This a piece of response from another unrelated topic. To say i disagree with the sentiment would be understating.

So here we go.

Do women have the right to decide what they do with their bodies or are they subject to the demands of another's morality?

Even as a lefty feminist, I have to take some issue with the way this question is worded. As the question is stated, it's hard to deny that people should have the right to do what they want with their bodies -- as long as this does not harm another person.

The big question about abortion is this, I think. Does it harm another person?

In the very early stages of pregnancy, I would say no. In the very late stages of pregnancy, I would say yes. In the middle, things become more difficult to say. This is why unwanted pregnancies should be prevented as much as is humanly possible, and that the decision to abort should be made as early in the pregnancy as possible.

On this issue, I remain a passionate moderate.

This is a silly question. The issue of partial birth abortion isn't simply about a "woman's body". It's about the child, fully developed, that is currently residing within that body.

That's the ethical question. Making such blanket pronouncements such as "a woman can do what she wants with her body" misses the ethical and moral point.

So, I'll ask you. Is it right for a woman to kill a fully grown baby that is in her womb? If so, what gives her the right to take that life? How is killing a full term baby moments prior to birth different, morally, from killing the same child a minute after the birth? How can one act be judged homicide while the other is "a privacy matter"?

Anyway, if women practiced more control over "their bodies", the issue of abortion would be moot.

No it does not miss the ethical point. It is the point. Who has the ultimate say over our bodies--the person or an outside entity? I find this very question spills over into many of the arguments that are given for stripping away liberty from people--that somehow my body is not my own to treat as i see fit.

I really doubt you could find any even slightly significant number of women who would abort a fully developed child. I find this to be the silly statement. trying to evade the argument with an attempt to crush debate with a ghoulish statement.
There are medications that could be taken that prevent pregnancy from taking hold. Yet even that is to be denied by some.
The late term argument is a ghastly distraction from the main argument which IS indeed a women's choice.


applies to men as well LH. I had a pretty decent sex life before I settled down and not one single instance of "oops" because one, I always used protection and even more importantly could say no when the opportunity arose but no protection was at hand.

Sorry but not only do you miss the ethical point, you COMPLETELY miss it. You're off by exactly one person. The baby inside the woman's body. That is the issue and no amount of rationalization will change that fact. You have the "ultimate say" over what happens to YOUR body. This issue is about another individual's body. What gives a woman to have the right to kill another person?



Choice is a euphemism. If you find the issue of abortion "ghoulish", then perhaps you're not be honest with yourself about the reality of it. The issue isn't "how many women I could find who would abort a fully developed child". The issue is the legality of such a practice and the underlying moral and ethical question. Abortion has always been about the ethics of killing one's fetus. It's not about "choice", it's not about "privacy" and it's not about any other euphemism that the pro-abortion crowd dreams up in order to mask the reality of what happens in order to sell their agenda.

Abortion kills a fetus and late term abortions kill a fully developed "baby". There are no two ways about it.

Frankly, I think it's ethical and moral for a woman to kill her fetus when it is barely developed early in the first trimester. At that stage, I believe the fetus is about as developed as a fish and most people don't have a huge problem killing them.

Late term abortions are a fully different issue. You're dealing with a baby, a fully developed human animal, and killing of babies should be ruled homicide whether it's inside or outside of the woman. The ethical debate should be related to where the line is drawn between those two points. That's our duty as a society and it must be done by the people; not some activist court driven by pro-abortion extremists.

The majority of people support limited abortion rights. They'd still want it as an option for an unwanted pregnancy. But, that support dries up pretty fast as you go further and further down the gestation process.

Frankly, the biggest success that the extremists at groups like NOW and NARAL have had is in changing the nature of the debate away from where it should be (when is it ethical to kill a fetus) to a matter of "choice" or "privacy". A clever tactice, I have to hand it to them. Most Americans are FOR "privacy" and for freedom of "choice" so they pick up support just by framing the debate.

But, that doesn't change the reality.



Too much information, Christopher.....

The same can be said for the other side of the debate LH. your statement of
is the exact reason the whole late term abortion topic is used--to ditract from the very argument you just made.
As i said the late term or fully developed abortion is a rarity. Yet it is the most ghoulish to contemplate. IMO most people support the right as you described it when it comes to choice. Because of this, anti abortion supporters need to use the late term to try and assure that none of it is an option to women.
They are trying to prevent what you described by deflecting with the late term argument.

The issue is not whether late-term abortion is a rarity. The issue is whether it is ethical, moral, and should be LEGAL.

You are deflecting this question time and again and hiding behind the statement that "a woman can do anything she wants to her body".

I'll ask you directly.

1. Does a woman have the "right" to kill another individual's body that is within hers?

2. Is late term abortion of a fully developed baby ethical, moral, and should it be legal??

1. Does a woman have the "right" to kill another individual's body that is within hers?
2. Is late term abortion of a fully developed baby ethical, moral, and should it be legal??

The answer for both is the same. If the woman's life is in danger it then is her choice. Other than that i wouldn't support it.
If they decide yes would you support having her restrained until the child can be removed? Maybe a nice Gitmo for recalcitrant mothers?

You didn't answer the questions. I didn't ask if you would support it or whether it was a "choice".

I specifically asked you if:

1. A woman has a RIGHT to kill another individual's body within hers. Yes or no.

2. Is late term abortion ethical and moral. Yes or no.

I specifically asked you if:

1. A woman has a RIGHT to kill another individual's body within hers. Yes or no.

2. Is late term abortion ethical and moral. Yes or no.

and as I stated if her life is in danger then YES she does. Who are you to demand she commit suicide to fulfill YOUR morality needs. Is it ethical-YES Is it moral--YES.

Would I support it or find it ethical or moral for any other reason-NO.

So then your position is that abortion should be illegal except in cases of medical emergency? I take it that your answer is for both questions. Am I right?

And what about an alternative to an abortion like an emergency c-section instead of a late term abortion? How could that procedure cause more "danger" to the mother than the abortion procedure? This could save the woman AND the baby. Why not just deliver the baby? The partial birth abortion does exactly that (but not before killing the child).

What documented medical conditions can you point to that justify the mother ethically and morally killing a full term baby?

I think this is a non-issue that allows the extremist and the democrats to support a radical pro-abortion agenda and have political cover.

Not being a doctor i wouldn't know LH. But as I understand the whole late term argument that is when it used--life or death.

As for the rest what are you going to do--add more and more hyptheticals to your question--Hey what about if a giant meteor hits the earth........


alright lets go slow here. Did you not say this LH...



Yes you did. I stated that most people also seem to support this statement as well.
Because of this anti abortion supporters have had to use the late term abortion as a boogiman to distract from it. By trying to focus on a proceedure that as I understand it is a rarity they hope to poison the support for those who would agree with you that.....




Which is what you are doing. Exactly what you are doing.

I have stated it is a woman's choice--yes

I have stated that in cases of a late term it is only moral, ethical, and her right if her life is in danger. and only then.

If not then i wouldn't support it.

I do support fully this statement....

No, I'm asking practical questions. The issue of banning late term abortions on moral and ethical grounds is a no brainer. The "meteor hitting the earth" scenario that pro-abortion extremists who VETOED this legislation and/or voted against it are the ones dreaming up wild hypotheticals. The fact of the matter is that there are almost ZERO scenarios where the mother's life would be lost unless the child is aborted just prior to birth. None. There is always another way. The pro-abortion crowd doesn't want to compromise on this issue because their entire strategy is based on changing the debate from "when is it ethical to kill a fetus" to "choice" and "privacy". That's why they are against pressing double homicide charges against a person who murders a pregnant woman. They don't want the fetus classified as a "human being" because it opens up the debate in a way that doesn't favor their radical side.




You keep mistaking me for the "anti-abortion crowd". You're debating me, not "them".

You quoted me correctly. I am absolutely for limited abortion rights for the reasons that I articulated. But, I'm for those rights on the basis of the basis of the REALITY of abortion, not some lame euphemism like "choice" or "privacy" or what a "woman does with her body". That was the topic of this thread was it not?

The issue of abortion has nothing to do with a woman's body. It has everything to do with what that woman does to ANOTHER body that resides within her.

It has everything to do with choice LH. The late term argument IS used by anti abortion supporters simply because most people support the choice to abort early on in the pregnancy. So they try and make the whole thing evil by equating it to late term abortions. They do not want a women to have any options or choices whatso ever! Early on in the 1st trimester as well. Even using pills that would prevent pregnancy if taken within a few days of the act of intercourse.


The anti-abortion crowd doesn't want to compromise on this issue so they try scare tactics. I started another thread that addressed this very issue of both sides refusing to find common ground and trying for a scorched earth policy in favor of their side.

But this whole abortion debate centers around the fact that some people want to prevent a women choice on the matter. no matter when they may try and have it done. I doubt women would choose any late term abortions and would want other options. Yet you cannot compromise with people who refuse to compromise so you get people digging their heels in over every tiny inch of ground.

Settle the right to choose in the 1st trimester and I have no doubts any late term will be dropped as any supporters would then find themselves all alone with no support.

You keep side-stepping your own question. Choice is not the issue. One can choose different courses of action. The issue isn't "choice", it's the action chosen.

If the action is immoral or unethical, it's not a "choice". One doesn't have the right to "choose" homicide even if it would be convenient.

Your question was whether a woman has a right to do what she wants with her body. I say yes. The problem is, however, that your question was related to the abortion issue and in THAT case, the issue isn't only about the woman's body. It's about the body of an independent human being.

If a woman wants to be fat, skinny, dye her hair, get implants, tatoos, piercings, etc., that an issue related to "her body".

Killing a fully developed baby is not. And frankly, our society needs to decide when it becomes acceptable to kill a not fully developed baby as well.

It's not a matter of "distracting". Looking at how a position handles at the extremes of implementation is a reasonable part of evaluating it. Look, I'd agree with a hardcore pro-lifer that to kill a baby about to be born is murder. But evaluating his position at its extremes -- that a clump of cells has the rights of the individual -- I see that I can't agree with his position overall. Why is it not legitimate for me to examine the extremes of the hardcore pro-choice position in the same way?

What's your point? Are you seeing some sort of dichotomy here? Why would determining that late term abortions are wrong instantly give the rabid anti-abortion crowd an across the board win?

As others have said, this ignores the real question of whether or not the feti have any rights. This should be able to be apparent to both pro-choicers and pro-lifers.

So long as it is using her body for life support, absolutely. A woman's right to control her own body takes precidence over everything else.



Morality and ethics are completely subjective, so the question is moot. The only morality that matters is the woman involved. Now, whether it should be legal, I'd say that depends on the reason for the abortion. Is it for fetal deformity or the life of the mother? Absolutely it should be legal. Is it for a frivilous reason? Maybe not. My personal take is that prior to fetal viability, the decision lies completely with the woman. After the point where the fetus can survive outside the womb, if an adoptive home is available and willing to take the baby, then certainly deliver it and finish development artificially.

...then the question becomes why the distinction?

After all even the removal of the viable fetus would require a surgical procedure. If the womans' right to choose what goes happens to her body takes precedence and she refuses to undergo the procedure should the law then allow for abortion?

So then you support the right of a hospital to 'pull the plug' whenever they choose? That 'being' is also using their systems for life support. What exactly constitutes 'life support.'? A newborn will not be able to survive on its own for several years after its born...doesn't caring for it still constitute 'life support.' If the woman is breast feeding, she is also still using her body for that support. So, using this logic, it would seem that you would have to support the woman's right to terminate the child for at least several years after birth, as well. Is that the case? If not, what specifically differentiates the cases for you?

I would also take issue with the right to control one's body taking precedence over everything else. Suppose that woman needed a transplant in order to 'control her own body.' Are you saying she has the right to then just take an organ from someone else? (presumably a man, since you seem to indicate only the woman's right to control their own body take precedence). If that creates a conflict between two competing rights to one's own body....wouldn't this give a person the right to confiscate funds from someone else in order to pay for a needed medical procedure (necessary to 'control one's own body')? These seem to be blanket statements that fail to live up to close examination. Please clarify them for further discussion.

Do women have the right to decide what they do with their bodies or are they subject to the demands of another's morality?

In my opinion, women have the right to decide with regards to the their bodies just as men have the right to decide with regards to theirs.

With regards to whether or not to have an abortion, I believe this is a moral decicion that should only be made by the woman.

I don't believe that a child should have any rights that take precedence over its mother. Survival of the mother is always more important than survival of the child.
Whether or not the mother would, or would not survive the childbirth is a questions that calls for a subjective answer, so once again, I believe that whilst doctors should be allowed to intervene in the case of a mother who is clearly unable to make her own decisions, in all other cases it should be for the mother to decide.

Nature has evolved humanity with a clear set of instincts and survival traits, and abandoning a baby that cannot survive is one of these. Whilst we, today, have the means by which no baby ever need be abandoned, I think it is a mistake to turn our backs on the instincts and wishes of a woman by superimposing a highly subjective and often flawed exterior morality upon her.

So, absolutely, in my opinion a woman has the right to decide for herself with regards to her body and also with regards to any baby that she might carry and I extend that right to matters of all life and death with the only exception being the possibility of an mother clearly diagnosed as being unable to think for herself.

But the mother is not the only "life" involved and the issue is not always "survival".

In most cases, it's "convenience".

What about the survival of a mother who decides she needs to abandon her infant child after it's born? Is that acceptable too?

All laws involve societies view of "morality".

Our instincts always aren't "moral" or "legal" either.

Do you advocate each woman deciding what should be moral and legal for herself? Why not extend this all the way through child rearing?

I'll take this one. In this case the rules of property apply here. You see, the fetus was created from the egg that was the undisputed property of the mother. The conflict example you create implies taking of property from another person, a state which the fetus has not achieved yet.

In the end, my philosophy on this lines up with Cephus. If the rights of the child in this case conflict with the rights of the mother (specifically the right to self-determination), the mother should prevail in most cases. This is true especially where conception is achieved by rape or incest, or in the case where the mother's health is threatened or could become disabled as a result of delivering the child.

Pragmatically, I line up with the SC's approach to Roe and late term abortions. Viability is the key test still. If effective legislation can be drawn restricting elective late 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions and give full consideration to the mother's means of conception (rape or incest being the exceptions) and the health of the mother (not just death, but disability), then I would accept the ability of the state to restrict reproductive rights in this area. For me, this is no different than the parental consent requirement provided that judicial bypass is available.

Life has no automatic value. It is simply the state of our existence and we are of this life without our leave. Life has no value unless value is granted to it.

Survival is always the issue, and 'convenience' is but a subjective perspective. One person's perception of 'convenience' may possibly be another persons perception of a life and death decision.

Not every one is as blasé about abortion as to be merely entertaining their own convenience, for many it is an agonising choice that they must make, for others it is simply a matter of course. Something that must be done in order for them to live their life as they see fit. Thus it is a decision that must rest in the hands of the individual to decide and since only women become pregnant, then this is a decision that must be undertaken by those women who find themselves in the unfortunate position of having to make this decision.

No one else, and especially not any man, regardless of the issue of paternity, has any right, what so ever to impose an exterior morality upon the woman. It is and should be, her decision because it is her body.


I don't understand this question. How is the woman's survival tied to giving up her child after it is born?

I suppose you are asking whether or not a woman should be allowed to abandon her baby after its born in order to save herself? If so, then no, we are not Romans, once the baby is born, she need not care for it but can pass it on to another and continue her life as she see's fit.


The law is the law and must be obeyed, but laws can, and sometimes should, be changed. In my country, I am in full agreement with the laws and definitions we have regarding childhood because I accept the decision of the majority over my own subjective opinion in this matter.



Yes, with regards to her body, I do.

Once a child is born however, it is no longer of the womans body and becomes a person in its own right. It can be passed on to another adult/parent.


editted to clarify a point

If, by "hospital", you mean a human being's body being used for life support, then sure. I'm sure most people would have an issue with being grabbed off the street, hooked up to someone else for 9 months and having them use your kidneys without your permission. Anyone can care for a baby once it's been born, but only the woman can incubate it. As such, because it places extreme strain on her body, because it causes body changes, because it is a serious potential health risk, she is the one who gets to decide, for herself, what to do.

If we ever get the technology that will allow us to take a 12-week fetus and grow it outside of the body, that might change things, but for the moment, the mother's rights vastly outweigh that of the fetus, since the fetus has none whatsoever.



Of course not because the man likewise has control over his body. Even if he gives permission to hook the woman up to his kidneys for dialysis and he later changes his mind, that's his perogative, even if it means she dies because of his decision.

You seem to be laboring under the mistaken assumption that a fetus has rights. They don't. At best, a fetus is property, owned by the mother, and to a vastly lesser extent, the father. A fetus doesn't gain rights or human status until it is born, alive.

You're aksing about how a procedure that involves cutting the mother open could cause more danger than one that doesn't? Are you serious?



What documented cases can you point to of full-term fetuses (38 weeks or more) being aborted? As far as I can tell, the healthy fetus being aborted hours before it would have been given birth to naturally is a pro-life myth.

There are many medical conditions in which a hysterotomy (similar to a c-section, but performed before the fetus is fully viable) cannot be justified; virtually any time the mother is already weak and would have trouble undergoing surgery. Mothers with heart conditions, severe diabetes, or undering cancer treatment could all have legitimate medical reasons to not be put through being cut open, for example. The risk to the mother of bleeding and infection is always less with intact D&X than with hysterotomy.

Another issue is hydrocephalic fetuses, which have very low chances of survival - even if delivered via c-section - and which have severely swollen heads, making it possibly fatal to the mother to give birth. This condition is very difficult to detect before about 20 weeks, and the appropriate medical intervention is usually an intact D&X abortion.

However, it should be noted that D&X is, as far as I know, never performed on "full term" fetuses. D&X abortions typcially take place in the 20-25th week, or as late as the 30th week in very rare cases. A fetus isn't typically considered "full term" until the 38th week.

This is not a mistaken assumption...it is in fact the crux of the issue. Only those who are proice choice are 'laboring' under your perception. I would like to point out several flaws in this line of reasoning. What it is then that magically transposes this 'property', owned by the mother, into something that the father is then legally required to support? If it is indeed 'owned' by the mother, and she has all rights, why then not all responsibility? The only answer seems to be that it is hers when it is convenient for it to be hers, and it is the father's when it is convenient for that. The logic doesn't carry forward...which is my argument against abortion. The laws/responsibilities need to be consistent, from conception forward (since it is from that point that the man's responsibility is presumed to have been enacted). Also, I do not think it can be argued that the argument for abortion is one for convenience. I'm not against that....I just wish we could all call it for what it is. The health risks, etc. are seldom what leads to one choosing an abortion...it is the inconvenience of it all. I will grant that it is a HUGE inconvience...but that's what it is. I will also grant that abortion is perfectly acceptable in cases of rape, incest, or health risk to the mother. So, let's then focus on the remaining abortions...which constitute the vast majority of them.

It's called "the law". It might not be fair, and I agree that it's not. In fact, I think there should be a way that the father could terminate parental responsibilities and remove parental rights, but that's a topic for another thread.

The mother has additional control over the fetus because the fetus is growing in her body, using her as a life support system and putting her life and health at risk. That is not a concern for the father. He is physically unaffected by anything that might happen with the fetus. Further, rightly or wrongly, in our society the mother is assumed to bear responsibility for raising the child. Again, that's for another thread.

Fair or not though, until either the father can carry the child to term himself, or medical technology can find a way to incubate the fetus outside of the womb, the mother is ALWAYS going to have additional control because she has additional responsibility.

Unfortunately, I think the laws are the way they are precisely because these issues are compartmentalized in our system (in all areas, not just this one--why is that your spouse's credit ratings directly affects yours, yet you are legally prevented from inquiring about her credit cards? it makes no sense when viewed in aggregate). But, naturally, discussing why our legal system is the way it is is clearly the topic for another thread. Unfortunately, it leads to issues such as these not being handled correctly, IMHO. But, I guess that's job security for lawyers, isn't it



As above, I think the issue is bigger than that...the entire scope of the life, and its impact on all parties concerned should be considered. But, as you state, this is the topic of another thread (and has been, actually). Further, it sounds like we'd be in agreement on it.



Actually, I don't mind the mother having additional control; for the reasons you mention, it is very justified. I just don't think she should have sole control. The exact scope and legalities of how that would be enacted are also the topic of another thread.

Unfortunately, until the father finds a way to physically carry and give birth to the fetus, that's how it's going to be. Biology isn't "fair". The father doesn't bear any of the risks associated with pregnancy, therefore he doesn't have any direct control over the pregnancy continuing. That said though, hopefully in any relationship that a pregnancy comes from, the communications are such that they can both talk and come to some agreement on what to do.

[quote=christopher,Jun 15 2005, 10:09 AM]
[quote]Do women have the right to decide what they do with their bodies or are they subject to the demands of another's morality?

[/quote]
It depends ENTIRELY under the circumstances.

If a woman was raped, she has every right to have an abortion. Afterall, rape is a very serious crime. It's mentaly scarring (And alot of times physichaly.) It would be selfish of me to say she HAS to have that child if the child would only be created through violance and depravity.. I don't think the child would want to be born that way anyway..

If a woman's life is indanger, again, yes she has the right. The fact is she has a family and has lived a life, the baby has yet to make an impact on this world. Also it would be unfair to ask her to choose between her own life and someone else's..

Other then those two circumstances, no. Anything else only promotes promiscuity and irresponsibility. Which I do not tolerate. However, this is partialy the goverment's fault for not making birth control pills and condoms and other prevention commodities more avaliable at the markets. (Comeon, thirty bucks for a box of condoms?!)

But I also believe this was entirely the point. Everytime a woman get's abortion, that's more money in the goverment's pocket's through hospital expenses. Therfore it is the irresponsible smhucks of this country who fuel the warmachine, and yet they complain most loudest about it. Go figure.

Cephus:

While the law has not said that a fetus is a "person" [shades of Dred Scott], the court has said that the state has a legitimate interest in the health, safety, and welfare of a viable fetus. The word, fetus, is not otherwise a description of the organism, but a stage of development, which explains why we have human [organism] fetuses [stage of development], cow [organism] fetuses [stage of development], etc. And the rather undeniable reality is that all you and I are physically is the expression of the information contained in a single strand of DNA that once was what we call a zygote. And the zygote, morula, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, whatever you want to call it, is not the woman's body since, by definition, half of the DNA is not hers. Lastly, you gave the example of being snatched and grabbed and otherwise hooked up without your permission. Tell me, did the woman consent to an act whose purpose is reproduction? So unless she is claiming rape, she gave her permission [consent]. Just as you do when you operate a motor vehicle.

Ampersand:

Pro-life myth? Then what is partial birth abortion? Oh, and never mind that we know that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer and subsequent premature births, though no abortion provider is ever going to tell the would be patient that information. So much for informed consent.

Moif:

Survival of the mother is always more important? May I simply ask on what basis you make that claim?

Do women have the right to decide what they do with their bodies or are they subject to the demands of another's morality?

Obviously, women and men should both have the right to decide what they do with their bodies without being subject to the demands of another's morality, so long as "what they want to do with their bodies" causes no harm to someone else's body. Few, if any, will disagree with that statement.

My fist is a part of my body. Do I have the right to do anything with that fist I so choose? No, my right to choose what I do with my fist ends where your nose begins. Similarly, the right for a woman to control her own womb should end where another human life begins. If a woman should have the right to use her body to kill another human life without due process of law, then everyone should have the right to use their fists to kill another human life without due process of law. That's obviously unworkable, so the abortion issue really has absolutely nothing at all to do with "choice," and everything to do with "life."

The only meaningful difference between the "choice" camp and the "life" camp is whether a fetus qualifies as "someone else's body." If the fetus is "someone else's body," then government's most fundamental mandate is to defend her right to live from anyone who would want to kill her, even her own mother. Are there exceptions? Sure, but they all require due process. Taking a life without due process of law is barbaric, which is why the "choice" camp goes to such great lengths attempting to deny that is precisely what they are promoting.

If a fetus is not "someone else's body," then a consistent policy of choice requires that the biological father also have the "right to choose" to renounce all paternal responsibilities (within a few months of being told of the pregnancy) if the mother chooses to bring the child into the world against his will. Oh, but wait, that's way too much "choice" for the inconsistent left-- that assumes the "choice" camp actually believes their own rhetoric, which is a bad assumption. Only the insanely heartless could support a policy that results in so much bloodshed of the innocent. The "choice" camp might be well-meaning on some level, but not well-reasoned on any level-- they are experts at convoluted rationalization, but only as a smokescreen for drawing entirely irrational conclusions, like Roe v. Wade.

If we are to believe what the left said before the last Presidential election, that election was nothing less than a referendum on abortion "rights." According to the most expensive Democrat campaign in history, Kerry should have won easily in the middle of a terrible economy, an unpopular war, high gasoline prices, an Orwellian Patriot Act, etc. George Soros spent millions telling us that the Bush administration had failed on every level, and that Roe v. Wade was on the ballot-- that a vote for Bush was a vote against "reproductive rights for women," because the next President could appoint "as many as four justices." His message was received loud and clear, but it backfired-- it brought The People to the polls in droves, but to vote for Bush instead of Kerry, citing "moral values" as the reason for their vote.

So, unless the left's message in the last election was an abject lie, the American People clearly voted against pro-abortion/pro-gay judicial extremism by electing Bush in the last election. Sandra Day O'Connor's retirement is a step toward the implementation of that mandate. If the hard left was telling the truth, there is no reason why the American people would have re-elected Bush on his own merits other than the People's trust in Bush's ability to appoint justices who will uphold the Constitution by upholding the American moral values it enshrines-- including the right to life.

I'm pro-gay marriage and under the right circumstance pro-choice, I just despised Kerry. He's part of the coporate machine where as Bush is just a hillbilly..

I do not consider something a life until it can function on its own. I do not consider fetuses, eggs, or sperm as human life.

Would you consider using a condom killing a life? What about using the morning after pill? I read about a lot of Christian pharmacists that will not sell those items, and then 9 months later wonder why the abortion rate is up.

Life is a hard thing to define, but I define it has being able to support oneself. A fetus needs her mother for everything. A baby can sit in a room and breath on its own. Their is a big difference. A baby has arms and legs. Early fetuses are just big orange balls...

Civilization always has thinks that some deem unacceptable but who are they to enforce their moral beliefs on you? If you think an abortion is immoral, unacceptable, or against god, just do not do it yourself.

Always, you must always realize the consequences of one's actions. Imagine if we outlawed abortion. We would have an extra million babies a year. Most would probably be without homes. Some moms would flee to the "abortion underground" to have their babies aborted by criminals. That would also be very dangerous. I do not know if defining life as a clump of cells, or a clump of tissue is the way to go.

Sorry to be confusing here, but the answer to both of your questions is "no".

A mother does not have the right to privacy over her own body, or I should say she does not have a Constitutional right to privacy over her own body. One can argue that a woman's right to privacy is a natural law -- and in fact, that's essentially how the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v Wade.

Let me explain why I believe a woman does not have a Constitutional right to privacy over her own body. The Supreme Court ruled that the 14th amendment implies a right to privacy that applies to women. Regardless of whether you agree with the Roe decision or not, I believe I can adequately prove that the original scope of the 14th amendment was not meant to be applied to abortion laws.

At the time the 14th amendment was ratified, there were 36 laws among the states banning abortion to some extent. Clearly, if the intent of the 14th amendment was, in part, to ban anti-abortion laws, then legislators would have taken those laws off the books. Not a single legislator in the 1860s would have interpreted the 14th amendment to include a woman's right to privacy over her own body and therefore none of those laws were outlawed.

Now, let's visit the right to life. Do we have a Constitutional right to legislate our morals against a woman based on the right to life? No. The right to life is mentioned twice in the Constitution, each time with the provision "with due process of law".

And once again, neither the 5th nor 14th amendment was meant to focus on a fetus's life. Our American law system is based on English common law. Ath the time of the 5th amendment, the common law was such that a baby does not become a life until "the quickening". Had the 5th amendment right-to-life intended to include a fetus's right-to-life, then the common law would have changed to adopt life within the womb. Instead, the "quickening" rule of law continued. This makes it clear, to me at least, that the 5th amendment did not apply to fetal life.

So if there is no Constitutional protection for the woman's right to privacy (or at least none that was written with the intention of protecting a woman's right to privacy) and no Constitutional protection for the fetus's right to life, what is a Court supposed to do?

Nothing, IMO. These laws should be decided by the legislatures. There is nothing directly unconstitutional by terminating a fetus's life at 8 months if the woman so desires, and there is nothing directly unconstitutional by stopping a mother from terminating the fetus.

Let each district decide for themselves what kind of laws they desire on the issue. I think you will be surprised to find that a vast majority of districts will keep laws the way they are. Polls show that Americans do not want all abortions to be legal, nor do they want all abortions to be illegal. Most Americans are somewhere in the middle, and I think a lot of controversy would die if this issue were left to the People.

If the hospital is using live people as life support machines, then the right to decide lies with the people involved. Machines, last I checked, didn't have the right to self determination.

And once a child is born, anyone can take care of it. Only the birth mother is capable of incubating a fetus. Until we can find a way to incubate a fetus mechanically, or transplant it easily to another person, that isn't going to change.



The man (or donor) also has a right to control their own body. You know that, of course, you're just trying (and failing) to make a point. Nobody has the right to grab you off the street and hook another person up to your kidneys for dialysis. If you agree, that's one thing. If you don't, it shouldn't happen. If you change your mind, even if that means the death of the other person, so be it.

A person's control over their own body is paramount to all other concerns, period.

Yes, of course. But if you think that is sufficient to refute the previous argument, you misundertand the argument entirely. The question is not whether a woman has the right to her own body, but whether abortion falls within that right to her own body. Why are you asking this question, with regard to the person you quoted? It seems that, given this question without any context, you both agree. I would go so far as to say that you are trying to defame him.

I agree with Victoria Silverwolf that that is a shadily worded question. Your question has a serious problem. It is not her body she is dealing with. It is her child's. And if, in [/B]christopher's[B] words, "another's morality," meaning "not Hitler's morality," is killing people is wrong, then yes, I think that that person should "subject" herself to them.

Also, since that your question is obviously biased towards being pro-choice, could you please re-ask it so people won't be tricked by it and sway the debate?

EDIT: Wow. I read that question again and it is even more crazy. It doesn't even mention abortion in it, only implies it and can easily be manipulated to apply to everything else a woman can encounter. You could easily switch the word "woman" for "man" and have an equivalent debate.