Regarding Abortion/Pro-Life/Pro-Choice:
I have one demand for the pro-choicers: I want, legally instituted, fully available, :i:MALE:/i: abortions. Yes, if :b:Choice:/b: is the goal, I want a fully-implemented legal proceeding for the severance of of paternal responsibility, affinity, and connection that is legally available during the same period of time a female is able to procure a medical abortion. This isn’t a “save the deadbeat dad” provision, this is a balancing of the scales: if the woman can medically abort the entire pregnancy, why is there no provision for a man to sever the paternal ties? After all, if the man wants to have the baby, and the woman does not, the man has no standing to force the pregnancy to term. Reverse the roles, and why can the woman choose to have the baby, but no choice is given to the man whether he wishes to be involved or not (and, should the baby be born, :i:then:/i: you have the “deadbeat dad” situation should he not pony up cash for the next 19 years.
Once this question is answered – once serious legislation to implement this is placed before he respective legislatures, then – and only then – will I believe that the abortion matter is about choice and not :i::b:control:/b::/i:.

As for the other parts of control – if abortion is to be legal (in both medical/female and legal/male varieties) no third parties can be forced to take part. After all, this is about CHOICE, right?

Now, on to the other major area: marriage.
You can be married without clergy present. There is a CIVIL marriage and there is a RELIGIOUS marriage. The State recognizes only the Civil variety. But, you might ask, I had only one marriage, in a church, and so on and so forth. Perhaps – but you did fill out a marriage certificate at the courthouse, correct? :i:That:/i: document is what empowered the clergy to perform the civil ceremony at the same time as they performed the religious one.
The same deal applies here – if homosexuals wish to get married, fine. The marriage they are getting is the civil construct (with the civil benefits and penalties), not the religious one. I do not want the state regulating my religion or anyone else’s; nor do I want the state telling me what can and cannot be done religiously (subject to certain safety concerns – i.e. poisonous snakes, etc). So, fine, allow the Civil package, but the religious institutions can then take or leave it as they wish, by their internal laws.
A commentator mentioned “putting asunder” per religious doctrine. If that is what that particular individual follows, fine, no problems on my end. Just don’t make other people follow the same doctrines when they are not similarly religiously inclined. After all, a Catholic can procure a civil divorce – the religion of the person filing the Complaint for Divorce is not contingent on their religious affiliation. That they may face repercussions with their church (or, with their own beliefs and faith) does not enter the picture: the legal availability is there, regardless of the religious availability or process.

It is about choice – and control. Getting someone else’s control off of you is not license to then attempt to control them in turn.

Now, I’m all for doing what we can to reduce the need for abortions, but I’d rather we educate them away than legislate them away. I’d also prefer that girls and women have more options open to them. In that vein, I’m gonna run this up the flagpole.

Did you know, in most, if not all states, it is legal for a woman to have an abortion and never tell the father that she was pregnant, but if a woman gives birth and wants to give the child up for adoption, she has to either have the consent of the father, or show evidence that she has made a good faith effort to find and inform the father.

Now I’m sure some of you are thinking, as fathers/potential fathers, this is a good thing, right? I mean, you want to know if you have any kids out there, and you want to be an active, involved part of their life. The problem is, you are also likely the kind of guy who would use a condom, and who would offer to marry the girl should the birth control fail, or who would at the very least want to be more involved than a guy who writes a check every month (because that fucking judge made him) and only sees his kid when it doesn’t interfere with his social life.

In short, you are not as common as you think.

A disturbingly large number of men in our country are utter failures as men, but they are unwilling to let some bimbo they nailed at a club one night give their kid away to a stranger. The woman, however, is left raising a child with little more than a monthly check that may or may not be enough (and he is going to fight that check every month, or if he can make money off the books, he’ll get the amount reduced), maybe some support from her family, maybe some support from his, and probably not much else except her wits.

Now maybe Thirdpower up there thinks she should have been more careful and kept her legs closed if she didn’t want to get pregnant, but that kind of attitude just excuses the man. The REALITY of our society is we REQUIRE that women, legally and socially, care for children while we only legally require men to contribute financially to the upbringing (there is some social pressure to be involved, but it is nothing compared to the social pressure a woman feels for abandoning her children).

So, when those who oppose abortion can tell me how to compel men to accept more than a meager financial obligation to child rearing, or are willing to accept that a woman you are not married to has the right to surrender a child for adoption without your consent, then maybe you’ll have a leg to stand on regarding telling a woman she has to carry a child to term.

“as things stand, the government only pays for abortions for medicaid/medicare recipients if the health of the mother is in danger or if the pregnancy is caused by rape or incest.”

Which is fine. However, Kerry in 2004 and Obama in 2008 support expanding that to cover elective abortions where the mother’s health is not in danger.

“So a victim of incest should have to get their parents permission to have an abortion?”

If incest is proven that would be fine. But simply waving your hand and saying “it could be incest” is insufficient. If the girl is being raped by her parents, she needs to go to court to get out of that situation.

Liberals like to pat themselves on the back for this one – they’re saving a child from having to have an abortion from incestuous rape. Don’t congratulate yourself too quickly.

The liberal view is that it’s OK to abort the baby and send the girl right back to being raped by a relative. That is not compassionate – it’s cruel and indifferent. It treats the baby as the problem instead of seeing rape as the problem and the pregnancy as the symptom.

On school choice, the government already does pay for K-12 education with taxpayer dollars. All that voucher supporters want is the ability to pick the schools their kids go to without having to move to a different school district. The biggest beneficiaries of vouchers would be black families stuck in lousy school districts.

In the end ALL life is “tissue” so why have any laws on murder at all?

cows are “tissue” too. vegetarian much?

(all life is “tissue”, but not all life matters. laws against murder are not laws against killing, not even of humans.)

as things stand, the government only pays for abortions for medicaid/medicare recipients if the health of the mother is in danger or if the pregnancy is caused by rape or incest. I don’t think this is a horrible use of taxpayer dollars.

Taking away parental notification for this one medical procedure

So a victim of incest should have to get their parents permission to have an abortion?

School choice is another area where liberals are very much against personal freedom and instead in favor of freedom only for those rich enough to afford private schools without vouchers.

By this logic, government should have to pay:
-your toll on toll roads (you should have the choice of roads and many of them are free and only the rich can afford to pay the toll.)
-your campaign costs when you run for office (again, why should only the rich be able to make large donations to political campaigns)
-your vacation to the French Riviera (again, why should only the rich be able to afford vacations out of the country when most of us can only afford to vacation locally)

In the end ALL life is “tissue” so why have any laws on murder at all? Maybe a mother can eliminate that “tissue” she gave birth to at any age. Those that choose abortion, how many pay themselves?

As for people being forced, how about E-harmony and the recent force of NJ courts to mandate they provide a gay matching site?

- Forcing taxpayer to pay for abortions. That’s hardly a “keep your government off my body” position.
- Taking away parental notification for this one medical procedure. In that case the government is taking away not only parental responsibility, but is actually facilitating a secret medical procedure on a minor. That’s insane.

School choice is another area where liberals are very much against personal freedom and instead in favor of freedom only for those rich enough to afford private schools without vouchers.

It’s not all one-sided, of course. Conservatives, and particularly religious conservatives are likely to push their agendas in schools with prayer and creationism. I didn’t care for the Bush administration’s stance on medical marijuana and indecency on the public airwaves. There have to be limits, but the fine for accidentally saying “fuck” on the radio got ridiculous under Bush’s FCC.

Abortion? Liberals view mom’s right to her body as absolute. Conservatives recognize both mom and the fetus have rights. The latter group recognizes more freedom. Someday women can have an unwanted fetus removed, and safely implanted in another. We’ll see how many conservative women step up and save that life. I suspect they will.

Marriage is a legal convince, with a long history in common law. It’s also a rite in religion. Gays would have no trouble finding a church to perform the rite, so the first amendment applies. The first amendment also applies to what you call it. Outside of court, call it marriage, gay marriage, civil union, whatever. The language is not my property. The dictionary follows usage and not the other way around.

Prayer in schools is about prayer in PUBLIC schools. If public schools were only for people too poor to afford private schools, I’d understand their being secular. But now, they’re for EVERYONE. You tax away everyone’s property in a much larger way, and use it for a public education. If people can’t afford private tuition after that, you’ve robbed them of freedom of how to school their child. The first amendment is both about freedom from imposed religion, and freedom to practice religion.

Actually, I believe the disconnect is that while the state should not force me to give up a kidney, it should also not let me contract with the other man’s doctor to just go ahead and kill him early.

Welcome to being an adult.

I’ve known women that would carry a child even in danger to their own lives (my wife for example) and ones who have used abortions as their regular form of birth control.

I agree with the Christian Right on abortion and many other issues, but you change peoples minds with moral suasion, not force.
They are only a small step from “Kill them All, God Will Know His Own.”

Actually, by killing the baby, she is not taking responsibility for it. That is the easy way out. “Problem’ eliminated.”

In the pantheon of rights, what is more important than life? What is she giving up that is worth more than a human life? We all know that there is a reason life is first in ‘life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.’

And what is the ultimate end (purpose, there is that Thomism kicking in) of sex, since a lot of social ills and thrills revolve around this subject? What is the point of sex? The hint, being, that pleasure is not the ultimate purpose of sex.

Furthermore, the baby and the mother is not an adversarial relationship. The baby is the result of the very natural process of sex. It is what is supposed to happen. The ultimate end of sex is a baby, not some a stain in a San Fransisco bathhouse.

well, okay, we might grandfather in existing marriages. or at least allow currently married couples to file joint statements decreeing they wanted to be grandfathered in, with a deadline of a few years.

other than that, the real effects would be simple: people who wanted to get married would get the civil papers filed, and then pick the religious ceremony of their preference if they gave a shit about religion. people who only did the religious ceremony would not, in the eyes of the state and the law, be married at all.

and that’s just fine, too. it wouldn’t count as living in sin, after all, since the state wouldn’t give a shit. but folks who want to live like, y’know, regular people, would still attach considerable weight and importance to the civil union, that being what would actually make a difference to them.

civil divorce would, of course, continue to exist. and would then, even as it does now, only apply to the legal and secular aspects of marital union; as tgirsch noted, nobody ever forced any churches to recognize divorce at all.

Sorry, I’m feeling very grumpy about the Obama election, and am counting cartridges. Drinking a bit, too. I want to be numb when they come for me. Maybe it will hurt less, that way.

I have argued this before, and certainly don’t mind arguing it again, but having an abortion is a way of taking responsibility for the consequences of one’s actions.

Now, you’re free to disagree, but if you do, then the logical conclusion of your argument is that no woman should ever have sexual intercourse under any circumstances whatsoever unless that woman is willing to become pregnant and carry the child to term, and to undertake all of the responsibilities that come with that.

hypnagogue:

Churches aren’t forced to recognize civil divorce, which is why lots of Catholics have to jump through the annulment hoops they set up (not sure if this is still the case, but it was a couple of decades ago).

Les:

Agreed on abortion. As for “nanny statism” (your term), there are certainly notable exceptions, but I think it’s fair to say that for the most part, self-described conservatives tend to be economic libertarians / civil authoritarians, while self-described liberals tend to be civil libertarians / economic authoritarians.

Yes, and I’m broadly in favor of that, vs. letting politicians make those decisions. But at some point a zygote becomes a human being and at that point killing it is wrong. Reasonable people can argue about what that point is. (My own views are complicated and admittedly not very clear, even to me.)

“For example, gay marriage doesn’t require anyone to do anything.”

Yes and no. I’ve been to two gay marriages in Tennessee. No one stopped them from getting marriage, so in that sense there is legal gay marriage now. What proponents are arguing for is government recognition of gay marriage, which does require some changes, but the debate is mostly over values. I’d just as soon see the state getting out of the marriage business.

Prayer in schools: I agree with Publius.

On the liberal side of things, there is plenty of nanny statism. Gun rights, food, regulation of property rights, university speech codes, constantly telling businesses what to do, etc.

I think you are working down to the heart of it, but you didn’t go quite far enough. What God has joined (religious institution of marriage) let no man put asunder (civil divorce). How can a civil proceeding sever a religious vow without that preemption violating the establishment clause? If marriage has no civil contract, then divorce has to go. Joint property and child custody mean nothing without divorce, so let’s leave those out.

What’s left? Visitation and taxes. I absolutely agree. Visitation should be governed by the desire and intention of the visited, nothing else. Joint filing of taxes? Certainly — throw that out. In which case, my wife and kids are now without income and are eligible for social security benefits. I’ll come out way ahead.

Let’s keep the mental exercise going. With a little effort we might be able to come to an understanding where your state doesn’t dictate morality to my church.

Did you honestly think I would go to hell over a tax break?

Three couples in particular come to mind…one couple, who lived in rural TN, drove down here and wanted to be the first in line to get married. Once down here, they learned that their home had burned down in an apparent case of arson and are trying to make a go of living here.

Another couple has been married three times. The first was to formalize a domestic partnership. The next was in 2004 when Gavin Newsom opened up marriage to gay couples before it was shut down. And finally just recently before the election.

Finally, my accountant who has been with his partner for 25 years and are a bit older. They got married a few days before the election and wanted to guarantee the various legal and tax benefits that married couples receive including inheritance, visitation and what not.

So here’s my question..what difference does it make to you that these folks want to get married? Don’t you believe in staying out of other people’s lives? What great benefit did you get out of these people no longer being allowed to marry?

Having consentual sex is is a tacit admission that they are willing to accept the consequences of said actions. Or are you claiming that women should NOT be responsible for the results of their actions?

Rape is not willing. Are you making a blanket statement about the ‘religious right’ and rape then?

Marriage is a religious institution

okay, then, let’s strip marriage of every shred of legal weight it has. you can still get married, but doing so will get you nothing from the state, nothing by weight of law; no tax breaks, no joint property, no child custody, no visitation rights, no recognition in any way, shape or form, except for what your religion gives you.

heck, that would make me happy. how about you?

So if we restrict abortion to certain conditions, how do we police that and what are the ramifications? If we say only in the instances of the mother’s life is at risk, who decides that the mother’s health is at risk? What if another doctor disagrees? What are the punishments? Who prosecutes? Do we want to see a mother or her doctor sent to jail because they thought that the mother’s life was in danger, but another doctor happens to disagree?

The same goes for rape or incest. What if the authorities think that the woman is lying about a particular incident?

Why go through these machinations and ensnare innocent women and doctors into this legal system? I say just make abortion legal in all instances and trust that 99% of women and doctors have the best of intentions at heart.

So nobody should ever have sexual intercourse under any circumstances unless they want to have children, because having sex is a tacit admission that you’re willing to become a parent. Got it. (And, of course, pregnant rape victims never should have chosen to be raped. Stupid women!)

hypnagogue:
liberal ivory tower ignorance

Ha!

Regardless of what you can or can’t believe, a second trimester child will cry. It’s a thin sound, but it’s a child’s cry. They grasp your finger with their hand. They kick with their feet trying to find the mother that is not longer there. You can see their pulse through the veins in their transparent skin. You can see the pain on their face when the nurse inserts the microscopic IV into a vein in their scalp.

And she calms down when she hears her father’s voice, and feels his touch. The nurse says that’s important, because if she won’t stop crying, she will die.

So don’t you waggle your liberal ivory tower ignorance at me. To you she’s just a theoretical argument. To me she’s the whole world.

I read your “clarification” and your response to Dan. The woman accepted 100% responsibility when she chose to have sex. She chose to take the chance of getting pregnant. So claiming that there is a ‘conflict of interests’ after the fact does not automatically give her precedence.