Bush Declares National Sanctity of Life Day

[DanS]

There's no excuses for him or her, and the society and state should hold them to their responsibilities. If they don't have enough dough for them to go to school, and they need to work instead, then that's their problem. I wish it were different, but that's the choice they made. As you say, that's reality.

It sounds like you need to change French law on paternity and welfare. Not come to us with a sob story.

[Jules]

Spiffor,

I actually think that obiwan's point of view is rooted in his belief that human life begins at conception. Hence sexual activity, whether contraception is used or not, has the potential to result in the creation of human life even in a "meaningless" sex act devoid of love or trust. obiwan is urging couples to take that into consideration before engaging in "meaningless" sex and then accept responsiblity for the consequences (i.e., the creation of human life).

[Spiffor]

DanS :
I agree it was her choice, since she had the opportunity to abort. By telling this story, I just wanted to show what the life of a lone mother is (and I'm sure it isn't better in the US, since welfare is even lower there).
I agree she has no excuse, because she had been able to abort for many weeks. But, by this story, I simply wanted to say you cannot force a woman to accept this kind of fate. Not in a civilized and developed country.

Edit : Jules :
And I'm saying it is asking way too much to 2003 people. I'm a student, and all my colleague do have sex with their partners, even if none of them want kids (both boys and girls).
Having people think of the possible life whenever they have sex is impossible for now, and will happen only if the world knows a major moral shift like it had known for the last 40 years (and even before this shift, many kids were born simply because passerbys wanted to have a good time, many mothers were abandoned with unwanted kids)

[DanS]

Yes, and in a civilized country like the US, she would not have to accept this fate, whether she keeps the child or aborts. The man is obligated to provide a good deal of support. In fact, he is obligated to reimburse the government for the welfare payments it has made to the mother.

[Spiffor]

DanS :
You've made me curious. I suppose there is some kind of system when the guy doesn't have the money ?

[Jules]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Edit : Jules :
And I'm saying it is asking way too much to 2003 people. I'm a student, and all my colleague do have sex with their partners, even if none of them want kids (both boys and girls).
Having people think of the possible life whenever they have sex is impossible for now, and will happen only if the world knows a major moral shift like it had known for the last 40 years (and even before this shift, many kids were born simply because passerbys wanted to have a good time, many mothers were abandoned with unwanted kids)

I agree with you that a major cultural shift is needed, which is why although I'm pro-life I don't believe a blanket ban on abortion will solve anything. I think President Bush's stance on abortion and National Sanctity of Life Day is utterly hypocritical so long as he continues to promote Middle East war and free trade/globalization, which has the potential to destroy (and already has destroyed) many more lives than abortion has.

[DanS]

It depends on the state, but a mathematical guideline is used to calculate how much he owes. If he doesn't pay...

His wages are garnished up to ~50% or 60% of his income. Liens are put on any property he may have that could be liquidated to pay the support. His driver's license can be revoked. His noncompliance will be reported to the credit agencies. He can even be thrown in jail for a short time in some states.

IOW, his ass better be getting a job.

[DanS]

I almost forgot. His passport can also be revoked, if he doesn't pay up.

[Spiffor]

Wow, I didn't know this. Thanks for teaching me

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Jules
(and already has destroyed) many more lives than abortion has.

ha ha ha ha

Jon Miller

[Az]

I think that the system is flawed.

[Ben Kenobi]

Willem-

The bond between parent and child, especially the mother, is so strong that some people can't even concieve of abandoning a child.

If the bond is so strong, why should we allow abortion?
Surely the bond begins before the child is born.

I get the impression that you are young, probably still living with your parents.

So what? Young people are not qualified to debate?

Along with her drinking, there would probably have been a good chance of some sort of birth defect. How much would the child have suffered then?

So to avoid suffering, we kill the child? Maybe the child would have enjoyed her life? Personhood has nothing to do with disability.


Jack-

How many abortions are done as a result of rape?

A small clump of undifferentiated cells feels no pain or emotion and cannot be tortured.

Most abortions are done between 8-13 weeks, when the child can feel pain. Do you have any sources to verify that most abortions because of rape occur earlier than 8 weeks?

"For rape victims, torturing them is MORE dangerous."

Source?
Abortion has many complications that need to be factored into your decision, that I don't think you acknowledge.

In this scenario, the torturers are John Ashcroft and George W. Bush.

How so? Isn't the rapist responsible for the torture? Without the rapist you have no pregnancy. If abortions were no longer legal, it makes no sense to say that more women will be raped.

We don't blame the victim of the rape. We don't blame an innocent unborn child for the rape.

Jules:

I think President Bush's stance on abortion and National Sanctity of Life Day is utterly hypocritical so long as he continues to promote Middle East war and free trade/globalization, which has the potential to destroy (and already has destroyed) many more lives than abortion has."

Assuming the unborn children count, then abortion has killed close to 40 million just in the US and Canada alone, since the 1968 abortion law was repealed in Canada. Worldwide estimates range at about 883,445,000 to 705,000,000 depending on estimates of underreporting, since 1939.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/wrjp334sd.html

The vast majority were performed in the PRC and the former Soviet Union. The current rate is approximately 1,594,000 per month, more that the populaton of Latvia.

This compares with a growth rate of 6,600,000 per month, according to the UN world population data sheet. Roughly 1 out of every 5 pregnancies worldwide are now aborted.

How many have died from war in the same period?
The reaper laughs.

[Ben Kenobi]

Cyclotron

The use of my property, however small or unobtrusive the use, is still prohibited without my direct or implied consent.

Not according to tort law. My example showed how the right to life can insist upon a limited and temporary property burden.

I'm discussing morality that is generally considered universal.

Universal? That the unborn child is a human person as Thompson assumes? I thought you were arguing for personal morality.

Rape would be the man forcing his way into the house and staying there,

How can the unborn child force itself into the womb?

I see nothing wrong with doctors providing and getting compensated for a legal procedure.

Even if the unborn child is a person? Why should they get paid to kill people? This is one of the differences between unplugging the violinist and an abortion. Even in the case of rape you have a third party aborting the baby. Nowhere does your argument say that it is legal for a third person to unhook the violinist from you, and to get paid specifically for doing so.

For the other problems, re-read one of my earlier posts. The woman is not bedridden, the woman does not suffer severe disability as in the case of your example.

He seems to imagine sex as a deep mark of trust and love between 2 individuals, and that meaningless or semi-meaningless sex doesn't exist (or shouldn't exist).

Spiffor, shouldn't exist. World of difference between the ideal and the reality. I'm arguing an ideal, what people should strive towards, rather than a narrative detailing events of 2003. I'm not THAT naive.

"And I'm saying it is asking way too much to 2003 people. "

We are the hollow men, the stuffed men,
Headpiece filled with straw, alas!
Our dried voices when,
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
Or rats feet on broken glass
In our dry cellar.

-The Hollow Men by TS Eliot.

I agree with you that a major cultural shift is needed, which is why although I'm pro-life I don't believe a blanket ban on abortion will solve anything.

Agreed
We need a major culture shift.

However, with a change in law, some who would have abortions otherwise would be discouraged and some lives will be saved.

This is a very good prudential question Jules- lots of room for debate on how to best change the culture.

[Jules]

Yes, I'll admit that I BAMed a bit there, but the actual statistics were not essential to my point. That being if human life is indeed sacrosanct as President Bush believes, then all human life must be defended, not just unborn human life. This is our nation's highest law, referred to in the Preamble of the Constitution as the principle of the General Welfare.

EDIT: those were rather staggering numbers you cited incidentally.

[Cyclotron]

Obiwan,

First of all, let me address the size of the obligation.

Let's think hypothetically: There is a man who is dying, and a single drop of my blood will keep him from dying. Nothing else will keep him from death. The procedure would be painless, and I certainly won't miss one drop of blood. The choice to give the blood, even though it costs me next to nothing to do, is still my choice. I have no more obligation to save that man than I do to remain hooked up on dialysis to a violinist the rest of my life.

Next, let me address your Tort example.

I think I'm not being very clear in my response to your tort case: Let's say,

the house = womb
the guy coming out of the blizzard = fetus
the person in the house = mother
the blizzard = death, or nonexistence before conception
neighbor = a doctor

Alright? So, the person in the house lets the stranger in, willingly letting him in. The person feeds the stranger and provides for his safety. Later, the woman wants to get rid of the stranger, but lacking the physical ability to do so calls her neighbor, who comes over and kicks the stranger out of the house, thus killing him.

Analagous to this: The mother lets the baby in her womb, willingly so. The mother provides for the child. Later, the woman decides she does not want the baby, but unable to get rid of it herself calls a doctor who comes over and gets rid of the baby, thus killing him.

Agreed? That is a normal pregnancy and abortion. What is key is that the person inside made a willing choice to let the stranger in the house.

Now, let's use a reverse example, but this time with rape (and one more character):

other man outside = the rapist

A man outside bangs down the door and shoves the stranger inside the house, then leaves. The stranger, now in the house and out of the storm, decides to help himself to the food in the house. The woman wants to get rid of this intruder, but lacking the physical ability to do so calls her neighbor, who comes over and kicks the stranger out of the house, thus killing him.

Which is analagous to this: A rapist forces his way into the womb, putting a baby inside the woman, and leaves. The baby begins to take the mother's resources. When the woman discovers she is pregnant, she calls the doctor who gets rid of the baby for her since she lacks the ability to do so herself. The doctor aborts the baby, thus killing him.

One big difference between these examples:

In the first example, a normal pregnancy, the mother willingly and knowingly admitted the stranger, and in so doing accepted responsibility for his well being. That is why the court ruled the way it did in the tort case: The people in the house accepted responsibility for the stranger by letting him in.

In the second example, a rape, the mother never willingly accepted the stranger, and because of this never accepted responsibility for his well being. Kicking him out would in fact be very legal; the man was trespassing and the woman had every right to remove him since she never accepted an obligation for his safety in the first place.

The conclusion is that the lawfulness of abortion depends on whether or not the mother accepted the responsibility for the child's well being. Acceptance is implicit when the mother chooses to have sex or conceive. When the mother is raped, however, there is absolutely no acceptance given, so the child never becomes the responsiblity of the mother and the mother is thus not responsible for the well being, or therefore life, of the child.