Your male god as stated in the book/books? The burden? What male burdens do we demand by law? Do we put stipulations for the male on self protection, self preservation & self defense? Why would we limit women in those catergories due to some imaginary male god? I think you have control issues, of course the “good book” allows you to control women, but we as a just society have changed all that haven’t we?

It seems a rather obvious problem that those claiming there is a right to life should be honest and forthright, and offer a concise statement about when this ‘right’ actually kicks in.

First, let’s ask ourselves a question. Is it a piece of paper that gives us a “right”, or something else? Is it tradition? I know I have never argued such a thing. I argue that by the very reality of being a living human, a right to life, liberty and property exists, independent of tradition or law.

Now, I haven’t said a word about what I believe that means as far as abortion goes. I rarely, if ever, discuss abortion publicly. Frankly, I see little value in it. But, a lot of value in asking questions about life, liberty and property.

Just because bad things happen doesn’t mean that individual rights don’t exist. Black slaves in the south still exercised, in small and large ways, their property rights, for example. They still had a right to liberty, it was just violated and abused.

It seems a rather obvious problem that those claiming there is a right to life should be honest and forthright, and offer a concise statement about when this ‘right’ actually kicks in. What you are describing sounds like more of a tradition than an imutable law. In other posts, in an admittedly veiled way, I agreed that I accept natural rights (namely property rights). That is not to say, arguing in favor of a right to life is a defacto bad thing, but I don’t see how Brownback is wrong in that case.

Politics looks like the final arbiter in that case.

We have laws against murder, but our regime commits mass murder abroad and nothing happens. I content abortion is murder and nothing happens. Life goes on so I dispute the presence of a written law having any real meaning. All coerced taxation is theft, for example, but we have laws against theft. Get my point? Anyway, its worth thinking about weakness in the libertarian approach of the contributors and tighten it up.

Vrb;

If you are brain dead, the plug should be pulled. It makes a mockery of life to keep such an existence going. It is hysterics on your part to assume I would think that murder. You need to reconsider your positions.

In law, the family must be the final arbiter. In the case of medicine, folks should be able to go to a tradition, classically defined Doctor, or they can go to a dispenser of services, death, a little morphine over dose, no worries here, I am just pro-choice.

And regarless of the fact that is not an option for me, suicide, death by ones own hand, is one of the ways to get into Valhalla, and in our multi-cultutral world, I don’t want to offend pagans.

Madminn;

As I don’t use the term mother or woman with mere utilitarian purposes, your comments don’t carry any punch. Mothers don’t kill their babies; one either gets my point or they don’t. Many Western women seem to be very angry at God for creating them and hate the burden. Perhaps that is why eating disorders are phenom in their ranks.

My take is that the State comes offering a bag full of goodies, ‘rights’, or hard cash, and doles them out. That would imply rights are granted from the State, not God given. So what is a Creator given right?

Not one of the contributors on this blog believes that rights come from the State. We all believe in “natural rights”. Rights that exist prior to the establishment of government, if you want a definition of what that means. I struggle with your idea that a right to life does not exist. Of course it does, which does not mean it cannot be violated. We have laws against murder specifically because of that.

VRB, self defense is about protecting my own rights from being violated by someone else. Which you know. But you choose to use emotionally freighted words to imply that we think it is okay to kill someone if they threaten our property in some fashion other than very directly and not including a threat to our life.

Just to put it out there, tubal ligations are safe. I had one about a month after having our daughter. I have not had any problems. Recovery was only a few days before I really felt okay again. I had mine coterized (pretty sure I mispelled that) to help make sure that it was a done deal. It is not as hard on women as it used to be. But if you are willing to step up and have a vasectomy, more power to you, recovery time is a lot faster.

I would not want a man to have one just so you don’t get pregnant for the time being though. Having it repaired is not always succesful.

I think you are reading Gunnars statement as if it were ultra specific to life and not health, while I view his statement as both health and life. But, since I am not Gunnar, I cannot say which is correct. Your interpretation might be, but mine might as well.

VRB,

It is more than about murder. It is also about sex. Murder as birth control. What the hell does that imply? Taking responsibility for one sexual behavior. I mention vasectomies and everyones goes dumb. No, it seems that what you mean; a woman has to take for responsibility for the man too and if what she does fails and she has an abortion, she is evil; a murderess! Then you as a male can take the moral high road. That also implies for rape and incest that it is her fault too, she a murderer because she doesn’t want to bare the child; and for her own self defense of protecting her life, she is called a murderer.

When it comes to Vasectomies, I am all for them.

My wife and I have not had a child yet. She has not had an abortion, though if she ever decided to have one, I would not hold it against her, and would in fact support her, as I am told by some people who have had them that it can be extremely emotional. If we decide not to have children, or not to have any more once we have one or more, then I will get a Vasectomy. A Tubal Ligation is too dangerous, and I will not put my wife through that.

In fact, we are considering having me clipped, and then, if we want children later, we can adobt. Older children always have a rougher time in the system, often with good reason, but they need family.

Yes, if a man fails to wear a condom, it’s stupid. It’s also stupid for the woman to let him have sex like that.

Also, women have several forms of birth control that are equal to condoms in many respects, and they should use them as well. So, when a woman gets impregnated by anything other than rape or incest, I consider it equally the male and females fault, even when it includes birth control devices not functioning (As they all admit to some failure).

When it comes to Incest and Rape, I can definitely understand the desire not to have a product of such a union continue to grow inside her. Technically, if you have an abortion, it is homicide. You are killing a human. But it is not murder as long as it is lawful: Murder is, after all, unlawful killing or barbarous slaughter.

Of course, I personally place no moral judgement on such a thing. I’ve never been in a situation where I was affected by it. But honestly, I’d want my wife to have the choice if she desired it.

However, as has been pointed out, Abortion can rarely be called life saving, as life saving procedures evacuate the fetus as a byproduct, a result of treatment.

I suppose, however, a case could be made that abortion is self defense in regards to property and liberty. And while some people might say “Well, you choose to have sex(With or without birth control), so you have to have the child,” I could point out that it is the same as saying “So you left your door unlocked, so you had to be robbed.”

Sorry, I am rambling now.

C Bowen,
How you define abortion is your business, you are the reason I started posting in the first place. Your comment ““If you were to ask me whom would I admire more, the woman who gave up her life to bring a new one into this world, or the one who killed her baby so she could eek out a few more years, which one do you think I would choose?”. You have lost any credability with me as having any respect for women. Your comment said it all, so tell me sir, why would I care what you call it, it has been well established that YOU consider it murder and that you have no respect for women.

One thing I would like to say on a “passionate” level. All the men in this room need to consider the fact that they entered this world between the legs of a woman, so if you are lacking respect sit on that a while. Also whether you choose to except it or not women go through much hell to bring your ungrateful butts into this world and believe me it is more than you could tolerate most of you lose it when you get the sniffles. Not just the painful circumstances of childbirth and the many complications with it but also monthly pain and discomfort and some of us start as young as 9 years old. I think this whole argument fueled by prodominatly men is nothing more than a power trip. Women have never recieved anything for their contributions, mention paid maternity leave and some men nearly pass out. Men reward themselves for whatever they do, and being this is something they cannot do they treat it with disregard. Of course I am not saying “all” men, but I will say a majority of them. If men would start to police their own like they police women maybe, just maybe things would change. I wonder when we will have male birth control pills and I wonder how many of these men will take them, or if they will feel it is the womans responsibility?

VRB you have a fantastic argument I wonder if you will get a response?? Men taking the moral high ground, I wish they would climb down off their high horse!

It is more than about murder. It is also about sex. Murder as birth control. What the hell does that imply? Taking responsibility for one sexual behavior. I mention vasectomies and everyones goes dumb. No, it seems that what you mean; a woman has to take for responsibility for the man too and if what she does fails and she has an abortion, she is evil; a murderess! Then you as a male can take the moral high road. That also implies for rape and incest that it is her fault too, she a murderer because she doesn’t want to bare the child; and for her own self defense of protecting her life, she is called a murderer.

Some of you value your house over a womans life.

These are my perceptions of the debate.

Just to clarify for the purposes of critical thinking, I said I don’t believe in a ‘right to life’ which as I understand it, would make it an imperitave of the state to enforce with full force against the practice of abortion.

I would not agree with that as a useful function for the State. (To the extent I believe in a State.)

Nevertheless, abortion is murder.

I had a couple more thoughts if anyone is still following, but the point is that the onus is on the person who is claiming a ‘right’ to prove that exists, or at least explain what they mean.

My take is that the State comes offering a bag full of goodies, ‘rights’, or hard cash, and doles them out. That would imply rights are granted from the State, not God given. So what is a Creator given right?

Secondly, as others noted with horrific thoughts about what would they do should something happen to their daughter–certainly a difficult test. But using fear as part of the argument is an appeal to the non-rational side of the brain. Dressing it up with rights, notwithstanding, it’s sort of a give away that one’s argument needs to be worked on.

Lastly, Madminn,

All I asked is you call it murder. I am okay with that. I invest in China, a whole nation of baby girl killers (estimates range up to 125 million dead baby girls, not including abortion since the 1950s) so I clearly don’t think its a deal killer. There is a certain honesty to that position, something more honest than the less gutsy, trespasser or parasite analogy that tries to dehumanize the victim (i.e. a propaganda technique.)

If I have a particular problem with that approach is the corruption of the medical field, an oath based field, and fully backed by a joint State-Private licensing regime. Committing murder is a direct violation of the whole ‘Dr.’ which makes deregulating the medical profession of utmost importance.

Someone else, I don’t recall who amid the 100+ comments, said that a right to life should not trump property rights. If we have to hierarchically order natural rights, it seems clear to me that a right to life is first among them. You cannot possibly enjoy your right to property or liberty if you are dead.

Adam, those are some damned fine points.

Madmimm,

I like your cavalier attitude “I’m willing to support legislation that specifically identifies the medical situations where the life of the mother is truly at risk”
I am willingly to support legislation where proper medical treatment will be given to men if and only if their life is truly at risk, if they run into health issues….to bad! Hope you can live with that!

While I can see you are passionate about your argument, I’d like to take the time to point out that your argument does not hold water.

Your “supposed” legislation is limited in extreme scope to what you feel an isolated incident of a womans health is.

1. Gunnars argument, at face value, seems to indicate a desire to save the child, and to give the child a life. He does not advocate killing the mother. In fact, he has pointed out, that if the mothers life is in danger, or her health at risk, he supports treatment.

2. Gunnar has stated that he does not see abortion as necessary, because when health risks present towards a mother, an evacuation of the fetus often occurs. This is not an abortion, but merely a product of the treatment to save the mothers life.

3. Considering those two arguments by Gunnar, he states, through that argument, that a woman who aborts a fetus, is not doing so for her own life or health, but for another reason.

That claims that her right to the pursuit of happiness or property (in the case of funds spent on the baby) trumps the fetuses Right to Life, and it is a position he does not seem to agree with.

Gunnar simply seems to be saying that he belives a right to life is more important than other rights: that in the probability that a mother is sick or dying, and can be saved at the expense of an unborn life, then the one who already has life, and a vested intrest in it, should be saved. However, if a life is not in danger, nor an issue to health presented, perhaps that child has more of a right to life than someone else to property.

Who can say what is right or what is wrong? Moral values are not absolute, but relative. And honestly, no one is able to pinpoint when a fetus gains more awareness than a plant or a dog…and even then people place higher value on that life, however; because it is human.

If partial birth abortion is used to remove the fetus due to complications for the mother or the baby, I’m all for it. I just don’t know if I agree with doing the abortion that late into a pregnancy just because.

Gunnar
I like your cavalier attitude “I’m willing to support legislation that specifically identifies the medical situations where the life of the mother is truly at risk”
I am willingly to support legislation where proper medical treatment will be given to men if and only if their life is truly at risk, if they run into health issues….to bad! Hope you can live with that!