FReep this FOX NEWS dot com POLL on abortion!!!

Fox News Dot Com ^ | 6/17/2003 | Fox News Dot Com Poll

[xrp]

Roe v. "Roe"

Should the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion be overturned?

a. Yes, I support Norma McCorvey's efforts. (60%)

b. No, a woman has the right to choose. (36%)

c. Not sure (4%)

[gcruse]

If you're going to be consistent, you have to allow
rape and incest babies to come to term, too. What
happened wasn't the kid's fault.

[Terriergal]

A thoughtful article about Gradualism and Moral Personhood

"To do so, they distinguish between a common sense criterion of personhood (‘C’) and a moral sense of personhood. ...
Some philosophers believe any being of the human species is a moral person (regardless of whether they hold ‘C’), while others believe that any creature actually possessing ‘C’ is a moral person (regardless of species). "
... According to the gradualist potentiality criterion of moral personhood, “potential possession of C confers not a right, but only a claim, to life, but that claim keeps growing stronger, requiring ever stronger reasons to override it, until the point when C is actually possessed.”(Regan 207).
... Eventually a fetus must go from not possessing ‘C’ to possessing ‘C’, and the course of human growth does not afford us the luxury of a bright line of division between the two.

[gcruse]

OK.

[Terriergal]

This issue is all about a priori assumptions

I agree... and I realize that if we start out with differing assumptions, we usually can't find common ground.

[Tribune7]

You support a ban on second trimester abortions?

[gcruse]

I don't know where to draw the line. But, to support abortion at any time seems be the pivot point, not when.

[Terriergal]

(Note: Fetal brainwaves can be detected as early as the sixth week of pregnancy, and fetal heartbeat usually begins between days 18 and 21.)

So basically only women with 28 day cycles who have a pregnancy test come back positive within two weeks of her expected period will be able to have abortions?

There are *so* many variables... women who occasionally have longer cycles may not even know they are pregnant until that time.

[Torie]

But you see, I suspect neither of us things the other is an immoral Philistines. And that is the vital difference. We can talk to each other in the public square, and perhaps cut deals we both think change the law in a way we find more acceptable. Isn't that what a vital public square is about? To honestly discuss our differences, understand where the other is coming from, and try to work it all out?

[First Amendment]

There is no right or wrong answer.

That's a pretty absolutist statement - and absolutes are what you are saying there aren't any of. (to make a very ungrammatical statement!)

[Torie]

Ya, that brainwave article misses it, if it is what I think it is. It is more like 10-12 weeks. Muscle spasms aren't sentient brain waves.

[Tribune7]

I don't know where to draw the line.

If Roe went and we were able to hash it out in legislatures, we would figure out how to draw the line.

And I agree that it shouldn't be based on a particular religion's doctrine (unless you want to argue "that we are endowed with rights" is a religious doctrine.)

[Terriergal]

I don't know where to draw the line. But, to support abortion at any time seems be the pivot point, not when.

You know, I'd be happy if we had incrementally more and more restrictions on abortion. Do you see the pro death crowd allowing *any* wiggle room? For crying out loud they can't even take a stand against partial-birth abortion and you want them to try and agree to a dividing line that's even harder to figure out?

It's not the prolife bunch that are extremist. If we all said "ok lets' compromise" they still would not. We can't even get a 24 hour waiting period or parental consent, or a ban on late term abortions. It's not us that are extreme.

[gcruse]

I think we can agree on that.

[hocndoc]

When the blastocyst is a human blastocyst, yes, he or she is a person.

There is no question as to how and when life begins, that is a matter of science. The idea that some humans may be killed at will by others is a matter of philosophy or a personal belief system. A superior philosophy or belief system will serve to protect humans from killing by those who might have the power, so that human rights protection does not vary by geography or circumstances any more than inalienable human rights are dependent on anything other than the fact of being human.

Here's a great article on the subject, if you are interested in a slightly different way of explaining the facts of life:

http://unbornperson.com/section_2.htm

"" THE ONLY ACCEPTABLE MOMENT FOR THE ORIGIN OF THE HUMAN LIFE-COURSE IS THE ONE PRIOR TO ANY AND ALL DEVELOPMENT, NAMELY, THE MOMENT OF CONCEPTION. It is then when the zygote was endowed with its genetic code and its human nature, which enabled it to begin its trend of development. The moment it began to develop it was already a human being, since a thing must be before it can act. Furthermore a thing must be of a certain kind in order to act in a distinctive manner, indicating that the thing must have a specific nature. And since the action is developmental, once begun, the same actor endures throughout the entire life-course of the human being, from conception until death.

THE REMAINING QUESTION CONCERNS THAT ACTOR. In later stages of his or her development he or she is called a person. It would seem reasonable that he or she be called a person at the very beginning of his or her acting. Is the zygote of human parentage a person? To answer this question one must establish the minimum requirements of personhood and to see whether the zygote of human parentage meets them.

The task is simplified by first noting that personhood is not the same as personality. Personhood, like nature, admits of no degree; whereas personality demands training, education and character development, allowing for great variety among human individuals. Personhood is the same for all. Personality is not expected of the human individual in his zygote stage, but personhood is something else and the zygote does qualify for that; FOR A PERSON IS NOTHING MORE OR LESS THAN AN INDIVIDUAL MEMBER OF THE HUMAN RACE.

The word "individual" is used in the same sense as that which indicates the relationship between one rabbit and the rabbit species. A single rabbit is an individual of the rabbit species. Two factors are involved in the concept of the individual. First, as the word indicates, the individual is an undivided whole. Secondly, the individual is dimensionally non-continuous with others of the species. Thus, the human individual is not and never can be a part of any other human individual, including his or her mother.

Reference to the individual of any species necessitates such expressions as "this rabbit" or "this man." Common usage regards expressions such as "this man" and "this person" as interchangeable. In other words, a special badge of identification applies to man. He or she is called a "person." This designation is given in recognition of man's unique and highly significant characteristic of being master of his own destiny. Every individual human, because he or she belongs to that species of beings whose members are capable of deliberate and responsible conduct, is automatically a person.

THE TEST OF PERSONHOOD IS NOT WHETHER A HUMAN INDIVIDUAL HAS EVER EXERCISED DELIBERATE CHOICE OR IS CURRENTLY IN THE ACT OF DELIBERATING, BUT WHETHER HE OR SHE BELONGS, IN VIRTUE OF HIS OR HER NATURE, TO THAT SPECIES WHOSE MEMBERS ARE CAPABLE OF SUCH EXERCISE."

[Torie]

There are no right or wrong answers absent a priori assumptions. Those that suggest otherwise simply don't have it right.

[gcruse]

Isn't banning PBA a compromise? From here, it looks like the prolife crowd cannot compromise because of their notion that killing anything after conception is murder.

[Tribune7]

It is more like 10-12 weeks.

That's still first trimester.

[First Amendment]

If you're going to be consistent, you have to allow rape and incest babies to come to term, too. What happened wasn't the kid's fault.

The percentage of abortions committed due to rape an incest are insignificant. This is a wellknown fact, and there are people here who know the figures although I don't have them handy.

I will be personal here - when I was 18, I had an abortion (before they were legal). It wasn't exactly rape, but I didn't know who the father was for sure and there was alcohol and some degree of force. If I had read literature that is available now about the reality of abortion I would not have chosen to kill my baby. It is a sorrow and a regret I will carry with me the rest of my life. If I wasn't ready to be a mother, I could have given another woman the chance to be a mother. I could have given a boy or girl the chance to have a life, instead of taking it away from them.

[Tribune7]

Serendipity :-)

[gcruse]

Sorry, that doesn't do it for me.
Unwanted pregnancies are going to occur.
And in the absence of adoption, which we
would all agree is the way to go, there
will be a from of abortion taking place.
Back alleys and coathangers are unacceptable.