How 'Pro-Choice' are Democrats?

[mamabearCali]

I guess you could say that God allows us to have free will. However he gives us rules to live by (murder is right out), and if we disobey his law we will eventually answer to Him in this life or the next. "Be not deceived, God is not mocked, whatever a man sows, he reaps"

As to whether a child in the womb is human or not.....well it aint a puppy. It has is own DNA structure and it's own growth time table, it is simply a very tiny human very dependent on its mother.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[dorminWS]

I guess you could say that God allows us to have free will. However he gives us rules to live by (murder is right out), and if we disobey his law we will eventually answer to Him in this life or the next. "Be not deceived, God is not mocked, whatever a man sows, he reaps"

As to whether a child in the womb is human or not.....well it aint a puppy. It has is own DNA structure and it's own growth time table, it is simply a very tiny human very dependent on its mother.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I have always felt that it was logically inescapable and an established legal principle in our society (before Roe v. Wade, that is) that life begins at conception. I won't go into the particulars of my rant on that subject (upon which I think I have previously pontificated) here and now; but I do want to tell y'all about the "BODIES" exhibit SWMBO and I recently saw at the Luxor in Las Vegas. It was perfectly preserved (apparently using space-age polymers or something like that) human bodies in various states of disection and dismantlement. There was a section on preganancy and birth with warnings posted that the fainthearted might want to skip it. One of those exhibits had a tiny 8-week fetus on display. It was pretty much fully formed. It had a face! It was undeniably a very small human being. All the pro-choicers should go see that.

[ShotgunBlast]

I have always felt that it was logically inescapable and an established legal principle in our society (before Roe v. Wade, that is) that life begins at conception. I won't go into the particulars of my rant on that subject (upon which I think I have previously pontificated) here and now; but I do want to tell y'all about the "BODIES" exhibit SWMBO and I recently saw at the Luxor in Las Vegas. It was perfectly preserved (apparently using space-age polymers or something like that) human bodies in various states of disection and dismantlement. There was a section on preganancy and birth with warnings posted that the fainthearted might want to skip it. One of those exhibits had a tiny 8-week fetus on display. It was pretty much fully formed. It had a face! It was undeniably a very small human being. All the pro-choicers should go see that.

As much as I'd love to go back to Vegas, it's not in my plans anytime soon.

Here's a nice week-by-week assessment of fetal development.

http://www.babycenter.com/fetal-develop ... ek-by-week

Like vacation houses, boats, and pets, my wife and I think kids are great when they're someone else's. We don't plan on having any kids, but for those that do that's great. We're both pro-choice because we feel we don't have the right to make family planning decisions for others. Everyone's situation is different and we have no right to force our beliefs on others. For those who believe aborting an eight week fetus is the same as blowing the brains out of your four year old, we'll respectfully disagree. While we hope that women will make this important decision ASAP and not drag it out any longer than necessary, we agree with the general medical concensus that anything prior to 21 weeks is not viable outside the womb and that's where our moral line is drawn.

What saddens me most about this thread is the strong gravitational pull to the hot button issue while mostly ignoring the subtle libertarian mantra of choice whether it's family planning, what you consume, etc. People like having the freedom of speech, but that means you also have to put up with the speech that you don't like hearing. I enjoy my freedom to choose on a variety of issues, but that means I also have to accept that people may not make the same choices I would. Oh well, it's their life.

[dorminWS]

What saddens me most about this thread is the strong gravitational pull to the hot button issue while mostly ignoring the subtle libertarian mantra of choice whether it's family planning, what you consume, etc. People like having the freedom of speech, but that means you also have to put up with the speech that you don't like hearing. I enjoy my freedom to choose on a variety of issues, but that means I also have to accept that people may not make the same choices I would. Oh well, it's their life.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I know better than to try to change your mind. But I would suggest that libertarianism, while it does celebrate personal freedom and autonomy in the practice of family planning and recreational pursuits including both sex and drugs, does not justify or condone shortening a human life to avoid personal inconvenience. So being pro-life does not betray libertarian values. It is a matter of acting upon one's personal moral compass as to when a human life begins. Wherever THAT line lies, libertarian license ends there.

As matters stand now, you are entitled to make your own decision on that within the bounds of Roe v. Wade. But if you really are a consciencious libertarian, you really ought to try not to be so dismissive of someone else's decisions.

[ShotgunBlast]

I know better than to try to change your mind. But I would suggest that libertarianism, while it does celebrate personal freedom and autonomy in the practice of family planning and recreational pursuits including both sex and drugs, does not justify or condone shortening a human life to avoid personal inconvenience. So being pro-life does not betray libertarian values. It is a matter of acting upon one's personal moral compass as to when a human life begins. Wherever THAT line lies, libertarian license ends there.

I know we're not going to change each other's minds dormin, but at least I like having the discussion with you. I think it's a bit dismissive to say that people get abortions to avoid a personal inconvenience. Forgetting where I put my wallet is a personal inconvenience. Raising another living being for the next 18+ years is a bit more serious. Could my wife and I do it? Sure, no problem. It would completely change the lifestyle that we like, but we'd find a way to make it work. But like I said, everyone's situation is different. What we could handle may not work for the single woman who works two jobs and went out for one night of fun. Things happen. Could she have made better choices? Absolutely. Did they try to take precautions to prevent something from happening? Maybe. But now she has to play with the hand she was dealt and I could see where an abortion could be a viable option for her.

As matters stand now, you are entitled to make your own decision on that within the bounds of Roe v. Wade. But if you really are a consciencious libertarian, you really ought to try not to be so dismissive of someone else's decisions.

I don't see where I was being dismissive of someone else's decisions. If you could elaborate, that would be great.

[dorminWS]

"What saddens me most about this thread is the strong gravitational pull to the hot button issue while mostly ignoring the subtle libertarian mantra of choice......"

I thought this dichotomy you drew between the "hot button issue" and the "subtle libertarian mantra of choice" was somewhat dismissive of pro-choice thinking as a reaction to "hot button" reactions that was clearly not as laudable a reaction as being responsive to "subtle libertarian mantra of choice".

[ShotgunBlast]

"What saddens me most about this thread is the strong gravitational pull to the hot button issue while mostly ignoring the subtle libertarian mantra of choice......"

I thought this dichotomy you drew between the "hot button issue" and the "subtle libertarian mantra of choice" was somewhat dismissive of pro-choice thinking as a reaction to "hot button" reactions that was clearly not as laudable a reaction as being responsive to "subtle libertarian mantra of choice".

The delegates in the video, not I, create the dichotomy that the interviewer shines light on (they are pro-choice when it comes to abortion, but anti-choice in a variety of other topics mentioned) whereas another dichotomy could be made if these conversations happened at the Republican convention (pro-choice when it comes to what you can consume, but anti-choice when it comes to abortion, drugs, etc).

I didn't intend to come off as dismissive in my statement, and think I did a poor job expressing an incomplete thought. It was intended to show how libertarians stand out from the other two parties in that the party stands for the individuals to make their own choices, no matter what the topic is. For example, it's super easy for people on the forum to rail on things like Michael Bloomberg's large drink ban and proclaim "it's my body and I can drink what I want and as much as I want" (making an individual choice), but can't/won't/refuse to apply that same logic to other topics. That's the part that saddens me.

[dorminWS]

Not to worry; if it were not for the interplay of incomplete expression of ideas and imperfect understanding of the expression thereof, I think we'd get cheated out of a good many stimulating debates.

And, yes; conservatives as well as libertarians overreach in their arguments and sometimes their actions just as liberals do. It's just that liberals (it seems to me) do it more often and more vehemently; and are less willing to concede that others are entitled to adverse opinions.

[dragonzfury050]

I'm usually of the casual observer persuasion but I think I'll chime in on this one.

Personally, I find abortion morally repugnant. Having said that, as a man I realize there are things that I could never understand about being raped and getting pregnant, and to be honest I haven't sorted out my thoughts on that situation.

I am an ardent supporter of free will and a persons ability to make their own decisions in life, from smoking pot to building whatever the feel like on their own property. But if you make a choice you must be willing to deal with the consequences of that choice. (see my sig)

Sure you can go out for a night of fun and have a one night stand. You can use protection, but nothing is 100% effective (except abstinence). You can still get pregnant. If you make the choice to engage in those activities you have just accepted the possibility and responsibility associated with pregnancy. Ending a new life because it is inconvenient or doesn't fit in your plan is unacceptable.

I don't buy the "hand you were dealt" line. You made a choice, you accepted the consequences.

I understand these may be harsh words, but it makes me angry when people talk about freedom of choice and neglect to observe that (excluding the rape situation) they did make a choice.This is something my younger sister is dealing with right now, and I certainly didn't soften my delivery to her.

I don't mean to start a fight, I just felt compelled to share my position as I did not think it was conveyed earlier in the thread

[dragonzfury050]

oh, and I almost forgot. The same standard applies to the male side of the equation. If you engage in those activities you know you could get your partner pregnant and need accept those responsibilities. You need to help with raising and supporting that child. Be a man.

And no, my sister's partner did not enjoy that conversation with me and my other two brothers.

[ShotgunBlast]

Thanks for chiming in. Like your sig by the way.

As far as sex, I don't think there's a high percentage of Americans out there willing to tow the Rick Santorum line in that sex is only for procreation. It is a very recreational activity since the beginning of civilization, unfortunately one that has the chance to produce offspring. People have been aborting pregnancies for ages so they're going to do it regardless. Shouldn't we at least give them a more sterile environment where there's less danger to the woman instead of some back alley job?

I'd like to know what do you think about this line of thinking? Some people say that a human life begins at fertilization. Those cells splitting to make new cells. That's human life. You know what else grows in you like that? The common cold. Or the flu. Or a cancer tumor. Yet we do everything we can to eradicate that. Is a fertilized egg that different? I don't know; I'm just throwing it out there.

[ShotgunBlast]

Not to worry; if it were not for the interplay of incomplete expression of ideas and imperfect understanding of the expression thereof, I think we'd get cheated out of a good many stimulating debates.

And, yes; conservatives as well as libertarians overreach in their arguments and sometimes their actions just as liberals do. It's just that liberals (it seems to me) do it more often and more vehemently; and are less willing to concede that others are entitled to adverse opinions.

Hey I wanted to know what your pragmatic opinion was on this. Millions of abortions done (or whatever the number is) and an argument is that one of them could have been a great POTUS, athlete, or whatever. There's the commercial of Tim Tebow saying his mom chose not to have an abortion. But if you look at the general population where there's an upper tier, average tier, and below average tier (draw your own percentages for each tier) and the assumption that probably not as many upper tier people are having abortions due to their better lifestyle, couldn't you conclude that the vast majority of what could have been would just be more average and below average schmuks? Of course it's all speculation, but I'm not sure if I want 100,000 or more average joes around on government programs or just not contributing to society in general just to pick up 1 Tim Tebow.

[dragonzfury050]

Thanks for chiming in. Like your sig by the way.

As far as sex, I don't think there's a high percentage of Americans out there willing to tow the Rick Santorum line in that sex is only for procreation. It is a very recreational activity since the beginning of civilization, unfortunately one that has the chance to produce offspring. People have been aborting pregnancies for ages so they're going to do it regardless. Shouldn't we at least give them a more sterile environment where there's less danger to the woman instead of some back alley job?

I'd like to know what do you think about this line of thinking? Some people say that a human life begins at fertilization. Those cells splitting to make new cells. That's human life. You know what else grows in you like that? The common cold. Or the flu. Or a cancer tumor. Yet we do everything we can to eradicate that. Is a fertilized egg that different? I don't know; I'm just throwing it out there.

Thank you, I'm a big believer in personal responsibility.

I think I would sort of fall under the recreation perspective. There is a lot that it does, from increasing levels of good chemicals in the body to just plain old feeling good. I have found that it brings two people closer together. But I still believe that its primary purpose is procreation, considering we have no other alternative. As such, you accept that possibility when you choose to have sex, as well as the responsibilities that come with it.

Abortions may have occurred for centuries, but I still don't think it is right. And I don't condone using my tax dollars to support it. As or the common cold analogy, a sickness is not the same as creating new life of the same species. It's apples and oranges.

Granted there are similarities in the process (it is creating life after all), but it makes sense to try to prevent sickness and disease. They are foreign intruders upsetting the natural balance of the body. A pregnancy may change the balance in the body, but it is a natural and expected change.It is something that is supposed to happen

[Kreutz]

I'd like to know what do you think about this line of thinking? Some people say that a human life begins at fertilization. Those cells splitting to make new cells. That's human life. You know what else grows in you like that? The common cold. Or the flu. Or a cancer tumor. Yet we do everything we can to eradicate that. Is a fertilized egg that different? I don't know; I'm just throwing it out there.

Actually, a fertilized egg is already its own "person" in that it has its own DNA unique from the mother and father.

Tumors, having the bodies own DNA are truly "yours" to cut out as you see fit. Its not a unique life form, nor can it develop past simply being a cancer. Your cancer isn't going to dig itself out and interacting with you or develop like a child would.

Pathogens like influenza or rhinovirus are not a valid comparison as they are purely hostile to the body and confer no positive benefit to their host.

[dorminWS]

@ ShotgunBlast:

First, you analogy of a fetus to a cold or a tumor won't hold water. Those are parasitic and harmful organisms that will either run their courses or kill their host. A fetus will become an independent human being unless the host (mother) takes overt action to kill it. BIG difference.

As to the inpact of abortion access on society and whether we are aborting a lot of Tim Tebows and Albert Einsteins, I think it - - like almost every other decision point one might disacuss, - - is a mixed bag. Yes, we might be depriving humanity of it's biggest geniuses. But we might also be preventing the deprivations upon society of some of humanity's least desireable elements.

Steven Levitt, an economist who wrote "FREAKONOMICS" was the first person I am aware of that argued that crime rates went down in the early-to-mid-1990s because of all the babies that were aborted rather than being born into crime-inclined environments beginning in the early-to-mid 1970s. Following is an excerpt from WIKIPEDIA on what has now become known as "the Donohue-Levitt hypothesis":

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Steven Levitt of the University of Chicago and John Donohue of Yale University revived discussion of this claim with their 2001 paper "The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime". Donohue and Levitt point to the fact that males aged 18 to 24 are most likely to commit crimes. Data indicates that crime in the United States started to decline in 1992. Donohue and Levitt suggest that the absence of unwanted aborted children, following legalization in 1973, led to a reduction in crime 18 years later, starting in 1992 and dropping sharply in 1995. These would have been the peak crime-committing years of the unborn children.

The authors argue that states that had abortion legalized earlier and more widespread should have the earliest reductions in crime. Donohue and Levitt's study indicates that this indeed has happened: Alaska, California, Hawaii, New York, Oregon and Washington experienced steeper drops in crime, and had legalized abortion before Roe v. Wade. Further, states with a high abortion rate have experienced a greater reduction in crime, when corrected for factors like average income.[4] Finally, studies in Canada and Australia purport to have established a correlation between legalized abortion and overall crime reduction.[4]

The study was criticized by various authors, including a 2001 article by John Lott and John Whitley where they argued that Donohue and Levitt assume that states which completely legalized abortion had higher abortion rates than states where abortion was only legal under certain conditions (many states allowed abortion only under certain conditions prior to Roe) and that CDC statistics do not substantiate this claim. In addition, if abortion rates cause crime rates to fall, crime rates should start to fall among the youngest people first and then gradually be seen lowering the crime rate for older and older people. In fact, they argue, the murder rates first start to fall among the oldest criminals and then the next oldest criminals and so on until it last falls among the youngest individuals. Lott and Whitley argue that if Donohue and Levitt are right that 80 percent of the drop in murder rates during the 1990s is due solely to the legalization of abortion, their results should be seen in these graphs without anything being controlled for, and that in fact the opposite is true. In addition, Lott and Whitley pointed out that using arrest rate data to proxy crime rates is flawed because arrest for murder can take place many months or even years after the crime occurred. Lott and Whitley show that using the Supplemental Homicide Report, which links murder data for when the crime occurred with later arrest rate data, reverses Donohue and Levitt's regression results.[5]

In 2005, Christopher Foote and Christopher Goetz claimed that a computer error in Levitt and Donahue's statistical analysis lead to an artificially inflated relationship between legalized abortion and crime reduction. Once other crime-associated factors were properly controlled for, the effect of abortion on arrests was reduced by about half. Foote and Goetz also criticize Levitt and Donahue's use of arrest totals rather than arrests per capita, which takes population size into account. Using Census Bureau population estimates, Foote and Goetz repeated the analysis using arrest rates in place of simple arrest totals, and found that the effect of abortion disappeared entirely.[6]

In 2005 Levitt published rebuttal to these criticisms in which he re-ran his numbers to address the shortcomings and variables missing from the original study. The new results are nearly identical to those of the original study. Levitt posits that any reasonable use of the data available reinforces the results of the original 2001 paper.[7]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

So I guess it cuts both ways. But it still does not dispose of the agonizing question of when a fetus becomes a person. Although Roe v. Wade permits abortions in the first trimester, it does not hinge upon whether the fetus is a "person", but whether it is "viable". But an adult on temporary life support is not "viable", either; while nobody would argue that it was OK to end their life while they were capable of becoming "viable".

My own take on it is that Roe v. Wade is a legal fairy tale dreamed up by an activist court to effect a social goal through judicial legislation. Or society has made some rules about when it is permissible to shorten a human life - like self-defense, war, and capital punishment. But those exceptions to the prohibition on homicide were made honestly and in the open after a valid legislative process and public (if the public wanted one) debate. And if an exception for first-trimester abortion were made in the same manner, I could accept it. (I wouldn't practice it, but I could accept it). But to go in the back door by judicial trickery and intellectual dishonesty is, in my opinion, both morally bankrupt and cowardly. Progressives, however, don't seem to mind such things if it gets tham what they want.

But that's just MY opinion; which, along with a buck-and-a-half, will get you a cup of coffee most places.

[SHMIV]

People have been aborting pregnancies for ages so they're going to do it regardless. Shouldn't we at least give them a more sterile environment where there's less danger to the woman instead of some back alley job?

No. We shouldn't.

That would be like a man renting a room at the Marriot for his daughter and her new boyfriend so they won't have to get it on in the back seat of a '92 Civic hatchback, just on a more extreme level. Or, you could equate it to me buying my son a quarter bag and an 8-ball so he could get high at home instead of in a condemned building.

[Kreutz]

People have been aborting pregnancies for ages so they're going to do it regardless. Shouldn't we at least give them a more sterile environment where there's less danger to the woman instead of some back alley job?

Curiously we use the same argument to oppose gun laws that punish law abiding citizens.

Anyway, of course its happened before and would still happen if criminalized.

Hell, it is easy' to perform an abortion; the baby is purely defenseless.

Its not gonna fight back or run away after all. Hell, give me 5 minutes along any road and I'll have the ingredients for an abortifacient. It is that easy. Which by virtue of ease does not make it right.

Though I have seen one of my kids swat at the needle for an amniocentesis under ultrasound. Clearly not a person.

The problem IMO is that society via its laws and courts somehow came to the conclusion its OK to kill an unborn baby....but no one else. Why one can walk into any Planned Parenthood and have a D+C like nothing happened is puzzling when the same law says I can't execute whoever the asshat down the road is that revs his loud fart sounding motorcycle on purpose.

[mamabearCali]

Well I was gonna say something, but the above posters have already said it for me.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[ShotgunBlast]

Steven Levitt, an economist who wrote "FREAKONOMICS" was the first person I am aware of that argued that crime rates went down in the early-to-mid-1990s because of all the babies that were aborted rather than being born into crime-inclined environments beginning in the early-to-mid 1970s. Following is an excerpt from WIKIPEDIA on what has now become known as "the Donohue-Levitt hypothesis":

I found that to be an interesting read, but there are a ton of factors that could play into the results. I personally wouldn't feel confident enough to come to that conclusion.

So I guess it cuts both ways. But it still does not dispose of the agonizing question of when a fetus becomes a person. Although Roe v. Wade permits abortions in the first trimester, it does not hinge upon whether the fetus is a "person", but whether it is "viable". But an adult on temporary life support is not "viable", either; while nobody would argue that it was OK to end their life while they were capable of becoming "viable".

My own take on it is that Roe v. Wade is a legal fairy tale dreamed up by an activist court to effect a social goal through judicial legislation. Or society has made some rules about when it is permissible to shorten a human life - like self-defense, war, and capital punishment. But those exceptions to the prohibition on homicide were made honestly and in the open after a valid legislative process and public (if the public wanted one) debate. And if an exception for first-trimester abortion were made in the same manner, I could accept it. (I wouldn't practice it, but I could accept it). But to go in the back door by judicial trickery and intellectual dishonesty is, in my opinion, both morally bankrupt and cowardly. Progressives, however, don't seem to mind such things if it gets tham what they want.

Yeah, the court did take the easy way out on the whole viable vs person issue. I originally thought Roe v. Wade was a strong case compared to decisions the court is putting out lately (5-4) because of the 7-2 decision, but looking at the people making that decision I agree that it was a liberal court. It makes me feel better about today's court because it is a better mix of conservative and liberal justices. While you personally may want all conservatives or all liberals on the bench, having it lopsided doesn't represent the best interest of the American people until the people altogether shift one way or another. No doubt they opened Pandora's box, and after 40 years of debate I don't see this getting settled anytime soon through new legislation for or against abortion.

Thanks to everyone who commented on my medical thought.