" it's no more a parasite (what an ugly term) than anyone dependent on another - such as I supose what you'd term the parasitic two month old infant - for survival."
"Ugly term maybe, but you think that like many do because this is an emotive issue to which people have an oversensitivity to. I think you will find a featus fits exactly into the definition of parasite, infact someone on here earlier posted how it did and how it differed to a dependent not physically attached to another much better then I can".
No, actually. If you termed my puppy a parasite, it would be an ugly statement. And it's not overly sensitive to so react. You see, you are being the one emotionally involved here - not I. You chose what you thought was an ugly word. Just admit it, Katie. This has nothing to do with the topic - nothing to do with whether a creature is human. After all, I make no such cause for young Marlborough here ("sorry boy").
And you say it for much the same reason that you've decided (gratuitously) to call me ignorant, slow, etc. - because you've a hard time being civil.
"That's why in virtually every American state, the crimes of physical harm to the fetus are NOT crimes against the mother - but crimes against a separate person."
"Well that law seems a bit backwards to me. However, I hope those same states do not have legal abortion or they smack of hypocricy."
What people want in any state has nothing to do with anything. Perhaps you don't know the law in the U.S. Every state had banned abortion - but from about 1967 to 1972, five states had legalized it with very strict time constraints. Then in 1972, the Supreme Court determined that the Constitution precluded any legislature in the U.S. from banning abortion throughout the pregnancy. So the states (most of them) that have a separate crime for the harm to the fetus (NOT to the mother) are not acting inconsistently with any law they've ever passed - but it is certainly inconsistent with the Supreme Court's veiw of the Constitution.
But since only a tiny percentage of Americans (9% in the last poll I saw) now believe that abortion should be as unrestricted as the Supreme Court says the U.S. Constitution requires, there's an enormous popular movement to add crimes to fetuses and increase the penalties. The recent infamous Scott Peterson case in California (a husband kills both wife and fetus - the prosecutor added a separate count of murder for the fetus - he was convicted on both counts) has buttressed the groundswell.
"You see, a fetus is alive from the moment of conception"
"An extremely debateable issue, subject to opinion and that is why abortion is a CHOICE because people differ in opinion".
Katie, every statement any human being can make is subject to opinion and debatable. Why do you keep saying this? Do you know how often I've heard people say that one race or another should not be allowed to live? It's routine. But I'm not going to say "I'm pro choice" about them taking action based on their views.
" but because some Supreme Court justices decided to throw out all the laws that Americans had made in all the states. "
"Laws aren't made that way. And if that were the case why is abortion still legal there?"
Funny - maybe not in Australia! But I assure you that is what anyone would tell you in America. About five states had changed their laws before the Supreme Court had made its decision in 1972. (The other 45 states firmly banned all abortions). In Roe vs. Wade in 1972, the Supreme Court ruled that because the U.S. Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures (in criminal cases), the "penumbras" and implications of that prohibition mean that a fundamental "right of privacy" prevents any legislature from barring abortions throughout a woman's pregnancy - and the mother alone must be able to choose to terminate that pregnancy through birth. The state does have interests in determining whether the abortion clinic is run well, etc. but those interests cannot prevent any woman from getting her abortion for any reason whatever throughout her pregnancy (though in the last three months, she must say she'd "be psychologically better" with an abortion - though needn't consult any doctor about this - her statement is enough).
It's a very good question why the Supreme Court hasn't reversed itself. One reason is the simple doctrine of stare decisis - that is, once a precedent has been established, the Court is loathe to reverse itself. For example, in 1854, the Supreme Court had ruled in Dred Scott, that an escaped slave remained the property of his master - and thus had no right to bring a suit for a declaration that he was now free. Despite repeated later cases, the Court said that it had ruled - and that was the precedent.
However, the recent Lawrence decision (invalidating Texas' laws against sodomy as against the Constitution) did reverse an earlier Supreme Court decision (I believe it was Folsom) made in 1986 (stating that the Constitution did permit the state of Georgia to prohibit sodomy). This was shocking - because it is in the same context (the so-called "fundamental right of privacy" due to the existence of a prohibition of unreasonable search and seizure in the Constitution) and bodes very badly for the continued existence of Roe vs. Wade.
So my guess is that Roe vs. Wade (the first abortion case) will be reversed in the next 5 or so years - especially since the extent of abortion required by the Supreme Court has become so unpopular in the U.S. (as everyone on every side recognizes). When Roe vs. Wade is reversed (as seems inevitable), it will simply mean that the Court reverses itslf on whether the Constitution prohibits legislatures from making decisions on abortion.
Thus, the next step will be for those lobbying for one view or another to go to the 50 state legislatures and urge that laws be passed permitting or prohibiting abortion. It will be an interesting free-for all. Further steps wil lundoubtedly be taken in Congress on the matter.
My best guess is that most states will prohibit abortion - perhaps 10-20 will allow it. None will allow it to be as broad as it currently is. And Congress will take up amendments to the Constitution to either allow or ban it - an amendment requires 2/3 of each of the two houses of Congress - and then 3/4 of the state legislatures - to pass. And they will take up such bills and debate abortion every year through at least the next half-century. But meanwhile, the states will all be different.
" What I think you fail to recognize is that if the fetus is another person, then saying "You don't have to kill, but you must allow others to" is an indefensible position. "
"What you fail to recognise, which baffles me as its all those whole forum talks about, is that wether a featus is a person and alive is undetermined, partially because of the philosophical argument of "what is life". I can fully understand that YOU are against abortion because YOU believe a featus is alive but I am stunned how you can claim to be an intelligent individual yet fail too recognise the complexity of the issue. When exploring an issue such as this one tends to look at every angle, at every cog, and you seem to have ignored this".
Sorry, the issue isn't complex. From the time of conception, there is a person complete in all the DNA that constitutes life - all the genetic material is there. The person's hair color, eye color, size, color blindnes, everyhing is there from the moment of conception. That unborn child will develop faculties over time as does any infant or any adolescent do. There is no distinction worth drawing between a two day old embryo and the two day old infant when the mother returns from the hospital in terms of which is living, which is a human being. Each will grow and develop - one is simply nine months older.
You might as well argue that the six month old isn't human - sure it's debatable because everything on earth is debatable - sure one can have a different opinion - sure, they're dependent - sure, they can't earn a living - sure, one can allow mothers the "choice" to kill them - the issue is identical.
"And of course with abortion, since we were all that age once before our births, there is a particular identification with those being killed by others before they are born - when they are most defenseless - even though the defenselessness is the basis on which you say they can be killed. "
"Actually, looking from a psychological point of view, people on a whole do not identify with a featus. Not only because a featus differs physically from a fully developed humanbeing, particually in initial stages, but mostly because, through memory, we have never experienced being a featus. I don't think identification is the process you're looking for here"
Where do you get that? Everyone identifies with the fetus! Have you never heard the enthusiasm when people see the ultrasound pictures? Never noticed people asking "how's the baby?" Never seen anyone touching the mother's stomach holding the child and asking "how the baby is doing?" Never heard a mother say "the baby is kicking"? The fetus is always thought of as the baby - it's always been considered the baby. People go WILD when they see the ultrasound pictures.
"You keep throwing in examples regarding the jews and the treatment of black people in early america and such as examples, but they are flawed examples and seem only to pull away from the initial topic being debated here".
Oh, I do because each example is so ideally suited to its use.
reply
share