Not the view you were looking for: A conservative woman's view on abortion

[Pedro de San Patricio]

No one is 'making light' of abortion.

The right to privacy ensures that each person remain at liberty to make personal, private decisions without being compelled by the state to adhere to a particular subjective opinion through force of law.

You believe abortion is the taking of a human life, others may not – each position is just as valid and just as entitled to Constitutional protections and immune from attack by the state.

Moreover, one may believe that abortion is wrong, that as a fact of science it's the taking of a human life, while at the same time understanding that as a fact of law abortion is not 'murder,' and respect the privacy rights of others to decide for themselves the issue in the context of their own good faith and good conscience, as intended by the Framers of the Constitution.

You do understand what's happened literally every time a government has declared some human lives okay to end, right? What's happened every single time a certain population has been deemed morally neutral if not good and right to assault or kill at will? I don't really understand how you couldn't. I know our educational system is horrible but it would be hard not to have heard of ancient Sparta, 1930s Germany, pre-Islamic Arabia, Rwanda, Sweden until the 70s, modern day Israel...

 

[TemplarKormac]

Yet you support capital punishment.

Capital punishment is what it is, punishment. Now, what do you want them to do with Dylann Roof? The death penalty seems appropriate, right. What about the Boston bomber? Death is appropriate there. The difference between abortion and capital punishment is one doesn't deserve it, and the other does, respectively. Unborn children are incapable of committing crimes on the scales we have seen recently, yet you want to kill them all the same.

What makes it valuable?

How many times must I make that clear?

Life has no value, since it is invaluable.

You cannot place a value on life. Not one iota.

You have competing rights at play here - who's rights supersede the other's and at what point?

The right to live outweighs the right to make a choice at any point during a normal pregnancy. I've already explained that to you earlier.

 

[Coyote]

I don't get it? Why do you want men to become pregnant? Such an idea is abominable...

Why is it "abominable"? Yet you do not find the idea of forcing a woman to carry through a pregnancy she does not want "abominable"?

Come to think of it - that is another example of the fundamental hypocrisy of the "pro-life" movement. There is little outcry or legislative pressure to do anything about all those surplus embryos which are eventually destroyed.

Yet there is no outcry from you when a developing fetus is destroyed in the womb. No remorse. Thusly, you don't have room to talk.

Dude - you are confusing your arguments again. I'm not the pro-life person here. I don't have an outcry in either scenario. Why exactly would I have "remorse" for another woman's choice? It's none of my business.

There is no ethical difference between an abortion and destroying those embryos yet where is the outcry and the charge of "baby killers" directed?

Yet as you can see here, there is quite a large ethical difference. It has been possible for nearly a decade to not to destroy the embryo at all in the process of stem cell research. Scientists have already acknowledged the immorality of destroying embryos. So, the charge of "baby killers" is directed at people with your viewpoint on abortion.

Embryonic and extraembryonic stem cell lines derived from single mouse blastomeres Article Nature

Excuse me - what "ethical difference" is there between destroying an embryo in abortion and destroying embryos in a fertility clinic? You are not making any logical sense here other than dragging in stem cell research to try and muddy the waters - I'm not seeing the point in your article.

Surplus human embryos are destroyed, yet there is very little "pro-life" outrage, especially compared to abortion.

 

[Coyote]

There is nothing anyone can actually do about it. All the words over the last 40 years from men about morality and a tiny embryo misidentified as a "baby" (it isn't) have not talked any woman out of having an abortion.

And those whose convictions are like Coyote's have never talked a pregnant woman into having an abortion.

The sperm donor has very limited influence over the woman he impregnated.

It is all bloviation; worthless blather.

It is between a doctor and a woman. No one else gets a say that amounts to more than a bucket of warm spit.

And yet the stream of worthless words goes on......

Regards from Rosie

I would never talk a woman into having an abortion.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

I imagine that Carly Fiorina's tumor had her DNA, since she's a cancer survivor. Did she put that up for adoption?

Best post I've seen on here in a while. High five, NYCarb.

 

[TemplarKormac]

SCIENCE has no moral compass. It provides the information. That is all.

Really? I beg to differ. To say science has no moral compass at all is a misnomer.

You keep throwing "science" into the ring and implying that science is proving or providing the morality. It isn't. That simple statement of fact has no bearing on my own moral compass at all.

Well, I've seen many other liberals using science as their own moral compass, and for some reason, I can't help but notice how you're doing the same, as much as you deny it.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

There is nothing anyone can actually do about it. All the words over the last 40 years from men about morality and a tiny embryo misidentified as a "baby" (it isn't) have not talked any woman out of having an abortion.

And those whose convictions are like Coyote's have never talked a pregnant woman into having an abortion.

The sperm donor has very limited influence over the woman he impregnated.

It is all bloviation; worthless blather.

It is between a doctor and a woman. No one else gets a say that amounts to more than a bucket of warm spit.

And yet the stream of worthless words goes on......

Regards from Rosie

I would never talk a woman into having an abortion.

I wouldn't either. That's why the original tag line for those of us who choose freedom is "...a woman's right to choose".

 

[Cecilie1200]

I would like to respond to the idea that a 2 day old fertilized egg will become a human being. That's not true. That the egg will develop normal and eventually become a human being isn't a certainty, only a possibility.

One third of all pregnancies end in miscarriages. When abortion is banned, women who miscarry become suspects.

Okay, you responded. Congratulations. It was stupid and uninformed. Congratulations again.

Moving on . . .

No it was a fully informed and factual response. Which is why you hate it and chose to insult me instead.

Coming from you, this means absolutely nothing. And I didn't insult you. I insulted your response. And that was only because stating the truth about it required derogation.

But since you really, REALLY enjoy abuse, let me break down your stupidity for you.

1) The vast majority of those miscarriages you mention happen without anyone even knowing the pregnancy existed, including the mother herself.

2) In the case of most of the others, the cause of the miscarriage is generally obvious to medical personnel.

3) Despite your paranoid persecution fantasies, no one sane is suggesting criminalizing mothers.

Your refusal to accept that a fetus is not a life but rather the possibility of life is at the root of your delusions.

Again, coming from you, this is meaningless. Your position and arguments are based on appeals to emotion and made-up nonsensical concepts like "personhood" and "potential life", and I'M the delusional one? If that's true, how come I'M the one basing my arguments on science?

From a religious standpoint, if God had intended every fetus to be sacred and to result in a new life, women wouldn't have the ability to miscarry, to expel those attempts which go awry. The fetus wouldn't die, or fail to develop properly. They wouldn't be so very vulnerable.

Like I said, Chuckles, if you're the hard-nosed realist here, how come YOU'RE the one bringing religion into it?

And by the way, what does the fact that people die have to do with whether or not it's acceptable to kill them? I keep asking, and I haven't gotten an answer yet. You lefties LOVE to trot this bullshit line out, and when you get asked to follow it logically, you run like a bunch of scalded cur dogs.

Women have the ability to miscarry for good and valid reasons, one of which is, not every fetus has the ability to become a new life.

See above re: just because people die doesn't make it okay to kill them. People get hit by lightning, but that doesn't mean you should electrocute them.

And your refusal to want to provide or even mention the supports women receive from the state to carry their child to term and to care for them once they are born in other first world countries, speaks volumes.

Yup, and what it's saying in all those volumes is "Not interested in you shoehorning a stump speech for your liberal entitlement spending into a question of morality." Your demands for women to be bribed into doing the right thing engender nothing but contempt in me, and not even really the desire to express that contempt beyond simply ignoring them.

Where is your concern for the children once they are outside the womb. Conservatives only care about the unborn. The living breathing children of the poor are a problem you refuse to address.

That's called hypocrisy.

If you can prove that I have no concern for born children, or that I'm a hypocrite, I invite you to do so. I have no intention of justifying myself to you based on your assumptions and projections. Unlike you, I don't treat fantasies as concrete reality.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

SCIENCE has no moral compass. It provides the information. That is all.

Really? I beg to differ. To say science has no moral compass at all is a misnomer.

You keep throwing "science" into the ring and implying that science is proving or providing the morality. It isn't. That simple statement of fact has no bearing on my own moral compass at all.

Well, I've seen many other liberals using science as their own moral compass, and for some reason, I can't help but notice how you're doing the same, as much as you deny it.

SCIENCE has no moral compass. It provides the information. That is all.

Really? I beg to differ. To say science has no moral compass at all is a misnomer.

You keep throwing "science" into the ring and implying that science is proving or providing the morality. It isn't. That simple statement of fact has no bearing on my own moral compass at all.

Well, I've seen many other liberals using science as their own moral compass, and for some reason, I can't help but notice how you're doing the same, as much as you deny it.

Huh? Are you kidding? By its very definition it is without bias. Now there are many "scientists" who are stupid smart and still believe in god even though physical evidence shows there is none. But that's not science, that's opinion. Don't get the two mixed up in your pretty little head.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

SCIENCE has no moral compass. It provides the information. That is all.

Actually, no. Scientific ethics is a thing.
What is ethics in science Ethicsweb
What is Ethics in Research Why is it Important
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~ethics/archives/Stern_Elliott.pdf
Ethics and Embryology - OpenMind
The Journal - The Ethics of Embryology

 

[Coyote]

Yet you support capital punishment.

Capital punishment is what it is, punishment. Now, what do you want them to do with Dylann Roof? The death penalty seems appropriate, right. What about the Boston bomber? Death is appropriate there. The difference between abortion and capital punishment is one doesn't deserve it, and the other does, respectively. Unborn children are incapable of committing crimes on the scales we have seen recently, yet you want to kill them all the same.

See, even with you - human life is not valuable - only that which you subjectively deem "innocent". It's been well established that innocent people have been executed so the concept of "innocence" is worthless.

I'll tell you why I think the way I do.

What makes human life valuable to me is it's awareness - it's ability to feel, think, explore the world and if we're lucky bring greater value to everything it interacts with. What makes humanity unique (though that uniqueness is challanged every year) is the mind - consciousness.

A blastocyst - yes, a clump of cells - can feel nothing. There are no brain waves yet. There are no thoughts.

A condemned man on death row, can feel everything, and if he's innocent of the crimes he was convicted of - he knows. He is aware at every waking moment that he is going to die, for something he didn't do and there is nothing he can do about it.

A baby that is developed to the point where it has brain waves, has the beginnings of awareness - can feel pain, can react to it's environment. At that point, abortion becomes questionable.

I do value humanity, not just "human life".

What makes it valuable?

How many times must I make that clear?

Life has no value, since it is invaluable.

You cannot place a value on life. Not one iota.

Yet you do all the time - all the time. You decide that civilian casualties in war are acceptable "collateral damage". You support the death penalty even though an innocent man may be killed. Even when a criminal is killed - you have placed a value on his life.

You have competing rights at play here - who's rights supersede the other's and at what point?

The right to live outweighs the right to make a choice at any point during a normal pregnancy. I've already explained that to you earlier.

No, it doesn't.

 

[mdk]

Of course zygotes have DNA. Who the hell said they didn't?

You did. The specific phrase was "a clump of cells" if I recall.

Have you realized yet that I never said what you claimed? Too proud to admit your error? So much for that eidetic memory of yours.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Abortion is but one manifestation of the right to privacy, where the issue encompasses the fundamental right to be left alone by government, free from unwarranted interference by the state. The issue of abortion doesn't exist in a vacuum, it's a thread in the tapestry of privacy rights jurisprudence, and in order for that jurisprudence to remain valid and viable, it must be both applied and defended consistently and comprehensively.

The Constitution is not a 'cafeteria plan,' one may not support the rights he approves of and oppose those he doesn't agree with; if liberty means placing restrictions on the authority of the state to the benefit of citizens' rights, then one must accept the fact that his fellow citizens might exercise his protected liberty in a manner he disapproves of, where he may not seek to disadvantage those whose actions he opposes through force of law.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Yet you do not find the idea of forcing a woman to carry through a pregnancy she does not want "abominable"?

Okay, the moment a woman willingly has sexual intercourse with a man, she immediately takes the risk of becoming pregnant. She chose that course. Thusly I find the taking of life to be abominable. See where this is going, Coyote?

Why exactly would I have "remorse" for another woman's choice? It's none of my business.

Then why are you defending the right for her to have an abortion? To me, you seem to be taking a big stake in her choice, since you have set about in this thread trying to define what is or isn't life, or what isn't human or vise versa. You are trying to justify that choice, and when women make that choice using YOUR logic, you should feel remorse for instilling that kind of thinking among other women making such a choice.

You are not making any logical sense here other than dragging in stem cell research to try and muddy the waters - I'm not seeing the point in your article.

You were droning on about the ethics of destroying embryos, citing my lack of outrage at such a practice as an act of hypocrisy. I responded specifically to that claim. Scientists have been trying to develop ways not to destroy the embryo during their research, as that article proves. What it disproves is the notion that "science has no moral compass."

Surplus human embryos are destroyed, yet there is very little "pro-life" outrage, especially compared to abortion.

Somehow, I only see hypocrisy when a pro choicer judges pro lifers by pro life values. But hey, that's none of my business.

 

[Coyote]

SCIENCE has no moral compass. It provides the information. That is all.

Really? I beg to differ. To say science has no moral compass at all is a misnomer.

You keep throwing "science" into the ring and implying that science is proving or providing the morality. It isn't. That simple statement of fact has no bearing on my own moral compass at all.

Well, I've seen many other liberals using science as their own moral compass, and for some reason, I can't help but notice how you're doing the same, as much as you deny it.

First off - leave out the "many other liberals" - it's me you are talking to.

Second - using science to inform a moral compass is not the same as saying science has a moral compass.

For example, scientific studies have shown that elephants are highly intelligent, form enduring multi-generational family ties, require a long time to reach maturity, and are taught and supported by older siblings, aunts, great aunts. They deeply morn the deaths of their fellows, and older siblings will even try to take care of a younger sibling if the mother is killed. That's the science part of it. My moral compass tells me it is wrong to kill these creatures other than in self defense. The science gives me information. It doesn't tell me what to do with it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

See, even with you - human life is not valuable

When in the process of life, someone kills out of malice and not out of choice, they have forfeited their right to live. That person placed no value on the lives of his victims, and thusly, the same attitude is taken with the punishment.

But what has the baby done?

You decide that civilian casualties in war are acceptable "collateral damage".

No I don't. Don't even go there.

If it is the enemy you are trying to kill, kill the enemy, not the civilians. But then again, there are enemies who themselves devalue human life to the point where they intentionally place them on the field of battle, in the direct line of fire, just in order to paint their enemies as cruel and willing to kill innocent people.

No, it doesn't.

Yes it does.

A blastocyst - yes, a clump of cells - can feel nothing. There are no brain waves yet. There are no thoughts.

See? Even you don't think the blastocyst has any value. But yet you decry the destruction of human embryos. The embryo and the baby have equal value. That's something you don't seem to grasp, Coyote. You can't assign value to one or the other. One is the seed of life, the other IS life. If you don't have one, you can't have the other. Without the seed, there cannot be a flower.

 

[TemplarKormac]

For example, scientific studies have shown that elephants are highly intelligent, form enduring multi-generational family ties, require a long time to reach maturity, and are taught and supported by older siblings, aunts, great aunts. They deeply morn the deaths of their fellows, and older siblings will even try to take care of a younger sibling if the mother is killed. That's the science part of it. My moral compass tells me it is wrong to kill these creatures other than in self defense. The science gives me information. It doesn't tell me what to do with it.

I'm detecting a non sequitur.

 

[Coyote]

SCIENCE has no moral compass. It provides the information. That is all.

Actually, no. Scientific ethics is a thing.
What is ethics in science Ethicsweb
What is Ethics in Research Why is it Important
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~ethics/archives/Stern_Elliott.pdf
Ethics and Embryology - OpenMind
The Journal - The Ethics of Embryology

There's ethics in how to conduct research and serious concerns about what sort of research we ought to do - but the results, the science itself is a statement of results. The ethics come into it when we choose how to use that material. That's how I see it at any rate.

But ethics is a huge dilemma - knowledge is increasing far more rapidly than ethics and there are a lot of huge ethical questions we don't seem well equipped to answer: surplus embryos, the ethics of using them for research, cloning, genetically altered organisms, genetically altered humans...

 

[Coyote]

For example, scientific studies have shown that elephants are highly intelligent, form enduring multi-generational family ties, require a long time to reach maturity, and are taught and supported by older siblings, aunts, great aunts. They deeply morn the deaths of their fellows, and older siblings will even try to take care of a younger sibling if the mother is killed. That's the science part of it. My moral compass tells me it is wrong to kill these creatures other than in self defense. The science gives me information. It doesn't tell me what to do with it.

I'm detecting a non sequitur.

It is a non sequitur. It's also a means of supporting the point I was trying to make regarding my moral compass and how science effects it. Do you have a problem with that?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The sole focus on science by those hostile to privacy rights fails as a red herring fallacy.