From Justin...

The answer is that despite its many flaws, one thing that Islam does well is confine sex to marriage. A man may have fourt wives, but he can not sleep around.

And how do Islamic countries ensure abstinence? By not letting women leave the house and by making adultery a capital crime! So I guess that yes, if we imprisoned women and killed adulterers, we would see a lower incidence of out-of-wedlock births, but this is perhaps not the most practical of models to follow. Moreover, one could argue that Islamic countries are successful in preventing out-of-wedlock births not becuase they encourage abstinence or discourage promiscuity, but actually because they simply redefine the issues by according state-sponsorship to these practices, in the form of polygamy (i.e., by American standards, that Islamic man with four wives certainly IS “sleeping around”.)If Islamic men had to pick just ONE wife, their illegitimate birthrate would probably look a lot more similar to ours.

Somewhere in the liberal mindset out of wedlock childbirths have been a huge social problem until we invented condoms and the birth control pill, at which time we licked the problem. But of course the data show precisely the opposite: out of wedlock childbirths were largely non-issues *until* the condom and the birth control pill.

As Les showed earlier in the thread (pretty effectively, IMHO), out of wedlock births were both A) much more common before the sexual revolution than many conservatives seem to realize, and B) less common than they might have been due to different attitudes towards abortion and even abandonment. Moreover, the issue is further complicated because the massive societal stigma against illegitimate births meant that such births surely went unreported much of the time. ALSO, before women had rights and could support themselves without the patronage of a man, it seems probable that shotgun weddings were much more attractive and common than they may be today. So, in summary, it may be that illegitimate conceptions haven’t become any more prevalent since the 1960’s (I would speculate that they have, just not by as much as you’d think), but rather that there has been a change in how such problems are resolved.

Double-dipping to clarify on this sentence of my post:

I would speculate that they have, just not by as much as you’d think

I do suspect that the numbers of illegitimate conceptions may have increased, but not because modern birth control methods are ineffective. Rather, I think it’s largely due to single and unmarried parenthood becoming economically and socially viable options, for both the parents and the children, to a much greater extent than ever before. Giving birth to or being a bastard in this day and age, even a stupid, evil one, doesn’t hold you back nearly as much as it once did. And that’s a good thing.

Michael Stiber: And they are perfectly free to refrain from having abortions on that basis.

Michael Stiber: Who are you to say that your belief that a fetus has rights independent of it’s mother should supersede other’s beliefs that a fetus is a part of a woman’s body and has no special rights? Go ahead, follow your own beliefs. But allow others to follow theirs. Can you do that?

That’s a very strange sense of ethics you have.  “If you think something is reprehensible, just refrain from it yourself.  Don’t try to influence others!”

Let’s apply the “Michael Stiber Test” to another moral dilemna: Members of NAMBLA think it’s ok to have sex with 8 year old boys.  I disagree—I don’t think a child that young can meaningfully offer his consent.  Rather than making statutory rape a crime and trying to “force” my views on others, the Michael Stiber Worldview says I should let each person make up their own mind about what’s right or wrong.

Obviously people who believe a fetus has the same rights as any other human being won’t just “look the other way” on the abortion issue if someone else disagrees with them.  Abortion should be illegal for the same reason rape or theft should be illegal.  People who say “I think abortion is wrong but I wouldn’t try to impose my view on someone else” are simply cowards.

Abstinence works.

No, it doesn’t. It is a form of slavery. If people want to have sex, then they have every right to, and they also have every right to be free from the two worst STD’s (AIDS and pregnancy).

People who say “I think abortion is wrong but I wouldn’t try to impose my view on someone else� are simply cowards.

No, they aren’t. They’re called “sane human beings.”

Sadie, are you proposing that, in general, people should not be having babies?

Plus, anti-choicers are not going to “impose” any farfetched idea onto anyone (not that they can) because they seem to be forgetting one fundamental fact: NOT EVERYONE AGREES WITH THEM THAT A FETUS IS A HUMAN BEING!!!

I don’t think a fetus is a person; therefore, I see absolutely nothing wrong with me or any other woman going to get an abortion. Whether or not some rabid fundie likes the idea is utterly immaterial to me or any other woman. Get over it.

Sadie, are you proposing that, in general, people should not be having babies?

I know I sure as hell am not.

And how do Islamic countries ensure abstinence? By not letting women leave the house and by making adultery a capital crime! So I guess that yes, if we imprisoned women and killed adulterers, we would see a lower incidence of out-of-wedlock births, but this is perhaps not the most practical of models to follow.

Islamic countries are only one example of many that have used abstinence successfully. Asian countries have been successful with abstinence, as has the US and Europe up until the 1960s. The fact remains: abstinence is why northern Africa does not have an HIV epidemic, and promiscuity is why southern africa does.

As Les showed earlier in the thread (pretty effectively, IMHO), out of wedlock births were both A) much more common before the sexual revolution than many conservatives seem to realize, and B) less common than they might have been due to different attitudes towards abortion and even abandonment.

Two points:

1. I provided the graph above - out of wedlock childbirths were only 1% of births in the white community in the early 20th century. This debate is a timeless one. The central lesson of history is that people do not learn from history. Human society have rejected abstinence countless times and they have paid the price every time, so they eventually come crawling back. Until the next time they reject it.

For myself, I’d rather side with the people fighting the root cause of poverty than with the people causing it.

2. Those “different attitudes” are the reason why abstinence works. We need to start stigmatizing promiscuity the same way we stigmatize racism. That may not be fun for responsible adults, but married fathers will do more to cure poverty than a government check ever can.

before women had rights and could support themselves without the patronage of a man, it seems probable that shotgun weddings were much more attractive and common than they may be today.

The shotgun wedding argument is a legitimate point, but as the census data below demonstrates, you are still looking at an increase from 18% of all births to about 52% of all births.

http://www.census.gov/prod/99pubs/p23-197.pdf

The liberal rejection of shotgun weddings is telling. People should be allowed to sleep around, and even if they have kids the father should not have any obligation to them. Or if they do have an obligation, it does not extend beyond a monthly child support check.

NOT EVERYONE AGREES WITH THEM THAT A FETUS IS A HUMAN BEING!!!

That is biological fact. Personhood is a philosophical and ethical distinction, not a biological one. I addressed this in an earlier post in the thread.

Personhood is a philosophical and ethical distinction, not a biological one. I addressed this in an earlier post in the thread.

Wrong again! “Personhood” does not begin until one is able to live independently on its own (i.e. outside the womb). At least that’s what I say, and I’m the only one with control over my body.

And so you supposedly addressed this “point” earlier. As if you expect anyone to take your posts seriously? Get outta town, man!

Anyway, in response to some “citizen’s” question, my post got cut short up there for some reason. Anyway, I’m not trying to say that, but it may just be my own personal biases sneaking in (I hate babies and I hate pregnancy, and I know I’m personally never having a thing to do with either).

[quote[Wrong again! “Personhood� does not begin until one is able to live independently on its own (i.e. outside the womb). At least that’s what I say, and I’m the only one with control over my body.

Personhood can be whatever you want it to be.

Whether or not the embryo is of the human species is not a matter of opinion. Employing the personhood argument necessarily means separating humans into those who do and do not get rights.

Wrong again! “Personhood� does not begin until one is able to live independently on its own (i.e. outside the womb). At least that’s what I say, and I’m the only one with control over my body.

Personhood can be whatever you want it to be.

But whether or not the embryo is of the human species is not a matter of opinion. Employing the personhood argument necessarily means separating humans into those who do and do not get rights.

That’s a very strange sense of ethics you have.  “If you think something is reprehensible, just refrain from it yourself.  Don’t try to influence others!â€?

It’s called “live and let live,” and it’s the only moral code that I subscribe to. And I consider myself a far more moral person than you because of it.

But whether or not the embryo is of the human species is not a matter of opinion.

Of course it’s human (as a matter of species, anyway). I don’t think anyone’s arguing that it’s vulpine or Martian. What is being argued is whether or not it is privy to the same rights as a real woman, and I personally to not believe it is. To each their own.

It’s called “live and let live,� and it’s the only moral code that I subscribe to.

Your rights end where another’s begin. Since your definition of personhood excludes some human beings, I would not hold up your moral code as being exemplary.

Your rights end where another’s begin. Since your definition of personhood excludes some human beings,

Nope, because once again you fail to realize (or accept) that I do not consider a fetus to be a “human being.” It may have the potential for being a human being, but in its state as a fetus, it is not a person (though it may be of the human species), and therefore it has no rights as one. That’s my personal conviction.

I would not hold up your moral code as being exemplary.

That’s okay, ‘cuz I don’t think your “morals” of proselytizing and being intolerant of people who disagree (sensibly, in my opinion) with you and your kind is all that moral at all. Again, to each their own.

Nope, because once again you fail to realize (or accept) that I do not consider a fetus to be a “human being.� It may have the potential for being a human being, but in its state as a fetus, it is not a person (though it may be of the human species), and therefore it has no rights as one. That’s my personal conviction.

You do not get to argue with basic biological fact. The fetus may not have achieved “personhood” by your definition, but it is a member of the human species from conception.

I think it is morally wrong to separate human beings into those that do get rights and those that can be killed.

I take it that you are against the death penalty, Justin.

CITIZENX WROTE: If circumcism really does have this drastic effect on the spread of HIV in the male population, it seems that mass clippings could have the most immediate and sweeping effect of any single policy change.

With due respect, that is not a statistically significant study, given what we know about how AIDS is spread. It just doesn’t say anything to me. More subjects and a much more significant result would be needed to back up a statement like that, CitizenX.

JUSTIN WROTE: Species is determined by the DNA of living things. Living things with dog DNA are dogs. Living things with cat DNA are cats. Living things with human DNA are humans.

Anyone else out there disagree? Justin, if I showed you an unformed blob of cells under a microscope, would you be able to tell me, in all honesty, that that blob right there...is a dog? It may well have dog DNA in it...but that does not make it a dog. How about a skin and saliva scraping from my cheek, thriving with all manner of living human cells? Is that blob on the end of a swab a human that is being unceremoniously “killed” because it is being thrown into the trash bin, rather than given the chance to multiply? Given current cloning and invitro techniques, your standard would make me a multiple murderer for every time I tossed off. Spermatazoa(i)? are living things which carry living human DNA. Do I need to be called in to court to account for the great mass murder spree of 1998 ("But I didn’t have a girlfriend, your honour...what else was I supposed to do?") How about cancer cells, or organ transplants that fail?

I’m not trying to dodge the question of aborting something that undeniably has the potential to later become a fully functional, independent, learning “person” without interference from an abortionist...although I must admit I am tired of talking about abortion...because as far as I’m concerned that debate (as far as public policy on legal access is concerned) should have ended a long time ago...like decades ago.

I’ll quote from an earlier post I made:

RGJP wrote: ...women (usually young, statistically) who want abortions will go get sometimes unsafe abortions anyway. These are not good things to be happening to citizens. No one wants a growth in black market abortion.

Ban it, and like prohibition of alcohol, you shall see the rampant growth of an abortion black market. Americans have more than 1-million abortions every year. Women go out of their way to have a painful and invasive procedure performed. Think all of them are going to stop just because Rick Santorum says so? Besides, like it or not and IMO, *part* of the reason many women have abortions (besides those who have legitimate health issues which preclude them from carrying the child to term) is to conform to a religious model of “the family”. Picture the young woman who knows that if her father knows she is pregnant, his love will be withheld from her for making a sexual mistake (in his eyes). Better to abort the “mistake” and hide it so that the love and financial support of the father continues? It is a mistake to assume that a majority of women getting abortions are non-Christians. I believe the Wikipedia source I cited earlier has stats showing that the majority (60%+) of American women getting abortions identify as Christian believers. I am curious to see how you reconcile this with your world view Justin. Is this due to the creeping influence of secular doctors and/or moral relativism on the Christian experience in America?

Justin, you started throwing the term liberal around and attaching assumptions to it about how liberals feel about issues like this. I would suggest that you should, if possible, go out of your way to listen to a woman who has had an abortion talk about why she did it and then come back and see if it makes sense to pidgeon-hole this issue as one that belongs to the left or right. Once again - it’s a health and safety issue in the first and a matter of freedom over one’s own person in the second. If one takes away the need to please/displease an omniscient God - and the religious laws associated with such belief - with his or her individual acts, then the act of removing a blob of human cells which cannot survive outside of the mother independently ceases to carry nearly as much meaning from an ethical perspective IMO.

Interesting to note that those coming to this blog to debate abortion in the negative have, thusfar been only men (Daryl and Justin).

I propose that the next comments on abortion come from a woman or no one at all. Do women have any less worthy a moral compass than men, with respect to issues of death and life? Well, then, let them decide and let’s leave myself, Daryl and Justin out of it.

This is an interesting insight into the liberal mind. There are two consistent philosophies:

1. Protect all human life. Oppose both the death penalty and abortion. This is the Catholic position.
2. Protect innocent human life. Oppose abortion but not the death penalty. This is the standard Protestant position.

The liberals have got it all twisted: they are opposed to killing the guilty but support killing innocent humans.

From a natural rights perspective, there is nothing morally wrong with capital punishment as long as it fits the crime. For example, we deny people of the right to liberty for some crimes by putting them in prison. The same logic applies to capital crimes.

However, although I speak the language of natural rights, I get my ethics from the Bible. My best reading of the Bible (and I am not a Biblical scholar) is that Jesus opposes the death penalty. So I oppose the death penalty.

I find it highly amusing that the same people who bash creationists also reject settled biologal fact!

How about a skin and saliva scraping from my cheek, thriving with all manner of living human cells?

Allow me to quote an earlier post since you did not read it:

Here is a fairly typical definition of life for the skeptical: a living thing is anything that has an internal blueprint of itself (DNA), and the intrinsic capacity to build itself based upon that blueprint. Abortion supporters tend to overlook the “intrinsic building capacity� aspect of the definition of life. For example, they often bring up toenail clippings and discarded skin or hair cells because they have DNA and yet are non-persons. But toenail clippings also lack the intrinsic building capacity.

Your swab of skin cells does not work. Most of the genes are switched off through differentiation. Now, if you got a stem cell then with the proper external manipulation you could start the cloning process. If you suceeded, then yes, you would have life.

Interesting to note that those coming to this blog to debate abortion in the negative have, thusfar been only men (Daryl and Justin).

I was converted by my wife. You should want only men making the decisions about abortion - men are slightly more likely to be pro-choice than women. They want sex without committment.

You do not get to argue with basic biological fact. The fetus may not have achieved “personhood� by your definition, but it is a member of the human species from conception.

Actually, I can argue with whatever I want to. But even so, I’m not arguing with “basic biological fact.” You’re confusing terms, Justin. Just because something may be of the human species does not make it a person with rights. There are degrees--both a woman and a fetus are human, but only the woman is a person with full rights. A fetus has not reached that state yet.

Also, you’re entitled to your opinion, and so am I. I don’t care if you find something morally wrong, because personally I find a lot about your philosophy morally wrong. You’re free to care or not to care what I think. I don’t care what you think, and since neither of us is ever going to convince one another, I’m done arguing with you. You continue to (deliberately, I suspect) confuse terms, and I’m tired of clearing them up for you.

But even so, I’m not arguing with “basic biological fact.� You’re confusing terms, Justin. Just because something may be of the human species does not make it a person with rights

Let me repeat what I have said before: I think it is morally wrong to separate human beings into those that do get rights and those that can be killed.

Sexy Sadie: It’s called “live and let live,� and it’s the only moral code that I subscribe to. And I consider myself a far more moral person than you because of it.

I see that Sadie is a follower of the “Michael Stiber School of Complete Moral Relativism”.  Wherein, everyone is free to do whatever they want, so long as they personally think there’s nothing wrong with it.

The World according to Sadie and Michael:

“I think abortion is wrong, because a fetus is a human being.  However, I would never try to impose my views on another person.  If they think it’s ok to kill another human, who am I to interfere??”

“I think theft is wrong, but the person who stole my television said that property rights are an illusion.  Far be it from me to force my worldview on them!  Everyone should be free to steal anything they want—if you think theft is wrong, just don’t steal anything yourself.  Don’t try to impose your views on others.”

“I think rape is wrong.  However, I understand that some Muslim men think a woman wearing a short dress is asking for it.  I would never try to impose my Westernized, No Means No worldview on them!”

The whole idea that someone who considers a fetus to be a person should not so much as raise a finger to protect that person from being murdered is outrageous.  Witness the the end-game of moral relativism: defending murder, rape, and theft in the name of “tolerance”.

I propose that the next comments on abortion come from a woman or no one at all.

Great! I’m a woman, and I support legalized abortion with a passion. It’s my body, my right. End of story.