xtcian

Q: But what about the fetus?
A: I don't care.
Q: You HAVE to care!
A: Um... no I don't. I don't consider it a person.

This, right here, is the stumbling block past which it seems nigh impossible to continue any fruitful conversation between those who are pro-life (or more clearly, anti-abortion) and those who are pro-choice (or succinctly, pro-abortion rights -- we can play with euphemisms all we want, but this is the bottom line).

It all comes down to each individual's "belief" about the human status of the entity in a woman's womb. I can understand and appreciate Ian's attitude toward a fetus -- but up to what point? In which month, on which day of a pregnancy do we stop saying "the fetus" and start saying "the baby"? When I was pregnant, I was pretty clear on what "THAT" was inside me after the first few months.

So, really, I can understand the positions taken by both sides of the abortion debate, but not the extreme rhetoric.

You've got the politics, death penalty and abortion debate going, so let's add guns into the mix?

Would you discharge a firearm or use deadly force within your home against a home intruder if it meant protecting Tessa or Lucy from harm? Would you do it without bothering to first stop to quiz the intruder as to his or her intentions?

I'm not picking you, Ian, per se. I enjoy seeing the debate and different viewpoints.

Over the last three years, through a roller-coaster of divorce, re-location, and life-style change, I have been awestruck by the emotional strength, empathy, compassion, and yes, wisdom, of my 7 year old daughter. When we talk, I can see, in her eyes, the thoughtful measure of her fears, her concern for others, and her sense of right and wrong.

I cannot imagine allowing the thieves, dogs, man-whores, and assorted scoundrels, that make of BOTH parties of our House & Senate, having the power to legislate control over her body.

Protecting her, from them, supersedes any other arguments on abortion, for me.

GFWD, I would not rule out blowing someone's head off with a sawed-off shotgun if I determined they intended to harm my family. That is, if there were one nearby. Instead, I rely on a Louisville Slugger next to my bed.

So you're "against anything that kills people"? What about cars & trucks? There are an awful lot of people that are killed every day by cars & trucks, so they must be evil, and deserve your hatred too.

> Q: But what about the fetus?
> A: I don't care.
> Q: You HAVE to care!
> A: Um... no I don't. I don't consider it a person.

So what is it then; a puppy? Or a mosquito to be swatted, because it's a bothersome inconvenience? Explain your views to your daughter & see what she thinks.

Anne makes a great point; what makes a fetus a baby or a person? Is there some magical moment that happens when the fetus exits the mother's body? Is it that one fetus is wanted by the parents while another is not? (You don't seem to be making that distinction.) What about a child that's already born and isn't wanted by the parents? Why is it suddenly illegal and immoral to kill an infant, when a doctor could've done the deed a few hours/days prior and been within the law?

In case the above isn't clear enough, your position on abortion is totally illogical and ludicrous.

We also subscribe to the Louisville slugger method of home protection!

On the graph, I noticed that (with a few exceptions) the high murder/execution states are southern, and the low murder rate/no execution states are northern. I was reminded of the section in the book Outliers (Malcolm Gladwell) where he writes about the study at U Mich that analyzed men and their reaction to being threatened in some fashion...I'm paraphrasing but they concluded the primary factor that predicted a violent/strong reaction was geography (specifically being raised in the south). Which was then connected to ancestral clannish/tribal mentality, sheepherding vs. crop tending...I'm forgetting the main details but would recommend the book! This chapter in particular made for an interesting read for someone raised in north, educated in the south, and married to a southern male :)

Is it really really about "making abortion illegal kills women"?

Say for example that you lived in a world such that if a woman got pregnant and there were no abortions and there was NOTHING she could do to harm herself. I know it is not possible, but let's just say that is the case. If that were the case would you then be against abortion? Or would you be pro choice?

I suspect most people are just pro choice at heart really believe it is more about the woman's right to choose as opposed to illegal abortions kills woman.

btw, I used to think i was pro choice, but after witnessing some abortions in med school and being pregnant myself, I find myself still undecided.

When does life begin?

Nobody here has a factual answer to that question. To me, it's clear that a blastocyst isn't a person yet, and that a baby born prematurely is a person. A fetus becomes aware enough to feel pain in the third trimester. Beyond that, I don't know and neither do you.

My opinion is that a fetus has value and that abortion is not a desirable outcome. Survey women who've had an abortion and I don't think you'll find too many (if any) who enjoyed it and would want to do it again. I believe the fewer unwanted pregnancies, the better. That's why I support comprehensive sexual education, frank discussions between parents and their kids and the easy availability of contraceptives.

But -- making abortion illegal doesn't stop abortion. To paraphrase the NRA, "When abortion is outlawed, only outlaws will perform abortions." Illegal, unsafe abortions aren't any kinder to the fetus than legal ones and they kill/maim women unnecessarily.

That's why I'm pro-choice and why I believe pro-choice is AT LEAST as "pro-life" as pro-life.

just had a great visual of you at a fancy restaurant with a fetus in a high chair across the table from you holding a tiny menu.

On the Louisville Slugger question, particularly in NC:

You can shoot and kill someone if they are breaking into your house, with a legally backed chance of acquittal.

You will be charged and likely penalized if you attack them in any way, after they get in the house, and they are unarmed (strange thinking, to me, but true nevertheless).

If they are armed and have already gotten in the house, you have to prove they intended to cause you grievous (great word!) injury or death. Not necessarily as clear as one might think! The jury will likely be on your side, at least in NC.

So if you're using the bat- You can't use it while they're breaking in (you can't physically get to them at that point, in most cases). If they have the propensity to shoot you then you will be lucky to be able to bat them first. If you bat them (I like using bat as a verb for this!) at any time inside the house, you can be at fault.

The only thing the law cleanly allows is for you to shoot anyone as they are trying to break in, regardless of their intent or armament.

Blog topic: This issue definitely shows the Old Testament nature of modern fundamentalism. You may choose to live your life out of the Bible but, remember, the Bible is contradictory. The law of Abraham and Moses is not necessarily the law of Jesus. If you are an avowed "Christian", then you have to go straight to the Sermon on the Mount and not look back. The 10 Commandments seem pretty straightforward and the finer points of them are hashed out specifically in the Torah, but that's the Torah, and the Canon, but mostly the Torah. For Christians, it's the Sermon on the Mount. The modern Christian needs to accept it, deal with it.

Galt:

"your position on abortion is totally illogical and ludicrous"

This is so far beyond stupid. If your opinion is faith based, then logic has NOTHING to do with it. If cold logic were the only criteria, then eugenics would be a hot science.

Let be honest here, the debate that's raging is on a "type" of person. If you show me a pro-lifer that has plenty of sex with multiple partners, but controls their reproduction by using failsafe prophylactics, then I'll listen to your bullshit about the sanctity of human life. But what you want to do is make sluts suffer. If you have a lot of sex, then you *should* get pregnant and you *should* have to have that baby. That'll teach you to spit in the face of Judeo-christian mores!

It's the same reason that liberals hate guns. Guns themselves are actually beautiful and powerful instruments, appreciated by collectors, sculptors and artists everywhere. A gun is an awe-inspiring thing that can be appreciated for its simplicity and power as much as any other human invention. But liberals hate guns because in our minds, they are generally owned by racist mouth-breathers who cling to them when their own irrationality doesn't bear out. Our hearts don't break for the gun deaths that happen every year, but our noses turn up at people who stockpile handguns to protect themselves from the gubment stealing their hawgs.

If you gave half a shit about some unborn blastocyst, then you would be outraged by the hundreds of thousands of innocent dead Iraqis, the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of casualties who are not insurgents, who have not taken up arms against the U.S., who just happen to live in a city that we've decided to bomb. Some estimates put it at six hundred thousand innocents killed in Iraq.

But that's the thing. These aren't American Christians who are dying, they're Iraqis. And they're as distasteful to you as American Sluts. And that's why you're pro-war and anti-choice. You hate the people who aren't *you*, because you just can't seem to get the wagon wheels of your brain out of the ruts laid in front of you by our culture.

Look, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there are a lot of people out there who are pro-life, but they also enjoy living the single life, being very careful with condoms and other forms of birth control, and they're totally comfortable in their own bodies and live on free love communes. Maybe someone out there breaks the cliche, and doesn't seem married both to the sanctity of unborn life, and a desperate need to condemn all expressions of sexual depravity.

But I doubt it.

I'm with Bud.

it's too bad we conservatives need the christian right to get any of our candidates elected but we do. most of us tolerate the annoying pro-lifers because we have to and they know it. believe it or not, most of us know better than to try and tell a woman what to do with her body.

"suppose we are out on a lake and it's a bit foggy-and we're rowing along in our little boat having a good time. And then all of a sudden, coming out of the fog, there's this other rowing boat and it's heading right at us.And ..Crash ...well for a second we are really angry-what is this fool doing?I just painted my boat!And here he comes-crash!-right into it.And then suddenly we notice that the row boat is empty.What happens to our anger?" (charlotte joko beck)

Sean, most CATHOLICS are pro-life in the way you describe. They oppose both abortion and the Death penalty, and their clergy takes vows of celibacy, which is about as careful as one can get. They want as many children to be born as possible, so that the priests can fondle them.

Craighill, it is because the Republicans need the Christian Right to get their candidates elected that those candidates are not worth voting for.

Craighill, if the lunatic right were just pulling the lever for real conservatives, I might not like it, but it wouldn't put the republic in peril. Unfortunately, those folks are also choosing the candidates, setting the agenda, and shouting down Republicans like Lindsey Graham for even deigning to talk to Democrats (take a look at the video of one of Graham's latest town hall meetings, where he's called a traitor for working with John Kerry on a bill).

If you want to be a real party again, you have to tell these folks to go away, much like the Democrats did with the segregationists. It'll mean some years wandering in the wilderness, just as the Democrats did, but it's the only way to restore legitimacy to what has become the party of choice for mindless yahoos.

Calling someone's position on abortion (or anything else for that matter) as totally illogical and ludicrous completely makes me not want to listen to anything else past that point. I can't explain some of me beliefs other than to say that is what I believe b/c that is what my gut tells me to believe. My gut usually steers me right.
I am pro-choice - not because I think I would go out and have an abortion if I was faced with the option - thank God, I don't know what I would do in that situation, but I do know that I don't want anyone making that decision for me. It should be my decision simply b/c I think it should be my decision.
And why I am a staunch supporter of the death penalty - I can't even give you as much justification as my previous paragraph - it is just how I feel.
And just because someone else disagrees with me does not make them illogical and ludicrous - their gut may tell them something else and that is ok with me.

When you say "my gut tells me this", then what you're saying is that you don't care that it doesn't make any sense. Which is fine, you don't have to care. You can just say, "it doesn't *have* to make sense to me, it doesn't *have* to be logical, I believe it's true and logic doesn't come into it." That's fine.

But you don't get to say "my gut tells me this, and because of that, it ISN'T illogical or ludicrous." Those are two different things.

My wife's life means more to me than my life does. This is a stupid and illogical thing, it's ludicrous, but for me, the love I have for my wife doesn't have to pass the logic test. For you, abortion and the death penalty also exist beyond scrutiny. It is completely within your right to make that statement, but, just so we're clear, it doesn't add anything to the argument, and it's totally ludicrous and illogical.

"And why I am a staunch supporter of the death penalty - I can't even give you as much justification as my previous paragraph - it is just how I feel."

I hope I don't offend you, Emma, but that's intellectually lazy, almost unforgivably so. These are literally life and death issues. My gut tells me I have to think/feel such a thing through until I find a position that's consistent both with my emotions AND with my values. Until then, I don't feel I have the right to call whatever I have a "position" or even an "opinion." It's just a gut feeling, a starting point.

Is it possible to have a reasonable debate without some of you going straight to the nuclear option?

I hope you feel better and I'm sorry I brought it up in the first place.

Thank you Anne for your initial post.

Yeah, okay, Mr. I-think-I'm-better-than-everyone-because-I-don't-like-killing-people. But what if, as with Gerard Butler's character in Law Abiding Citizen, there's a criminal mastermind committing atrocities from behind bars? Then you HAVE to use capital punishment, right? Not so high and mighty now, are we?

Capital punishment never HAS to be used. The fictional scenario of a "criminal mastermind committing atrocities from behind bars" does not occur in reality. In reality, the people who end up on Death Row are those who: a) have the least resources and are represented by overworked, underpaid, and/or inexperienced public defenders, and b) are prosecuted in a county where the DA has a strong "law and order" incentive to remain "tough on crime" and not become an object of public outrage. There is nothing fair or equitable about how the death penalty is applied. It is unconstitutional.

Abortion to me does not have a direct relationship to questions about whether killing a person is wrong, because of a) the indeterminacy of the actual personhood of a nonviable fetus, and b) the fact of the incomparable burden and responsibility that will be placed on someone of fully realized personhood (the mother) and the issue of how that person's inalienable rights, which are inarguably real and exist under our constitution, will be impacted.

Ian,

I am pro-choice and pro-death penalty and pro-kick the hell out of anyone screwing with my family but I wonder: If an fetus is not worth "caring about" then what's your position on drug, tobacco and/or alcohol abuse during pregnancy and what's your position on pre-natal care for people who can't afford healthcare?

> But -- making abortion illegal doesn't stop abortion. To paraphrase the NRA, "When abortion is outlawed, only outlaws will perform abortions." Illegal, unsafe abortions aren't any kinder to the fetus than legal ones and they kill/maim women unnecessarily.

True enough. Infanticide and murder are morally reprehensible, and most civilized societies have laws proscribing both. Yet people - infants, children and adults - are still killed every day. It's silly to think that those laws are able to prevent a crime without fail; rather those laws are a contract of sorts among the peoples of a society, saying that a human life is something of value, and if you choose to destroy a life, there are consequences. I and many others believe that the same laws should apply to the unborn; an unborn child is no less human and no less an individual than you or me, and should be accorded equal value. Allowing abortion on demand to continue as it has in the US has served to greatly devalue human life. The implications of that are far reaching, and we'll never know to what extent we have all been affected by it.

And of course the standard, "You don't care about women!" charge follows... There should indeed be exceptions that would allow an abortion in some cases, but because the vast majority of abortions done today are done for convenience rather than necessity, there needs to be something more done to minimize the number of abortions. The old "comprehensive sexual education, frank discussions between parents and their kids and the easy availability of contraceptives" canards just haven't worked. The status quo makes those who promote the "safe, legal, and rare" mindset seem to be at best naive, and at worst, pushing a hidden agenda.

@ wottop: However can I stand against such criticism? Way to reinforce the stereotype of the angry leftist who resorts to name calling instead of rationally discussing the issue at hand. Here's an idea; since Ian obviously isn't interested in defending his own position, how about you doing it in his stead?

I've never really understood the "there should indeed be exceptions that would allow an abortion in some cases" point-of-view that many people seem to have.

Seems to me that if you're against abortion and consider it to be murder, you'd be against it in ALL situations.

Hmm.