S.C. women now required by law to view ultrasound images before having an abortion [Archive]

Goofball

03-22-2007, 23:19

Good maybe people will think twice. What once was a mere inconveince to there life now becomes what it is a person.

SFTS, I honestly think you're a pretty good guy, and that your heart is in the right place whenever you post. But (and I realize that this will sound condescending/patronizing no matter how much I mean it otherwise, so let me apologize in advance) when you have a little more life experience I believe you will see the problem with your statement. That is not to say you will become pro-choice (I don't even know if I am pro-choice anymore), but that you might have a bit more sympathy for the women at issue.

No matter how hard the pro-life side tries to paint the "average" abortion recipient as an irresponsible slut who just wants the easy way out and will probably be out clubbing again the very evening after her abortion, that is simply not the case.

I know many women who have had abortions, and not one of them falls into that category. Every single one of them agonized over the decision, and they all still carry the emotional scars with them to one degree or another.

Yes, there are some irresponsible women who do use abortion as an alternative to birth control, but they are the exception rather than the rule.

All this law does is pile on more pain for women who are already in their own private hell.

Kralizec

03-22-2007, 23:20

All this law does is pile on more pain for women who are already in their own private hell.

That's the whole point of it, intimidation.

Goofball

03-22-2007, 23:21

It's not passed yet, it just made it past the lower house.

Thanks for picking that up, I misread it.

However, it doesn't appear that it will meet with any serious opposition in the upper house, and the governor is certainly not going to veto it.

PanzerJaeger

03-22-2007, 23:32

Despite Goofball's passionate argument, I think this is a good thing.

These women should have to see exactly what it is they are destroying. If they can't live with the knowledge that they are responsible for the death of an innocent child, maybe abortion isnt the right choice for them.

http://www.4d-ultrasounds.com/3d-ultrasound-photos/images/insight/3d-ultrasound1.pg

Strike For The South

03-22-2007, 23:44

SFTS, I honestly think you're a pretty good guy, and that your heart is in the right place whenever you post. But (and I realize that this will sound condescending/patronizing no matter how much I mean it otherwise, so let me apologize in advance) when you have a little more life experience I believe you will see the problem with your statement. That is not to say you will become pro-choice (I don't even know if I am pro-choice anymore), but that you might have a bit more sympathy for the women at issue.

No matter how hard the pro-life side tries to paint the "average" abortion recipient as an irresponsible slut who just wants the easy way out and will probably be out clubbing again the very evening after her abortion, that is simply not the case.

I know many women who have had abortions, and not one of them falls into that category. Every single one of them agonized over the decision, and they all still carry the emotional scars with them to one degree or another.

Yes, there are some irresponsible women who do use abortion as an alternative to birth control, but they are the exception rather than the rule.

All this law does is pile on more pain for women who are already in their own private hell.

Then why dont they just put the child up for adoption? Who knows how many great thinkers weve lost becuase of this. There are alternitives why kill a living thing? That being said it still should be legal becuase it needs to be done right,.

Goofball

03-22-2007, 23:52

Then why dont they just put the child up for adoption?

Because they don't want their own family to disown them when they find out they are pregnant?

Because they don't want to risk their own lives giving birth?

Because they don't want to bring a child into a rotten world?

Who cares?

It's really their decision, not yours.

Who knows how many great thinkers weve lost becuase of this.

Or serial killers, or child molestors.

Hard to say, really, and because of that, really a moot point with respect to the discussion at hand.

Goofball

03-22-2007, 23:55

Hosakawa Tito

03-23-2007, 00:03

And if they refuse to look or watch, what then?

Goofball

03-23-2007, 00:12

And if they refuse to look or watch, what then?

Good question. And probably the making of a Supreme Court ruling if a woman was ever refused an abortion because she refused to stare at the ultrasound image for long enough to satisfy her doctor.

Big King Sanctaphrax

03-23-2007, 00:22

What if you want to have the abortion done early enough that you really wouldn't see very much of anything on the ultrasound? Do they make you wait?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-23-2007, 00:28

First off, let me say I sympathise with the pro-choice argument and its adherents. With that said, this is a living human, innocent of any crime. Unlike a criminal that may face execution.

Because they don't want their own family to disown them when they find out they are pregnant?

Personnally I don't think families like that aren't worth having. No matter how murderously angry I was with my daughter I wouldn't disownher for being stupid and getting pregnant. I might feel the need to direct violence at the man involved though.

Because they don't want to risk their own lives giving birth?

All life is risk and today giving birth is a relatively low one. You're probably more likely to get shot in Nottingham or run over in Rome.

Because they don't want to bring a child into a rotten world?

If the world is that rotten then they should bring up a sympathetic child in it to make it a better place. That arguement is morally bankrupt. If the world is broke fix it.

Who cares?

Lots of people. and you know that.

It's really their decision, not yours.

Their decision to kill? This is the only instance when we allow one human being to end the life of another with malice of forethought.

Ultimately you are responsible for your own actions. If you choose to have sex then pregnancy is a risk you have to accept, with its possible consequences. The consequence is a child, which you should not be able to abdicate responsibility for by killing it.

Rape victims, well that's a harder decision to make. In the end I have to say that the life of the unborn child, as an innocent, should be paramount.

Ice

03-23-2007, 00:32

I think it's a good idea. I actually agree with Panzer and Strike here.

Big King Sanctaphrax

03-23-2007, 00:39

All life is risk and today giving birth is a relatively low one. You're probably more likely to get shot in Nottingham or run over in Rome.

In the US, according to the WHO, 17 women die per 100000 births, or 1 per 5900 (rounded up to the nearest hundred). That's substantially more likely than being shot in Nottingham or run over in Rome, I should imagine.

Don Corleone

03-23-2007, 01:02

There's all sorts of activities people engage in that we don't force them to be 100% aware of it. If the Pro-Life crowd in South Carolina get away with this, PETA will be trying to enforce it nationally before you can eat a burger next week. God help you if you get a hankerking for veal or lamb.

The state laws in SC already require the woman to undergo counseling. She's aware of the decision she's making. This is intended to be harrassment. If you don't think so, let me ask you this.... a tubal pregnancy has no chance of surviving. Would you force the doctor to show pictures of toddler age children to the mother from whom he is about to abort the fetus to save her life?

For the record Goof, I agree with you that if you want to vote the death penalty, you should have to witness an execution. And to beat PETA to the punch, this is one of the primary reasons I hunt every fall (that, and I'm pretty darned cheap).

Husar

03-23-2007, 01:03

I agree with Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla, very well said.

Ice

03-23-2007, 01:09

For the record Goof, I agree with you that if you want to vote the death penalty, you should have to witness an execution. And to beat PETA to the punch, this is one of the primary reasons I hunt every fall (that, and I'm pretty darned cheap).

Absolutely right, Don.

Incongruous

03-23-2007, 01:17

As a man, I believe myself unable to actually take astance against the majority of women on this. Giving birth is something we will never be able to understand. And honestly reading what teenage boys think on the matter seems absurd.

KukriKhan

03-23-2007, 01:17

It's just too bad there is such a disconnect between the ~1 million US abortions per year, and the ~1 million adoption-seekers and IVF couples. Both groups consist of relatively anguished women, seeking a different life than the one fate has currently handed them.

If passed in SC, I think it'll be on the 2008 SCOTUS agenda, near the top.

Whacker

03-23-2007, 01:37

I think something that many people are completely failing to take into account is the amount of emotional baggage forced on a woman by making her have the child. Not only is it extremely taxing to a woman mentally and physically to go through a pregnancy and all the pain and misery of the birth, BUT there's a well known, instinctual mother-child bond that forms during said process. So not only has she now had to go through the entire process, she now is going to give up the child that she has this bond with to adoption, that she didn't want to have in the first place for whatever reason. The alternative of course is that she now keeps the child, but there will always be those memories in the back of her mind that she did not want this child. There may even be some resentment, and the child may be mistreated as such. I have a friend who falls into this category, thankfully he turned out ok, but his mother actually tried to poison him when he was in his early teens, and eventually turned him over to an adoption agency then when his paternal grandmother stepped into to raise him. He once described to me how it felt to stand there in court with his mother saying in a stony cold manner that she did not want her child anymore. I can't possibly imagine going through something like that.

My stance for the record. I am fully pro-choice, WITH the caveat that it should be done within the 1st or 2nd trimester unless some extreme extenuating circumstances arise. I think that all abortions should be done as humanely as possible, some of the methods used do make me sick to think about. Sorry but I don't subscribe to the "but it's a life, think of all the people we've killed" outlook, this world has way too many people right now as is. I can guarantee you that these are all well thought out and very hard made choices when women choose to do this. Anyone who presumes otherwise is fooling themselves. The whole "it's a disgusting contraceptive version" argument is for the most part preposterous and used by hardcore religious types to try and push their pro-life agenda. I have had two women very close to me go through this process and I can tell you it's traumatic enough without hypocrits and disgusting religious zealots yelling at you and calling you a whore and a sinner.

Also Mr. Goof, I gotta disagree with you on the execution thing. Some people deserve to die for what they've done to others, especially those who violate children in depraved ways in my view. By forcing people on a jury to watch an execution would be the exact same thing in my view as what this despicable law is proposing, it is completely unnecessary, overkill, and intimidation. Before anyone goes here, I do understand and believe that our justice system is flawed in a number of ways... But it's not going to stop, and I still think that certain people don't deserve to live for the crimes they've done. I guess one of the things I'm in favor of is severe penalties for overzealous prosection that leads innocents to jail time, or worse the chair. Texas seems to be a very bad offender of this... But then again look what Texas has produced over the past few years (Bush Sr. and Jr.).

/shrug

KukriKhan

03-23-2007, 01:46

Just a point of order: Bush Sr is from New England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush), not Texas.

Whacker

03-23-2007, 01:48

I still blame Texas though. :yes:

Edit - \/ \/ \/ \/ The only thought I have right now is the famous line from Full Metal Jacket. You know the one I'm talking about. :grin: :laugh2:

Strike For The South

03-23-2007, 02:16

I still blame Texas though. :yes:

Do you have a death wish?

Anyway. I still stand by this when sperm meets egg that is when a human starts and in my veiw if you harm it you should be held accountable. Thats the idealist side of me however the realist side of me realizes this is just one of things I must sawllow. I will not bomb clincs nor hold any women who have had one as second class. As to Goof I know some kids who had mothers in some suitations in which people may have had an abortion and are very thankful they been given the gift of life, so women do not have a monoply on this.

Navaros

03-23-2007, 03:19

"Abortion" should not be allowed period. They should be required to be convicted of murder also.

Beren Son Of Barahi

03-23-2007, 05:30

"Abortion" should not be allowed period. They should be required to be convicted of murder also.

you don't think very much do you??!!!

what if the women has a miscarriage, is that manslaughter? and no, when a sperm meets an egg, they mostly die... its the one that get inside, and then manage to bind to the wall of the uterus and then divides enough to form a baby. before that it is no more any other bunch of cells.

i really wish people wouldn't just spout religious garbage, on matters like this.
Just like the churches view on condoms, it matters not.

Crazed Rabbit

03-23-2007, 05:40

you don't think very much do you??!!!

what if the women has a miscarriage, is that manslaughter? and no, when a sperm meets an egg, they mostly die... its the one that get inside, and then manage to bind to the wall of the uterus and then divides enough to form a baby. before that it is no more any other bunch of cells.

i really wish people wouldn't just spout religious garbage, on matters like this.
Just like the churches view on condoms, it matters not.

I'm sorry, where did he mention religion?

And somehow I don't those who are religious, that is, those who believe in a divine and supreme creator and guidelines set down by God, view their opinions as garbage. Rejecting people's opinions outright because you disagree with their religion is, frankly, pathetic.

I don't find this - as yet merely a bill and not law - to be that bad.

CR

Lemur

03-23-2007, 06:03

I still stand by this when sperm meets egg that is when a human starts and in my veiw if you harm it you should be held accountable.
If that's your belief, then you should be even more upset about rhythm method contraception than abortion. Current science shows that the rhythm method does not prevent conception, but rather allows the blastocyst to form under unfavorable conditions. Should be noted that this is the only method of birth control permitted by the Catholic Church.

In other words, sperm meets egg, they make a dividing cellular structure, but due to the conditions of the womb at that time of the month, the implantation usually fails. We're talking about massive numbers of spontaneous abortions, allowed and encouraged by one of the most conservative bodies on the planet.

I think what this reveals is that the issue is a tad more complicated than "sperm meets egg."

Rodion Romanovich

03-23-2007, 09:58

Interesting. I wonder if this will lower abortion rates, or if it'll keep the abortion rates constant but make those people who watch these images to get less concerned over killing something that they have seen moving, and result in increased brutality.

Also it's a bit too late to try and moralize when the couples have already come to the abortion clinic - perhaps this thing should be shown to highschool kids instead? Preventive measures usually work better when done beforehand.

Finally, this suggestion seems to be a traditional attempt at humiliating and pointing accusing fingers towards people and calling them spawns of Satan. It will be rather contraproductive to show this to women who often out of difficult social situations are forced to make this decision - which is already quite difficult for them - to face such accusations and discrimination because of their ideology and situation.

Show these videos at high school instead, not at the abortion clinic... :coffeenews:

This suggestion is more about wanting someone to call evil, than about seriously trying to decrease the amounts of abortions. That is at least what consequences it will have.

BDC

03-23-2007, 11:04

thrashaholic

03-23-2007, 11:12

...Or serial killers, or child molestors.

Hard to say, really, and because of that, really a moot point with respect to the discussion at hand.

A study by the economist Steven Levitt showed that the legalisation of abortion following the US supreme court's decision in Roe vs. Wade in 1973 was the cause of roughly 25-30% of the fall in crime rates in America during the 1990s. Homicide rates fell by 43% to their lowest levels in 35 years between 1991 and 2001 and the FBI's indicies for violent and property crime fell by 34% and 29% respectively over the same period. Rape incidence fell by a similar magnitude, namely between 25% and 40%. On a state by state analysis it is also clear that crime fell to a greater extent in high abortion states than low abortion states. The causal mechanism of this effect is pretty clear: unwanted children are more likely to be criminal...

Similar studies have found similar effects. Sen did a study of Canadian crime data and found the same result, likewise the Pop-Eleches study shows the consequent increase in criminality in Romania following an unexpected abortion ban.

Forget all this 'morality' rubbish. Save society! Get aborting!

Ronin

03-23-2007, 11:28

From the Columbia Encyclopedia:

coercion, in law, the unlawful act of compelling a person to do, or to abstain from doing, something by depriving him of the exercise of his free will, particularly by use or threat of physical ormoral force. In many states of the United States, statutes declare a person guilty of a misdemeanor if he, by violence or injury to another's person, family, or property, or by depriving him of his clothing or any tool or implement, or by intimidating him with threat threat, in law, declaration of intent to injure another by doing an unlawful act, with a view to restraining his freedom of action.
..... Click the link for more information. of force, compels that other to perform some act that the other is not legally bound to perform. Coercion may involve other crimes, such as assault assault, in law, an attempt or threat, going beyond mere words, to use violence, with the intent and the apparent ability to do harm to another. In the law of contracts, the use of unfair persuasion to procure an agreement is known as duress duress ,such a contract is void unless later ratified

it seems the shoe fits into this situation.....doesn´t it?

is this what democratic societies are comming down to?:help:

Adrian II

03-23-2007, 11:46

Husar

03-23-2007, 12:20

Finally, this suggestion seems to be a traditional attempt at humiliating and pointing accusing fingers towards people and calling them spawns of Satan. It will be rather contraproductive to show this to women who often out of difficult social situations are forced to make this decision - which is already quite difficult for them - to face such accusations and discrimination because of their ideology and situation.
Once I find the other members of my religious mob, we will come and burn you at the stake!:sweatdrop:

And Beren Son Of Barahi, don't think you can escape with your atheist garbage, we will get you as well...:2thumbsup:

The problem here is that people want to have sex and fun but don't want to bear the consequences. I can safely say to have never driven any woman into abortion...and never would. There is a certain responsibility of the father, because without him there would be no baby in the woman's womb. And if a family despises their girl because it is pregnant now, they either messed up education And/or are heartless and not really worth to call a family IMO. I know that I may have a very idealistic view on that, I think I can line myself up behind SFTS, but we could try to work on the number of abortions until we as a society have reached a point where they are simply not needed anymore or only in special medical cases.
Just saying we need them and going on like before isn't a good solution IMO.

Otherwise we could also legalize honour killings because that poor brother would have to go through all that mental aggony if he didn't kill his sister...

KukriKhan

03-23-2007, 12:31

This is always a tough topic, often drilling down to definitions of life, death, and responsibility.

Please: all strive to keep their comments to the issue(s), and not personal criticism, or religion-bashing.

Kralizec

03-23-2007, 12:43

Ideally, when contraceptives are available to anyone there'd be next to no need for abortions. It's perhaps unrealistic to expect that, but it sure is working out a lot better over here then that "only abstension works" crap that the US nowadays seems to prefer.
In fact, if memory serves the Netherlands is among the nations with the lowest abortion rates in the world.

Productivity

03-23-2007, 12:48

Then why dont they just put the child up for adoption? Who knows how many great thinkers weve lost becuase of this. There are alternitives why kill a living thing? That being said it still should be legal becuase it needs to be done right,.

Having been through, actually still living in what is some sort of personal hell, because I am the (20 years younger) sibling of an adopted child (I was wanted by my mother/father), seeing what the adoption has done to my mother etc. I'm going to say you still don't have a clue.

Adoption is often put up as some sort of easy way out. It's not. It has a huge set of implications for family relations. I've allways lived with the stigma, that I was the second grand-child, not the first. I've had a grandparent who has NEVER recognised me for what I've done, instead has allways criticised me for not being the adopted one. I effectively don't know, or refuse to maintain contact with a large proportion of my family because they won't accept me for myself, because I'm the brother of an adopted child. Everytime they look at me, they see someone else and won't let me be myself.

I've cut my relationships with them. A friend snapped me out of it and convinced me too, when he found me very close to committing suicide over it. I can count one hand the ammount of family on my mothers side that actually value me as a family member. That's what adoption has done. An abortion would have meant that nobody would have known.

Adoption is no easier for a lot of people than abortion. Don't kid yourself. You haven't lived it. I have.

I'm sorry, where did he mention religion?

CR

Don't be dense. You know as well as anybody on this forum, that Navaros comes from an ultra-hardline religous viewpoint, which influences basically everything he has ever posted in the Backroom. That he didn't state it doesn't mean that's where it comes from.

That's not to say he represents all religion, or even that he represents any religion in anyway.

Husar

03-23-2007, 15:51

I'm sorry about that Productivity, but there are some questions left:

1. Do you like your adopted sibling? Would you prefer that he/she was aborted even if there were no problems with the rest of the family?

2. Did you talk about it with your family members?

Well, to me this sounds like the other family members have some serious issues and it was the right thing to end relations with them. But the fault of your family members does not mean that every adoption is that way and that all families will create a little personal hell for one or the other child.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-23-2007, 16:18

This proposal is yet more punishment for women who exercise their natural right to dispose of their own bodies. The human body is inviolable and the foetus is an outgrowth of the female body. No state can force a woman to become pregnant, to prevent her pregnancy or to carry through un unwanted pregnancy. All the rest is superstitious bullcrap.

I hate abortions, by the way. But I hate discussing them even more.

With respect I think it's difficult to define a foetus as "an outgrowth of the female body." It shares 50% of it's DNA with another body, it's cell are a different gneder to the woman carrying it half the time.

To those who say that a woman goes through hell before and after an abortion, yes, absolutely. I'm not belittling that in the slightest.

However, in the vast majoriety of cases where the issue is not medical the woman would not be pregnant had she not decided to have sex.

That is the ultimate issue, the rest is just a smoke screen. If she didn't want children she shouldn't have had sex, she was irresponsible and the child is the direct consequence of her actions.

All the suffering the pro-choice group are talking about would have been avoided if the woman had not had sex. Lets look at the reverse:

A man has sex with a woman, accidently gets her pregnant and whether he wants the child or not he is held responsible and has to pay 18 years child support.

I'm 20, I don't want kids, so I'm not having sex, I know plenty of women my age or older who have taken the same decision.

This isn't "some crazy religious garbage" this is just taking responsibility for your actions. I apply the same morality to murder, or binge drinking. Funnily enough I don't do either.

Edit: I should point out I have no problem with people having safe sex but as reliable as contraceptives are these days they're not 100% so if you fall into that minoriety I don't feel that "but I used contraception" qualifies you for an abortion.

Productivity, that really sucks, I mean really. At the end of the day though it's your family that have the problem, not you. Adoption is no easier than abortion, in some ways it's harder but I can't support snuffing a life out before it has begun instead of handing that life over to someone who wants to nurture it.

Whacker

03-23-2007, 16:44

That is a complete load of tripe, to put it in Org friendly terms. Sex was, is, and will be a perfectly natural aspect of human lifestyle. People are going to engage in sexual activity period, regardless of how much "education" about abstinence conservatives shove down their throats. The gist of the above post is not that you should accept the consequences, it's that you should PAY for your mistakes. People by and large know about and do use protection, and sometimes it's going to fail. Ruining someone's lives by forcing them to have and raise or put a child for adoption because of the hand that luck dealt them is not even remotely the right answer. Even if it's not a failed contraceptive, some people are just going to make bad choices at certain points in their lives. We'd be so presumptuous and arrogant to force them to pay for it the rest of their lives? Please... I once shot out a window with a BB gun (as a stupid prank) and got caught for it, but due to my parents and the people involved I was allowed to pay for my mistake without having to involve the cops and forever having something on record that could haunt me the rest of my life. Before someone says this isn't remotely the same thing as what we are talking about, bull, it is. It's about forcing someone to pay for their mistakes, NOT "making them atone for them" or "living up to their mistakes" whatever kind of nerfed wording can be substituted.

Bottom line. Someone wants to abstain from sex, fine, that is certainly within their rights. But enough of that self-righteous sanctimonious "you should pay for your mistakes" attitude. That attitude exemplifies just another aspect of what is wrong with people these days.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-23-2007, 17:09

Wow, thats just..... far to aggressivbe to begin with.

It's not about punishing people it's about a very simple truth. If two people have sex then there is always a chance that a child will be the result. That child is not responsible for it's existance, it's parents are.

Given that this is a child we are talking about I can't coutenance killing it, not when the mother's life is not in danger.

You talk about luck, well luck only comes into play after you have sex. At the end of the day no sexual activity will always mean no bady and that is 100% certain.

As I said, if people want to have sex they can but there is always a small chance there will be consequences, be that disease or conception.

Now as far as I can see your post is a personnal attack on me as a religious hard-liner who wants to punish people for having sex. That isn't what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that if you have sex then you have to be willing to deal with the consequences and that may well be an innocent child.

Earlier you said that some people deserved to die. well what has that unborn child done that means it deserves death?

you also said that abortion should be done within the first or second trimester. Well, why then, why not later, why not earlier? I can only see two lines where you can reasonably draw the line between a part of a woman's body and a child in its own righht.

That has to be either an implanted embreo or when the baby draws breath. I don't think the second is reasonable, which only leaves me with the first. That is what I base my stance on and it has NOTHING to do with any religious outlook.

Rodion Romanovich

03-23-2007, 17:12

The problem here is that people want to have sex and fun but don't want to bear the consequences. I can safely say to have never driven any woman into abortion...and never would.

If you vote, you support some kind of society form. Can you honestly say that the society form you vote for aims to help those people with a difficult enough social situation to be forced into abortion by society? If not, you are indeed part in forcing women into abortion. Indirectly causing something isn't any better/worse than causing it directly, if you're aware of its consequences. What I see is mostly that conservatives are against abortion, while at the same time being for a harsh, ruthless society which likes to drive women such as those who make abortion out in the streets, force them to work 15 hours a day if at all they have any luck getting a job in the conservative society, and then you like to point fingers at them when they have to do an abortion because they got fired from their 100 hours work week job because they broke down mentally and physically out of being overworked. To just generally say abortion must be forbidden is IMO quite contraproductive.

Just like you, I think the amount of abortion should be minimized. But pointing fingers at those who do it isn't the way to go. Abortion is something you do if your confidence is broken down, and you're unsure if you're capable of bringing up the child. You need support, love and warmth in order to prevent someone from doing an abortion. Encourage them, strengthen them, help them find solutions to their economical and logistical problems in their everyday lives. Make sure the society system gives them a fair chance to have children on the salary you get from working 8 h a day at the smallest pay per hour in your country. If you do that, you will see abortion rates go down dramatically.

Otherwise we could also legalize honour killings because that poor brother would have to go through all that mental aggony if he didn't kill his sister...
We don't need honor killings in European societies, since people who live here and do honor killings are considered maniacs, opposite to those geographical regions where those who don't do it are considered maniacs and they are pressured to do it.

Whacker

03-23-2007, 17:23

It's aggressive because I found that response and position despicable.

It's not a personal attack either, nor does it have anything at all to do with religion, it's about the subject at hand which I am indeed attacking with vim and vigor. I know/knew absolutely nothing about your or your background when I posted my response, nor does it matter for the reason I stated above.

My point is that the proposed solution of "making them accept the consequences" given the implied reasoning is unacceptable. Further I completely disagree that it's "killing" something until it gets up to a certain point, hence my point about the trimesters. The bottom line on that regard is that it's completely subjective how you view it, yet there are certain medical facts surrounding "normal" pregnancy and development (and some hotly disputed ones). Obviously you think it's a new life from the point that it's conceived, physically I agree, conceptually I do not.

Goofball

03-23-2007, 17:49

I think something that many people are completely failing to take into account is the amount of emotional baggage forced on a woman by making her have the child. Not only is it extremely taxing to a woman mentally and physically to go through a pregnancy and all the pain and misery of the birth, BUT there's a well known, instinctual mother-child bond that forms during said process. So not only has she now had to go through the entire process, she now is going to give up the child that she has this bond with to adoption, that she didn't want to have in the first place for whatever reason. The alternative of course is that she now keeps the child, but there will always be those memories in the back of her mind that she did not want this child. There may even be some resentment, and the child may be mistreated as such. I have a friend who falls into this category, thankfully he turned out ok, but his mother actually tried to poison him when he was in his early teens, and eventually turned him over to an adoption agency then when his paternal grandmother stepped into to raise him. He once described to me how it felt to stand there in court with his mother saying in a stony cold manner that she did not want her child anymore. I can't possibly imagine going through something like that.

My stance for the record. I am fully pro-choice, WITH the caveat that it should be done within the 1st or 2nd trimester unless some extreme extenuating circumstances arise. I think that all abortions should be done as humanely as possible, some of the methods used do make me sick to think about. Sorry but I don't subscribe to the "but it's a life, think of all the people we've killed" outlook, this world has way too many people right now as is. I can guarantee you that these are all well thought out and very hard made choices when women choose to do this. Anyone who presumes otherwise is fooling themselves. The whole "it's a disgusting contraceptive version" argument is for the most part preposterous and used by hardcore religious types to try and push their pro-life agenda. I have had two women very close to me go through this process and I can tell you it's traumatic enough without hypocrits and disgusting religious zealots yelling at you and calling you a whore and a sinner.

Amen, brutha...

Also Mr. Goof, I gotta disagree with you on the execution thing. Some people deserve to die for what they've done to others, especially those who violate children in depraved ways in my view. By forcing people on a jury to watch an execution would be the exact same thing in my view as what this despicable law is proposing, it is completely unnecessary, overkill, and intimidation.

That was exactly the point I was trying to make.

Crazed Rabbit

03-23-2007, 18:23

Don't be dense. You know as well as anybody on this forum, that Navaros comes from an ultra-hardline religous viewpoint, which influences basically everything he has ever posted in the Backroom. That he didn't state it doesn't mean that's where it comes from.

That's not to say he represents all religion, or even that he represents any religion in anyway.

One may take up a opinion for religious reasons, yet defend their position with secular arguments, as it were. Navaros made no reference to religion, and yet his critic called his post 'religious garbage' and made no attempt to debate him.

My question was valid; Navaros' critic relied solely on trashing religion, something Navaros had not mentioned at all.

This proposal is yet more punishment for women who exercise their natural right to dispose of their own bodies. The human body is inviolable and the foetus is an outgrowth of the female body. No state can force a woman to become pregnant, to prevent her pregnancy or to carry through an unwanted pregnancy.

So, at 8 1/2 months, when a baby could be born completely healthy, but is still in the mother, it is just a growth that can be killed? Yet, should the baby be born an hour later, it is a human being? So you're saying which side of the mother's womb a baby is on determines whether we can kill it or not?

:shame:

Crazed Rabbit

Louis VI the Fat

03-23-2007, 18:38

Bah. What a nasty mix of mysogony, superstition and self-righteousness at the expense of others this law is.
Picking on women when they're down, bah. It's the light version of Pred Phelps picking on funerals.

Rep. Alan Clemmons, choking back tears as he talked about his two adopted children, recalled a prayer given by his 11-year-old daughter.

"She thanked her God, her father in heaven for her birth mother for loving her enough to give her life,"
http://smileys.sur-la-toile.com/repository/Crade/0026.gif

doc_bean

03-23-2007, 18:44

So, at 8 1/2 months, when a baby could be born completely healthy, but is still in the mother, it is just a growth that can be killed? Yet, should the baby be born an hour later, it is a human being? So you're saying which side of the mother's womb a baby is on determines whether we can kill it or not?

Here you go dragging in emotional arguments again :no:

This isn't about third trimester abortions, ban them for all i care (except when the live of the mother is in danger), don't make women who go in for an early abortion go through this, a lot of them might decide to have it done in another state, and the fetus will probably be more evolved by then.

This is intimidation and wrong.

Husar

03-23-2007, 19:53

Here you go dragging in emotional arguments again :no:
That's what I think when I read all those posts about "oh noes, they might have to work to support their child" and "oh noes, why do you want to punish women with their own children?"

Well, here in lalaland mothers get some money for their children from the state and from it's dad if he doesn't want to stay with the mother. This basically means that she won't have to work a trillion hours per week to feed her child. And i actually know a lot of women and have even seen other women I don't know, who really love their little kids, I think the notion that all women hate their kid, see the devil in it and want to kill it sooner or later is just emotional and wrong. Some even think that the smile of their kid makes up for the additional burden they have now and I'm not only talking about the rich mothers. Well, babies don't smile on ultrasound images I guess so it's easier to use the vacuum cleaner at that point than later on.:shame:

And that argument about them being just a bunch of cells is really funny because if you go down that route, by shooting someone, you just stop the flow of energy through his or her cells by removing vital parts required for that flow to continue, it's like smashing a guitar onto the ground, why should anyone bother? After all, a human ist just a bunch of electrons, neutrons and protons and emotions etc are only a result of certain physical and chemical patterns in what we call a brain(which again, is merely a bunch of elemental tiles).:dizzy2:
Should I go on?:sweatdrop:

Scurvy

03-23-2007, 19:56

My point is that the proposed solution of "making them accept the consequences" given the implied reasoning is unacceptable. Further I completely disagree that it's "killing" something until it gets up to a certain point, hence my point about the trimesters.

so you think that people shouldn't be held responsible for their actions?

This is intimidation and wrong.

:yes:

it would be more effective to show it in a more general sense, say sex ed. at school, that way people can see, but not be intimidated individually,

its not just the process of actually looking at the UV picutres, its the angle its given at, if it takes say a week to get to view the pictures, thats a week to think over it, with the knowledge that you have to go see the scan, and their may even be pressure when you get there... I dont agree with abortion, but this is surely the wrong way to go about stopping it...

:2thumbsup:

King Henry V

03-23-2007, 20:10

A study by the economist Steven Levitt showed that the legalisation of abortion following the US supreme court's decision in Roe vs. Wade in 1973 was the cause of roughly 25-30% of the fall in crime rates in America during the 1990s. Homicide rates fell by 43% to their lowest levels in 35 years between 1991 and 2001 and the FBI's indicies for violent and property crime fell by 34% and 29% respectively over the same period. Rape incidence fell by a similar magnitude, namely between 25% and 40%. On a state by state analysis it is also clear that crime fell to a greater extent in high abortion states than low abortion states. The causal mechanism of this effect is pretty clear: unwanted children are more likely to be criminal...

Similar studies have found similar effects. Sen did a study of Canadian crime data and found the same result, likewise the Pop-Eleches study shows the consequent increase in criminality in Romania following an unexpected abortion ban.

Forget all this 'morality' rubbish. Save society! Get aborting!
Correlation does not imply causation. The decline of crime may be caused by other factors, such as improved economic matters.

Crazed Rabbit

03-23-2007, 20:18

Here you go dragging in emotional arguments again :no:

This isn't about third trimester abortions, ban them for all i care (except when the live of the mother is in danger), don't make women who go in for an early abortion go through this, a lot of them might decide to have it done in another state, and the fetus will probably be more evolved by then.

This is intimidation and wrong.

Emotional? Adrian stated women have a right to terminate the 'growth' while it is in their body - I merely asked why he thought a baby inside, identical except in relative position to a baby outside, is not afforded the right to life. What is so different?

Crazed Rabbit

Whacker

03-23-2007, 20:18

so you think that people shouldn't be held responsible for their actions?

Of course, but you misconstrued my post a bit (which I may or may not be doing the absolute best at relaying properly), you quoted my reasoning exactly, about the implied reasoning behind that. Holding someone accountable for their actions is one thing entirely, making them "pay for it" as what's being implied in previous posts is another. Barring certain crimes/actions, I think everybody deserves a mulligan, I know that I'm at least very grateful for the one or two I've been given.

Whacker

03-23-2007, 20:25

Emotional? Adrian stated women have a right to terminate the 'growth' while it is in their body - I merely asked why he thought a baby inside, identical except in relative position to a baby outside, is not afforded the right to life. What is so different?

Crazed Rabbit

A collective "growth" of tissues with no demonstrated capability of thought is not a "baby" in my view. As for feeling "pain", that's debatable up to a certain development stage, hence why no matter the method I think it should as humane as possible, some of those in use are just disgusting.

Note - I don't remotely believe in the concept of the 'soul' or existence beyond what we are physically composed of.

HoreTore

03-23-2007, 20:30

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-23-2007, 20:40

It's aggressive because I found that response and position despicable.

That is a personnal attack, to which I take personnal offence

It's not a personal attack either, nor does it have anything at all to do with religion, it's about the subject at hand which I am indeed attacking with vim and vigor. I know/knew absolutely nothing about your or your background when I posted my response, nor does it matter for the reason I stated above.

See above, you called my position, and by extension my moral stance despicable.

My point is that the proposed solution of "making them accept the consequences" given the implied reasoning is unacceptable. Further I completely disagree that it's "killing" something until it gets up to a certain point, hence my point about the trimesters. The bottom line on that regard is that it's completely subjective how you view it, yet there are certain medical facts surrounding "normal" pregnancy and development (and some hotly disputed ones). Obviously you think it's a new life from the point that it's conceived, physically I agree, conceptually I do not.[/b

I can quite see that if this Bill is passed it would be a form of intimidation, which is wrong. On the other hand I can also see the moral posistion of those that want the Bill passed. They want to stop easy abortion, which do happen. In the first Trimester you can have it done in your lunch break.

As to the second trimester arguement, well consider this. Medical technology has advanced to the point that you can now abort a baby that can quite happily be delivered and survive to grow up perfectly healthy. So the boundery between a viable life and when you can have an abortion now has a massive grey area.

Most importanly how can you make a statement such as the one in bold above. You have admitted to a disconnect between your morality and your perception of the physical world.

If you vote, you support some kind of society form. Can you honestly say that the society form you vote for aims to help those people with a difficult enough social situation to be forced into abortion by society? If not, you are indeed part in forcing women into abortion. Indirectly causing something isn't any better/worse than causing it directly, if you're aware of its consequences. What I see is mostly that conservatives are against abortion, while at the same time being for a harsh, ruthless society which likes to drive women such as those who make abortion out in the streets, force them to work 15 hours a day if at all they have any luck getting a job in the conservative society, and then you like to point fingers at them when they have to do an abortion because they got fired from their 100 hours work week job because they broke down mentally and physically out of being overworked. To just generally say abortion must be forbidden is IMO quite contraproductive.

First off, hi Legio, long time no debate.

Now, to be honest I don't recognise the society you portray. More specifically, I refute your premise that voting supports that society. Failure to involve oneself in the political process is tacit acceptance of the society in which you live. At least if you vote you can vote against.

Whacker

03-23-2007, 21:01

That is a personnal attack, to which I take personnal offence

Sorry, go directly to debate jail, do not pass Backroom, do not collect postcount. Completely wrong on the first part. Sorry that you take offense to me attaking your views, I haven't and will not say a thing about you personally.

See above, you called my position, and by extension my moral stance despicable.

Correct. Your stances and views, not you personally. Your views and morals do not define you, you define them. Sorry mate, you need to distinguish between personal and subject debate here.

I can quite see that if this Bill is passed it would be a form of intimidation, which is wrong. On the other hand I can also see the moral posistion of those that want the Bill passed. They want to stop easy abortion, which do happen. In the first Trimester you can have it done in your lunch break.

I think this is what you aren't getting. It's never, ever, ever, ever easy to make these decisions. This is a permanant, life-changing, horrible event and will stick with the woman (and her boyfriend/husband) forever. You make it sound like it's a drive-through process, it's not remotely. I'm going to make an educated guess that you're probably a younger male who's never been intimately involved in one before based on your statements. Truthfully I hope you never have to.

As to the second trimester arguement, well consider this. Medical technology has advanced to the point that you can now abort a baby that can quite happily be delivered and survive to grow up perfectly healthy. So the boundery between a viable life and when you can have an abortion now has a massive grey area.

Please go back and re-read all of my first previous post (the long winded one). Viability isn't the sole criteria. As I said, these are very very hard decisions to make, quite often the female is the subject of a rape and is recovering from that also. As such she may not be mentally prepared and able to make an informed, rational decision until it's rather far along. This, unfortunately, was the case in one of the two I was telling about in an earlier post.

Most importanly how can you make a statement such as the one in bold above. You have admitted to a disconnect between your morality and your perception of the physical world.

No I haven't, there's no disconnect. My intent was to mean that at the second the sperm meets the egg, it's a "new life". Physically and medically speaking that's true. Conceptually, as in "it's a baby", no I don't view it as such.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-23-2007, 21:15

Sorry, go directly to debate jail, do not pass Backroom, do not collect postcount. Completely wrong on the first part. Sorry that you take offense to me attaking your views, I haven't and will not say a thing about you personally.

You used the word ispicable, that is emotional and personnally loaded.

Correct. Your stances and views, not you personally. Your views and morals do not define you, you define them. Sorry mate, you need to distinguish between personal and subject debate here.

A man who holds dispicable views is dispicable, of course your morals and beliefs define who you are, what else is there? You can engage with my arguement but the first thing you did was make an emotionally charged staement. You called my views dispicable which implies revulsion.

So I can only take that as you saying I am revolting. You are the one who needs to make the distinction between subject and personnal. My entire arguement is based on the judgement that an implanted embreo is a life. How is that disgusting.

I think this is what you aren't getting. It's never, ever, ever, ever easy to make these decisions. This is a permanant, life-changing, horrible event and will stick with the woman (and her boyfriend/husband) forever. You make it sound like it's a drive-through process, it's not remotely. I'm going to make an educated guess that you're probably a younger male who's never been intimately involved in one before based on your statements. Truthfully I hope you never have to.

For some it is a drive throught process, especially in the UK and US. I also posted: "To those who say that a woman goes through hell before and after an abortion, yes, absolutely. I'm not belittling that in the slightest."

Please go back and re-read all of my first previous post (the long winded one). Viability isn't the sole criteria. As I said, these are very very hard decisions to make, quite often the female is the subject of a rape and is recovering from that also. As such she may not be mentally prepared and able to make an informed, rational decision until it's rather far along. This, unfortunately, was the case in one of the two I was telling about in an earlier post.

I alos addressed this. Rape does complicate the issue emotionally, however it doesn't change the nature of the foetus. The foetus is blameless.

No I haven't, there's no disconnect. My intent was to mean that at the second the sperm meets the egg, it's a "new life". Physically and medically speaking that's true. Conceptually, as in "it's a baby", no I don't view it as such.

So you admit that abortion is extinguishing a new human life. I can't see how that could not be a baby.

Xiahou

03-23-2007, 21:27

Major Robert Dump

03-23-2007, 21:34

They should revise the bill so they also have to wear veils and watch a cartoon about semen sensitivity, with dancing, singing little sperms wearing little league jerseys

thrashaholic

03-23-2007, 21:40

Correlation does not imply causation. The decline of crime may be caused by other factors, such as improved economic matters.

Quite...

However, the article by Levitt ("Understanding why Crime Fell in the 1990s: Four Factors that Explain the Decline and Six that Don Not", Journal of Economic Perspectives) finds a definite causation in the fall of crime rates by the legalisation of abortion. The logic behind it is fairly obvious: on aggregate unwanted children are less likely to be loved, be in a stable family situation etc. and consequently more likely receive a sub-par upbringing and thus will have a higher propensity to be criminals. It could also be argued that people who are genetically pre-disposed to criminality are less likely to concerned with family planning and potentially more likely to be promiscuous and so more likely to have unwanted pregnancies. Before abortions were legalised they'd then pass on their criminal pre-disposition to their sprogs; an increase in abortions would proportionally impact this group most, reducing the proportion of criminal individuals in society.

The time scale also seems fairly logical: abortion is legalised in the 1970s and crime falls and stays lower in the 1990s. If one makes the fairly reasonable assumption that most criminals are chaps in their late teens and twenties the dates fit bally well.

In addition to abortion, the other reasons given by Levitt to explain the fall in crime were increased police numbers, a fall in the crack cocain epidemic and a rise in the prison population. The reasons that were commonly espoused to explain the fall, but were found to be insignificant in his analysis, were changing demographics, new policing strategies, gun control laws, increased capital punishment, laws allowing concealed weapons and, I'm afraid, the improved economy...

The nub of his jist though was that abortions played a statistically and causally significant reduction in crime rates, so we can conclude that this policy, given the likelihood that it'll reduce abortion rates, will have a negative societal and economic impact in the future (roughly 20 years down the line probably) because of increased crime levels.

Whacker

03-23-2007, 21:55

You used the word ispicable, that is emotional and personnally loaded.

Emotionally sure, personally no. You're trying to draw a personal context and jab where none exists and none is intended.

A man who holds dispicable views is dispicable,

No. My best friend thinks we should say in Iraq, and I find that to be incredibly stupid, shortsighted, and uninformed. Does that make him all of those things? Of course not, he's a great, intelligent, and honorable person, but some of his views sure as hell aren't.

of course your morals and beliefs define who you are, what else is there?

:shame: Other way around mate.

You can engage with my arguement but the first thing you did was make an emotionally charged staement. You called my views dispicable which implies revulsion.

True all. I do find your views to be somewhat revolting. Again it is no reflection on you as an individual, I am talking about your views, not you. Urg. The question to you is can we continue this dialogue and you understanding what I've been trying to tell you in these past upteen posts and not taking it personally. If the answer is no and you can't accept that, fine I'll drop all this then. Your call.

So I can only take that as you saying I am revolting.

Look, I've just tried explaining several different ways why that's not the case. Fine, I'm sorry if you think that way, but that's not what I've said nor is it my intent.

My entire arguement is based on the judgement that an implanted embreo is a life. How is that disgusting.

Grrr... It's NOT disgusting. Your views as YOU stated them about what women should be forced to do regarding this topic, abortion, are what I find to be horrendous and responded to in previous posts.

For some it is a drive throught process, especially in the UK and US.

Are you referring to illegal backalley stuff? Because what you just described is not the case, at least in the US, I can't speak for the UK. It can be done quickly if the medical or legal situation dictates, but for the average woman it's still a long and hard process. A couple days in this is an eternity.

I also posted: "To those who say that a woman goes through hell before and after an abortion, yes, absolutely. I'm not belittling that in the slightest."

That is exactly what it's like, for all involved.

I alos addressed this. Rape does complicate the issue emotionally, however it doesn't change the nature of the foetus. The foetus is blameless.

So you admit that abortion is extinguishing a new human life. I can't see how that could not be a baby.

I'm going to lump these two statements together because this is where it gets subjective. You say that one is "killing a baby". Do you call our war veterans "murderers"? No? Because it's the same concept. It's all in how you view it. The whole "you're simply justifying the murder of an innocent baby" is the exact example of this type of bullcrap that I'm getting at here. Sure our veterans may have killed people in the line of duty and service to their country, but the last thing I'm going to do is call them "murderers" or think any less of them for it.

They should revise the bill so they also have to wear veils and watch a cartoon about semen sensitivity, with dancing, singing little sperms wearing little league jerseys

:inquisitive: You know I think we all had to watch something like this in sex ed in high school.

Adrian II

03-23-2007, 22:04

So you're saying which side of the mother's womb a baby is on determines whether we can kill it or not?As soon as you start talking in terms of 'we', you postulate the right of society or the state to dispose of a woman's body.

It's the same sort of issue as suidice, really. I hate suicide. I hate having to defend peoples' right to kill themselves. But it is their natural right to do so, and I will defend it. And just as in the case of abortion, this does not imply that 'we' (regardless of how 'we' is defined) have a right to kill other people as we see fit.

You don't fiddle with natural rights. They are self-evident and inalienable, and they apply whether 'we' acknowledge them or not.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-23-2007, 22:39

Emotionally sure, personally no. You're trying to draw a personal context and jab where none exists and none is intended.

Well if we're having a debate emotions, or rather our emotions, are irrelevant.

No. My best friend thinks we should say in Iraq, and I find that to be incredibly stupid, shortsighted, and uninformed. Does that make him all of those things? Of course not, he's a great, intelligent, and honorable person, but some of his views sure as hell aren't.

Well, if you think the view is stupid and he holds lots of stupid views then.... Alternatively you could consider that his view is influenced by a different set of values or different information. It's also possible that he recognises all the issues you do but he's simply more optimistic

:shame: Other way around mate.

If anything it cuts both ways, we are defined by our opinions and our actions, which should stem from our opinions. Otherwise how else am I defined? My height and weight?

What else is there?

True all. I do find your views to be somewhat revolting. Again it is no reflection on you as an individual, I am talking about your views, not you. Urg. The question to you is can we continue this dialogue and you understanding what I've been trying to tell you in these past upteen posts and not taking it personally. If the answer is no and you can't accept that, fine I'll drop all this then. Your call.

The question is whether you can construct an arguement without reference to your own emotions. What precicely in my viewpoint is revolting.

I view an embreo as a child, I place the welfare of that child above the welfare of the woman carrying it, who in most cases took volentary action which resulted in that child.

Look, I've just tried explaining several different ways why that's not the case. Fine, I'm sorry if you think that way, but that's not what I've said nor is it my intent.

Okay, reality check. We refute each othe point by point because it's clear and simple. Please try not to become frustrated with me throughout the course of one post.

I simply don't think emotionally charged statements are nessessary, hence I take offence. I haven't given an emotional opinion on your viewpoint. All I ask is that you show the same restraint.

Grrr... It's NOT disgusting. Your views as YOU stated them about what women should be forced to do regarding this topic, abortion, are what I find to be horrendous and responded to in previous posts.

That they should be forced to keep the baby and carry it full term unless their life is in danger?

My first statement regarding the actaul topic at hand was: "I can quite see that if this Bill is passed it would be a form of intimidation, which is wrong. On the other hand I can also see the moral posistion of those that want the Bill passed. They want to stop easy abortion, which do happen. In the first Trimester you can have it done in your lunch break."

So you're either taking offence at my general moral stance or you are making assumptions. I entered the topic specifically to refute Goofball, because I didn't think his arguement held water.

Are you referring to illegal backalley stuff? Because what you just described is not the case, at least in the US, I can't speak for the UK. It can be done quickly if the medical or legal situation dictates, but for the average woman it's still a long and hard process. A couple days in this is an eternity.

I Britain you book an appointment and a few days later you go in, the doc administers the pill, you leave. You can do the actual abortion in your lunch break.

That is exactly what it's like, for all involved.

Well at least we agree on something.

I'm going to lump these two statements together because this is where it gets subjective. You say that one is "killing a baby". Do you call our war veterans "murderers"? No? Because it's the same concept. It's all in how you view it. The whole "you're simply justifying the murder of an innocent baby" is the exact example of this type of bullcrap that I'm getting at here. Sure our veterans may have killed people in the line of duty and service to their country, but the last thing I'm going to do is call them "murderers" or think any less of them for it.

Soldiers and babies are not the same. To begin with the feotus is innocent of any crime. Secondly, a soldier enters the warzone on the understanding that he will die and until he gets out again he can fully expect someone to kill him. Since all soldiers enter battle on this understanding, that someone is trying to kill them while they are trying to kill that person what soldiers do is both honourable combat and mutual self-defence.

Which in NO way makes it desirable, even if it is nessessary.

:inquisitive: You know I think we all had to watch something like this in sex ed in high school.

We had to put condoms on carrots, because the nurse left her plastic phallus at home.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-23-2007, 22:43

As soon as you start talking in terms of 'we', you postulate the right of society or the state to dispose of a woman's body.

It's the same sort of issue as suidice, really. I hate suicide. I hate having to defend peoples' right to kill themselves. But it is their natural right to do so, and I will defend it. And just as in the case of abortion, this does not imply that 'we' (regardless of how 'we' is defined) have a right to kill other people as we see fit.

You don't fiddle with natural rights. They are self-evident and inalienable, and they apply whether 'we' acknowledge them or not.

That's an interesting viewpoint, I don't agree but its internally consistant, I'll give you that.

So I assume that someone has the right to kill themselves because they have the right to life? I.e. it's their life to dispose of as they see fit?

Okay, but when does the foetus aquire the inalienable right to life? also, what makes these rights "self-evident and inalienable,"?

Goofball

03-23-2007, 22:51

In the interests of making sure women in South Carolina are aware of the enormity and consequenses of all decisions regarding whether or not to have an abortion, I propose an addendum to the law:

Single mothers who choose to give birth and raise their child alone must do the following for one month before being allowed to do so:

1) Live in a 600 sq/ft apartment with a recording of a child crying that plays randomly but at least 14 hours per day, and have the apartment fitted with a device that every 2 hours pumps out a pungent excrement smell
2) Have only $50/week to live on after rent is paid (but have to spend part of that on diapers/formula/wet-naps/vitamins/etc...)
3) Have only 6 hours of sleep per 24 hour period, with no more than 2 hours of that consecutive
4) Not be allowed to go out with friends, attend school, work, or do any other remotely social activity
5) Be fitted with a device that every two hours abrades their nipples to the point where they are blistered and chafed

I mean after all, the good people sponsoring the ultrasound law are plainly doing so to help potential mothers make an informed decision about whether or not to give birth. It's only right that we provide these women with as much insight as possible into both options.

Whacker

03-23-2007, 23:19

That they should be forced to keep the baby and carry it full term unless their life is in danger?

Yes, that's exactly what I think is horribly wrong.

So you're either taking offence at my general moral stance or you are making assumptions.

It has nothing to do with your position being "moral" or not, I jumped on your overall position as you stated it directly above.

I Britain you book an appointment and a few days later you go in, the doc administers the pill, you leave. You can do the actual abortion in your lunch break.

Aahhhh I see what you meant now. Yes that is relatively "easy" to do. procedurally, but the decision is still going to weigh very heavily on the woman (and the father) who decide to go through this. Honestly I do not consider the morning-after pill to be an abortion at all, based on my reasons given.

Well at least we agree on something.

GROUP HUG!!!!

Soldiers and babies are not the same. To begin with the feotus is innocent of any crime. Secondly, a soldier enters the warzone on the understanding that he will die and until he gets out again he can fully expect someone to kill him. Since all soldiers enter battle on this understanding, that someone is trying to kill them while they are trying to kill that person what soldiers do is both honourable combat and mutual self-defence.

Which in NO way makes it desirable, even if it is nessessary.

OK, please don't take this wrong, but I knew you were going to go down that path. You missed my point and focused on the examples. Of course soldiers and babies aren't the same, but the point that I made most certainly, absolutely, is the same. A soldier does not enter a warzone "understanding that he will die" or that he can "expect someone to kill him". You made a number of assumptions here. Think about the guy onboard the guided missile cruiser that launches a few Tomohawk cruise missiles at targets on land that are most assuredly going to kill people. What he's doing is no different than the soldier in a trench who pulls the trigger and kills someone he can see directly, it's still causing the death of someone, although obviously one is far less personal. Does it still qualify either of them as "murderers?" You also mentioned that it's "honorable combat". So the pilot flying his helicopter who is ordered to blow up a bus that has a few terrorists on it and also a few children is honorable? Combat is combat is combat, whether it's an aerial bombing, a tank battle, or an infantry shootout. I'm not saying the previous example is or it isn't "honorable", I'm just providing examples to think about, your opinion nor mine is in any way authoritative on this.

This is my overall point that I think you missed when you focused on my examples. It depends entirely on your subjective viewpoint.

Edit -

For the record, Goofwad is the man. :grin:

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-23-2007, 23:52

Yes, that's exactly what I think is horribly wrong.

It has nothing to do with your position being "moral" or not, I jumped on your overall position as you stated it directly above.

Jump all you want, just don't make it emotional.

Now, consider your own position, you advocate the killing of viable foeti, whereas I advocate putting women through pregnancy. I agree neither is great but I can't adopt your position because it allows the killing of children. Ultimately I still think that holding a position which is aimed at preserving life as despicable is rather difficult to swallow based on the consequences of your own position. I do sympathise with the emotional arguement in favour of your position, probably more than I do the emotional arguement for my own.

Aahhhh I see what you meant now. Yes that is relatively "easy" to do. procedurally, but the decision is still going to weigh very heavily on the woman (and the father) who decide to go through this. Honestly I do not consider the morning-after pill to be an abortion at all, based on my reasons given.

More significantly you don't have to have counselling or anything. You can think about it for those two days but no one makes you think about it. Which is why I can see the thought process behind the legislation at hand.

GROUP HUG!!!!

~:grouphug:

OK, please don't take this wrong, but I knew you were going to go down that path. You missed my point and focused on the examples. Of course soldiers and babies aren't the same, but the point that I made most certainly, absolutely, is the same. A soldier does not enter a warzone "understanding that he will die" or that he can "expect someone to kill him". You made a number of assumptions here. Think about the guy onboard the guided missile cruiser that launches a few Tomohawk cruise missiles at targets on land that are most assuredly going to kill people. What he's doing is no different than the soldier in a trench who pulls the trigger and kills someone he can see directly, it's still causing the death of someone, although obviously one is far less personal. Does it still qualify either of them as "murderers?" You also mentioned that it's "honorable combat". So the pilot flying his helicopter who is ordered to blow up a bus that has a few terrorists on it and also a few children is honorable? Combat is combat is combat, whether it's an aerial bombing, a tank battle, or an infantry shootout. I'm not saying the previous example is or it isn't "honorable", I'm just providing examples to think about, your opinion nor mine is in any way authoritative on this.

This is my overall point that I think you missed when you focused on my examples. It depends entirely on your subjective viewpoint.

Well, I knew you were going to come up with that counter arguement. Two things to consider, from my viewpoint. 1. Every combat soldier I have met had the "I'm pretty dead until I get out" mentality. 2. The pilot is vulnerable to AA fire, as is the guy driving the B52 with the cruise missiles on board. You can point to the current situation in Iraq, I would reply that America is well beyond overkill there. In cases where pilots deliver surgical air-strikes they are protecting their comrades, which is an extension of self defence.

However you cut it soldiers/airmen/sailors are entering a situation where the two sides are trying to destroy each other. The same in no way applies to abortion.

Edit -

For the record, Goofwad is the man. :grin:

Maybe.:beam:

Adrian II

03-24-2007, 00:30

Okay, but when does the foetus aquire the inalienable right to life? It never does. As long as it is sustained by the woman's body it is a part of that woman's body and subject to her right to dispose of it. Once it is biologically independent of the mother, it is a person in the full sense and has the right to life.

All other positions are absurd, resulting in the assignment of personhood to a sperm cell or zygote, which in turn would justify constant state interference with our reproductive rights and ultimately lead to complete state control over our lives. 'Cus we all got either balls or ovaries, we would all lose our freedom.

Whacker

03-24-2007, 00:41

It never does. As long as it is sustained by the woman's body it is a part of that woman's body and subject to her right to dispose of it. Once it is biologically independent of the mother, it is a person in the full sense and has the right to life.

All other positions are absurd, resulting in the assignment of personhood to a sperm cell or zygote, which in turn would justify constant state interference with our reproductive rights and ultimately lead to complete state control over our lives. 'Cus we all got either balls or ovaries, we would all lose our freedom.

Somewhere, right now, an evangelical christian nutjob is foaming at the mouth, and has no idea why.

Please, think of the nutjobs.

Crazed Rabbit

03-24-2007, 01:58

A collective "growth" of tissues with no demonstrated capability of thought is not a "baby" in my view.

So, somehow the baby magically has its brain turned on as it is passing out of the mother's womb? Making abortions okay but not killing already born babies?

As soon as you start talking in terms of 'we', you postulate the right of society or the state to dispose of a woman's body.

It's the same sort of issue as suidice, really. I hate suicide. I hate having to defend peoples' right to kill themselves. But it is their natural right to do so, and I will defend it. And just as in the case of abortion, this does not imply that 'we' (regardless of how 'we' is defined) have a right to kill other people as we see fit.

You don't fiddle with natural rights. They are self-evident and inalienable, and they apply whether 'we' acknowledge them or not.

I don't believe that addressed my question:

So you're saying which side of the mother's womb a baby is on determines whether the mother can kill it or not?

Slightly revised so you don't have to worry about philosophical statements about society.

It never does. As long as it is sustained by the woman's body it is a part of that woman's body and subject to her right to dispose of it. Once it is biologically independent of the mother, it is a person in the full sense and has the right to life.

Babies are sustained for years by their mothers after they are born. Are you arguing that sustaining a person gives us power over it?

Crazed Rabbit

Ronin

03-24-2007, 02:04

Babies are sustained for years by their mothers after they are born. Are you arguing that sustaining a person gives us power over it?

the situation isn´t the same....

after a child is born it can be taken care of by anyone....be it the mother or not..... the sustainment that is given to the child isn´t of the same nature as what goes on inside the womb..

now...while the fetus is in the womb the is directly dependent on the mother´s body as it´s source of sustenance....now..no matter what me or you might think of it the mother´s body is her´s and nobody else´s...and if she makes the decision that she doesn´t want HER body to sustain another lifeform....then who is anyone else to tell her she can´t do it?

doc_bean

03-24-2007, 02:57

Emotional? Adrian stated women have a right to terminate the 'growth' while it is in their body - I merely asked why he thought a baby inside, identical except in relative position to a baby outside, is not afforded the right to life. What is so different?

Crazed Rabbit

You had to bring in third trimester abortions, which represent only about 2% of the total abortions, as if every abortion is performed on a fully grown fetus.

Most women who will be subject to this treatement will want first or second trimester abortions, your argument about the 8.5 month old child is an emotional argument because it's hardly relevant.

besides, we never argued pro 3rd trimester abortions (no one here did afaik), we argued against this particular tactic being used, clearly as intimidation. Ban third trimester abortions for all i care, most of the civilized world already has, but don't subject women to this degrading treatement.

Do the fathers have to watch too btw ?

Seamus Fermanagh

03-24-2007, 03:57

This is South Carolina's latest bit of political theater.

Please don't mistake me, I am pro-life and disagree with Adrian's definition -- though I deeply appreciate both his clarity of position and his brevity.

But this proposed law is:

A) a sop to the mono-issue right to lifers by the conservatives in the SC legislature

B) intimidation pure and simple (and likely to be struck down in court)

C) impractical on a number of levels.

If they really had the courage of their convictions, they would have prohibited abortion in South Carolina and made a direct challenge to the current interpretation of Constitutional law.

Instead, we have this bit of theater designed to provide a little "red meat" to one of their political support groups. Like the Dem Presidential hopefuls trooping down to Selma to show that THEY are the real heirs of Doctor King's dream :rolleyes3: this is mostly "sound and fury, signifying nothing."

KukriKhan

03-24-2007, 04:01

After 72 posts, a gentle reminder, gentle posters: consider your (wider) audience, the thousands of readers.

Keep it on-issue, and not distractingly on-man, if you please. Personal, emotional attacks will be sanctioned, for the sake of the furtherance of this admittedly difficult conversation.

Critique of South Carolina's proposed law = OK.

Discuss the underlying issue (abortion) = OK

Slam (i.e. disparage as intellectually, morally, or otherwise deficient) someone else's view because you disagree = not OK.

Thanks for your cooperation. :bow:

Crazed Rabbit

03-24-2007, 08:42

the situation isn´t the same....

after a child is born it can be taken care of by anyone....be it the mother or not..... the sustainment that is given to the child isn´t of the same nature as what goes on inside the womb..

now...while the fetus is in the womb the is directly dependent on the mother´s body as it´s source of sustenance....now..no matter what me or you might think of it the mother´s body is her´s and nobody else´s...and if she makes the decision that she doesn´t want HER body to sustain another lifeform....then who is anyone else to tell her she can´t do it?

So it's the nature of the sustainment no, is it, that decides a person's fate?

Babies are still dependent on their mothers for nourishment - their mothers must still bring them food and take care of them. That is sustainment - should the women be able to ignore their babies?

You had to bring in third trimester abortions, which represent only about 2% of the total abortions, as if every abortion is performed on a fully grown fetus.

Most women who will be subject to this treatement will want first or second trimester abortions, your argument about the 8.5 month old child is an emotional argument because it's hardly relevant.

It was not designed to be emotional, merely to probe the reasoning behind how a child in a mother's womb has less rights than a child outside of it. If one believes in life from conception, and takes note that mothers must care for their children long after they are born, abortions in all trimesters seem to be merely a point along the path the child takes to grow, requiring motherly care the whole way.

besides, we never argued pro 3rd trimester abortions (no one here did afaik), we argued against this particular tactic being used, clearly as intimidation. Ban third trimester abortions for all i care, most of the civilized world already has, but don't subject women to this degrading treatement.

Point taken. But I live in the US, where a whole political party supports 3rd trimester abortions as policy, and vocal activists hate the possibility of abortion being limited in any way - certain feminist and other groups support the abomination that is partial birth abortion.

If they really had the courage of their convictions, they would have prohibited abortion in South Carolina and made a direct challenge to the current interpretation of Constitutional law.

True that.

Crazed Rabbit

Ironside

03-24-2007, 11:46

However, in the vast majoriety of cases where the issue is not medical the woman would not be pregnant had she not decided to have sex.

That is the ultimate issue, the rest is just a smoke screen. If she didn't want children she shouldn't have had sex, she was irresponsible and the child is the direct consequence of her actions.

So people who has a stable relationship and several children and doesn't want more, should give up sex (slightly less than 50% of all who aborts already got atleast one children, most often more)? Sex is confirmed to be an exellent relationship maintainer I might add.

As for the statement that life begins with conception and therefore the embryo is given full rights from that point, does the twin in these cases still maintain these human rights (they were alive, human and a unique being formed at conception)?
If not, when did they lose it?
Boy 'pregnant' with twin brother (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2987963.stm)
Man With Twin Living Inside Him (http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=2346476&page=1)

Adrian II

03-24-2007, 11:55

So, somehow the baby magically has its brain turned on as it is passing out of the mother's womb?Natural rights don't deal with the supernatural or with potentialities, they deal with realities only. Once a fetus is outside the womb and lives, it is a person. Prior to that it is not. The mother decides when and how it comes out because it is her body that carries it.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-24-2007, 17:08

It never does. As long as it is sustained by the woman's body it is a part of that woman's body and subject to her right to dispose of it. Once it is biologically independent of the mother, it is a person in the full sense and has the right to life.

So if a foetus is viable but still inside the womb the woman has the right to dispose of it? So one week before going into labour she can still have an abortion?

All other positions are absurd, resulting in the assignment of personhood to a sperm cell or zygote, which in turn would justify constant state interference with our reproductive rights and ultimately lead to complete state control over our lives. 'Cus we all got either balls or ovaries, we would all lose our freedom.

By definition a sperm cell is only half a person, it only has 50% of the required genetic material. A zygote has 100% of the required material and is unique, just like a full developed human being. I don't find that position absurd.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-24-2007, 17:15

So people who has a stable relationship and several children and doesn't want more, should give up sex (slightly less than 50% of all who aborts already got atleast one children, most often more)? Sex is confirmed to be an exellent relationship maintainer I might add.

No, they shouldn't, they should use birth control and if they have another child they should just accept that as a happy, and somewhat inconvenient, accident. If they really don't want more children there's always sterilisation.

As for the statement that life begins with conception and therefore the embryo is given full rights from that point, does the twin in these cases still maintain these human rights (they were alive, human and a unique being formed at conception)?
If not, when did they lose it?
Boy 'pregnant' with twin brother (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2987963.stm)
Man With Twin Living Inside Him (http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=2346476&page=1)

Is the twin still a viable human being? If not then this would be the same as the situation where the child will die and kill the mother, in which case you have the responsibility to save the life you can.

Adrian II

03-24-2007, 18:02

So one week before going into labour she can still have an abortion?Yes.
By definition a sperm cell is only half a person, it only has 50% of the required genetic material.By definition? 'Zygote' is a medical term, not a legal one. Can you show me any medical definition that describes a zygote as 'half a person'?

And 'half a person'- do you realise what an absurd notion that is, in and of itself?

A zygote may well be 'complete' (as a zygote, that is) as well as unique in its composition, but that does not make it a person. Or half a person. Or even one quarter of a person, or 7,8% of a person...

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-24-2007, 19:13

Yes.

Well that's consistant, however I would argue that once a foetus is able to survive outside the womb it should no longer be treated as an extension of the mother in any way.

I sense we will not resolve this.

By definition? 'Zygote' is a medical term, not a legal one. Can you show me any medical definition that describes a zygote as 'half a person'?

And 'half a person'- do you realise what an absurd notion that is, in and of itself?

A zygote may well be 'complete' (as a zygote, that is) as well as unique in its composition, but that does not make it a person. Or half a person. Or even one quarter of a person, or 7,8% of a person...

Ok, let me try again. A zygote is composed of genetic material from two seperate people and contains all the information to form a whole person. A sperm cell is just half the genetic material of one person. It requires an ovum to fertalise and in that sense it is never more than half of the person it creates.

The idea that it should be accorded the legal or moral status of half a person is indeed absurd.

Ronin

03-24-2007, 19:46

So it's the nature of the sustainment no, is it, that decides a person's fate?

Babies are still dependent on their mothers for nourishment - their mothers must still bring them food and take care of them. That is sustainment - should the women be able to ignore their babies?

again...the situation is not the same....

if a mother is not willing to take care of her baby all societies specified laws to allow the mother to give the child up for adoption.

the bottom line is that you can´t force someone to do something with their bodies if they don´t want to....and that includes you can´t force a woman to use her body for reproduction if she doesn´t want to.....this is what it comes down to, even if we don´t find it tasteful.

if the child is still inside the mother´s womb there is no other way to give the mother her full rights then to allow her to have an abortion if she wants too....after the child is born there are other options.

Ironside

03-24-2007, 20:08

No, they shouldn't, they should use birth control and if they have another child they should just accept that as a happy, and somewhat inconvenient, accident.

And if it's by all accounts an unhappy and very problematic accident?

If they really don't want more children there's always sterilisation.

How very permanent of you. And if there's a (hopefully) temporary period when getting children is very problematic, but were the situation might change for the better a few years forward?

Is the twin still a viable human being? If not then this would be the same as the situation where the child will die and kill the mother, in which case you have the responsibility to save the life you can.

Define viable.
And when did this twin become viable or when did the twin stop being a viable human being?

As for saving the twin. If you took a bit of effert and time you could probably save it and maintain it's life. So in the ceases presented it was probably possible to save the twin in the first case, while the second case is more of thje type you presents.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-24-2007, 23:21

And if it's by all accounts an unhappy and very problematic accident?

How very permanent of you. And if there's a (hopefully) temporary period when getting children is very problematic, but were the situation might change for the better a few years forward?

Now you're talking about abortion a birth-control. If you want children you shouldn't be aborting them. Life throws some pretty dirty punches, you role with them. If you want children in the future and then your plans get brought foward, well that's life. You can't have convenience as a reason for abortion.

I can't see any possible moral position you can defend there.

Define viable.
And when did this twin become viable or when did the twin stop being a viable human being?

As for saving the twin. If you took a bit of effert and time you could probably save it and maintain it's life. So in the ceases presented it was probably possible to save the twin in the first case, while the second case is more of thje type you presents.

I read the articles, and I remember the cases. In both instances the life of the living twin was in danger. In that instance, with no other recourse open you are trading a life to save a life. It's horrible but allowing two lives to end is worse.

As to a definition, the twin is viable when it can survive on its own and function as a human being.

the bottom line is that you can´t force someone to do something with their bodies if they don´t want to....and that includes you can´t force a woman to use her body for reproduction if she doesn´t want to.....this is what it comes down to, even if we don´t find it tasteful.

if the child is still inside the mother´s womb there is no other way to give the mother her full rights then to allow her to have an abortion if she wants too....after the child is born there are other options.

This all depends on you preferencing the rights of the mother over the rights of the child. Bear in mind the mother is responsible for the existance of the child.

Tribesman

03-25-2007, 02:16

Bear in mind the mother is responsible for the existance of the child.

In that case doesn't it follow that it is up to the mother to decide

Incongruous

03-25-2007, 02:28

Dont be so silly Tribe, think of all the great minds we have LOST!:laugh4:

Tribesman

03-25-2007, 03:09

Dont be so silly Tribe, think of all the great minds we have LOST!
Yeah but look at how many idiots get born :laugh4:

KukriKhan

03-25-2007, 04:18

Personally, I wish English Assassin and Pindar would put their considerable minds together, and file a class-action consumer lawsuit against the original designer of Human v1.0.

I mean, come on, all females generate with all reproductive eggs they'll possibly need throughout life? Males become sperm-generators at around age 10? The reproductive urge-to-merge as instinctual as breathing? Surely a train-wreck waiting to happen.

Adam & Eve saw the possibilities, and asserted Human v1.1, with free will. We've been dithering (and killing our own kind) ever since, waiting for Human v2.0, or at least the v1.2 patch, opening our vision to more fully understanding the longer-term consequences of our actions and decisions.

At the moment, we are toddlers with a loaded Colt .45 in our hands, making life and death decisions, with little understanding of consequences.

It's time to sue, and MAKE the ultimate engineer wake up and enhance her design.

Marshal Murat

03-25-2007, 04:27

I have two views.

Good, the girl gets to see what happens when she makes a decision she hasn't thought about. Lack of fore-thought and self-restraint has caused this.

Bad, because the girl has the right to do so.

What I worry about is that some people can call for abortions in the 3rd Trimester, and children can be born then. Early birth children can come a month before they are supposed to, and that's defined as something 'else' and not a child. Does that make them any less human?

:hanged:

Rodion Romanovich

03-25-2007, 09:14

Personally, I wish English Assassin and Pindar would put their considerable minds together, and file a class-action consumer lawsuit against the original designer of Human v1.0.

I mean, come on, all females generate with all reproductive eggs they'll possibly need throughout life? Males become sperm-generators at around age 10? The reproductive urge-to-merge as instinctual as breathing? Surely a train-wreck waiting to happen.

Adam & Eve saw the possibilities, and asserted Human v1.1, with free will. We've been dithering (and killing our own kind) ever since, waiting for Human v2.0, or at least the v1.2 patch, opening our vision to more fully understanding the longer-term consequences of our actions and decisions.

NOOOOO! Not the 1.2 patch! Not the siege bug!!! ~:eek:

Ironside

03-25-2007, 11:00

Now you're talking about abortion a birth-control. If you want children you shouldn't be aborting them. Life throws some pretty dirty punches, you role with them. If you want children in the future and then your plans get brought foward, well that's life. You can't have convenience as a reason for abortion.

I can't see any possible moral position you can defend there.

Well, inconvenience in this case were of the more severe class, you know were the woman suffers a mental breakdown (or is very close to one) and gets pregnant around that period.

I read the articles, and I remember the cases. In both instances the life of the living twin was in danger. In that instance, with no other recourse open you are trading a life to save a life. It's horrible but allowing two lives to end is worse.

Reread.

If left unchecked it could one day have threatened Mourat's own life.

No attemts were made to save the other twin despite that you had time to atleast try something. Do you disagree with it? Or do you agree with it on the basis that the twin wasn't viable?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-25-2007, 15:53

In that case doesn't it follow that it is up to the mother to decide

If you crash someone else's car is it your choice whether you should pay for the damage or not? If you kill someone is it your choice whether you are tried for murder.

My point is simply this:

The woman's actions have resulted in pregnancy, which has created a new life. In that instance she surrenders her own right to do what she will with her body because she is carrying a child.

That is, however, only a secondary arguement. Far more important is the fact that the child is not responsible for it's own existance and being totally blameless and helpless its rights should come before anyone else's.

Well, inconvenience in this case were of the more severe class, you know were the woman suffers a mental breakdown (or is very close to one) and gets pregnant around that period.

It might be a fair point, except it is in no way the child's fault.

As to the case of the seven year old boy the doctors clearly said it had developed into a tumor and was no longer alive. So unless they're lieing you aren't even talking about a living human being, in the same way as someone who is brain-dead is no longer alive.

I stand by my original judgement.

Marshal Murat

03-25-2007, 16:15

I think that we should have a jury of 12 peers decide.

It's fair, balanced, and unbiased.
Its the American way of shifting responsibility from the girl to a panel of 12 people who could care less.

CrossLOPER

03-25-2007, 20:08

In before thread lock-down.

If you crash someone else's car is it your choice whether you should pay for the damage or not? If you kill someone is it your choice whether you are tried for murder.

You don't have to care and tend for the car and spend tens of thousands of dollars raising it for the next twenty years and deal with any "handicaps" it may have.

As for the second example, I guess you can say that raising a child or multiple children with critically limited resources is like a life sentence.

Tribesman

03-25-2007, 20:49

The woman's actions have resulted in pregnancy, which has created a new life. In that instance she surrenders her own right to do what she will with her body because she is carrying a child.

bollox . I want that woman out there where she belongs , pulling calfs and digging spuds when she is about to drop the sprog . And cooking , cleaning , and minding the kids and not complaining about it either , she is only pregnant after all , she doesn't have any rights .

Though seriously , if she surrenders her rights then can we have some legislation to make it illegal for her to drink , smoke , eat crap , take any substance that may possibly be harmful or partake of any activity that may not be good for whats inside her ?

Then again since there are people that will say her rights disappear at the moment of conception which is when they define a new life as starting , can we take it that just to be on the safe side she has no rights once she has sex . Because even if she uses contraception it isn't guarnteed so she might well be pregnant after sex and it is better to err on the side of caution .

We could propose this as a slogan for the old chastity brigade , "don't have sex or you lose your rights" , kinda catchy yet concise innit :yes:

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-25-2007, 21:17

In before thread lock-down.

You don't have to care and tend for the car and spend tens of thousands of dollars raising it for the next twenty years and deal with any "handicaps" it may have.

As for the second example, I guess you can say that raising a child or multiple children with critically limited resources is like a life sentence.

If it really is that much trouble and you can't look after it that would be where adoption comes in, which isn't an easy decision.

What you're saying though is, "My child costs too much/is inconvenient. I think I'll kill it." That would be infanticide if it's a baby, but not if it's still inside the womb.

The position is inconsistant.

The only consistant postions either recognise the rights of the mother or the rights of the child as paramount. So either you allow abortions up until birth or you don't allow them at all.

Tribesman, you are taking it beyond the nth degree. Yes, I suppose that is the extreme. What I am saying however I that she has taken a decision which has created anew life. The rights of that new life should be preferenced over the rights of the mother as long as the child is biologically dependant on the mother's body. I.e. until birth.

Kralizec

03-25-2007, 21:54

You don't fiddle with natural rights. They are self-evident and inalienable, and they apply whether 'we' acknowledge them or not.

Did you put "natural, unalienable rights" there just to annoy American conservatives, or do you sincerely believe that they exist and support your argument?

I support rights for first trimester abortions because I think women should have the opportunity to abort an accidental pregnancy, but late-term abortions are vile. I don't think people (that is, women) are 100% sovereign over anything that goes on in their own bodies because at some point we have to conclude that there's another person to consider. The decision must be taken in a reasonable time. I think 3 months is reasonable.

EDIT: stupid typo

Tribesman

03-26-2007, 00:35

Tribesman, you are taking it beyond the nth degree.
Of course , but there is still logic in the seriousish part of the post .

Yes, I suppose that is the extreme.
Thats the thing about the abortion issue , it tends to get to the extremes very easily .
So with the title issue , how on earth can you force someone to view the ultrasound scan ? how can you determine if they have viewed it sufficiently ?
What do you do if the ultrasound is just a blurry mess , do you have to bring them back again and again ?
Its a crap law that is proposed .
Much like the attempts overhere to ban people going abroad for abortions , how on earth was that supposed to work unless you give every woman a pregnancy test before they are allowed to travel and then stop them if its positive just in case they are going for an abortion and not another reason .:dizzy2:

CrossLOPER

03-26-2007, 04:22

If it really is that much trouble and you can't look after it that would be where adoption comes in, which isn't an easy decision.
Right, so you force the woman to have a child, and then force her to give it up. Fantastic idea! Also, let's completely ignore the fact that the adoption process is horribly flawed.

What you're saying though is, "My child costs too much/is inconvenient. I think I'll kill it." That would be infanticide if it's a baby, but not if it's still inside the womb.
Yep.

The position is inconsistant.

The only consistant postions either recognise the rights of the mother or the rights of the child as paramount. So either you allow abortions up until birth or you don't allow them at all.
You are equating a non-functioning lump of cells to a fully-functional infant. This is called "gray area". It appears when you understand that there is no one singular, solid answer to all variables to a problem.

Ironside

03-26-2007, 08:13

As to the case of the seven year old boy the doctors clearly said it had developed into a tumor and was no longer alive. So unless they're lieing you aren't even talking about a living human being, in the same way as someone who is brain-dead is no longer alive.

I stand by my original judgement.

So what makes an embryo (that's incapable to survive outside it's host and lacks a brain) alive?

Or to be more correct, replace alive with a human being, as they're alive, but currently not in a condition were even a somewhat normal life can be sustained.

Incongruous

03-26-2007, 10:17

If you crash someone else's car is it your choice whether you should pay for the damage or not? If you kill someone is it your choice whether you are tried for murder.

My point is simply this:

The woman's actions have resulted in pregnancy, which has created a new life. In that instance she surrenders her own right to do what she will with her body because she is carrying a child.

That really is pathetic and a rather disgusting view.
She loses her right to control her body? Uhuh...
Perhaps the man should also lose control of his penis, to prevent him from procreating with more than one female.
Keep it in a nice jar above the fireplace maybe.

BDC

03-26-2007, 10:29

That really is pathetic and a rather disgusting view.
She loses her right to control her body? Uhuh...
Perhaps the man should also lose control of his penis, to prevent him from procreating with more than one female.
Keep it in a nice jar above the fireplace maybe.
It's all too tempting. Men should have sperm frozen at 18, then have penis cut off. Problems all solved in one.

Hang on, the male legislators don't like that?

Incongruous

03-26-2007, 10:52

Its don't matter if they do not like it.

IMAGINE ALL THE GREAT MINDS WE HAVE LOST!

im sorry, but that will never get old. Thanks SFTS.

AntiochusIII

03-26-2007, 11:06

The "girl is at fault" attitude displayed here rather sickens me. Shouldn't we really be all past that by now, that loosely dressed women are responsible for the rape scenario?

I'm not entirely sure how self-proclaimed libertarians would support such a measure as this, clearly a cheap political stunt designed to reach the headlines and...excuse my direct rudeness...show the idiocy of those actually fall for it and support the measure. (The measure in question is the thread's opener; not, say, an abortion ban, which is a related but not entirely the same issue). This is plain intimidation period, and if somehow implemented would become the same laughing stock of the world that the whole sorry Kansas Creationism affair had been.

As for the whole Abortion issue...in such a medically and morally unclear and, indeed, very personal issue such as this, is it really a good idea for the State to legislate upon morality?

I see here examples that are assuming a lot. She has other choices. She shouldn't have done it. She is responsible; no, she is irresponsible. She brought it upon herself. All these are illustrated in various scenarios offered in support of the ban. Is "she" really all this, always, in all case?

Creating a ban is legislating, inherently implying the State's -- spoken in society's name -- position. Allowing is not the same as approving; it gives freedom to abort but is also to not abort. For me, I'd say let it be; let "her" decide, with "him" perhaps, should "he" be there.

Think of it as the Prohibition. I despise alcohol and will always be...do you think I find the Amendment and the moral crusade behind it "righteous?"

Adrian II

03-26-2007, 12:36

Did you put "natural, unalienable rights" there just to annoy American conservatives, or do you sincerely believe that they exist and support your argument?Life, freedom and the pursuit of selfinterest are basic requirements for the human to exist as such. To deny them would be absurd. That is what makes them self-evident. I respect and acknowledge all other rights in so far as they are logically derived from these three. The right to dispose of one's own body derives directly from the right to freedom. For what is freedom, if it does not encompass the right to act (and thus use one's body) according to one's own preference?

Opponents of this freedom justify their anti-abortionist stance with all sorts of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo and self-invented legal or religious principles. Christians in particular justify their stance with sentimental arguments that have no basis whatsoever in biblical injunctions. In the old testament God even orders abortions, and the killing of pregnant women is explicitly or implicitly justified. The Talmud acknowledges the right to abortion and the ancient Jews did not look upon children under the age of one month as persons, not even for census purposes.

In the Christian era there has never been a unified religious stance on abortion until the nineteenth century. Prior to that abortion was not considered murder but at most a minor felony, and the fetus was not considered a legal person by Christians. Only when birth control and falling birth rates among (white) Christians became a problem for the Churches did abortion become the politicised and sentimentalised issue that it is today.

P.S. Bopa, imagine al the Hitlers we have pre-empted! ~;)

Incongruous

03-26-2007, 14:06

Exactly! It's disgusting that we didn't allow them to mature and give them full due procees within the legal system, as is their right as individuals.

Our stance on the rights of individuals to a fair trial in no way infringes upon our view that women lose control over their bodies once impregnated. It's a completley different thing!

BDC

03-26-2007, 14:17

Personally I feel for those who were never conceived because their stressed out single mothers couldn't fit in more family-making.

Banquo's Ghost

03-26-2007, 14:27

Perhaps we could refrain from going too far down the route of mocking other people's opinions.

The abortion debate is always fraught with emotion and we are discussing people's very dearly held views.

Sensitivity to one's opponent is, I think, a good aspiration here.

:bow:

Incongruous

03-26-2007, 14:32

Personally I feel for those who were never conceived because their stressed out single mothers couldn't fit in more family-making.
:laugh4:

Anyway, you are right BG:shame:

Seamus Fermanagh

03-26-2007, 14:47

Actually, BG, I would recommend closure.

The proposed law has been discussed: its morality, its validity, its likelihood to survive review.

Eloquent summaries of the basic issues from the pro-choice "side" have been made. AdrianII in particular has concisely put those views in play: Not life in an independent and rights-deserving sense until born; government legislating morality always a touchy proposition; choice to abort a derivation of the basic right of individual freedom.

The same can be said for the pro-life "side." Life viewed as beginning at conception makes abortion immoral -- exceptions being few from this perspective.

Further discussion would be circular. It's been fairly politely done this round, I'd call it finished and label it a success.

Kralizec

03-26-2007, 15:04

Adrian: nevertheless, I think you'll agree that a persons right to live overrides another person's property right of say, a car. If someone's dying and can't wait for an ambulance to take him to a hospital, a responsible person will commandeer your car and no-one will blame him.
And if you were in a position to save someone from drowning but you didn't want to ruin your expensive armani suit by plunging into foul water, an appeal to "pursuit of self-interest" won't save you from jail.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-26-2007, 20:21

Right, so you force the woman to have a child, and then force her to give it up. Fantastic idea! Also, let's completely ignore the fact that the adoption process is horribly flawed.

No, I'm not forcing her to do anything. I'm simply saying that there are other options.

Yep.

That is a morally inconsistant position.

You are equating a non-functioning lump of cells to a fully-functional infant. This is called "gray area". It appears when you understand that there is no one singular, solid answer to all variables to a problem.

I don't do grey moral areas, either its a child from the moment of conception or it's not a child until it's born. Those are the only two morally consistant opinions I can see. Grey areas are just shadows, they're a way of not making up your mind. As far as I'm concerned there's no such thing as "a little bit wrong" in this case.

So what makes an embryo (that's incapable to survive outside it's host and lacks a brain) alive?

Or to be more correct, replace alive with a human being, as they're alive, but currently not in a condition were even a somewhat normal life can be sustained.

I could say a soul but that has no place in this arguement and I don't know if you have a soul until you draw breath. That would depend on who you ask. Quite simply nothing MAKES it a person at that stage. The important point is that I can't say when it does become a person. With that inside I'd rather err on the side of caution.

I.e. I'd rather save a group of cells than kill a child. Therefore I have to treat the group of cells in the same way as a child.

That really is pathetic and a rather disgusting view.
She loses her right to control her body? Uhuh...
Perhaps the man should also lose control of his penis, to prevent him from procreating with more than one female.
Keep it in a nice jar above the fireplace maybe.

She sacrifices her right to control her body in order to protect the rights of her unborn child. As a Adrian pointed out life is right number one. As I said before ultimately all these arguements are smoke and mirrors. A woman is responsible for what she does, we hold men responsible for getting women pregnant. However, this and every other arguement is secondary.

Also, if you wish to insult me please come up with something more fitting. Cruel, heartless, hard-hearted, insensetive would all be good insults.

(Note: This is not inflamatory, I simply think the insults leveled at me are rather baffling)

[quote=The "girl is at fault" attitude displayed here rather sickens me. Shouldn't we really be all past that by now, that loosely dressed women are responsible for the rape scenario?[/quote]

Ultimately I think that the man is equally responsible for the pregnancny, he is fortunate enough not to have to carry the consequences for nine months, however. If I ever said that rape victims were "asking for it" please point me to the remark and I will happily kill myself. I have had a friend who was raped, and she most certainly was not asking for it.

Nor do I "blame" women and that implies recrimination.

AdrianII, since I seem to be the only anti-abortionist left am I to assume you consider me an opponent of the freems you mentioned?

My response, if so, is this. I agree with your position entirely, except that where you preference the rights of the mother I preference those of the child. This is my only concern and the only real point in my arguement. Were I to preference the rights of the mother I would agree with you completely.

I would like to register my great respect for you and the moral integrity of your position.

Adrian II

03-26-2007, 20:43

AdrianII, since I seem to be the only anti-abortionist left am I to assume you consider me an opponent of the freems you mentioned?To be honest, I haven't counted. ~;)

But the respect is mutual, Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla. And after my rather militant remarks about Christianity I am happy to let others have the last word, particularly in view of Seamus' wise remarks.

CrossLOPER

03-26-2007, 21:14

No, I'm not forcing her to do anything. I'm simply saying that there are other options.
Still, you should probably have nothing to do with that decision unless you are the mother.

That is a morally inconsistant position.
Which stage are you talking about?

I don't do grey moral areas, either its a child from the moment of conception or it's not a child until it's born. Those are the only two morally consistant opinions I can see. Grey areas are just shadows, they're a way of not making up your mind. As far as I'm concerned there's no such thing as "a little bit wrong" in this case.
So... you are equating a formless lump of cells to a human being? Alright, so the lump of cells has more rights than the mother?

In any case, life usually continues after birth. So if you are going to be for banning or strictly limiting abortions, you should probably also consider providing some sort of aid to the mother.

Louis VI the Fat

03-26-2007, 21:25

As abortion threads go, this one has been quite polite and succesful. But I disagree with Seamus: this thread isn't over yet.

For me, this isn't about being pro or anti abortion. Even if I would be against, I could still see myself maintaining this is an unjust law. For me, and to several others in this thread as well, this is about the state not infringing upon human dignity.

AdrianII, with some rethorical finesse, invoked inalieable human rights such as life, liberty and the pursuit of selfinterest to protect the right of abortion. On top of that, or instead of that and disregarding abortion itself, I would invoke the human rights as theorised by Avishai Margalit's (http://www.amazon.com/Decent-Society-Avishai-Margalit/dp/0674194373) concept of a decent society. He theorises that one of the crucial elements of a 'decent society' is that no institution humiliates people. And precisly that is what this law does. It is moral blackmail, spite, a gross intrusion of the emotional privacy of women in an unenviable situation. A foot planted firmly in the face of somebody who's already down.

Down to the last detail, an overly theoretical and abstract elaboration of exactly what would and would not comprise a decent society. In his seminal work A Theory of Justice, John Rawls postulated an ideal Kantian society designed along strict equalitarian lines. As a philosophical construct, it has been enormously influential. But in practical terms it has stood just a bit too far above the wicked ways of man. So, as a kind of compromise, Margalit (Philosophy/Hebrew Univ., Israel) offers a slightly more realizable societal framework, one in which ``institutions do not humiliate people.'' Roughly modeled on George Orwell's passionate brand of humanitarian socialism, this is the decent society, the next best thing to Rawls's ideal society.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-26-2007, 22:13

Still, you should probably have nothing to do with that decision unless you are the mother.

About adoption? I'm not going to force a woman to give up her child, unless she is really harming it. In which case I have to protect the child.

Which stage are you talking about?

More responding to your grey area than anything. The grey area is real, and medical, not moral.

So... you are equating a formless lump of cells to a human being? Alright, so the lump of cells has more rights than the mother?

In any case, life usually continues after birth. So if you are going to be for banning or strictly limiting abortions, you should probably also consider providing some sort of aid to the mother.

No, the mother has the same rights. However, the child's rights need to be protected because it is innocent, helpless and because if they aren't protected it dies. It's life is blotted out, the end. Pregnancy will not, normally, end the life of the mother.

As to equating a group of cells with a child, show me the moment it becomes a person and I will reconsider my view. Until that time I have to consider from conception the only truely safe point.

Oh, and in Britain we have child support.

Adrian::2thumbsup:

Whacker

03-26-2007, 22:40

AdrianII, with some rethorical finesse, invoked inalieable human rights such as life, liberty and the pursuit of selfinterest to protect the right of abortion. On top of that, or instead of that and disregarding abortion itself, I would invoke the human rights as theorised by Avishai Margalit's (http://www.amazon.com/Decent-Society-Avishai-Margalit/dp/0674194373) concept of a decent society. He theorises that one of the crucial elements of a 'decent society' is that no institution humiliates people. And precisly that is what this law does. It is moral blackmail, spite, a gross intrusion of the emotional privacy of women in an unenviable situation. A foot planted firmly in the face of somebody who's already down.

Well said. This is exactly what this law is, simply another push by the conservative religious right (sorry, that's simply what it is, for those of you won't don't live in this area of the US, which I do) trying to find another "hole in the armor" to slip in more legislated moral nonsense.

As for this thread, I think this horse carcass has been kicked as much as it can. Probably should be put to bed in the very near future.

:balloon2: