Page 11 of 16 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 154

Thread: A Civil Abortion Discussion

  1. #101
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,806
    Amen (Given)
    24
    Amen (Received)
    1050
    OK - I'm going to make this my last post. This was an interesting exercise, but I don't think this is the place to do any of this.

    Despite the claims being made in the original thread, and to some degree here, this was never about "fighting with hands tied behind our backs" or "abandoning our principals" or anything else that has been said. This discussion was started from a fairly simple basis: if we wish to significantly curtail abortions, we have to ask ourselves "is what we are doing working?" If the answer is "yes," then carry on. I would suggest, since abortions still number in the hundreds of thousands per year and the arguments being made by both sides, in and out of courts, are the same old tired arguments that were being made 50 years ago - the answer to that question is "no" or at least "not anywhere near enough."

    It then seems reasonable to me to explore, "how else could we approach this?"

    From my perspective, this entire discussion is somewhat akin to someone in an actual war who, noticing that there are massive casualties piling up and little/no ground being made, asks, "what are we trying to achieve and perhaps we should consider doing this a different way?" The response they keep getting is "no - once more onto the breach!"

    Clearly, a shift to a "different way" requires players from both sides. My experience is that most people on both sides are so solidly entrenched in their "once more onto the breach" philosophy and absolute distrust of the "opposing force," that there is precious little opportunity to explore alternatives.

    I'd like to thank Guaca for a valiant effort to keep the conversation focused on the "meta" issue, keeping an open mind about possibilities, and contributing some ideas to the mix. Guaca, when I slip into early semi-retirement and have some time to devote - if I decide to take this on as a project, I will look for you here to see if you might be interested in participating.

    For the rest, I'll leave you to the discussion. Unlike you, when there is no headway to be made - I ask myself "is this the right way and the right place and the right time?" At least two out of three of those appear to be "no."
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

  2. Amen guacamole amen'd this post.
  3. #102
    tWebber tabibito's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    DownUnder
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,849
    Amen (Given)
    199
    Amen (Received)
    808
    Let's see now

    A: "Stop killing Jews"
    B: "Jews are not acceptable"
    C: "Can't you find some point of compromise?"
    A: "OK - what percentage of Jews do you consider it reasonable to kill?"
    1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

  4. Amen NorrinRadd amen'd this post.
  5. #103
    tWebber NorrinRadd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Wayne Township, PA
    Faith
    Full Gospel Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,513
    Amen (Given)
    1210
    Amen (Received)
    502
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    I quickly scanned the thread and have two observations. First, I am gratified that the tone is being kept civil. Second, I am a bit disappointed that the conversation still wants to slip towards debating the issue of abortion, rather than looking at the meta issue of what solutions that would be acceptable by both side have the greatest chance, if implemented, of significantly slowing abortions? My base argument is that a continued war of words, press, and law, on "when does a human person begin" is futile and needs to be set aside in favor of other, more practical solutions.

    I also am up to my ears in work today, so I'll be responding to one post at a time when I take a break from course development. Wish I could do more. It's an important/interesting discussion.
    Yeah. We also shoulda set aside the debate about whether blacks were persons.

    Sorry, but while I have no problem with the various little practical suggestions being made, to me they all amount to the proverbial rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
    Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

    Beige Nationalist.

    "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

  6. #104
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    10,963
    Amen (Given)
    2428
    Amen (Received)
    1740
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post


    I think the pro-choice side has really exacerbated the problem by fighting for late term abortions. The longer the baby develops in the womb, the harder it is to argue it's not a person.

    That's not the real problem. The real problem is "does one person have the constitutional right to end the life of another person".
    “Person” is what’s at issue here, as you yourself indicate with your question.

    The SCOTUS in RvW found no indication that the Constitution's uses of the word "person" were meant to include fetuses, or that a fetus should be considered a "person" with a legal and constitutional right to life.

    But it noted that the beginning of the third trimester was usually when a fetus became viable. Therefore, the Court ruled that, from this point on and through the rest of a pregnancy, the state had a compelling interest in protecting prenatal life. Thence, it could legally prohibit all abortions, except where the mother's life or health were at risk.

    A sensible outcome in my view.
    He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it. - Douglas Adams.

  7. #105
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,677
    Amen (Given)
    211
    Amen (Received)
    623
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    “Person” is what’s at issue here, as you yourself indicate with your question.

    The SCOTUS in RvW found no indication that the Constitution's uses of the word "person" were meant to include fetuses, or that a fetus should be considered a "person" with a legal and constitutional right to life.

    But it noted that the beginning of the third trimester was usually when a fetus became viable. Therefore, the Court ruled that, from this point on and through the rest of a pregnancy, the state had a compelling interest in protecting prenatal life. Thence, it could legally prohibit all abortions, except where the mother's life or health were at risk.

    A sensible outcome in my view.
    If they concluded that a fetus would not be considered a person (by the Constitution, at least), then the "sensible outcome" would be to let each state decide how to handle the issue of abortion and enact whatever restrictions they felt were proper. As John Hart Ely, back when the decision was made, explained:

    But in any event, the argument that fetuses lack constitutional rights is simply irrelevant. For it has never been held or even asserted that the state interest needed to justify forcing a person to refrain from an activity, whether or not that activity is constitutionally protected, must implicate either the life or the constitutional rights of another person. Dogs are not "persons in the whole sense" nor have they constitutional rights, but that does not mean the state cannot prohibit killing them: It does not even mean the state cannot prohibit killing them in the exercise of the First Amendment right of political protest.


    The decision in Roe v. Wade, to justify banning abortion regulation to the extent it did, had to come up with a new right of privacy more or less out of nowhere and then assert this previously unknown right is so expansive that it required striking down essentially all abortion regulation that was in place at the time. Again, as John Hart Ely--who, I want to stress, was pro-choice--expertly wrote:

    What is unusual about Roe is that the liberty involved is accorded a far more stringent protection, so stringent that a desire to preserve the fetus's existence is unable to overcome it-a protection more stringent, I think it fair to say, than that the present Court accords the freedom of the press explicitly guaranteed by the First Amendment. What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers' thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation's governmental structure. Nor is it explainable in terms of the unusual political impotence of the group judicially protected vis--vis the interest that legislatively prevailed over it. And that, I believe-the predictable early reaction to Roe notwithstanding ("more of the same Warren-type activism")-is a charge that can responsibly be leveled at no other decision of the past twenty years. At times the inferences the Court has drawn from the values the Constitution marks for special protection have been controversial, even shaky, but never before has its sense of an obligation to draw one been so obviously lacking.

    Not in the last thirty-five years at any rate. For, as the received learning has it, this sort of thing did happen before, repeatedly. From its 1905 decision in Lochner v. New York into the 1930's the Court, frequently though not always under the rubric of "liberty of contract," employed the Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments to invalidate a good deal of legislation. According to the dissenters at the time and virtually all the commentators since, the Court had simply manufactured a constitutional right out of whole cloth and used it to superimpose its own view of wise social policy on those of the legislatures.
    It may be, however-at least it is not the sort of claim one can disprove -that the "right to an abortion," or noneconomic rights generally, accord more closely with "this generation's idealization of America", than the "rights" asserted in either Lochner or Dandridge. But that attitude, of course, is precisely the point of the Lochner philosophy, which would grant unusual protection to those "rights" that somehow seem most pressing, regardless of whether the Constitution suggests any special solicitude for them. The Constitution has little to say about contract, less about abortion, and those who would speculate about which the framers would have been more likely to protect may not be pleased with the answer. The Court continues to disavow the philosophy of Lochner. Yet as Justice Stewart's concurrence admits, it is impossible candidly to regard Roe as the product of anything else. That alone should be enough to damn it.
    Last edited by Terraceth; 05-18-2019 at 01:33 AM.

  8. #106
    tWebber guacamole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,552
    Amen (Given)
    245
    Amen (Received)
    524
    This was a solid attempt at discourse. Unfortunately, most people are trying to debate abortion or the utility of trying to save lives. Shaking my head...
    "Down in the lowlands, where the water is deep,
    Hear my cry, hear my shout,
    Save me, save me"

  9. #107
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    15,628
    Amen (Given)
    5494
    Amen (Received)
    5387
    Quote Originally Posted by guacamole View Post
    This was a solid attempt at discourse. Unfortunately, most people are trying to debate abortion or the utility of trying to save lives. Shaking my head...
    It was more an attempt to solve a problem without actually addressing the problem itself while putting one side of the debate at a significant disadvantage.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

  10. #108
    tWebber guacamole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,552
    Amen (Given)
    245
    Amen (Received)
    524
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post
    It was more an attempt to solve a problem without actually addressing the problem itself while putting one side of the debate at a significant disadvantage.
    That's the whole frustrating point. No one is arguing that this is the solution to the abortion debate, hence no one is at a significant disadvantage in the abortion debate. It was merely a question of how we can save more lives now. The abortion question is still open.
    "Down in the lowlands, where the water is deep,
    Hear my cry, hear my shout,
    Save me, save me"

  11. #109
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    15,628
    Amen (Given)
    5494
    Amen (Received)
    5387
    Quote Originally Posted by guacamole View Post
    That's the whole frustrating point. No one is arguing that this is the solution to the abortion debate, hence no one is at a significant disadvantage in the abortion debate. It was merely a question of how we can save more lives now. The abortion question is still open.
    Well, like I said, any proposal that tries to avoid stepping on the pro-abortionists toes will, I think, be limited and short-lived at best. Case in point, you mentioned making adoption easier, but then on the other side of the equation, Planned Parenthood as the country's largest provider of and advocate for abortion (and from which it gets the majority of its income) actively discourages adoption.

    As I said, pro-abortionists will happily agree to any compromise that doesn't actually prevent abortion, and that's the problem with the premise of this thread.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

  12. #110
    tWebber guacamole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,552
    Amen (Given)
    245
    Amen (Received)
    524
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Well, like I said, any proposal that tries to avoid stepping on the pro-abortionists toes will, I think, be limited and short-lived at best. Case in point, you mentioned making adoption easier, but then on the other side of the equation, Planned Parenthood as the country's largest provider of and advocate for abortion (and from which it gets the majority of its income) actively discourages adoption.

    As I said, pro-abortionists will happily agree to any compromise that doesn't actually prevent abortion, and that's the problem with the premise of this thread.
    No one was trying to avoid stepping on anyone's toes. Anyone who reads here knows that I am not afraid to step on toes if I feel like I need to. I don't think your article proves anything about active opposition to adoption from Planned Parenthood. I hate having to defend them, but the writer basically looked a bunch of PP brochures and took them to task for not being in the adoption business.

    fwiw,
    guacamole
    "Down in the lowlands, where the water is deep,
    Hear my cry, hear my shout,
    Save me, save me"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •