Abortion [Archive]

Revelation

08-29-2005, 09:43

I've never really given much thought to abortion before, as it has never had any relevance in my life in any way shape or form, up until now that is.
A friend of mine has just been released from the hospital after a bout of day surgery for the above mentioned. As I was waiting for her I started thinking about the issues involved.
Is it moral? Hmm, not really sure if I am able to answer that one. I tried to think of it from more than my own standpoint. First line of thought was, is it murder? My initial response to my own question was no, of course not which led me to question the reasoning behind this assumption. I immediately thought of my youngest child. My little boy, aged 2 1/2. I thought, well if my wife had of said after the first two kids, she could not proceed/cope with this one and gone ahead and had the abortion then my little man would not be here today.
Clearly murder when you can put a personality to the victim.
But, and theres always a but right?
At what age is the foetus considered a living entity with rights as a human being? Can the unborn child be considered a victim?
Wow, what have I done. How can I answer this question?
After about an hour of continuous thought (no mean feat for me ~D ) I decided to take the cowards way out.
I believe, ultimately, after all avenues of discussion are exhausted, the final decision must rest squarely in the hands of the woman carrying. I can see both sides of the coin here and find it difficult to park myself firmly on either side of the fence.
Oh what a joy to be born on the male side of the road.
Any thoughts?
(please try to keep religion out of it as it will only lead to trouble for all concerned. It really has no place in this debate)
~:confused:

bmolsson

08-29-2005, 10:25

Clearly murder when you can put a personality to the victim.

If your son grows up and become a new Hitler, does that make you a mass murderer as well ?

Your logic doesn't really fit in to reality. You don't know what you are dealing with until it's born, and actually not even then.......

Duke of Gloucester

08-29-2005, 11:18

If your son grows up and become a new Hitler, does that make you a mass murderer as well ?

Is the logic here that it is ok to murder young children just in case they turn out to be another Hilter? I can see how you might disagree with Revelations uncertainties about this issue, but how logical is this statement?

bmolsson

08-29-2005, 12:44

Is the logic here that it is ok to murder young children just in case they turn out to be another Hilter? I can see how you might disagree with Revelations uncertainties about this issue, but how logical is this statement?

No logic at all, just as there are no logic to call abortion murder..... :bow:

Duke of Gloucester

08-29-2005, 12:50

Both pro-life and pro-choice positions are logical, just derived from different initial premisses. This is why argument between the two sides is fruitless. You can disagree a pro-life position, but anyone who says it is not based on logic does not understand the arguments.

Meneldil

08-29-2005, 13:03

At what age is the foetus considered a living entity with rights as a human being? Can the unborn child be considered a victim?

I think this question has to be answered by the authorities (=by the law), depending of rational thoughts as well as tradition.

Revelation

08-29-2005, 13:20

No logic at all, just as there are no logic to call abortion murder..... :bow:

Care to elaborate?

PanzerJaeger

08-29-2005, 14:10

If a woman does not want a child, she should not concieve. Its as simple as that.

When it gets to the point where she has to have someone tear her living child out of her own womb, its too late - and murder.

With adoption and modern social services, there is but one legitimate cause for an abortion - to save the mother's life. In such a case, a utilitarian approach must be taken.

Oh and..

(please try to keep religion out of it as it will only lead to trouble for all concerned. It really has no place in this debate)

It has as much a place in this debate as your opinion or mine.

bmolsson

08-29-2005, 14:52

Care to elaborate?

The fetus doesn't have the legal status of being alive, hence it can't be murdered.

Revelation

08-29-2005, 17:30

I'd be interested to know how religion directly effects this debate? Fantasy has no place here.

Gawain of Orkeny

08-29-2005, 17:49

What if I told you that abortion is never needed to save the life of the mother? There is only one reason for abortion and thats because the woman does not want a baby. Its now used as just another form of birth control.

King Henry V

08-29-2005, 17:51

The number of times this topic has been flogged to death....I suggest this should be stickied.

yesdachi

08-29-2005, 17:58

I’m Pro-choice. I don’t think that abortion should be used as a means of birth control but it is still a choice that the mother has to make. The biggest reason I say pro-choice is because of situations of incest, rape and the health of the mother.

If you play you pay is one way to look at it but it does make me think that a child shouldn’t be forced to be raised or brought into a family that doesn’t want it, cant afford it or wouldn’t be good parents to it. I hate the way some parents treat their kids :furious3: and it makes me wish it weren’t so easy to have children (I wish there could be a test you had to pass before you are given the ability to conceive ~;) ) but it doesn’t give me the right to force people to do what I think is best.

Any law against abortion would just cause people to break the law. My suggestion would be to encourage people on an individual basis to make the choice that is right for them. ~:)

Edit: Religion affects this because religious people try and follow the rules of their religion, duh. If the rules of their religion are interpreted to make followers believe that abortion is murder and murder is bad… well I’m sure you see the connection but anyone getting an abortion would be turning their back on their religion.

Gawain of Orkeny

08-29-2005, 18:08

That's quite a statement Gawain. Good luck backing it up.

Your wish is my command ~;)

An abortion is never medically necessary to save the life of the mother.

"There are no conceivable clinical situations today where abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother. In fact, if her health is threatened and an abortion is performed, the abortion increases risks the mother will incur regarding her health."

—Dr. Bernard Nathanson, American Bioethics Advisory Commission

LINK (http://www.all.org/about/decapp03.htm)

LIFE OF THE MOTHER -- ANOTHER PHONY BAN. Life Principles call for equal care and protection for both a pregnant mother and her preborn child, and hold that it is never necessary intentionally to kill a preborn human in existence at fertilization. No malady is cured by murder. Prolife doctors state that partial-birth procedure is not needed to save the life, health or future fertility of a mother. (Congressional Record, Sep 19, 1996, H10637.) The "health" exception is called a phony ban; "life of the mother" exception must be rejected also as a phony ban because it attempts to authorize feminist/abortionists to do exactly what they say they do in partial-birth murder. Prolifers must just say NO to partial-birth murder and mean it, to serve the good of feminists/abortionists as well as our whole society.

The fetus doesn't have the legal status of being alive, hence it can't be murdered.

LAW. Partial-birth abortion is homicide, and when done with intent is murder. There is no justification in the law of God or man for the State or a born human intentionally to kill an innocent born or preborn human or attempt to authorize anyone else to do so, as the Nuremberg Trials tell us. Each person is individually responsible for crimes against humanity. No one -- not the Court, Congress, President, or people operating in the name of right to life -- no one may authorize murder. Roe v. Wade only decriminalized abortion and could not make it legal.

Self-defense does not apply to abortion because a preborn human is always innocent and never an unjust aggressor.

LINK (http://www.marchforlife.org/part-bir.htm)

King Henry V

08-29-2005, 18:26

Duke Malcolm

08-29-2005, 18:31

abortion should only be available if the baby is carrying a disease, or deformity. if the mother does not want a child, then adoption is the way to go, and give someone else a child...

KukriKhan

08-29-2005, 18:48

The fetus doesn't have the legal status of being alive, hence it can't be murdered.

Depends on the jurisdiction. In some US states, killing a pregnant woman will net the perpetrator a double-homicide conviction and sentence.example (http://www.dailyrecord.com/news/03/04/20/news3-laci.htm)

Instead of the "It's Alive!", "No, it's a clump of cells!" argument we usually devolve to...

Would Tavernites like to suggest/discuss some test or standard for 'life' (i.e. human-ness)? When is the breath of life breathed into us: conception? first 3 months? second? with our first breath?

PanzerJaeger

08-29-2005, 19:11

I'd be interested to know how religion directly effects this debate? Fantasy has no place here.

The opinion of a religious institution is just as valid as your own opinion. In fact, since religion affects the lives of many people, a discussion of the views on abortion of particular religions are probably more important in this debate than your own opinion.

Besides those facts, a large part of the Pro-Life movement is driven by religious beliefs. Why would those beliefs and people have no place in this debate? ~:confused:

yesdachi

08-29-2005, 19:23

I agree with much of what you say. No women should be forced to carry the child of her rapist and who knows what deformities children conceived in incest would have. However, with the second part of your post, haven't you heard of adoption? There are plenty of couples who are unable to have children but desperately want one. Due to the lack of available "adoptees", many people go to the Third World to often literally buy babies.

Adoption is a great alternative and it is what I would probably encourage people on an individual basis to do if they were dead set on not wanting to not keep the child. But to play devils advocate, I have heard comparisons that our orphanages are as over crowded as our prisons. And if a child isn’t adopted in the first 6 months that the chance of being adopted is reduced severely. I think many people go outside the country to adopt because it is “trendy” and easy if the parents are looking for something specific. I’m no authority but I do have an adopted sister and from what I have seen anything outside a prearranged adoption would be scary. Maybe not as scary as an abortion but its another reason I am Pro-Chhoice.

King Henry V

08-29-2005, 19:35

Well I am not knowledgeable on the situation in America, but in Europe they have to filter out those who want to adopt before they are given any children.

yesdachi

08-29-2005, 20:07

Well I am not knowledgeable on the situation in America, but in Europe they have to filter out those who want to adopt before they are given any children.
True here too. But the scary part is not the parents that are adopting but the orphanages the children are in until adopted parents are found. ~:)

Crazed Rabbit

08-29-2005, 20:40

The fetus doesn't have the legal status of being alive, hence it can't be murdered.

So if the law was changed so that gay people didn't have the legal status of being alive, we could kill them and it wouldn't be murder? ~:eek:

abortion should only be available if the baby is carrying a disease, or deformity.

Did you see the topic started by DevDave recently on abortion? The guy suffered for 36 years but loved life. Who are we to decide if another's life is worth living?

Instead of the "It's Alive!", "No, it's a clump of cells!" argument we usually devolve to...

Would Tavernites like to suggest/discuss some test or standard for 'life' (i.e. human-ness)? When is the breath of life breathed into us: conception? first 3 months? second? with our first breath?

Sounds kind of like the same thing...

I'd say conception. By definition, life is concieved then.

Crazed Rabbit

Strike For The South

08-30-2005, 01:04

yesdachi

08-30-2005, 01:08

Gawain of Orkeny

08-30-2005, 01:31

Really, Gawain, those are just anti-abortion doctors doing what they do best: Conveniently ignoring some facts, while raising others high aloft their head.

Reakky? I work at a Uni that is one of the buggest medical colleges in the US and all the nureses in the pediatric section say there is no reason with todays medical procedures to have to abort a baby to save the mothers life. Come on give me one recent example of an abortion saving a womens life.

True here too. But the scary part is not the parents that are adopting but the orphanages the children are in until adopted parents are found.

Baies dont go to or at least stay in orphanages. Every newborn that is put up for adobtion not only is scooped up right away but has people fighting to get it before its even born.

The fetus doesn't have the legal status of being alive, hence it can't be murdered.

So does "barbaricly slaughtered" sound better to you? How anyone can deny its human and alive is totally beyond me. Thats all that counts in my book.

bmolsson

08-30-2005, 02:22

So if the law was changed so that gay people didn't have the legal status of being alive, we could kill them and it wouldn't be murder? ~:eek:

Yes. During slavery, slaves could be killed without it being considered murder, but that is not really the issue here, is it.....

bmolsson

08-30-2005, 02:28

I'd say conception. By definition, life is concieved then.

So that means that just after I have knocked up my wife, I can sign over my yacht to the unborn child and reduce my tax ?? ~;)

Crazed Rabbit

08-30-2005, 02:31

Yes. During slavery, slaves could be killed without it being considered murder, but that is not really the issue here, is it.....

It is exactly the issue. Just because it is legal doesn't make it right.

So that means that just after I have knocked up my wife, I can sign over my yacht to the unborn child and reduce my tax ??

I don't know about the laws regarding property transfer in Indonesia.

Crazed Rabbit

bmolsson

08-30-2005, 02:38

It is exactly the issue. Just because it is legal doesn't make it right.

You asked for legality.

I don't know about the laws regarding property transfer in Indonesia.

How about your country, or in your view. If a fetus is alive and should have civil rights, of course it should be able to own a yacht..... ~D

Papewaio

08-30-2005, 03:52

Reakky? I work at a Uni that is one of the buggest medical colleges in the US and all the nureses in the pediatric section say there is no reason with todays medical procedures to have to abort a baby to save the mothers life. Come on give me one recent example of an abortion saving a womens life.

Okay apart from chatting up the young nurses what is your job at Uni? You don't have to answer if you don't want to.

Redleg

08-30-2005, 04:16

Okay apart from chatting up the young nurses what is your job at Uni? You don't have to answer if you don't want to.

He has only mentioned what he does like a dozen or so times.

He is a pollster - or is it a poll analysist.

Papewaio

08-30-2005, 05:47

He has almost as many posts as Jag... so even if he has said it ten times that is only 1 out of a thousand posts.

Poll Analyst... hmm there is a San Francisco or Sydney joke in there methinks.

Soulforged

08-30-2005, 06:06

I think this question has to be answered by the authorities (=by the law), depending of rational thoughts as well as tradition.

Since the treaty signed on a convention on Costa Rica (i don't remember the year very well but it has to be after the 60's) the human being is considered like one since the moment of conception (this brings up certain other concecuenses), wich means the union of the espermatozoide with the ovum. But you should look at your own law for this. This is only mine. The rights of the will-to-be human being are considered irrebocables since the birth (he has to live only for a few seconds, that's all).

The only exception, because of this, prevented on our criminal code from abortion, is the case when the life of the mother is seriously menaced if the fetus keeps growing or if he borns. And to the contrary of what Gawain may think there exists cases of this type, being one of them when a child of 9 years (that already happened here) gets pregnant and obviously her body is not prepared to give birth to the child, for instance the doctors must recommend abortion.

If you ask to me the fetus is only considered a person (and entity who can adquire rights) when it's born. But that's my opinion, sure that someone with medical education may have a word or two on that.

lars573

08-30-2005, 06:39

That's quite a statement Gawain. Good luck backing it up.
Go to Russia were abortion was the only form of birth control. Until the hammer and scyth fell abortion was birth control. Things like condoms and birth control pills were evil capitalist plots to sterilize the mother lands youth. I remember news program about 1993 where they talked to a 25 (at the time) yearold woman who had been through 9 abortions since she was like 17.

Gawain of Orkeny

08-30-2005, 15:18

He has only mentioned what he does like a dozen or so times.

He is a pollster - or is it a poll analysist..

Sort of I work in the political research department. I call people on the phone to take these polls were always talk about and help formulate the questions.

Uriel

09-01-2005, 13:20

I have a bit of a strange position, in that I'm Christian and generally anti abortion but think that abortions should be available if needed. I believe that the pro-life groups that think they are basing their anti abortion stance on the Bible are simply wrong (or at least over egging the pudding). All of the statements in the Bible that can be interpreted as anti abortion are indirect.

Here's one statement that's relatively direct in Exodus 21:22-23:

"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury [i.e., to the mother], the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury [i.e., to the mother], you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot…"

Here we have a reference to the causing of miscarriage by violence. It clearly does not place the value of embryonic life as the same as the life of the woman. Therefore, according to Exodus, the causing of miscarriage (indirect abortion) is bad but is not murder. You could say it's an accident, I suppose, therefore dealing with manslaughter rather than murder. But I think the implication is that the foetus isn't considered to be fully human.

When looking at biology I find things a little more difficult. As far as I can see there are two possible times for a definite start to human life. These are conception and birth. We know that babies can survive prematurely. I'm convinced that treatment for premature babies will improve and survival prospects will get better for people born prematurely. The criteria for when a fetus is 'viable' will continue to change. This leaves me believing that conception is the real definite starting point for human life. As a result I don't like the idea of abortion and would hope that people would choose otherwise. I would hope that people are given every other viable option to consider in addition to (and in preference over) abortion. In reality it would be stupid to ban it as backstreet abortions would increase dramatically and we'd see a lot of mothers dying again as a result

Gawain of Orkeny

09-01-2005, 14:54

http://www.bible.ca/abortion-baby-holding-finger-in-womb.jpg

Take a good look at this picture. It's one of the most remarkable photographs ever taken. The tiny hand of a foetus reaches out from a mother's womb to clasp a surgeon's healing finger. It is, by the way, 21 weeks old, an age at which it could still be legally aborted. The tiny hand in the picture above belongs to a baby which is due to be born on December 28. It was taken during an operation in America recently. Paul Harris reports on a medical development in the control of the effects of spina bifida ... and on a picture which will reverberate through the on-going abortion debate here

Your first instinct is to recoil in horror. It looks like a close-up of some terrible accident. And then you notice, in the centre of the photograph, the tiny hand clutching a surgeon's finger.

LINK (http://www.bible.ca/s-Abortion.htm)

yesdachi

09-01-2005, 15:15

Picture says a thousand words. ~D

Petrus

09-01-2005, 15:20

http://www.bible.ca/abortion-baby-holding-finger-in-womb.jpg

LINK (http://www.bible.ca/s-Abortion.htm)

The photoshop painting is still fresh on your propaganda picture.

Do you really think you can make your position acceptable to people by systematically lying to them and to appeal only to their emotions, never to their reasoning?

If this is it the only way you found to make your point, then it must be specially wrong, whatever it can be.

Gawain of Orkeny

09-01-2005, 15:26

The photoshop painting is still fresh on your propaganda picture.

Are you trying to say this photo is fake?

Do you really think you can make your position acceptable to people by systematically lying to them and to appeal only to their emotions, never to their reasoning?

So you do think its fake and that the story is a lie?

If this is it the only way you found to make your point, then it must be specially wrong, whatever it can be.

The only way? Have you been following this thread or read any of my posts on the topic over the last few years. My only way. Thats a laugh.

As was said a picture is worth a thousand words. You just cant handle the truth.

drone

09-01-2005, 15:49

Real or fake, this photo doesn't really mean anything. Infants (even premature ones) all have the grasping reflex. This is built in along with the sucking reflex. These these are not conscious actions, but reflexes built in for the survival of the very young. Run anything along the palm of a newborn's hand, and he/she will clamp down. It is an cool picture, but if it gets misinterpreted for the purposes of political protest, it becomes propaganda.

Now if you want to debate whether baby reflexes are a sign of being "alive", I'll let someone else take that one over... :hide:

Gawain of Orkeny

09-01-2005, 15:59

Now if you want to debate whether baby reflexes are a sign of being "alive", I'll let someone else take that one over...

That was my point. That and looking at that picture how can you deny the humanity there?

Ser Clegane

09-01-2005, 16:29

Judging from the reactions to the picture I can only assume that a number of people think that abortion in week 21 is OK.

Usually I dislike the frequent use of such pictures in abortion discussions, as they usually represent phases of a pregnancy in which the majority of the pro-choice faction would clearly oppose an abortion

Of course there seem to be some exceptions...

Gawain of Orkeny

09-01-2005, 16:39

Usually I dislike the frequent use of such pictures in abortion discussions, as they usually represent phases of a pregnancy in which the majority of the pro-choice faction would clearly oppose an abortion

Me too. Their usually done for shock value. Much like showing a beheading. This though is a picture of joy and hope not disgust and death.

Petrus

09-01-2005, 16:54

Are you trying to say this photo is fake?

So you do think its fake and that the story is a lie?

The only way? Have you been following this thread or read any of my posts on the topic over the last few years. My only way. Thats a laugh.

As was said a picture is worth a thousand words. You just cant handle the truth.

A picture can stand a billion words and still have no meaning.

In the case of fetus pictures, this is but a show, not an information.

You can find real pictures of 20 weeks old fetus and know nothing about their developpement.

At this age, they can, under some circumstances, remain alive without their mother.

Which means that you chose for your example the show of a supposed abortion which is illegal except under the direst circumstances concerning the mother's life.

By this way you illustrate abortion with an image that does not concern abortion and that is specially designed to make feel horror to it's viewers.

Is it what you call the truth?

If you want to fight/defend abortion, i do not understand how you can pretend to do it with this kind of supposed argument.

Are you writing for sheeps or for responsible individuals?

And yes i have read your posts in this thread and i think they stand at the same level, you mix links of pure propaganda with other that contain informations, you quote statements after shorting them and without explaining them, you never develop your arguments to their full extand, in fact you seem to play in a show, not in a debate, you do not try to convince, only to make already convinced readers confortable.

I ignore wether this is limited to this thread or not but your attitude concerning others pain and the way you treat it is disgusting in this very threat.

Ser Clegane

09-01-2005, 16:55

This though is a picture of joy and hope not disgust and death.

Actually I also like the picture as such. ~:)

It's not necessarily the shock value I am referring to - it's the fact that often late stage abortions are shown to make the argument that abortion=murder, while most pro-choicers would vehemently oppose late stage abortions anyway - so such pictures actually have nothing to do with the actual discussion (unless you talk to one of those radical pro-choicers who seem to have the opinion that a baby miraculously receives the spark of life when it leaves its mothers body)

Don Corleone

09-01-2005, 17:45

Petrus,
I'm having a hard time following your reasoning. People that support abortion generally support it because they claim the fetus isn't a human being yet. Gawain is offering evidence that at week 21, it is indeed a human being. You turn around and accuse him of manipulating people's emotions. Which is it? Are you looking for evidence of humanity, or are you looking for people to make the argument for viablility in a vacuum of pure reason, with nothing so confusing as empirical observations?

Kurki,
I think you're 100% correct. The abortion debate really is a 'when does life begin' debate, because I've never met anyone who claims it's okay to kill an infant later the same day it's been born. I've never seen a good argument made for 'life begins at birth', but I would be interested to hear it. This is a really difficult question, because the definition of what it means to be alive is widely argued. Some bio-ethicists claim that viruses aren't alive. Others have argued that fire is. Personally, I hold that life begins with viability. And I know this can be viewed as a cop-out, because the age of viability is dependent on the available technology, but let's face it folks, there aren't going to be any simple answers to these questions. We need something that at the very least is definable. The solution we have in the USA right now is abominable and does not work.

Don Corleone

09-01-2005, 17:47

Actually I also like the picture as such. ~:)

It's not necessarily the shock value I am referring to - it's the fact that often late stage abortions are shown to make the argument that abortion=murder, while most pro-choicers would vehemently oppose late stage abortions anyway - so such pictures actually have nothing to do with the actual discussion (unless you talk to one of those radical pro-choicers who seem to have the opinion that a baby miraculously receives the spark of life when it leaves its mothers body)

I hate to sound like a broken record on this one, Ser C, but you're applying a Euro-centric view of abortion. In most states in the USA, a woman 'has the right to choose' whether to go to an abortion clinic or the delivery room after her water breaks. Every time somebody has attempted to limit discretionary abortion in the 3rd trimester, President Clinton or the court systems have found a way to block it.

Petrus

09-01-2005, 18:15

Petrus,
I'm having a hard time following your reasoning. People that support abortion generally support it because they claim the fetus isn't a human being yet. Gawain is offering evidence that at week 21, it is indeed a human being. You turn around and accuse him of manipulating people's emotions. Which is it? Are you looking for evidence of humanity, or are you looking for people to make the argument for viablility in a vacuum of pure reason, with nothing so confusing as empirical observations?

I am not discusting humanity of a fetus or of an embryo, it seems obvious to me that a feconded human egg is human.

What i discuss is this image that does not show a fetus how it is like but a reaction that is human although it is not a fetal's reaction : it plays upon the watcher's sensitivity but not to reality.

The only evidence revealed by this picture is a manipulation of it's watcher, an attempt to make believe something that is false.

The other thing i find unacceptable is the fact that it is supposed to represent a 21 weeks fetus, something that does not correspond to the abortion question as it is outside the limits of this question.

Gawain of Orkeny

09-01-2005, 18:27

The only evidence revealed by this picture is a manipulation of it's watcher, an attempt to make believe something that is false.

And what would that be? That its alive or human?

The other thing i find unacceptable is the fact that it is supposed to represent a 21 weeks fetus, something that does not correspond to the abortion question as it is outside the limits of this question.

How so?

Don Corleone

09-01-2005, 18:45

Reverend Joe

09-01-2005, 19:04

Don Corleone

09-01-2005, 19:13

I have a hard understanding why Rightists are so vehemently opposed to abortion, yet are willing to accept the death penalty. Why can't we all agree to go along with policies that don't limit the freedoms of man? It would stop my leftist friends from looking at me funny when I tell them that I have no objections to the death penalty and tobacco. It would also end dull, repetitive argumants such as this one. For god's sake, the "Nature of Man" thread lasted for about 3 days, and that was the most interesting thread the backroom has had since I got here, and this crap keeps going and going.

Just kill the bastards, or let them kill themselves.

The death penalty is executing another human being because they have committed some act that society has deemed unacceptable (murder, rape, etc). The argument here is whether or not the victim actually deserves it, in other words culpability of the victim. As far to the right as I am, I have to say that I believe there's nothing a human being can do that deserves execution.

Abortion is killing a fetus because it's inconveniant, expensive, interfering with the mother's lifestyle, etc. I've never heard anyone put forward an argument about the culpability of the fetus as a valid argument for abortion. If you'd like to, please, by all means, it might be rather interesting.

If your goal is to eliminate laws that restrict the freedoms of people, wouldn't we be required to legalize rape in your world? But bonus points for consistency of arguments.

Ser Clegane

09-01-2005, 19:32

I hate to sound like a broken record on this one, Ser C, but you're applying a Euro-centric view of abortion. In most states in the USA, a woman 'has the right to choose' whether to go to an abortion clinic or the delivery room after her water breaks. Every time somebody has attempted to limit discretionary abortion in the 3rd trimester, President Clinton or the court systems have found a way to block it.

I know - but I think it's safe to say that even in the US the majority of the people who are pro-choice would gladly settle for a 12-week solution.

I saddens me to see that the all-or-nothing attitude of a handfull of people results in some extreme abortuin cases that the vast majority of people would consider to be murder if they really take the time to think about it.

I can only repeat, that, though I am pro-choice, if I only could chosse between the two extremes, I would rather advocate a complete ban of abortions than the complete legality of abortion at any stage.

Reverend Joe

09-01-2005, 19:42

drone

09-01-2005, 19:42

Petrus,
Is it your point that Gawain is manipulating people's emotions by showing a photograph that implies the fetus is aware and grateful of the doctor's aid, when in reality it's simply executing an instinctual reaction? If so, you have a point.This was the point of my post on reflex action. I'm not intending to make judgements about the state of awareness of a unborn at any stage in pregnancy, because I just don't know it. And neither does anyone else.

I have a hard understanding why Rightists are so vehemently opposed to abortion, yet are willing to accept the death penalty. Why can't we all agree to go along with policies that don't limit the freedoms of man? It would stop my leftist friends from looking at me funny when I tell them that I have no objections to the death penalty and tobacco.
From the Hypocracy thread, my thoughts on your question:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=53076&page=3

In my statement, I'm not saying abortion is right or wrong, or making any declarations about when a fertilized egg becomes a living human. Nobody truly knows that now. I'm just saying that it's a bit odd for someone to oppose the death of a person convicted of a heinous crime, and yet support a woman's choice to potentially end the life of an innocent.

Reverend Joe

09-01-2005, 19:47

Drone- I don't understand your point...

Don Corleone

09-01-2005, 19:49

How's this for culpability:

-Every child that is born represents an added burden to the world. If the child is unwanted, or a product of rape, that is an added burden.

-As expensive as abortion is, raising a child is far more expensive, and can potentially ruin someone's life.

-You may argue that by simply abstaining from sex, there is no need to abort unwanted children- but try never having sex with someone you love, just because you are not allowed to have children. Also, contraceptives (besides abortion) do not work 100% of the time, and the more effective methods- the birth control pill, etc.- have some inherent risks involved, such as a higher risk of heart attack.

Rape, by the way, is a severe infringement on the victim's rights, so there is no way it could be justified, as opposed to the death penalty, or abortion.

If you really feel that way, you should do the only moral thing and go get yourself sterilized today. If economic needs are grounds for termination, maybe instead of retirement, we should start up some concentration camps. Wow, you're really hard over on babies, aren't you amigo? ~:eek:

In your answer to my rape point, you sidestepped the fundamental issue of abortion... is the fetus a victim with rights or not? According to you, no. So, I'd be interested in hearing from you, what is the difference between a fetus one hour before birth and a baby, one hour after? Is being attached to a placenta grounds for abortion? I'm not baiting, I seriously want to know from somebody in the '3rd trimester is okay' camp, what the basis for their decision is. If you're not in that camp, I apologize in advance for mislabeling you, but you might want to re-tailor your arguments to highlight that.

Reverend Joe

09-01-2005, 20:03

This might kinda freak/creep you out, so be warned...

According to my scientific learning, viruses are nto alive because they are (1) incapable of independant reproduction and (2) incapable of life without directly feeding off of a living being's metabolic processes. This definition also includes highly evolved parasites, such as tapeworms, etc. Because gross parasites (meaning large, not grotesque) are completely dependant uopn another living organism for their metabolic and reproductive processes to operate, they are not technically alive.

You can probably see where this is going, but I am going to go ahead and put it in writing.

Obviously, feti and babies are not naturally designed to reproduce from birth, so that's a moot point; however, they are entirely dependant upon the placenta as a feeding tube. Even when they are removed prematurely, they still require an artificial feeding tube and a womb-like environment until they reach the natural state of independance. Therefore, feti are not technically alive, because they are not human yet- they are protohumanoid parasites.

I do understand your argumant against an economic grounds for abortion... there might have to be some limits on that.

Ser Clegane

09-01-2005, 20:11

Actually, if you want to be really strict about the living organism definition, you could probably say that a baby is not "alive" until it can walk and find its own food, since it is still dependant upon the mother for direct nourishment

Whose definition is that supposed to be?

I think you are seriously mixing something up here.

Don Corleone

09-01-2005, 20:12

^^^^ WOW ^^^^ ~:eek:

Well, thank you for your honesty. We're coming from 2 very different places, but I respect your right to your views. Just out of curiousity... isn't everything that's not capable of photosynthesis a parasite? What's the difference between a tapeworm eating an intenstine and a wolf eating a deer, or the deer eating leaves for that matter?

Reverend Joe

09-01-2005, 20:16

The difference is that the wolf has its own digestive system, and can consume outside food without it having to be processed by the deer, or without having to use the deer's digestive system for nourishment. The same goes for the deer eating the leaves, though admittedly the deer is closer to being a parasite, because the nutrients it is eating are almost digested in the leaf already. Still, the point is that the wolf does not have to attach itself to the deer's belly and siphon off its digested food.

The abortion at age two, by the way, was supposed to be a morbid joke (and a hook-line-and-sinker comment) but I can see that it won't strike too many people as funny. Anyway, once the baby is capable of gaining nourishment without it having to be processed, it becomes a living being.

Gawain of Orkeny

09-01-2005, 20:19

Ser Clegane

09-01-2005, 20:21

Anyway, once the baby is capable of gaining nourishment without it having to be processed, it becomes a living being.

By that definition (which seems to be your own, personal definition) any person who is - even temporarily - on a feeding tube or other life support would not be a living being.

Interesting approach... :shifty:

Don Corleone

09-01-2005, 20:21

Aaah, but the deer did process the food for the wolf. The deer ate leaves and transformed the vegetative matter into advanced proteins. The wolf cannot do anything with the plant proteins or the carbohydrates in the leaf. The wolf relies on the deer to process the food. I'm not trying to split hairs here, it seems to me that you see a fundamental difference between parasites & other creatures and I'm afraid I'm not getting it. In my mind, parasite is a relative term, as it's most basic defintion "that which feeds off of other living things" applies to anything that's alive that doesn't possess the capability for photosynthesis. Nothing else makes its own food.

Reverend Joe

09-01-2005, 20:23

So baby birds are not alive then? Also isnt most human baby food processed by humans?

I forgot about that- you are right; a baby bird is not technically alive, because its food has to be digested by the mother first. And baby food is processed by a machine, not a living system; besides, the baby is not eating food that is pouring directly into it from a digestive system; it performs some basic digestion of its own. However, babies are very close to being parasites.

Go ahead and say it- I'm a sick bastard. But I am using cold hard facts and as little emotion as possible.

Ser Clegane

09-01-2005, 20:24

Go ahead and say it- I'm a sick bastard. But I am using cold hard facts and as little emotion as possible.

Actually you are only making up your own definition of life. I wouldn't go as far as calling that "cold hard facts".

Reverend Joe

09-01-2005, 20:26

Aaah, but the deer did process the food for the wolf. The deer ate leaves and transformed the vegetative matter into advanced proteins. The wolf cannot do anything with the plant proteins or the carbohydrates in the leaf. The wolf relies on the deer to process the food.

The main difference is that the vegetable matter has been digested fully and transformed into materials that are being used by the deer. If the wolf was a parasite, it would never give the deer a chance to use this material to grow. The same applies to the placenta; the baby is not eating part of the mother; it is using preprocessed material that was never used by the mother.

Reverend Joe

09-01-2005, 20:28

Actually you are only making up your own definition of life.

Well, aren't we all?~:cheers: I just was trying to say that I am trying to base my theory off of biological facts, just as you are (I hope).

Don Corleone

09-01-2005, 20:29

I don't think you're a sick bastard, I just think you've taken your own road in this thought process. Commendable, even if I disagree with where it has taken you. I do think you're relying on hyperbole a bit too much, but hey, if that's how you want to score your points...

Kukri-khan hit the nail on the head earlier in this thread, and whether you're aware of it or not, you've proved his point. Nobody is advocating murdering any entity they consider a human being. We're all debating what it means to be a human being and vice versa. You're just arguing that a 270 day old fetus isn't a human being because the mother is still supplying nutrients directly. That's a unique perspective, but an interesting one I'm mulling over.

Gawain of Orkeny

09-01-2005, 20:29

So now its the ability to process and digest your own food that determines whether anything is alive or not. And of course only accordding to your definition of what prepartion is.
Never heard this one before.

Ser Clegane

09-01-2005, 20:31

Well, aren't we all?
~:cheers:

Well - there are some definition that seem to be accepted by a broader range of people, like the following one:

In biology, a lifeform has traditionally been considered to be a member of a population whose members can exhibit all the following phenomena at least once during their existence:

1. Growth
2. Metabolism, consuming, transforming and storing energy/mass; growing by absorbing and reorganizing mass; excreting waste
3. Motion, either moving itself, or having internal motion
4. Reproduction, the ability to create entities that are similar to, yet seperate from, itself
5. Response to stimuli - the ability to measure properties of its surrounding environment, and act upon certain conditions.

In some points similar to your definition, but I took the liberty to emphasize the phrase that makes all the difference.

Reverend Joe

09-01-2005, 20:33

It's not mine- it's what I learned about parasites in biology. Parasites perform no real digestion of their own; they actually need digestive materials in their "food" to live.

Don Corleone

09-01-2005, 20:33

The main difference is that the vegetable matter has been digested fully and transformed into materials that are being used by the deer. If the wolf was a parasite, it would never give the deer a chance to use this material to grow. The same applies to the placenta; the baby is not eating part of the mother; it is using preprocessed material that was never used by the mother.

Speaking as somebody with a pregnant wife, trust me, she's able to grow in addition to the baby itself. ~D Crap, I think she saw that.... no baby, you're not starting to show yet.... *ducks* :surprised: :smash:

I'm afraid you're going to have to distill this parasite theory for me a little more. I'm simply not getting it. No organism on the planet that lacks photosynthesis feeds itself independently. In fact, even plants require nutrients they get out of the soil from the byproducts of bacteria biodegrading other lifeforms. Your point about life forms that can produce their own food independently is lost on me, because I cannot think of a single example.

Don Corleone

09-01-2005, 20:36

Well - there are some definition that seem to be accepted by a broader range of people, like the following one:

In some points similar to your definition, but I took the liberty to emphasize the phrase that makes all the difference.

Actually, not to be too big a pain in the ass, Ser C, but aren't we going backwards now? According to #4, pre-pubescant boys & girls aren't techicially an independent life form. ~:confused:

Ser Clegane

09-01-2005, 20:41

Actually, not to be too big a pain in the ass, Ser C, but aren't we going backwards now? According to #4, pre-pubescant boys & girls aren't techicially an independent life form. ~:confused:

No we aren't going backwards - see the statement I put in bold.

It clearly points out that an individual entity does not have to meet all these criteria at any time to be considered a lifeform.

Although I have to admit that little kids tend to behave sufficiently outlandish that one could sometimes doubt whether they are members of the "human population" ~;)

Don Corleone

09-01-2005, 20:46

Good point. But no fair fooling me by hiding that statement by putting it in bold. :freak:

Reverend Joe

09-01-2005, 20:46

I'm afraid you're going to have to distill this parasite theory for me a little more. I'm simply not getting it. No organism on the planet that lacks photosynthesis feeds itself independently. In fact, even plants require nutrients they get out of the soil from the byproducts of bacteria biodegrading other lifeforms. Your point about life forms that can produce their own food independently is lost on me, because I cannot think of a single example.

What I am saying is that parasites need digestive materials as well as the basic nutrients. The food needs to be broken down into individual components (i.e. no larger molecules, just the basic sugars, protiens, etc.) If it is still in a complex form when it is consumed, that is not parasitic consumption. It is material that is used in other operations that are essential to life, and it has been used to construct and operate cells.

Part of the problem is that the definition itself is a little hazy. It is never cut-and-dry; this is just my take on it.

Sir Cleagane- that was not the exact definition I was taught in Biology.

drone

09-01-2005, 20:49

Drone- I don't understand your point...
My point is that the right and the left have their own opinions about the status and awareness of an unborn child. Neither side truly knows. Capital punishment is state retribution against someone who has knowingly committed a violent crime (although, here you could also argue that "no one truly knows" the guilt or innocence, since there are mistakes made). What has an unborn child done to deserve death, if you think, like the "Rightists", that the unborn is alive?

Using the "Leftist" terminology here to be the opposite of the "Rightist", the "Leftist" believes in pro-choice and opposes the death penalty. From the "Rightists" point of view, this means the "Leftists" support the murder of innocent infants while opposing the state-sponsored murder of violent criminals. The justification behind the two types of "murder" make the difference for the "Rightists". And you wonder why there is such animosity between the two sides?

Some groups are against both abortion and capital punishment, and these groups tend to be on the right nowadays, so the "Rightist" label might not be appropriate.

Reverend Joe

09-01-2005, 20:58

Drone- I'll get back to you later; right now I am too brain-fried to respond.

I need to listen to some Floyd, clear my head...

Ser Clegane

09-01-2005, 21:03

Sir Cleagane- that was not the exact definition I was taught in Biology.

I'm pretty sure your teacher/professor - even if he did not say it explicitly - was referring to the entire pouplation of entities.
Otherwise it would be a pretty silly definition as - apart from the group Don already mentioned - the definition would also exclude e.g., sterile people
(hey - I do not have any kids yet. For all I know I could be as much alive as a rock ~;) )

Don Corleone

09-01-2005, 21:05

Hey! This is a family oriented chat-board. Keep your rock & your reproductive prowess out of it, big guy.

drone

09-01-2005, 21:06

Drone- I'll get back to you later; right now I am too brain-fried to respond.

I need to listen to some Floyd, clear my head...
No problem, looks like about 4 different threads intertwined here. It took me a while to get that post worded the way I wanted it.

Us, us, us, us.... and them, them, them, them... :bow:

Reverend Joe

09-01-2005, 21:08

I have to take a break- I'm starting to become convinced that murder is justifiable regardless of age, because we are all parasites. ~:eek:

I'll be back in an hour or so.

Ser Clegane

09-01-2005, 21:12

Hey! This is a family oriented chat-board. Keep your rock & your reproductive prowess out of it, big guy.

*hopes that "rock" didn't have any obscene connotations that he wasn't aware of*

At least you seem to already fulfill all criteria and passed the test of being alive, Don ... unless you are inert to stimuli from your surrounding environment that is... ~D

Don Corleone

09-01-2005, 21:12

I will say, I'm quite happy it hasn't degraded into the usual poo-flinging we tend to engage in when it comes to this topic & the other 4 members of the unholy pentatauch of frequently started threads: (gun control, gay marriage, the UN & George W Bush).

Don Corleone

09-01-2005, 21:13

*hopes that "rock" didn't have any obscene connotations that he wasn't aware of*

At least you seem to already fulfill all criteria and passed the test of being alive, Don ... unless you are inert to stimuli from your surrounding environment that is... ~D

Based on the way human reproduction works, I think it's safe to say that one is a 2-for-1 deal, at least for human males. ~D

Ser Clegane

09-01-2005, 21:14

I'll be back in an hour or so.

I ... uhm ... hope you won't do anything silly during that hour (considering the insight you just seem to have gained) :help:

drone

09-01-2005, 21:23

I have to take a break- I'm starting to become convinced that murder is justifiable regardless of age, because we are all parasites. ~:eek:

I'll be back in an hour or so.

I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area, and you multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet, you are a plague, and we are the cure. Something like this? ~D

Reverend Joe

09-01-2005, 22:17

Just out of curiosity... does anyone know what you are supposed to do when... well, never mind.

Goofball

09-01-2005, 22:19

Im prolife in all circumstances except rape period Its funny how people can support abortion where the person about to die has not done one thing wrong but yet are anti death where the person has committed the most hanoues act (murder) on another human that is possible funny huh

Speaking of "funny," I find your position to be the most nonsensical out of all of the other positions I have ever heard about abortion.

Typically, people are against abortion because they believe that life has already begun in the womb and they believe that it would be murder to abort that life. I don't agree with that view, but I can certainly respect it. The only difference between me and pro-life folks is the stage at which we believe life has begun. Unfortunately, there really is no way for either side to prove their point one way or the other.

Your position, on the other hand, is truly perplexing. You say that you are against abortion for any reason except in the case of rape. I assume you are against abortion because you feel that it is the murder of a newly begun life. Given that belief, the fact that you are willing to allow the murder of a young life simply because his/her father was a rapist is utterly barbaric.

Should we also be able to murder people who were fathered by murderers? Or armed robbers? How about car theives? Shoplifters? Politicians?

Don Corleone

09-01-2005, 22:31

Goofball

09-01-2005, 23:49

Or Canadians? ~D

Just kidding, amigo. Pretty city you have there, Vancouver. I know you're in Victoria, but not too far away. I almost gave you a ring to grab a beer before we sailed, but I think after pregnant wifey being on a plane for 7 hours, it would have been the last thing I ever did.

That's a damn shame, ma man. It would have been a helluva good outing. What do you mean "sailed?" Did I miss something? Did you and Mrs. Corleone go on a cruise?

bmolsson

09-02-2005, 03:16

One thing I was thinking of. If we are to ban abortion in order to save lives, would it also be a good idea to force organ donorship ? Mandatory blood donation monthly ? Mandatory sperma donations ?
After all if a women can't make decisions over her own body, why should anyone be able to do so ? Aren't we just the property of the majority ????

Strike For The South

09-02-2005, 03:23

Your position, on the other hand, is truly perplexing. You say that you are against abortion for any reason except in the case of rape. I assume you are against abortion because you feel that it is the murder of a newly begun life. Given that belief, the fact that you are willing to allow the murder of a young life simply because his/her father was a rapist is utterly barbaric.

Im not saying just because the mother got raped the baby should be killed Im saying many women enough time trying to deal with the fact they got raped and then you had a baby on top of it. Everytime the woman looks at that baby shell be reminded of what happened and might be prone to take retibuiton (my word of the day ~:cheers: ) on the child. Chances are it wont be the most healthy home life. And the woman never consented meaning she had no plans to have sex and run the risk of a child it was forced upon her thats a big difference in my eyes

bmolsson

09-02-2005, 03:40

Im not saying just because the mother got raped the baby should be killed Im saying many women enough time trying to deal with the fact they got raped and then you had a baby on top of it. Everytime the woman looks at that baby shell be reminded of what happened and might be prone to take retibuiton (my word of the day ~:cheers: ) on the child. Chances are it wont be the most healthy home life. And the woman never consented meaning she had no plans to have sex and run the risk of a child it was forced upon her thats a big difference in my eyes

I am sorry, but this seems to be more about the woman than the child. If you are pro-life, then even a child from a rape should be protected, at the expese of the woman.
If you say that a woman that has got pregnant while having consent sex, should not be allowed to have an abortion, while a woman that got raped, then it's more about you wanting to punish the woman that wasn't "careful" enough.

I honestly can't see this fit at all.

Strike For The South

09-02-2005, 03:47

I am sorry, but this seems to be more about the woman than the child. If you are pro-life, then even a child from a rape should be protected, at the expese of the woman.
If you say that a woman that has got pregnant while having consent sex, should not be allowed to have an abortion, while a woman that got raped, then it's more about you wanting to punish the woman that wasn't "careful" enough.

I honestly can't see this fit at all.

Its not that the baby shouldnt be protected I beilve adoption first and foremost but the woman is probally still going through truma during the nine months shes preagnent Abortion should be the last thing on your list but

Don Corleone

09-02-2005, 04:08

That's a damn shame, ma man. It would have been a helluva good outing. What do you mean "sailed?" Did I miss something? Did you and Mrs. Corleone go on a cruise?

Yeah, we just got back from a 2 week cruise to Alaska. Went salmon fishin in Ketchikan, took a sea plane over the top of Mendenhall glacier at Juneau (and saw a grizzly and some mountain goats) went up to Denali, Fairbanks... the works. We had a blast, and if I really thought I could have talked my wife into waiting a couple of hours to get onto the boat (we sailed out of Vancouver) I would have called you and met you for a beer or two down in the Gasworks. Next time, mate.

Don Corleone

09-02-2005, 04:37

Never mind, rant erased. GC, you need to go read up on some history and see where the ideas you're espousing have led society in the past. Lots of men before you also found morality burdensome and when they came to power, decided to forgo it in order to implement their ideas of a greater society.

Ironside

09-02-2005, 08:13

In biology, a lifeform has traditionally been considered to be a member of a population whose members can exhibit all the following phenomena at least once during their existence:

1. Growth
2. Metabolism, consuming, transforming and storing energy/mass; growing by absorbing and reorganizing mass; excreting waste
3. Motion, either moving itself, or having internal motion
4. Reproduction, the ability to create entities that are similar to, yet seperate from, itself
5. Response to stimuli - the ability to measure properties of its surrounding environment, and act upon certain conditions.

I would recommend you to redefine this one, as fire fits all criterias and I wouldn't call fire alive. ~;)

Soulforged

09-02-2005, 10:01

This might kinda freak/creep you out, so be warned...

According to my scientific learning, viruses are nto alive because they are (1) incapable of independant reproduction and (2) incapable of life without directly feeding off of a living being's metabolic processes. This definition also includes highly evolved parasites, such as tapeworms, etc. Because gross parasites (meaning large, not grotesque) are completely dependant uopn another living organism for their metabolic and reproductive processes to operate, they are not technically alive.

Then this post confirms my guesses, at least for now. This will also permit the harvesting of fetus and many aplications on medical science. Why not clonation? I'm all for pro-evolution, of course while the fetus don't present any human factions. Then the fetus is only considered alive, or like an human being when it's out of the belly, when it's born, that's interesting.

Petrus

09-02-2005, 11:25

Petrus,
Is it your point that Gawain is manipulating people's emotions by showing a photograph that implies the fetus is aware and grateful of the doctor's aid, when in reality it's simply executing an instinctual reaction? If so, you have a point.

But to your other new points:
1) If you accept that a fertilized egg is a human being, how can abortion ever be justified in your eyes?

2) Late-term abortions are not a boogeyman. We have plenty of them every day here in the US. I believe Canada as well. One of the few ways that North America is more left leaning than Europe. (Abortion rights in the US is generally a left-leaning argument).

Yes, that's what i meant about this drawing.

On the other points i i going to try to be clear and to avoid confusion of terms.

1) I think abortion concerns not only one but two beings and that their respective rights, in this situation, are contradictory.

A woman has the right to dispose of her body, whatever the circumstancies, just like any other human being.

A embryo/fetus has the right to remain alive whatever the circumstancies, just like any other human being.

In short i think it is necessary to solve this contradiction to evaluate those rights relatively to the dependance of the embryo/fetus toward it's mother.

i.e. a children does not have the right to vote or to decide about his life as he is not an adult and is considered as unable to evaluate correctly the consequences of his decisions, so there is a delegation of some of his rights to his parents.

I the case of abortion, i think that as long the embryo is totaly dependant of it's mother to remain alife then she must be free to decide.

After this stage abortion should be illegal to the exception of a threat to the mother's life.

I did not find another way to solve this problem, all other moral/philosophical/medical reasoning being very heavily burdened by every individual's personal feeling.

2) Well, if this concerns 'long term' abortion, then i think you have my answer to this. About right and left, i think women's disposal of their own sexuality is something utterly important that shall not be let to political standards : it concerns half of the humanity and is a necessity for independance and personal blooming (?).

Hence it shall be treated independantly of the political color of the person that presents arguments.

To give you an example, the law that legalized abortion in France was proposed by a conservative gouvernement and voted by both the left and most of the right in parliament, something very uncomon.

Ser Clegane

09-02-2005, 12:18

I would recommend you to redefine this one, as fire fits all criterias and I wouldn't call fire alive. ~;)

Only if you take rather antiquated view that "fire" is an entity ~D

As fire is only the feature of a chemical process (oxydation) that is visible to the human eye I do not think the definition would apply.

Also I wonder how fire "measures properties of its surrounding environment" ~;)

bmolsson

09-02-2005, 12:39

Also I wonder how fire "measures properties of its surrounding environment" ~;)

With a burning interest I would assume..... ~D

Ironside

09-02-2005, 13:32

That's a bit tricky. Technically, fire doesn't move; it only grows. Unless those two categories can be interchangable, fire isn't alive.

So trees moves around at your place? ~;)

As fire is only the feature of a chemical process (oxydation) that is visible to the human eye I do not think the definition would apply.

And what is life if not only a feature of a (complicated) chemical process, that "strives" to repeat itself?

Also I wonder how fire "measures properties of its surrounding environment"
How does a bacteria measure the property of its surronding environment? Both fire and bacterias react upon changes, but how is this measurment defined?

Gawain of Orkeny

09-02-2005, 14:34

I the case of abortion, i think that as long the embryo is totaly dependant of it's mother to remain alife then she must be free to decide.

A newborn baby is totaly dependant of it's mother to remain alive for quite sometime. Should she be free to decide then if it lives or dies?

Petrus

09-02-2005, 14:57

A newborn baby is totaly dependant of it's mother to remain alive for quite sometime.

Where did you get that?

Ser Clegane

09-02-2005, 15:08

And what is life if not only a feature of a (complicated) chemical process, that "strives" to repeat itself?

Two different things here.

If you take a human being you have a corporal entity that meets the criteria of being a lifeform by the means of complicated chemical reactions

Fire is merely a visible effect of a chemical reaction (and by your logic quite a lot of chemical recation would meet the criteria for life)

Gawain of Orkeny

09-02-2005, 15:46

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
A newborn baby is totaly dependant of it's mother to remain alive for quite sometime.

Where did you get that?

Leave a newborn baby alone by itself for a few days and see how well it fairs. All you will find is a dead baby.

Ironside

09-02-2005, 16:01

Two different things here.

If you take a human being you have a corporal entity that meets the criteria of being a lifeform by the means of complicated chemical reactions

Fire is merely a visible effect of a chemical reaction (and by your logic quite a lot of chemical recation would meet the criteria for life)

Using a human when straighting out a grey-zone. ~:handball:
What about bacterias?
And what has this to do with the original points that defined life?

All you actually need to do is to define one word in one of the arguments and fire isn't "alive".

BTW those arguments makes virus alive too. but for another reason.

Ser Clegane

09-02-2005, 16:03

Using a human when straighting out a grey-zone. ~:handball:
What about bacterias?

If you take a bacteria you have a corporal entity that meets the criteria of being a lifeform by the means of complicated chemical reactions

Happy now? ~;)

BTW, the given definition already excludes fire - it needs no further change.

Petrus

09-02-2005, 16:11

Leave a newborn baby alone by itself for a few days and see how well it fairs. All you will find is a dead baby.

You mean that new born babies are let to their mother's attention to the exclusion of everyone else in your clinics?

Is it a tradition, a way of life?

Gawain of Orkeny

09-02-2005, 16:23

You mean that new born babies are let to their mother's attention to the exclusion of everyone else in your clinics?

Is it the natural state of man to be born in a clinic? Can the baby survive on its own ? If not the actual mother it at least needs a surrogate mother.

Petrus

09-02-2005, 16:44

Is it the natural state of man to be born in a clinic? Can the baby survive on its own ? If not the actual mother it at least needs a surrogate mother.

On this point we can fully agree and as i do not tink neccessary to give you a 'no' answer to your first two questions, that makes at least a happy ending for the week-end.

Have a good sunday church!

BDC

09-02-2005, 22:57

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18725154.200.html

Quite interesting, although you need to subscribe/get the magazine to see the rest.

Gawain of Orkeny

09-02-2005, 23:01

A Baby can breath, eat, and has all it's faculties.

A baby cannot eat. It needs its mothers milk or some artificial substitute. It also cannot see or walk or even crawl for that matter. It hardly has all its faculties.

Gawain of Orkeny

09-02-2005, 23:08

It has the rudimentary and self-sufficient beginnings of it's faculties.

Do these things miracuosly appear at birth or were they there in the womb? The answer is obvious.

Bottom line is that it is alive without being a parasitic attachment.

Again an infant must feed from its mothers breast or some artificial facimily so it is still a parisite. Its still quite attached to its mother.

Gawain of Orkeny

09-02-2005, 23:23

Wrong, it's just eating food. In the womb it is actually attached to the mother physically.

Try feeding a newborn food sometime. It cant eat it.

They appear late during the womb. At that point I believe abortion would be unethical.

But there programed in from the start.

Gawain of Orkeny

09-02-2005, 23:55

The milk is the food, whether from a bottle or a breast.

It gets the same "food" in the womb.

So? A lump of cells is no more a baby than a heap of building materials is a building. [/plagiarism-ish]

So than a baby is no more a fully developed human being than a wall is to a building. Fact is everything needed to produce a fully functioning human being is there from the moment of conception.

Gawain of Orkeny

09-03-2005, 01:51

You're splitting hairs.

And your not?

Gawain of Orkeny

09-03-2005, 06:29

You're looking for justification to call a it human from the time where it is just a single cell.

And I find it and you dont. Thats why this will never be settled. Once more for me its obviously human and alive, case closed. For you it turns human and alive at some point but you dont know when. I suggest we err on the side of life. This has nothing to do with religion or a soul. Its a viable and unique human life unless nature or a someone steps in to end it.

Soulforged

09-03-2005, 06:44

And I find it and you dont. Thats why this will never be settled. Once more for me its obviously human and alive, case closed. For you it turns human and alive at some point but you dont know when. I suggest we err on the side of life. This has nothing to do with religion or a soul. Its a viable and unique human life unless nature or a someone steps in to end it.

And you find no place for what science has to say? If science sais it's a single cell (and common sense and perception confirm it) then it's not an human, not even an human being. For what i know the will-to-be-human is only human when he/she borns. In my legislation even the will-to-be are protected, against what i disagree notoriously.

Gawain of Orkeny

09-03-2005, 06:56

For what i know the will-to-be-human is only human when he/she borns.

So your fine with sucking the brains out of an baby hours or even seconds before its born?

metatron

09-03-2005, 06:59

And you find no place for what science has to say? If science sais it's a single cell (and common sense and perception confirm it) then it's not an human, not even an human being. For what i know the will-to-be-human is only human when he/she borns. In my legislation even the will-to-be are protected, against what i disagree notoriously.Science says it's a human being, that it'll mature and eventually walk and talk like the rest of us, barring complications in the pregnancy. Unless my biology teachers lied to me, I dunno, maybe we really do come from the stork. Diaper and all.

Soulforged

09-03-2005, 07:12

Science says it's a human being, that it'll mature and eventually walk and talk like the rest of us, barring complications in the pregnancy. Unless my biology teachers lied to me, I dunno, maybe we really do come from the stork. Diaper and all.

No, you're contradicting yourself. First you say it's an human being and then you say that it'll. Besides, almost all legislations that i know (this will include medical assistence in the investigation) call the embrion (fetus) a will-to-be human, not an human, but i think it would be best if we call it a person or will-to-be person.

bmolsson

09-03-2005, 10:57

For me the "when is the fetus alive" is irrelevant. A fetus is not a human until it's born. Human in this case is a legal term and not a medical or biological. If we decide that a fetus is alive before it's born, then it should have all the rights and responsibilities a child have. Plain and simple.
The problem occur when a woman don't want to have it's fetus. Child care would have some difficulties to take it from her. Bottom line, it's unpractical to give fetus a "human" status......

Gawain of Orkeny

09-03-2005, 11:02

then it should have all the rights and responsibilities a child have. Plain and simple.

I agree. You shouldnt be able to kill it and it should have to keep its womb clean. ~D

metatron

09-05-2005, 08:20

Science says it's a human being, that it'll mature and eventually walk and talk like the rest of us, barring complications in the pregnancy. Unless my biology teachers lied to me, I dunno, maybe we really do come from the stork. Diaper and all.No, you're contradicting yourself. First you say it's an human being and then you say that it'll.You are a human being (I hope), and you will understand how the English language works (again, I hope).

Besides, almost all legislations that i know (this will include medical assistence in the investigation) call the embrion (fetus) a will-to-be human, not an human, but i think it would be best if we call it a person or will-to-be person.Because legislators aren't the least bit political. ~:rolleyes:

Soulforged

09-06-2005, 04:54

[QUOTE]You are a human being (I hope), and you will understand how the English language works (again, I hope). And perhaps you didn't undertand me? I was talking about semantics. You are or you'll be, not the two things at the time, the fetus has not a single human recognizable faction, at least not at the time it's protected, but i'll advance to the birth.

Because legislators aren't the least bit political. ~:rolleyes: Not...it's because they research, take things for the doctrine, scientific works.

Roark

09-06-2005, 05:50

Bottom line, it's unpractical to give fetus a "human" status......

If the concept of humanity is to be centralised around practicality, or utilitarianism, then we may as well round up the aged, the disabled, the retarded, and give them all a new "status" under the law.

How about we call them Morlocks, and let them live underground...

bmolsson

09-06-2005, 08:54

If the concept of humanity is to be centralised around practicality, or utilitarianism, then we may as well round up the aged, the disabled, the retarded, and give them all a new "status" under the law.

How about we call them Morlocks, and let them live underground...

Why not use the existing names:

Etiopians = Let them starve to death
Rwandans or Somalis = Let them get hacked to death
Chinese = Let them die as slave labor
Refugees to Australia = Attack them with commando's while international TV catch it

Roark, I think you should broaden your view a little bit more. There are far more humans, still breathing, that require more attention than fetus that are to be aborted. I think your post in reply to me where rather tardy.....

Soulforged

09-07-2005, 00:39

If the concept of humanity is to be centralised around practicality, or utilitarianism, then we may as well round up the aged, the disabled, the retarded, and give them all a new "status" under the law.

How about we call them Morlocks, and let them live underground...

That's not true they've actually recognisable human factions on them, thus the law should protect them as humans. The fetus in some stages has not a single recognisable faction on it, that's why the great part of the legislations use the subterfuge "willtobe".

ICantSpellDawg

09-07-2005, 01:39

check this out

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4121411.stm

in particular, look at weeks 6 and 14

Alexander the Pretty Good

09-07-2005, 02:20

Papewaio

09-07-2005, 02:55

Refugees to Australia = Attack them with commando's while international TV catch it

That is one of the more brazen lies that you have stated.

Did the SAS attack the people on the Norwegian ship that entered Australian waters?

No.

What did they do? Took over the ship and gave medial attention to those on board.

Should the Norwegian ship entered soverign waters? Maybe, maybe not.

Some state that the closest port when the people boarded was Indonesia, hence steaming on towards Australian waters was adding people smuggling. I disagree with that statement.

I do disagree with people who are queue jumpers or refugees skipping past viable countries to pick and choose their end destination. That isn't being a refugee, that is illegal entry.

Should the Indonesian government cracked down earlier on people smuggling... yes.

bmolsson

09-07-2005, 03:38

That is one of the more brazen lies that you have stated.

Did the SAS attack the people on the Norwegian ship that entered Australian waters?

No.

What did they do? Took over the ship and gave medial attention to those on board.

Should the Norwegian ship entered soverign waters? Maybe, maybe not.

Some state that the closest port when the people boarded was Indonesia, hence steaming on towards Australian waters was adding people smuggling. I disagree with that statement.

I do disagree with people who are queue jumpers or refugees skipping past viable countries to pick and choose their end destination. That isn't being a refugee, that is illegal entry.

Should the Indonesian government cracked down earlier on people smuggling... yes.

It was on prime time TV news all over Indonesia. Heavy armed forces with bullet proof wests boarding a ship with womens and children. This is one of the largest scandals and most jerky PR stunts made by Australian authorities. It has absolutely nothing to do with if they where illegals or not, neither if the Indonesian government should crack down on people smuggling or not. Australian armed forces made a real jack ass out of themselves. Deal with it...... :charge:

Papewaio

09-07-2005, 03:42

Yeah Indonesia news is a great balanced media source...

bmolsson

09-07-2005, 04:31

Yeah Indonesia news is a great balanced media source...

Just as balanced as the Australian news, I would say... :duel:

Soulforged

09-07-2005, 04:39

And for the want of practicality, human life is expendable.

And law trumps the beloved science, to boot.

:book:

Yes i think that bmolsson went a little bit to far. In fact law's binded to custom and science, so it takes advantage of other fields definition. But the medical science cannot call the fetus an human, at least for what i know. In any case i'll like to know how the law in USA defines persons and from when they're considered persons or will-to-be persons.

ICantSpellDawg

09-07-2005, 04:54

Just as balanced as the Australian news, I would say... :duel:

...
last time i went i didnt find that to be true.
but that was 10 years ago

soulforged - read that link that i previously posted

Papewaio

09-07-2005, 05:11

It was on prime time TV news all over Indonesia. Heavy armed forces with bullet proof wests boarding a ship with womens and children. This is one of the largest scandals and most jerky PR stunts made by Australian authorities. It has absolutely nothing to do with if they where illegals or not, neither if the Indonesian government should crack down on people smuggling or not. Australian armed forces made a real jack ass out of themselves. Deal with it...... :charge:

First off did ANY of the SAS attack the people on board?

NO, so you made a hyperbolic statement that was untruthful. In short you outright lied when you said:
Refugees to Australia = Attack them with commando's while international TV catch it/

Second who would board a ship off Western Australia? I don't think it would be the artillery. So logically who has the water skills, equipment, boats and medical expertise to perform such an operation?

bmolsson

09-07-2005, 05:13

Yes i think that bmolsson went a little bit to far. In fact law's binded to custom and science, so it takes advantage of other fields definition.

Put it in to perspective. We argue if a fetus should have human rights and full control over it's mothers body. At the same time thousands of children around the world starve to death, are abused, are sold as cattle.....
The moral among many are only to the neighbours daughter that lives a life in sin. The whole abortion discussion is more about punishing womens than to save lives. I don't see the pro-life debaters on the barricades for increased refugee recieving or increased support to eradication of starvation and poverty. Why should it be more important to save somebody yet to be born than somebody that is already born ? :help:

bmolsson

09-07-2005, 05:21

First off did ANY of the SAS attack the people on board?

NO, so you made a hyperbolic statement that was untruthful. In short you outright lied when you said: /

I saw it with my own eyes. And people don't have to die during an attack to classify it as an attack. In a similar civilian incident, the attackers would have been prosecuted for assult.

Second who would board a ship off Western Australia? I don't think it would be the artillery. So logically who has the water skills, equipment, boats and medical expertise to perform such an operation?

Most country use the coast guard for that, not special forces. Tell me, the Thai fishing boat that was boarded and seized, which now has proven to be innocent, why didn't SAS do that boat as well ? Fishermen would be a larger threat than womans and children one might assume.....

Papewaio

09-07-2005, 05:30

Australian SAS commando unit boarded today the Norwegian ship Tampa carrying 440 illegal immigrants after the ship's captain attempted to force his way into the Australian territorial waters.
The Norwegian container ship carries some 440 illegal immigrants from Afghanistan, rescued from a sinking Indonesian boat during their attempt to sneak into Australia. The Australian Army started providing medical and humanitarian assistance to the people on board of Tampa. Contrary to previous press stories, military doctors found that none of the illegal immigrants is in need of urgent medical treatment.
While the ship's Norwegian captain refuses to move his vessel back into international waters, Australia refuses to accept Afghanis, who virtually hijacked Tampa close to the shores of Java, on her way to Singapore.

So when police arrest someone it is an attack?

Special forces were used on the Korean ship last year too.

Korean Ship Boarded by Australian Commandos (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/ED29Dg01.html)

The size of the vessel and situation changes the level of the response.

Azi Tohak

09-07-2005, 05:41

What does this have to do with Abortion? 4th trimester maybe?

Azi

bmolsson

09-07-2005, 05:41

So when police arrest someone it is an attack?

Special forces were used on the Korean ship last year too.

Korean Ship Boarded by Australian Commandos (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/ED29Dg01.html)

The size of the vessel and situation changes the level of the response.

None of the refugees where arrested. And it was not the police. Nice try.... ~;)

Papewaio

09-07-2005, 05:44

Yeah and getting medical aid is being attacked... nice lie.

You are making false statements.

bmolsson

09-07-2005, 05:47

What does this have to do with Abortion? 4th trimester maybe?

Azi

The value of a human life in different ages as well as differnt locations.

bmolsson

09-07-2005, 05:48

Yeah and getting medical aid is being attacked... nice lie.

You are making false statements.

I saw what I saw, despite your rosy picture of the Australian forces.....

Roark

09-07-2005, 06:29

Roark, I think you should broaden your view a little bit more. There are far more humans, still breathing, that require more attention than fetus that are to be aborted.

Well, as a donor to Oxfam and Worldvision for 8 or 9 years of my life, I'd certainly like to think that I give fair attention to those whom you consider to be human.

I certainly give them more attention than the fetuses, a demography that I have devoted an entire 3 or 4 posts in a thread to...

You don't credit the status of a fetus until it has physically passed the cervix (as though something magical occurs at this point), and you're telling ME to broaden my view? Wow. GOLD!!!

The red herring about Australian commandos was beneath you.

I think your post in reply to me where rather tardy........

Sorry. I've been flat-out with work.

bmolsson

09-07-2005, 06:46

You don't credit the status of a fetus until it has physically passed the cervix (as though something magical occurs at this point), and you're telling ME to broaden my view? Wow. GOLD!!!

Actually it's not me, it's the law. In more or less every country. Nothing magical happens, just that it is separated from it's mother and they can go separate ways if they so chose. Before that, they are "stuck" so to say.

The red herring about Australian commandos was beneath you.

I am sorry if I offended you or any Australian. Not my intention. It's not a red herring, it's a real screwup.

Roark

09-07-2005, 07:18

Well, the law of most Western countries lies somewhere in between my view and yours...

You raised an interesting point earlier: Why aren't pro-lifers as passionate about the suffering of grown humans as they are about fetuses?

I often hear that "the fetuses can't defend themselves and can't voice their complaints", but the same is often true of the oppressed around the world...

bmolsson

09-07-2005, 10:16

I often hear that "the fetuses can't defend themselves and can't voice their complaints", but the same is often true of the oppressed around the world...

Agreed...

Don Corleone

09-07-2005, 18:47

Put it in to perspective. We argue if a fetus should have human rights and full control over it's mothers body. At the same time thousands of children around the world starve to death, are abused, are sold as cattle.....
The moral among many are only to the neighbours daughter that lives a life in sin. The whole abortion discussion is more about punishing womens than to save lives. I don't see the pro-life debaters on the barricades for increased refugee recieving or increased support to eradication of starvation and poverty. Why should it be more important to save somebody yet to be born than somebody that is already born ? :help:

So let me see if I can keep up with all the wild statements you've been making here Blmosson. Thus far, in this thread, you've asserted:

-It's okay to abort babies in the 39th week because poverty exists.

-Anyone that doesn't support 3rd trimester abortions hates women and is attempting to punish them.

-Whenever somebody tries to enforce the sovereignty of their borders & international laws, they're really attacking innocent women and children.

-Anybody who disagrees with 3rd trimester abortions refuses to work towards hunger & povety relief.

Any other gross mischaracterizations you'd care to make while you're out there spinning these wild tales? Boy, there must be something in the water over there in Indonesia that disconnects one's mind from reality.... :dizzy2:

I started a thread here in the Backroom about doing something to reduce poverty, and I'm actually quite active with "1%" and Project Heiffer. So you and Roark better get your facts straight before you go making wild claims that people who don't support abortion in the 3rd trimester never doing anything to end poverty.

Alexander the Pretty Good

09-07-2005, 21:52

Isn't he just batting a thousand? That is just the things I was going to say Don.

Ridiculous. :no:

Duke of Gloucester

09-07-2005, 22:50

Actually it's not me, it's the law. In more or less every country. Nothing magical happens, just that it is separated from it's mother and they can go separate ways if they so chose. Before that, they are "stuck" so to say.

"Go their separate ways" hardly. "if they so chose". Could a new born infant could understand that choice let alone make it?

But the medical science cannot call the fetus an human, at least for what i know.

This, of course, depends on your definition of human. Lets nail the "lump of cells" argument. This might be relevant if we were discussing emergency contraception, but by the time a woman is aware she is pregnant the embryo is far more complex than this. By the time it is a fetus, it has rudimentary organs including a heart and a brain. Whether or not this makes it a human being depends upon your point of view, but it science tells us it is not a lump of cells.

You raised an interesting point earlier: Why aren't pro-lifers as passionate about the suffering of grown humans as they are about fetuses?

Just because some people who take a pro-life stance have strange priorities, does not make a pro-life stance wrong.

For me the "when is the fetus alive" is irrelevant. A fetus is not a human until it's born. Human in this case is a legal term and not a medical or biological. If we decide that a fetus is alive before it's born, then it should have all the rights and responsibilities a child have. Plain and simple.

This is saying that the fetus is not human because abortion is morally acceptable, not that abortion is morally acceptable because the fetus is not human.

Soulforged

09-08-2005, 00:36

Put it in to perspective. We argue if a fetus should have human rights and full control over it's mothers body. At the same time thousands of children around the world starve to death, are abused, are sold as cattle.....
The moral among many are only to the neighbours daughter that lives a life in sin. The whole abortion discussion is more about punishing womens than to save lives. I don't see the pro-life debaters on the barricades for increased refugee recieving or increased support to eradication of starvation and poverty. Why should it be more important to save somebody yet to be born than somebody that is already born ? :help:

Hey i'm on your side but you're confusing things. The law cannot be a totally abstract, it takes all kinds of knowledge from each of the other siences, specially the social ones, and from reality. But getting on subject, the law is often an skin that you can apply in abstract form to any case included or presumely included in the text or it's interpretation, that's why the law cannot say in some cases, given to character or poverty of the subject, we'll make some exceptions (the only type of law that works that way is the emergency law -here called transitory or exceptional- but this laws are suppoused to last for sometime and then dissapear). Besided the theory accepted the post in our days is the one of "judge the actions" not the character, so you cannot make exceptions by character (in this definition is all that includes the character of a given person even it's economical state), discriminating people, wheter it be for good or not.

Zharakov

09-08-2005, 01:08

I have question. In Russia, to kill is agaisnt the law. Is in not the same in the west?

Is not a baby a human being? Then why can you kill it, but not another man?

Gawain of Orkeny

09-08-2005, 01:49

I have question. In Russia, to kill is agaisnt the law. Is in not the same in the west?
Is not a baby a human being? Then why can you kill it, but not another man?

Who would have thought the Russians are more humane than most liberals in the west~D

ICantSpellDawg

09-08-2005, 02:00

Who would have thought the Russians are more humane than most liberals in the west~D

that isnt much of a tall order.

bmolsson

09-08-2005, 02:12

Seems like we finally got some humpf in to this discussion..... ~;)

bmolsson

09-08-2005, 02:28

So let me see if I can keep up with all the wild statements you've been making here Blmosson. Thus far, in this thread, you've asserted:

And I will try to keep up with your assumptions...

-It's okay to abort babies in the 39th week because poverty exists.

I did not say that, did I ? Try to read my posts again, I am sure that will help.

-Anyone that doesn't support 3rd trimester abortions hates women and is attempting to punish them.

No. But some that doesn't put the womans well being before the fetus (at any age), are often using arguments where the woman is punished for here sexual habits and assumed low moral.

-Whenever somebody tries to enforce the sovereignty of their borders & international laws, they're really attacking innocent women and children.

No. Only one incident in Australia was mentioned. That was a screwup and hopefully it taught everyone involved something.

-Anybody who disagrees with 3rd trimester abortions refuses to work towards hunger & povety relief.

No. But there are several pro-life posters that also is against refugee's and international help to poor and starving people in the world.

Any other gross mischaracterizations you'd care to make while you're out there spinning these wild tales? Boy, there must be something in the water over there in Indonesia that disconnects one's mind from reality.... :dizzy2:

Your assumptions are wild tales, my statements are not. By the way the water I drink is imported.

I started a thread here in the Backroom about doing something to reduce poverty, and I'm actually quite active with "1%" and Project Heiffer. So you and Roark better get your facts straight before you go making wild claims that people who don't support abortion in the 3rd trimester never doing anything to end poverty.

You where not specifically mentioned here. On the other hand the fact that you feel targeted might of course be evidence of something, but I am not a judge nor am I on jury duty so I will not judge........

bmolsson

09-08-2005, 02:33

"Go their separate ways" hardly. "if they so chose". Could a new born infant could understand that choice let alone make it?

Actually it can. The moment a child is born it has a guardian appointed in most countries. There are government institutions that protects the right and interest of the child. So legally, this is the childs interests until the day it reach adult age.

As a fetus, it doesn't have any guardian appointed, since it would create problem with the freedom of the mother.
Example: It is not in the best interest if the mother drink, smoke, eat fat food, work to hard, have sex, eat medication etc etc during pregnancy. Now if the best interest of the fetus would be in the front room, you would have moved the mother from human to state owned incubator. I think that would be wrong and the mothers rights and freedom goes before the fetus.

bmolsson

09-08-2005, 02:40

Hey i'm on your side but you're confusing things. The law cannot be a totally abstract, it takes all kinds of knowledge from each of the other siences, specially the social ones, and from reality. But getting on subject, the law is often an skin that you can apply in abstract form to any case included or presumely included in the text or it's interpretation, that's why the law cannot say in some cases, given to character or poverty of the subject, we'll make some exceptions (the only type of law that works that way is the emergency law -here called transitory or exceptional- but this laws are suppoused to last for sometime and then dissapear). Besided the theory accepted the post in our days is the one of "judge the actions" not the character, so you cannot make exceptions by character (in this definition is all that includes the character of a given person even it's economical state), discriminating people, wheter it be for good or not.

I know, you are right. But this debate needs some fresh angles and that requires some sweeping statements. Both sides are far to entranched these days...... ~;)

Alexander the Pretty Good

09-08-2005, 02:51

-It's okay to abort babies in the 39th week because poverty exists.

I did not say that, did I ? Try to read my posts again, I am sure that will help.
You didn't say that in so many words, no. But the effect of your words is the same.

-Anyone that doesn't support 3rd trimester abortions hates women and is attempting to punish them.

No. But some that doesn't put the womans well being before the fetus (at any age), are often using arguments where the woman is punished for here sexual habits and assumed low moral.

And you are assuming these arguments of "low moral" are being made.

-Anybody who disagrees with 3rd trimester abortions refuses to work towards hunger & povety relief.

No. But there are several pro-life posters that also is against refugee's and international help to poor and starving people in the world.

Care to name some names?

"Go their separate ways" hardly. "if they so chose". Could a new born infant could understand that choice let alone make it?

Actually it can. The moment a child is born it has a guardian appointed in most countries. There are government institutions that protects the right and interest of the child. So legally, this is the childs interests until the day it reach adult age.

As a fetus, it doesn't have any guardian appointed, since it would create problem with the freedom of the mother.
Example: It is not in the best interest if the mother drink, smoke, eat fat food, work to hard, have sex, eat medication etc etc during pregnancy. Now if the best interest of the fetus would be in the front room, you would have moved the mother from human to state owned incubator. I think that would be wrong and the mothers rights and freedom goes before the fetus.

That doesn't make any sense. We don't have state-run incubators. AND no one has proposed this.

Zharakov

09-08-2005, 03:08

I still wish to know why...

Don Corleone

09-08-2005, 04:21

And I will try to keep up with your assumptions...

I did not say that, did I ? Try to read my posts again, I am sure that will help.

No. But some that doesn't put the womans well being before the fetus (at any age), are often using arguments where the woman is punished for here sexual habits and assumed low moral.

No. Only one incident in Australia was mentioned. That was a screwup and hopefully it taught everyone involved something.

No. But there are several pro-life posters that also is against refugee's and international help to poor and starving people in the world.

Your assumptions are wild tales, my statements are not. By the way the water I drink is imported.

You where not specifically mentioned here. On the other hand the fact that you feel targeted might of course be evidence of something, but I am not a judge nor am I on jury duty so I will not judge........

You were making some tongue in cheek statements about 'a fetus is a fetus' right up until it's born. So did you ever specifically say "39 weeks" or "3rd trimester"? No, you didn't. But it was the natural progression of what you were saying, and in fact, you were arguing that there should be no time limit on a woman's personal choice to an abortion.

As far as whether or not you specifically mentioned me as a penny-pinching, screw the poor type, again, no you didn't. You said that you find that people that are opposed to abortion in any form (any of course including late term elective abortions) don't help poor people and if they want to help somebody, they should just shut up and give money to poor people. As I disagree with you, that a woman in week 38 doesn't have a right to make a lifestyle choice, that puts me in your scope. I am acutally quite generous, and based on what I've seen of your cynical view of human nature and the desire to acutally help people, versus fling mud, I'd publish my tax returns against yours showing charitable donations any day of the week.

Before you decide to go mischaracterize a large breadth of the population you know nothing about that you just happen to disagree with, you should at least attempt to fathom how wide their positions and dedication to other causes are. Charles Dickens, humanist savior of the poor and witty satirist, you ain't.

Duke of Gloucester

09-08-2005, 06:00

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester
"Go their separate ways" hardly. "if they so chose". Could a new born infant could understand that choice let alone make it?

Actually it can. The moment a child is born it has a guardian appointed in most countries. There are government institutions that protects the right and interest of the child. So legally, this is the childs interests until the day it reach adult age.

As a fetus, it doesn't have any guardian appointed, since it would create problem with the freedom of the mother.
Example: It is not in the best interest if the mother drink, smoke, eat fat food, work to hard, have sex, eat medication etc etc during pregnancy. Now if the best interest of the fetus would be in the front room, you would have moved the mother from human to state owned incubator. I think that would be wrong and the mothers rights and freedom goes before the fetus.

This describes someone making the choice on behalf of the infant, not the infant making the choice for itself.

No one is suggesting imprisoning the mother, even if this was in the best interests of the fetus, which it isn't.

BTW sex during pregnancy is not harmful to the fetus.

Soulforged

09-08-2005, 08:04

No one is suggesting imprisoning the mother, even if this was in the best interests of the fetus, which it isn't. Well but they do, why? Because it's considered murder, and if you murder you get condemned to years in jail (hear it's 1 to 10 years). The only way to change this is to change at the same time the definition of person.

Zharakov

09-08-2005, 20:24

Killing a child is murder... so why is killing a Fetus a medical process?

I did some reading at work, and found that Liberals are not for capitle punishment.

But then why do you condem a Child to deth... but not a criminal?

Ser Clegane

09-08-2005, 20:35

But then why do you condem a Child to deth... but not a criminal?

The whole issue is at what point you actually consider the unborn to be a child.

You will hardly find a person that supports abortion at a certain stage of the pregnancy and considers the fetus to be a child at that stage (and the opinions among pro-choice supporters when abortion should actually be allowed vary, with only a minority supporting 3rd trimester abortions)

Zharakov

09-08-2005, 20:37

But does the fetus not breath, move, have a connection to the mother?

I do not understand such a waste of human life... What would drive a person to kill?

yesdachi

09-08-2005, 20:57

But does the fetus not breath, move, have a connection to the mother?

I do not understand such a waste of human life... What would drive a person to kill?
Rape, incest, their own survival. Some of the same reasons I am ok with the death penalty.

Zharakov

09-08-2005, 22:09

Why can they not give the child to a adoption cneter?

And in cases where the womans life is at stake. Then I geuss I am ok with that... But it still is wrong...

Don Corleone

09-08-2005, 22:11

You're gonna love the rationale on this one, Zharakov. The idea against adoption is that it's cruel to the mother, and I've even heard, here in the Backroom, that it's cruel to the children... that somehow being aborted is better than being adopted. Being adopted, this was news to me. ~:eek:

Zharakov

09-08-2005, 22:14

And this is why? I would rather live then die.

JAG

09-08-2005, 22:57

The whole issue is at what point you actually consider the unborn to be a child.

You will hardly find a person that supports abortion at a certain stage of the pregnancy and considers the fetus to be a child at that stage (and the opinions among pro-choice supporters when abortion should actually be allowed vary, with only a minority supporting 3rd trimester abortions)

Don't say that, you turn the pro choice monsters into rational thinkers and the moral crusaders into overbearing interventionalists. Plus you stifle the debate as you are completely correct.

Soulforged

09-09-2005, 01:32

Killing a child is murder... so why is killing a Fetus a medical process? And what does this has to do with anything? A medical process can turn into murder too. Besides it's all about justification, wich makes the act of murder pass like acceptable, like when you kill in selfdefence, Anyway that's the actual legislation, i'll say that for the sake of evolution we erase all kind of irrationalities, liberate totally the subject on abortion, give the mother the facultade to abort whenever she wants, and make harvesting and experimentation totally legal. Period

I did some reading at work, and found that Liberals are not for capitle punishment. Nobody should be for the capitale punishment, it's nonsencical as it was the protection of the fetus even in extreme cases (like danger for the mother). The subject of complete liberation is a little more complicated and discussable, what's not disscussable is murdering a person for no reason at all, simple vengeance.

But then why do you condem a Child to deth... but not a criminal?
Nobody codems the child, and the child in our condideration is not a person. Do you know for example that the major doctrine accepts to kill a dog if it attacks your pants? Well the case of the child is the same, to me until it's not born and breathing he has not human value at all, just for the genes, and with the aproval of the mother everything should be experimented on it. And i'm seeing some profiling here...you compare a grown person, with his defects ok, but a breathing person to a thing that not even thinks or acts like one, for God's sake the life of all human beings are equal no one in no case whatsover should die, there's no reason (execept of course some causes for justification). Hey he's a criminal lynch him!!!!!

Zharakov

09-09-2005, 03:20

So, you have juged the child to be unworthy of life because you can not ask it weather or not he can breath and blink?

Do you know who you sound like? Hitler... Or the Romans killing the lame and physicly chalenged and Christians... Or your KKK killing Blacks, Jews, and Catholics...

What right do you have to decide the fate of another person, on the beliefe that they are not liveing? Are you God? Are you an all powerfull deity?

Do the Americans believe the right to LIFE, Libety, and the Presuit of Happyness?

You are denying a child of that right when you abort that child...

If someone can decide weather or not you live, without you doing anything... Then you Americans have no rights...

JAG

09-09-2005, 03:28

Zharakov - You value life SO MUCH that you have a sig as - BLOOD FOR BLOOD!
DEATH FOR DEATH!

Wow, you are so caring for life.

Zharakov

09-09-2005, 03:30

JAG

09-09-2005, 03:37

I was a Partizan... I lived by that code...

When the Chechnyian terrorists took that school... I lived by it once again...

But I will not kill in cold blood... Seems t be a new consept to some of the west...

Wow, at least you admit you have no moral ledgitimacy on your opinions and no solid moral base to stand on. Fair play.

Zharakov

09-09-2005, 03:40

I am not proud of my past... But at least I am willing to make things better for the future rather then wine and complain and hope other do it for me...

And at least I wish to protect peoples lives now...

Soulforged

09-09-2005, 04:14

So, you have juged the child to be unworthy of life because you can not ask it weather or not he can breath and blink? Wrong, you didn't understand my example of the dog. I don't consider the fetus an human, and i don't consider his protection as a will to be human, so it's irrelevant if he can breath. I clearly said born and breathing.

Do you know who you sound like? Hitler... Or the Romans killing the lame and physicly chalenged and Christians... Or your KKK killing Blacks, Jews, and Catholics... This is stupid, they killed born babies and grown persons. But you're right i would really like to kill "criminals", please you're accusing me of something that you suffer, when in fact i don't consider the fetus an human being for certain reasons, you just happen to believe in the saintity of it, that's not an argument and is part of the irrationality penetrating the legislations of some nations.

What right do you have to decide the fate of another person, on the beliefe that they are not liveing? Are you God? Are you an all powerfull deity? God doesn't exist....and i don't have any right is the society as an union who decides it. I only expressed my ideas, wich are materialy better founded than yours.

Do the Americans believe the right to LIFE, Libety, and the Presuit of Happyness? So...

You are denying a child of that right when you abort that child... Wrong the child is not even selfaware, he's just another thing inside a body, i don't ask an animal if it's going to be a lawyer or a medic or if he will get married and have childs, it's irrelevant, i just kill it if i get hungry, the same as i kill the fetus for the purpose of experimentation or in favour of the mother's petition. Anyway in a real law, this should be formulated with conditions, for example (in the case that the mother wasn't raped, or his health may suffer) the mother should have taken every precaution possible, to show that she didn't wanted the child, like using profilactics.
If someone can decide weather or not you live, without you doing anything...
Then you Americans have no rights... Wrong again, it has nothing to do, if he borns as many humans will still want, then he has all the rights of an human. For that moment on the child begins to gain notion of the surrounding world, he experiences, he feels and with the time he reasons. Besides I was talking world wide, it surprises me that being not an USA inhabitant you think that all turns around them.

Roark

09-09-2005, 05:30

I started a thread here in the Backroom about doing something to reduce poverty, and I'm actually quite active with "1%" and Project Heiffer. So you and Roark better get your facts straight before you go making wild claims that people who don't support abortion in the 3rd trimester never doing anything to end poverty.

What the hell???

Speaking of "wild claims", mate. I never said that, and nor did bmolsson. Here you go again, using exageration and the twisting of words to make your point.

You seem to have a serious bone to pick, possibly because of prior discussions with bmolsson. I don't know, but it's clearly colouring your judgement.

Yeah, you personally started a thread, and you personally (one single person) may not fit in with the cross-section of people we were talking about. Whoop de doo. I was speaking in general terms.

Duke of Gloucester

09-09-2005, 06:21

Soulforged

You claim your arguments are more rational than those with a pro-life stance. You believe that individuals become human at birth, and therefore abortion (I presume up to term) is acceptable. Pro-lifers believe that individuals become human at an earlier stage, and therefore, abortion is not acceptable. Neither position is more rational than the other; they are just based on different and contradictory premises.

The reason Zharkov makes the comparison to Hitler is that one of the justifications for extermination of minorities is that they were held to be less human than the rest of the population. Extending this to Romans and the KKK may be stretching things too far, because they would have different justifications for their actions.

I think you need to be careful about using self-awareness, notion of the surrounding world and capacity to reason to accord human rights. I think psychological research tells us that the human brain develops with experience, and that initially there are relatively few connections between synapses. There is a good chance that a new-born infant is not self aware or capable of reasoning, and its notion of its surroundings is probably less than it was when it was in the womb. As I said, the brain develops through experience and those experiences begin before birth.

Xiahou

09-09-2005, 07:11

And this is why? I would rather live then die.Me too. I'm glad I've had the chance. :bow:

bmolsson

09-09-2005, 07:17

As far as whether or not you specifically mentioned me as a penny-pinching, screw the poor type, again, no you didn't. You said that you find that people that are opposed to abortion in any form (any of course including late term elective abortions) don't help poor people and if they want to help somebody, they should just shut up and give money to poor people. As I disagree with you, that a woman in week 38 doesn't have a right to make a lifestyle choice, that puts me in your scope. I am acutally quite generous, and based on what I've seen of your cynical view of human nature and the desire to acutally help people, versus fling mud, I'd publish my tax returns against yours showing charitable donations any day of the week.

I said SOME posters. Now you have clearly put you in as some in that category, so no more arguing about that.

For your tax returns against my charitable donations, I wouldn't do that since I don't want to break your self confidence..... ~:grouphug:

Before you decide to go mischaracterize a large breadth of the population you know nothing about that you just happen to disagree with, you should at least attempt to fathom how wide their positions and dedication to other causes are. Charles Dickens, humanist savior of the poor and witty satirist, you ain't.

Never claimed to be a satirist or a humanist savior, just a poster in a rather unimportant forum. Further, telling the truth is not to mischaracterize, is it....... ~:cheers:

bmolsson

09-09-2005, 07:30

This describes someone making the choice on behalf of the infant, not the infant making the choice for itself.

Legally a human without ability to protect its own best interest will have a guardian acting for it. Its not only something that children have.

No one is suggesting imprisoning the mother, even if this was in the best interests of the fetus, which it isn't.

That will be the ultimate consequence when the mother doesn't act in the best interest for the fetus and its rights are violated.

Soulforged

09-09-2005, 07:31

[QUOTE]Soulforged

You claim your arguments are more rational than those with a pro-life stance. You believe that individuals become human at birth, and therefore abortion (I presume up to term) is acceptable. Pro-lifers believe that individuals become human at an earlier stage, and therefore, abortion is not acceptable. Neither position is more rational than the other; they are just based on different and contradictory premises. Well then tell me why the fetus is considered worthy of protection by this prolife guys?

The reason Zharkov makes the comparison to Hitler is that one of the justifications for extermination of minorities is that they were held to be less human than the rest of the population. Extending this to Romans and the KKK may be stretching things too far, because they would have different justifications for their actions. Oh i know but he didn't interpreted me well, if we follow logics, i first stated my point of view respecting the fetus.

I think you need to be careful about using self-awareness, notion of the surrounding world and capacity to reason to accord human rights. I think psychological research tells us that the human brain develops with experience, and that initially there are relatively few connections between synapses. There is a good chance that a new-born infant is not self aware or capable of reasoning, and its notion of its surroundings is probably less than it was when it was in the womb. As I said, the brain develops through experience and those experiences begin before birth. Yes you're right, i didn't mean it that way, but the crucial difference between the fetus in any stage and the born human is that this has lost all organic bindings to the mother, that's why they're considered a separate and different person.

Gawain of Orkeny

09-09-2005, 07:45

human is that this has lost all organic bindings to the mother,

No it hasnt. Weve already been over ths. It either needs its mothers milk or some manmade sustance to replicate it and a surrogate mother. It cannot live on its own for years to come. So you are ok even then killing it until the unbelical cord is cut? At that point its still not human according to you.

Duke of Gloucester

09-09-2005, 19:49

Well then tell me why the fetus is considered worthy of protection by this prolife guys?

It depends what you consider the "crucial difference" to be. You talk about "separate and different" but you really just mean separate. This is, for you, what makes the individual human. Once it is separate from its mother, it should be given the rights accorded to all other humans. A pro-life argument would emphasise difference, pointing out that an embryo has a distinct genetic code from the mother (and a fetus has separate organ systems). Thus it is a distinct human individual with a right to life, and where necessary should be protected. Bmolsson makes a slightly different pro-choice argument, that to accord rights to a fetus would place intollerable restrictions on the mother's freedom.

These are all logical arguments, but, as I said before, based on different premises. That is why threads like this are pointless. We won't agree on the premises and therefore our conclusions are different. It does not help if one side calls the other "Nazis" or "illogical": this is neither helpful or justified in either case.

Don Corleone

09-09-2005, 20:26

Please allow me to recap here, Roark. I said that while I'm personally opposed to abortion, and I think it's a pretty nasty practice, I think the legal grounds for elective abortion are there until the fetus has some chance of surviving, roughly week 17. Bmolsson said that setting time limits in place was hokey, that a fetus is a fetus. He then said:

The whole abortion discussion is more about punishing womens than to save lives. I don't see the pro-life debaters on the barricades for increased refugee recieving or increased support to eradication of starvation and poverty. Why should it be more important to save somebody yet to be born than somebody that is already born ? In other words, if you don't agree with his position on abortion, which he previously established is no time limits on elective abortions, then you're out to punish women and screw the poor. How else am I supposed to take that?

You then chimed in with:

You raised an interesting point earlier: Why aren't pro-lifers as passionate about the suffering of grown humans as they are about fetuses? I often hear that "the fetuses can't defend themselves and can't voice their complaints", but the same is often true of the oppressed around the world...
I took that to mean that you were agreeing with his above quote. If I mistook your intent, I apologize. :bow:

To Soulforged, Bmolsson or anybody else who's advocating this 'miracle breath of life' definition of humanity, tell me... if passing through the birth canal is what grants you humanity and right to life, why am I not free to murder somebody who was delivered by cesarian section?

I am still waiting for somebody to make the explanation to this poor benighted sould what is the difference between a fetus in the mother's womb when she's on her way to the delivery room and the baby in the doctor's arms right before he slaps it. I can make a simple categorization argument for my stance on abortion... those who could survive on their own (week 18 or such) should have the right to. Until then, the mother has the right to choose not to continue to provide it with life.

Zharakov

09-09-2005, 21:15

Don Corleone

09-09-2005, 21:32

Then alow me to atempt to prove a fetus is a liveing thing...

If I remeber from my school days, There are 5 ways to determin if a Creature is liveing... ALow me to see if I can remeber them...

1. Does it grow: A fetus's cells grow and age as the Fetus gets redy for birth. The fetus gets larger...
I believe that that counts as groth...

2. Does it consume energy to survive: Yes, the Fetus consumes energy given to it by the Mother, so it must eat in one way or another...

3. Does it adapt: Dose a fetus not kick and punch when the Mother is in an uncomfortable position? Does the Fetus not react to the stress leves the Mother is haveing to the point it may die?
I believe this is adaption, or at least re-action...

4. Does it reproduce: Does a fetus not begin as a single cell? Then it turnes into manny cells, as it grows. This can be considered reproduction. If bacteria can reproduce through this, then so can a fetus...

5. Does it have a soul: I believe that everything has a soul... Why is it that to have a sould you must be born? Why can you not have one before birth?

You say because it is not a human, then it has no rights... Well I believe that it is at least an animal. So why can it not have animal rights?

Well, we kill animals too, so granting a fetus animal rights doesn't guarantee an end to abortion. As far as point 5 goes, while I agree with you, I think you're going to find that a slight majority of the Backroom does not believe in the concept of a human soul. There's been several polls done on this and we consistently vote along ~60/40 lines with 60% saying there's no soul or metaphysical reality.

Generally speaking, abortion is considered tolerable because the fetus is not considered, legally, to yet be a human being. Much as there is a world of difference between the clinical definition for psychosis and the legal definition for mentally incompetent to stand trial, there is a wide gulf between the bio-ethical/medical defintion of human and the legal definition.

Remember Terry Schiavo? The whole reason they were allowed to starve her to death was because the courts had found that she no longer met the legal defintion of human being and her husband had the right to do with her as he pleased (whatever he said she told him in secret that she wanted to happen to her).

One thing I want to stress is that you need to be careful in considering abortion policy as monolithic (one policy). It's not. In Europe, they actually have what I consider to be a much more reasonable practice that elective abortions are only allowed in the first trimester. After that, proof of medical necesity must be offered. It's only the United States and Canada that allow a woman to make the decision to head to the delivery room or the abortion clinic on the spot when her water breaks.

yesdachi

09-09-2005, 22:01

Well, we’ve made it almost 8 pages and we are arguing arguments that have already been argued.

Lets look at this from a different perspective.

Imagine you’re a soul in heaven. You’re next in line to be placed in a womb. You get to see the family you are going to get to be born into. Can you think of an instance where you would like to be aborted so that you can stay in heaven and get back in line to have a chance to be born into a different family?

Zharakov

09-09-2005, 22:03

I still believe in life... But acording to some people. There is no heven... So I geuss it dosnt matter...

Don Corleone

09-09-2005, 22:08

According to some people is the operative term, Zharakov. I believe in a soul, and I believe in a heaven. I'm just warning you that we're in the minority in these parts.

Yesdachi, I cannot imagine a situation where being eviscerated by scalpels and vaccuumed up would be preferable. Or to have my vital organs ruptured by forcible injections of saline. I'm sure there must be worse fates, but I can't think of any at the moment.

Zharakov

09-09-2005, 22:11

At least we fight for a good cause...

And if the people who are for abortion are also not believeing in heven... then that argument is invalid...

Soulforged

09-10-2005, 01:34

No it hasnt. Weve already been over ths. It either needs its mothers milk or some manmade sustance to replicate it and a surrogate mother. It cannot live on its own for years to come. So you are ok even then killing it until the unbelical cord is cut? At that point its still not human according to you.

Ok Gawain of Orkeny, let's see this is a phylosophical discussion. Maybe i wasn't right but then you didn't interpreted me well. When the fetus is growing inside a person, it's just "another thing" inside a body, like for example, "an appendix" or even further "a parasite entity", you cannot separate one body of the other, because the fetus will die. When the baby borns it loses this necesity of the "shell" it becames a different and distinct person. It's false that the baby needs organically the body of the mother, he can be breeded with other accesories, and i never said he can live on his own, but he don't needs anymore the organs or organic system of another human being, he needs care ok, but has lost all organic conections like "parasite".

Soulforged

09-10-2005, 01:39

[QUOTE]At least we fight for a good cause... That's your interpreatation. A good cause based on what? The reflexive and grown person has many more rights to choose and be free that a thing inside him.

And if the people who are for abortion are also not believeing in heven... then that argument is invalid... All arguments based on heaven are invalid because the "heaven" should not be involved in subjects of the law and the way people relate. It's a fallacy that the religion helps governments to be more rational and just.

Zharakov

09-10-2005, 03:19

So a fetus is just another organ? Just another waste of a womans time untill its born?

So a child is nothing more then a neusesce untill the day it pops out of the womb and suddenly becomes a cute, cuddily baby?

You say that a full grown person is alive and important... Well in the scope of things... They arnt.

You and I, were just parts of our nations... Whos contrabution is insignifigant compaired to the Millions of other people combined. So what harm is there in killing another person?

I mean what would it matter? Who would miss them? There family... Friends... maybe about 200 people... But the Millions of other people wouldn't give a rip...

So I geuss... You and I are at the same leve as teh Fetus... Because we are no more important to the nation... then the Fetus to the body... We are just "another thing" inside a Nation, or even further "a parasite entity" who feeds off the host nation like a fetus would it's mother...

bmolsson

09-10-2005, 03:38

To Soulforged, Bmolsson or anybody else who's advocating this 'miracle breath of life' definition of humanity, tell me... if passing through the birth canal is what grants you humanity and right to life, why am I not free to murder somebody who was delivered by cesarian section?

I believe this was the dumbest thing you said in this thread. Congratulations.

I am still waiting for somebody to make the explanation to this poor benighted sould what is the difference between a fetus in the mother's womb when she's on her way to the delivery room and the baby in the doctor's arms right before he slaps it. I can make a simple categorization argument for my stance on abortion... those who could survive on their own (week 18 or such) should have the right to. Until then, the mother has the right to choose not to continue to provide it with life.

You explain to me why you have no respect for womans and are prepared to take control over their body in order to make your point. What give you the right to decide what a women makes with her body? Why are you the one to decide if the fetus is to live or not?
Abortion is a decision for the woman. It's her body, her fetus and she is the only one that can make any decision on the issue. If you offer her to take care of the child and she agree fine. If threaten her with penalties and a waiting hell, then your are totally out of line.
Give the woman the control over her body, it's hers...

bmolsson

09-10-2005, 03:40

So I geuss... You and I are at the same leve as teh Fetus... Because we are no more important to the nation... then the Fetus to the body... We are just "another thing" inside a Nation, or even further "a parasite entity" who feeds off the host nation like a fetus would it's mother...

So your mother exist only to provide for you ?

bmolsson

09-10-2005, 03:46

Don Corleone

09-10-2005, 04:00

I believe this was the dumbest thing you said in this thread. Congratulations. Just trying to keep up with you, amigo, glad to see I'm doing my job. ~:cheers:

You explain to me why you have no respect for womans and are prepared to take control over their body in order to make your point. What give you the right to decide what a women makes with her body? Why are you the one to decide if the fetus is to live or not?
Abortion is a decision for the woman. It's her body, her fetus and she is the only one that can make any decision on the issue. If you offer her to take care of the child and she agree fine. If threaten her with penalties and a waiting hell, then your are totally out of line.
Give the woman the control over her body, it's hers...

Using your logic, a woman SHOULD ALWAYS be allowed to murder offspring. Her body made them, she has every right to kill them. I will allow that at some point the fetus transitions from being a part of the mother to being it's own entity. I say that that point exists when the fetus can exist on it's own. You're claiming it doesn't happen until the doctor signs off on the delivery paperwork. I think a majority of people will agree with me.

As far as respect for women's bodies, I have plenty, ask my wife. ~D But your quip about respecting women's bodies is a pretty bad dodge, because it doesn't shield you from the basic question. I've already told you I think women have a legal right to choose up until week 18 (repeatedly). You're holding out for a legal right to choose right up until birth. I want you to tell me, without demonizing me as a poor-hating misogynist, what is the miracle that occurs in the birth canal? If it's okay to abort a fetus at 39 weeks, why is it not okay to kill your kids?

Zharakov

09-10-2005, 04:07

So your mother exist only to provide for you ?

A fetus does its Mother acording to Soulforged...

Don Corleone

09-10-2005, 04:27

Abortion is a decision for the woman. It's her body, her fetus and she is the only one that can make any decision on the issue. If you offer her to take care of the child and she agree fine. If threaten her with penalties and a waiting hell, then your are totally out of line.

Aaah! I missed this on the first peruse.... you think I want to throw late trimester mothers into jail. This is not my goal. I want abortion to quit being an industry. The later an abortion is performed, the more an abortionist receives and therefore, they make a practice of delaying abortions the mother has requested weeks, even months earlier. If they continue this, I say yank their medical license.

Let me ask you, before we continue, how many late term (>26 weeks) abortions happen in Indonesia? I have no idea, but I can tell you how many happened in the United States last year. According to the Department of Health and Human Services 1.4 million abortions were perfomed last year (for the record, 11 million births occurred). Of those, 40% of abortions last year happened after week 12, and 18% happened after week 26. Of these, 0.3% were due to health risk to the mother.

I understand that abortion in the US and Indonesia are two different issues. Perhaps you should take a moment to understand that too. I don't honestly believe Indonesian women believe that in week 38 they are still free to make a lifestyle choice. Sadly, living in America, I'm forced to confront that reality.

Do you even know that last year, a New York Times EDITOR discovered in week 27 she was pregnant with fraternal twins (boy and girl) and decided to abort the boy at week 32 because (and I'm not making this up) "I could continue my nightlife with one child and a sitter. Two, well, how could I find a sitter for that?"

Is that the people you want to go on record as defending?

Ser Clegane

09-10-2005, 08:31

Do you even know that last year, a New York Times EDITOR discovered in week 27 she was pregnant with fraternal twins (boy and girl) and decided to abort the boy at week 32 because (and I'm not making this up) "I could continue my nightlife with one child and a sitter. Two, well, how could I find a sitter for that?"

Just skimming through the latest posts in this thread (don't want to comment on some of the views ... yet), and this one really struck me.

Do you happen to have any links to that one, Don? This strikes me as a very awful thing to say (if this is true I wonder how the "surviving" twin will feel should he ever find out ... *shudders*).

But even if I would ignore her statement - how is it possible that she was not aware of her pregnancy after 27(!) weeks ... with twins ...???

Soulforged

09-10-2005, 08:57

[QUOTE]So a fetus is just another organ? Just another waste of a womans time untill its born? No it's not even that. It's more like an useless object inside the body. The woman must accept it, and if she doesn't then, well it continues to be a thing.

So a child is nothing more then a neusesce untill the day it pops out of the womb and suddenly becomes a cute, cuddily baby? That's your word i would not say a neusesce, if the mother believes the contrary then why complain? It's all about freedom.

You say that a full grown person is alive and important... Well in the scope of things... They arnt.No.

You and I, were just parts of our nations... Whos contrabution is insignifigant compaired to the Millions of other people combined. So what harm is there in killing another person? The harm is made to humanity itself and the law that rules the human relationships, also the same object protected by the law. But if you want to keep the discussion outside the law (though i don't see the point) the damage is done to society because it's a disvaloured conduct, the one of the author that kills, that's what matters. But if you destroy a thing then there's no harm.

I mean what would it matter? Who would miss them? There family... Friends... maybe about 200 people... But the Millions of other people wouldn't give a rip... I don't see your point. I really don't give a **** of people who dies and i don't even know, but it doesn't matter we've to protect the idea of humanity, and it's inherent freedom and equality. We've also to protect the society from harmful conducts like the intend of murder.

So I geuss... You and I are at the same leve as teh Fetus... Because we are no more important to the nation... then the Fetus to the body... We are just "another thing" inside a Nation, or even further "a parasite entity" who feeds off the host nation like a fetus would it's mother... Ohhh you're so mistaken. I clearly stated organic separation, organic material separation is not the same as organic ideal separation or formal separation as it's separation in society. You're confunding subjects and elevating subjects to levels that does not refer to them really. The society is a mental construction, you cannot separate fisically of it, so there's no point of comparation.

bmolsson

09-10-2005, 10:20

Just trying to keep up with you, amigo, glad to see I'm doing my job. ~:cheers:

You are the master.... :bow:

Using your logic, a woman SHOULD ALWAYS be allowed to murder offspring. Her body made them, she has every right to kill them. I will allow that at some point the fetus transitions from being a part of the mother to being it's own entity. I say that that point exists when the fetus can exist on it's own. You're claiming it doesn't happen until the doctor signs off on the delivery paperwork. I think a majority of people will agree with me.

As far as respect for women's bodies, I have plenty, ask my wife. ~D But your quip about respecting women's bodies is a pretty bad dodge, because it doesn't shield you from the basic question. I've already told you I think women have a legal right to choose up until week 18 (repeatedly). You're holding out for a legal right to choose right up until birth. I want you to tell me, without demonizing me as a poor-hating misogynist, what is the miracle that occurs in the birth canal? If it's okay to abort a fetus at 39 weeks, why is it not okay to kill your kids?

A woman decides over her own body. A child is not in her body, thus no longer a part of hers. An "abortion" at 39 weeks is actually called a ceasarian birth, and will render a child as a result. All for you to pick up and take responsibility for.

bmolsson

09-10-2005, 10:26

Aaah! I missed this on the first peruse.... you think I want to throw late trimester mothers into jail. This is not my goal.

A relief.... ~:)

I understand that abortion in the US and Indonesia are two different issues. Perhaps you should take a moment to understand that too. I don't honestly believe Indonesian women believe that in week 38 they are still free to make a lifestyle choice.

Well, the view on womens are very different. A woman does not (in reality) have equal rights with a man.
Further more, sex outside marriage is punishable with up to 2 years in prison.

Do you even know that last year, a New York Times EDITOR discovered in week 27 she was pregnant with fraternal twins (boy and girl) and decided to abort the boy at week 32 because (and I'm not making this up) "I could continue my nightlife with one child and a sitter. Two, well, how could I find a sitter for that?"
Is that the people you want to go on record as defending?

I don't read New York Times, so no I am not defending the woman you describe. Regardless, she is still in charge over her own body. Doesn't matter how arrogant she is, that is just a fact.

bmolsson

09-10-2005, 10:29

A fetus does its Mother acording to Soulforged...

I don't understand this statement. :embarassed:

Gawain of Orkeny

09-10-2005, 16:32

A woman decides over her own body. A child is not in her body, thus no longer a part of hers. An "abortion" at 39 weeks is actually called a ceasarian birth, and will render a child as a result. All for you to pick up and take responsibility for.

You do relise that this type of birthing was done in the originally to save the life of the baby and that it usually caused the death of the mother. Just the opposite of abortion.

Don Corleone

09-10-2005, 17:12

You are the master.... :bow:

A woman decides over her own body. A child is not in her body, thus no longer a part of hers. An "abortion" at 39 weeks is actually called a ceasarian birth, and will render a child as a result. All for you to pick up and take responsibility for.

In Indonesia, they very well may perform a cesarian section delivery on a woman if she decides in week 38 she no longer wants to deliver the child and wants an abortion.

In the United States, that is not what is done. An extraction and dilation procedure is done. First, through a series of speculums, the woman is opened very wide. Then, the abortionist inserts a forceps to turn the fetus so that it is presented for birth. He guides it partway down the birth canal. The skull is then punctured with a scalpel and a vaccuum is inserted to evacuate the cranial contents. When the skull implodes due to the vaccuum pressure, the doctor then uses a scalpel to partition the rest of the fetus's body (cut the arms & legs off of the torso, if large enough, possibly cuts the torso into multiple pieces). Next, he inserts a vaccuum to suck out all of the fetus body fragments and the sections of the placenta. Finally, her uterus is bathed in a saline solution to prevent infection.

There is no child that is produced by this process to be given to an adoption agency. Just a large sack of bio-waste (limbs, organs and blood) to be given to the incinerator. Why, you ask? Because most abortionists (not people who support the right, I mean the people actually in the business) claim that the process of delivering a child for adoption is too traumatic & stressful for women, always knowing the child is out there. They claim that only the finality of an abortion can end that. In reality, the reasoning behind it that such a procedure is a veritable gold mine for the doctor performing it. He makes about $15K US directly (not counting what the clinic & staff makes) and it's covered by insurance.

One more time, I am not saying that women should the right to choose stripped away from arbitrarily. While I abhor the process, I cannot justify banning earlier term abortion on legal grounds prior to ~week 18. "I" am trying to end the barbaric practice I just outlined above that happens

Soulforged

09-10-2005, 18:16

I don't understand this statement. :embarassed:
Yes maybe Zharakov will care to explain a little...

There is no child that is produced by this process to be given to an adoption agency. Just a large sack of bio-waste (limbs, organs and blood) to be given to the incinerator. Why, you ask? Because most abortionists (not people who support the right, I mean the people actually in the business) claim that the process of delivering a child for adoption is too traumatic & stressful for women, always knowing the child is out there. They claim that only the finality of an abortion can end that. In reality, the reasoning behind it that such a procedure is a veritable gold mine for the doctor performing it. He makes about $15K US directly (not counting what the clinic & staff makes) and it's covered by insurance.

I totally agree with this, it's a gold mine and that justification is totally stupid. But this doesn't proove anything against our point.

One more time, I am not saying that women should the right to choose stripped away from arbitrarily. While I abhor the process, I cannot justify banning earlier term abortion on legal grounds prior to ~week 18. "I" am trying to end the barbaric practice I just outlined above that happens Well, again barbaric from your point of view. If i tear down my televesion ot pieces and it doesn't feel anything, why should i care. It's not barbaric it's just a damn thing.

Don Corleone

09-10-2005, 18:22

Well, again barbaric from your point of view. If i tear down my televesion ot pieces and it doesn't feel anything, why should i care. It's not barbaric it's just a damn thing.

Science, law and medicine are against you on this one. Despite what you happen to think, no miracle happens when the baby proceeds out of the vagina. It can feel pain long, long before it's viable, let alone before it's actually born. I'm still waiting for you or Bmolsson to offer me any sort of explanation as to what is different, physically between a 38 week old fetus in the womb (which it is okay to chop up and vaccuum) and a 35 week old prematurely born baby (that is a human being with legal rights). There must be some defining characteristic the two of you are using to soothe your consciences to allow you to endorse murder. I'd love to know what it is.

bmolsson

09-11-2005, 13:37

I'm still waiting for you or Bmolsson to offer me any sort of explanation as to what is different, physically between a 38 week old fetus in the womb (which it is okay to chop up and vaccuum) and a 35 week old prematurely born baby (that is a human being with legal rights). There must be some defining characteristic the two of you are using to soothe your consciences to allow you to endorse murder. I'd love to know what it is.

I thought it was obvious. One is INSIDE the woman, the other one is OUTSIDE the woman.

bmolsson

09-11-2005, 13:40

He makes about $15K US directly (not counting what the clinic & staff makes) and it's covered by insurance.

Regulating a business practice have nothing to do with the right for a woman to make decisions concerning her own body.

Ser Clegane

09-11-2005, 14:38

I thought it was obvious. One is INSIDE the woman, the other one is OUTSIDE the woman.

And that is enough of a difference to give one the full rights that society grants a human being while for the other one life or death could depend on whether the mother likes to go out clubbing on a Saturday night?

How so?

Soulforged

09-11-2005, 18:36

Science, law and medicine are against you on this one. Despite what you happen to think, no miracle happens when the baby proceeds out of the vagina. It can feel pain long, long before it's viable, let alone before it's actually born. I'm still waiting for you or Bmolsson to offer me any sort of explanation as to what is different, physically between a 38 week old fetus in the womb (which it is okay to chop up and vaccuum) and a 35 week old prematurely born baby (that is a human being with legal rights). There must be some defining characteristic the two of you are using to soothe your consciences to allow you to endorse murder. I'd love to know what it is.

Incorrect, he and i already offered you a answer. The individual is just another person when it's separate from the body of the mother, period. If he borns in a laboratory then he's never considered a person. Though the baby may feel pain, i doubt that with a brain that functions similar to a monkey, he can really notice it like a grown person. Anyway the point doesn't turns arround the pain here.

And that is enough of a difference to give one the full rights that society grants a human being while for the other one life or death could depend on whether the mother likes to go out clubbing on a Saturday night?

How so? Yes because the discussion here is turning arround wheter the fetus is already a person at a determinated time. I don't give full rights to my dog.

Ser Clegane

09-11-2005, 19:09

If he borns in a laboratory then he's never considered a person. Though the baby may feel pain, i doubt that with a brain that functions similar to a monkey, he can really notice it like a grown person.

Huh? please be a bit more specific - where is a prematurely born baby not considered a person? Personally I am not aware of any country where this would not be the case.

Are you trying to tell me that the mother of a prematurely born baby in Argentina could legally decide to kill the baby?

Regarding the last part of the quoted statement - the same could be said about a "regular" newly born baby. Is a 5-day-old baby a person in your opinion or not?

Yes because the discussion here is turning arround wheter the fetus is already a person at a determinated time. I don't give full rights to my dog.

I am fully aware what the subject of the discussion is (I believe I said something along those lines in an earlier response to Zharakov).
What I would like to understand is where you see the decisive difference between a baby/fetus one day before birth and one day after birth. It certainly isn't a difference in the anatomy or the nervous system.
In your opinion the same being is a "dog" inside the womb and a "person" as soon as it leaves the womb.

What constitutes a person in your opinion?

Soulforged

09-11-2005, 22:10

Huh? please be a bit more specific - where is a prematurely born baby not considered a person? Personally I am not aware of any country where this would not be the case. If he borns prematurely then it's ok, you missed some of my responses, the critical moment is the separation of the two bodies, wich determines a new and partially independent human being.

Are you trying to tell me that the mother of a prematurely born baby in Argentina could legally decide to kill the baby? Here? In my zealous christian country? Yes....in a millon year maybe. Not it will be wrong because following my own logic it's a different person with full rights.

Regarding the last part of the quoted statement - the same could be said about a "regular" newly born baby. Is a 5-day-old baby a person in your opinion or not? Yes but again you missed the point here, separation of body is what matters, this I did to answer Don Corleone who called the practice of abortion "barbaric", it has little to do with my possition.

I am fully aware what the subject of the discussion is (I believe I said something along those lines in an earlier response to Zharakov).
What I would like to understand is where you see the decisive difference between a baby/fetus one day before birth and one day after birth. It certainly isn't a difference in the anatomy or the nervous system.
In your opinion the same being is a "dog" inside the womb and a "person" as soon as it leaves the womb. No you're not aware, because i already said what was my possition on the matter. The person exists there where it doesn't depends anymore of the organs of the host, but this person should be concibed or should grow in the womans belly, outside it (that's by artificial maners) a date could be fixed to determine if the grown fetus has adquired full rights as a person, it will make no difference because in this case probably the fetus will not live enough to become one. About your question in legeslation well: here the fetus is protected as a willtobe person right from the conception (respecting the treaty of Costa Rica for human rights), in France it's the samem in Itally too, well i think that this conception is well spreaded world wide. The critical differencial point is not on the previous, but in when it's considered a person. To us it has to born and take a breath at least, or take the doctor's or the mom's hand, to the french it has to live by sometime, maybe hours. As you see no legislation that i know protects the fetus as a person, but as a will to be person. The problem is that following my logic this is totally ad-hoc, and false. If you only protect the person with full rights then you cannot give the same rights to the will to be, that you don't consider a person (with all reason), but in many legislations, if the baby borns death or doesn't lives for enough time it's considered as if he/she has never existed, as you see this position is no longer foundable, even more because it causes obstacles to evolution and freedom. But if you want to protect the fetus as a person from the begining...then well i think all will resolved (freedom aside) but i don't see how anybody will grant some proof to that position.

Zharakov

09-11-2005, 22:24

A child relys on its parents to survive...

So does a child have no rights untill it cn live on its own?

bmolsson

09-12-2005, 03:50

And that is enough of a difference to give one the full rights that society grants a human being while for the other one life or death could depend on whether the mother likes to go out clubbing on a Saturday night?

How so?

The difference, the egg box, the incubator, is actually a woman, a human with it's own rights. A mother doesn't require a permit to do clubbing on a Saturday night as simple as that.
We could of course restrict all people right to have sexual relationships, stone people conducting sex outside marriage and make womens the possession of men with the main function to produce children. That would certainly not create the problems you describe. By the way, I think I heard of a few societies that actually practice this........ ~;)

bmolsson

09-12-2005, 04:10

A child relys on its parents to survive...

So does a child have no rights untill it cn live on its own?

No, a child doesn't rely on its parents to survive. In a modern society parentless children is cared for either through adoption, foster parents or special homes.

No and yes, a child have limited rights until the day it reaches the age of consent. The age of consent differs in different societies.

Gawain of Orkeny

09-12-2005, 05:32

No, a child doesn't rely on its parents to survive. In a modern society parentless children is cared for either through adoption, foster parents or special homes.

The point is it cant live on its own. It must have parents or some type of step parent to take care of it or it will die.

In fact I would say for the first 18 to 22 years kids are more of a parasite as they grow older ~D

Soulforged

09-12-2005, 06:10

A child relys on its parents to survive...

So does a child have no rights untill it cn live on its own?

Ok Zharakov the key word here is "organic", organic dependence, what you're saying has nothing to do with the subject.

bmolsson

09-12-2005, 11:44

In fact I would say for the first 18 to 22 years kids are more of a parasite as they grow older ~D

You got me there..... ~;)

Ser Clegane

09-12-2005, 11:57

We could of course restrict all people right to have sexual relationships, stone people conducting sex outside marriage and make womens the possession of men with the main function to produce children. That would certainly not create the problems you describe. By the way, I think I heard of a few societies that actually practice this........ ~;)

Quite a strawman you are putting up there - has anybody in this thread suggested that this should be done?

It seems to me that things here work quite well with a limit to abortions during the first trimester ... at least I haven't seen people being stoned for sex outside marriage that often here in Frankfurt.

At least in Western societies it shouldn't be a major problem to
a) avoid unwanted pregnancies in the first place
b) get an abortion during the first trimester should an "accident" happen

The "case" you are making above falls into the same category as the gory 9th months abortion pictures that are used to condemn all abortions - even early-stage ones - nice shock-effect, but nor really based on reality.

bmolsson

09-12-2005, 12:10

Quite a strawman you are putting up there - has anybody in this thread suggested that this should be done?

No, but I thought your post required some push-ups in response.... :embarassed:

It seems to me that things here work quite well with a limit to abortions during the first trimester ... at least I haven't seen people being stoned for sex outside marriage that often here in Frankfurt.

Maybe they are not clubbing on Saturday night ?? ~:cool:

The "case" you are making above falls into the same category as the gory 9th months abortion pictures that are used to condemn all abortions - even early-stage ones - nice shock-effect, but nor really based on reality.

You are right. I am sorry..... ~:grouphug:

Don Corleone

09-12-2005, 13:02

Soulforged

09-13-2005, 01:30

Okay, with the exception of Soulforged & Bmolsson, I'm actually quite pleased to learn that folks agree that a fetus with the ability to live independently should have the right to. I don't know what happened in their lives to make these two so bloodthirsty, but hey, that's not my concern. While I was doing some research, I found a baby picture of Bmolsson.

Wasn't he cute?

Nothing happened saint, i just reason in a different manner. Many jurist remain in my position, here in Argentina one called Orgaz. And let me make a correction, to France and almost all western Europe the fetus is considered a person after born and live for 24 hs. Hey when you ascend to heaven say hello to God, i'll watch you from hell with a banner "i supported abortion bla,bla,bla". :dizzy2:

bmolsson

09-13-2005, 04:21

Wasn't he cute?

I have been told so, but there might be different opinons on me today. Specially with a 0 policy on salary increases this year........ ~;)

Zharakov

09-13-2005, 20:47

Ok Zharakov the key word here is "organic", organic dependence, what you're saying has nothing to do with the subject.

Ohh so when a Baby is done Brest Feeding...

And what I am saying has lots to do with the subject... Just some don't want to hear another view...

Soulforged

09-14-2005, 01:15

[QUOTE]Ohh so when a Baby is done Brest Feeding... Wrong because the mother could use accesories for breeding. The individual is one new and separate, it doesn't matter if the medical arguments are different because this is a matter of law.

And what I am saying has lots to do with the subject... Just some don't want to hear another view... Well i readed all your posts, but you didn't add nothing to the subject just sentimentalism and religiuos irracionality. You might want to know that i'm not the only one defending this position there're many jurists that defend it. I found an interesting quote today in a book of Civil Rights, the author (Jorge Joaquín Llambias) gave from one side the possition of Orgaz (the one that defines the person from the birth, giving the same arguments that bmolsson and i gave), from the other side he tried to refute it saying this: we cannot separated the humanity, given by the soul (totally uncomprobable argument with large quotes of irracionality) who already lives in the fetus from the moment of conception and his body wheter it's separate from the host body or not. That's the only argument possible but it's irracional. So if you want to add some argument from your side do so, but don't say that i didn't read yours because is not true.

Alexander the Pretty Good

09-14-2005, 02:02

it doesn't matter if the medical arguments are different because this is a matter of law.

And because of the medical arguments, the law is wrong!

ICantSpellDawg

09-14-2005, 03:29

Laws change. Those of you who are defending it from a legal point of view are correct. You have the right to get an abortion in any trimester as long as you have an insignificant or significant reason. You can get an abortion as birth control or as a life saving surgery and be within the law. You must also understand that the actions legality wasn't always so. Many of us do not believe that the current laws are ethical or in logical continuum with other laws in this nation and we want or countries abortion laws re-defined and, in some cases, repealled. Anyone who refuses the majority the right to decide this issue on a state or federal level is both appealing to thier own morality and the idea that they know better than the majority and should have more of a say in the government than others.

Soulforged

09-14-2005, 05:35

Laws change. Those of you who are defending it from a legal point of view are correct. Correct laws change and this point above abortion must change.
You have the right to get an abortion in any trimester as long as you have an insignificant or significant reason. I don't understand this part, but even so you can't abort at least in my country even with the consense of the mother.
You can get an abortion as birth control or as a life saving surgery and be within the law. No, if you look at the fetus like a person then saying birth control is totally proposterous and wrong.
You must also understand that the actions legality wasn't always so. What do mean by this?
Many of us do not believe that the current laws are ethical or in logical continuum with other laws in this nation and we want or countries abortion laws re-defined and, in some cases, repealled. Let's see this. A long while ago a man named Kelsen separated forerever moral and law, why because, though they're not mutually exclusive, they're totally different, one rules over the caracter and life of the individual as a human, a person (the unity in itself), the other rules over the relationships between persons or humans, my arguments has nothing of ethical, it has more to be with rationality and with freedon, ironically the defenders of the human rights for the fetus offer the same argument before the law.
Anyone who refuses the majority the right to decide this issue on a state or federal level is both appealing to thier own morality and the idea that they know better than the majority and should have more of a say in the government than others. If you're talking about me, again i don't appeal to my morality (in fact it's very reduced in me), and i base my opinion on my study and perception of society, i think that the grown person should not see his freedom reduced because of it's binds to a thing that is just idealized like an human, or from a civil law point of view, the person after the thing.

And because of the medical arguments, the law is wrong! I suppose that you come from a common law system, then i'll not tell why your statement is wrong, given the presumption that everybody under that system knows the law.

ICantSpellDawg

09-14-2005, 05:51

Correct laws change and this point above abortion must change. I don't understand this part, but even so you can't abort at least in my country even with the consense of the mother. No, if you look at the fetus like a person then saying birth control is totally proposterous and wrong. What do mean by this? Let's see this. A long while ago a man named Kelsen separated forerever moral and law, why because, though they're not mutually exclusive, they're totally different, one rules over the caracter and life of the individual as a human, a person (the unity in itself), the other rules over the relationships between persons or humans, my arguments has nothing of ethical, it has more to be with rationality and with freedon, ironically the defenders of the human rights for the fetus offer the same argument before the law. If you're talking about me, again i don't appeal to my morality (in fact it's very reduced in me), and i base my opinion on my study and perception of society, i think that the grown person should not see his freedom reduced because of it's binds to a thing that is just idealized like an human, or from a civil law point of view, the person after the thing.

I suppose that you come from a common law system, then i'll not tell why your statement is wrong, given the presumption that everybody under that system knows the law.

you don't understand my post?
i don't understand yours.

You are using Argentinian law to influence your opinion on American law without actually knowing what Roe v. Wade actually does. It is simply abortion upon polite request. You are saying that as birth control it is wrong? Why is that? If it is not a human being than how could that possibly be any more wrong than any form of contraception if the woman decides to abort early on? How does that follow logically?

Soulforged

09-14-2005, 06:24

you don't understand my post?
i don't understand yours. No i did understand your post, what i didn't understand was your point.

You are using Argentinian law to influence your opinion on American law without actually knowing what Roe v. Wade actually does. It is simply abortion upon polite request. Yes i know about that forever famous sentence, but you're wrong i never mentioned Argentinian law above yours.
You are saying that as birth control it is wrong? Why is that? If it is not a human being than how could that possibly be any more wrong than any form of contraception if the woman decides to abort early on? How does that follow logically? And you will do very good in reading my posts...i clearly stated that if your position is protecting the fetus as a person right from the conception then that position of birth control can't be defended. For me it's very simple, does the mother wants abortion? Well then give it to her.