters should be thinking about when they elect state legislators.
It would be nice if there were some issues that really were entirely the domain of the state legislator, but, this isn't the one I would pick.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Oh, I agree. I'm pro-life, it's a core Libertarian principle.

Like [BLEEP] it is.

That depends on whose rights your respecting, the infant or the mother.

---

Yes, it's improvement, but it's Blaine Gabbert 2012 level improvement. - Pirkster

http://youtu.be/ouGM3NWpjxk The Home Hypnotist!

http://youtu.be/XQRFkn0Ly3A Media on the Brain Link!
 

Peyton must store oxygen in that forehead of his. No way I'd still be alive after all that choking.

 

It's not really a nice conversation. I do believe that a future generation is going to look back at us in horror the way we view slavery and The Holocaust for how callously we are treating unborn life. I also think that it is merely another symptom of our current societal ill, what we argue so much about, caused by the same diseased root, an immoral disrespect for human life. Much is said in sincerity and in snark about it from both sides of the political spectrum, but I do believe It all comes from the same place, and I don't know that politics, nor philosophy, nor religion have the power to alter it.

At risk of starting something, I believe that adoption should always be the default option unless there's a risk to the life of the mother, or if the child is a product of rape, incest, domestic abuse or another violent crime and the mother doesn't want that child brought into the world. In all other cases, I would rather see adoption used as the default, and I don't have a problem with requiring a doctor to discuss adoption first, or to put a two-day waiting period on abortions (outside of the examples above) to force the prospective mother to really weigh out what she's about to do before she legally does so. Ultimately, though, I don't have the right to tell a woman--or anyone, for that matter--what she can and can't do with a part of her own body. I also don't know exactly when it stops becoming a part of her own body and when it becomes another human, and I'm damn sure a panel of justices isn't the right group of experts to make that determination. I do think Roe v. Wade needs to be tested, and my preferred outcome would be that the Supreme Court does what it should have done in the first place: refer the matter back to the states for them to resolve individually. In that scenario, everyone's a little pissed off, and that's how you know you've done something fairly.

While an infant does depend on the mother for nourishment and development it is as much a 'part of her body' as a leech is. Thats a rather crass way of putting it, but I believe the perspective is correct. The only question in abortion is what 'rights' are you respecting? The right of a mother to terminate her own offspring or the right of a baby to life? Whether you think either of those things is a 'right' in the first place is very dependent on your moral belief system.

Just to indulge myself, if you believe that an infant has a right to life (or at least, a right to whatever life it is able to achieve in the womb) where is the line where that right ends? If the infant has a congenital defect where viability without extensive support is impossible, does the infant have the right to that too? Most people would say yes once he is born.

But take that same scenario and apply it to the elderly with many comorbidities who are unable to support basic life functions without extensive support and most people agree that its better to 'let them go.' Of course these are passive processes vs the active process of abortion. As a healthcare provider I want no part of actively trying to end life, but I have little trouble with letting nature take its course. That is the principle that governs me personally (i.e. the old 'thou shalt not kill'), but it is an interesting thought.

---

Yes, it's improvement, but it's Blaine Gabbert 2012 level improvement. - Pirkster

http://youtu.be/ouGM3NWpjxk The Home Hypnotist!

http://youtu.be/XQRFkn0Ly3A Media on the Brain Link!
 

Peyton must store oxygen in that forehead of his. No way I'd still be alive after all that choking.

 

At risk of starting something, I believe that adoption should always be the default option unless there's a risk to the life of the mother, or if the child is a product of rape, incest, domestic abuse or another violent crime and the mother doesn't want that child brought into the world. In all other cases, I would rather see adoption used as the default, and I don't have a problem with requiring a doctor to discuss adoption first, or to put a two-day waiting period on abortions (outside of the examples above) to force the prospective mother to really weigh out what she's about to do before she legally does so. Ultimately, though, I don't have the right to tell a woman--or anyone, for that matter--what she can and can't do with a part of her own body. I also don't know exactly when it stops becoming a part of her own body and when it becomes another human, and I'm damn sure a panel of justices isn't the right group of experts to make that determination. I do think Roe v. Wade needs to be tested, and my preferred outcome would be that the Supreme Court does what it should have done in the first place: refer the matter back to the states for them to resolve individually. In that scenario, everyone's a little pissed off, and that's how you know you've done something fairly.

While an infant does depend on the mother for nourishment and development it is as much a 'part of her body' as a leech is. Thats a rather crass way of putting it, but I believe the perspective is correct. The only question in abortion is what 'rights' are you respecting? The right of a mother to terminate her own offspring or the right of a baby to life? Whether you think either of those things is a 'right' in the first place is very dependent on your moral belief system.

Just to indulge myself, if you believe that an infant has a right to life (or at least, a right to whatever life it is able to achieve in the womb) where is the line where that right ends? If the infant has a congenital defect where viability without extensive support is impossible, does the infant have the right to that too? Most people would say yes once he is born.

But take that same scenario and apply it to the elderly with many comorbidities who are unable to support basic life functions without extensive support and most people agree that its better to 'let them go.' Of course these are passive processes vs the active process of abortion. As a healthcare provider I want no part of actively trying to end life, but I have little trouble with letting nature take its course. That is the principle that governs me personally (i.e. the old 'thou shalt not kill'), but it is an interesting thought.

In a very broad sense, I agree with the concept behind Roe. There is a point at which a fetus goes from a symbiont (for lack of a better word) to a human being. When is that? When the heart start beating? When the head emerges? Conception? I don't know, and I don't pretend to, and I don't think any pregnancy, outside of the exceptions I laid out above, should be terminated without the mother having to think about it. That's why I favor waiting periods between the first visit and the actual procedure. Let the prospective mother think through what she's about to do, and come to peace with her decision, whatever that decision is. If held to a wall and forced to answer, I would say that the rights of the mother prevail over those of the embryo. That's pretty much where I'm going to leave it, because we both know that someone's going to come in here and take the conversation to a ban place if we go any further.

To your elderly scenario, I'm actually all in favor of physician-assisted suicide if there's a very good reason for it. If I were left in a coma with minimal to no chance of recovery, or the odds that I came out of it into a vegetative state were very high, I'd just as soon pull the plug on myself than stick my loved ones with God knows how long worth of medical bills only for me to suddenly die in my coma after two years of costing a couple grand a day to keep around.

---

Neither a woman nor man can do ANYTHING they want with their body. This is the false invitation of a non-existent legal idea that our individual agency is absolute. Conversely it is long accepted legal tradition that if anyone demonstrates that they are a risk to themselves and or others then a physician would have a duty to inform authorities and potentially restrain or commit that person. For example if a young woman decided that she wanted to arbitrarily commit suicide a physician would refer her for psychiatric hold and evaluation as opposed to facilitating it as a matter of choice. The same would go if she said that she wanted to arbitrarily remove a limb because she misspelled the word typing or missed the kick in a soccer match.

The debate about when a fetus or embryo May obtain its own agency are both biologically inaccurate and legally irrelevant.

---

Let's try to get this thread back on topic or let it die.  If a couple of members want to debate abortion then start another thread.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.