Anyone read Cynthia Tucker's op-ed?

[AENeuman]

hxxp://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=18542

Abandoned at birth
Do some conservatives love fetuses more than babies?

At least Sonny Perdue, Georgia's governor, practices what he preaches. A conservative Christian and an opponent of abortion, Perdue and his wife have matched word with deed over the years by volunteering as foster parents who take care of abused or abandoned infants.

But there isn't much of that going around. There has long been an odd cognitive dissonance in the anti-abortion movement, a strange disconnect of values. Many family-values-loving conservative Christians are staunchly opposed to programs that would help poor children get health care or day care or decent housing. It is as if they adore the child still inside the womb, but despise him as soon as he comes screaming into the world.

With the re-election of President Bush, many conservative Christians believe they are close to their goal of overturning Roe vs. Wade. And in GOP-dominated legislatures across the country, there is a renewed zeal to roll back reproductive freedoms. In Georgia, GOP legislators have introduced a repugnant bill that would not only require a 24-hour waiting period for women seeking an abortion, but would also require medical personnel to give women scientifically dubious information -- that abortions increase the risk of breast cancer.

But the same Georgia Legislature, facing budget constraints, is also busy cutting or squeezing programs that would help a poor mother to raise her child if she decides against abortion. One example is the state's landmark PeachCare program, which provides health care to children of the working poor. Although the waiting list is long, Perdue himself has proposed curbing growth in the program, so it will accept few additional children.

President Bush, who says he "values life," exhibits a similar cognitive dissonance. Though he is expected to appoint Supreme Court justices committed to overturning abortion, his new budget takes a sharp ax to programs that would help poor children -- including public housing programs and public health.

Few of the nation's best-known evangelical Christians emphasize social justice for the poor. That makes self-proclaimed "progressive evangelical" Jim Wallis, editor of Sojourners magazine, stand out. In a recent critique of Bush's budget proposals, he noted that the "cost of deficit reduction is mostly borne by those least able to bear the burden -- the lowest income families in America, rather than by those most able to afford it."

But many conservatives would dismiss Wallis' argument as "class warfare."

Five years ago, political scientist Jean Reith Schroedel, a professor at Claremont Graduate University, published a book -- "Is the Fetus a Person?" -- that examined state policies throughout the country, comparing their restrictions on abortion to their support for poor children. She found that the states that imposed the most restrictions on access to abortion were also those that put the least money into health care or day care or housing assistance for poor children.

"Pro-life states are less likely than pro-choice states to provide adequate care to poor and needy children. Their concern for the weak and vulnerable appears to stop at birth," she wrote.

So if conservative Christians are going to insist on lecturing pregnant women before they get access to abortion -- frightening them with grim tales of future emotional distress -- they should also counsel them on the realities of raising a child with few financial resources. The brochure might read something like this: "If you are poor and you keep this child, you won't have the money for decent day care. You'll have to choose between paying the electric bill and buying antibiotics for your child's ear infection. And don't even think about opening a savings account to pay for his college education."

Some good points, never heard about the breast cancer connection. Goes too far at the end though. Always amazed how economics and morals make such strange bed fellows. Too bad the term social justice is so forigen to followers of the Beatitudes.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

That's right. Republicans hate Children and although the article above doesn't address it, they hate Old People too. They are clearly out to take food right out of the mouths of the poor.

Finally, Glengoyne, you've seen the light and admitted it

SI

[Glengoyne]

That's right. Republicans hate Children and although the article above doesn't address it, they hate Old People too. They are clearly out to take food right out of the mouths of the poor.

She could have save much ink, if she just kept it simple and direct.

[Ben E Lou]

Cynthia Tucker?????


{snicker}




{muffled laugh}





{guffaw}

[Buzzbee]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Cynthia Tucker?????


{snicker}




{muffled laugh}





{guffaw}

Ditto.

[Radii]

That makes self-proclaimed "progressive evangelical" Jim Wallis, editor of Sojourners magazine, stand out

Wasn't he on the daily show recently? If it's who I am thinking of, it was one of the most interesting interviews I've seen in recent memory.

Me? I'm very much pro-choice and support social programs that help the poor.

However, I don't think the two go hand in hand necessarily. you look at the abortion issue and you make what is viewed to be the "correct" decision. you look at social programs and make what is viewed to be the "correct" decision there too...

If bush were cutting select, inefficient social programs to balance the budget/bring about a surplus I'd be thrilled. But he's not, he's cutting them to throw more money at the military, a ton more than the budget would lead you to believe since Iraq isn't in the budget to begin with. So i'm just annoyed. We should scale back inefficient programs everywhere, even if they are popular programs designed to help the poor. If they truly aren't working, cut them. But the extra military spending at the same time to gear up for Iran or syria or North Korea or canada or France or whatever the hell we're getting ready to invade just pisses me off.

[SunDancer]

Originally Posted by Radii

Wasn't he on the daily show recently? If it's who I am thinking of, it was one of the most interesting interviews I've seen in recent memory.

Me? I'm very much pro-choice and support social programs that help the poor.

However, I don't think the two go hand in hand necessarily. you look at the abortion issue and you make what is viewed to be the "correct" decision. you look at social programs and make what is viewed to be the "correct" decision there too...

If bush were cutting select, inefficient social programs to balance the budget/bring about a surplus I'd be thrilled. But he's not, he's cutting them to throw more money at the military, a ton more than the budget would lead you to believe since Iraq isn't in the budget to begin with. So i'm just annoyed. We should scale back inefficient programs everywhere, even if they are popular programs designed to help the poor. If they truly aren't working, cut them. But the extra military spending at the same time to gear up for Iran or syria or North Korea or canada or France or whatever the hell we're getting ready to invade just pisses me off.

Yeap. I would for us to scale back military funding in countries like the "war on drugs" in Colombia, which is not going well, as well as reform programs such as welfare to weed out those who abuse it, ect.

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Five years ago, political scientist Jean Reith Schroedel, a professor at Claremont Graduate University, published a book -- "Is the Fetus a Person?" -- that examined state policies throughout the country, comparing their restrictions on abortion to their support for poor children. She found that the states that imposed the most restrictions on access to abortion were also those that put the least money into health care or day care or housing assistance for poor children.

"Pro-life states are less likely than pro-choice states to provide adequate care to poor and needy children. Their concern for the weak and vulnerable appears to stop at birth," she wrote.

Anyone want to address the point? Or are we going to stick with the ad hominem method?

[Crapshoot]

Ben, I can't say Im familiar with Cynthia Tucker, but why the guffaws ? For a second I thought it was ex-congressdumbass Cynthia McKinney - but otherwise, I have no clue.

Also, Im genuinely curious if anyone could argue Huckleberry's point.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Cynthia Tucker?????


{snicker}




{muffled laugh}





{guffaw}

I can't say that before today I've ever heard of this Cynthia Tucker. So I can't vouch for any of her prior pieces, but... she's not wrong here. Nothing earth shattering in the piece, but it's accurate nonetheless.

[Crapshoot]

In the absence of someone who's actually pro-life arguing the case, I'll give it a shot. I would venture that your textbook social conservative would argue that having had sex, the responsibility for a child now passes wholely and solely to the parents- and there is no way to shirk it, either with an abortion or by having the state pay for additional child care.

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by Radii

However, I don't think the two go hand in hand necessarily. you look at the abortion issue and you make what is viewed to be the "correct" decision. you look at social programs and make what is viewed to be the "correct" decision there too...

I think this would be the answer to your question, Huckleberry. I think they're separate issues, and it seems to me that combining them in this context is only done with the goal of painting a side of the spectrum as hypocritical or short-sighted.

That is not to say that either side of the spectrum is not those things; I just think that some view them as inter-related issues while others view them as completely different things.

[Huckleberry]

Viewing them as separate issues seriously damages the "compassionate conservative" motto's credibility.

Then again, I still don't understand how a philosophical conservative opposed to big government can be fine forcing a woman to be, basically, a government incubator if she doesn't want the pregnancy. I have no problem, philosophically, requiring all abortions to be attempts to remove the fetus/child without terminating it. If it can survive, that's good news. But wanting the government to force a woman to continue to allow a life to use her body for its own survival when she doesn't want to do that seems to be the very opposite of conservative.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Ben, I can't say Im familiar with Cynthia Tucker, but why the guffaws ? For a second I thought it was ex-congressdumbass Cynthia McKinney - but otherwise, I have no clue.

Also, Im genuinely curious if anyone could argue Huckleberry's point.

She's one of the editors of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. They've got two: one conservative (Jim Wooten) and one liberal (Tucker). I have very little respect for either one of them.

[Ben E Lou]

Dola:

And to be specific, I find it quite hilarious that anything by either one of them made it into a newspaper outside of a one-newspaper town like Atlanta.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

In the absence of someone who's actually pro-life arguing the case, I'll give it a shot. I would venture that your textbook social conservative would argue that having had sex, the responsibility for a child now passes wholely and solely to the parents- and there is no way to shirk it, either with an abortion or by having the state pay for additional child care.

Something about calling a tune, paying a piper... I think a wrestler is involved somehow. I get a little murky on this.

[Bea-Arthurs Hip]

Me? I'm very much pro-choice and support social programs that help the poor.

Help the poor, hmm why not kill them also? What right do they have to live? Their voice is about as loud as the little child in the "womyns" womb.

Of course I am being a smart a&^ . I was pro-choice until my little girl was born pre-mature and weighed about 2.5 pounds. She lived and had to go through numerous surgeries and stays in Childrens Hosptials. I saw little babies that were smaller then her and their parents who were going through things worse then our little angel was. I learned allot during those 4 months of my life and I am still paying for it 4 years later. To be honest I would have sold everything I had even given my life so my little girl could live.

So to look back and think that I supported abortion and a womans right to "choose" makes me sick.

A nation that kills its own children is a democracy with out civilization and people with out a future. We need to look at why we are killing 4000 babies a day in the richest country in the world. Why?

Mother Theresa said once "Why are we so afraid of these little children?" I certainly could not answer this question..Can you?

I know I will get flamed but to any of the Dads out there who have gone through problem pregnancys with their wives of have lost babies, I know you can relate. These are little people not just "globs of tissue".

Back to Lurk Mode.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Bea-Arthurs Hip

A nation that kills its own children is a democracy with out civilization and people with out a future. We need to look at why we are killing 4000 babies a day in the richest country in the world. Why?

FYI - we do not live in a democracy, we live in a republic. And we are not the richest country in the world, Luxembourg is, per capita...

And yes, I am being a smart ass...

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by Bea-Arthurs Hip

Help the poor, hmm why not kill them also? What right do they have to live? Their voice is about as loud as the little child in the "womyns" womb.

Of course I am being a smart a&^ . I was pro-choice until my little girl was born pre-mature and weighed about 2.5 pounds. She lived and had to go through numerous surgeries and stays in Childrens Hosptials. I saw little babies that were smaller then her and their parents who were going through things worse then our little angel was. I learned allot during those 4 months of my life and I am still paying for it 4 years later. To be honest I would have sold everything I had even given my life so my little girl could live.

So to look back and think that I supported abortion and a womans right to "choose" makes me sick.

A nation that kills its own children is a democracy with out civilization and people with out a future. We need to look at why we are killing 4000 babies a day in the richest country in the world. Why?

Mother Theresa said once "Why are we so afraid of these little children?" I certainly could not answer this question..Can you?

I know I will get flamed but to any of the Dads out there who have gone through problem pregnancys with their wives of have lost babies, I know you can relate. These are little people not just "globs of tissue".

Back to Lurk Mode.

Don't lurk. Yours is the best post on the subject I've read in a long time.

[Huckleberry]

My wife and I lost two pregnancies. I'm pro-choice, out of the available options that currently exist.

I would like to see my above recommendation implemented. No abortion procedure may willfully terminate the fetus/child. If it's before viability, then of course the odds are that it will not survive.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

Viewing them as separate issues seriously damages the "compassionate conservative" motto's credibility.

Then again, I still don't understand how a philosophical conservative opposed to big government can be fine forcing a woman to be, basically, a government incubator if she doesn't want the pregnancy. I have no problem, philosophically, requiring all abortions to be attempts to remove the fetus/child without terminating it. If it can survive, that's good news. But wanting the government to force a woman to continue to allow a life to use her body for its own survival when she doesn't want to do that seems to be the very opposite of conservative.

I think the conservative point is more along the lines of having people take responsibility for themselves and for their actions. This shows in their views to privatize social security, to fight plans for government controlled health care, and generally shrink government. Basically, they seem to be pushing for people to take care of themselves and not use the government as a crutch.

As far as forcing the woman to continue to allow a life to use her body for its own survival; an argument could be made that the decision to have sex is tacit acceptance of the potential for a baby to result.

Difficulties in the pro-life/pro-choice debate arise when you try to define an absolute rule that makes sense in all situations. Issues like rape and the definition of the beginning of life tends to make most positions somewhat hypocritical. As such, I haven't been able to pin down my own views on the matter. I hate to be hypocritical, but I'm not sure I can avoid it.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by Bea-Arthurs Hip

Help the poor, hmm why not kill them also? What right do they have to live? Their voice is about as loud as the little child in the "womyns" womb.

Of course I am being a smart a&^ . I was pro-choice until my little girl was born pre-mature and weighed about 2.5 pounds. She lived and had to go through numerous surgeries and stays in Childrens Hosptials. I saw little babies that were smaller then her and their parents who were going through things worse then our little angel was. I learned allot during those 4 months of my life and I am still paying for it 4 years later. To be honest I would have sold everything I had even given my life so my little girl could live.

So to look back and think that I supported abortion and a womans right to "choose" makes me sick.

A nation that kills its own children is a democracy with out civilization and people with out a future. We need to look at why we are killing 4000 babies a day in the richest country in the world. Why?

Mother Theresa said once "Why are we so afraid of these little children?" I certainly could not answer this question..Can you?

I know I will get flamed but to any of the Dads out there who have gone through problem pregnancys with their wives of have lost babies, I know you can relate. These are little people not just "globs of tissue".

Back to Lurk Mode.

Good post. A little heavy on the "black and white", but well-intentioned.

And for what it's worth, I don't think you have to have gone through a "problem" pregnancy to realize that life begins way before birth. The first time you hear the heart beat you know something is going on in there...

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Bea-Arthurs Hip

I know I will get flamed but to any of the Dads out there who have gone through problem pregnancys with their wives of have lost babies, I know you can relate. These are little people not just "globs of tissue".

I think I'm going to start referring to posters on this board as "useless globs of tissue"

SI

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Bea-Arthurs Hip

A nation that kills its own (children) is a democracy with out civilization and people with out a future. We need to look at why we are killing 4000 (babies) a day in the richest country in the world. Why?

Very true and good quote. But I think it is just as true without "children" and "babies". My problem is that the killing part does not seem wrong to the government, only the killing of certain babies is wrong. It's very hard for me to accept such conditional morals.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I think I'm going to start referring to posters on this board as "useless globs of tissue"

SI

as with humanity in general...

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I think I'm going to start referring to posters on this board as "useless globs of tissue"

SI

There are two types of posters on FOFC: Those with girlfriends, and those with useless globs of tissue.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Very true and good quote. But I think it is just as true without "children" and "babies". My problem is that the killing part does not seem wrong to the government, only the killing of certain babies is wrong. It's very hard for me to accept such conditional morals.

Good point. Most people are very conditional regarding their views on killing. Say what you will about the Catholic Church, but you got to hand it to them for being consistent: both anti-abortion, and anti-war/anti-death penalty...

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I think the conservative point is more along the lines of having people take responsibility for themselves and for their actions. This shows in their views to privatize social security, to fight plans for government controlled health care, and generally shrink government. Basically, they seem to be pushing for people to take care of themselves and not use the government as a crutch.

Does not compute. The pro-life position requires the government to intervene in a mother's choice as to how best take care of herself. The pro-life position is the one that endorses government intervention.

Originally Posted by BrianD

As far as forcing the woman to continue to allow a life to use her body for its own survival; an argument could be made that the decision to have sex is tacit acceptance of the potential for a baby to result.

I fail to see the logical step that therefore requires the government to intervene.

Originally Posted by BrianD

Difficulties in the pro-life/pro-choice debate arise when you try to define an absolute rule that makes sense in all situations. Issues like rape and the definition of the beginning of life tends to make most positions somewhat hypocritical. As such, I haven't been able to pin down my own views on the matter. I hate to be hypocritical, but I'm not sure I can avoid it.

I disagree. While it's true that most people hold a hypocritical position on abortion, it is not nearly necessary.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Very true and good quote. But I think it is just as true without "children" and "babies". My problem is that the killing part does not seem wrong to the government, only the killing of certain babies is wrong. It's very hard for me to accept such conditional morals.

Depending on your point of view, this isn't necessarily conditional morals. Criminals and enemy combatants can give up their right to live while minors can't. Of course, in this situation, outlawing suicide and assisted suicide brings up conditional morals. I've never understood the justification for making suicide illegal.

[SlapBone]

As I said before in a similiar conversation, I hereby renounce my pro-death penalty views in order to give weight to my anti-baby killing views... that was easy.

Notice, there was no "if" in that statement. As a conservative, and a born-again christian, I no longer can support the death penalty.

I live in Texas also. which should tell you how serious I am.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by BrianD

enemy combatants can give up their right to live .

By this logic, are you saying that American soldiers are also waiving their right to live by the act of their joining the military?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I've never understood the justification for making suicide illegal.

IIRC, among the justifications for that are:
1) Suicides are sometimes attempted in ways that put others at risk
2) Sucides are often unsuccessful, and in the process create a unneccessary demand for resources (from emergency services to health care, etc)

Over the past, oh, 20 years or so when I've pondered that same point with various people, those are the reasons I've heard cited numerous times. And never once do I recall a serious answer involving "sanctity of life" ever offered by anyone in a position to directly deal with the ramifications and the legal prohibitions (i.e. emergency svc workers, lawyers, prosecutors, politicians, doctors, etc.)

[Radii]

Welp, this thread was interesting for a little while. Now it's an abortion debate and will soon be a flamefest. Enjoy!

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

Does not compute. The pro-life position requires the government to intervene in a mother's choice as to how best take care of herself. The pro-life position is the one that endorses government intervention.

Wrong, the pro-life position calls abortion murder.

I fail to see the logical step that therefore requires the government to intervene.

It is the same logical step that requires the government to take action when you shoot and kill someone. Stopping the abortion is just them getting involved before the crime (as they define it) happens.

I disagree. While it's true that most people hold a hypocritical position on abortion, it is not nearly necessary.

It isn't necessary, but it is tough. If you are pro-choice, then you get stuck trying to define when life starts, since obviously killing a 2-year old isn't ok. Where do you draw the line? At birth? At the age where the fetus is able to survive on its own? At the age where a fetus is able to survive on hospital machinery? What happens when technology makes it possible for a fetus to survive at an age that was previously deemed acceptable for abortion?

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Radii

Welp, this thread was interesting for a little while. Now it's an abortion debate and will soon be a flamefest. Enjoy!

C'mon, you knew it was inevitable, didn't you?

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

By this logic, are you saying that American soldiers are also waiving their right to live by the act of their joining the military?

Well, they certainly give up the ability for any legal ramifications if they are killed in combat.

[revrew]

So far, it seems everyone has missed the "conservative" viewpoint on the abortion/social program issue of apparent hypocrisy.

It does NOT have to do with "they got themselves into it, let them hang," or "let them pull themselves up by the bootstraps." That has nothing to do with "compassionate conservativism." While it's true that conservatives in general argue against a victim society and demand "greater accountability for your actions," that's not the point that's made by less support of government assistance programs.

Moral conservativism (i.e. anti-abortion) and socio-political conservativism (i.e. few government assistance programs) are easily reconciled. The reason true compassionate conservatives don't support abortion AND don't support government assistance is because they (or shall I say "we") believe that it is the responsibility of communities, individuals, charitable organizations, and faith-based communities to care for the poor, the hungry, the homeless, etc. As long as the government does it "for us," we too easily cross to the other side of the street. We compassionate conservatives want to see the faceless government get it's fat, inefficient butt out of the welfare business. We want to see individuals and charitable collections of individuals shoulder the responsibility. We believe humans, not beaurocracies, are far better at being compassionate and far better at truly helping people heal or builld better lives. In other words, stop bailing people out of their moral responsibility to help others around them. Stop taxing me to give a handout or an entitlement when I could use that time and money to actually help the person the government is merely enabling. Let the money go to charitable hospitals, crisis pregnancy centers, homeless shelters, soup kitchens, the Salvation Army--whatever! They all do a better job of helping people than the government does, and so would I if you gave me my money back.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Radii

Welp, this thread was interesting for a little while. Now it's an abortion debate and will soon be a flamefest. Enjoy!

It pretty much started out that way. If you are going to criticize a political party for fighting abortion and then cutting programs to help poor children, you pretty much have to define your terms before discussing the correlation of the terms.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Well, they certainly give up the ability for any legal ramifications if they are killed in combat.

Very true. It raises an interesting question though (at least for me). Does anybody truly have a right to live? If soldiers "waive their right to live" via the possibility of them getting KIA, the same could be said for policemen, firefighters etc., and the other hazardous duty professions. Ultimately, why can't that logic be extended to everyone? I can think of several dozens of ways that I can die by tomorrow. For example, if I get hit by a tree or lightning--did that tree or whatever take away my right to live? Perhaps there was not such a right in the first place...

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Wrong, the pro-life position calls abortion murder.

And therefore requires that the government intervene. Whereas the pro-choice position does not call it murder and therefore does not require that the government intervene. I believe that makes my previous statement correct.

Originally Posted by BrianD

It is the same logical step that requires the government to take action when you shoot and kill someone. Stopping the abortion is just them getting involved before the crime (as they define it) happens.

Granted, but this is circular logic. You are explaining the opinion by assuming that it is true. Abortion is murder being the opinion. This is unavoidable for either side in many ways, though. So perhaps this aspect should be dropped.

Originally Posted by BrianD

It isn't necessary, but it is tough. If you are pro-choice, then you get stuck trying to define when life starts, since obviously killing a 2-year old isn't ok. Where do you draw the line? At birth? At the age where the fetus is able to survive on its own? At the age where a fetus is able to survive on hospital machinery? What happens when technology makes it possible for a fetus to survive at an age that was previously deemed acceptable for abortion?

That's just it. I don't have to define it or even try. I view an individual's right to complete control over his or her own body as absolute. Even overriding any pregnancy she may be carrying. With that in mind, I am completely opposed to the government forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term if she chooses not to do so. That is forcibly requiring a woman to allow a "foreign life form" to stay in her body when she doesn't want it there.

That being said, I also recognize that "foreign life form"'s natural right to survive on its own. I don't feel that every life form has the right to leech off another life form to live. But it does deserve to be afforded every opportunity to survive on its own, including artificial intervention. That's why my wish is that every pregnancy-terminating procedure made a good faith effort to preserve the fetus/child. I am 100% opposed to partial birth abortions, as a result of my position.

Keep in mind that my position regarding the government's proper role in this debate is separate from my personal/moral viewpoint. I oppose abortion and would counsel anyone who asked me personally to carry the pregnancy to term and bear the child. I just don't want the government forcing the woman to do so.

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

Good point. Most people are very conditional regarding their views on killing. Say what you will about the Catholic Church, but you got to hand it to them for being consistent: both anti-abortion, and anti-war/anti-death penalty...

I consider the comparison of the abortion debate to the death penalty debate to be utter folly. And the reason is one that could be viewed as more in line with the pro-life movement than the pro-choice one.

Many criminals have proven that they do not belong in society. No fetus/unborn child has done so. The situations are completely different.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

Very true. It raises an interesting question though (at least for me). Does anybody truly have a right to live? If soldiers "waive their right to live" via the possibility of them getting KIA, the same could be said for policemen, firefighters etc., and the other hazardous duty professions. Ultimately, why can't that logic be extended to everyone? I can think of several dozens of ways that I can die by tomorrow. For example, if I get hit by a tree or lightning--did that tree or whatever take away my right to live? Perhaps there was not such a right in the first place...

Very good question. This almost takes us into the area of religion (which would certainly get this thread killed).

I would see military being in a bit of a different situation from the others you mentioned. The whole point of war seems to be to kill enough of the other guys to make them bend to your will. If you are willing to fight the war, you have to accept the fact that you may die in that war.

Police and other hazardous duty professionals don't go into their jobs planning to kill people. It isn't part of those "rules".

Humans believe we have the right to live either because we are smart enough to declare that right, or because our creator gave us that right...depending on your particular religious inclination.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

And therefore requires that the government intervene. Whereas the pro-choice position does not call it murder and therefore does not require that the government intervene. I believe that makes my previous statement correct.

This is an argument of symantics, and shows why the pro-choice/pro-life debate is still going on. The two sides have different philisophical definitions for the terms in use. If you can't agree on a definition of the pertinent terms, you can't settle the debate.

Granted, but this is circular logic. You are explaining the opinion by assuming that it is true. Abortion is murder being the opinion. This is unavoidable for either side in many ways, though. So perhaps this aspect should be dropped.

It is the same argument as above, and as such, doesn't need to be debated individually.

That's just it. I don't have to define it or even try. I view an individual's right to complete control over his or her own body as absolute. Even overriding any pregnancy she may be carrying. With that in mind, I am completely opposed to the government forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term if she chooses not to do so. That is forcibly requiring a woman to allow a "foreign life form" to stay in her body when she doesn't want it there.

So by following that line of logic, you believe that a person has the right to do any drugs they want (probably assuming they don't harm others while under the influence), or kill themselves if they really want? How do you feel about a woman using drugs she knows will cause physical deformity, or even death after a few years? How about once the kid is born - is that same mother allowed to keep doing drugs and not feed the baby? She apparently doesn't have to feed the baby while it is in her, does she have to feed the baby once it is out?

That being said, I also recognize that "foreign life form"'s natural right to survive on its own. I don't feel that every life form has the right to leech off another life form to live. But it does deserve to be afforded every opportunity to survive on its own, including artificial intervention. That's why my wish is that every pregnancy-terminating procedure made a good faith effort to preserve the fetus/child. I am 100% opposed to partial birth abortions, as a result of my position.

Most humans leech off of others for the first 18 years of life. What if the artificial intervention you mentioned included scheduling the abortion 1 week later so the fetus could reach viability? How about 1 month?

Keep in mind that my position regarding the government's proper role in this debate is separate from my personal/moral viewpoint. I oppose abortion and would counsel anyone who asked me personally to carry the pregnancy to term and bear the child. I just don't want the government forcing the woman to do so.

Like you, I support giving women the right to choose, but I personally would counsel the woman to choose life. I just recognize my position contains hypocrisy.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by revrew

So far, it seems everyone has missed the "conservative" viewpoint on the abortion/social program issue of apparent hypocrisy.

It does NOT have to do with "they got themselves into it, let them hang," or "let them pull themselves up by the bootstraps." That has nothing to do with "compassionate conservativism." While it's true that conservatives in general argue against a victim society and demand "greater accountability for your actions," that's not the point that's made by less support of government assistance programs.

Moral conservativism (i.e. anti-abortion) and socio-political conservativism (i.e. few government assistance programs) are easily reconciled. The reason true compassionate conservatives don't support abortion AND don't support government assistance is because they (or shall I say "we") believe that it is the responsibility of communities, individuals, charitable organizations, and faith-based communities to care for the poor, the hungry, the homeless, etc. As long as the government does it "for us," we too easily cross to the other side of the street. We compassionate conservatives want to see the faceless government get it's fat, inefficient butt out of the welfare business. We want to see individuals and charitable collections of individuals shoulder the responsibility. We believe humans, not beaurocracies, are far better at being compassionate and far better at truly helping people heal or builld better lives. In other words, stop bailing people out of their moral responsibility to help others around them. Stop taxing me to give a handout or an entitlement when I could use that time and money to actually help the person the government is merely enabling. Let the money go to charitable hospitals, crisis pregnancy centers, homeless shelters, soup kitchens, the Salvation Army--whatever! They all do a better job of helping people than the government does, and so would I if you gave me my money back.

Very well said and my viewpoint as well.

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by BrianD

So by following that line of logic, you believe that a person has the right to do any drugs they want (probably assuming they don't harm others while under the influence), or kill themselves if they really want?

Absolutely.

Originally Posted by BrianD

How do you feel about a woman using drugs she knows will cause physical deformity, or even death after a few years?

Wholly dissimilar situation. That is knowingly causing direct harm to another. My wish for abortion procedures to be required to do everything possible to save the fetus/child does not cause direct harm.

Originally Posted by BrianD

How about once the kid is born - is that same mother allowed to keep doing drugs and not feed the baby? She apparently doesn't have to feed the baby while it is in her, does she have to feed the baby once it is out?

She already is allowed to do that. It's called putting the baby up for adoption, abandoning the child at a hospital, etc. Once again, my preferred abortion procedure would pretty clearly be performed in a hospital setting. Therefore it would be afforded the best opportunity to survive possible.

Originally Posted by BrianD

Most humans leech off of others for the first 18 years of life.

I'm going to assume that was somewhat insincere. Requiring money is completely different than siphoning blood. Obviously.

Originally Posted by BrianD

What if the artificial intervention you mentioned included scheduling the abortion 1 week later so the fetus could reach viability? How about 1 month?

Current limitations of medical technology, which are everchanging, do not logically affect the moral dilemma. Just because 28 weeks wasn't viable 80 years ago, would a 28 week abortion have been less moral than a 28 week abortion now? I can see an argument for that, but I don't buy it.

Originally Posted by BrianD

Like you, I support giving women the right to choose, but I personally would counsel the woman to choose life. I just recognize my position contains hypocrisy.

There is no hypocrisy there. Only if you consider the government to be the place to arbitrate morals. I don't consider it as such. I consider it the arbiter of laws, not morals. And my requirements for authorizing the government to enforce a law are different than my personal application of morals. I think you should legally be able to do a lot of things I don't advise. Like smoking at home.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'm soooooo not in the mood to argue with anybody seriously or sincerely right now, so please just take this as a nugget for consideration, not a hypothesis for debate or anything. It's just something struck me as another of those "things that complicate the topic" situations. M'kay? Here goes:

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

I consider it the arbiter of laws, not morals.

Which is complicated by the reality that there's a significant portion of the population that doesn't believe those two are entirely/automatically mutually exclusive.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

Wholly dissimilar situation. That is knowingly causing direct harm to another. My wish for abortion procedures to be required to do everything possible to save the fetus/child does not cause direct harm.

So then the woman's right to complete control over her body is not absolute. One could argue that the abortion would also cause direct harm to another if done before the point of viability. If a woman can't put a drug in her body that could harm the child, why can she put a knife in her body to harm the child?

I'm going to assume that was somewhat insincere. Requiring money is completely different than siphoning blood. Obviously.

Yes, there was supposed to be a smile there.

Current limitations of medical technology, which are everchanging, do not logically affect the moral dilemma. Just because 28 weeks wasn't viable 80 years ago, would a 28 week abortion have been less moral than a 28 week abortion now? I can see an argument for that, but I don't buy it.

There is absolutely an argument here. If the abortion is done your way (which is fine), then one procedure will knowingly cause death while the other knowing wouldn't cause death. I'd call that a moral dilemma.

There is no hypocrisy there. Only if you consider the government to be the place to arbitrate morals. I don't consider it as such. I consider it the arbiter of laws, not morals. And my requirements for authorizing the government to enforce a law are different than my personal application of morals. I think you should legally be able to do a lot of things I don't advise. Like smoking at home.

Symantics again. Most laws are based (at least in part) on morals.

[lynchjm24]

Originally Posted by revrew

Moral conservativism (i.e. anti-abortion) and socio-political conservativism (i.e. few government assistance programs) are easily reconciled. The reason true compassionate conservatives don't support abortion AND don't support government assistance is because they (or shall I say "we") believe that it is the responsibility of communities, individuals, charitable organizations, and faith-based communities to care for the poor, the hungry, the homeless, etc. As long as the government does it "for us," we too easily cross to the other side of the street. We compassionate conservatives want to see the faceless government get it's fat, inefficient butt out of the welfare business. We want to see individuals and charitable collections of individuals shoulder the responsibility. We believe humans, not beaurocracies, are far better at being compassionate and far better at truly helping people heal or builld better lives. In other words, stop bailing people out of their moral responsibility to help others around them. Stop taxing me to give a handout or an entitlement when I could use that time and money to actually help the person the government is merely enabling. Let the money go to charitable hospitals, crisis pregnancy centers, homeless shelters, soup kitchens, the Salvation Army--whatever! They all do a better job of helping people than the government does, and so would I if you gave me my money back.

Next can you tell us about Reaganomics and how huge deficit spending is good?

Then you can also get into other things that are as true as this, like Santa and the Easter Bunny.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by lynchjm24

Next can you tell us about Reaganomics and how huge deficit spending is good?

Then you can also get into other things that are as true as this, like Santa and the Easter Bunny.

With attitudes like this, anyone still wonder why the federal govt got so large and intrusive?

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

With attitudes like this, anyone still wonder why the federal govt got so large and intrusive?

Well, our president doesn't seem to mind either the size or the intrusiveness of the federal government. Why can't the traditional fiscal conservatives and libertarians in the Republican party take a stand anymore?