Late Term Abortion

[Divinus Arma]

I can understand when a woman might have a late term abortion if the fetus has a defect that will contribute to a life of pure misery for the child or if the woman may die.

I also understand that Later Term Abortion is around 1% of all abortions in the United States.

But what disgusts me is the reasons that woman think it is okay to kill a viable unborn infant.




In 1987, the Alan Guttmacher Institute collected questionnaires from 1,900 women in the United States who came to clinics to have abortions. Of the 1,900 questioned, 420 had been pregnant for 16 or more weeks. These 420 women were asked to choose among a list of reasons why they had not obtained the abortions earlier in their pregnancies. The results were as follows:[3]

71% Woman didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation
48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion
33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents
24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion
8% Woman waited for her relationship to change
8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion
6% Something changed after woman became pregnant
6% Woman didn't know timing is important
5% Woman didn't know she could get an abortion
2% A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy
11% Other

Dude. 2%?

And you abortion advocates find it perfectly acceptable to suck a baby's brains out or chop it up while it is alive in the womb? How can it be that the same people who want to save the frickin whales and help the ignorant and destitute also find it okay to murder viable unborn babies as a matter of convience?!?!? Notice rape isn't a big factor on here either. Horrific.

[Lemur]

DA, I'm not sure that anyone on this board is a defender of late-term abortions. In a moral danger zone, late-term abortion is definitely the nuclear meltdown. Fortunately it is relatively rare.

I stand by my prediction that technology will make abortion obsolete long before our society can settle the issue.

-edit-

How can it be that the same people who want to save the frickin whales and help the ignorant and destitute also find it okay to murder viable unborn babies as a matter of convience?!?!?
Just remember, the double-standards apply equally to abortion opponents, who as often as not are in favor of capitol punishment and torture (or "enhanced interrogation," for the Newspeak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak) fans in the house). Indeed, there was an editorial on NRO (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MGE4MTVlYjJjODAyZWQyOTJjMmIzY2VmZjc0ZTM5ZjA=) recently that talked about how abortion is a special and elevated issue:


The thing about abortion is, it's not just any other issue — as serious as so many others are. Abortion is not open to debate.

While conveniently ignoring the legalization and institutionalization of torture, and equally dangerous moral position. From an authority on the subject (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2007/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20070906_pastorale-carceraria_en.html):


Public authorities must be ever vigilant in this task, eschewing any means of punishment or correction that either undermine or debase the human dignity of prisoners. In this regard, I reiterate that the prohibition against torture “cannot be contravened under any circumstances”.

So let's not go pretending that leftist abortion-rights advocates have a monopoly on cognitive dissonance.

[PanzerJaeger]

Murder.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

While I freely admit that I don't want to know any gory details with regards to abortion, and thus can be slammed as a hypocrite or as not fully understanding the issue, I feel like I have to reply at least in part to this.

While these abortions are of 'viable' foetuses, some of the reasons given do, in my opinion, have some rights on their side.


71% Woman didn't recognize she was pregnant

Amazingly enough this does happen. This happened to someone from my work quite recently. She went to the hospital due what she thought was a stomch complaint, and was told she was in labour! These circumstances where a woman doesn't know she is pregnant, should be as permissable as abortion at earlier stages in gestation.


48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion

This also is not down to the woman in question. If they have tried to get an abortion, and have been turned away, or haven't been able to get to a clinic or something like that, it is out of their hands. That it is a late term abortion is down to the system. These women shouldn't be ostracised for something that isn't their fault.

While I understand that surveys like this are not perfect, and there is the possibility that some participants were less than forthcoming about some reasons for their desicion. The two major reasons for late-term abortions, should in my view be socially acceptable.

As I've said I know little about the issue, and this is just my opinion.

[JAG]

I stand by my prediction that technology will make abortion obsolete long before our society can settle the issue.

That could be a point of debate, far more than what the thread was aimed at - because, as you state, to my knowledge no one here defends abortion after 24 weeks if there is no risk to the mothers / babies life or rape etc.

However, for me at least, just because a fetus might be saved by modern medical advances before the legal limit in many countries - I think some babies can be saved with good success at 20 weeks when born premature, now - it does not mean that the legal limit for abortion should be lowered.

The argument for abortion is sound no matter when new medical advances can save a fetus. There is a natural change at around 24 weeks so that the fetus can be described as a human and that doesn't change. What happens when we can save fetus after 14 weeks or 7 weeks, what happens when we can clone humans, does that mean no abortion should not be allowed? I think just because unborn babies can be saved before the 24 week line, it doesn't mean that abortion should be tailored to that limit. Women should always have the choice of whether to have an abortion, regardless of technological improvements, so I don't agree that improvements in medicine will mean that the abortion question will become obsolete.

[JAG]

Oh and I think it not only smacks of ignorance but also of complete lack of understanding when men sit around and are amazed or disregarding or abusive towards women who don't know when they are pregnant. When was the last time you were pregnant or any man was, maybe we should sit out on the judgement on that particular part of the equation.

[Lemur]

JAG, I'm afraid my cryptic "technology will solve this" statement has left me open to misunderstanding. I do not mean that all fetuses will be made viable. I do not mean that all unwanted babies will be raised by robot nannies and trained to fight as the Emperor's Sardaukar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sardaukar).

Rather, I imagine that 100% safe, 100% effective contraception will become available, maybe within our lifetimes. Imagine being able to "chip" your son or daughter, and prevent them from conceiving until they want the chip turned off. That's the sort of thing that will end the abortion debate, and not because anybody will ever sort out the morality.

I figure our grand-children will view abortion the way we view lobotomies or surgery without anesthesia; a quaint, weird and bloody custom from the old days. Nothing more.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

Rather, I imagine that 100% safe, 100% effective contraception will become available, maybe within our lifetimes. Imagine being able to "chip" your son or daughter, and prevent them from conceiving until they want the chip turned off. That's the sort of thing that will end the abortion debate, and not because anybody will ever sort out the morality.

And this is exactly what we should be hoping for, or moving towards.

[JAG]

I see, I see. I guess that might happen, but within our lifetime? I am not so sure!

[ICantSpellDawg]

Around 1,370,000 unborn human beings are killed every year in the U.S. More than 13,700 (update: whoops) are killed late in term. For those of you who believe that late term abortions are infanticide, how can we sit around and let this happen without addressing it? Imagine if this happened to week old infants out of parental indifference or callousness toward life. How would the response be different?

So many people do defend late term abortions that it is scary. When the partial birth abortion ban came into effect in the U.S., both Clinton and Obama said that it was a bad decision. What the heck?

Abortion is homicide. Partial birth abortion and late term abortions are just the most obvious manifestation.

[Lemur]

TuffStuff, the numbers you just typed say that 10% of all abortions are late-term. I have never heard that number before. As in the OP, the most common estimate is that somewhere around 1%-2% of abortions are late-term. Where are you getting your stats from?

[Devastatin Dave]

I think its pretty nifty that we unaborted fetuses can post about this topic over and over again... Thanks Mom!!!:wall:

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

Around 1,370,000 unborn human beings are killed every year in the U.S. Around 137,000 are killed late in term. For those of you who believe that late term abortions are infanticide, how can we sit around and let this happen without addressing it? Imagine if this happened to week old infants out of parental indifference or callousness toward life. How would the response be different?
So many people do defend late term abortions that it is scary. When the partial birth abortion ban came into effect in the U.S., both Clinton and Obama said that it was a bad decision. What the heck?

Abortion is homicide. Partial birth abortion and late term abortions are just the most obvious manifestation.

I'd assume that thats a typo? I wouldn't know as I haven't looked into this issue in depth before.

However, with reference to the bolding I have provided. This is exactly why abortion (not so much late-term), should be allowed. If a child is unwanted it follows that it will be uncared for on some level. In the extreme case, this will lead to indifference and callousness, and eventually infanticide via the medium of neglect. Do we want this to happen in our modern and 'civilised' society?

Consider also the position of a family that knows there is a foetal defect, that could drastically effect the health of either the unborn child or mother. Should abortion be disallowed as an option, despite clear risks, or a reduced quality of life? (I'm aware that this is off topic, but feel that it needs to be said).

Should a woman who is still a child herself be denied an abortion even if a baby would ruin her life, and leave her unable to provide a decent life for herself or the baby?

While this is a tender issue I believe the answer to the above is an emphatic no!

Abortion should be allowed, it should be down to the prospective mother to decide what she wants for her life.

[CountArach]

I'm all for full abortion rights, but I draw the line at Late term abortions. I think that is what many of the forumites from the left believe.

[Divinus Arma]

Amazingly enough this does happen. This happened to someone from my work quite recently. She went to the hospital due what she thought was a stomch complaint, and was told she was in labour! These circumstances where a woman doesn't know she is pregnant, should be as permissable as abortion at earlier stages in gestation.


Mistakes happen. A responsible adult should opt for reliable forms of birth control. If birth control is unacceptable, than abstinence or masectomy is preferable to murder of an innocent life.



If a child is unwanted it follows that it will be uncared for on some level. In the extreme case, this will lead to indifference and callousness, and eventually infanticide via the medium of neglect. Do we want this to happen in our modern and 'civilised' society?

So let's kill our children earler instead of later? There are alternatives to ending a relationship with a child. Murder is not the option of a caring and civilized society.



Should a woman who is still a child herself be denied an abortion even if a baby would ruin her life, and leave her unable to provide a decent life for herself or the baby?

As I said, there are alternatives to abortion. The mother's life will not be impacted after delivery. Every Fire Station I know of is a "safe surrender" location where a mother can drop off her newborn with no questions asked.


The problem is that we have a modern culture of convience. If you find something to be a disturbance to your life, destroy it.

We can change the culture by recognizing that feticide is immoral and criminal, tantamount to murder, while also promoting and advocating tax payer and private non-profit alternatives. I would rather be raised in a foster home or in a government orphanage than have my life stolen just as it began. How many wonderful people have been killed before they even had a chance to begin?

We moan over the few thousand who have been killed in Iraq, while countless more are taken from us every year via late -term abortion. And all for convience.

I never gave much attention to this subject, but now that I have looked into it, I am truly saddened.

[Banquo's Ghost]

We moan over the few thousand who have been killed in Iraq, while countless more are taken from us every year via late -term abortion.

Truly DA, whether one is pro-choice or pro-life, that has to be the most morally ambivalent statement of the year so far.

:no:

[Ice]

I'd say murder, although I'm sure there are always people willing to defend this.

[CountArach]

I'd say murder, although I'm sure there are always people willing to defend this.
I thought you were a libertarian?

[JAG]

I am sure he would say even libertarians understand the need for laws and intervention in the case of murder.... But we all know it isn't murder anyway (or should know)

And DA - you are right, those few thousand soldiers and few hundred thousand Iraqis are so over hyped in the liberal media. To think, millions died in WW2.

[Sigurd]

I’ll take the bait…

Yes, late term abortions should only happen if a problem is discovered that will lead to a life-time suffering for the children or a life-threatening situation for the women. In fact I think we already have this established by law here. Too bad the USA hasn’t.
Rape and abuse would be my other reason for terminating a pregnancy, but there is no reason that can’t happen within the first 8 weeks of the pregnancy.
For all other reasons: You do the deed, you should be prepared to take the consequences. Give birth to the child. If you then don’t want it, put it up for adoption.

And finally the petrol on the embers:
It should be the non-believers that should be most upset with life ending before it even began, not the believers. Those that believe in a heaven would recognize that these children would go back to the God that sent them. A life in heaven would be better than any life on earth.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

I respect what you are saying, but the topic seems to have shifted to general 'Is Abortion acceptable?'. Oh well then, my views and response.


Mistakes happen. A responsible adult should opt for reliable forms of birth control. If birth control is unacceptable, than abstinence or masectomy is preferable to murder of an innocent life.

The fact remains that even birth control is not 100% certain. As you say mistakes do happen. However, everyone deserves a second chance. If the woman in question, and lets face it, usually the bloke involved, if he's uncaring, will find a way to skip off, can't handle having a child, whether through, youth (teen pregnancies do happen), or social or mental circumstance, this is the only way of erasing a mistake of this magnitude.



So let's kill our children earler instead of later? There are alternatives to ending a relationship with a child. Murder is not the option of a caring and civilized society.

I'd argue with the use of the term murder, but nothing else here.



As I said, there are alternatives to abortion. The mother's life will not be impacted after delivery. Every Fire Station I know of is a "safe surrender" location where a mother can drop off her newborn with no questions asked.

In a perfect world adoption would be a better option, I agree, the fact remains that people are unwilling to go through nine months of inconveniance to get to that point.


The problem is that we have a modern culture of convience. If you find something to be a disturbance to your life, destroy it.


This is a major issue with modren society.


We can change the culture by recognizing that feticide is immoral and criminal, tantamount to murder, while also promoting and advocating tax payer and private non-profit alternatives. I would rather be raised in a foster home or in a government orphanage than have my life stolen just as it began. How many wonderful people have been killed before they even had a chance to begin?

While it is true that many wonderful people may have had their lives 'stolen', it is equally true that many bad people will have also. It's a question of when life truly begins, and for me, it is at birth.

[HoreTore]

Bah. An abortion is an abortion IMO. And I'm not against it.

The only reason I can support a time limit on abortion, is because the operation is a lot smaller and easier for the woman the earlier it is.

[PBI]

I'm afraid I don't understand the purpose of this discussion. The title of the thread is Late-Term Abortion. I take this to mean abortion after 24 weeks, in which case this is already illegal except when the mother's or baby's life is in danger. As far as I'm aware nobody here is disputing that this should be the case. If late term abortions are taking place on the scale some here suggest, then either they must be for medical reasons or they are already illegal. So could somebody please explain to me why we are still having this discussion?


The problem is that we have a modern culture of convience. If you find something to be a disturbance to your life, destroy it.

I'm sorry but I have to take issue with the characterisation of giving birth to a child and then giving it up for adoption as an "inconvenience". The first is extremely painful and potentially dangerous and the second extremely traumatic; even if there is no way the mother can realistically care for the child herself it is absurd to suggest that any mother can simply part with her child without any sense of sorrow or remorse. In fact, if she can do so I might suggest she really isn't fit to be a mother anyway.

Please understand, I am not justifying late term abortion. I simply feel the characterisation of birth and adoption as "inconvenient" is a gross understatement.

[Ser Clegane]

then either they must be for medical reasons or they are already illegal. So could somebody please explain to me why we are still having this discussion?

Because it the US it is not illegal. Unfortunately there the whole discussion seems to be domintaed by the "all-or-nothing" groups at both end of the spectrum, leaving what seems to be a less vocal majority that could live with a compromise standing at the sidelines.

[Ironside]

The problem is that we have a modern culture of convience. If you find something to be a disturbance to your life, destroy it.


That makes modern culture a very loooooooong phenomena. Infanticide is sadly even older than humanity itself. :book:


IMO, the problem in the US when it comes to abortion is that the driving parts are the extremists on both sides who see any comprimise as a loss or something to move further on. And the opponents know this.

For example, what compromise does you in the "abortion is murder"- crowd consider to be acceptable? Compare that stance with the laws in the rest of the world...

[PanzerJaeger]

I am sure he would say even libertarians understand the need for laws and intervention in the case of murder.... But we all know it isn't murder anyway (or should know)



If a fetus can live on its own out of the womb, how is it not murder? :inquisitive:

And how many of those iraqis were killed by.... other iraqis?

[Samurai Waki]

a cow is a cow. does it know it will be killed? I'm against late term abortions, but I am pro raising unwanted children into industrial servitude to feed my ever growing desire for electronic gadgets, and economically efficient automobiles. And if the "herd" is well, past its prime dispose of it quickly, and get the newest and youngest batch available asap, I gotta feed my kids somehow.

[PBI]

If that's the case, that the debate is utterly polarized into extremist fanatics on both sides, then it seems to me that the "abortion is murder" crowd are at least as culpable for the fact that late term abortion is still legal as those who defend it. If, rather than labelling their opponents as "baby-murderers" and trying to force an outright ban on all abortion which no one in their right mind could ever agree to, they were more reasonable and actually tried to reach a compromise, they might get somewhere.

I rather suspect that their interest lies more in all the fun of incendiary rhetoric and condemning their enemies than in actually trying to reduce the abortion rate. I am familiar with the type from my old student protesting days: A good deal of "activists" would be there because they enjoyed all the fun and palaver of a protest and the sense of righteousness that comes with having a moral "cause" rather than because they actually cared about the issue.

Edit:
Panzer, my girlfriend used to work on a neonatal intensive care unit, and I'm afraid to say that although yes it is technically possible for a baby born a 20 weeks to survive, most will not and almost all of the rest will be severely brain damaged.

[JAG]

If a fetus can live on its own out of the womb, how is it not murder? :inquisitive:

And how many of those iraqis were killed by.... other iraqis?

Not gonna derail the thread with your second point, we have covered Iraq so much already.

As to your first, it is a cheap point which makes no sense even in your thinking on this subject. So you would quite happily state then that those fetus' which can't survive outside the womb on their own - and we have a funny way of saying 'on their own', they are hooked up and kept alive by a machine, yeah really 'on their own' - are not murdered at all. If you are to bring in, 'it is murder because it can survive at 20 weeks', surely that leaves you open to, 'well at 18 weeks when it can't survive, it isn't'.

[rory_20_uk]

To the question: If you've had sex and don't want a baby, do a pregnancy test in 2 weeks. If +ve do something about it All contraception is not 100% safe. Be an adult and accept this, or be celibate or have a hysterectomy.

Although there are cases where children are born at 24 weeks or earlier and make a full recovery and lead a full, active life, they are in the minority. Many die. Most are mild to severely handicapped. Generally a mixture of severe damage to sight, low IQ and damaged lungs. And not to mention the massive drain on resources.

NOTE to the few who are unaware: these babies go to Special Care Baby Units. They have massive medical input with special food regimes, specialised medication, monitored oxygen and light levels. They would survie less than 1 day without this.

~:smoking:

[Husar]

Let me ask a stupid question or two:

When is a kangaroo a kangaroo?
After climbing out of the womb or after coming out of the pocket?

What's the difference between not able to live on it's own and not able to live on it's own because the parents have to feed it?

[PBI]

The difference is that a baby born at full term will generally be able to survive by itself eventually, whereas a baby born at 20 weeks will need to be hooked up to an array of life support machines for the whole of its life, which will probably be short and full of suffering.

[KukriKhan]

:looks at calendar:

Yep. It has been about six weeks since the last abortion topic here. Right on time.

Therefore, within 2 weeks: guns.

[JAG]

:looks at calendar:

Yep. It has been about six weeks since the last abortion topic here. Right on time.

Therefore, within 2 weeks: guns.

You love it Kukri! :2thumbsup:

[Odin]

Let me ask a stupid question or two:

When is a kangaroo a kangaroo?
After climbing out of the womb or after coming out of the pocket?

What's the difference between not able to live on it's own and not able to live on it's own because the parents have to feed it?

How about these questions instead:

If it has a heartbeat is it alive?

If you terminate an animal with a heart beat that isnt able to defend itself, is that murder?

I always find myself refering to these simple questions when talking about abortion. My preference would be to allow individuals to make their own personal choices regarding bringing a child to term. Yet can see clearly the moral and ethical dilema's others might have based on their choices of mythology to adhere too.

I normally find myself answering yes to both of my stupid questions, and then ask myself a few more.

Something like

Is it ethical to impose ones personal views on anothers choice?

If it is, can I then inturn murder/kill those who choose to impose?

And the internal paradox continues, I prefer the killing/murder route myself but I am in the minority.

[Goofball]

Mistakes happen. A responsible adult should opt for reliable forms of birth control. If birth control is unacceptable, than abstinence or masectomy is preferable to murder of an innocent life.

While a female having a mastectomy I guess could be considered a form of birth control, I believe the more common (and far less invasive) method of birth control is for the male to undergo a vasectomy.

:yes:

[Husar]

I prefer the killing/murder route myself but I am in the minority.

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[rory_20_uk]

People, a mastectomy is when a breast is cut off. I imagine you mean hysterectomy (where the uterus is removed); you might mean oophrectomy where the ovaries are removed.

~:smoking:

[Goofball]

People, a mastectomy is when a breast is cut off. I imagine you mean hysterectomy (where the uterus is removed); you might mean oophrectomy where the ovaries are removed.

~:smoking:

I know. I was just making a little joke at what I think was probably just a typo on DA's part in his original post.

:yes:

[Ice]

I thought you were a libertarian?

Incorrect

I'm a conservative with many libertarian aspects. I would consider the being inside the woman a living a person. Thus, that person has rights. To kill that person would be murder. I'm not sure I'd also consider regular abortion murder too, but abortion after this length of time is just plain wrong.

By the way, there are plenty of libertarians who are pro-life.

I honestly can't see how killing a baby at this point wouldn't be considered murder to some people, but I guess each to his own.

[HoreTore]

I honestly can't see how killing a baby at this point wouldn't be considered murder to some people, but I guess each to his own.

It's very easy; no human, no murder.

[Ironside]

Let me ask a stupid question or two:

When is a kangaroo a kangaroo?
After climbing out of the womb or after coming out of the pocket?

What's the difference between not able to live on it's own and not able to live on it's own because the parents have to feed it?

What's the difference between a foetus and soem poor guy I cut the head of but keep the body alive?
Does it make a diffference if someone comes up with a method to regrow a head or clone the poor guy from his body?


I've been dragging this up before, but it still leads to the question: What is a human?

And you cannot really be consistant in this issue. For example, if abortion is murder, then what is murder through neglect for a pregnant woman?

Then we also have the question of how much an outright ban would actually decrease the amount of abortions. Banning some things seems to work really great in making an reduction of use. :juggle:

[ajaxfetish]

I'm sorry but I have to take issue with the characterisation of giving birth to a child and then giving it up for adoption as an "inconvenience". The first is extremely painful and potentially dangerous and the second extremely traumatic; even if there is no way the mother can realistically care for the child herself it is absurd to suggest that any mother can simply part with her child without any sense of sorrow or remorse. In fact, if she can do so I might suggest she really isn't fit to be a mother anyway.


While I agree with you that birth is no minor 'inconvenience,' and that giving a child up for adoption can be extremely traumatic, from what I understand, abortion is usually extremely traumatic as well. A mother simply parts with her child by giving it to another or simply parts with her fetus/child by ending its life. It's not an easy choice either way.

Generally I support a woman's freedom (with input from husband/boyfriend if he sticks around) to make such choices about her family and body over the government making such decisions for her, though I'm not a fan of abortion and would prefer women to choose against it, and though I'd definitely prefer she deal with the issue early in the pregnancy except in cases of late-term discovery of impending birth defects or danger to the mother's health.

Ajax

[Lemur]

I've been dragging this up before, but it still leads to the question: What is a human?
As I've brought up in previous abortion threads, what is alive? The answer is only obvious if you're not thinking very hard.

[Ice]

It's very easy; no human, no murder.

Once again, I'll never understand that rather simplistic justification. Like I said though, whatever floats your boat.

[PBI]

While I agree with you that birth is no minor 'inconvenience,' and that giving a child up for adoption can be extremely traumatic, from what I understand, abortion is usually extremely traumatic as well. A mother simply parts with her child by giving it to another or simply parts with her fetus/child by ending its life. It's not an easy choice either way.

Generally I support a woman's freedom (with input from husband/boyfriend if he sticks around) to make such choices about her family and body over the government making such decisions for her, though I'm not a fan of abortion and would prefer women to choose against it, and though I'd definitely prefer she deal with the issue early in the pregnancy except in cases of late-term discovery of impending birth defects or danger to the mother's health.

Ajax

Certainly I wasn't trying to suggest that abortion is not traumatic, nor to suggest that the issue is in any way simple. Indeed, I would say that since I am opposed to late-term abortion (as I think most people are) that in such cases for the mother to have the baby and put it up for adoption is probably the best course of action. I was simply rather shocked that the idea of going through childbirth only to have to part with the child forever could be considered an "inconvenience".

Having to stand on the train because there are no seats is an inconvenience. Giving birth to a child and then giving it away is an appalling trauma. The issue is complicated and difficult (as it is clear you appreciate from your post), but people trying to pretend it is obvious or straightforward is never going to convince anyone, it is simply rhetorical grandstanding .

[Divinus Arma]

Truly DA, whether one is pro-choice or pro-life, that has to be the most morally ambivalent statement of the year so far.

:no:


I would expect a bit of understanding towards my statement, given my background. No one can make a reasonable argument that I discount the sacrifice of my country's greatest citizens.


I will admit to a poor choice of words on my part. Allow me to clarify.

Comparing the tragedy of troop deaths in Iraq against the number of late term abortions provides a picture of just how severe the abortion problem is. 3,000 lives have been lost in this war and a near number of viable human lives are murdered annually via late term abortion. These numbers are lost on an apathetic population who is almost entirely fed the information they rely upon for political perspective.


I believe that better articulates my intent.

[Divinus Arma]

People, a mastectomy is when a breast is cut off. I imagine you mean hysterectomy (where the uterus is removed); you might mean oophrectomy where the ovaries are removed.

~:smoking:

No. I meant mastectomy. That's a fairly efficient from of birth control in a way. And if you just remove one, it is even more effective. A one-boob lay would be... Well, never mind. :clown:

nyuk nyuk nyuk. :laugh4:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I'm a conservative with many libertarian aspects. I would consider the being inside the woman a living a person. Thus, that person has rights. To kill that person would be murder. I'm not sure I'd also consider regular abortion murder too, but abortion after this length of time is just plain wrong.


My views exactly. The question is whether the right of a mother to decide what is convenient to her should take precedence over the right of a human being to live - something that shouldn't be a question at all.

Of course, if we're facing the right of the mother to live versus the right of the child to live, I'd have to go with the mother, but only if both could not be saved.

[Craterus]

My views exactly. The question is whether the right of a mother to decide what is convenient to her should take precedence over the right of a human being to live - something that shouldn't be a question at all.

Of course, if we're facing the right of the mother to live versus the right of the child to live, I'd have to go with the mother, but only if both could not be saved.

A foetus is not a human being. That implies sentience and it's a loaded word.
A foetus is a homo sapien larvae, nothing more. Whether you think they're worth saving is up to you but to bring emotive language to strengthen your point doesn't really say much.

[PanzerJaeger]

A foetus is not a human being.

Says you. :juggle2:

[Craterus]

Says you. :juggle2:

Well, it's not. What's the difference between a foetus and a cow, which I'm sure you have no qualms about not only killing, but also eating.

Brain scans show that they have similar levels of brain activity so what is it, as Lemur asks, that makes a foetus a person or rather: worth saving, but an animal not?

Because they're different to us? Sounds like speciesism and isn't a valid argument.

[Lemur]

Deciding when exactly a blastocyst becomes a human being is a tricky bit of business, and maybe impossible. Just to tease out how difficult this is:

PJ, do you consider a newly-fertilized egg to be a human being? If so, do you acknowledge that the rhythm method is genocide?

Craterus, is a fetus one day away from birth inhuman? What happens in the last 24 hours that turns the non-human fetus into a human baby? Please explain.

[HoreTore]

Craterus, is a fetus one day away from birth inhuman? What happens in the last 24 hours that turns the non-human fetus into a human baby? Please explain.

What makes a human being tick? What makes us capable of thinking? When does that change happen? Is there such a thing as a "soul"? If so, when do we get it?

[Craterus]

Craterus, is a fetus one day away from birth inhuman? What happens in the last 24 hours that turns the non-human fetus into a human baby? Please explain.

Well, you would first need to define what it is that makes us human. I don't have an answer for that. Quickening? Birth? It's hard to say unless you believe in things like souls but even then, it's not absolutely necessary that a soul has to exist from conception.

I haven't quite made my mind up about abortion yet but I know the better philosophical arguments on both sides of the debate and I thought I'd play devil's advocate for this topic.

In a way, I feel third-trimester abortions are inexcusable because the foetus is so much more developed. For those that claim not to realise, surely a missed period or two is enough indication. And for others, it shouldn't take 6 months to decide you don't want the thing.

Ideally, people would choose to have unwanted children and simply put them up for adoption when they are born but 9 months is a long time and it's a huge inconvenience. The morality is, of course, questionable but abortion can not be proven to be morally right/wrong so I think it's probably best to allow women the right to do what they wish to their own bodies.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

What makes a human being tick? What makes us capable of thinking? When does that change happen? Is there such a thing as a "soul"? If so, when do we get it?

Way to dodge the question.

[Divinus Arma]

Because they're different to us? Sounds like speciesism and isn't a valid argument.

You are equating the worth of a human being to a cow. Or to extrapolate your comment: You are equating the worth of a human being to an ant, or the HIV virus, or a plant. You yourself have just pointed out that to favor one form of life over another is "speciesism", which means you yourself must also consider all life forms equal. Including the common cold, leeches, black widow spiders, mosquitos, broccoli, and locusts.

Given that we are the ONLY species with the ability to do so, which species should we protect from other species?

[Devastatin Dave]

PJ, do you consider a newly-fertilized egg to be a human being? If so, do you acknowledge that the rhythm method is genocide?
.

Send in the UN to my gym sock for the mass graves of my conquest reside there, especially when Mrs DevDave's Aunt "Flow" is in town....

Now that's a siggy.:yes:

[Craterus]

You are equating the worth of a human being to a cow. Or to extrapolate your comment: You are equating the worth of a human being to an ant, or the HIV virus, or a plant. You yourself have just pointed out that to favor one form of life over another is "speciesism", which means you yourself must also consider all life forms equal. Including the common cold, leeches, black widow spiders, mosquitos, broccoli, and locusts.

Given that we are the ONLY species with the ability to do so, which species should we protect from other species?

A foetus isn't necessarily a human being. It is a potential human being and is comparable to an animal. I didn't equate the worth of a human to anything.

Why must we be the protectors? The animal kingdom manages just fine without human intervention. However, things have changed more recently which may require humans to do something about some of the problems we have created.

[Divinus Arma]

A foetus isn't necessarily a human being. It is a potential human being and is comparable to an animal. I didn't equate the worth of a human to anything.

If the child can survive outside of the womb, even with help, it is a human. Just because it needs a bit of help does not mean its life is worth less, just like many of us outside of the womb need medical attention to survive.




Child: Hi, I'm Jenny. I'm only 5 months along in the womb.

Doctor grabs feet.

Jenny: Oh, I guess they want me out now. Yay! I can't wait to see the exciting world outside after hearing all the funny noises!

Doctor pulls Jennifer halfway out of the vagina, so the head remains inside.

Jenny: Hi! I'm ready! Why are you waiting? I'm hungry and I want to meet my mommy.

Doctor sticks scissors into the back of Jenny's head, spreads them open to widen the hole, and then sticks a vacuum inside to suck her brains out.



Jenny could have felt the warm sun on her face and enjoyed the rich fragrance of flowers in her yard. Jenny could have watched ants crawling on the ground and she could have loved swimming in the local lake with her friends. She could have fallen in love. Jenny could have been a loving mother and pursued a successful career. She may have been a proud grandmother and she may have died after a long and fulfilling life, watching her own children and grandchildren enjoy the things she so enjoyed.

Or Jenny might have had down syndrom, in which case despite her disability she still would have had much to be excited about as she began each new day.

[Strike For The South]

If the child can survive outside of the womb, even with help, it is a human. Just because it needs a bit of help does not mean its life is worth less, just like many of us outside of the womb need medical attention to survive.




Child: Hi, I'm Jenny. I'm only 5 months along in the womb.

Doctor grabs feet.

Jenny: Oh, I guess they want me out now. Yay! I can't wait to see the exciting world outside after hearing all the funny noises!

Doctor pulls Jennifer halfway out of the vagina, so the head remains inside.

Jenny: Hi! I'm ready! Why are you waiting? I'm hungry and I want to meet my mommy.

Doctor sticks scissors into the back of Jenny's head, spreads them open to widen the hole, and then sticks a vacuum inside to suck her brains out.



Jenny could have felt the warm sun on her face and enjoyed the rich fragrance of flowers in her yard. Jenny could have watched ants crawling on the ground and she could have loved swimming in the local lake with her friends. She could have fallen in love. Jenny could have been a loving mother and pursued a successful career. She may have been a proud grandmother and she may have died after a long and fulfilling life, watching her own children and grandchildren enjoy the things she so enjoyed.

Or Jenny might have had down syndrom, in which case despite her disability she still would have had much to be excited about as she began each new day.

Holy Christ man.

[Banquo's Ghost]

We moan over the few thousand who have been killed in Iraq, while countless more are taken from us every year via late -term abortion. And all for convience.



I would expect a bit of understanding towards my statement, given my background. No one can make a reasonable argument that I discount the sacrifice of my country's greatest citizens.


I will admit to a poor choice of words on my part. Allow me to clarify.

Comparing the tragedy of troop deaths in Iraq against the number of late term abortions provides a picture of just how severe the abortion problem is. 3,000 lives have been lost in this war and a near number of viable human lives are murdered annually via late term abortion. These numbers are lost on an apathetic population who is almost entirely fed the information they rely upon for political perspective.


I believe that better articulates my intent.

Thank you for the clarification, DA, and allow me to apologise for my unwarranted condemnation.

I read your original statement as if you were considering the many thousands of civilian deaths in Iraq as somehow less important than the aborted foetuses.

It was a crass misunderstanding on my part, more telling of my own prejudices. I should have considered the quality of the man posting, and I apologise again.

:bow:

[Devastatin Dave]

Holy Christ man.

Do you refute his post or see his point? Why not talk about what happens in these procedures. How about when these abortion don't work and they throw away the still living fetus NOT ATTAChED TO THE MOTHER in trash cans to die slowly. You should hear some of the testomony given by nurses at the "clinics". It makes you understand why mankind is doomed. This world is so screwed when people can compare the fetus of a cow to that of a human being and not see the difference. Oh well, lets get back to disagreeing for the sake of posturing our moral superiorities... for or against, it doesn't matter. My wife won't ever have one and I'm thankful my mom didn't make the "choice". Thats as far as I care about the issue anymore. Its a pointless subject and one that will NEVER find compremise. Sorry DA, the cat's out of the bag, the abortion things just peachy and soooo liberating for these irresponsible chicks (here comes the 50.000 posts about rape, incest, etc) that you won't be able to capture in their minds what you're trying to show them. Hmmm, let me see...

Here we go, abortion causes global warming.

[Samurai Waki]

Here we go, abortion causes global warming.

Thats nonsense, as we all know that global warming is caused by piracy.

[ajaxfetish]

Thats nonsense, as we all know that global warming is caused by piracy.
I'm almost certain it's lack of piracy that causes global warming, not the other way round.
:pirate2:

Ajax

[Strike For The South]

Life begins at conception. I find it odd how people try to put forth the arguement that the baby cant live on its own. The old the sick the dying all cant take care of themselves yet we do it for them. I guarntee you that if you stopped feeding a 6 month and Gam Gam tommrow they would die. People to often take the most basic things and complicate them to seven shades of gray. What happens a sperm and an egg combine? A baby simple as that. A child is the end result.

You made the decison to have sex and all thart it entalis just like drugs or alcohol or skydiving there are risks involved even if the pill and rubbers are part of the equation. Then of course the arguement comes up that its such a hard decison and one I could never understand. Im sure allot of murderes thevies pedophilies and AAA members regeret there decsions to however that doesnt excuse there actions. To me a woman who gets an abortion is the same as a man who runs out on his young kids. They are nothing but spineless cowards who hide behind our "enlightened pricples" I dont care if you're ready or not you made the choice and you must now live with it you must have the baby. You can put it up for adoption but you must give it life. Personal responsibilty and dececy are hard things to come by in this day and age. No one seems to take any responsibilty and no one ever seems to lend a hand.

Of course I will be labled as someone who simply doesnt "get it" but I dont care anymore. People want to make themselves feel smart and important so they feel as if every issue they take aside must be this facet of paradoxes and exceptions when the truth is staring them right in the face and thats just not with abortion thats with everything even life itself. :thumbsdown:

[PanzerJaeger]

Life begins at conception. I find it odd how people try to put forth the arguement that the baby cant live on its own. The old the sick the dying all cant take care of themselves yet we do it for them. I guarntee you that if you stopped feeding a 6 month and Gam Gam tommrow they would die. People to often take the most basic things and complicate them to seven shades of gray. What happens a sperm and an egg combine? A baby simple as that. A child is the end result.

You made the decison to have sex and all thart it entalis just like drugs or alcohol or skydiving there are risks involved even if the pill and rubbers are part of the equation. Then of course the arguement comes up that its such a hard decison and one I could never understand. Im sure allot of murderes thevies pedophilies and AAA members regeret there decsions to however that doesnt excuse there actions. To me a woman who gets an abortion is the same as a man who runs out on his young kids. They are nothing but spineless cowards who hide behind our "enlightened pricples" I dont care if you're ready or not you made the choice and you must now live with it you must have the baby. You can put it up for adoption but you must give it life. Personal responsibilty and dececy are hard things to come by in this day and age. No one seems to take any responsibilty and no one ever seems to lend a hand.

Of course I will be labled as someone who simply doesnt "get it" but I dont care anymore. People want to make themselves feel smart and important so they feel as if every issue they take aside must be this facet of paradoxes and exceptions when the truth is staring them right in the face and thats just not with abortion thats with everything even life itself. :thumbsdown:

Yet again, out of such raw language comes the complete and utter truth. :bow:

[rory_20_uk]

Oh joy a Redneck convention...

Sperm = Egg = Baby... Hmmmm. Here (http://www.patient.co.uk/showdoc/23068791/) states 1 in 4 ends in miscarriage all by itself. Isn't that in fact greater than the number of intentional abortions?

And just to reiterate: a 10 week pregnancy has a 100% chance of dying out of the uterus, as does a 15 week. By 20 weeks we're getting close to getting a living creature some of the time.

I know that nothing will alter these views - especially with the "interesting" examples that are lumped together in the post. Luckily in developed societies these are in the minority.

~:smoking:

[Sigurd]

[...]I find it odd how people try to put forth the argument that the baby cant live on its own. [...]
I can only speak for my immediate surrounding, but this is an important part of the very definition of abortion. It is clearly stated here that a termination of a pregnancy can be called an abortion only if the fetus is not capable of living outside the womb. It is also stated that fetus is the definition as long as it is inside the womb, from its conceivment until its birth.

In most nations of Europe, the woman can choose to take an abortion up until 12 weeks of her pregnancy. Some of the more liberal nations, up until 24 weeks. But there is no nation that allows a voluntary termination of a pregnancy after 24 weeks in Europe.
In Spain, abortion is only allowed up until 12 weeks if the woman was raped.
There is also a consensus that the point where a fetus can live outside the womb is somewhere between 22 - 28 weeks, but that it vary from pregnancy to pregnancy.

In Norway if a fetus is born but dead, it will enter the census as child, dead upon birth if it was 28 weeks or more. The mother can receive child support from the state if the fetus was 26 weeks.

When it comes to methods of abortion, the gruesome picture given by DA is not legal. In the law it states that abortions after 12 weeks will be by the mother going into forced labor.
Abortions between 12 and 18 weeks is only allowed if a board consisting of medical personnel agrees.
Abortions after 18 weeks if it can be determined that the child will survive outside the womb will never be allowed.

Back to my first statement... what to call it when the fetus is capable of surviving outside the womb when you can't call it an abortion?
I can't find a definition for it. :shame:

[Odin]

Back to my first statement... what to call it when the fetus is capable of surviving outside the womb when you can't call it an abortion?
I can't find a definition for it. :shame:



mur·der

–noun 1. Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).

I like this one, but this leaves the opening for "when is it a human" argument, but the bit about definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation :idea2:

2. Slang. something extremely difficult or perilous: That final exam was murder!
3. a group or flock of crows.
–verb (used with object) 4. Law. to kill by an act constituting murder.
5. to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.

I like this one too, but I'm one of those silly idealists that think once it has a heartbeat its alive :thumbsup:

6. to spoil or mar by bad performance, representation, pronunciation, etc.: The tenor murdered the aria.
–verb (used without object) 7. to commit murder.

So dont be bashful Sigurd, most of us have thick skin from being through the manusha here at the org over the years, if you think its murder its okay, you arent alone. :flowers:

[Devastatin Dave]

Oh joy a Redneck convention...

Sperm = Egg = Baby... Hmmmm. Here (http://www.patient.co.uk/showdoc/23068791/) states 1 in 4 ends in miscarriage all by itself. Isn't that in fact greater than the number of intentional abortions?
:

A miscarraige is a bit more natural than using a surgeon to scrape out a baby from its mother's womb. How is this a "redneck convention"? Would you like to call your opinion the "baby-murderer" position?:no:

[rory_20_uk]

oh, you're referring to a surgical abortion?
A Medical abortion is almost identical to a miscarriage as it causes the cell sac to die and hence is expelled. A morning after pill merely prevents implantation.

I suppose a "redneck" would call if a "baby murderer" position, but given their poor understanding of the medicine behind the event it would not be something I'd loose sleep over.

~:smoking:

[Adrian II]

Hey guys, let's not get another thread locked because of, um, bad manners. A 'redneck' versus 'baby-killer' debate will not convince anyone. And those who think that strong feelings are best served or expressed by strong language or blatant disdain are even less convincing.

And mind you, this is Grumpy speaking. That's gotta count for sumtin.

[CountArach]

Hey guys, let's not get another thread locked because of, um, bad manners. A 'redneck' versus 'baby-killer' debate will not convince anyone. And those who think that strong feelings are best served or expressed by strong language or blatant disdain are even less convincing.
They started it!
:wink:

[Adrian II]

They started it!
:wink:'They' always do. :laugh4:

[rory_20_uk]

Let's face it - when can you remember anyone altering position when they start out with the "life is from conception" / "a baby is only from birth"? You might get some altering the weeks they feel it should be allowed, or other extenuating criteria, but apart from that the line is drawn, both sides have dug in and both sides just shell the other for effect.

And considering I've made decisions that have ended lives of pregnancies and the elderly well it's part and parcel of being a Doctor.

~:smoking:

[Adrian II]

Let's face it - when can you remember anyone altering position when they start out with the "life is from conception" / "a baby is only from birth"? You might get some altering the weeks they feel it should be allowed, or other extenuating criteria, but apart from that the line is drawn, both sides have dug in and both sides just shell the other for effect.

And considering I've made decisions that have ended lives of pregnancies and the elderly well it's part and parcel of being a Doctor.

~:smoking:You are so right. But staying with the facts like Sigurd does, without innuendo or slurs, is quite effective. I actually learn things from it, and God knows I've been-there-done-this twenty times since I joined the .Org.

[PBI]

both sides have dug in and both sides just shell the other for effect.

Agreed; this debate is going nowhere.

In Europe the issue is already resolved and in the US it isn't going to be until both sides admit the need to compromise.

[rory_20_uk]

You are so right. But staying with the facts like Sigurd does, without innuendo or slurs, is quite effective. I actually learn things from it, and God knows I've been-there-done-this twenty times since I joined the .Org.

Plying Devil's advocate: the majority of us know the basics, and if we wanted to learn how either a surgical or medical TOP is performed we could; facts do not change views on a topic in essence divided by beliefs - as all the other threads have proved.

So since strategic lines are drawn the whole topic generally becomes a chance to blow off some steam at others :thumbsup:

Gun thread anyone? :soapbox:

~:smoking:

[woad&fangs]

Divinus Arma, do you have a similar statistic(reasons for late term abortion) from more recently? Some of those percentages just don't sit well with me.:no:

At 16 weeks a fetus has eyelids, a heartbeat, blood cells, liver, lungs, a rough brain, fingers, and a human shape. It is morally messed up in my opinion to say that killing a fetus at this stage is okay.

[Odin]

At 16 weeks a fetus has eyelids, a heartbeat, blood cells, liver, lungs, a rough brain, fingers, and a human shape. It is morally messed up in my opinion to say that killing a fetus at this stage is okay.

I agree with you, for me it wouldnt be an option but I stop at imposing my belief on someone else. That, in essence is my big gripe with the U.S. current legal fooling around in abortion. Groups percieve their moral position to have been justified or subjegated by the governments meddling in the personal choices of its citizenry. Just because you and I feel a certain way, dosent make us right.

[Lemur]

Both extremes in the abortion debate are illogical and unsupportable. "Life begins at conception" has serious holes in it, and in application quickly becomes unworkable. Note that the rhythm method, the only form of birth control approved by the Catholic Church, works by causing fertilized eggs to spontaneously abort. If the "life begins at conception" crowd believe what they say, then the Catholic Church is guilty of encouraging mass murder. Since the "life begins at conception" people are often Catholics, the cognitive dissonance is immediate and obvious.

On the other hand, the people who claim that a fetus is not human until fully born have painted themselves into a corner. "Life" is very hard to define, but a fetus one week from birth clearly meets the criteria.

As Poor Bloody Infantry pointed out, a logical compromise has been modeled by Europe, but due to Roe v. Wade, we are not free to make such an arrangement here. Honestly, I think Roe was the worst possible thing that could happen to both the pro-life and pro-choice camps. By creating a winner-take-all environment it really poisoned the debate.

[LittleGrizzly]

If Roe Vs Wade was to be repealed what would happen ?

would things just return to how they were previously ?

Im assuming before it was done on a state by state basis within similar limits to those currently in Europe, before Roe Vs Wade occured was this issue so big in US, im guessing they wasn't the huge pro choice pro life groups there are today....... what annoys me so much as well is that this issue is a single vote issue for so many voters!! what a waste!

[Adrian II]

As Poor Bloody Infantry pointed out, a logical compromise has been modeled by Europe, but due to Roe v. Wade, we are not free to make such an arrangement here. Honestly, I think Roe was the worst possible thing that could happen to both the pro-life and pro-choice camps. By creating a winner-take-all environment it really poisoned the debate.Interesting take. In an earlier thread I already referred to Woodward's The Abortion Papers (http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/~rauch/nvp/roe/woodward.html) to show how arbitrary a compromise Roe v. Wade really was, just like abortion law in any other country by the way. But the Supreme Court had to decide something, right? It's the American system that forced the SC to 'legislate by dictum'. So Lemur - could they have reached another solution, or am I just missing the whole point here? Please elaborate if you will. :bow:

[Lemur]

Well, I am not a lawyer, as the kids on Slashdot would say, so I'm not qualified to give a nuanced legal opinion. But from a prosimian point of view, Roe v. Wade was no sort of compromise at all, was it? It defined abortion as a right, full stop, without limits or constraints. By Supreme Court standards it was an extremely broad decision.

Personally, I think abortion is a classic case of one person's rights coming into conflict with another's, complicated by the fact that no thoughtful person can give a hard-and-fast rule for where exactly in the zygote->blastocyst->embryo->fetus chain a human being becomes a human being. To say that every fertilized egg is a human being is thoughtless and unconsidered. To deny the humanity of an eight- or nine-month fetus is barbaric, as Divinus Arma so dramatically points out.

Certainly the Supreme Court could have come to a more limited ruling -- they do that all the time. They could have defended Roe's ability to have an abortion without defining it as a universal right, which is where a lot of this trouble originates.

If abortion were not classified as a right, we would be having a much more interesting debate, and compromises would be sorted out state-by-state. And I do not believe that abortion would go away, far from it. As I said earlier in the thread, technology will someday accomplish what all of the protests and arguments cannot.

[Odin]

Well technically Roe V wade decision was made under the premise that restricting abortion ran counter to the 14th amendments diddy on due process (identical to the 5th amendment for the most part). It just made it applicable to the state at that time, and thats the problem with Roe V wade, it strikes right at the heart of states rights. I honestly havent reconciled this one completely because the constitution should supercede the state but the 14th amendement as the justification seems to be out of time (given it was written primarily an amendment dealing with slaves).

However Adrian has a point, the system we have mandated they do something, so they defaulted to due process in the constitution, its about as fair a compramise as our system would allow.

[Craterus]

If the child can survive outside of the womb, even with help, it is a human. Just because it needs a bit of help does not mean its life is worth less, just like many of us outside of the womb need medical attention to survive.




Child: Hi, I'm Jenny. I'm only 5 months along in the womb.

Doctor grabs feet.

Jenny: Oh, I guess they want me out now. Yay! I can't wait to see the exciting world outside after hearing all the funny noises!

Doctor pulls Jennifer halfway out of the vagina, so the head remains inside.

Jenny: Hi! I'm ready! Why are you waiting? I'm hungry and I want to meet my mommy.

Doctor sticks scissors into the back of Jenny's head, spreads them open to widen the hole, and then sticks a vacuum inside to suck her brains out.



Jenny could have felt the warm sun on her face and enjoyed the rich fragrance of flowers in her yard. Jenny could have watched ants crawling on the ground and she could have loved swimming in the local lake with her friends. She could have fallen in love. Jenny could have been a loving mother and pursued a successful career. She may have been a proud grandmother and she may have died after a long and fulfilling life, watching her own children and grandchildren enjoy the things she so enjoyed.

Or Jenny might have had down syndrom, in which case despite her disability she still would have had much to be excited about as she began each new day.

Jenny could have been a psychopath. What's your point?

[Devastatin Dave]

Jenny could have been a psychopath. What's your point?

Or discovered the cure for cancer. What's yours'?:beam:

[Craterus]

Or discovered the cure for cancer. What's yours'?:beam:

Or she could have led another mediocre life just like everybody else. But, she might have taken the last spot in a school, forcing the next Einstein to go to a worse school in a bad area and get mixed up in the wrong crowd and die of a drug overdose at the age of 18. Gosh, Jenny's a problematic child.

Why do I have to have a point? The whole 'Look what could've happened if not for abortion, woe is me' argument isn't worth much in my opinion.

[CountArach]

If Roe Vs Wade was to be repealed what would happen ?

would things just return to how they were previously ?

Im assuming before it was done on a state by state basis within similar limits to those currently in Europe, before Roe Vs Wade occured was this issue so big in US, im guessing they wasn't the huge pro choice pro life groups there are today....... what annoys me so much as well is that this issue is a single vote issue for so many voters!! what a waste!
If Roe vs Wade was overturned then Illegal Abortions would sky-rocket and there would be no protection for mothers who wish for a clean, safe abortion. That said I don't know how things were before it (Or admittedly much about what happens under it now), so feel free to correct me.

[LittleGrizzly]

Would there be no right to abortion without roe vs wade or would states revert back to laws before roe vs wade ?

[Craterus]

If Roe vs Wade was overturned then Illegal Abortions would sky-rocket and there would be no protection for mothers who wish for a clean, safe abortion. That said I don't know how things were before it (Or admittedly much about what happens under it now), so feel free to correct me.

They're not mothers! *facepalm*

[Lemur]

LittleGrizzly, if Roe v. Wade were overturned the most likely scenario is that the states would sort out the laws for themselves. Either that or Congress would rush through legislation. Neither, in my opinion, would be a disaster.

[Kralizec]

I'd say restrict it.

My opinion is that women shouldn't be forced to give birth. However in that same opinion waiting till the 8th month is just plain sick, and I'm disgusted by the ease with wich some people decide that completely developed fetuses aren't worthy of being called human because they haven't left the womb yet.
Before somebody makes mention of it, I find it hard to believe that any woman of normal intelligence would not notice for more than 3 months straight that they're pregnant.

[Ice]

I'd say restrict it.

My opinion is that women shouldn't be forced to give birth. However in that same opinion waiting till the 8th month is just plain sick, and I'm disgusted by the ease with wich some people decide that completely developed fetuses aren't worthy of being called human because they haven't left the womb yet.
Before somebody makes mention of it, I find it hard to believe that any woman of normal intelligence would not notice for more than 3 months straight that they're pregnant.

Uh huh. I'd agree.

[Strike For The South]

Oh joy a Redneck convention...

Sperm = Egg = Baby... Hmmmm. Here (http://www.patient.co.uk/showdoc/23068791/) states 1 in 4 ends in miscarriage all by itself. Isn't that in fact greater than the number of intentional abortions?

And just to reiterate: a 10 week pregnancy has a 100% chance of dying out of the uterus, as does a 15 week. By 20 weeks we're getting close to getting a living creature some of the time.

I know that nothing will alter these views - especially with the "interesting" examples that are lumped together in the post. Luckily in developed societies these are in the minority.

~:smoking:

Natrual deaths happen all the time. Kids die from a boatload of things every year. What's your point?

[Ironside]

Natrual deaths happen all the time. Kids die from a boatload of things every year. What's your point?


I dont care if you're ready or not you made the choice and you must now live with it you must have the baby. You can put it up for adoption but you must give it life.


Or to paraphrase:

A random foetus dies. "MURDERER!!! Oh, it was a natural death." Goes away whistling completly indifferent.

Come on, give me a "Think of the children" aswell.

[CountArach]

They're not mothers! *facepalm*
Hmmm, touché...

[Strike For The South]

Or to paraphrase:

A random foetus dies. "MURDERER!!! Oh, it was a natural death." Goes away whistling completly indifferent.

Come on, give me a "Think of the children" aswell.

A miscarige is a random act of nature. Abortion is not. Saying abortion is ok becuase miscarriges happen is like saying murder is ok becuase cancer happens.

[m52nickerson]

Ok a few things. To say that life "begins" at conception or life "begins" at birth are both wrong. Life is not beginning, but merely continuing. Sperms and Ovum are alive. I find both catch phrases mis-representing.

In saying this the question become when is a fetus an viable human life. I would say that it is at 24 weeks or just after. When the fetus could survive without support from the mother.

Before this time the fetus is nothing more that part of the mother, it can't survive without her any more than your head can survive without your body.

Now Strike's example were Gram Gram dies is no were close to the same thing, since Gram Gram has been born and is not directly dependent on a single person.

[Viking]

Ok a few things. To say that life "begins" at conception or life "begins" at birth are both wrong. Life is not beginning, but merely continuing. Sperms and Ovum are alive. I find both catch phrases mis-representing.

The human being's life begins at conception yes; prior to that there was two different beings with two different halved sets of DNA. They both ceased to exist at conception.


In saying this the question become when is a fetus an viable human life. I would say that it is at 24 weeks or just after. When the fetus could survive without support from the mother.

Before this time the fetus is nothing more that part of the mother, it can't survive without her any more than your head can survive without your body.

Now Strike's example were Gram Gram dies is no were close to the same thing, since Gram Gram has been born and is not directly dependent on a single person.


So then, a siamese twin dependent on its twin's nutrition is qualified for abortion? Just goes to show that drawing the line there is arbitrary. There are also adult people who are depending on machines for survival; but that does not make them a machine.

Furthermore, if something is a natural part of the body, it has the same DNA. That is not the case with foetuses. And as for comparing with a head; that is also incorrect. The head will always need a body supporting it; while a foetus will eventually not have that need. That's the second difference between a body part and a foetus.

[Ironside]

A miscarige is a random act of nature. Abortion is not. Saying abortion is ok becuase miscarriges happen is like saying murder is ok becuase cancer happens.

And knowledge on what causes miscariage and medicine can load the dice. But that's not considered as important as cancer treatment...

Interesting that you condemn the action and not the result.

[Craterus]

So then, a siamese twin dependent on its twin's nutrition is qualified for abortion? Just goes to show that drawing the line there is arbitrary. There are also adult people who are depending on machines for survival; but that does not make them a machine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violinist_(Thought_Experiment)

[Adrian II]

In saying this the question become when is a fetus an viable human life.That is a legitimate question, but it is of no concern to the law.

The law is concerned with persons. Not with Siamese twins, plants or clumps of cells, however viable they may be. Only persons have rights.

Instead of defining 'life' or 'humanity' or 'viability', define 'person' and ye shall be free of unnecessary confusion and irrelevant sentiment. A woman is a person. And a woman has the unalienable right to defend her body from any intrusion by another person, be it a fetus, an embryo or a grown adult. Nuff said.

[Viking]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violinist_(Thought_Experiment))

That got nothing to do with argument that nickerson put forth; he said that the foetus was to be considered a human being when it could survive outside the mother's womb.

[Craterus]

That got nothing to do with argument that nickerson put forth; he said that the foetus was to be considered a human being when it could survive outside the mother's womb.

No, it's to do with what you said. That's why I quoted part of your post. ~:rolleyes:

[Kralizec]

That is a legitimate question, but it is of no concern to the law.

The law is concerned with persons. Not with Siamese twins, plants or clumps of cells, however viable they may be. Only persons have rights.

Instead of defining 'life' or 'humanity' or 'viability', define 'person' and ye shall be free of unnecessary confusion and irrelevant sentiment. A woman is a person. And a woman has the unalienable right to defend her body from any intrusion by another person, be it a fetus, an embryo or a grown adult. Nuff said.

I'm of the opinion that once a woman has carried a fetus for longer than a few months, she has waivered her right to cancel.

You're saying that the law only grants rights to persons (and actually many law systems enable unborn people to inherit anyway) and because unborn are not recognised as such right now, they're not to be considered. Yet when a law system doesn't allow abortion, it's denying people unalienable rights?

[Samurai Waki]

I have yet to hear an opinion from a female orgah, and as such have refrained from making any serious comment on my views regarding this snake pit.

[Strike For The South]

And knowledge on what causes miscariage and medicine can load the dice. But that's not considered as important as cancer treatment...

Interesting that you condemn the action and not the result.

Death is a sad thing. Harming a living thing is evil

[Samurai Waki]

Curious, I've never once heard you speak against your state's approval for the death sentence.

[Adrian II]

I'm of the opinion that once a woman has carried a fetus for longer than a few months, she has waivered her right to cancel.

You're saying that the law only grants rights to persons (and actually many law systems enable unborn people to inherit anyway) and because unborn are not recognised as such right now, they're not to be considered. Yet when a law system doesn't allow abortion, it's denying people unalienable rights?
I'm saying this: it does not matter whether or not you define an unborn as a person. The woman is a person. She can decide at any time to stop unwanted intrusion on her body by another person, a clump of cells, a Siamese twin, a new Adolf Hitler or a new Albert Einstein.

All the emotional appeals in this thread, both pro-choice and anti-choice, will not change that. Emotions do not define or restrict either morality or legality.

As to the anti-choice porn: imagine, for a moment, that opponents of the war in Iraq would plaster buldings and billboards with giant pictures of horribly maimed Iraqi and Afghan civilians, American and British soldiers, etcetera. Would it change your view on those wars? Not mine. The fact that people are killed as such, however, horribly, is no reason to change policy.

Morality or legality cannot be photographed.

[Strike For The South]

Curious, I've never once heard you speak against your state's approval for the death sentence.

That should read innocent human life. Harming something that has done no wrong is much diffrenent than punshing a henouis offense.

[Strike For The South]

I'm saying this: it does not matter whether or not you define an unborn as a person. The woman is a person. She can decide at any time to stop unwanted intrusion on her body by another person, a clump of cells, a Siamese twin, a new Adolf Hitler or a new Albert Einstein.

All the emotional appeals in this thread, both pro-choice and anti-choice, will not change that. Emotions do not define or restrict either morality or legality.

As to the anti-choice porn: imagine, for a moment, that opponents of the war in Iraq would plaster buldings and billboards with giant pictures of horribly maimed Iraqi and Afghan civilians, American and British soldiers, etcetera. Would it change your view on those wars? Not mine. The fact that people are killed as such, however, horribly, is no reason to change policy.

Morality or legality cannot be photographed.

To define pregnancy as intrusion is wrong. I think thats where we split. The mircale of life is not so minor inconveince for a woman it is a child. So Adrian II when does this child obtain rights to protect it form its mother or father?

[Adrian II]

To define pregnancy as intrusion is wrong. I think thats where we split. The mircale of life is not so minor inconveince for a woman it is a child. So Adrian II when does this child obtain rights to protect it form its mother or father?From birth.

[Strike For The South]

From birth.

well sir I must respectfully disagree.

[Adrian II]

well sir I must respectfully disagree.That's not enough. You must also respectfully observe every woman's right to freedom. Whether the law or your God say so is not relevant. You may well regard a fetus as a miracle of life, but a woman has the right to refuse your miracle. She has the right to refuse a fetus even if that fetus were Jesus Christ the Saviour himself, come to reclaim his Kingdom.

[Strike For The South]

That's not enough. You must also respectfully observe every woman's right to freedom. Whether the law or your God say so is not relevant. You may well regard a fetus as a miracle of life, but a woman has the right to refuse your miracle. She has the right to refuse a fetus even if that fetus were Jesus Christ the Saviour himself, come to reclaim his Kingdom.

No she does not have that right. As soon as the sperm hits the egg and conception happens that baby has all the rights as any other human including protection from murder. A human mother holds just as much power of the infant when its born its just outside of herm

[Samurai Waki]

and it all comes full circle. :juggle2:. Ms. Waki says Strike clearly doesn't have a vagina... good news :thumbsup:

[Kralizec]

I'm saying this: it does not matter whether or not you define an unborn as a person. The woman is a person. She can decide at any time to stop unwanted intrusion on her body by another person, a clump of cells, a Siamese twin, a new Adolf Hitler or a new Albert Einstein.

All the emotional appeals in this thread, both pro-choice and anti-choice, will not change that. Emotions do not define or restrict either morality or legality.

As to the anti-choice porn: imagine, for a moment, that opponents of the war in Iraq would plaster buldings and billboards with giant pictures of horribly maimed Iraqi and Afghan civilians, American and British soldiers, etcetera. Would it change your view on those wars? Not mine. The fact that people are killed as such, however, horribly, is no reason to change policy.

Morality or legality cannot be photographed.

It's clear enough that you think that women should have unrestricted rights to abortion. But you haven't demonstrated this to be anything other than your personal opinion. You've used the word "unalienable" wich suggests that you think it's part of some Natural Law, wich I happen to think is a load of bullox.

[Adrian II]

As soon as the sperm hits the egg and conception happens that baby has all the rights as any other human including protection from murder.That's correct, if you define it so. But just like any other human being, it does not have the right to grow in, and feed on, someone else's body.
(..) you think it's part of some Natural Law, wich I happen to think is a load of bullox.I am so intimidated by your persuasive reasoning.

Good night.

[Strike For The South]

and it all comes full circle. :juggle2:. Ms. Waki says Strike clearly doesn't have a vagina... good news :thumbsup:

How self richeous. I still would like to point out pregnancies dont just happen you need sex in order for it to happen. Everyone knows this. I have already disscused earlier in the thread that you should know man or woman what all sex entails Im not saying you should save yourself becuase thats just stupid but you must be wary.



That's correct, if you define it so. But just like any other human being, it does not have the right to grow in, and feed on, someone else's body.I am so intimidated by your persuasive reasoning.

Good night.

lol. Humans are mammals and that is how mammals reporduce. You make it sound like the baby is some kind of parisite. I think it is quite self richeous of the woman to decide she has the power just becuase she was given the parts to carry life. What an ego those women have.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I've got to agree with SFTS, at least partially. When you have sex, you take the risk of getting pregnant. If that birth will harm the mother, or she was raped, she has the right to get rid of it - before the end of the first trimester in the second case, or at the earliest possible opportunity in the first. However, she does not have the right to kill something as a form of birth control following consensual sex. Full stop.

Adrian II (just picking on you, nothing personal ~;)) says that the female has the complete right to her own body. However, the fetus is also a human being, even if it is in a lesser stage of development than the female. It also, therefore, has rights as a human. A basic human right is the one to life.

[KukriKhan]

A clarification, please:


Note that the rhythm method, the only form of birth control approved by the Catholic Church, works by causing fertilized eggs to spontaneously abort.

Are you very sure you're correct on this? If you are right, then I have seriously misunderstood the mechanics and intent of that method, lo these many decades. I thought the point of counting days and tracking menstrual cycles was to prevent fertilization in the first place.

My mother hated the rhytm method, because it didn't work. She bore 3 more children than she had originally hoped to have, she admitted in her 60's after all her highly-loved kids had grown. And her church's (R.Catholic) insistence on it as the only non-sinful way to not have children, eventually drove her from the church into the arms of Lutherans.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

Ok, I'm going to voice my opinion here. Clearly from whats been said in my absence I'm way out of my depth here but...


But just like any other human being, it does not have the right to grow in, and feed on, someone else's body.

Strictly according to law, Adrian you are correct, however the key thing you forgot is that with the woman's consent that would be fine, this may be why other people are so adamantly opposed to your pov. Then again it may not.

I understand that you're not advocting that 8 month along preganancies should be aborted, but at the moment that is where your line of reasoning is taking you.


No she does not have that right. As soon as the sperm hits the egg and conception happens that baby has all the rights as any other human including protection from murder. A human mother holds just as much power of the infant when its born its just outside of herm

Again according to law I'm fairly sure you're wrong. Ideally, in your mind, a foetus should have all rights from conception. Unfortunately your approach doesn't provide any 'way out' for rape victims, who had no choice in the matter of conception. In this case in particular abortion should be allowed. Also ot all depends on the defintion of what is alive, which, as has been said, is extremely elusive.


That should read innocent human life. Harming something that has done no wrong is much diffrenent than punshing a heinous offense.

So you are advocating that 'murder' is allowed in certain circumstances? Murder is never the answer. I'll be panned as a hypocrite now but I feel it had to be said. Again it's down to your definition of what is alive, and whether the woman in question has the right to control her own body.

Sorry for any offence caused by my blundering, underformed and seemingly contradictory opinions on such a contentious matter.

Curio

[m52nickerson]

Well around and round we go.

The abortion argument basically has two parts. 1) The rights of woman to control her own body. 2) The need to protect human life.

Pro-choice give women there rights, but fails to protect human life. (Depending on your view)

Pro-life protects human life, but removes womens rights.

So a compromise must be reached, but there is a sticking point. What constitute human life?

So would argue that as soon as a egg is fertilized by a sperm it is a new human life. Others that it is not until birth does a baby constitutes Human life. Again a compromise must be reached.

I would say that the logical point between contraception and birth 24 weeks would be a good set point as the fetus could now survive with out the mother.

So allowing abortion up to 24 weeks seems the most fair compromise. It provides women the right to control her own body for most of the pregnancy, and protects life once it is not dependent on the mother.

As for the examples of Siamese twins, one twin is often sacrificed to save the other. Plus in my recommendation I acknowledge that this the set point of 24 weeks is a compromise.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I would say that the logical point between contraception and birth 24 weeks would be a good set point as the fetus could now survive with out the mother.


This is after twenty-two weeks. Don't click it if you don't like the sight of dead humans.

EDIT: Such linked pictures have been discouraged before in these threads. Those who wish to view such images can do the search themselves. BG

[Strike For The South]

Why 24 weeks does the baby all of a sudden magicaly become human at 25 or is that just at the point where it becomes to recgonizable to kill. That is such an arbatary number.

[Ironside]

Why 24 weeks does the baby all of a sudden magicaly become human at 25 or is that just at the point where it becomes to recgonizable to kill. That is such an arbatary number.

And the only time conception is a non-arbitary point is if you don't think hard enough. For starters, to separate embryos from alive, unique induviduals that we consider in principle dead, then we need to introduce a truely arbitary thing caled potential for life.

Sure easy enough for those who end up born and living a long life, but that would for example mean that a foestus that will die before birth isn't a human so it's perfectly fine to abort it by the charming method DA described.

But we cannot have that so then you have run with that they might have a potential for life. Arbitary? No, of course not. :book:


No she does not have that right. As soon as the sperm hits the egg and conception happens that baby has all the rights as any other human including protection from murder. A human mother holds just as much power of the infant when its born its just outside of herm

And that is a legal hellhole if the law is going to follow that principle. For example, you cannot shovel up a bottle of liquor on child and force them to drink, so by the same principle a pregnant woman cannot drink. But it's also considered extreme negligence if a child aquire the liquor by accident, so a sexually active woman can't drink.


Kukri, the rhyme method have periods were the ovum get fertlized but not attached, aka no pregnancy. http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/32/6/355.pdf

[Adrian II]

No anti-choice advocate has yet explained to me why a person has the right to live and feed off another person.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I wish I hadn't read DA's above post. To think that that happens, well I'd rather not.

And the baby has the right to live and feed off another person because presumably it is at least partly the mother's fault that she is pregnant. I don't think the baby asked to be there. But if the mother has a change of heart, just pull out the scissors! :2thumbsup:

And even if the mother does show remorse that does not make it acceptable. If you kill an adult and show remorse, do you not still go to prison?

And as for the argument that the baby won't be loved or cared for, that is just unbelievable. So if an elderly person in a care home has no relatives to visit him, should they just be taken round the back of the building and shot (or is it the good old scissors and tube to the head?).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No anti-choice advocate has yet explained to me why a person has the right to live and feed off another person.

You're building a strawman there. First, you're calling pro-lifers "anti-choicers" which is incorrect because they are not primarily against making choices, they are against what they see as the killing of another human being.

As to the second part of your statement, the counter-question is "when does one human being have the right to kill another?"

[Viking]

No, it's to do with what you said. That's why I quoted part of your post. ~:rolleyes:

Nickerson says that a foetus is to be considered a human at 24 weeks, I say that is arbitrary, and then you post something about an ill violinist? ~:confused: C'mon.

[HoreTore]

You're building a strawman there. First, you're calling pro-lifers "anti-choicers" which is incorrect because they are not primarily against making choices, they are against what they see as the killing of another human being.

As to the second part of your statement, the counter-question is "when does one human being have the right to kill another?"

Let's compromise here; we do not have the right to kill a fetus, but the woman has the right to deny the fetus living inside her. So, we will have to take the fetus out, and then let it live and grow on its own. Sounds like a fine thing, right?

[Strike For The South]

And the only time conception is a non-arbitary point is if you don't think hard enough. For starters, to separate embryos from alive, unique induviduals that we consider in principle dead, then we need to introduce a truely arbitary thing caled potential for life.

Sure easy enough for those who end up born and living a long life, but that would for example mean that a foestus that will die before birth isn't a human so it's perfectly fine to abort it by the charming method DA described.

But we cannot have that so then you have run with that they might have a potential for life. Arbitary? No, of course not. :book:



And that is a legal hellhole if the law is going to follow that principle. For example, you cannot shovel up a bottle of liquor on child and force them to drink, so by the same principle a pregnant woman cannot drink. But it's also considered extreme negligence if a child aquire the liquor by accident, so a sexually active woman can't drink.


Kukri, the rhyme method have periods were the ovum get fertlized but not attached, aka no pregnancy. http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/32/6/355.pdf

Lol thats a fallacy. As soon as woman finds out she is pregnant she sould stop drinking and smoking the effects in the earlier part of the pregnancy (the part in which she doesnt know) are negligible.




Let's compromise here; we do not have the right to kill a fetus, but the woman has the right to deny the fetus living inside her. So, we will have to take the fetus out, and then let it live and grow on its own. Sounds like a fine thing, right?

Ok than we can do that but then we should do it for all the infants small children cancer paitients paraplegics and retarded pepole. All types of humans that need help to live.

[Strike For The South]

No anti-choice advocate has yet explained to me why a person has the right to live and feed off another person.

Is this really an arguement you're putting forth. Its how mammals have children its not some intrusion it is a living human. The human got there by having an act that she knew couldvery well lead to pregnancy. I would also like to point what you describe is a parasitic relationship and that is how science defines a baby in the womb

[Kralizec]

No anti-choice advocate has yet explained to me why a person has the right to live and feed off another person.

You're against social security too, now? ~;p

The problem I have with your arguments (aside from the Natural Law business) is that unlike women, clumps of cells never have a say in wether they're conceived or not and saying that they're invading a womans body is simply a reversal of the truth.

That said, legislation should always be designed for practical application and a total ban would inevitably be a farce. I'm not against abortion entirely, I just think it should occur early or not at all. First trimester seems reasonable.

Those who say that such a line is arbitrary should realise that enabling everybody to vote at their 18th and nobody before that is arbitrary as well, yet you rarely hear people complaining about it.

[Samurai Waki]

You're against social security too, now? ~;p

The problem I have with your arguments (aside from the Natural Law business) is that unlike women, clumps of cells never have a say in wether they're conceived or not and saying that they're invading a womans body is simply a reversal of the truth.

That said, legislation should always be designed for practical application and a total ban would inevitably be a farce. I'm not against abortion entirely, I just think it should occur early or not at all. First trimester seems reasonable.

Those who say that such a line is arbitrary should realise that enabling everybody to vote at their 18th and nobody before that is arbitrary as well, yet you rarely hear people complaining about it.

Well said Sir. And about the point where I stand on the issue; the reason why I've been acting a little more pro choice, is simply because I don't want to see that option go away.

[Adrian II]

As to the second part of your statement, the counter-question is "when does one human being have the right to kill another?"I already told you.

Basically, this is for the same reason why nations have the right to defend themselves, even if that means killing innocents in the process.

Social security has nothing to do with this.

Nor has the fact that humans are mammals. That's a naturalistic fallacy. Do gerbils have freedom rights? We're mammals alright, but we're human mammals. We do things differently.

[Viking]

Those who say that such a line is arbitrary should realise that enabling everybody to vote at their 18th and nobody before that is arbitrary as well, yet you rarely hear people complaining about it.

So you cannot see any difference between a nine year old voting and an eighteen year old voting? ~:rolleyes:

[HoreTore]

Ok than we can do that but then we should do it for all the infants small children cancer paitients paraplegics and retarded pepole. All types of humans that need help to live.

If there are retarded people out there still living in their mothers womb against her will, then yes, I certainly support getting them out, retarded or not! :laugh4:

[Kralizec]

So you cannot see any difference between a nine year old voting and an eighteen year old voting? ~:rolleyes:

You don't understand the analogy. Some say that drawing the line at any point for pregnancies is arbitrary because fetuses aren't magicly imbued with humanity at any sharp point in time. Allowing people to vote from their 18th onward is arbitrary because that particular point doesn't have any intrinsic significance either.

[Viking]

You don't understand the analogy. Some say that drawing the line at any point for pregnancies is arbitrary because fetuses aren't magicly imbued with humanity at any sharp point in time. Allowing people to vote from their 18th onward is arbitrary because that particular point doesn't have any intrinsic significance either.

Yes, I know that nothing special happens when you're eighteen; but it's sort of more special to decide if something is murder or not. A line would have to be relatively arbitrary yes; but it does not have to be one hundred percent arbitrary; as in, let's just pick a random number of weeks.
24 sounds fine just because the baby has a greater chance to survive premature birth? Bollocks, look to the physical attributes that has got to do with conscience. If you're killing a vegetable that has no hopes what so ever to regain any sort of conscience; how on Earth is that equal to killing someone that has great chances to survive the coma and be just fine after a few months? (point: their lives are both 100% dependant on support)

[Craterus]

Yes, I know that nothing special happens when you're eighteen; but it's sort of more special to decide if something is murder or not. A line would have to be relatively arbitrary yes; but it does not have to be one hundred percent arbitrary; as in, let's just pick a random number of weeks.
24 sounds fine just because the baby has a greater chance to survive premature birth? Bollocks, look to the physical attributes that has got to do with conscience. If you're killing a vegetable that has no hopes what so ever to regain any sort of conscience; how on Earth is that equal to killing someone that has great chances to survive the coma and be just fine after a few months? (point: their lives are both 100% dependant on support)

And that's where the violinist example comes in. It's talking about dependency. Hence why I mentioned it.

If the baby is dependent on the mother, then she should have the right to choose to get rid of it.

There's another analogy I like about seeds but I'm a little hazy so you can look it up if you're interested.

[Viking]

And that's where the violinist example comes in. It's talking about dependency. Hence why I mentioned it.

If the baby is dependent on the mother, then she should have the right to choose to get rid of it.

There's another analogy I like about seeds but I'm a little hazy so you can look it up if you're interested.

I have not been argumenting against late term abortion, though, only about when a human is human (which is not at all the same line of argumentation); which of course there is no absolute answer to at all. Nothing is ever perfectly round, but some figures are rounder than others.

[m52nickerson]

Why 24 weeks does the baby all of a sudden magicaly become human at 25 or is that just at the point where it becomes to recgonizable to kill. That is such an arbatary number.

Yes it is. The whole point of the my post was to provide a compromise.

Strike I know you have argued that a Women does not have the right to end a pregnancy. So if we outlawed abortion are we also going to prevent the mother from drinking, or smoking, or taking some legal over the counter medicine? What about handling used cat litter? Are we going to make the mother eat right, drink more fluids?

All these things, and more, could hurt of kill the fetus. If the mother does not want the child and will give it up after the birth what does she care?

Is it fair to have a child born with sever birth defects and suffer there whole life, or end its existence before it even chance to develop to a point of awareness.

[Strike For The South]

Yes it is. The whole point of the my post was to provide a compromise.

Strike I know you have argued that a Women does not have the right to end a pregnancy. So if we outlawed abortion are we also going to prevent the mother from drinking, or smoking, or taking some legal over the counter medicine? What about handling used cat litter? Are we going to make the mother eat right, drink more fluids?

All these things, and more, could hurt of kill the fetus. If the mother does not want the child and will give it up after the birth what does she care?

Is it fair to have a child born with sever birth defects and suffer there whole life, or end its existence before it even chance to develop to a point of awareness.


We cant control everything the woman does however we can control this. My arguement is not one based on emotion it is based on logic. The human inside the mother has rights. just like a child. Can we stop mothers from doing dumb things that may harm there kids no but we can stop abuse and murder and thats exactly what this is about. Protecting rights of another human.

[m52nickerson]

We cant control everything the woman does however we can control this. My arguement is not one based on emotion it is based on logic. The human inside the mother has rights. just like a child. Can we stop mothers from doing dumb things that may harm there kids no but we can stop abuse and murder and thats exactly what this is about. Protecting rights of another human.

Then you are against capital punishment?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Then you are against capital punishment?

That's a bad comparison - with capital punishment, you have a (usually) guilty party. With an unborn child...well, it's kind of hard for it to be guilty of a crime.

I'm against capital punishment in peacetime anyways. But that's another topic.

[Strike For The South]

Then you are against capital punishment?


That's a bad comparison - with capital punishment, you have a (usually) guilty party. With an unborn child...well, it's kind of hard for it to be guilty of a crime.

I'm against capital punishment in peacetime anyways. But that's another topic.

:smash:

[Samurai Waki]

We have discovered that after we have killed certain "guilty" people, all evidence actually points out that they were innocent. This doesn't happen a lot, but it happens and is worthy to note. So it would seem hypocritical to kill a prisoner, who could later be found to be innocent, and not abort a fetus (during the first trimester of course) who is also innocent. I refuse to play that moral game.
The question it seems, is not whether abortion should be banned or not, but what is "human"?. Its not very defined, and the argument for or against aborting a fetus is superfluous. You ban it, and it will still happen, only another innocent person (along with fetus) is putting their life in danger, physically and/or judiciously. If you don't put restrictions on it (such as late term abortions without direct physical danger to the mother) and it could very well be abused, not just by uneducated teen girls, but also partners who "don't think its the right time yet."

Unfortunately, it is a quagmire topic, and nobody can agree wholeheartedly, and I wouldn't expect it to. However, having studied law for several years now, and having read the Inalienable Rights of Man, a fetus which cannot sustain life outside the mothers womb is not a citizen of this country, is not human as Children have rights of their own Inalienable Rights, under sed Human Rights Articles, which have been provisioned under the United States Constitution.

"Inalienable (Individual) Rights are: natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They are the most fundamental set of human rights, natural means not-granted nor conditional. They are applicable only to humans, as the basic necessity of their survival."

These rights can only be applicable to the "holder" of the Fetus, as naturally the mother's right to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness trumps.

Liberty is divided into four types : natural, personal, civil and political. The first two are inalienable, the latter two are government granted. What this means, is essentially, that in Nature's law, and in her own personal world, if a mother wants an abortion, she will have it. Civil Law, however can regulate her own personal views, but it cannot ban them entirely. If you look at how many people are jailed every year for Marijuana Possession, it becomes clear how devastating jailing abortionists would become on our current funding for Prisons, and is a problem (much like Marijuana is now) that will continually persist. This is why, Society's views on Marijuana have softened so much, its more acceptable because it is widespread, and theres very little we can do to actually stop it. Not to mention, it isn't that heinous.

Now it falls under the "mother's" Pursuit of Happiness; because we cannot completely get rid of abortions entirely, it can still be regulated up to a point. Under Civil Law, which is what this argument would fall under, if we ban abortion, then Mother's who seek out such a practice, would not get proper medical treatment, and the mother puts herself in great risk, of death, or contracting an infection, or illness. You get hedge-abortionists, who may not have qualification to do the job, which leads to the possibility of causing undue stress or harm unto the child, before it's death. I'd rather have it done as professionally, as clean, and as harmless as possible to both mother, and safely dead fetus.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

No anti-choice advocate has yet explained to me why a person has the right to live and feed off another person.

Children live and feed off of their parents until the age of 16-20 (35 for the extreme case lol).

People who have sex accept the possibility of becoming pregnant. The baby has the right to feed off of the mother because she said it could. First she said it could by having sex, then by not aborting it while it was still unconscious. Obvious exceptions made for girls who are underage or who were raped. Also obvious exceptions if the pregnancy significantly threatens the health of the mother, or if the baby has a serious enough medical condition (metabolic disorders, no working kidney's etc). There may be a couple other exceptions I can't recall at the moment.

If the none of the exceptions are met I have to disagree with you Adrian. Pregnancy and child birth are harsh to deal with but that's life, sometimes you just have to suck it up. If you don't want the baby give it up for adoption.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

If you look at how many people are jailed every year for Marijuana Possession, it becomes clear how devastating jailing abortionists would become on our current funding for Prisons, and is a problem (much like Marijuana is now) that will continually persist.

Fine them. Heavily.

[Strike For The South]

We have discovered that after we have killed certain "guilty" people, all evidence actually points out that they were innocent. This doesn't happen a lot, but it happens and is worthy to note. So it would seem hypocritical to kill a prisoner, who could later be found to be innocent, and not abort a fetus (during the first trimester of course) who is also innocent. I refuse to play that moral game.
The question it seems, is not whether abortion should be banned or not, but what is "human"?. Its not very defined, and the argument for or against aborting a fetus is superfluous. You ban it, and it will still happen, only another innocent person (along with fetus) is putting their life in danger, physically and/or judiciously. If you don't put restrictions on it (such as late term abortions without direct physical danger to the mother) and it could very well be abused, not just by uneducated teen girls, but also partners who "don't think its the right time yet."

Unfortunately, it is a quagmire topic, and nobody can agree wholeheartedly, and I wouldn't expect it to. However, having studied law for several years now, and having read the Inalienable Rights of Man, a fetus which cannot sustain life outside the mothers womb is not a citizen of this country, is not human as Children have rights of their own Inalienable Rights, under sed Human Rights Articles, which have been provisioned under the United States Constitution.

"Inalienable (Individual) Rights are: natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They are the most fundamental set of human rights, natural means not-granted nor conditional. They are applicable only to humans, as the basic necessity of their survival."

These rights can only be applicable to the "holder" of the Fetus, as naturally the mother's right to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness trumps.

Liberty is divided into four types : natural, personal, civil and political. The first two are inalienable, the latter two are government granted. What this means, is essentially, that in Nature's law, and in her own personal world, if a mother wants an abortion, she will have it. Civil Law, however can regulate her own personal views, but it cannot ban them entirely. If you look at how many people are jailed every year for Marijuana Possession, it becomes clear how devastating jailing abortionists would become on our current funding for Prisons, and is a problem (much like Marijuana is now) that will continually persist. This is why, Society's views on Marijuana have softened so much, its more acceptable because it is widespread, and theres very little we can do to actually stop it. Not to mention, it isn't that heinous.

Now it falls under the "mother's" Pursuit of Happiness; because we cannot completely get rid of abortions entirely, it can still be regulated up to a point. Under Civil Law, which is what this argument would fall under, if we ban abortion, then Mother's who seek out such a practice, would not get proper medical treatment, and the mother puts herself in great risk, of death, or contracting an infection, or illness. You get hedge-abortionists, who may not have qualification to do the job, which leads to the possibility of causing undue stress or harm unto the child, before it's death. I'd rather have it done as professionally, as clean, and as harmless as possible to both mother, and safely dead fetus.

I dont see how the mothers prusuit of happnies trumps the babies life. An infant is just as depandant on its mother as a fetous and when people kill infants there is an outrage. Saying it should be legal becuase others will get hurt isnt a valid arguement. They will only get hurt if they choose to break a law and they will only be put in that postion by a personal choice they made.


causing undue stress or harm unto the child, before it's death.

Biut its just a clump of cells......:thumbsdown:

[Samurai Waki]

I dont see how the mothers prusuit of happnies trumps the babies life. An infant is just as depandant on its mother as a fetous and when people kill infants there is an outrage. Saying it should be legal becuase others will get hurt isnt a valid arguement. They will only get hurt if they choose to break a law and they will only be put in that postion by a personal choice they made. :thumbsdown:

During the first Trimester, a fetus is just a clump of cells, ergo the fact that it has no rights as a human being. But, hey, if you want to go make an amendment be my guest, just don't get pissy when it turns out much like the 18th amendment, it gets overturned in a couple of years and we're all worse off for it. But, hey I don't like Alcohol that much anyways, do you think I should go throw every person who drinks in the poky? or fine them heavily?

Or Beef. A cow has the right to live! No Beef, or cowboy hats for you. And I don't like Texas much as a state, we should turn texas into about ten smaller states, and give at least one of them to Mexico...

[ajaxfetish]

Re: Adrian

I know you aren't inline with Xiahou or Crazed Rabbit on gun rights, and I'm not sure where you stand on home defense in general, so this analogy may not be meaningful to you. If not, I apologize for my poor attempt.

A person has the right to defend their home from invasion. If an armed intruder comes into their house and threatens their person, family, or property, they have the right to attack and possibly kill the intruder. It is not the same if the intruder has been invited in. I cannot invite a neighbor I dislike to my home, then kill him, and claim I am innocent because he had invaded my home. It's flawed to say a woman has the complete right to abortion simply because the fetus is invading her person. She has in most cases invited it in by voluntarily engaging in sex. Involuntary impregnation is of course another matter.

The analogy breaks down somewhat, since the homeowner can demand the guest leave, and if the guest refuses to leave they become an invader and the rules of the game shift. The fetus does not have the ability to voluntarily leave the womb if the mother demands it goes.

Overall, the issue comes back to the same place it always does. When does a fetus become a human--or in legal terms, when does it become a person--with rights of its own. As Viking points out, the cells involved have always been alive, since prior to fertilization on. If all living human cells have a right to life, masturbation is mass murder. Life is not the issue: humanity/personhood is. The traditional lines in the sand (conception and birth) are both very unconvincing to me, and any line between those is, as Viking has said, arbitrary. For legal purposes, it must be drawn, just as an arbitrary line between child and adult (for purposes such as voting rights, substance use rights, driving privileges, sexual consent, method of trial, etc.) has been drawn (or rather, several have been drawn depending on the issue). I don't know where the best place to draw that line is. The beginning of the third trimester seems a reasonable place, and it sounds like most of the western world has chosen something along those lines. America is still struggling with the issue.

Ajax

[Craterus]

Why does being human give you a right to life anyway?

[CountArach]

Why does being human give you a right to life anyway?
Well the Declaration of Human Rights does specifically state the right to life.

[woad&fangs]

What's the Declaration of Human Rights? I've never heard of it before.

[LittleGrizzly]

Isn't it something to do with the UN charter...

[CountArach]

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

[Craterus]

Well, I'm glad the wise men of the UN figured that all out for us. Phew.

~:rolleyes:

[Samurai Waki]

Well, I'm glad the wise men of the UN figured that all out for us. Phew.

~:rolleyes:

But the wording is largely taken from the US Declaration of Independence. The UN Charter only adds you know... some minor tweeks, like rights of Children, Amnesty, and so forth... that most countries outside of Europe haven't adopted.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Well, I'm glad the wise men of the UN figured that all out for us. Phew.

~:rolleyes:

Do you think humans should not have the right to life?

[rory_20_uk]

Do you think humans should not have the right to life?

No, it is a privilege that can be lost.

~:smoking:

[Craterus]

Do you think humans should not have the right to life?

Why should we/they? I don't have a coherent answer, just thought I'd take the thread in a different direction.

It doesn't really follow that simply being born grants you such rights.

And it is also only humans that are granted a right to life, why only our species and no others?

[HoreTore]

And it is also only humans that are granted a right to life, why only our species and no others?

Because there are two different forms of life:

1. Humans.
2. Food.

[Craterus]

Weren't you earlier denying the humanity of foetuses but it is somewhat harder to deny their status as living things, thus they are food? I think there's something a bit more objectionable about eating the things than just aborting them.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Why should we/they? I don't have a coherent answer, just thought I'd take the thread in a different direction.

A better question is why shouldn't humans in general (to answer rory's statement) have the right to live? Why does one innocent human have more of a right to live than another?


It doesn't really follow that simply being born grants you such rights.

Why not? You were born, and you don't have the right to live if you wish to? Sounds like how Hitler thought about the Jews to me.



And it is also only humans that are granted a right to life, why only our species and no others?

We were intelligent and strong enough to assert our dominance. Besides, scientifically, humans are omnivores. Therefore, animals are viewed in the same way plants are - as resources, as food. Of course, taboos exist.

[Craterus]

Why not? You were born, and you don't have the right to live if you wish to? Sounds like how Hitler thought about the Jews to me.

No, it doesn't. I'm not removing a single group's right to an existence. Everyone can die.

I'm not saying I, or anyone else, should have the right to kill on a whim, but I don't think anyone has an inherent right to be alive. After all, what has anyone done to earn that right?


We were intelligent and strong enough to assert our dominance. Besides, scientifically, humans are omnivores. Therefore, animals are viewed in the same way plants are - as resources, as food. Of course, taboos exist.

I don't think that should give us more rights to life, or a life without pain, than another species but I imagine most would disagree.

[Strike For The South]

During the first Trimester, a fetus is just a clump of cells, ergo the fact that it has no rights as a human being. But, hey, if you want to go make an amendment be my guest, just don't get pissy when it turns out much like the 18th amendment, it gets overturned in a couple of years and we're all worse off for it. But, hey I don't like Alcohol that much anyways, do you think I should go throw every person who drinks in the poky? or fine them heavily?

Or Beef. A cow has the right to live! No Beef, or cowboy hats for you. And I don't like Texas much as a state, we should turn texas into about ten smaller states, and give at least one of them to Mexico...

Abortion shoudnt be legal in a perfect wrold yes But not now. I am deeply saddened by this fact but when there is no decency left in the wrold I guess thats how it is Equating humans with cows has no plaice in this disscusion. Human life is worth much more you know this and your Texas refrence is made merley to get a rise out of me nice try.

[CountArach]

Why not? You were born, and you don't have the right to live if you wish to? Sounds like how Hitler thought about the Jews to me.
Godwin's law! :laugh4:

[LittleGrizzly]

There should be some kind of Godwins law about godwins law... the longer the conversation continues the more chance of it being invoked....

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

There should be some kind of Godwins law about godwins law... the longer the conversation continues the more chance of it being invoked....

Then the person who invokes Godwin's Law first automatically loses the argument. :dizzy2:

[Viking]

There should be some kind of Godwins law about godwins law... the longer the conversation continues the more chance of it being invoked....

Let's just call it Godwin's 2nd law.

[HoreTore]

Weren't you earlier denying the humanity of foetuses but it is somewhat harder to deny their status as living things, thus they are food? I think there's something a bit more objectionable about eating the things than just aborting them.

Plants are living things. Fetuses are living things too.

And I like to mow my lawn.

[Craterus]

Ok. So? It's not simply being alive that gives you a right to life then, is it?

[HoreTore]

Ok. So? It's not simply being alive that gives you a right to life then, is it?

Nope. Being human does.

[Craterus]

What exactly is it about being human that gives us that right?

Because I can guarantee there is at least one animal that shares that quality with us. Oh, and no 'us vs them' crap.

[ajaxfetish]

Craterus, are you arguing just against a natural right to life, or are you arguing there is no such thing as natural right whatsoever? Because it seems the right to life is pretty fundamental to any system of rights. If humans do not have an inherent right to life, governments would need no reason to execute someone, as doing so would not be a violation of their rights. Rights to property, freedom, expression, and so on would seem pretty meaningless without the right to life to support them. Where exactly do you want to take this argument?

Ajax

[Craterus]

I'm just arguing against rights in general.

[HoreTore]

What exactly is it about being human that gives us that right?

Because I can guarantee there is at least one animal that shares that quality with us. Oh, and no 'us vs them' crap.

Because cannibalism is a bad idea. Bad nutrition.