ABORTION.......

real life wrote:

J_B wrote:
As a past proponent of the death penalty I would have previously agreed with you. However, studies have shown there is no deterrent effect ....................

The death penalty has a 100% deterrent effect. There are no known cases of repeat offenders when the penalty has been carried out.

Do I take it you are in favor of the death penalty, real life, or are you just trying to be cute?

0 Replies

J_B wrote:

real life wrote:
J_B wrote:
As a past proponent of the death penalty I would have previously agreed with you. However, studies have shown there is no deterrent effect ....................

The death penalty has a 100% deterrent effect. There are no known cases of repeat offenders when the penalty has been carried out.

Do I take it you are in favor of the death penalty, real life, or are you just trying to be cute?

Just stating the facts, ma'am. Just the facts.

0 Replies

It's interesting to me that, so far at least, I'm the only one to speak out against the death penalty. My decision is a moral/ethical one and is made with the same stand as my position against abortion. I cannot imagine a situation where I would choose to abort my unborn child but I am not so self-righteous that I would pretend to be the proper authority to make the decision for someone else. Nor am I naive enough to think I have imagined the reality of facing a pregnancy under any possible situation.

Becoming pregnant at this stage in my life is something I hope I never have to face. As a woman about to turn 50 with two teenage daughters, an established career, two college educations to finance, retirement in the not-so-distant future and a general health that is not as good as it once was I can only imagine how I might respond to becoming pregnant. Thank God I've never faced an unwanted pregnancy, but to those people who would tell me that at age 50 the decision to abort an early stage pregnancy is not my choice to make I say, thank God it isn't up to you.

0 Replies

J_B wrote:

It's interesting to me that, so far at least, I'm the only one to speak out against the death penalty. My decision is a moral/ethical one and is made with the same stand as my position against abortion. I cannot imagine a situation where I would choose to abort my unborn child but I am not so self-righteous that I would pretend to be the proper authority to make the decision for someone else. Nor am I naive enough to think I have imagined the reality of facing a pregnancy under any possible situation.

Becoming pregnant at this stage in my life is something I hope I never have to face. As a woman about to turn 50 with two teenage daughters, an established career, two college educations to finance, retirement in the not-so-distant future and a general health that is not as good as it once was I can only imagine how I might respond to becoming pregnant. Thank God I've never faced an unwanted pregnancy, but to those people who would tell me that at age 50 the decision to abort an early stage pregnancy is not my choice to make I say, thank God it isn't up to you.

Then again, I have had four unwanted (i.e. unplanned - bad timing - inconvenient) pregnancies. Two ended in spontaneous miscarriages and two resulted in kids. Even in the miscarriages I felt a sense of loss, however, not the sense of relief or reprieve one might imagine. It was the pregnancies that were unwanted. Not the kids.

Nevertheless, I can appreciate the dilemma of the middle aged woman at or near menopause who becomes pregnant. I can appreciate the turmoil that must be experienced by women who have endured a rape or incest. That is why I do not presume to pass moral judgment on the choices women make in such cases. That does not mean, however, that I do not consider every child, born and unborn, to be precious and deserving of life. And I do think it wrong to take such lives casuallyor as a matter of convenience.

0 Replies

We agree, Fox. I too think every child, born and unborn, worthy of life. A also think every adult, law abiding or not, worthy of life. I, myself, am the result of an unwanted pregnancy, as was my husband. I was not an unwanted child or at least I was not unloved. If either my or my husband's mothers had chosen to abort we would not be here, nor would our lovely daughters. C'est la vie. I cannot control that which is not mine to control. I cannot play God for those who must face a decision I have never faced. I firmly stand behind the decision of RvW in that each of us must make decisions for ourself. Any retribution can come from one's God, but it is not mine to make.

0 Replies

J_B wrote:

It's interesting to me that, so far at least, I'm the only one to speak out against the death penalty. My decision is a moral/ethical one and is made with the same stand as my position against abortion. I cannot imagine a situation where I would choose to abort my unborn child but I am not so self-righteous that I would pretend to be the proper authority to make the decision for someone else. Nor am I naive enough to think I have imagined the reality of facing a pregnancy under any possible situation.

Becoming pregnant at this stage in my life is something I hope I never have to face. As a woman about to turn 50 with two teenage daughters, an established career, two college educations to finance, retirement in the not-so-distant future and a general health that is not as good as it once was I can only imagine how I might respond to becoming pregnant. Thank God I've never faced an unwanted pregnancy, but to those people who would tell me that at age 50 the decision to abort an early stage pregnancy is not my choice to make I say, thank God it isn't up to you.

Hi J_B,

The disconnect between abortion and the death penalty should be obvious to you.

Putting to death an innocent, who has committed no crime nor has had a trial before a jury of his peers, who had no right of appeal, who made no choice that causes this death sentence to come upon them and victimized nobody is in NO way analogous to a criminal who not only has committed a crime but has also been convicted by a jury of his peers, has had several venues of appeal after the conviction, and who was the one who made the choice that brought the death sentence to come upon them leaving victims of his crime in his wake.

Your protection of the guilty and abandonment of the innocent is the difference between your belief and mine. You describe it as a moral/ethical stand on your part, however I see it as anything but.

0 Replies

I make no such abandonment of either side, r l. You didn't read my post clearly. I said I was in no position to take moral authority over someone making a decision I could not imagine having to make for myself. You, on the other hand, seem to presume to think your judgement for what you would decide if you were in an unimaginable situation should take precedence over someone else. I disagee.

0 Replies

J_B wrote:

I make no such abandonment of either side, r l. You didn't read my post clearly. I said I was in no position to take moral authority over someone making a decision I could not imagine having to make for myself. You, on the other hand, seem to presume to think your judgement for what you would decide if you were in an unimaginable situation should take precedence over someone else. I disagee.

Well, as a society we make those rules all the time don't we?

If someone burns down my house depriving me of everything I have, the law is written to prevent me from hunting him down myself to take my revenge, isn't it?

It would be a severely trying situation for me, but the law prevents me from killing him to 'solve' it, doesn't it?

An unexpected pregnancy may be a difficult situation with all kinds of ramifications (social, financial, career etc ), but killing the child is not the right solution.

0 Replies

Yet you would kill an adult in the name of justice? I don't get it. Let's take a hypothetical situation where an individual becomes pregnant. This individual, for whatever reason, is unable to nurture, model for, and raise a child within societal norms. Abortion is not a legal option for this woman and society demands she gives birth. The woman attempts to raise the child in a society that insists she give birth, but does not insist she be a good parent. Eventually the child becomes a disenfranchised youth, perhaps turns to drugs or gangs, and gets in trouble with the law. As a young adult this individual might turn to armed robbery to support a drug habit, perhaps killing a store clerk during a robbery. Society demands this individual be incarcerated and in some states might face execution. No matter what happens next the store clerk is still dead. After millions of dollars are spent convicting the person, paying for appeals, and paying for the incarceration, society feels justified in putting an adult to death for his crimes against society but you don't see the disconnect.

You're point about society making rules all the time is right on. Society spends much to much energy making rules regarding behavior and not nearly enough energy on being in society. The roll of the government, IMHO, is not to dictate societal policy and has no business making laws against personal choice. A woman choosing an early term abortion is, and should be, a matter of personal choice and in no way infringes on your rights.

0 Replies

When the law spells out crimes that will result in death, and the criminal commits one or more of those crimes, it is not you or me pronouncing the death sentence. It is the one who committed the crime.

0 Replies

J_B wrote:

You're point about society making rules all the time is right on. Society spends much to much energy making rules regarding behavior and not nearly enough energy on being in society. The roll of the government, IMHO, is not to dictate societal policy and has no business making laws against personal choice. A woman choosing an early term abortion is, and should be, a matter of personal choice and in no way infringes on your rights.

If society doesn't make rules about how it is to be lived in, what kind of a society would you have? It would very quickly fall into a dictatorship controlled by those with strength, who would then impose their own laws anyway.

0 Replies

As a quasi-libertarian I would have rules in place that protect the rights of the individuals as stated in the Constitution and prohibit rules that would violate those rights. The SC correctly found in RvW that a woman has a Constitutional right to privacy and prevents government (society) from making laws that inhibit those rights.

Dictating morality is not the role of the government. As I said above, the moral dilemma of the consequences of abortion are between the individual and her God.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

When the law spells out crimes that will result in death, and the criminal commits one or more of those crimes, it is not you or me pronouncing the death sentence. It is the one who committed the crime.

I didn't see this at the bottom of the last page, Fox. You and I are the law.

0 Replies

J_B wrote:

As a quasi-libertarian I would have rules in place that protect the rights of the individuals as stated in the Constitution and prohibit rules that would violate those rights. The SC correctly found in RvW that a woman has a Constitutional right to privacy and prevents government (society) from making laws that inhibit those rights.

Dictating morality is not the role of the government. As I said above, the moral dilemma of the consequences of abortion are between the individual and her God.

I disagree that morality is not the role of government. What laws exist other than to prevent people from doing stupid or immoral things? "Thou shalt not steal"--there are laws on the books in every state making burglary, theft, shoplifting, petty larceny, armed robbery, etc. illegal with degrees of penalty for each. "Thou shalt not murder" and in no state it is lawful to take another's life except as an extreme self defense measure.

The moral dilemma of the consequences of abortion are not so easily dismissed as government business if we consider that the unborn child is a person deserving of government protection. We do not allow women or anybody else to kill an infant that has been born. Roe v Wade acknowledged the interest of government also in the unborn child at mid to late term. That part of Roe v Wade has become lost along the way.

Though I respect the opinions of those who would make early term abortions illegal in all cases except for rape, incest, life of the mother, etc., I am not comfortable with that personally for all the reasons already discussed in this thread. In the case of abortion, I think people should make aborting a healthy baby socially unacceptable as it once was--we should be pushing a culture of life; not one in which life is expendable based on convenience.

I have no problem saying that it should be illegal to help a woman abort a healthy midterm or lateterm baby.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I disagree that morality is not the role of government. What laws exist other than to prevent people from doing stupid or immoral things?

Laws preventing stupidity are the highest on my list of pet-peeves. Seat-belt laws are a prime example. Legislating common sense is a waste of our governmental resources. As far as the Constitution is based on mores and laws invoked to protect the rights as stated in the Constitution, I agree with you. Beyond that, I do not.

Quote:

I have no problem saying that it should be illegal to help a woman abort a healthy midterm or lateterm baby.

Neither do I unless the life of the mother is at risk.

0 Replies

J_B,

I would like to ask you a question. Obviously you have religious/spiritual beliefs. Are your beliefs of what is right and what is wrong based on those beliefs? Are there laws in the Bible you agree with and some you don't?

0 Replies

MA, I was about to post something I was researching on the mindset toward abortion of the early American settlers and founding fathers. I'll be back to attempt to answer your question.

When stating that I believe that laws should be written as a reflection of the rights outlined in the Constitution, I realised that I had no basis of knowledge about the prevailing thoughts toward abortion in early America. I researched that thought and found the following, which I find interesting:

Quote:

Abortion in early America.

Acevedo Z.

This piece describes abortion practices in use from the 1600s to the 19th century among the inhabitants of North America. The abortive techniques of women from different ethnic and racial groups as found in historical literature are revealed. Thus, the point is made that abortion is not simply a "now issue" that effects select women. Instead, it is demonstrated that it is a widespread practice as solidly rooted in our past as it is in the present.

PIP: Abortion was frequently practiced in North America during the period from 1600 to 1900. Many tribal societies knew how to induce abortions. They used a variety of methods including the use of black root and cedar root as abortifacient agents. During the colonial period, the legality of abortion varied from colony to colony and reflected the attitude of the European country which controlled the specific colony. In the British colonies abortions were legal if they were performed prior to quickening. In the French colonies abortions were frequently performed despite the fact that they were considered to be illegal. In the Spanish and Portuguese colonies abortion was illegal. During the 1860s a number of states passed anti-abortion laws. Most of these laws were ambiguous and difficult to enforce. After 1860 stronger anti-abortion laws were passed and these laws were more vigorously enforced. As a result, many women began to utilize illegal underground abortion services. Although abortion was legalized in 1970, many women are still forced to obtain illegal abortion or to perform self-abortions due to the economic constraints imposed by the Hyde Amendment and the unavailability of services in many areas. Throughout the colonial period and during the early years of the republic, the abortion situation for slave women was different than for other women. Slaves were subject to the rules of their owners, and the owners refused to allow their slaves to terminate pregnancies. The owners wanted their slaves to produce as many children as possible since these children belonged to the slave owners. This situation persisted until the end of the slavery era.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10297561&dopt=Abstract

The phrase I was searching for was the prevailing opinion at the time the Constitution was written. "From 1776 until the mid-1800s abortion was viewed as socially unacceptable; however, abortions were not illegal in most states." My sentiments exactly. Socially unacceptable, but not illegal!

0 Replies

J_B,

So, you think something could be socially unacceptable but not illegal? Isn't that opening a big can of worms?

I will be here looking for your answer. Hope you are well this fine day.

0 Replies

Momma Angel:

Quote:

So, you think something could be socially unacceptable but not illegal? Isn't that opening a big can of worms?

Only to the cowardly. A lot of real positive social change has started out as "socially unacceptable".

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

J_B,

So, you think something could be socially unacceptable but not illegal? Isn't that opening a big can of worms?

I will be here looking for your answer. Hope you are well this fine day.

First of all, I apparently deleted the sentance of interest from the quote rather than copying it. Here is the abstract in entirety.

Quote:

Abortion in early America.

Acevedo Z.

This piece describes abortion practices in use from the 1600s to the 19th century among the inhabitants of North America. The abortive techniques of women from different ethnic and racial groups as found in historical literature are revealed. Thus, the point is made that abortion is not simply a "now issue" that effects select women. Instead, it is demonstrated that it is a widespread practice as solidly rooted in our past as it is in the present.

PIP: Abortion was frequently practiced in North America during the period from 1600 to 1900. Many tribal societies knew how to induce abortions. They used a variety of methods including the use of black root and cedar root as abortifacient agents. During the colonial period, the legality of abortion varied from colony to colony and reflected the attitude of the European country which controlled the specific colony. In the British colonies abortions were legal if they were performed prior to quickening. In the French colonies abortions were frequently performed despite the fact that they were considered to be illegal. In the Spanish and Portuguese colonies abortion was illegal. From 1776 until the mid-1800s abortion was viewed as socially unacceptable; however, abortions were not illegal in most states. During the 1860s a number of states passed anti-abortion laws. Most of these laws were ambiguous and difficult to enforce. After 1860 stronger anti-abortion laws were passed and these laws were more vigorously enforced. As a result, many women began to utilize illegal underground abortion services. Although abortion was legalized in 1970, many women are still forced to obtain illegal abortion or to perform self-abortions due to the economic constraints imposed by the Hyde Amendment and the unavailability of services in many areas. Throughout the colonial period and during the early years of the republic, the abortion situation for slave women was different than for other women. Slaves were subject to the rules of their owners, and the owners refused to allow their slaves to terminate pregnancies. The owners wanted their slaves to produce as many children as possible since these children belonged to the slave owners. This situation persisted until the end of the slavery era.

MA, there are many, many examples of actions that are socially unacceptable but not illegal. Some are also immoral. Take adultry for example. It is one of the 10 Commandments and immoral, IMO, is socially unacceptable, yet its not nor should it be illegal. Laws based on morality not outlined in the Constitution are unconstitutional. RvW is a prime example of laws based on actions that are socially unacceptable, perhaps immoral, but not has no place in the law and was struck down accordingly. Establishing laws based on what society perceives as acceptable in violation of the rights established by the Constitution is a bigger can of worms than legislating social acceptability. A trite, yet equally valid example of not legislating social acceptability is passing gas in public. I don't need a law to tell me it isn't something I should be doing.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know