Backdoor Abortion

[Strike For The South]

http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2011/02/21/20110221arizona-abortion-bill-advances0222abrk.html

I'm not sure I understand why

[ICantSpellDawg]

Anything that we can do to recognize the human rights of the unborn is something I'll entertain. I'm sure it's activism.

It works this way on both sides.

[Lemur]

I wasn't under the impression that gender selection abortions were an issue in the USA. Can we also pass a resolution against foot binding and curried dog?

When will these politicians learn that there is only one 100% effective form of birth control? That's right, I'm talking about sodomy, the safe choice. If more teens were rogering one anothers' behinds, we wouldn't see any unwanted pregnancies. (And what with the thread title about "Backdoor" I thought we'd be discussing the Forbidden Love eventually.)

[Vuk]

I wasn't under the impression that gender selection abortions were an issue in the USA. Can we also pass a resolution against foot binding and curried dog?

When will these politicians learn that there is only one 100% effective form of birth control? That's right, I'm talking about sodomy, the safe choice. If more teens were rogering one anothers' behinds, we wouldn't see any unwanted pregnancies. (And what with the thread title about "Backdoor" I thought we'd be discussing the Forbidden Love eventually.)

Telling. ~;)

[Furunculus]

thru da ass? no way d00d!

"I do not believe in punishing the doctor for the patient's choice,"

what ^that^ person said.

[Lemur]

Telling. ~;)
Related news:

Safe sex video slammed for 'up the bum' message (http://www.tntmagazine.com/tnt-today/archive/2011/02/08/safe-sex-video-slammed-for-up-the-bum-message.aspx)

A safe sex video has attracted criticism for suggesting anal sex as a form of birth control.

The risqué video advises: “one up the bum and you won't be a mum”.

Abortion charity Marie Stopes International teamed up with comedy music band The Midnight Beast to create the video for an online safe sex campaign.

In the safe sex video, the band members are brandishing blow-up dolls and condoms.

While the song’s lyrics encourage using condoms, it also includes the line: “One up the bum and it’s no harm done, one up the bum and you won’t be a mum.”

[HoreTore]

I have complete faith that my fellow humans will make the right choice for them when they find themselves in a position whe they consider abortion.

I see absolutely no reason why I should meddle with that.

[PanzerJaeger]

and a Planned Parenthood study that he said concluded that 42 percent of Black babies are aborted


Wow. That doesn't seem right.

[Centurion1]

Wow. That doesn't seem right.

also a stupid statistic. black people dont abort their babies because they are black. first, the number seems false, second black people abort their babies not because of their race...... but because of socio economic factors at play.

[Vuk]

also a stupid statistic. black people dont abort their babies because they are black. first, the number seems false, second black people abort their babies not because of their race...... but because of socio economic factors at play.

Why (http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FMargaret_Sanger&h=65f4f4Lm3TvBnk35IHuFi2LFmNA) do you think that abortion is so encouraged by certain groups and encouraged especially amongst certain groups? Abortion is simply a way to control unwanted population, and who it targets is whoever is unwanted at the time. Who wants a bunch of poor black kids anyway? Abortion is just another eugenic technique like those used by Hitler.

[HoreTore]

Goodwin in 10.

A new record?

[Vuk]

Goodwin in 10.

A new record?
Maybe instead of deliberately trying to detract from what I said, you could actually tell us why you agree/disagree with it? You know, something productive.

[Lemur]

Nah, we've achieved Godwin in three. However, I think Godwin in 10 for an abortion thread may be a record.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Goodwin in 10.

A new record?

No, I did Godwin in OP once.

Vuk has a point though - unregulated abortion has the potential to remove the undesirable, all you have to do is enact economic sanctions against your chosen group and they will abort themselves to oblivion or at least insignificance.

No need for you to lift a finger.

[HoreTore]

Maybe instead of deliberately trying to detract from what I said, you could actually tell us why you agree/disagree with it? You know, something productive.

You honestly consider the "abortion is holocaust"-argument to be productive?

[Vuk]

You honestly consider the "abortion is holocaust"-argument to be productive?

I would consider it to be a stupid argument, which is why I did not make it. I said that abortion is a tool for eugenics, just like forced sterelization, etc. It belongs to a group of tools that are thouroughly vile, as thier purpose is to reduce human population (usually targetted portions of it).

[ICantSpellDawg]

Abortion is homicide. Clear as crystal.

The action is deplorable and to recognize that the brutal, mass killing of previously living humans is evil is what we need to do. Even if you don't believe in outlawing the procedure due to womens rights issues my hope is that people recognize the inhumanity of the practice and eradicate it in their hearts and minds as an option.

It is a Holocaust of innocent human beings. Any attempt to make a dent in the numbers is a welcome move.

[Vuk]

Abortion is homicide. Clear as crystal.

The action is deplorable and to recognize that the brutal, mass killing of previously living humans is evil is what we need to do. Even if you don't believe in outlawing the procedure due to womens rights issues my hope is that people recognize the inhumanity of the practice and eradicate it in their hearts and minds as an option.

It is a Holocaust of innocent human beings. Any attempt to make a dent in the numbers is a welcome move.

I think that to say that abortion is the Holocaust is of course untrue, as the Holocaust was a seperate historical event. Abortion is though, a mass killing of innocent human lives, and it is my belief that generations from now our children (the ones we don't murder) will look back in disgust at what we are allowing (just as modern Americans look back at the US's forced sterelization policies) and wonder how we ever could have justified such murder.

[PanzerJaeger]

He said "a", not "the". It was correct usage of the word, although the capitalization is off.

[Don Corleone]

There was a huge kerfluffle a few years ago when a NY Times editorial writer wrote about aborting the male half of the pair of fraternal twins she was carrying (the other was a female). The reasons she cited was she had only wanted one baby, two would be tougher to get a sitter for, and that would cramp her style.

I don't see eugenics as the result of gender or other physical characteristic selectivity, at least not in the direct sense. But callous, shallow people use the procedure to get Barbie or Ken to come out just right. I'm not sure we can be legislate about being a :daisy: though.

[HoreTore]

Why should the actions of random loonies have any impact on me?

[Beskar]

Is the thread about the new category on the Bristol Stool chart?

[Vuk]

Why should the actions of random loonies have any impact on me?

The institution of abortion (ei, legal and often government funded abortion) has eugenic origins, and is in its nature eugenic. By giving government funding for abortions you are giving a financial easy way out to those for whom raising a kid would present financial difficulties (ie, inner city blacks, etc). It is a way to stop the breeding of such undesirables as poor minorities, and has been disguised as an issue of women's rights. Guys support it because it will save them money and makes their lives easier. Mass murder is justified because of economic ease.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/EnthanasiePropaganda.jpg

Let me ask you HoreTore, would you agree with a policy of legal and government funded lethal injections for unwanted children? All the undesirable black people in society could have their children executed and you would stop the breeding problem for those deemed to create problems in society! Sounds awful, huh? What is the difference between that and abortion? Answer: nothing.

How can anyone fail to see the barbaric cruelty and utter disrespect for human life that is inherent in abortion? And the most disgusting thing of all is that (as with Nazi Germany) it is all being justified on the basis of economics and the right of the living.

[Fragony]

Don't be so hard on him up to 1976 women without Nordic features were still sterilised in Scandinavia.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Let me ask you HoreTore, would you agree with a policy of legal and government funded lethal injections for unwanted children?

I'm not sure that you want that answer.

[Beskar]

I have to admit, I am disappointed with how this is turning out.

[HoreTore]

Let me ask you HoreTore, would you agree with a policy of legal and government funded lethal injections for unwanted children?

As I have said a million times before and you already know(why I bother replying at all is a mystery):

I don't consider a fetus to be a human being.

[Cute Wolf]

I don't consider a fetus to be a human being.

hmm... nerve system? check! heart system? check! brain? check! skletal? check!... blah2... blah... the same just miniature and not properly working... yet

soul?

(depends on you)

[Vuk]

As I have said a million times before and you already know(why I bother replying at all is a mystery):

I don't consider a fetus to be a human being.
Funny you should say that, because I was just reading that one of the big Nazi justifications for Euthanasia of the mentally retarded was that they did not have the developed faculties of a human being, and therefore were not considered humans by Nazis.
Let me ask you this, if a fetus is 2 minutes from birth, do you believe that it is not a human being until it comes out of the womb? You know, I hate to say it Horetore, but the reason it is generally considered so evil to kill a baby is BECAUSE they have underdeveloped brains, and are therefore completely innocent. Having an underdeveloped brain is not the same as having no personality or no feelings. A baby is actual capable of feeling joy, anger, and sorrow when it is in the womb. A human does not fully develop until sometime in its 20s. Therefore, is it ok to kill a 14 year old, because her mental faculties have not developed fully?

[al Roumi]

Vuk, did you know the Nazi's breathed air?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Vuk you have to get over this fascination of comparing everything with the national socialist movement from mid-20th Century Germany. Just because the Nazis did bad things doesn't mean everything they did was bad, there's got to be one of those latin terms for such a fallacy...


hmm... nerve system? check! heart system? check! brain? check! skletal? check!... blah2... blah... the same just miniature and not properly working... yet

soul?

(depends on you)

You are forgetting that a foetus is just a lump of cells. We, of course, are far more than that, because we magically gained a soul when we popped out a vagina.

Really, who is more superstitious when it comes to abortion, doesn't look like the pro-lifers to me...

[TinCow]

Abortion is homicide. Clear as crystal.

The action is deplorable and to recognize that the brutal, mass killing of previously living humans is evil is what we need to do. Even if you don't believe in outlawing the procedure due to womens rights issues my hope is that people recognize the inhumanity of the practice and eradicate it in their hearts and minds as an option.

It is a Holocaust of innocent human beings. Any attempt to make a dent in the numbers is a welcome move.

The US currently believes that the death penalty is acceptable even when it risks executing innocents, and war is acceptable even though non-combatants are guaranteed to die during the fighting. The latter in particular is a view that is accepted by nearly every nation on the planet, even those that oppose the death penalty. So, it is clear that homicide itself is acceptable under certain circumstances, generally those where it is felt that the loss of life is an acceptable cost for something that otherwise benefits society as a whole. The issue is whether abortion is acceptable homicide, not whether it is homicide. The question of whether it is or is not homicide is a strawman, like debating about whether waterboarding is torture.

In my opinion, the reductions of poverty and general improvements in societal functioning that result from abortions are sufficiently beneficial to justify the loss of life.

[Fragony]

We call it a 'reductio ad hitlerum'

[Don Corleone]

You are forgetting that a foetus is just a lump of cells. We, of course, are far more than that, because we magically gained a soul when we popped out a vagina.


So, does this mean that people born through Ceserean section aren't human beings?

If I find out that somebody I really don't like was born through C-section, can I shoot them in the face without care for legal ramifications? Yay! Why was I fighing all this really cool post-modernist nihilist stuff anyways? Just spin it my way, and voila!

[Rhyfelwyr]

So, does this mean that people born through Ceserean section aren't human beings?

If I find out that somebody I really don't like was born through C-section, can I shoot them in the face without care for legal ramifications? Yay! Why was I fighing all this really cool post-modernist nihilist stuff anyways? Just spin it my way, and voila!

I think popping out of a stomach (area, however it works) also magically transmitts a soul to you. Which is just as well, otherwise you could come and kill me...

[Beirut]

When will these politicians learn that there is only one 100% effective form of birth control? That's right, I'm talking about sodomy, the safe choice. If more teens were rogering one anothers' behinds, we wouldn't see any unwanted pregnancies.

You are a bad, bad man. :laugh4:

[Vuk]

Vuk you have to get over this fascination of comparing everything with the national socialist movement from mid-20th Century Germany. Just because the Nazis did bad things doesn't mean everything they did was bad, there's got to be one of those latin terms for such a fallacy...


You are right, not everything that Nazis did were bad, but surely we can agree that Hitler's eugenic policies were wrong? Isn't that one of the main reasons that he is hated and used as a paragon of evil in modern culture?
The institution of abortion IS a eugenic policy, and one employed by Hitler. Also, the same justifications were used for it as all the other eugenic policies; doesn't that make the comparison important? Seriously, how can you hate one form of eugenics/genocide and love another?



In my opinion, the reductions of poverty and general improvements in societal functioning that result from abortions are sufficiently beneficial to justify the loss of life.

You see what I mean Rhyfelwyr? Many supporters of abortion (as with TinCow here) admit that it is intentional homicide, but that it is justified for economic reasons.
Surely then it is fitting to point out that Nazis used the exact same argument to do the exact same thing?


60000 RM
This is what this person suffering from hereditary defects costs the Community of Germans during his lifetime!
Fellow Citizen, that is your money, too!


You see, people in support of abortion think that it is ok to murder innocent lives so that they can go on more vacations. It is genocide and mass murder, and one of these days people will look back on America with absolute revulsion for what we did, as we now look back at Nazi Germany for what they did.

How is it right Tin Cow to bring an innocent person into the world (and innocent person who had no say in the matter of you conceiving her), and then after you have made that choice, murder them so that your life will be easier. I ask again, why not apply the same thing to older dependents? Why can't I take my shaving razor to my 14 year old's throat so that I can afford a new snowmobile?

Also, let us not forget who it is that is meant to suffer the most consequences of abortions: the poor (and mostly minorities). But as TinCow himself said, who needs a bunch more black kids on welfare?

[TinCow]

Vuk, all your parallels to Hitler are completely misplaced because he used forced abortion. That is a totally different thing from voluntary abortion for reasons I really shouldn't have to explain.

[Vuk]

Vuk, all your parallels to Hitler are completely misplaced because he used forced abortion. That is a totally different thing from voluntary abortion for reasons I really shouldn't have to explain.
No actually, it is not entirely misplaced. Abortion is meant to target a certain segement of the population based on race and economic status. In America it is carried out through economic incentive, and in Nazi Germany through government force. The same reasoning, the same result, just slightly different means. The only reason that it is not mandatory for some people right now is because America has a much more conservative/Christian culture that places an enormous value on human life, but that is being eroded. The goal is still the exact same as Hitler's: eugenics and genocide. There is nothing that justifies that.
To give you an example of how stupid that point of view is, consider this. The US gov wants to get rid of all of those pesky Native Americans so that they can use the reserves for their own purpose, but there would be public outcry if they simply sent in troops. Instead, they make it legal for a private citizen to kill an Indian, and even supply people with ammo and guns. Lot's of people who would benefit financially from it go and kill start shooting Native Americans on their reservations. Would that be right? It is the same thing as abortion. The government cannot come straight out and mandate it, so instead the aid those who stand to benefit from it, and become accesories to murder. Neither the baby nor the Native Americans have a say in it, and murder is forced on both of them for the economic good of others. If you do not want to participate in the murder you do not have, just do not try to oppose the rights of those who wish to murder thier child/an Indian. After all, they don't pay taxes, so what rights do they have?

[TinCow]

This


Abortion is meant to target a certain segement of the population based on race and economic status.

= FAIL

Simply because abortion is used by one segment of the population more than another does not mean it is targeted at that segment of the population. That's a logical fallacy. A higher percentage of black males are currently incarcerated in the US than any other segment of the population, but that does not mean criminal laws are targeted against black males.

[Vuk]

This



= FAIL

Simply because abortion is used by one segment of the population more than another does not mean it is targeted at that segment of the population. That's a logical fallacy. A higher percentage of black males are currently incarcerated in the US than any other segment of the population, but that does not mean criminal laws are targeted against black males.

I was not talking about who it affects, but who it was MEANT to affect by the people who first pushed to legalize it in America. (the same people BTW who DID try to mandate it, and the same people who oversaw the argument turn into a discussion of womens' rights when eugenics was made unpopular after WWII. A new tactic, but the same end goal.) It is a barbaric practice that DOES disproportionally affect one segement of the population more than another, and that is why people first fought to legalize and mandate it. It is cold-blooded, calculated genocide and does not belong in a civilized society. How can a civilization be called civilized when its members murder their own children?

[Strike For The South]

Civilized and uncivilized have been practicing abortion for 0000s of years

There is nothing new here except sterilized tools

[TinCow]

I was not talking about who it affects, but who it was MEANT to affect by the people who first pushed to legalize it in America. (the same people BTW who DID try to mandate it, and the same people who oversaw the argument turn into a discussion of womens' rights when eugenics was made unpopular after WWII. A new tactic, but the same end goal.) It is a barbaric practice that DOES disproportionally affect one segement of the population more than another, and that is why people first fought to legalize and mandate it. It is cold-blooded, calculated genocide and does not belong in a civilized society. How can a civilization be called civilized when its members murder their own children?

How is the intent of a fringe minority many, many years ago relevant to the current usage of abortion in modern society?

As for genocide, you really need to stop throwing around words like that, as it undermines your arguments. Words have definitions for a reason. An ethnic group cannot voluntarily commit genocide against itself. The very aspect of it being voluntary inherently means it is not genocide. Definitions are your friend.

[Furunculus]

hmm... nerve system? check! heart system? check! brain? check! skletal? check!... blah2... blah... the same just miniature and not properly working... yet

soul?

(depends on you)

at what point is a collection of cells a human being.................. who knows.

the law says x number of weeks, good enough for me. if new science revises the law to x weeks plus or minus a few then so be it.

we must neither reach the stage where women have no control over their own bodies, nor too to the point where chinese authorities inject lethal 'stuff' into the crowning heads of babies as they are born.

somewhere twixt the two lies sanity.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Abortion is meant to target a certain segement of the population based on race and economic status.

I find this hard to believe, any sources? In the UK, ethnic minorites eg Mohametans would be less likely to have abortions.


Civilized and uncivilized have been practicing abortion for 0000s of years

There is nothing new here except sterilized tools

Are you using this as an argument?


somewhere twixt the two lies sanity.

I do not see anything sane about drawing arbitrary lines on something as important as human life. The issue of women's rights is a diversion if people concede the foetus has the right to life.

[Strike For The South]

Merley pointing out facts

Abortion is not some new age libreal ploy to control the masses

Sure at times it has been used by a crazy people as a means to an end but what hasn't

[TinCow]

Sure at times it has been used by a crazy people as a means to an end but what hasn't

Suffocation in a huge pile of bunnies (both regular and Playboy).

[Strike For The South]

Suffocation in a huge pile of bunnies (both regular and Playboy).

Bunnies are known for there indivduialism, you could never get them to work in a large group like that

[HoreTore]

Mother Nille cannot fly. A rock cannot fly. Therefore, Mother Nille must be a rock.

The timeless quote from Erasmus Montanus demonstrates time and again how much nazi comparisons are worth.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The timeless quote from Erasmus Montanus demonstrates time and again how much nazi comparisons are worth.

If it looks like a duck, smells like and duck and floats like a duck - it's probably a duck.

I recall two of Murthy's Laws of Combat here.

- The important things are always simple.

- The simple things are always hard.

The key issue is whether we believe that State-sanctioned homocide is justifiable and under what condition, abortion falls under this catagory as does execution and euthenasia.

I take the view that the State should NEVER sanction homocide, and the only time you have a right to kill someone is when it is the only way to stop them killing you or another human being.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The key issue is whether we believe that State-sanctioned homocide is justifiable and under what condition, abortion falls under this catagory as does execution and euthenasia.

For TinCow, that is the case, but HoreTore has said he does not consider a foetus as a human with the right to life.

[ajaxfetish]

And although Rhyfelwyr thinks it ridiculous, many of us think there is a salient difference between a newly fertilized zygote and a 9-month fetus. Not all perspectives on abortion are founded on the same premises.

Ajax

[Rhyfelwyr]

It's not that I think there is no difference, it's just that whenever I ask for someone to give a clear cut-off line where the right to life begins, they never do that. Until they do, I cannot accept supporting abortion when we admitt that it is in effect murder to some degree. You can't make the right to life a grey area.

[Don Corleone]

It's not that I think there is no difference, it's just that whenever I ask for someone to give a clear cut-off line where the right to life begins, they never do that. Until they do, I cannot accept supporting abortion when we admitt that it is in effect murder to some degree. You can't make the right to life a grey area.

I've always taken your commentary in this area in the Robert Swift spirit that I believe it's intended (or maybe the Irish really should eat their children.)

[Louis VI the Fat]

You can't make the right to life a grey area.Sure you can. Ahuman being is not binary, 1=alive, 0=death.

a) What if you severe my head but keep my body functioning, using the latest medical equipment? Is my body alive? A human?
b) What if a baby is braindead, but is on a breathing apparatus? (Not hypothetical -see the other thread right on the Backroom frontpage) Pretty much similar to 'a'.
c) What if my Siamese twin brother consists of nothing more than a few limbs attached to me, mostly internally? Can I abort these remnants, consisting of, say, a baby leg from below the knee which is nestled in my stomach? Is that a human being?

And of course, what of a lump of cells inside a woman's womb, which might grow into an independent lifeform? Abortion is not about absolutes. It is not about black or white. It is very much about grey areas.



It is very much (post)Christian to think of life as being gifted. One moment there is nothing, and then the next moment *poof* there is life, gifted by the hand of God. Life is absolute in this manner. Either endowed with a soul or not.

https://img34.imageshack.us/img34/3917/sistinechapelinstpeterr.jpg


Whatever one may think of that, I predict that modern medicine and biotechnology this century will pose some moral questions that are so far beyond the Christian dichotomy of life/not life as to, imo, render it obsolete.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

It's not that I think there is no difference, it's just that whenever I ask for someone to give a clear cut-off line where the right to life begins, they never do that. Until they do, I cannot accept supporting abortion when we admitt that it is in effect murder to some degree. You can't make the right to life a grey area.

Why until they do? Relying on other people seems like a bad idea :book:

I really cannot remember what the date for the various bits are. But can't you agree, certainly before one month it is not right to life?

[HoreTore]

It's not that I think there is no difference, it's just that whenever I ask for someone to give a clear cut-off line where the right to life begins, they never do that. Until they do, I cannot accept supporting abortion when we admitt that it is in effect murder to some degree. You can't make the right to life a grey area.

Birth.

As I have said several times.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Birth.

As I have said several times.Brrr.....



Hypothetical cases for you.

1) Baby Horatio is a late birth. Two weeks late. The doctors want to artificially stimulate labour, and have set the date for Tuesday. However, on monday the parents have regrets so decide to have the baby aborted instead. Is this fine with you?
2) At 7:15 Louis is born. He looks like a chimp, hairy and otherwise takes after ugly aunt Pierre. The parents panic. They never want another baby again. The mother is still in labour so...they order the midwive to abort the twin brother, Strike, still in mommy's tummy. This fine with you?

[Banquo's Ghost]

It's not that I think there is no difference, it's just that whenever I ask for someone to give a clear cut-off line where the right to life begins, they never do that. Until they do, I cannot accept supporting abortion when we admitt that it is in effect murder to some degree. You can't make the right to life a grey area.

I was under the impression that the usual measure was viability - the ability for the foetus to survive outside the mother without significant medical intervention. Whilst that still has a substantial grey area, it seem to be the starting point for legal definitions in Europe. The United States, of course, has the bigger problem - from the positions derived via Roe vs Wade, the debate there is reduced to absolutes - conception or birth, and nothing allowed in between.


Birth.

As I have said several times.

And that position is as pointlessly wrong as that of the moment of conception.

[Sigurd]

I was not talking about who it affects, but who it was MEANT to affect by the people who first pushed to legalize it in America. (the same people BTW who DID try to mandate it, and the same people who oversaw the argument turn into a discussion of womens' rights when eugenics was made unpopular after WWII. A new tactic, but the same end goal.) It is a barbaric practice that DOES disproportionally affect one segement of the population more than another, and that is why people first fought to legalize and mandate it. It is cold-blooded, calculated genocide and does not belong in a civilized society. How can a civilization be called civilized when its members murder their own children?
Classical argumentum ad consequentiam. More specifically Argument from Benefit. A useful tool for all conspirators. As is the several Inductive Generalizations being proposed in this thread. The abortion laws are more or less the same world-over. If you want to look for conspiracies, you need to look broader. Maybe the Nazis really took over the world, worming covertly into every government after WWII?

[Samurai Waki]

Pro-Life/Pro-Choice. All I know is that we eat chicken eggs and nobody seems to think that the egg is a full grown chicken.

And before someone decries my comment keep in mind Chickens are basically good people; they don't do drugs, they aren't in the habit of committing drive-by shootings, and you never hear about a Rooster coming home from work and beating the :daisy: out of the Hen.

[Andres]

The US currently believes that the death penalty is acceptable even when it risks executing innocents, and war is acceptable even though non-combatants are guaranteed to die during the fighting. The latter in particular is a view that is accepted by nearly every nation on the planet, even those that oppose the death penalty. So, it is clear that homicide itself is acceptable under certain circumstances, generally those where it is felt that the loss of life is an acceptable cost for something that otherwise benefits society as a whole. The issue is whether abortion is acceptable homicide, not whether it is homicide. The question of whether it is or is not homicide is a strawman, like debating about whether waterboarding is torture.

In my opinion, the reductions of poverty and general improvements in societal functioning that result from abortions are sufficiently beneficial to justify the loss of life.


That's a clear position and your honesty has to be admired. At least you don't go for hypocrite nonsense like "it's only human when it's born, so it's not murder". At least, you don't look for excuses to avoid having to call a spade a spade.

So, you say that abortion is homicide, but it is justifiable. In your opinion, it's ok if parents murder their unborn child. Homicide is homicide; killing an unborn human is homicide, as is, of course, killing a human that has been born. Going further on your line of thought, one could argue that parents killing their disabled (let's say Dawns' Syndrome) child is beneficial to society. Indeed, if the child is removed out of the parents' lives, the parents will no longer have to stay home to take care of their disabled child and can both go to work again. There will also be no more expensive treatment, so the risk of falling into poverty, will drasticially decrease. With both working, they'll pay more taxes. The child will also be no burden to society after the parents pass away. What I'm saying is that, if you take the position that abortion = homicide but that it's justifiable, because the reductions of poverty and general improvements in societal functioning that result from abortions are sufficiently beneficial to justify the loss of life, then it becomes very easy to take it a step further and to say that allowing parents to kill their disabled child should be allowed, because the reductions of poverty and general improvements in societal functioning that result from killing the disabled children are sufficiently beneficial to justify the loss of life.

The position you take is, imo, impossible. If you consider abortion to be the equivalent of homicide, then you can't defend it, because it would open the door to practices that no longer belong in our present day society.

That said, I used to be in the camp that allows abortion up to the 12th week for no reason. After seeing on an echo how my own child was already, well, a mini human being at the 12th week of pregnancy, I'm no longer sure about that treshold (yes yes, you'll have some cynics here who'll explain that it hasn't conscience and yadda yadda, but believe me, it looks very human and the idea of that "unborn lump of cells" dying is unbearable) and more leaning to the position to allow abortion up to the 12th week, but only if a) the life of the mother is threatened; or b) the child would be severely disabled and would only come to this world to suffer a short life in pain (in that case, I'd even allow abortion up to the 20th week).

:shrug:

[Hax]

Pro-Life/Pro-Choice. All I know is that we eat chicken eggs and nobody seems to think that the egg is a full grown chicken.


And before someone decries my comment keep in mind Chickens are basically good people; they don't do drugs, they aren't in the habit of committing drive-by shootings, and you never hear about a Rooster coming home from work and beating the :daisy: out of the Hen.

Oh hey, George, how's death treatin' ya?

[Samurai Waki]

Oh hey, George, how's death treatin' ya?
[/INDENT]

He say's "Better than Life."

[HoreTore]

Hypothetical cases for you.

Hypotethical cases clouds reality, because such examples are never what late-term abortion is about.

It's best for the mothers health that the abortion takes place as soon as possible. As people don't want unneccesary pain and suffering, they will take the abortion as early as possible. If someone has an abortion late, there will be a bloody good reason. And this is where I believe that the best judge of what to do is the mother. I refuse to take life and death decisions for other people.

[Strike For The South]

Hypotethical cases clouds reality, because such examples are never what late-term abortion is about.

It's best for the mothers health that the abortion takes place as soon as possible. As people don't want unneccesary pain and suffering, they will take the abortion as early as possible. If someone has an abortion late, there will be a bloody good reason. And this is where I believe that the best judge of what to do is the mother. I refuse to take life and death decisions for other people.

LET ME LIVE

[HoreTore]

LET ME LIVE

If you were a fetus with next-to-no chance to live independently and your birth is a danger to your mothers health(a typical late-term abortion); no, I'd rather ensure that your mother lives than killing her to give you three days in a breathing tube before you expired as well, leaving your daddy all alone in the world.

[Strike For The South]

If you were a fetus with next-to-no chance to live independently and your birth is a danger to your mothers health(a typical late-term abortion); no, I'd rather ensure that your mother lives than killing her to give you three days in a breathing tube before you expired as well, leaving your daddy all alone in the world.o

What if my daddy planned to make me the greatest Norwegian footballer ever?

[HoreTore]

o

What if my daddy planned to make me the greatest Norwegian footballer ever?

I would still prefer your mothers life over the 72 hours of misery almost-stillborn Strike would endure.

Call me a barbarian.

[Strike For The South]

I would still prefer your mothers life over the 72 hours of misery almost-stillborn Strike would endure.

Call me a barbarian.

Jesus you're an idoit

If you read the thread you know you are NAZI whom is a fore runner to modern day progressives who hope to use abortion as a social control to gain the advantage over the masses

There was a meeting and everything

Suitably ironic smiley to be inserted here thus demonstrating to those unfamiliar with SFTS' brand of humour that this is not an abusive post guaranteed to draw just under 5,000 infraction points. :beam:

[TinCow]

That's a clear position and your honesty has to be admired. At least you don't go for hypocrite nonsense like "it's only human when it's born, so it's not murder". At least, you don't look for excuses to avoid having to call a spade a spade.

So, you say that abortion is homicide, but it is justifiable. In your opinion, it's ok if parents murder their unborn child. Homicide is homicide; killing an unborn human is homicide, as is, of course, killing a human that has been born. Going further on your line of thought, one could argue that parents killing their disabled (let's say Dawns' Syndrome) child is beneficial to society. Indeed, if the child is removed out of the parents' lives, the parents will no longer have to stay home to take care of their disabled child and can both go to work again. There will also be no more expensive treatment, so the risk of falling into poverty, will drasticially decrease. With both working, they'll pay more taxes. The child will also be no burden to society after the parents pass away. What I'm saying is that, if you take the position that abortion = homicide but that it's justifiable, because the reductions of poverty and general improvements in societal functioning that result from abortions are sufficiently beneficial to justify the loss of life, then it becomes very easy to take it a step further and to say that allowing parents to kill their disabled child should be allowed, because the reductions of poverty and general improvements in societal functioning that result from killing the disabled children are sufficiently beneficial to justify the loss of life.

The position you take is, imo, impossible. If you consider abortion to be the equivalent of homicide, then you can't defend it, because it would open the door to practices that no longer belong in our present day society.

That said, I used to be in the camp that allows abortion up to the 12th week for no reason. After seeing on an echo how my own child was already, well, a mini human being at the 12th week of pregnancy, I'm no longer sure about that treshold (yes yes, you'll have some cynics here who'll explain that it hasn't conscience and yadda yadda, but believe me, it looks very human and the idea of that "unborn lump of cells" dying is unbearable) and more leaning to the position to allow abortion up to the 12th week, but only if a) the life of the mother is threatened; or b) the child would be severely disabled and would only come to this world to suffer a short life in pain (in that case, I'd even allow abortion up to the 20th week).

:shrug:

There is another element to the equation which you do not discuss here: consciousness. Human beings prior to birth are not self-aware. Sure, they're human. Sure, they think and act and masturbate and whatnot, but they have no memory and no concept of their own existence. No one on this forum remembers being in utero. If any of you had been aborted before birth, you would never have known it. In my opinion, that is a major factor in making the homicide acceptable. I see it as being similar to euthanasia. A human being can be kept alive indefinitely with modern technology, despite lacking any higher brain functions or conscious thought. The person is technically alive, but they do not have the essential element that makes a person (IMHO) human: thought and self-awareness. So, for me killing an unborn child is like euthanizing a brain-dead adult.

As for the timeline of when it's acceptable and when it's not, it's impossible to give a clear cut-off line. There's simply no point where on Day X it is not a human but on Day X+1 it is a human. The fetus doesn't change rapidly enough to make such a line possible. I agree with many others that it's not human on Day 1, it's just a bunch of cells. I also agree that it is human the day before birth. For my 'acceptable homicide' analysis, it then becomes a sliding scale. Due to the non-humanness of the organism on Day 1, it's very very easy to justify the 'homicide' (if it can even be called that at that point). On Day 250, it becomes much harder, but can still be done depending on the circumstances. It seems pointless to me to try and make rules about what happens in between those days, so I call it a sliding scale and weigh each case on its individual merits.

It's actually kind of odd because I personally don't think a child really even qualifies as human on the thought basis until several months after birth, but society has sufficiently drilled home to me that it is bad to kill a child that has been born that my analysis ends there, regardless of the lack of logic in it.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I've always taken your commentary in this area in the Robert Swift spirit that I believe it's intended (or maybe the Irish really should eat their children.)

Eh? I looked up Robert Swift and all I gather is he is a basketaball player...


Sure you can. Ahuman being is not binary, 1=alive, 0=death.

Such ideas undermine pretty much all our values on human rights.


a) What if you severe my head but keep my body functioning, using the latest medical equipment? Is my body alive? A human?
b) What if a baby is braindead, but is on a breathing apparatus? (Not hypothetical -see the other thread right on the Backroom frontpage) Pretty much similar to 'a'.
c) What if my Siamese twin brother consists of nothing more than a few limbs attached to me, mostly internally? Can I abort these remnants, consisting of, say, a baby leg from below the knee which is nestled in my stomach? Is that a human being?

a) I'll go with saying 'you' is composed of your head and whatever other parts of your body are attached to it.
b) Stopping treatment is a whole different matter from taking action to end a life.
c) No it is not a human, and yes you can abort it, for the same reason I gave to answer a


A human being can be kept alive indefinitely with modern technology, despite lacking any higher brain functions or conscious thought. The person is technically alive, but they do not have the essential element that makes a person (IMHO) human: thought and self-awareness. So, for me killing an unborn child is like euthanizing a brain-dead adult.

But surely the difference is they only euthanise brain-dead adults when they have no hope of recovery... a foetus has its whole life ahead of it.

[TinCow]

But surely the difference is they only euthanise brain-dead adults when they have no hope of recovery... a foetus has its whole life ahead of it.

I don't see why that matters. Right now, there are about 5 billion potential lives in my pants. Their potential to be the next Eistein or Larry the Cable Guy doesn't mean that their rights override my own. And that's the key, because it's a balancing act of conflicting rights. Namely, the rights of the mother (and, to a lesser extent, the father) versus the rights of the unborn child. An unborn child only has potential, while the mother and father already exist and are an ongoing concern in the world. For me, the ongoing concern is far more important than simple potential (they also have the potential to be Hitler 2, you know).

[ajaxfetish]

Eh? I looked up Robert Swift and all I gather is he is a basketaball player...

I suspect DC meant Jonathan Swift.

Ajax

[Samurai Waki]

...another backroom abortion thread, I suppose the horse has already been stomped into bloody giblets, so why not stomp some more?

[Rhyfelwyr]

I suspect DC meant Jonathan Swift.

Ajax

*googles* So... what did DC mean by comparing me to Swift?

[ajaxfetish]

*googles* So... what did DC mean by comparing me to Swift?

Did you look into his famous satirical "A Modest Proposal"? You'd have to ask DC himself if you want to be sure of his meaning, but I suspect he thinks your posts on abortion are somewhat tongue-in-cheek . . . or maybe not.

Ajax

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well I like to present my case in the most blunt, tactless and outrageous manner possible, but what I have said is definitely a strain of thought going through my head on the matter. Yes there is a massive difference between a day old and a six-month old foetus, but the progression is constant and one of degrees, so I think people are too comfortable just saying "right first trimester you can abort".

Anyway I thought DC was against abortion?

[Ironside]

Such ideas undermine pretty much all our values on human rights.


And doing it your way undermines one of the most fundamental pillars of Christian faith... :oops:

If dead or alive is 0 and 1, then it won't matter how long it's been between dying and returning to life. :juggle2:
Or maybe it's Schrödinger's cat all over again, you're dead until you're brought back to life. In that case, you were never really dead to begin with. So you are both dead and alive.


a) I'll go with saying 'you' is composed of your head and whatever other parts of your body are attached to it.
b) Stopping treatment is a whole different matter from taking action to end a life.
c) No it is not a human, and yes you can abort it, for the same reason I gave to answer a

In case a and more importantly c, when did the human then die? :smug:

[ajaxfetish]

Yes there is a massive difference between a day old and a six-month old foetus, but the progression is constant and one of degrees, so I think people are too comfortable just saying "right first trimester you can abort".

Saying it's okay to abort the fetus ready to be born because even though it's a human it hasn't yet gone through the birth canal is obviously problematic, as is saying you can't abort the day old embryo that's not yet a human because we don't know exactly when it will become one. One way or another, we need a way to deal with fuzzy boundaries, because we face them all the time. When does a child become an adult, with implications for self-determination, financial independence, parental responsiblity, rape law, etc.? When does a person qualify as poor, with implications for taxation, welfare, etc.? When does a person qualify as mentally retarded? When does evidence add up to 'beyond a reasonable doubt'? In my field, when do different dialects become different languages, or when does an <s> sound become an <sh> sound? The world isn't black and white, and acting like an issue is all black or all white because you can't find a clear boundary in the midst of the gray is not a valid solution.

Ajax

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Saying it's okay to abort the fetus ready to be born because even though it's a human it hasn't yet gone through the birth canal is obviously problematic, as is saying you can't abort the day old embryo that's not yet a human because we don't know exactly when it will become one. One way or another, we need a way to deal with fuzzy boundaries, because we face them all the time. When does a child become an adult, with implications for self-determination, financial independence, parental responsiblity, rape law, etc.? When does a person qualify as poor, with implications for taxation, welfare, etc.? When does a person qualify as mentally retarded? When does evidence add up to 'beyond a reasonable doubt'? In my field, when do different dialects become different languages, or when does an <s> sound become an <sh> sound? The world isn't black and white, and acting like an issue is all black or all white because you can't find a clear boundary in the midst of the gray is not a valid solution.

Ajax

Point of clarification, it's not entering the birth canal which signifies life, or even crowning, it is actually the drawing of the first breath when encoulment is traditionally considered to have taken place.

In my view this is a medieval relic, and those who adhere to the "until it's born" principle are refusing to face up to the scientific reality, i.e. we are clearly alive before we are born. The problem is defining when life begins. Disallowing all abortion is a way of "hedging you bet", you don't know when life begins so you take ther earliest point possible to avoid ever sanctioning homocide. Taking abortion up to the point of birth is just a refusal to engage with the issue at all.

[Tuuvi]

Pro-Life/Pro-Choice. All I know is that we eat chicken eggs and nobody seems to think that the egg is a full grown chicken.

And before someone decries my comment keep in mind Chickens are basically good people; they don't do drugs, they aren't in the habit of committing drive-by shootings, and you never hear about a Rooster coming home from work and beating the :daisy: out of the Hen.

Usually the eggs you buy at the store haven't been fertilized.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Point of clarification, it's not entering the birth canal which signifies life, or even crowning, it is actually the drawing of the first breath when encoulment is traditionally considered to have taken place.

In my view this is a medieval relic, and those who adhere to the "until it's born" principle are refusing to face up to the scientific reality, i.e. we are clearly alive before we are born. The problem is defining when life begins. Disallowing all abortion is a way of "hedging you bet", you don't know when life begins so you take ther earliest point possible to avoid ever sanctioning homocide. Taking abortion up to the point of birth is just a refusal to engage with the issue at all.

I fear you are using the wrong term in "life". There can be no doubt that life begins the moment the zygote is formed - the fertilised egg is indisputably alive.

The argument is about at which end of the developmental spectrum do we imbue that life with humanity and the rights we currently consider concomitant to that status. I would argue that the mediaeval position you describe is actually reflective of the line we ought to draw - that is, viability. In mediaeval times, lacking our modern array of machines that go ping, viability was invariably the moment when the child drew breath. Nowadays, that line is much better understood and much greyer in terms of where it sits on the spectrum of development.

To me, the mother's rights outweigh those of the foetus until the point where that foetus may survive on its own (outside her body) with a reasonable expectation of progression to adulthood. Medical intervention is clearly a factor in this assessment. At current technological capabilities, that is around 20-22 weeks (barring significant medical conditions or disabilities that may compromise viability as defined, in which case later abortions may be justifiable).

It seem to be that this is both humane and scientifically reasoned and balances the mother's rights and that of the foetus. It also appears to be the position of most thoughtful legislatures.

[rory_20_uk]

Indisputably alive... rather a sweeping statement for a zygote.

Roughly 1/4 pregnancies spontaneously miscarry, often due to massive genetic defects. These zygotes would never fulfil the criteria for being alive as they are unable to function independently, nor reach maturity, let alone reproduce themselves.

~:smoking:

[Banquo's Ghost]

Indisputably alive... rather a sweeping statement for a zygote.

Roughly 1/4 pregnancies spontaneously miscarry, often due to massive genetic defects. These zygotes would never fulfil the criteria for being alive as they are unable to function independently, nor reach maturity, let alone reproduce themselves.

~:smoking:

Nonsense. A zygote is a living cell. It is not a rock.

[ajaxfetish]

Nonsense. A zygote is a living cell. It is not a rock.

And along those lines, does life even begin at conception? Aren't the egg and the sperm already alive? A new genome is certainly formed, but I'd think the life is already there.

Ajax

[Rhyfelwyr]

I don't understand the logic with basing it off functioning independently though. A lot of babies born the normal way still end up hooked up on machines keeping them alive for a while. What about babies born prematurely? Does the fact that they were born prematurely mean they can't be killed (or whatever you want to call it) in the time period when if they had not been born prematurely, they would still have been in the womb and could have been aborted?

tbh I find the whole abortion argument kind of surreal. I think many of these "reasoned" and "logical" argument for abortion will one day be looked at the same way when we today look at the "reasoned" and "logical" arguments people gave to support institutions like slavery. Screw the greater social good, it's just wrong.*

*disclaimer - this is just a gut feeling I have on the matter, and people will no doubt think it is ridiculous, but I think this is one of those issues where peoples norms are very much defined by those of their particular time and place, and those from another time and place might take a very different perspective...

[rory_20_uk]

Nonsense. A zygote is a living cell. It is not a rock.

So is a neutrophil. So was the majority of my lunch. Just after death, most of the body is still living cells.

A living cell is not the same as a living organism.

~:smoking:

[Viking]

Rather than replying to other posts, I felt tempted to start from "scratch" and write down a few of my considerations:

#1. It is not a human right to be born. All the theoretically possible combinations of DNA we cannot "allow" for natural reasons - there is not enough room for all of them. This way of speaking also concludes that if two humans share the same DNA, they are in fact the same person - which is apparently not true.

#2. a) We have no empirical reasons (including everyday observations) to believe that human life start at one point. There is a point of fertilisation that "inevitably" leads to what we will later, without much doubt in our minds, call a human being. However, if we were to look at a newly fertilised egg cell in a microscope next to another cell that was not of human origin, the untrained eye would most likely not be able to tell them apart. 'Common sense' will thus lead us to the conclusion that neither of these are human beings - as long as we are not being told anything else, something which would just cloud our judgement from this perspective.

#2. b) At later stages in the development, we would see a creature with features that what we understand as human beings have - and we could thus be inclined to conclude that, indeed, there is something human about this creature - and perhaps, we could call it a human being.


#3. a) The reason one should not kill the unborn humans, I must assume is for the same reasons that it is not allowed to kill babies. We are not allowed to kill babies, because they are considered human beings. The question is then when a human being becomes a human being.

#3. b) From #2., it is demonstrated that empiricism cannot lead us to a clear cut definition of what a human being is - we may at best get a vague sensation. One could attempt to see whether there is a point at which a human being becomes self-aware. However, this point could be well after birth. It is also clear that humans kill animals with ease without asking them whether they are self-aware or not, so self-awareness seems not to be a criterium by itself.


It is then clear to me that one cannot hope for well defined ethics on this issue, for now and perhaps for ever, otherwise we get a revelation from the thunder god Þórr telling us that life starts 453 hours after conception. Thus we must accept dealing with grey areas. I am not too concerned about this; I personally cannot recall things that go back to myself crawling at the floor. Probably, we are well within in the safe zone when we are dealing with fetuses - if self-awareness matters. If it doesn't, well, then it is clearly the moral feelings of the adults that we need to protect rather than the fetuses themselves, which is dubious - to put it mildly.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I fear you are using the wrong term in "life". There can be no doubt that life begins the moment the zygote is formed - the fertilised egg is indisputably alive.

The argument is about at which end of the developmental spectrum do we imbue that life with humanity and the rights we currently consider concomitant to that status. I would argue that the mediaeval position you describe is actually reflective of the line we ought to draw - that is, viability. In mediaeval times, lacking our modern array of machines that go ping, viability was invariably the moment when the child drew breath. Nowadays, that line is much better understood and much greyer in terms of where it sits on the spectrum of development.

I want to start by disputing that medieval doctors were focused on viability, they were clearly focused on "life", which for them meant a joined body and soul. The soul was held to be present in the body once the child drew breath, and at least initially it was the first breath by which the soul entered. You can see this is so because nothing in the theological pastoral literature provides for administering baptism before birth, or to a stillborn. By contrast, once the child drew breath it was imperative that they not die unbaptised, in extremis this allowed for baptism by the parents themselves - an act which would normally dislove their marriage.

Viability was actually set at two or three years, because of infant mortality - and you can see this in the kind of penance set for infanticide (which is still usually a seperate crime from homocide) even when it was deliberate. The penalty usually involved life long penance and fasting, but it was nothing compared to the penalty for murder, and people don't seem to have been prosecuted that often.


To me, the mother's rights outweigh those of the foetus until the point where that foetus may survive on its own (outside her body) with a reasonable expectation of progression to adulthood. Medical intervention is clearly a factor in this assessment. At current technological capabilities, that is around 20-22 weeks (barring significant medical conditions or disabilities that may compromise viability as defined, in which case later abortions may be justifiable).

It seem to be that this is both humane and scientifically reasoned and balances the mother's rights and that of the foetus. It also appears to be the position of most thoughtful legislatures.

This seems to me like the beginning of a humane position, but not the end of one. What about the mother's right to choice vs the foetus' right to life? If the mother decides she just doesn't want the child at 18 weeks she can abort, that seems wrong to me. I do not believe abortion should be a form of birth control, and that it should be a matter of welfare, not preference.

[Beskar]

Main issues in the thread and on topics of Abortion is this.

There are many genuine and ethical concerns which forces the situation that make abortion legal. This is to provide legal high quality healthcare services to people that really need them through difficult times.

While on the issue of morality, Abortion is never "good", it is simply at best "lesser of two evils". No one should ever celebrate the fact they are having an abortion, it is simply an unpleasant reality.

The best time for the abortion is the beginning, when it is simply a bunch of cells. Late-term abortion however is pretty disgusting, as there are hardly any important factors as to why the fetus wasn't disposed of at a far earlier when it was far less developed and it borders on negligence.

Outlawing abortion altogether is another form of negligence. It is the authoritarian placing of social order on top of a far different reality.

There are arguments such as "Let them get adopted!" however, there are far more children than people wanting to adopt, and these same people want to discriminate against other race/homosexuals from adopting, further depriving the children. These same people also do not want to fund the support for these children, generally arguing against the welfare of others, stating mantras such as "Get a juub!" As this generalized example of people get everything they want, there is a very depressing Charles Dickin's picture occurring for these children.

Many people just look at the specific argument and not the wider picture.

In short, abortion is an unfortunate reality in an unfair world.

[Ironside]

I don't understand the logic with basing it off functioning independently though. A lot of babies born the normal way still end up hooked up on machines keeping them alive for a while. What about babies born prematurely? Does the fact that they were born prematurely mean they can't be killed (or whatever you want to call it) in the time period when if they had not been born prematurely, they would still have been in the womb and could have been aborted?

Taking PVC:s suggestion about "hedging your bet", it either forces you to try to save those natural miscarriages (leaving people to die is illegal in most countries) or still makes you consider a embryo as something lesser than a person. Really, no position succeds with being fully coherent on the issue.


tbh I find the whole abortion argument kind of surreal. I think many of these "reasoned" and "logical" argument for abortion will one day be looked at the same way when we today look at the "reasoned" and "logical" arguments people gave to support institutions like slavery. Screw the greater social good, it's just wrong.*

They'll be busy with more complicated questions. Is it wrong to genetically (this is done before the egg is fertilized in this case) create a functional human body without a brain and harvest it for the organs? It certainly feels uncomfortable for me, but try to have a black and white argument on the issue.
You already admitted that it isn't a human being and never was. So how many brain functions can we add before it becomes a human?

Besides, the pill and abortion gave females the control of their own sexuality. They also got a bit more power nowadays.


*disclaimer - this is just a gut feeling I have on the matter, and people will no doubt think it is ridiculous, but I think this is one of those issues where peoples norms are very much defined by those of their particular time and place, and those from another time and place might take a very different perspective...

Maybe, but it feels more to be an issue like suecide instead of slavery. Certainly nothing to celebrate, but to accept that it exists and happens is still better than denying it. For example, mothers killing their children dropped to around half when they stopped getting executed for that crime. Need I mention that suecide was considered worse than murder?

[ajaxfetish]

Disallowing all abortion is a way of "hedging you bet", you don't know when life begins so you take ther earliest point possible to avoid ever sanctioning homocide.

I'm not sure that 'hedging your bet' is an adequate justification for making something an all-or-nothing issue. Going to prison for a crime you didn't commit, or even getting a criminal record, can be devastating and have lifelong ramifications, and our criminal justice system is rarely if ever able to achieve 100% certainty of guilt. Should we hedge our bets by not prosecuting crimes, since we don't know if they really did it, so as to have no chance of destroying the lives of innocents? I think the benefits to public order justify prosecuting in spite of uncertainty, though the system should certainly be nuanced to try to avoid injustice as much as possible. Similarly, prohibiting abortion from the moment of conception means we know we won't be taking a human life, but it sacrifices the woman's rights to self determination and control of her body. I think that's too great a sacrifice to make, just to be 100% sure. I think again we need a nuanced system to try to avoid destroying the lives of innocents to the best of our knowledge and understanding while still operating in that gray area between conception and birth. (we need to be convinced it's not yet a human being beyond 'reasonable doubt', as it were)

Ajax

[Goofball]

Vuk you have to get over this fascination of comparing everything with the national socialist movement from mid-20th Century Germany. Just because the Nazis did bad things doesn't mean everything they did was bad, there's got to be one of those latin terms for such a fallacy...



You are forgetting that a foetus is just a lump of cells. We, of course, are far more than that, because we magically gained a soul when we popped out a vagina.

Really, who is more superstitious when it comes to abortion, doesn't look like the pro-lifers to me...

Erm... That makes no sense. I don't think I have ever heard a pro-choice type use whether or not the baby has a soul as an argument for or against abortion rights, that is almost completely the domain of pro-life types. I am pro-choice and certainly don't believe a baby magically gains a soul upon being born. I do, however, believe it is now a person and no longer a fetus.

[Rhyfelwyr]

And why does the foetus acquire personhood upon passing through a vagina?

[Goofball]

I do not see anything sane about drawing arbitrary lines on something as important as human life.

Sure you do. The arbitrary line you have chosen is "conception," when at the moment of conception the clump of cells that exists is clearly not a human being. Why is yours any more right or wrong than anyone else's arbitrary line?

[Goofball]

And why does the foetus acquire personhood upon passing through a vagina? For me personally, it doesn't. It acquires personhood when it would be viable outside of the womb. I do not support late term abortion rights except where there is a serious health risk to the mother.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm not sure that 'hedging your bet' is an adequate justification for making something an all-or-nothing issue. Going to prison for a crime you didn't commit, or even getting a criminal record, can be devastating and have lifelong ramifications, and our criminal justice system is rarely if ever able to achieve 100% certainty of guilt. Should we hedge our bets by not prosecuting crimes, since we don't know if they really did it, so as to have no chance of destroying the lives of innocents? I think the benefits to public order justify prosecuting in spite of uncertainty, though the system should certainly be nuanced to try to avoid injustice as much as possible. Similarly, prohibiting abortion from the moment of conception means we know we won't be taking a human life, but it sacrifices the woman's rights to self determination and control of her body. I think that's too great a sacrifice to make, just to be 100% sure. I think again we need a nuanced system to try to avoid destroying the lives of innocents to the best of our knowledge and understanding while still operating in that gray area between conception and birth. (we need to be convinced it's not yet a human being beyond 'reasonable doubt', as it were)

Ajax

Homocide is an all or nothing issue, so if it might be homocide is that a chance that you can morally justify taking?

Also, right to life clearly trumps right to self determination - that's a no brainer.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Sure you do. The arbitrary line you have chosen is "conception," when at the moment of conception the clump of cells that exists is clearly not a human being. Why is yours any more right or wrong than anyone else's arbitrary line?

Well that is the points when all the ingredients that make you are put together.


For me personally, it doesn't. It acquires personhood when it would be viable outside of the womb. I do not support late term abortion rights except where there is a serious health risk to the mother.

But why is viability the best way to determine things? Why should the ability to survive independently be needed for someone to have the right to life?

[Goofball]

Well that is the points when all the ingredients that make you are put together.

A bowl of eggs, flour, cocoa, milk and sugar is not a chocolate cake. It has to bake in a warm place for a while before it becomes one.



But why is viability the best way to determine things? Why should the ability to survive independently be needed for someone to have the right to life?

I don't say it's the best. I say it's what I believe. And my belief is just as valid as yours. In fact, it's much more rationally and logically supportable than using conception as the arbitrary line. With my line, aborting the baby at that stage is actually killing something that at that moment could actually survive as a human being on it's own. Aborting a week-old growth of cells is very different.

[Rhyfelwyr]

A bowl of eggs, flour, cocoa, milk and sugar is not a chocolate cake. It has to bake in a warm place for a while before it becomes one.

Flawed analogy is flawed.


I don't say it's the best. I say it's what I believe. And my belief is just as valid as yours. In fact, it's much more rationally and logically supportable than using conception as the arbitrary line. With my line, aborting the baby at that stage is actually killing something that at that moment could actually survive as a human being on it's own. Aborting a week-old growth of cells is very different.

But again why does it matter that it can survive on its own?

[Goofball]

Flawed analogy is flawed.

Actually that analogy is perfect. Both making a baby and a cake require ingredients, then gestating/cooking before you have the finished product. I don't see how you can say that is a flawed analogy (other than because it obliterates your argument and it's a pure gesture of self-defence). ;)



But again why does it matter that it can survive on its own?

As I have already said, because IMO at that point you are taking a human life. Before that you aren't.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Actually that analogy is perfect. Both making a baby and a cake require ingredients, then gestating/cooking before you have the finished product. I don't see how you can say that is a flawed analogy (other than because it obliterates your argument and it's a pure gesture of self-defence). ;)

The analogy is flawed because we all agree that a cake is only created when the ingredients are prepared in a certain way, but it is not accepted by everyone that the biological matter that we are composed of only makes us human at a certain point in its development... that is the whole point of the debate.


As I have already said, because IMO at that point you are taking a human life. Before that you aren't.

But... why is that when it become a human life?

[ajaxfetish]

Homocide is an all or nothing issue, so if it might be homocide is that a chance that you can morally justify taking?

Also, right to life clearly trumps right to self determination - that's a no brainer.

When the probability that a homicide is taking place approaches zero, its ability to trump other rights does the same.

Ajax

[ajaxfetish]

The analogy is flawed because we all agree that a cake is only created when the ingredients are prepared in a certain way, but it is not accepted by everyone that the biological matter that we are composed of only makes us human at a certain point in its development... that is the whole point of the debate.

I don't think I could say when exactly in the baking process a cake becomes a cake. Bring it out too soon and it'll still be gooey; but what is the exact moment when it is sufficiently done to qualify as a cake? Another gray area, just like fetal development.

Ajax

[Tuuvi]

The ingredients of a cake sitting in a bowl are more analogous to some sperm and unfertilized eggs sitting in a test tube than they are to a newly conceived fetus.

[Sarmatian]

Nonsense. A zygote is a living cell. It is not a rock.

Sperms are cells, they are alive. Does that mean that when I masturbate I'm committing genocide?

I'm pro-abortion, but within limits. Legal until fetus becomes conscious. It's that simple. (Not counting when it is serious hazard for mother's life, in case of rape etc...)

[Banquo's Ghost]

Sperms are cells, they are alive. Does that mean that when I masturbate I'm committing genocide?

For some reason, you appear to be extrapolating my argument to characterise me as pro-life.

Cells are alive. What that status confers in regard to rights is the subject of this debate. You posit the idea that rights come with consciousness. I would disagree, since that's not something that can easily be measured. I am happy with the idea that rights accrue on the basis of viability, which is the position taken by the vast majority of legal systems.

[Viking]

Legal until fetus becomes conscious.

When's that?

[Sarmatian]

For some reason, you appear to be extrapolating my argument to characterise me as pro-life.

Cells are alive. What that status confers in regard to rights is the subject of this debate. You posit the idea that rights come with consciousness. I would disagree, since that's not something that can easily be measured. I am happy with the idea that rights accrue on the basis of viability, which is the position taken by the vast majority of legal systems.

So if someone burns my hand and kills some of the cells in my body he will answer for murder? That's pretty thin...


When's that?

IIRC, 14 weeks...

[Viking]

IIRC, 14 weeks...

Source?

[Sarmatian]

Source?

Mommy dearest, M.D.

[Banquo's Ghost]

So if someone burns my hand and kills some of the cells in my body he will answer for murder? That's pretty thin...


:huh:

I'd agree.

What we have here is, to paraphrase, a failure to communicate. Instructively, it shows the devilry inherent in this debate, where people use otherwise quite clear terms to muddy the waters, 'life' being pre-eminent among these confusions.

[Vuk]

So if someone burns my hand and kills some of the cells in my body he will answer for murder? That's pretty thin...


It is not murder unless you kill all the cells in the organism, or destroy the conscious part. For instance, if someone incinerated your body, that would be murder.

[Scienter]

In short, abortion is an unfortunate reality in an unfair world.

Beskar is right. No one wants to have an abortion, it is not a decision taken lightly.

Further, our laws should not be based upon the religious beliefs of a group of citizens. The decision to have an abortion should be up to the pregnant woman, her partner (if he is involved in her life), her doctor, and her clergy person if she is religious. It shouldn't be dictated by law. I agree with some of the others above that there is a certain point that abortions should not be allowed. However, I also believe that when a woman is early enough in her pregnancy, she should be provided with swift access to abortion services and not be faced with heavy handed attempts to guilt her into changing her mind (i.e. ultrasound bills, bills requiring doctors to read scientifically invalid "facts" about abortion, etc). Women are not emotional infants who lack the agency to make their own decisions.

Reproductive rights policy in the US is beyond screwed up right now. The vast majority of women who have abortions are not haphazardly using it as a method of birth control. Contraception fails sometimes. Further, if people are not properly educated on HOW to use a contraceptive device, it has an increased likelihood of failing. The majority of women who get abortions have incomes that are under the Federal poverty level. Policymakers in this country seek to chip away at access to abortion, which, like it or not, is currently legal in the United States. On top of that, they also seek to reduce access and affordability of contraceptives to people who could not otherwise afford them. We give mountains of cash to abstinence based education in public schools, some of which provide blatantly false information. Some states seek to define the Birth Control Pill as an abortifacient, despite scientific evidence to the contrary. This is so, so wrong. If we want to reduce the number of abortions, the logical and realistic thing to do would be to increase access, education, and affordability of contraceptives.

People can get on their moral high horses about abstinence all they want. The reality of life is that people are going to have sex. People in the US need to get over themselves and realize this. Reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies through contraception = fewer abortions.