for those against abortion

[run]

For those who asked for an analogy, I'll give it a go:

You find yourself in a burning building with another person inside. You don't know when or if the roof will come down on you, but the other person is hurt, and unable to walk out themselves. In fact, you're not even sure if they'd make it at all, if they're at all alive still. You'd have to not only support them but carry them out..You have the choice to take the risk of the burning building coming down on you and dying or being injured for life, and perhaps saving their life in the process...or you can walk out and save your neck.

I know what I would do. Do you? And can you understand why someone else would pick the other option?

Can we really blame the ones who decide to choose certainty of life and walk out that door? And...don't you think their conscience will already take care of any judgement you could possibly utter?


Can your family and friends really blame you for staying inside and risking your life, considering the amount of hurt you're possibly about to put them through?

Just my two cents...

Wow I was just about to say that.

There is a person inside and you are aware.
There is a person inside and you aren't aware.
There isn't a person inside and you are aware.
There isn't a person inside and you aren't aware.

1. you get them
2. you go try. * this is the case. The baby could die anyway. The person could also die of a heart attack inside the builing before you get to them. Does that make ok to choose whether to go in or not. You just go in. Its just as irresponsible as if you knew they were there and healthy.
3. don't go.
4. don't go.

 

[Amargith]

I would understand, however, if someone were to choose not to do that. The fear, the urge to survive..the sheer urge to not have your life be impacted and completely turned upside down. For that matter, the knowledge that you're incapable of doing what it is that you know you should (You're 100 pounds and the guy you have to carry outside is 250). The sheer look of the other person and his injuries and pain make you not wanna deal with the situation and flee instead (emotional trauma).. It's understandable.

 

[Rajah]

The constitution describes the fundamental rights of the people and the government. Nothing about its purpose or function prohibits states from passing laws on areas not covered by the constitution, except for where those laws would conflict with the rights specifically granted by the constitution.

I don't care what the subject is, that's just factually incorrect.

Ever heard of Roe v. Wade?

Much like the Pope is to Catholicism, the Supreme Court is to the Constitution. And the Supreme Court specifically protected that zone of bodily privacy, giving a woman the right to terminate her pregnancy until the fetus is viable.

The foundation of the argument, then, is when is a fetus "viable." You're going to have a hard time convincing even the most die-hard pro-choice person (me, for example) that an abortion in the second or third trimester is okay in nearly any circumstance. (I say "nearly" only because I can imagine someone coming up with some scenario that I can't conceive of at the moment - I'm leaving it open for the possibility.) The most die-hard pro-life person thinks a fetus is viable at conception - okay, even before conception. The Court wisely ducked the question, theorizing that if a bunch of trained medical professionals can't arrive at a consensus, then a bunch of stuffy judges certainly couldn't.

Now, people criticizing Roe v. Wade say that the decision is fundamentally wrong because it's speaking about stuff that isn't in the Constitution. This is kind of true. There is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution, per se, but this right is read into the penumbras of the Constitution. It's basically a gleaned right.

The Court has considered various state laws curbing abortion rights since Roe v. Wade, but it has pretty uniformly upheld Roe v. Wade. A notable exception is in 2003, when the Court upheld the constitutionality of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, which is a federal statute.

 

[Rajah]

cogent post

Apparently, I should have scrolled down.

If it was up to me they would fit every girl with an IUD when she hit puberty until she got married (or got a permanent domestic partner) and the partner agreed to having a child and jointly taking care of it at least until the kid was 18. (or reversible vasectomy for men if they find a reliable procedure they could reverse) But this isn’t gonna happen either.

Especially not under Roe v. Wade.

And *shudder* at the idea.

 

[Rajah]

May I ask, who are we to judge when a fetus is ok to be killed? I think we all fail to realise that we're all here because we WERE'NT aborted, or the abortion failed. We all had a chance at life...so why do we choose who lives and who doesnt?

We judge people all the time. Why does abortion get some special exception? I'm pretty sure all of us can grasp the nature of, "Hey, I'm here. And if I had been aborted, I wouldn't be here, now would I?" It's not exactly rocket science, y'know.

Also, the whole Roe versus Wade deal. The woman, Norma Micorvey, didn't she lie about being rapped? If this is true, the legalization of abortion is all set up on a lie. The insident wasn't even portrayed truthfully.

Yes, Norma McCorvey lied about being raped. How is this relevant to the constitutional right to bodily privacy? It's not. Whether or not she lied has absolutely nothing to do with the constitutional question of privacy rights. Those questions could be answered in the abstract, if not for the legal doctrine that the Supreme Court can only address actual cases and controversies before them. When Norma McCorvey's case came before the Court, she wasn't just addressing her own rights - she was kind of the spokesperson for women. Constitutional questions aren't, by nature, about the person in front of the Court. Those people are representatives. So Norma McCorvey's fact pattern doesn't matter one whit.

 

[Sniffles]

Much like the Pope is to Catholicism, the Supreme Court is to the Constitution.

Woah, that's quite an analogy there!

 

[Rajah]

Woah, that's quite an analogy there!

Both the final arbiters of their field? I think it's actually pretty accurate.

 

[Totenkindly]

I would understand, however, if someone were to choose not to do that. The fear, the urge to survive..the sheer urge to not have your life be impacted and completely turned upside down. For that matter, the knowledge that you're incapable of doing what it is that you know you should (You're 100 pounds and the guy you have to carry outside is 250). The sheer look of the other person and his injuries and pain make you not wanna deal with the situation and flee instead (emotional trauma).. It's understandable.

Pretty much... and you're only presenting the most "selfish" end of the equation. Usually it's more complicated than that and not all stacked to be a purely "selfish" decision.

(For example, what if you die in the building -- which seems likely -- and are no longer around to care for other people you're committed to?)

The decision is not made in a vacuum nor is it ever able to be isolated so cleanly. In fact, one could actually "walk out of the building" while still basing that decision totally on the needs of others rather than oneself.

 

[Sniffles]

Both the final arbiters of their field? I think it's actually pretty accurate.

No it isn't. You cannot confuse religious authority with political authority. One is the representative of God, the other of the people. Very big difference here.

 

[Usehername]

No it isn't. You cannot confuse religious authority with political authority. One is the representative of God, the other of the people. Very big difference here.

This doesn't devalue the value of the analogy. Analogies are never perfect representations--this one holds the ideas it intends to relate.

 

[miss fortune]

*feels that the topic should be banned to men until they can get knocked up*

 

[Sniffles]

This doesn't devalue the value of the analogy. Analogies are never perfect representations--this one holds the ideas it intends to relate.

But it still involves a great deal of confusion as to the natures of both religious and political authority to make such an analogy. Not that it hasn't be made before, as you may remember from our private discussion - Carl Schmitt did that when explaining the concept of Political Theology:

All significant concepts of the modern theory of the state are secularized theological concepts not only because of their historical development - in which they were transferred from theology to the theory of the state, whereby, for example, the omnipotent god became the omnipotent lawgiver - but also because of their systematic structure, the recognition of which is necessary for a sociological consideration of these concepts. The exception in jurisprudence is analogous to the miracle in theology. Only by being aware of this analogy can we appreciate the manner in which the philosophical ideas of the state developed in the last centuries.

Now the connection between theological and political concepts is not in question; what has been hotly contested is the exact nature of that connection. However, to get into greater details about that would mean derailing the discussion.

 

[Usehername]

For those who asked for an analogy, I'll give it a go:

You find yourself in a burning building with another person inside. You don't know when or if the roof will come down on you, but the other person is hurt, and unable to walk out themselves. In fact, you're not even sure if they'd make it at all, if they're at all alive still. You'd have to not only support them but carry them out..You have the choice to take the risk of the burning building coming down on you and dying or being injured for life, and perhaps saving their life in the process...or you can walk out and save your neck.

I know what I would do. Do you? And can you understand why someone else would pick the other option?

Can we really blame the ones who decide to choose certainty of life and walk out that door? And...don't you think their conscience will already take care of any judgement you could possibly utter?


Can your family and friends really blame you for staying inside and risking your life, considering the amount of hurt you're possibly about to put them through?

Just my two cents...

Unless you're talking specifically about abortion in the instance of a mother's life being knowingly threatened, i.e. her living existence is in danger, it is not comparable at all.

 

[Amargith]

It is, you have no idea whether or not that roof is going to hold. It could very well, and you'd have all the time in the world to save that person. You just don't know what the danger is, same as with pregnancies.

You asked for a situation where the person had to take action, this is one. Also, it requires her to take action based on her instincts, as it happens with most hook-ups.

Whatever: I feel the same...I'm fond of the phrase: 'No uterus, no opinion!' but I have difficulty defending it rationally...care to help?

 

[Usehername]

But it still involves a great deal of confusion as to the natures of both religious and political authority to make such an analogy. Not that it hasn't be made before, as you may remember from our private discussion - Carl Schmitt did that when explaining the concept of Political Theology:


Now the connection between theological and political concepts is not in question; what has been hotly contested is the exact nature of that connection. However, to get into greater details about that would mean derailing the discussion.

She didn't compare it to God, she compared it to the pope. Most Christians do not have faith in the pope being anything more than a flawed human at the top of a religious hierarchy. The supreme court would similarly be flawed humans at the top of a political hierarchy.

Your premise of this being a flawed analogy rests on the belief that the pope is representative of divine authority. I don't believe that, in the sense that he is any more knowledgeable about God than any other (similarly educated) religious person seeking after God's truth.

 

[Usehername]

It is, you have no idea whether or not that roof is going to hold. It could very well, and you'd have all the time in the world to save that person. You just don't know what the danger is, same as with pregnancies.

You asked for a situation where the person had to take action, this is one. Also, it requires her to take action based on her instincts, as it happens with most hook-ups.

Whatever: I feel the same...I'm fond of the phrase: 'No uterus, no opinion!' but I have difficulty defending it rationally...care to help?

It's not a comparable analogy. Most abortions are not threatening to kill the mother, so the analogy is not comparable.

Btw, I'm pro-choice.

 

[Laurie]

*feels that the topic should be banned to men until they can get knocked up*

Or until they can be a father.

 

[Amargith]

Pretty much... and you're only presenting the most "selfish" end of the equation. Usually it's more complicated than that and not all stacked to be a purely "selfish" decision.

(For example, what if you die in the building -- which seems likely -- and are no longer around to care for other people you're committed to?)

The decision is not made in a vacuum nor is it ever able to be isolated so cleanly. In fact, one could actually "walk out of the building" while still basing that decision totally on the needs of others rather than oneself.

Well, if you look at a teenage girl, unable to support the baby herself and therefore putting a financial burden on her parents for having to rescue it as well as the dangers and discomforts they'll have to help her with during the pregnancy...I dunno.

 

[miss fortune]

I'd only be willing to HAVE a kid if I thought that the dude who caused it was good dad material and would stick around forever... I've seen way too many cases of unwanted or uncared for kids wandering about, and I thoroughly doubt my own motherhood capabilities!

But yeah- I think that a woman bears the brunt of the burden of pregnancy and childcare, so I think that thier opinions should be weighted so!

 

[SillySapienne]

I'd only be willing to HAVE a kid if I thought that the dude who caused it was good dad material and would stick around forever... I've seen way too many cases of unwanted or uncared for kids wandering about, and I thoroughly doubt my own motherhood capabilities!

But yeah- I think that a woman bears the brunt of the burden of pregnancy and childcare, so I think that thier opinions should be weighted so!

Thank you!

This thread makes me wish I was aborted.