Topic: Romney: Pro-Choice

[charlesoakwood]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=P_w9pquznG4#!


with regards to my views with regards to protecting a woman's right to choose.  I've been very clear on that.  I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose.  ... I'm devoted and dedicated to honoring my word in that regard.

... I will not change any provisions of Massachusettses pro choice laws.

And with regards to this issue of age of consent .  It is currently 18 yrs old if one wants to have an abortion younger than that one must have the permission of one parent and if a parent doesn't go along one can go to a judge or a justice to get that permission.  And so far in MA history when a young woman has gone to a judge not one single time has there been a denial of that permission. ...
...

[John Florida]

He flip flopped on that last go around separating his personal belief with what the state wanted.Hog wash!

[AlanS]

Romney is more politician than Mormon.

[QuantumG]

ooh.. do we want to have a moral argument about abortion?

Let's start with some points of (hopeful) agreement:

1. Women have the same right to liberty and freedom as men.
2. Contracting for a medical procedure is a private transaction that, in general, the government should not be involved in.
3. In order to make a moral argument at all, you have to accept that a life, before birth, has rights which should be protected by the state.

Almost all the debate over abortion, in western society, is centered around the third point. Sometimes there's some debate over the second point, but usually that's just in order to open the door for argument over the third point.

I'm not going to argue any of these points. Although I have good arguments for them, I think arguing these points is how to avoid having a moral argument about abortion. So let's just accept for the sake of argument that a medical procedure to abort a fetus is the taking of a human life and, like the taking of other lives, should be something the state should be concerned with.. and is interesting because in general the government shouldn't be involved in private contracts for medical procedures.

So when should the state take the side of a killer? The knee-jerk answer of "Never!" is clearly wrong. The most obvious example is self defense. I hope there's few who would argue that defending your person against external attack is much different to defending your person from internal attack. So let's consider the situation where a woman's person is clearly threatened by being with child. Personal opinion on the appropriate level of force that one can use to defend one's own person differs. My personal opinion is that no level of retaliation to those who initiate force can be considered excessive.. but I'm probably at the extreme end of the spectrum. Most others would say that if you can remove the threat to your person without killing then you should choose that option, and in the case of removing a fetus, sometimes that is a viable option, but often not.

Fundamentally, the moral question of abortion can be stated more generally: if you are responsible for the life of another, are you required to maintain that obligation? I hate to argue by analogy but I think this is one of the rare times where an analogy could help us remove emotion from our reasoning. Consider the man Bob hanging off a cliff. There's another man Aaron who has a firm grasp on his hand. If he lets go, the hapless hanger will fall to his death. Aaron figures he can hold on to Bob for quite some time and that he could eventually lift him. However, by holding on Aaron is causing himself quite a lot of physical pain.. and we can't ignore the significant possibility that Aaron will lose his hold on the cliff and fall to his death with Bob. Should Aaron continue to risk his life and cause himself significant physical discomfort to save Bob?

If you're a logical person, I think your answer to this question is predictive of your interest or attitude toward abortion.

[Pandora]

The stage of life in the womb has been getting shorter and shorter in terms of when the baby can be saved if the mother is at risk.  That said, if the mother's life is genuinely AT RISK -- not in terms of "mental health" -- then that is when the issue becomes one between the mother, the father and the doctor, as far as I'm concerned.

Otherwise, also as far as I'm concerned, the baby is an innocent human life and if the mother won't value and protect it, then the law must.

With all due respect, I do not like your analogy; it involves adults and how they came to be where they are -- there is no doubt of how and why an unborn human is in utero.

[John Florida]

ooh.. do we want to have a moral argument about abortion?

Let's start with some points of (hopeful) agreement:

1. Women have the same right to liberty and freedom as men.
2. Contracting for a medical procedure is a private transaction that, in general, the government should not be involved in.
3. In order to make a moral argument at all, you have to accept that a life, before birth, has rights which should be protected by the state.

Almost all the debate over abortion, in western society, is centered around the third point. Sometimes there's some debate over the second point, but usually that's just in order to open the door for argument over the third point.

I'm not going to argue any of these points. Although I have good arguments for them, I think arguing these points is how to avoid having a moral argument about abortion. So let's just accept for the sake of argument that a medical procedure to abort a fetus is the taking of a human life and, like the taking of other lives, should be something the state should be concerned with.. and is interesting because in general the government shouldn't be involved in private contracts for medical procedures.

So when should the state take the side of a killer? The knee-jerk answer of "Never!" is clearly wrong. The most obvious example is self defense. I hope there's few who would argue that defending your person against external attack is much different to defending your person from internal attack. So let's consider the situation where a woman's person is clearly threatened by being with child. Personal opinion on the appropriate level of force that one can use to defend one's own person differs. My personal opinion is that no level of retaliation to those who initiate force can be considered excessive.. but I'm probably at the extreme end of the spectrum. Most others would say that if you can remove the threat to your person without killing then you should choose that option, and in the case of removing a fetus, sometimes that is a viable option, but often not.

Fundamentally, the moral question of abortion can be stated more generally: if you are responsible for the life of another, are you required to maintain that obligation? I hate to argue by analogy but I think this is one of the rare times where an analogy could help us remove emotion from our reasoning. Consider the man Bob hanging off a cliff. There's another man Aaron who has a firm grasp on his hand. If he lets go, the hapless hanger will fall to his death. Aaron figures he can hold on to Bob for quite some time and that he could eventually lift him. However, by holding on Aaron is causing himself quite a lot of physical pain.. and we can't ignore the significant possibility that Aaron will lose his hold on the cliff and fall to his death with Bob. Should Aaron continue to risk his life and cause himself significant physical discomfort to save Bob?

If you're a logical person, I think your answer to this question is predictive of your interest or attitude toward abortion.

   The characters in you story decided to go rock climbing  on their own what happens to them or doesn't happen to them is their choice. What choice does the star of an abortion have??

[Predator Don]

Interesting analogy, but my issue with the whole premise is abortion to save a mothers life was legal before there was an abortion law. The law gave females the convenience factor to literally take a life....even if her life was not in danger. I see no moral dilemma if the choice was made because the mothers life was literally at stake...it may not be my choice, but I'd have no issue. I do find it morally objectional when the choice is made for convenience, as it is today. Of course, I believe a fetus is a person and deserves the same protection as you or I. We cannot stick a needle in the brain of someone outside the womb.It would be murder. Premeditated.

Plus, I can't recall a single story where an abortion was needed to save the mothers life. There may be one, but I'm not aware of the story.

[John Florida]

Interesting analogy, but my issue with the whole premise is abortion to save a mothers life was legal before there was an abortion law. The law gave females the convenience factor to literally take a life....even if her life was not in danger. I see no moral dilemma if the choice was made because the mothers life was literally at stake...it may not be my choice, but I'd have no issue. I do find it morally objectional when the choice is made for convenience, as it is today. Of course, I believe a fetus is a person and deserves the same protection as you or I. We cannot stick a needle in the brain of someone outside the womb.It would be murder. Premeditated.

Plus, I can't recall a single story where an abortion was needed to save the mothers life. There may be one, but I'm not aware of the story.

 Now if the mothers life was on the line you could call it "choice"both have something to lose.

[QuantumG]

Well yes. Although every single pregnancy is a threat to the mother's life, I'm happy to ignore that whole side-issue.

When you set aside the pure moral question, you get a heck of a lot more arguments. It becomes about the purpose of the state. If you believe the legitimate function of the state is to protect individual rights, then your escape hatch becomes: which individuals? All individuals? Does that include animals? No? Ok then, just humans? How do you define that?

My answer to that is: moral individuals. That's who's rights the state should be protecting. Is a fetus a moral individual? Of course not, but neither is a person in a vegetative state.. are you ok with the State not protecting your rights if you fall into such a state? Probably not.. but you clearly have to define your terms here if you don't want to fall down the rabbit hole and become a vegan. Or slightly less absurd, someone who cares about "disturbing the dead".

But as I said, I think that's just side-stepping the need to have a real investigation of the moral argument. That's why I go with adults in the analogy, because at least then there's no question that you're dealing with two moral individuals who's rights the state should be protecting. You could have a nutrition weakened man holding onto a hanging baby if you prefer.. but I don't think it adds anything - except unnecessary emotional drama.

Eventually, you will have to answer the question: should the state require you to continue providing your arm to stop the other from falling? Ultimately, it is your decision whether your discomfort, and the risk to and dedication of your own life is worth the life of the other which cannot live without you. Using the word "convenience" as some sort of dirty word, suggests that personal liberty is something to be sacrificed for more important things. I have to reject that.

[charlesoakwood]

And this is the man,

"And with regards to this issue of age of consent .  It is currently 18 yrs old if one wants to have an abortion younger than that one must have the permission of one parent and if a parent doesn't go along one can go to a judge or a justice to get that permission.  And so far in MA history when a young woman has gone to a judge not one single time has there been a denial of that permission.",

who wants to represent Conservatives, Republicans, Christians and Americans.  Good God, he's saying it's OK for a 16 or 14yr old to get an abortion, you know, if you can't get one of your parents to sign for it just go down to the judge and get a permit.  They haven't declined a permit yet.

[Predator Don]

Well yes. Although every single pregnancy is a threat to the mother's life, I'm happy to ignore that whole side-issue.

When you set aside the pure moral question, you get a heck of a lot more arguments. It becomes about the purpose of the state. If you believe the legitimate function of the state is to protect individual rights, then your escape hatch becomes: which individuals? All individuals? Does that include animals? No? Ok then, just humans? How do you define that?

My answer to that is: moral individuals. That's who's rights the state should be protecting. Is a fetus a moral individual? Of course not, but neither is a person in a vegetative state.. are you ok with the State not protecting your rights if you fall into such a state? Probably not.. but you clearly have to define your terms here if you don't want to fall down the rabbit hole and become a vegan. Or slightly less absurd, someone who cares about "disturbing the dead".

But as I said, I think that's just side-stepping the need to have a real investigation of the moral argument. That's why I go with adults in the analogy, because at least then there's no question that you're dealing with two moral individuals who's rights the state should be protecting. You could have a nutrition weakened man holding onto a hanging baby if you prefer.. but I don't think it adds anything - except unnecessary emotional drama.

Eventually, you will have to answer the question: should the state require you to continue providing your arm to stop the other from falling? Ultimately, it is your decision whether your discomfort, and the risk to and dedication of your own life is worth the life of the other which cannot live without you. Using the word "convenience" as some sort of dirty word, suggests that personal liberty is something to be sacrificed for more important things. I have to reject that.

And so is every germ, hell, lets be real broad and declare every decision we make threatens a (any) live.
The question, imo, has no merit because I believe a fetus should have rights given to every individual. Now, if you are implying a fetus has none, then make your personal liberty case.
But it's not about personal liberty...it's about convenience....if it was not, there would never be a double homocide trial when pregnancy is involved in death.

But for giggles, I'll answer your question: "The state" should provide protection for all individuals....But infortunately, the law of the land allows a pregnancy to be terminated by killing the fetus.....but not in the third trimester. ( hows that for irony and consistancy)

[Predator Don]

And this is the man,

"And with regards to this issue of age of consent .  It is currently 18 yrs old if one wants to have an abortion younger than that one must have the permission of one parent and if a parent doesn't go along one can go to a judge or a justice to get that permission.  And so far in MA history when a young woman has gone to a judge not one single time has there been a denial of that permission.",

who wants to represent Conservatives, Republicans, Christians and Americans.  Good God, he's saying it's OK for a 16 or 14yr old to get an abortion, you know, if you can't get one of your parents to sign for it just go down to the judge and get a permit.  They haven't declined a permit yet.

As far as i'm concerned, he compromised his principles to cater to the demographic of the state of Mass. Wonder what other principles he may compromise as President.

( Giving him the benefit of the doubt he has any principles)

[QuantumG]

The question, imo, has no merit because I believe a fetus should have rights given to every individual. Now, if you are implying a fetus has none, then make your personal liberty case.

Not at all. As I said, that's just avoiding the argument. I specifically changed the situation so there would be no doubt that the dependent person has all the same rights, and I then made the case for personal liberty.

Perhaps you just don't care for people hanging off cliffs.  Ok then, pick another situation where the life of another is dependent upon your decisions. A random example: should you have the right to fire an employee who has no hope of acquiring alternate employment? What if it's winter? What if there's no social welfare and no charity available.. you know you are condemning the man to death. He is dependent upon you.. do you have the right to refuse to keep providing for his life? Or should the state force you to keep providing him with bread?

[Pandora]

Well yes. Although every single pregnancy is a threat to the mother's life, I'm happy to ignore that whole side-issue.

Well no.  Every pregnancy is not a threat to the mother's life.  Pregnancy is not an illness nor a disability until it becomes one and that is certainly not an "every".

When you set aside the pure moral question, you get a heck of a lot more arguments. It becomes about the purpose of the state. If you believe the legitimate function of the state is to protect individual rights, then your escape hatch becomes: which individuals? All individuals? Does that include animals? No? Ok then, just humans? How do you define that?

My answer to that is: moral individuals. That's who's rights the state should be protecting. Is a fetus a moral individual? Of course not, but neither is a person in a vegetative state.. are you ok with the State not protecting your rights if you fall into such a state? Probably not.. but you clearly have to define your terms here if you don't want to fall down the rabbit hole and become a vegan. Or slightly less absurd, someone who cares about "disturbing the dead".

An "individual" is a human life who has not taken another innocent life and these are whom the state protects.  The state is also mandated to see that even those who have infringed on another's rights and/or taken his life, are provided due process and assumption of innocence before we put their ass to death.  Clear enough for you?

But as I said, I think that's just side-stepping the need to have a real investigation of the moral argument. That's why I go with adults in the analogy, because at least then there's no question that you're dealing with two moral individuals who's rights the state should be protecting. You could have a nutrition weakened man holding onto a hanging baby if you prefer.. but I don't think it adds anything - except unnecessary emotional drama.

Eventually, you will have to answer the question: should the state require you to continue providing your arm to stop the other from falling? Ultimately, it is your decision whether your discomfort, and the risk to and dedication of your own life is worth the life of the other which cannot live without you. Using the word "convenience" as some sort of dirty word, suggests that personal liberty is something to be sacrificed for more important things. I have to reject that.

Arms are not wombs and as they aren't, there's no question as to how the womb-inhabitant got there so the obligation is clear in the latter case.  Your analogy is poor.

[Predator Don]

The question, imo, has no merit because I believe a fetus should have rights given to every individual. Now, if you are implying a fetus has none, then make your personal liberty case.

Not at all. As I said, that's just avoiding the argument. I specifically changed the situation so there would be no doubt that the dependent person has all the same rights, and I then made the case for personal liberty.

Perhaps you just don't care for people hanging off cliffs.  Ok then, pick another situation where the life of another is dependent upon your decisions. A random example: should you have the right to fire an employee who has no hope of acquiring alternate employment? What if it's winter? What if there's no social welfare and no charity available.. you know you are condemning the man to death. He is dependent upon you.. do you have the right to refuse to keep providing for his life? Or should the state force you to keep providing him with bread?

No, I do not care for abortion based on convenience.

Plus, all of your situations never takes into consideration personal responsibility. Why was the person falling off the cliff so careless? Why did the person getting fired not provide and plan in advance? Why did the woman not plan to prevent her pregnancy if she knows she doesn't want kids?


You act as if all our victims.......Do not they have any responsibility? Should they show some responsibility? Why should the responsibility always fall on the fetus?
The employer? The poor guy who was not careless and fall.....
They are not victims.

[John Florida]

    

[QuantumG]

No, I do not care for abortion based on convenience.

I won't be convinced by your opinion.. can you make an argument?

Plus, all of your situations never takes into consideration personal responsibility. Why was the person falling off the cliff so careless? Why did the person getting fired not provide and plan in advance? Why did the woman not plan to prevent her pregnancy if she knows she doesn't want kids?

I notice that you switched from asking why the dependent person is irresponsible to asking why the provider is irresponsible.

While we can certainly say "shoulda, coulda, woulda" all day long, the situation as presented is the moral dilemma and by discussing the ways that the situation could be avoided is just another way of refusing to face the actual situation.

You act as if all our victims.......Do not they have any responsibility? Should they show some responsibility? Why should the responsibility always fall on the fetus?
The employer? The poor guy who was not careless and fall.....
They are not victims.

This wasn't really written well but I think what you're trying to say is that the dependent fetus is different to the other dependent people as it is not responsible. Yes?  All the others did something - fell, became useless - and while it might not have been intentional, it was something they could have foreseen and taken steps to avoid. Whereas the fetus did not make a choice, or fail to make a choice, that made it dependent on the mother.

Here, I think the argument is being made that the fetus is not morally responsible. This is a fine argument and certainly could be argued to my satisfaction. You haven't done that but I'm quite happy to grant you that position if you like. Why? Because tigers are not responsible for their actions either. Neither are leaches or other parasites. In short, I really don't think this is the argument you want to make.

[ttomm46]

For me it is real simple...A baby is the most vulnerable human we have and no strawman argument can change that...He or she is a human being and analogies be damned.

[QuantumG]

For me it is real simple...A baby is the most vulnerable human we have and no strawman argument can change that...He or she is a human being and analogies be damned.

What's being vulnerable got to do with it?

Are you an advocate of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" or something?

[IronDioPriest]

A fetus is a unique stage of human life, incomparable to any other stage. For that reason Quantum, with all due respect, I consider your analogies to be utterly meaningless. As interesting as they may be for you to contemplate, I dismiss them out of hand.

Every human being who has ever lived has been a fetus. There are no exceptions. If we assume that the basic definition of personhood is self-evident (to assume otherwise requires superfluous argument), to be a person requires having been a fetus. If you kill the fetus, you kill the person. If you kill the person, you kill what has grown from the fetus. Just as there is no exception to the rule that says every person first must be a fetus, there is no exception to the rule that says every fetus is a nascent person. The two are inseparable.  The state of being a fetus is intrinsic to humanity. No exceptions.

The pro-life argument is not an argument solely about the role of government - or as I see it, the role of a moral and just society compelling its government to act. It is a moral argument at its very core.

How does a society demonstrate the value it places on human life? How does a humane society treat its most vulnerable members? What entities within a society will give voice to the voiceless? What defines murder? Those are moral questions with relevant moral answers.

To argue for life based on the constitution and its guarantees is all well and good, but I consider the questions and answers invoked and evoked along those lines to be supporting arguments, not the thesis. The crux of the matter is a moral question. Does society sanction the killing of children at the behest of anothers whim, or does it not? It is no more complicated than that.