Posted on 11/08/2002 1:09:07 PM PST by Tomalak
"Now that one of the nation's finest universities (Princeton) has given a prestigious position to an advocate of infanticide (Peter Singer suggests that for perhaps a month after birth parents should be entitled to dispose of unwanted children), it is not surprising that the Senate has what deserves to be called an "Infanticide Caucus." The caucus has at least three members. "Two of them, Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin and Frank Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersy, identified themselves when, during the Sept. 26, 1996 debate on partial-birth abortion, Rick Santorum, Republican of Pennsylvania, asked: Suppose during such an abortion (during which a baby is delivered feed first until all but a portion of the skull is outside the mother, then its skull is punctured, its contents vacuumed, then collapsed) the baby slips all the way out of the birth canal. Should killing the baby even then be a permissible choice? Neither senator would say "no."
"During the Oct. 20, 1999, debate Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, joined the caucus:
"Santorum: 'You agree, once a child is born, separated from the mother, that that child is protected by the Constitution and cannot be killed. Do you agree with that?'
"Boxer: 'I think when you bring your baby home...'
"She said more. What she would not say was 'yes.'"
We have now reached a point in our culture where one can be arrested for plowing up an endangered species - a wild morning glory or a kangaroo rat, but can be applauded for one's wisdom in killing one's own unborn child, and even one's newborn - especially if that child is designated as "handicapped" and a possible burden."
George Will
Logic and the Constitution... yes. Certainly not logic alone, of course. When I say "principles", I'm referring to those outlined in the Constitution.
But isn't it nice, that as an atheist who sees abortion as ritual murder, I can debate the topic within the Republican party and actually have a voice on the issue?
So... I ask this question on every forum, and I've never received a straight answer from anyone, yet: At what point should abortion be "illegal"? From the point of conception? You appear to be very pro-life, and I'm wondering what your position is.
IMO, this is the most difficult issue in the debate since we all agree that abortion is immoral at some point and society should at least sanction the abortionists. I believe there should penalties for clear late term cases with fines for the abortionists.
From the descriptions in my post #300, I would draw the line somewhere after thirty hours and before week 6. I don't think there should be penalties even at week 6 because it can easily represent a lack of judgement or education by the mother rather than malice. Also I don't the law should be deciding the difference between an abortion and a miscarriage.
Why fines and not murder charges? The best answer I can give is I am pro-choice. There is a choice to be made by the mother that involved an increasingly human and protectable life, but that choice is the mother's, right or wrong. I can't sympathize with a mother who has had repeated late term abortions, she should be in jail. But I entirely sympathize with a mother who has repeated used "morning after" pills, I don't see anything wrong with that at all. The difference is my empathy with the victims.
There's a difference between advocating murder (I do not) and punishing a woman over an arbitrary distinction such as (in your case) mitosis. I do not see any moral difference between aborting just before or just after mitosis. I don't think either case requires any legal sanctions.
Next, you'll try to tell us in your progession of fallacies we should all bow down to your altar of pagan idols.
I specifically would not do that. We must make a political determination based on our moral principles. Should abortion be illegal and what should be penalties be? In your case I can't see how your logic would rule out executing the mother for any abortion infraction after mitosis.
Not me, I'm an atheist, I am a political constituency of the party in power and I VOTED PRO-LIFE. I will not bend my knee to your false gods or your ad hominem arguments.
I am agnostic. I try to respect and understand the views of religion in this debate but I pointed out that they are indeed religious distinctions. First, life can't begin at any "moment" because moments are arbitrary, only processes are real. Second, based on my humanity and empathy with humanity, I don't find anything immoral about killing fertilized eggs.
This folks, is the Religious Left I speak of, pay attention...
If you say so.
I put the question to you in reverse. At what point would you allow an abortion? If you're not certain when human life begins, how can you justify an action that might result in murdering a child. I think that if you're in favor of an action that end's human life, the obligation is upon you to be 100% sure it's not murder. If you're not 100% certain, you should err on the side of preserving life. Anything less is reckless and callous disregard for a child's life.
This is a good illustration of my previous claim that I've never received a straight answer to the question: "At what point should abortion be illegal?" No one knows; not even I.
However, I do think all rights should be extended to the "unborn" at a certain point and from that point onward. So... at what point? The point of conception is too early - we'd have to outlaw certain forms of contraception, and women don't even know they're pregnant at the point of conception. The points of viability or consciousness are too arbitrary.
However, the point when the heart begins beating would be consistent with the point in which we consider life to end. That is, a human may lose consciousness, but we still consider that human to be "alive" until the heart stops beating. And, the fetus' heart begins to beat between 5-6 weeks of pregnancy.
Still, I must admit that even that position is controversial: Many women don't even know they're pregnant at that point.
Binky, I'm a 51 year old grandpa and when I enisted in the army I was making about 300/month. Unless times have changed, the pursuit of monetary wealth is not the reason one serves one's country.
One sheckle, incorrectly spelled, equals one shekel, Israeli currency, equals about 4.65US.
Next to Bill Clinton, anyway.
Palmer, you continue to use phrases like 'increasingly human and protectable life'. Please note that the embryo is fully human, existing exactly as human individual life is designed to exist at that period in a lifetime. To terminate an embryo is to terminate an individual human lifetime. We ought be honest about that, even as we contemplate at what point termination will become strictly illegal even for rape and incest cases ... with the only exception allowed as a pregnancy that endangers the continuing life of the mother.
What I'm advocating is the selection of a point in the 'lifeline' beyond which killing an individual prenatal will be counted as murder in some degree. That arbitrary point would apply to rape incest and danger to woman's life and would not be applicable for normal pregnancies ... the point defined would be applied to the 'exceptions' not the entire spectrum of pregnancy.
When implantation occurs, a new individual human life is receiving life support and in that sequestered position through no fault of it's own, so I am for protecting such life, with the exceptions as outlined for rape, incest, and to protect a woman's life (to protect the woman's life ought apply through the enntire gestational period). IOW, the stopping point for abortion is to be applied to the exceptions, not the majority of pregnancies.
I think you knew what I meant, though. Now that I've admitted my mistake, are you going to continue to argue that the Founding Fathers did not draw upon the principles laid out in the Declaration when composing the constitution?
But, the developing human is not to blame for rape or incest. Thus, once we select the point at which all rights would be extended to the unborn, it should apply to all pregnancies.
Otherwise: (1) The gov't/court system/etc. will have to judge each case based on whether or not the woman had sexual relations willingly. That's not protecting the unborn; it's just penalizing women for their sexual behavior (which may indeed be what some people want to do). And, (2) such a system may give women the incentive to lie and claim they were raped, which means the men involved would be penalized wrongly.
However, your position of protection at "the beginning of the fetus stage" is much more lenient than the one I offered (i.e. when the heart starts beating).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.