• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

A new voice in the abortion battle

Jinglebob

Well-known member
I am posting this here, as I think it is a sound and reasonable argument in the abortion debate. The author is a well educated and intellegent person whom I know well and have a hig regard for and a lot of respect. After a few days, I will let you know who the author is. The author does not read this site, so if you care to cuss and holler at what is written, know that the author will not know about it. At least not for now.


Over and over again, I hear the comments about “reasonable” exceptions. Rape, Incest, and a Mother’s life are surely reasonable exceptions. This debate strikes me as a debate about principles, however, as opposed to pragmatism. It would be pragmatic to allow exceptions in the case of rape or incest. It is not, however, reasonable to do so.

The argument of those of us who support the bill, do so on the grounds that it takes a human life. This point has been much debated, but still remains far from solved. Indeed, compelling arguments have been posited by both sides. I side with those who suggest that life begins at conception. It seems to me that this is a reasonable place to suggest that life begins. We know that there is no substantial difference between a child moments before birth and moments after. As a result, we cannot reasonably assert that life begins outside the womb. We have all heard of radically premature babies surviving. They, too, then would seem to be alive before they are born. Thus, the question remains, when does the life begin. We are looking here for an objective answer – one applicable to every human person. Because of this, we cannot simply allow each person to arbitrarily choose when the life has begun. There is a moment when something is alive and when it is not. The most reasonable place that I can see is to assume that this moment is the moment of conception. To place this moment at any other point than birth (a notion we have proved to be false) is to make the point of the beginning of life as less than objective. This cannot be so. Once alive, a thing cannot be more alive than another thing of the same species – in other words one mother cannot say that her child is alive at twenty-two weeks while a second mother says that her child is not. The only safe conclusion that I can come to, then, is to assume that life begins at conception until irrefutable evidence to the contrary can be found.

So, if life is present at conception, is there such a thing as a reasonable exception. In my mind, there is not. If, in principle, we believe that life is valuable and should be preserved, it seems to me that it is the responsibility of the government to protect those who cannot protect themselves. This country prides itself on the notion of majority rule and minority rights. This was the basic principle that led us to war (most countries can’t protect themselves against a nuclear threat). It was the principle behind the civil rights movement (minority races hadn’t the political sway to force their own equality), and even debates about the death penalty (the government needs to allow a person every opportunity to prove his/her innocence). Now it is the principle behind the debate in South Dakota. A human needs to be protected who cannot protect him/herself. Rape and incest are horrible, but they cannot justify a homicide. There are certain debates where pragmatism cannot rule the day. This is a debate of principles. The introduction of the pragmatic element into the debate detracts from the full seriousness of the this debate’s outcome.
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Jinglebob said:
I am posting this here, as I think it is a sound and reasonable argument in the abortion debate. The author is a well educated and intellegent person whom I know well and have a hig regard for and a lot of respect. After a few days, I will let you know who the author is. The author does not read this site, so if you care to cuss and holler at what is written, know that the author will not know about it. At least not for now.

Of course you consider a sound and reasonable argument because it's one you agree with.


Over and over again, I hear the comments about “reasonable” exceptions. Rape, Incest, and a Mother’s life are surely reasonable exceptions. This debate strikes me as a debate about principles, however, as opposed to pragmatism. It would be pragmatic to allow exceptions in the case of rape or incest. It is not, however, reasonable to do so.

I agree with this. If you truly believe life begins at conception, rape and incest are not excuses for an abortion. The mother's life is a different story. She has as much right to live as the potential child. To allow her to die to save a potential life is wrong.

The argument of those of us who support the bill, do so on the grounds that it takes a human life. This point has been much debated, but still remains far from solved. Indeed, compelling arguments have been posited by both sides. I side with those who suggest that life begins at conception. It seems to me that this is a reasonable place to suggest that life begins. We know that there is no substantial difference between a child moments before birth and moments after. As a result, we cannot reasonably assert that life begins outside the womb. We have all heard of radically premature babies surviving. They, too, then would seem to be alive before they are born. Thus, the question remains, when does the life begin. We are looking here for an objective answer – one applicable to every human person. Because of this, we cannot simply allow each person to arbitrarily choose when the life has begun. There is a moment when something is alive and when it is not. The most reasonable place that I can see is to assume that this moment is the moment of conception. To place this moment at any other point than birth (a notion we have proved to be false) is to make the point of the beginning of life as less than objective. This cannot be so. Once alive, a thing cannot be more alive than another thing of the same species – in other words one mother cannot say that her child is alive at twenty-two weeks while a second mother says that her child is not. The only safe conclusion that I can come to, then, is to assume that life begins at conception until irrefutable evidence to the contrary can be found.

Wrong. Sperm is "alive." Are teenage boys to be charged with murder if they masturbate? Is a woman to be charged with murder if she takes birth control pills? There are 9 months between conception and birth. To ignore that many, many pregnancies end in spontanous abortions is ridiculous. Are women who abort naturally to be charged with murder? We don't let anyone arbitrarily decide when life begins. We have laws, approved and passed by members of our communities that decide when life begins.

So, if life is present at conception, is there such a thing as a reasonable exception. In my mind, there is not. If, in principle, we believe that life is valuable and should be preserved, it seems to me that it is the responsibility of the government to protect those who cannot protect themselves. This country prides itself on the notion of majority rule and minority rights. This was the basic principle that led us to war (most countries can’t protect themselves against a nuclear threat). It was the principle behind the civil rights movement (minority races hadn’t the political sway to force their own equality), and even debates about the death penalty (the government needs to allow a person every opportunity to prove his/her innocence). Now it is the principle behind the debate in South Dakota. A human needs to be protected who cannot protect him/herself. Rape and incest are horrible, but they cannot justify a homicide. There are certain debates where pragmatism cannot rule the day. This is a debate of principles. The introduction of the pragmatic element into the debate detracts from the full seriousness of the this debate’s outcome.

Most people on this board have cattle. If they walk out one morning and find the neighbor's Limi bull in the pen with their 700 lb replacement Angus heifers, they don't run get the prostaglandin and give the heifers a shot. Why? Because there is no pregnancy. To suggest that "life" begins when the egg is fertilized is ridiculous. There are many changes that have to take place for a child to be produced from the fertililization of a human egg. The South Dakota law and this author show the contempt they have for women as human beings. Once they become pregnant, they are second class citizens. Their only value is as a growing chamber for a potential child. No matter if she's 12 years old and raped by her father, she will carry this child. No matter if she is the sole support of five children, a victim of rape and will lose her job, she will carry this child.
 

Jinglebob

Well-known member
Red Robin said:
Will isn't in too good of health these days is he Katrina. I hear he has a case of rigamortis.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Never count a good man out. I'm just amazed he was so smart. Seein' as how he came from Oklahoma. :wink:

Did I say that out loud? :lol: :lol:

Just teasin'! Man , you Okies are cranky! :?

Matter of fact me and the missus spent three days in Oklahoma one night. Up in the panhandle. Man, cold room, cold shower, them folks is tuff'! :D
 

katrina

Well-known member
It could be someone dead............ Jinglebob never said anythng about him being dead or alive........ Or even when it was written......
 

Silver

Well-known member
I hate to say it but Dis makes some darn good points here. I was going to ask a while ago if a boys 'nocturnal emissions' would send him to the 'big house' by some peoples definitions of 'life'.
I would also like to point out that I have no memory of 'life' in my first trimester. If I were to have been vacuumed out at that stage I doubt it would have been overly traumatic (I seem to have no memory of other traumatic events following my birth either that many people seem to consider 'cruel and unusual'), and I believe it would have been my mothers choice to do as she saw fit given her circumstances.
Human beings 'play God' every day, whether it's on death row, on the farm, on the battle field, on the operating table, even by just doing nothing.
Life has no black and white, and I'm disappointed in the many good people in here that seem to see these issues as just that. It's not for you or me to decide what's best for everyone in their own set of circumstances. In this case that would include the mother, zygot, or embryo.
Common sense would tell me though that when the unfortunate circumstances come into play that call for an abortion, that it would be performed as early as possible. Within the first 5 weeks perhaps?
Anyway, that is the world as I see it today.
 

Jinglebob

Well-known member
Silver said:
I hate to say it but Dis makes some darn good points here. I was going to ask a while ago if a boys 'nocturnal emissions' would send him to the 'big house' by some peoples definitions of 'life'.
I would also like to point out that I have no memory of 'life' in my first trimester. If I were to have been vacuumed out at that stage I doubt it would have been overly traumatic (I seem to have no memory of other traumatic events following my birth either that many people seem to consider 'cruel and unusual'), and I believe it would have been my mothers choice to do as she saw fit given her circumstances.
Human beings 'play God' every day, whether it's on death row, on the farm, on the battle field, on the operating table, even by just doing nothing.
Life has no black and white, and I'm disappointed in the many good people in here that seem to see these issues as just that. It's not for you or me to decide what's best for everyone in their own set of circumstances. In this case that would include the mother, zygot, or embryo.
Common sense would tell me though that when the unfortunate circumstances come into play that call for an abortion, that it would be performed as early as possible. Within the first 5 weeks perhaps?
Anyway, that is the world as I see it today.

One problem with that last point Silver. I didn't think most woman even know they were pregnant until about 2 months. But maybe if they were checking all the time. I don't know. Ending a babies life just doesn't seem like a reasonable solution.
 

Martin Jr.

Well-known member
A sperm or an egg separate from each other may be life, but does not have the complete DNA to make a human person, or be able to continue living alone.
A woman's is not expected to give her life to save the baby, they are treated as two separate persons and both given a chance to live. Maybe the only time that they can not be treated that way is in an ectopic pregancy, when there is no chance that the baby can survive.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Jinglebob said:
Silver said:
I hate to say it but Dis makes some darn good points here. I was going to ask a while ago if a boys 'nocturnal emissions' would send him to the 'big house' by some peoples definitions of 'life'.
I would also like to point out that I have no memory of 'life' in my first trimester. If I were to have been vacuumed out at that stage I doubt it would have been overly traumatic (I seem to have no memory of other traumatic events following my birth either that many people seem to consider 'cruel and unusual'), and I believe it would have been my mothers choice to do as she saw fit given her circumstances.
Human beings 'play God' every day, whether it's on death row, on the farm, on the battle field, on the operating table, even by just doing nothing.
Life has no black and white, and I'm disappointed in the many good people in here that seem to see these issues as just that. It's not for you or me to decide what's best for everyone in their own set of circumstances. In this case that would include the mother, zygot, or embryo.
Common sense would tell me though that when the unfortunate circumstances come into play that call for an abortion, that it would be performed as early as possible. Within the first 5 weeks perhaps?
Anyway, that is the world as I see it today.

One problem with that last point Silver. I didn't think most woman even know they were pregnant until about 2 months. But maybe if they were checking all the time. I don't know. Ending a babies life just doesn't seem like a reasonable solution.

What about a "Morning after pill"? Is that included in the "Black and White"?
 

Silver

Well-known member
Jinglebob said:
Silver said:
I hate to say it but Dis makes some darn good points here. I was going to ask a while ago if a boys 'nocturnal emissions' would send him to the 'big house' by some peoples definitions of 'life'.
I would also like to point out that I have no memory of 'life' in my first trimester. If I were to have been vacuumed out at that stage I doubt it would have been overly traumatic (I seem to have no memory of other traumatic events following my birth either that many people seem to consider 'cruel and unusual'), and I believe it would have been my mothers choice to do as she saw fit given her circumstances.
Human beings 'play God' every day, whether it's on death row, on the farm, on the battle field, on the operating table, even by just doing nothing.
Life has no black and white, and I'm disappointed in the many good people in here that seem to see these issues as just that. It's not for you or me to decide what's best for everyone in their own set of circumstances. In this case that would include the mother, zygot, or embryo.
Common sense would tell me though that when the unfortunate circumstances come into play that call for an abortion, that it would be performed as early as possible. Within the first 5 weeks perhaps?
Anyway, that is the world as I see it today.

One problem with that last point Silver. I didn't think most woman even know they were pregnant until about 2 months. But maybe if they were checking all the time. I don't know. Ending a babies life just doesn't seem like a reasonable solution.

I agree with you, JB. But I don't feel it's my call or yours, to make these decisions on other peoples behalf.
 

Silver

Well-known member
Soapweed said:
Silver said:
Life has no black and white.

Guess "Silver" is just kind of a shiny gray. :?

Guess your probably right. Never professed to be anything but. I do however strive to keep the shade as light as possible. Can you claim to be one of those qualified to throw the first stone? :? :???:
 

Soapweed

Well-known member
Silver said:
Soapweed said:
Silver said:
Life has no black and white.

Guess "Silver" is just kind of a shiny gray. :?

Guess your probably right. Never professed to be anything but. I do however strive to keep the shade as light as possible. Can you claim to be one of those qualified to throw the first stone? :? :???:

I do have my standards, even though I don't follow them as well as I'd like. Take for instance, holding horses in high esteem but getting a Polaris Ranger.
 

Hanta Yo

Well-known member
I don't get it. Like Martin, Jr. said. Why do you think simple ejaculation without the egg involved constitutes murder? The egg by itself, the sperm by itself cannot make life. They have to combine to become life. You, DIS, don't make any sense.
 

CattleRMe

Well-known member
Silver for some there is no grey area. I can't imagine being so closed mind as to not be able to look at situations from anothers viewpoint. Easier to judge a situation when you aren't living it. :?
 

theHiredMansWife

Well-known member
I didn't think most woman even know they were pregnant until about 2 months.

Two months?!
With baby number two I didn't know until two months, but that's just 'cause baby number one was still nursing and "things" hadn't resumed normalcy (or so i thought).
But when it was discovered (by the nurse who was checking my liver enzymes before my gall bladder was taken out that day), I had to have an immediate u/s to find out how far along I was, and if something were wrong that I hadn't realized til that point that I was pregnant, again. They couldn't believe I was that far along and didn't know it.

It's rare that a woman doesn't know by about three or four weeks that something is up. That's when she'd be a couple weeks or so, late in her cycle.
She might wait longer before panicking/rejoicing, but usually by that point she suspects something is going on...
 
Top