March For Life

[ICantSpellDawg]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_for_Life

Held yesterday and every 22nd of January since 1973

I've been to a number of these and I wonder: Why does it get NO media coverage even though it is considered the most widely attended annual march on Washington every year? Reagan spoke at them, G.H.W. Bush spoke at them - George W. Bush spoke yesterday. Still, I had to read about it in a small sub category on BBC because neither Fox news nor CNN had anything come up on the main pages.

The Idea that a law exists banning democratic dialogue of a deeply polarizing issue and hundreds of thousands march, year after year, for a cause that they view as fundamental to the protection of life and liberty in this country - and it gets NO coverage?

Please explain this to me, regardless of where you stand on the issue. I'm at a loss.

[drone]

Is that why traffic was so screwed up yesterday?


I'm assuming it gets no press because it happens every year for over 30 years. Nothing new to report, nothing sexy or gritty. :shrug:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Is that why traffic was so screwed up yesterday?


I'm assuming it gets no press because it happens every year for over 30 years. Nothing new to report, nothing sexy or gritty. :shrug:

Elections are held every 4 years. Tons of coverage (understandably so)

People rally agaisnt the war in Iraq - tons of coverage

the Superbowl is played every year.



I think that people would be interested to realize that our numbers are growing every year. I think that if people knew what the movement was about; Human life and suppression of democracy - they would be very interested.

[Ronin]

I'm assuming it gets no press because it happens every year for over 30 years. Nothing new to report, nothing sexy or gritty. :shrug:


I´d agree that´s most likely it...because this seems like it´s right up Fox News´s alley.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I´d agree that´s most likely it...because this seems like it´s right up Fox News´s alley.

That's why I like BBC - they report what happens, not just what they think matters. If you look up the key words "march for life", on MSNBC, CNN or Fox news - you won't find anything written by them since 2006 (fox). American Media is a crock.

[TinCow]

The Idea that a law exists banning democratic dialogue of a deeply polarizing issue and hundreds of thousands march, year after year, for a cause that they view as fundamental to the protection of life and liberty in this country - and it gets NO coverage?

Please explain this to me, regardless of where you stand on the issue. I'm at a loss.

I don't think I quite understand. What laws bans democratic dialogue on the issue of abortion?

[ICantSpellDawg]

I don't think I quite understand. What laws bans democratic dialogue on the issue of abortion?

I'm sorry - Democratic dialogue through the legislative branch

The Federal Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision became the law of the land, even if it had nothing to do with the legislative process. Along with Doe v Bolton, They effectively mandated that abortion on demand must be available regardless of the laws on the books or legislative action in the future. Their definition of fetal "viability" was relative (you have to remember that this was decided before ultrasound) and their definition of "Mother's health" was extremely relative - allowing any woman to terminate her pregnancy at any time during the 3 trimesters for any reason at all. All they had to say is that they really really wanted it.

This is scary, not only because it states that a mothers convenience is more important than the life of her child, but because it set a trend in the judiciary to create laws arbitrarily - not a function of the Judicial branch. The actors "Roe", "Doe" and the founder of NARAL (all of whom are now PRO-LIFE activists) said that the cases were a sham and meant only to affect policy at that precise point in time when they believed the justices would be sympathetic. They also say that they were lied to across the board.

The reason that Europeans don't hear about this issue much is because they had the opportunity to regulate abortions by making laws through a democratic process. We aren't allowed to do that until the court decision is overruled.

I just wish that people would get up in arms about this. It affects all of us here, regardless of you take on the issue.

[Caius]

Please explain this to me, regardless of where you stand on the issue. I'm at a loss.

MEdia covers the success that spread panic between the population, or are common. Specially CNN. They spread terror when the country fights terror.

[TinCow]

I'm sorry - Democratic dialogue through the legislative branch.

Roe v. Wade has done nothing of the sort. The legislative branch has absolute power over any SCOTUS decision: Constitutional Amendment. The simple fact that an Amendment does not have enough support to get through Congress does not mean that legislative dialog has been silence on the issue. Even if Congress itself was deadlocked, it could be bypassed through a Constitutional Convention by the states themselves. The current situation has nothing to do with a ban on democratic dialog and everything to do with the Pro-Life campaign having insufficient support to pass an Amendment.

[drone]

Elections are held every 4 years. Tons of coverage (understandably so)

People rally agaisnt the war in Iraq - tons of coverage

the Superbowl is played every year.
Elections - new candidates, scandals, and issues, hence the coverage, actual result/closure is guaranteed

Iraq war rallies - still kinda hot, but cooling down as an issue

Superbowl - definitely overhyped, but different teams and storylines every year, actual result/closure is guaranteed

March for Life - same issue, same people (or type of people), no apparent end to the discussion = meh.

Excuse my offtopic rant for a bit, but I would appreciate it if rebels with causes would stop organizing Mall rallies. As a resident of the greater DC area, I can truly say that all they do is snarl traffic and piss people off. They get news coverage (sometimes) but they don't solve anything and are so cliched now it's pathetic. The 60s and 70s are over, man, time to come up with a new idea. :hippie:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Roe v. Wade has done nothing of the sort. The legislative branch has absolute power over any SCOTUS decision: Constitutional Amendment. The simple fact that an Amendment does not have enough support to get through Congress does not mean that legislative dialog has been silence on the issue. Even if Congress itself was deadlocked, it could be bypassed through a Constitutional Convention by the states themselves. The current situation has nothing to do with a ban on democratic dialog and everything to do with the Pro-Life campaign having insufficient support to pass an Amendment.

The idea is this - The Supreme court didn't have enough cause to rule in that direction at the time. They cited rules of privacy that did not exist in the amendments used and, even if they did, should not have trumped life.

A two thirds majority for an amendment is what we need? That is Judicial activism at its worst. Why don't they just rule how they'd every issue to pan out? The Legislative branch should be required to justify itself to the Supreme court each time. Unacceptable. When Congress is deadlocked the issues should be defaulted to the states in general.

Do you believe that this is reasonable? Was it truly a good move? Does it strengthen the Union, does it protect the lives of those affected by its decision?

[rvg]

The idea is this - The Supreme court didn't have enough cause to rule in that direction at the time...

The judges certainly thought the cause was sufficient and I happen to agree with them. As Tincow pointed out, if the people *really* want to see a blanket ban on abortions, it can be done via the amendment that the SC will not be able overturn. Clearly, not enough people want such an amendment, which imho is a good thing.

[TinCow]

Do you believe that this is reasonable? Was it truly a good move? Does it strengthen the Union, does it protect the lives of those affected by its decision?

I make no comment at all regarding whether the decision in Roe v. Wade was correct or not. I have no intention of discussing that in the Org backroom. I am simply stating that you are incorrect in saying that SCOTUS bans legislative discussion on an issue. You are using the Constitution itself to show how their actions are unfair to the population, but the Constitution itself provides a specific means of overcoming just such an block. SCOTUS has been overruled in just such a manner before, most significantly in Dred Scott v. Sandford. The system works if it is used properly.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I make no comment at all regarding whether the decision in Roe v. Wade was correct or not. I have no intention of discussing that in the Org backroom. I am simply stating that you are incorrect in saying that SCOTUS bans legislative discussion on an issue. You are using the Constitution itself to show how their actions are unfair to the population, but the Constitution itself provides a specific means of overcoming just such an block. SCOTUS has been overruled in just such a manner before, most significantly in Dred Scott v. Sandford. The system works if it is used properly.

If used properly is the key.

I maintain, as do many SCOTUS justices and people who follow their verdicts, that Roe was an example of Judicial activism and had no real foundation in the Constitution.

I favor a repeal of that verdict as a better way to deal with the issue, on either a State or Federal Legislative level. Do you agree that we can find a compromise? In my opinion, a belief that we can't is a disbelief in the efficacy of the legislative process to decide our laws.

Where will you discuss this issue. The floor of the House?

[ICantSpellDawg]

The judges certainly thought the cause was sufficient and I happen to agree with them. As Tincow pointed out, if the people *really* want to see a blanket ban on abortions, it can be done via the amendment that the SC will not be able overturn. Clearly, not enough people want such an amendment, which imho is a good thing.

But what if some people don't want to see a blanket Ban, what if they want a compromise that can actually get through the House and Senate? OR what if they want to deal with these things on the State level?

[TinCow]

The floor of the House is the proper and traditional place to introduce a Constitutional Amendment, so yes. All you need to do is convince one Congressman to propose it, and suddenly you've got your legislative debate. Clean and simple and exactly by the book.

On a more practical level, it also appears to be almost certain the a Republican presidential victory in 2008 would also result in an overturning of Roe v. Wade. Stevens most certainly will not last until 2012, so if a Republican becomes the next President, he will have an iron-clad method of doing so. Once Stevens is replaced, then you simply need to bring a new abortion case before the Court, which shouldn't be too hard.

I just don't see how the abortion discussion has been stifled in any way by the judiciary branch. It's been one of, if not the, most important social issues in American politics since the 1970s. Every single President has been on one side or the other. I bet every single Congressman is on one side or the other. It is an issue in every Federal election in this country. How is the discussion being stifled?


But what if some people don't want to see a blanket Ban, what if they want a compromise that can actually get through the House and Senate? OR what if they want to deal with these things on the State level?

A Constitutional Amendment does not have to be a blanket ban on abortion. It can be anything you want it to be. There is nothing stopping anyone from coming up with a compromise and passing it as an Amendment.

[ICantSpellDawg]

The best route for everybody is an overturning of the decision with a moratorium until a conclusion can be worked out on a State by State basis. I would even stop complaining for a Federal compromise.

We run into problems when issues are strong armed.

By the By - we do have the popular support with regards to much more regulation, but the House Democrats have become increasingly more loyal to the NARAL and Planned Parenthood lobbyists (among others). It is a disproportionate representation. People become more pro-life, Democratic party leaders become more pro-choice. They wouldn't let any amendment go through.

I think that you know that.

[doc_bean]

The debate is over 30years old. The match is not new, shocking, worrying, funny or anything else that would make it get screentime. It's just not News(tm).

[TinCow]

By the By - we do have the popular support with regards to much more regulation, but the House Democrats have become increasingly more loyal to the NARAL and Planned Parenthood lobbyists (among others). It is a disproportionate representation. People become more pro-life, Democratic party leaders become more pro-choice. They wouldn't let any amendment go through.

I think that you know that.

I fully agree that in the current situation a Constitutional Amendment would have absolutely no chance of passing. In reality, that is why it never gets discussed in the legislature: it's pointless. There are not enough votes to overturn it via Constitutional Amendment, so they don't waste time on the issue. That is sensible, as I would prefer to have our government working on things it can change rather than things it cannot change. In contrast, abortion is a major and often-discussed issue in all previous (and current) Presidential campaigns, as the President's ability to appoint SCOTUS justices directly impacts the result. In that area debate occurs because it is useful and pertinent.

I do disagree with your statements about further regulation being stifled. The partial birth abortion ban was passed and recently upheld by SCOTUS, who found that it did not conflict with Roe v. Wade. In addition, Roe specifically allows for individual states to impose other restrictions on abortion, such as parental notification for minors, mandatory waiting periods, and mandatory counseling. In addition, the states are also free to regulate the legality of second and third trimester abortions. In practical terms, the only thing the states cannot do is ban first trimester abortions. Thus, the system already allows for a great deal of leeway and regulation on a state level if the people wish it. Since many, many states have adopted these restrictions, the system seems to be working properly to me.

[Papewaio]

By the By - we do have the popular support with regards to much more regulation, but the House Democrats have become increasingly more loyal to the NARAL and Planned Parenthood lobbyists (among others). It is a disproportionate representation. People become more pro-life, Democratic party leaders become more pro-choice. They wouldn't let any amendment go through.

Then use the democratic process and vote in enough pro-life congressmen rather then pro-choice congresswomen er men. :clown:

I think after 30 years one can expect that it is condisdered by the silent majority to be the norm. You need to invigorate them in a manner that will not alienate them.

Also a march that increases in number over the years isn't really that great a thing as population levels (despite abortion) do grow and most events that are popular are growing at faster levels then the march.

Also the march doesn't fullfill the cardinal rule of news... that it is new.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Then use the democratic process and vote in enough pro-life congressmen rather then pro-choice congresswomen er men. :clown:

I think after 30 years one can expect that it is condisdered by the silent majority to be the norm. You need to invigorate them in a manner that will not alienate them.

Also a march that increases in number over the years isn't really that great a thing as population levels (despite abortion) do grow and most events that are popular are growing at faster levels then the march.

Also the march doesn't fullfill the cardinal rule of news... that it is new.

Right. I am trying to invigorate them to elect pro-life representatives in all areas of government. New Yorkers have a particular antipathy to pro-lifers and it is something that I strive to overcome when we start talking about the election. I won't vote for candidates who are pro-abortion unless they support the overturning of Roe v. Wade. (which a number of people do).

I wish that the Democratic party would be open to the idea - as so many of their constituents are.

[Papewaio]

Problem is that with politics people vote for what is most important to them right now.

Yes 3 years ago they could have been screaming at the same government over issue B, but right now there most important issue A is what they are supporting.

And that is another thing, prioritisation. Not only do people have to care about something, but it is horse trading. They will have to have it as one of their top 5 issues and in a close race where the contenders are similar in a lot of issues, then the voters have to have anti-abortion as number 1 otherwise another issue will swamp it.

Imaginary Voter:
List of priorities

1) Tax cut in half for his pay bracket.
2) Increase in the Surge and better body armour for troops.
3) Better servers and access for all to the Org.
4) Higher literacy rates for young children.
5) Anti-abortion

If two options are held before him at the elections and the first one is:
1) Yes
2) Yes,
3) Yes,
4) Yes,
5) No
vs option two.
1) No,
2) Yes,
3) Yes,
4) Yes,
5) Yes.

His priorities place 1) as number one, everything is secondary. So he ends up voting for his tax cuts and hoping one day to get a 5 x Y.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I agree. I keep it at #1 in principle so that nobody forgets about it. #2 is economy, #3 is Health Care, #4 is Defence.

I recently changed my #3 and #4 because i realized that there are other ways of getting people health care without the government running the show. (Similar to the way small businesses band together to buy larger group plans). Plus, I have a whole slew of deadly diseases that I'm sure will start to take their toll soon.

Defense is after economy because of the old guns vs butter argument.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I agree with the general response. There is little of the "man bites dog" left to the story and "dog bites man" rarely gets past the back pages.


Roe v Wade was a very poor decision in Constitutional terms, though many find it morally correct (I believe them to be wrong, but I'm a Right to Lifer).

Scott v Sandford was a reasonably good decision in Constitutional terms, though most of us -- and many at the time -- found it morally abhorent.

So, the SCOTUS has been wrong before -- for a variety of causes -- and will probably be so from time to time in the future. It is a human institution after all and none of us are flawless at all times in all things. On the whole, having the SCOTUS operating at a slightly more powerful level than originally envisioned by the framers seems to have worked reasonably well -- though I wouldn't mind a bit more legislative re-assertion from time to time. Still, it's too good a political cover to "let the court decide" so we'll be stuck with some lemons too.

Now, as to a 2008 GOP president setting the tone for the court, I am not quite so sanguine. A 2008 GOP president who does not come away from the elections with a 2-3% victory will be hamstrung in the Senate. No nominee of decisive passion opposing Wade is likely to get past the Senate -- they too will know the stakes. I believe the Senate is fully capable of stalling any nom of this importance until a milk-toast nominee is selected.

[Pannonian]

I believe the Senate is fully capable of stalling any nom of this importance until a milk-toast nominee is selected.
What does this term mean?

[woad&fangs]

Excuse my offtopic rant for a bit, but I would appreciate it if rebels with causes would stop organizing Mall rallies. As a resident of the greater DC area, I can truly say that all they do is snarl traffic and piss people off. They get news coverage (sometimes) but they don't solve anything and are so cliched now it's pathetic. The 60s and 70s are over, man, time to come up with a new idea. :hippie:

They should also stop dragging their kids along to their rallies. People that do that don't deserve to be parents. This pisses me off regardless of what side and issue is being represented.

Tuff, you're right. American "News" is a complete joke. I stopped watching it a long time ago.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

What does this term mean?

Somebody "without flavor." Smebody who will not rock the boat, who simply responds to the moment, with no particular agenda. Innoffensive but innocuous. Seen it spelled milque-tost.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Somebody "without flavor." Smebody who will not rock the boat, who simply responds to the moment, with no particular agenda. Innoffensive but innocuous. Seen it spelled milque-tost.I've seen it spelled as o-b-a-m-a...

[Lord Winter]

The idea is this - The Supreme court didn't have enough cause to rule in that direction at the time. They cited rules of privacy that did not exist in the amendments used and, even if they did, should not have trumped life.

There is the 9th addmendment to which the founders basicly put in as a catch all for any natural liberties that they didn't foresee. Now if this right to privacy extends to abortion may be dabateable but I think we can all agree that the founders would consider privacy itself as a natural right and thus coverable by the 9th addmendment.

Also the suprume court is checked by both the presidental appointment and congressional nomination thus it can at least get preaty close to the feeling of the times.

and then if all that fails theres the consituational addmendment like Tincow says.

[Lemur]

TuffStuff, the march got coverage here, in the National Catholic Weekly (http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?id=A71FC666-3048-887F-8FB1D7E36E7E5DE0). Not exactly MSM, but it's something, and there's lots and lots of Catholics. Sort of a bittersweet editorial, now that I read it ...

[ICantSpellDawg]

I fully agree.

The first comment is a good one;

Because in the end, they don't really care enough to be bothered with it.

Like slavery in America, which was opposed by the majority almost from day one, the Presidents and candidates played lip service to it. Too afraid to take a strong stance on ANYTHING so as not to get caught up in it.

It's telling that abortion has been an issue in every election since roe v. wade, yet not a single thing has been done about it. It is convenient to keep it a dividing issue to mask the lack of contrast between the two parties on most issues.

This is a huge issue and it needs to be addressed. Again, the tables are turning - more and more, people are coming over to the idea that something needs to be done. Ultrasound was a wakeup call.

[Strike For The South]

I'm not listening to anything that compares abortion to slavery. If you need to use that to win hearts and minds then you've already lost. Do I think abortion is abhorrent? yes but I have no right to govern your body or what you put in or take out of it. I can sit on my pedastal and raise hell. I can yell at women for there bad decisons I can yell at doctors for there poor ethics. I can go on the side of the highway and put up the 34 crosses for dead babies but it all means nothing. Even if the law changes abortions will still happen and at the same rate. For me this issue comes down to realism and idealism. In an ideal wrold every baby would be born and put up for adoption in the real wrold you're looking at 2 dead people instead of 1

[Mikeus Caesar]

I'm not listening to anything that compares abortion to slavery. If you need to use that to win hearts and minds then you've already lost. Do I think abortion is abhorrent? yes but I have no right to govern your body or what you put in or take out of it. I can sit on my pedastal and raise hell. I can yell at women for there bad decisons I can yell at doctors for there poor ethics. I can go on the side of the highway and put up the 34 crosses for dead babies but it all means nothing. Even if the law changes abortions will still happen and at the same rate. For me this issue comes down to realism and idealism. In an ideal wrold every baby would be born and put up for adoption in the real wrold you're looking at 2 dead people instead of 1

THANK YOU, VOICE OF REASON, THANK YOU.

Why am i so overjoyed at strike's statement? Because he says that despite finding it abhorrent, he realises he has no right to govern what other people do with their bodies, and also realises that abortions always happen, no matter what.

If only the rest of the world was like Strike, it would be a better place.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I'm not listening to anything that compares abortion to slavery. If you need to use that to win hearts and minds then you've already lost. Do I think abortion is abhorrent? yes but I have no right to govern your body or what you put in or take out of it. I can sit on my pedastal and raise hell. I can yell at women for there bad decisons I can yell at doctors for there poor ethics. I can go on the side of the highway and put up the 34 crosses for dead babies but it all means nothing. Even if the law changes abortions will still happen and at the same rate. For me this issue comes down to realism and idealism. In an ideal wrold every baby would be born and put up for adoption in the real wrold you're looking at 2 dead people instead of 1

First - Why is it abhorrent? If it is just a corrective operation, what is the big deal?

Second - Find me legitimate data to suggest historic abortion levels nearing those today.

Third - Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of NARAL, abortionist and main proponent of the Roe and Doe cases later changed his ways. He claimed the number of deaths linked to illegal abortions were "false figures" (http://www.aboutabortions.com/DrNathan.html)

Last - I think that the issue has quite a bit in common with the Slavery issue. Both problems originated in ones convenience trumping the life of another. I'd agree that this is an issue, very similar to the one posed in the early U.S. People came up with reasons why freeing the slaves was "bad for the economy", "Not fair to those who's businesses primarily used slaves", "Would only cause freed slaves pain because they wouldn't be able to find jobs or feed themselves".

I can use any similarities that I believe to be applicable.

Whenever the convenience of one is used as an excuse to de-humanize or murder another, that is our business and it has quite a bit in common with the major evils of our history. Why should we concern ourselves with Darfur, the Balkans, "future genocides"?

This is a balancing act - a womens body and another human being overlap and sovereignty is in question. I realize that, but the current laws pretend that it really isn't an issue and that your humanity and life depend on your location.

[Lemur]

I see The New Republic (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=8256a205-307d-4a16-af04-34b5ede2050e) also has coverage of the march.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I see The New Republic (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=8256a205-307d-4a16-af04-34b5ede2050e) also has coverage of the march.

The page didn't load.

Ron Paul was at the March as it turns out. The President delivered a speech. Hundreds of thousands of marchers. An election year where abortion plays a major part. That makes it news.

and No MSM coverage.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Strike:

The comparison was not of abortion to slavery but of one Supreme Court decision to another.

You'll note that my comment was strictly on that level.



Mikeus:

Using Pro-Choice data, there have been more than 30 million abortions in the United States since the legalization of Roe v Wade. :shame: Compare the growth in US population (not from immigration) and you can discern some of its effect. To argue that legalization has not impacted the rate of occurrence for that procedure flies in the face of data.

Did abortions occur in the USA prior to Roe v Wade? Yes.

Would abortions occur in the USA were Roe v Wade overturned? Yes. The issue would be remanded back to the individual states to decide. A number of them would keep the procedure legal.

Would abortions occur in the USA were all abortions made illegal? Yes. But to argue that the rate of occurrence would remain roughly the same is spurious.


Your basic point -- the idea that legislating morality for others is poor law -- has a lot of merit. However, all laws, to some extent, do just that and are necessary for the regulation of a society. Moreover, most societies have exercised the principle that human life is the "property" of THAT individual.

Therefore, for those of us who believe in the concept of a soul and that the child-to-be is imbued with a soul from the moment of conception, we MUST oppose abortion for precisely the same reason you claim to support it -- no other has a right to take that individual's life from them. Obviously, there are many who do not share that definition of life, and therefore construe a different result vis-a-vis abortion from the same principle.

[Whacker]

Therefore, for those of us who believe in the concept of a soul and that the child-to-be is imbued with a soul from the moment of conception, we MUST oppose abortion for precisely the same reason you claim to support it -- no other has a right to take that individual's life from them. Obviously, there are many who do not share that definition of life, and therefore construe a different result vis-a-vis abortion from the same principle.

And I would be one of the adamant pro-choice people, because I believe what you outlined in bold and reject the underlined statement. And I have and will continue to fight you pro-lifers every step of the way.

:bow:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Strike:

The comparison was not of abortion to slavery but of one Supreme Court decision to another.

You'll note that my comment was strictly on that level.



Mikeus:

Using Pro-Choice data, there have been more than 30 million abortions in the United States since the legalization of Roe v Wade. :shame: Compare the growth in US population (not from immigration) and you can discern some of its effect. To argue that legalization has not impacted the rate of occurrence for that procedure flies in the face of data.

Did abortions occur in the USA prior to Roe v Wade? Yes.

Would abortions occur in the USA were Roe v Wade overturned? Yes. The issue would be remanded back to the individual states to decide. A number of them would keep the procedure legal.

Would abortions occur in the USA were all abortions made illegal? Yes. But to argue that the rate of occurrence would remain roughly the same is spurious.


Your basic point -- the idea that legislating morality for others is poor law -- has a lot of merit. However, all laws, to some extent, do just that and are necessary for the regulation of a society. Moreover, most societies have exercised the principle that human life is the "property" of THAT individual.

Therefore, for those of us who believe in the concept of a soul and that the child-to-be is imbued with a soul from the moment of conception, we MUST oppose abortion for precisely the same reason you claim to support it -- no other has a right to take that individual's life from them. Obviously, there are many who do not share that definition of life, and therefore construe a different result vis-a-vis abortion from the same principle.

Right - most states would have abortion legal until the 3rd trimester. Some would allow it until the end of the first trimester. Some would allow it in the case of Rape or incest.

In the case of a necessary abortion to save the life of the mother ALL would have that. I wouldn't support one that didn't.

[TinCow]

Moreover, most societies have exercised the principle that human life is the "property" of THAT individual.


The United States plays lip service to this principle, but is far less open in practical terms. In this country the government can put to death people who want to live and prevent people who want to die from killing themselves. The government also heavily regulates what you can put into your body. Americans certainly own their own bodies in a property sense, but they cannot use that property as they wish in all situations. While technically the government does not interfere in personal ownership of the body, their limitations on use are essentially property limitations which impact ownership. Your physical body belongs to you, but your life/existence itself does not, since you are not free to do with it what you wish.

If you want to use the property law analogy, you own your body in fee simple, but the government has an irrevocable, lifetime easement on several aspects of its use. In property law, an easement is itself property. Thus, you would not own your entire body 'property' outright.

[ICantSpellDawg]

The United States plays lip service to this principle, but is far less open in practical terms. In this country the government can put to death people who want to live and prevent people who want to die from killing themselves. The government also heavily regulates what you can put into your body. Americans certainly own their own bodies in a property sense, but they cannot use that property as they wish in all situations. While technically the government does not interfere in personal ownership of the body, their limitations on use are essentially property limitations which impact ownership. Your physical body belongs to you, but your life/existence itself does not, since you are not free to do with it what you wish.

If you want to use the property law analogy, you own your body in fee simple, but the government has an irrevocable, lifetime easement on several aspects of its use. In property law, an easement is itself property. Thus, you would not own your entire body 'property' outright.

That doesn't help your argument, it just highlights that the U.S. legal system needs to be corrected over time. In fact, the whole idea of a "woman's body" should have never served their cause at the exclusion of ours - merely highlighted the issue. The same "Unborn child's body" argument could be made convincingly.

Listen, I like Ironing out the kinks in the system to make each individuals life and liberty as secure as possible. I don't believe that our current abortion laws do that because they de-humanize a large amount of people. People on the other side take a blind eye to unborn kids because they don't have to see them walking around town or feeling pain and stress.

[TinCow]

That doesn't help your argument, it just highlights that the U.S. legal system needs to be corrected over time. In fact, the whole idea of a "woman's body" should have never served their cause at the exclusion of ours - merely highlighted the issue. The same "Unborn child's body" argument could be made convincingly.

It's not my argument because I haven't made one. I am simply discussing the relevant laws as they exist in the US at this time. I still have made no comment on my opinion on the propriety of abortion. I am posting these things because there is a great deal of misunderstanding in the general population about what the laws are and what their rights are. Knowledge aids in decision making and it especially is useful when two sides want to reach a compromise, which you seem very keen on. Thus, I'm trying to help everyone by laying out the situation as it stands.

For instance, it is a common misconception that suicide is illegal. It is not. Attempted suicide remains a crime in a very small number of jurisdictions that rely on old English common law (where it was illegal). However, most jurisdictions have no criminal punishment for persons who attempt, or succeed, to take their own lives. The law simply prevents other people from aiding in the suicide attempt, and the resulting legal problems arise when people wish to commit suicide (which is, again, legal) but are unable to do so because of some physical disability. They are being, in essence, denied their right due to a handicap.

Similarly, the law generally does not prevent a person from using any substance of any kind, as that would be direct violation of a person's absolute ownership of their own body. The government has used a loophole to get around this, though: possession. It is not illegal to use a restricted substance (i.e. marijuana, cocaine, heroin), it is only illegal to possess it. However, since you have to "possess" the substance in order to use it, it effectively removes your right to use it since use is presumptive proof of possession.

It's no surprise that this country has so many lawyers. The laws have grown so complex and obtuse that they prevent a lay understanding.

[ICantSpellDawg]

It's not my argument because I haven't made one. I am simply discussing the relevant laws as they exist in the US at this time. I still have made no comment on my opinion on the propriety of abortion. I am posting these things because there is a great deal of misunderstanding in the general population about what the laws are and what their rights are. Knowledge aids in decision making and it especially is useful when two sides want to reach a compromise, which you seem very keen on. Thus, I'm trying to help everyone by laying out the situation as it stands.

For instance, it is a common misconception that suicide is illegal. It is not. Attempted suicide remains a crime in a very small number of jurisdictions that rely on old English common law (where it was illegal). However, most jurisdictions have no criminal punishment for persons who attempt, or succeed, to take their own lives. The law simply prevents other people from aiding in the suicide attempt, and the resulting legal problems arise when people wish to commit suicide (which is, again, legal) but are unable to do so because of some physical disability. They are being, in essence, denied their right due to a handicap.

Similarly, the law generally does not prevent a person from using any substance of any kind, as that would be direct violation of a person's absolute ownership of their own body. The government has used a loophole to get around this, though: possession. It is not illegal to use a restricted substance (i.e. marijuana, cocaine, heroin), it is only illegal to possess it. However, since you have to "possess" the substance in order to use it, it effectively removes your right to use it since use is presumptive proof of possession.

It's no surprise that this country has so many lawyers. The laws have grown so complex and obtuse that they prevent a lay understanding.

I appreciate the info and the attempt at impartiality.

The old adage that "ignorance is no defense" is so wrong. Most lawyers don't know even know certain laws. What is the alternative?

[Ironside]

Therefore, for those of us who believe in the concept of a soul and that the child-to-be is imbued with a soul from the moment of conception, we MUST oppose abortion for precisely the same reason you claim to support it -- no other has a right to take that individual's life from them. Obviously, there are many who do not share that definition of life, and therefore construe a different result vis-a-vis abortion from the same principle.

IMHO every argument of that "life" starts at a speciffic moment is either going down as absurd or hypocritical, making a pragmatic solution recommendable.

But anyway, what do you consider happening with the souls lost by an abotion, miscarriage or simular? Reborn? Condemn to hell, heaven, asphodel fields or whatever?

Would you disallow contrampments that doesn't allow the fertilized egg to attach to the uterus?

What's your opinion on that the natural rates of spontanous abortions (that according to wiki is about 25% of all pregnacies and considering the uncertaincy to determine the really early ones it's probably higher, and I doubt they even can count the ones that fail because the fertilized egg doesn't attach)? This one is really evil from the "a fertilized egg should have the same rights as a grown human" position.

Well uhm bit of a side track there.
TuffStuffMcGruff what do you suppose will happen if abortion is a state right and banned in pushed in state A, while allowed in state B, when a person travels to state B to get it done? No punishment? Extradiction (well according to some (all?) pro-lifers it's equal to murder)?

[Strike For The South]

First - Why is it abhorrent? If it is just a corrective operation, what is the big deal?

Second - Find me legitimate data to suggest historic abortion levels nearing those today.

Third - Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of NARAL, abortionist and main proponent of the Roe and Doe cases later changed his ways. He claimed the number of deaths linked to illegal abortions were "false figures" (http://www.aboutabortions.com/DrNathan.html)

Last - I think that the issue has quite a bit in common with the Slavery issue. Both problems originated in ones convenience trumping the life of another. I'd agree that this is an issue, very similar to the one posed in the early U.S. People came up with reasons why freeing the slaves was "bad for the economy", "Not fair to those who's businesses primarily used slaves", "Would only cause freed slaves pain because they wouldn't be able to find jobs or feed themselves".

I can use any similarities that I believe to be applicable.

Whenever the convenience of one is used as an excuse to de-humanize or murder another, that is our business and it has quite a bit in common with the major evils of our history. Why should we concern ourselves with Darfur, the Balkans, "future genocides"?

This is a balancing act - a womens body and another human being overlap and sovereignty is in question. I realize that, but the current laws pretend that it really isn't an issue and that your humanity and life depend on your location.

1. Its abhorrent becuase we're not sure what we're killing

2. http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/305689.aspx There at there lowest in 30 years.

3. They still happen not to mention the rate of infection or other diease figures.

4. Slavery and abortion are no where near applicable. Without the mother the "baby" cannot live black people can live without being enslaved at least I think.

To me this is an issue of all or none. Why is a baby a clump of cells at 12 weeks and a human child at 13? I guess it makes people feel better when the cant distinguish human features. I find it a dispicable and horrid act but I will not trample the rights of my fellow Americans to have my laws changed

[Xiahou]

What's your opinion on that the natural rates of spontanous abortions (that according to wiki is about 25% of all pregnacies and considering the uncertaincy to determine the really early ones it's probably higher, and I doubt they even can count the ones that fail because the fertilized egg doesn't attach)? This one is really evil from the "a fertilized egg should have the same rights as a grown human" position.This line of reasoning is a red herring. It has no bearing on the argument. People are constantly dying everywhere, that doesn't make any sort of justification for killing.



I find it a dispicable and horrid act but I will not trample the rights of my fellow Americans to have my laws changedSo you think abortion is murder, but don't think it's right to pass laws prohibiting people's "right" to murder?

[Lemur]

This line of reasoning is a red herring. It has no bearing on the argument. People are constantly dying everywhere, that doesn't make any sort of justification for killing.
Not entirely true. The only birth control method advocated by the Catholic Church, the rhythm method, is believed to be effective due to spontaneous abortion. In other words, sperm meets egg, egg meets uterus, but conditions ain't right, so the dividing cells get knocked loose. If you are an absolutist who believes that life begins at conception, you should be even angrier about the rhythm method than state-assisted abortion. Even a back-of-the-envelope estimate of how many blastocysts have been killed this way would be eye-popping.


So you think abortion is murder, but don't think it's right to pass laws prohibiting people's "right" to murder?
I think Strike has a nuanced view that includes rather a lot of doubt about when and how intelligence/life becomes viable. As I said in another thread about abortion, go ahead and define what it means to be "alive." The answer is only simple if you're not thinking very hard.

Life starts somewhere, and intelligent people can disagree about when. A sperm and an egg, separately, are not life. But if we accept that life begins the moment they meet, all kinds of extreme positions arise out of logical necessity. As I said, the rhythm method amounts to mass genocide on an epic scale if you accept that reasoning.

So is the blastocyst life? The fetus? When? Brain development begins at week three, but organ formation isn't complete until week seven. But at this point the fetus is still a parasite, completely inviable without its host, i.e., the mother.

I think there's broad agreement across all lines that third-trimester babies are, in fact, alive. It helps that so many are able to survive (at great expense) when pregnancies end early. That's why an overwhelming majority of people are opposed to third-trimester abortions.

But let's face it, the issue is difficult, and any attempt to get all absolutist about it ends in absurdity. As I said in an earlier thread, technology will make abortion obsolete long before the culture warriors sort it out.

[Xiahou]

Not entirely true. The only birth control method advocated by the Catholic Church, the rhythm method, is believed to be effective due to spontaneous abortion. I'd love to see your data for that. I've heard the charge, but haven't seen any data that looked statistically significant, and even then spontaneous abortion was found in a small percentage of conceptions. Hardly effective due to spontaneous abortion.

Personally, I don't value NFP much. I know the theological hurdles that allow for it and not, say condoms, but it really does seem like splitting hairs to me. :shrug:


I think Strike has a nuanced view that includes rather a lot of doubt about when and how intelligence/life becomes viable. I was directly responding to his statement that abortion is abhorrent- there wasn't much nuance there.


Life starts somewhere, and intelligent people can disagree about when.
.... You see, the problem is that there is no room for dialog or compromise. Roe v Wade decided that abortion is a right. As such, any limitations on it are unconstitutional. This is also why the pro-abortion activists are unwilling to give an inch. Any acknowledgment that abortion can and should be restricted erodes the concept of it as a right- and they can't have that. Roe v Wade should be overturned and abortion should be regulated democratically on a state-by-state basis. I think it's wrong and would love a virtual ban nationwide, but I'm willing to make my case and let the people decided, rightly or wrongly.

[Ironside]

This line of reasoning is a red herring. It has no bearing on the argument. People are constantly dying everywhere, that doesn't make any sort of justification for killing.


But the difference is that we're trying to keep people alive from unnecessary deaths all the time. You treat people with cancer, you're not just leaving them to see which survives or not.
This is not the case when it comes to zygots or embryoes.

[TinCow]

So you think abortion is murder, but don't think it's right to pass laws prohibiting people's "right" to murder?

Human society has almost unanimously agreed that murder is acceptable in the right circumstances: specifically war. In addition, with the exception of 4 years in the 1970s, the US government has always held that murder of civilians is acceptable, resulting in capital punishment. The question is not whether it is acceptable to murder, it is when it is acceptable to murder. Clearly the vast majority believe that murder is acceptable in at least some circumstances.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Human society has almost unanimously agreed that murder is acceptable in the right circumstances: specifically war. In addition, with the exception of 4 years in the 1970s, the US government has always held that murder of civilians is acceptable, resulting in capital punishment. The question is not whether it is acceptable to murder, it is when it is acceptable to murder. Clearly the vast majority believe that murder is acceptable in at least some circumstances.

So much so that we do not label killing in combat situations, or the use of a death penalty as a sentence of court, as a "murder" at all. You're being just a little "snarky" by not noting the distinction -- even if your point is that there should be no distinction drawn.

[LittleGrizzly]

So much so that we do not label killing in combat situations, or the use of a death penalty as a sentence of court, as a "murder" at all. You're being just a little "snarky" by not noting the distinction -- even if your point is that there should be no distinction drawn.

What word is used seems to depend on the poster's support for the topic, Anti war crowd will call it murder, Anti death penaty crowd will all it murder and Anti aborton crowd will call it murder.

Its a word we like to use in our arguments as it seems to be as bad a word as Nazi.

Not sure what to believe when it comes to the abortion debate, I believe a woman should have a right to it but i struggle to put a figure on it, can it really be ok one day then the nex day wrong...

[TinCow]

So much so that we do not label killing in combat situations, or the use of a death penalty as a sentence of court, as a "murder" at all. You're being just a little "snarky" by not noting the distinction -- even if your point is that there should be no distinction drawn.

That's a fair point and I was certainly off-base in using the word "murder." By definition, murder is an illegal killing and since both capital punishment and (most) wartime killings are legally sanctioned, they cannot, by definition, be murder. I should have substituted "killing" for "murder" in every line of my previous post, so please accept my apologies for that.

[ICantSpellDawg]

That's a fair point and I was certainly off-base in using the word "murder." By definition, murder is an illegal killing and since both capital punishment and (most) wartime killings are legally sanctioned, they cannot, by definition, be murder. I should have substituted "killing" for "murder" in every line of my previous post, so please accept my apologies for that.

Legally allowed homicides. That's what the death penalty, wartime killings and abortions are.

You can kill an animal, a radio, a plant, the lights, a beer, etc. Homicide works when speaking about killing human beings.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

That's a fair point and I was certainly off-base in using the word "murder." By definition, murder is an illegal killing and since both capital punishment and (most) wartime killings are legally sanctioned, they cannot, by definition, be murder. I should have substituted "killing" for "murder" in every line of my previous post, so please accept my apologies for that.

Of course. TSM may be a bit pickier with his "homicide" point, but I understand your re-wording completely.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Homicide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicide)

Believe what you will about abortion, but it is clearly a homicide - the the act of killing another human being. (not directed at Xiahou, Seamus or CR)

In spite of the logical absurdity of this, abortion it is not classified as filicide or infanticide by wikipedia. Anyone who would like to try to explain this, please do so now.

[Productivity]

Homicide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicide)

Believe what you will about abortion, but it is clearly a homicide - the the act of killing another human being.

That statement is far too general, unless you are going to take the rather extreme view that a human being begins when a sperm and egg join together. If a view is taken that life begins later in the pregnancy process, then there is significant potential for abortion not to be homicide. As the point of when life begins is a point highly debated and still unresolved, I cannot agree that abortion is clearly homicide.

[HoreTore]

Bah. Haven't they realized yet that banning abortion just isn't possible?

And, should you do that, instead of being lumped together with industrialized countries like France, Germany and England, you'll get lumped together with glorious countries like Talibanistan, Nobodycaresistan and Mudhutland...

[rory_20_uk]

I'm reminded of the song "Every Sperm is Sacred"...

I've probably come closer than most to the bundles of tissue that are very early pregnancies (abortions in the sense that the foetus was aborted, not often intentional except in non-viable pregnancies).

Medical abortions they don't even get that far but causes the pregnancy to fail, must like many early pregnancies fail anyway.

If there are people that think a sac of a few hundred or thousand cells is equivalent to a human bieng then I'll have to agree to disagree. I loose that may cells all the time as we all do.

~:smoking:

[Ser Clegane]

Homicide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicide)

Believe what you will about abortion, but it is clearly a homicide

Interestingly, if you apply the definition of "human being" that your wikipedia-article on homicide links to, your statement that abortion clearly is "homicide" is quite incorrect.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Bah. Haven't they realized yet that banning abortion just isn't possible?

And, should you do that, instead of being lumped together with industrialized countries like France, Germany and England, you'll get lumped together with glorious countries like Talibanistan, Nobodycaresistan and Mudhutland...

So the legalized killing of the unborn is the ACME of culture/civilization? :inquisitive: Even if I were to hold the same view as do you and Rory and many others as to the "start point" of life, I'm certain I wouldn't go quite that far.

I recognize that, for those who do not view life as having resulted at conception, the issue of abortion is completely different -- if it is not an independent life, than there is little moral difference between abortion and abdominoplasty. In fact, more of those who take the not-until-long-after-conception view of life would likely oppose the abdominoplasty as vane or a sign of poor self control but would consider the abortion a wise choice.


Note: For those of you who consistently repeat the mantra that "banning abortion isn't possible" or, "even if you make them illegal, abortions will still occur:"

Definitionally, you are correct. Abortion and abortificants pre-dated laws and moral efforts to stop abortion. Were abortion to be prohibited globally, it would still occur.

However, the rate of abortion per 1000 pregnancies is ALWAYS lower -- sometimes much lower -- when such a procedure is illegal. For those of you who view extant life as trumping an undeveloped tissue mass in all cases, you see this as a near-criminal restriction of individual rights. For those of us who take the conception view of life, however, a reduction of even 1 abortion per 1000 pregnancies -- or 1 abortion total globally -- is a success. So, even though banning the procedure will not eradicate it, the reduction in its use is seen as a triumph for life. The "abortions will happen anyway" argument thus fails to persuade any but the already convinced.


For those commenting on "spontaneous" abortion or failed implantation:

Yes, we who view life as having begun at conception recognize this as a death -- even when we are unaware of that death. Many catholics pray daily for the eternal peace of such souls. The Church advanced the concept of Limbo long since -- though it is little talked about today -- with the concept that, in God's time and mercy these souls too might be saved.

Morally however, a spontaneous abortion or failed implantation was NOT the result of a purposive action. No effort was made to end the life in question, and the "parents" were likely unaware that it had begun or concluded. It is an "accident" of life no different than were I to trip at the top of my stairs and break my neck. Though I hope that not too many of you are rooting for that event after this post.

[Ser Clegane]

So the legalized killing of the unborn is the ACME of culture/civilization?

The ACME of culture and civilisation would (should?) IMHO rather be that unwanted preganancies and abortions are an exception because

a) people of both gender properly take care of birth control if they do not want to raise a child

b) even if an unplanned pregnancy happens the child would be born into a society where its presence would not be considered to be detrimental to the well-being of the parents (i.e. negatice effect on economic situation, career, "life-style")

While I am pro-choice (within a certain time-period and/or under certain consitions), I'd rather prefer abortions to be an exception.

[KukriKhan]

I'll go one further, and suggest the ACME of civilization and culture will have been achieved when we KNOW when life begins (and ends, for that matter) in an individual human.

Today, we do not know. We guess. And we make the 'protect life' societal decisions based on that guesswork.

I'm neither a scientist, nor a theologian, just a citizen who has to help my society decide who gets to live and who gets to die, from the moment of conception to 90 days after apparent death. In between those two events, the society I live in today generally believes individual humans should be left to their own devices, with occasional help given, or hinderence imposed, by the rest of us, when it seems warranted - whether for the good of the individual, or the good of the group-at-large.

Since we today don't KNOW when life begins, and having seen inter-uterine photos of apparently viable beings at various stages of development, I fall back (temporarily, until we KNOW) to the default position of over-estimating the probable 'life-infusion event', and hold the position that societally-protected life begins moments after 'unprotected' sex.

A man's body is his own to do with what he will, generally. A woman's body is her own to do with what she will, also.

UNTIL a third body exists to take into consideration. Then those two people - who agreed to a union that might produce a third person, forfeit some control of their bodies in the interests of that third person, who's body is his or her own ALSO to do with that he or she will.

My 19.95.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Interestingly, if you apply the definition of "human being" that your wikipedia-article on homicide links to, your statement that abortion clearly is "homicide" is quite incorrect.

"Humans, or human beings, are bipedal primates belonging to the mammalian species Homo sapiens"

Is it alive? What species is it?

Could you consider someone born with no legs as a bi-pedal primate? It sounds as if they'd be disqualified as human begins according to the wiki article.

What about conjoined twins? Who's body is that? If they are both healthy together, but only one would survive if separated, who can make the choice? Just the one that can live on its own?

Hypothetical:

Now lets say that they will separate naturally in nine months and the other twin will be able to survive. Should the healthy twin unilaterally have the option to do the separation in advance if it will mean the death of the other?

Is it reasonable to require them to wait?

Tell me the differences between a fetus at 5 months and a brand new infant. Both are technically able to live outside of the uterus (only with state or parental aid). Does this call into question the viability of the infant? Does it call into question the viability of the fetus?

The sick part is that people view the termination of the pregnancy as the "choice", and make little mention of the choice that they already made to create the baby. I would support state funded birth control if they would make all abortion except to save the life of the mother illegal.


Remember this?

Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857)
Supreme Court decides that slaves are property and Congress cannot deprive citizens of their property. Slaves are “not citizens of any state” and “have no rights a court must respect.”

Yet another good call in U.S. history...

[Ser Clegane]

"Humans, or human beings, are bipedal primates belonging to the mammalian species Homo sapiens"

Is it alive? What species is it?

Could you consider someone born with no legs as a bi-pedal primate? It sounds as if they'd be disqualified as human begins according to the wiki article.

What about conjoined twins? Who's body is that? If they are both healthy together, but only one would survive if separated, who can make the choice? Just the one that can live on its own?

I am fully with you with regard to how sloppy the wiki definition for "human being" is. I just thought it would be interesting that you then refer to this source to support your claim that abortion "clearly" is homicide ~;)

[LittleGrizzly]

The sick part is that people view the termination of the pregnancy as the "choice", and make little mention of the choice that they already made to create the baby. I would support state funded birth control if they would make all abortion except to save the life of the mother illegal.

a number of minor things can happen like the condom breaking or an operation to make you infertile not working but ill ignore these for the momet as they make up a tiny percentage (i would guess)

Almost everyone seems to agree to it when the mother life is in danger or it is the result of a rape.

The main problem and the majority are people who have abortions are people who chose to have sex, that is the choice they made they didn't chose to have the baby. People enjoy having sex and younger have more of it and being young are less responsible about it. So my point is people shouldn't b punished for choosing to have sex they didn't want the bay to start with.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I am fully with you with regard to how sloppy the wiki definition for "human being" is. I just thought it would be interesting that you then refer to this source to support your claim that abortion "clearly" is homicide ~;)

I was just pointing to what a homicide is:



Main Entry:
ho·mi·cide (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homicide)
Pronunciation:
\ˈhä-mə-ˌsīd, ˈhō-\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
in sense 1, from Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin homicida, from homo human being + -cida -cide; in sense 2, from Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin homicidium, from homo + -cidium -cide
Date:
14th century

1 : a person who kills another
2 : a killing of one human being by another


The source really doesn't mean much - that is the common understanding of the word





So my point is people shouldn't b punished for choosing to have sex they didn't want the babyy to start with.

Especially the baby. People have a responsibility to protect a child from being killed. Use protection or avoid sex. If a child comes out of the experience, he/she is your responsibility - or you can have it killed at this point in time.

[Viking]

Especially the baby. People have a responsibility to protect a child from being killed. Use protection or avoid sex. If a child comes out of the experience, he/she is your responsibility - or you can have it killed at this point in time.


A fetus is no more a baby than a baby is an adult. :inquisitive:

[ICantSpellDawg]

A fetus is no more a baby than a baby is an adult. :inquisitive:

Actually, that isn't true. Numerous dictionaries include fetuses as babies. I'll use Child (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child) or Infant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant) instead for the sake of argument. You can have a newborn infant/baby or a premature infant/baby, but for some reason if the same child was still in utero, he/she would not be an infant/baby? That sounds like semantics rather than science to me. Is the umbilical cord the qualifier?


Check out this little essay. I liked it, but I would.


Are the Unborn Human?
Jonathan Krive
http://www.hscca.org/articles/aretheunbornhuman.html

One third of my generation is missing. One third of those who would have been born after 1973, are not here today. One third of my generation has been aborted. In 1973, the Supreme Court decided that the right to privacy included the right of a woman to abort her pregnancy. In order to extend this right to abortion, the Supreme Court held that the unborn were not human.

The abortion debate is made overly complex. Those who are pro-life sometimes fail to present concise, logical support for their assertions. As a result, few people realize the simplicity of the abortion debate. Allow me to present a simple, but logical argument for the pro-life position. First I will look at the most important question in the abortion debate. Then, I will explore, from both a biological and philosophical perspective, the humanity of the unborn. Last, I will examine some objections to the pro-life position, and why they are not justification for abortion.

However, I believe that the entire abortion debate can be resolved by taking a trip to the kitchen. Imagine that you are washing dishes and your child comes up behind you and asks, “Daddy or Mommy, can I kill this?” What would be your first response? Something like, “What is it?” If it is a snail or ant, then you probably won’t have any problem. However, if it is his younger brother, or baby sister, then your response would change dramatically.

You see, the ultimate question is, “What are the unborn?” If the unborn are not human, then no justification for elective abortion is necessary; but if the unborn are human, then no justification for elective abortion is adequate.

So are the unborn human? I propose that when you as a person were conceived, you were a distinct, self-integrated, whole, human being. We can substantiate this idea in two ways: First lets take a look at the biological aspect, and then we’ll look at the philosophical aspect.

Former abortionist Dr. Beverly McMillan states, “The baby is human from the moment of conception. When the one cell it is made of has the characteristic 46 chromosomes of the human species, it is unique from that moment. Eighteen days after conception [the] baby's heart is already beating, often pumping a different blood type than [the mother’s]. According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, “Brain waves have been recorded at 40 days. If you touch a little baby's nose at that point it will draw its head back.” In half a month after conception, a baby has a heart. After a little over a month, the unborn are thinking.

Furthermore, we can look to the Law of Biogenesis, which states, living things reproduce after their own kind, meaning: dogs reproduce dogs, cats reproduce cats, and humans reproduce humans. If you want to find out what species something is, just look at its parents. Humans cannot reproduce a “clump of cells” or a “potential human,” because a potential X, must be an actual Y. If the unborn aren’t human, then what are they? Biologically, the unborn must be human.

Now, lets address the philosophical aspect. Most people agree that the newborn are completely human; yet, the unborn differ from the newborn in only four ways, none of which are relevant to its status as a human. Steven Schwartz outlines these differences in his book The Moral Question of Abortion: Size, Level of development, Environment, and Degree of dependency. If you don’t meet these 4 criteria are you less human? Let’s take a look:

First, size: The unborn are smaller than the newborn, but does size have anything to do with whether or not you are human? If so, then it would seem men are more human then women because they are generally bigger, and pro-basketball players like Shaquille o’ Neil have are the most human of all. Clearly size is not a criterion.

Second, Level of Development: The unborn are less developed than the newborn, but the newborn are less developed than children, and children are less developed than adults. In fact, you don’t reach your peak of mental development until age 40, so if level of development is a criterion for being human, then everyone under 40 is still gaining their humanity. Just because you aren’t fully developed does not mean you are less human.

Environment: Again, the unborn are located in a different place, but how does location suddenly change you into a non-human? The only difference between a newborn baby, and an unborn baby is 8 inches of birth canal. How does moving 8 inches, suddenly change a blob of tissue into a human?

Last, Degree of Dependency: If viability is what makes one human, then everyone who is dependent on a pace maker, or some form of medication would be declared non-human. Perhaps you heard about the Siamese twins from Egypt who were in the news last year. One of the twins was physically dependent on the other twin; does this fact mean that one of the twins was not human? Dependency is not a criterion for being human.

Philosophically speaking, the unborn are not different from the newborn in any way that would disqualify them from being human. The four differences of size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency are not criteria for being a human. The unborn are just as human as the newborn.

So from both a biological and philosophical perspective, the unborn are human. How does this fact affect the abortion debate? Let’s analyze some of the many objections to the pro-life position.

The primary justification for abortion is the mother’s right to choose. A mother should have the right to abort her pregnancy. But does a mother have the right to choose to abort her unborn child? Let me ask the same question in a different context. Does a mother have a right to choose to terminate her newborn baby? We all realize that killing a newborn child is murder, but why is it murder? Because that child is human, and as such, has the same rights as you and I do.

Yet, we must ask the question, what is the difference between the human unborn, and the human already born? This question brings us to another objection. Many people assert that personhood is conferred upon birth. It is questionable why moving 8 inches would suddenly change a blob of tissue into a human. But furthermore, this criterion is wholly arbitrary. In November of 1992, Discover Magazine ran a feature story on fetal surgery where doctors repaired herniated diaphragms and spinal disks on unborn babies 21 to 24 weeks old. They would partially remove these babies from the womb, perform this surgery, and then put them back in the womb. The obvious question is, did these babies become human during the operation outside the womb, and then become non-human because they were put back in the womb? No justification is adequate for taking innocent human life.

We must realize our right to life is not given by any human source. It is not up to the choice of the mother, or the father; the right to life is not based on the choice of the president, or even the Supreme Court. The right to life is an endowment from almighty God, and no one has the right to choose to take it away.

However, every day, according to Planned Parenthood, approximately 3,700 unborn children lose their lives. Imagine the outrage we would feel if terrorists committed another September 11 th type attack on America. Now imagine what we would feel if that type of attack happened every day, because it does.

The next time you look at the United States flag, count each of the 50 stars, because each star represents one million unborn babies who have been aborted. The number of abortions since 1973 is rapidly approaching 50 million. One third of my generation is missing. One third of those who would have been born after 1973, are not here today. One third of my generation has been aborted.

[TinCow]

Alright, I'll finally toss in my actual opinion on this, since it has been an interesting discussion. That last article was particularly good and I agree with much of it.

My personal opinion is simply that a zygote is not an entity worthy of legal protection. I agree it is human and I agree it is not the same being as either the mother or the father. However, it is still a single-celled organism. I do not believe that a single-celled organism is worthy of legal protection simply because it has different genes than the other cells around it. I also do not believe that a zygote is sentient and thus I do not believe that it can suffer when aborted.

By analogy, it is not uncommon for one fetus to 'absorb' another while it is in the womb. Many times, this results in bits and pieces of the absorbed fetus, such as teeth and hair, developing inside the absorber. These bits and pieces can have entirely different genes from the absorber and are in all practical respects part of a different person. I do not believe that removing these stray parts of an absorbed twin is bad, even though it kills them. Killing a zygote seems to me to be no different than removing these stray bits of an absorbed fetus.

I also know that a fetus becomes a full-fledged human long before it is born. I believe it is wrong to abort the fetus at this point, because I know it is a sentient being. However, I have no idea when the fetus goes from being a non-sentient being to a sentient being. All I know is that I do not believe it is sentient at the moment of conception, but it does become sentient later. Therefore, with a lack of scientific evidence to guide me, I take an educated guess and go with the first trimester as my cut-off point because that is the bar that has been most commonly accepted as far as I am aware. If the majority of scientific opinion were to conclude that even a zygote is a fully self-aware being, I would change my mind on the issue.

I also understand and sympathize with those who believe differently than me. It makes sense to me that anyone who views a zygote as a complete, sentient person would believe that an abortion of that zygote would be a bad thing. I simply believe differently and that for me is the deciding factor. I also understand that some people who have views similar to my own are against aborting even the single-celled zygote because they consider their very lack of knowledge about when it becomes a sentient being to be enough to warrant the utmost caution. This is also a worthy belief and one I can sympathize with, as I hold similar views in relation to the death penalty. All I can say to this is that I personally believe that the risks of aborting a sentient being during this first trimester are low enough (again, in my opinion) to be outweighed by the benefits to society from preventing unwanted pregnancies.

Again, this is my personal opinion and it does not mean I am correct. I am just describing what I think and why I think that way, so that it can be understood by those who think differently. For the record, I also believe that a proper interpretation of the Constitution and common law would require abortions to be illegal. This is does not change my opinion on the propriety of the process itself, but it gives me a great deal of sympathy with those who believe that Roe v. Wade was a flawed decision. I agree and also believe it was a flawed decision. In my opinion abortion should be legalized through a Constitutional Amendment, not through SCOTUS.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Alright, I'll finally toss in my actual opinion on this, since it has been an interesting discussion. That last article was particularly good and I agree with much of it.

My personal opinion is simply that a zygote is not an entity worthy of legal protection. I agree it is human and I agree it is not the same being as either the mother or the father. However, it is still a single-celled organism. I do not believe that a single-celled organism is worthy of legal protection simply because it has different genes than the other cells around it. I also do not believe that a zygote is sentient and thus I do not believe that it can suffer when aborted.

By analogy, it is not uncommon for one fetus to 'absorb' another while it is in the womb. Many times, this results in bits and pieces of the absorbed fetus, such as teeth and hair, developing inside the absorber. These bits and pieces can have entirely different genes from the absorber and are in all practical respects part of a different person. I do not believe that removing these stray parts of an absorbed twin is bad, even though it kills them. Killing a zygote seems to me to be no different than removing these stray bits of an absorbed fetus.

I also know that a fetus becomes a full-fledged human long before it is born. I believe it is wrong to abort the fetus at this point, because I know it is a sentient being. However, I have no idea when the fetus goes from being a non-sentient being to a sentient being. All I know is that I do not believe it is sentient at the moment of conception, but it does become sentient later. Therefore, with a lack of scientific evidence to guide me, I take an educated guess and go with the first trimester as my cut-off point because that is the bar that has been most commonly accepted as far as I am aware. If the majority of scientific opinion were to conclude that even a zygote is a fully self-aware being, I would change my mind on the issue.

I also understand and sympathize with those who believe differently than me. It makes sense to me that anyone who views a zygote as a complete, sentient person would believe that an abortion of that zygote would be a bad thing. I simply believe differently and that for me is the deciding factor. I also understand that some people who have views similar to my own are against aborting even the single-celled zygote because they consider their very lack of knowledge about when it becomes a sentient being to be enough to warrant the utmost caution. This is also a worthy belief and one I can sympathize with, as I hold similar views in relation to the death penalty. All I can say to this is that I personally believe that the risks of aborting a sentient being during this first trimester are low enough (again, in my opinion) to be outweighed by the benefits to society from preventing unwanted pregnancies.

Again, this is my personal opinion and it does not mean I am correct. I am just describing what I think and why I think that way, so that it can be understood by those who think differently. For the record, I also believe that a proper interpretation of the Constitution and common law would require abortions to be illegal. This is does not change my opinion on the propriety of the process itself, but it gives me a great deal of sympathy with those who believe that Roe v. Wade was a flawed decision. I agree and also believe it was a flawed decision. In my opinion abortion should be legalized through a Constitutional Amendment, not through SCOTUS.

Reasonable. I would be ecstatic if they made it a law that it was permissible in the first 1 or 2 months ONLY and after that was permissible in an effort to save the life of the mother.

Ideally, I would like the law to be drawn at conception because I think it leaves little room for error, but I know that it is a hard sell to a number of people. I would still fight for the issue, but maybe I could put it further down the list.

I also agree that Roe v. Wade was a bad decision

[Vladimir]

Anyone have any new ideas for backroom discussion? These old faithfuls are getting repetitive.

[Husar]

And boring. :sweatdrop:

[ICantSpellDawg]

C'mon, topics are for the poster (in this case ME). If you want to talk, talk - if you don't, don't - and start another one. If you are posting in an effort to convey the frustration that you feel in having to listen to this debate time and time again without any real or attainable legislative way of solving it - I totally understand.

[Viking]

Actually, that isn't true. Numerous dictionaries include fetuses as babies. I'll use Child (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child) or Infant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant) instead for the sake of argument. You can have a newborn infant/baby or a premature infant/baby, but for some reason if the same child was still in utero, he/she would not be an infant/baby? That sounds like semantics rather than science to me. Is the umbilical cord the qualifier?


It is really semantics. A human being is relative; it is undergoing evolution during its whole life. A cluster of cells may have the potential of becoming humans, but that does not make them humans Are sperm cells and egg cells half-humans? They certainly have the potential.



Check out this little essay. I liked it, but I would.

A faulty argument there:


One third of my generation is missing. One third of those who would have been born after 1973, are not here today. One third of my generation has been aborted.

a) Those humans would not been there either if the woman did not have sex in the first place. The embryo gets killed, and we're back to where we were before. The generation is not "missing". He could just about complain about those who used birth control as well.

By taking abortion, one deny a certain person his/her life. The same is the case when one does not have sex for the purpose of reproduction. Humans can only come into existence with that certain egg cell and that certain sperm cell. If my DNA was slightly different, I would also be slightly different. Me is only possibel through a certain combination of DNA.

[ICantSpellDawg]

If my DNA was slightly different, I would also be slightly different. Me is only possibel through a certain combination of DNA.

So you, or your humanity are determined by your specific DNA?

[Kagemusha]

I wonder how many children have died in hunger around the world, while the debate in this thread has been ongoing. If we are so worried about human lives, should we not first care of those that are actually born and are dying in disease and hunger, or is it just that the birth is a right so special and after that everybody is on their own?

[Vladimir]

I wonder how many children have died in hunger around the world, while the debate in this thread has been ongoing. If we are so worried about human lives, should we not first care of those that are actually born and are dying in disease and hunger, or is it just that the birth is a right so special and after that everybody is on their own?

We don't care about them because it doesn't affect us. Or at least not until someone pastes their faces on TV.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I wonder how many children have died in hunger around the world, while the debate in this thread has been ongoing. If we are so worried about human lives, should we not first care of those that are actually born and are dying in disease and hunger, or is it just that the birth is a right so special and after that everybody is on their own?

That's a deflection. Some people can debate one thing AND Debate another. It is a groundbreaking thought. Start a thread.

[KukriKhan]

I wonder how many children have died in hunger around the world, while the debate in this thread has been ongoing.

Since you wondered: the thread was started about 74 hours ago. The global death-rate (not just hungry kids, but including all death) runs about 8.67 deaths annually, per 1,000 population (a 2006 estimation based on census). So, about 519,149, give or take a few hundred, people have died since Tuffy posted the OP.

The W.Health Org might have numbers on the percentage of deaths = hungry children.

That said, point taken. We say life is sacrosanct, but sometimes we don't concern ourselves too much with the quality of life of our contemporaries.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Since you wondered: the thread was started about 74 hours ago. The global death-rate (not just hungry kids, but including all death) runs about 8.67 deaths annually, per 1,000 population (a 2006 estimation based on census). So, about 519,149, give or take a few hundred, people have died since Tuffy posted the OP.

The W.Health Org might have numbers on the percentage of deaths = hungry children.

That said, point taken. We say life is sacrosanct, but sometimes we don't concern ourselves too much with the quality of life of our contemporaries.

I agree. Yet another eminently important topic. One that should not be used as a weapon to quiet the discussion of the other.

[KukriKhan]

I agree. Yet another eminently important topic. One that should not be used as a weapon to quiet the discussion of the other.

I don't think Kage's query was meant to quiet discussion. I took it as (in fine backroom tradition) introducing yet another variable to consider in the discussion of abortion.

He introduced the "incongruity factor": that we concern ourselves with the legality, morality, and practical application of the premise all life is sacred, and should be protected, whilst being comparatively unconcerned with the life-threatening factors of those already born.

I think it's a fair observation that we should look to the ultimate sincerity of our positions, and their applicability to the issue at hand.

If we got 5 or 6 subsequent posts about hunger, THAT would be a derailment, I agree; and I would step in. I think we're OK so far.

[HoreTore]

So the legalized killing of the unborn is the ACME of culture/civilization? :inquisitive: Even if I were to hold the same view as do you and Rory and many others as to the "start point" of life, I'm certain I wouldn't go quite that far.

Whether or not abortion is the "ACME of culture" doesn't matter, the fact will remain that should you ban it, the only countries with a similar law will be Talibanistan, Nobodycaresistan and Mudhutland.

But hey, if you wish to be mentioned in the same breath as Talibanistan and their likes; be my guest. I don't live in the US, so I really couldn't care what you do with your citizens.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I don't think Kage's query was meant to quiet discussion. I took it as (in fine backroom tradition) introducing yet another variable to consider in the discussion of abortion.

He introduced the "incongruity factor": that we concern ourselves with the legality, morality, and practical application of the premise all life is sacred, and should be protected, whilst being comparatively unconcerned with the life-threatening factors of those already born.

I think it's a fair observation that we should look to the ultimate sincerity of our positions, and their applicability to the issue at hand.

If we got 5 or 6 subsequent posts about hunger, THAT would be a derailment, I agree; and I would step in. I think we're OK so far.

Right. The march for life focuses on abortion because it is the anniversary of the Roe decision.

If this was a thread about the pro-life movement, that would be one thing, but we are talking about something specifically related to the case at hand, surrounding cases and the unwillingness of the media to cover the march.

The pro-life movement attempts to defend all life from individual and government stances against life. From euthanasia, abortion and starvation to war and the spread of life threatening diseases.

It seemed to me that the poster brought up his point to illustrate a perceived insignificant relationship that the anti-abortion movement has with other problems of the day. The intent seemed to guilt posters into quiting the discussion due to what he labeled as more pressing problems. You didn't see it that way?

Find me someone who is strongly pro-life and doesn't believe in attacking world hunger. Non-issue for this discussion, unless you are using it as an excuse for population control through the use of abortion.

Also - calling people who are against abortion as kins of the taleban is a pretty weak argument, eh hore?

[Kagemusha]

Thanks for the detailed information Kukri Sama.:bow:
I didnt mean to sound like i would be on high horse in this issue. It was just an honest question about priorities, see i have personal experiences about the issues at hand.
I have been the other side of a couple who made abortion. Back in 2001, after my back then, ex got pregnant after contraception failed and we decided to have an abortion. Because i can never go inside other persons head, i cant say for sure, but after talking with her a lot, i think we both didnt want the child. What im sure about is that i didnt want it and my stance on the issue probably effected her opinion also. Now i was lot younger then but not that young, 22 years old.
The reason for me not wanting the child was simply that i felt i wasnt ready for it. Now looking back, what was my motive? Id say greed. I was greedy to have my own youth and not start a family. Maybe i was selfish and immature and made a intentional decision to deny the child his or hers life. Now does that make me and my ex murderers? I dont know. Does it make me a worse person? Maybe. I make decisions, some are bad, some are good, some hurt me, some hurt others.Do i regret that decision? Sometimes yes and its hard to explain the emotion it creates inside me. Do i want legistlation that decides for me what to do in that kind of situation? No.I think its a decision individuals should do themselves. Will i carry that decision with me for the rest of my life? Definitely yes.
Now those of you who see abortion as murder are free to hate me for what ive done. Here you have a person, not some faceless evil. If this issue turns me into a disgusting person, thats the prize i have to pay for my decision.Thats all i have to say in the issue.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Thanks for the detailed information Kukri Sama.:bow:
I didnt mean to sound like i would be on high horse in this issue. It was just an honest question about priorities, see i have personal experiences about the issues at hand.
I have been the other side of a couple who made abortion. Back in 2001, after my back then, ex got pregnant after contraception failed and we decided to have an abortion. Because i can never go inside other persons head, i cant say for sure, but after talking with her a lot, i think we both didnt want the child. What im sure about is that i didnt want it and my stance on the issue probably effected her opinion also. Now i was lot younger then but not that young, 22 years old.
The reason for me not wanting the child was simply that i felt i wasnt ready for it. Now looking back, what was my motive? Id say greed. I was greedy to have my own youth and not start a family. Maybe i was selfish and immature and made a intentional decision to deny the child his or hers life. Now does that make me and my ex murderers? I dont know. Does it make me a worse person? Maybe. I make decisions, some are bad, some are good, some hurt me, some hurt others.Do i regret that decision? Sometimes yes and its hard to explain the emotion it creates inside me. Do i want legistlation that decides for me what to do in that kind of situation? No.I think its a decision individuals should do themselves. Will i carry that decision with me for the rest of my life? Definitely yes.
Now those of you who see abortion as murder are free to hate me for what ive done. Here you have a person, not some faceless evil. If this issue turns me into a disgusting person, thats the prize i have to pay for my decision.Thats all i have to say in the issue.

My aim isn't to hate people who feel pressure and listen to those who say that abortion isn't murder. Blame lies with numerous parties. The victim is already deceased and it seems as though nobody mourns the loss of a child - mother and father simply purged an inconvenient growth. You won't be charged with a crime; blame and hate will do little to remedy that situation.

[Whacker]

What this world needs is a HEAVY dose of birth control. Human beings are indeed a virus, and we're breeding and spreading out of control, full of ourselves and our arrogance believing this planet is ours by right of divine gift or some other mystical being.

[Kagemusha]

My aim isn't to hate people who feel pressure and listen to those who say that abortion isn't murder. Blame lies with numerous parties. The victim is already deceased and it seems as though nobody mourns the loss of a child - mother and father simply purged an inconvenient growth. You won't be charged with a crime; blame and hate will do little to remedy that situation.

Well you are free to think as you like. If you are talking about victims, it already shows what you think. I hope i would live in a world, where there are good answers for all the questions and everybody would only make good decisions that wouldnt cause harm to anyone else. Sadly i dont live in that kind of world.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Well you are free to think as you like. If you are talking about victims, it already shows what you think. I hope i would live in a world, where there are good answers for all the questions and everybody would only make good decisions that wouldnt cause harm to anyone else. Sadly i dont live in that kind of world.

We can try to make it better. Part of that is putting a respect for life in the forefront even if it isn't convenient. It will lead to less war and less starvation. The abortion issue is the building block to more compassion across the board.

[Whacker]

Well you are free to think as you like. If you are talking about victims, it already shows what you think. I hope i would live in a world, where there are good answers for all the questions and everybody would only make good decisions that wouldnt cause harm to anyone else. Sadly i dont live in that kind of world.

This right here is the sticking point that our neoconservative christian "friends" don't get. In a perfect world, abortion would rarely ever happen. People wouldn't have unprotected sex, rape doesn't happen, no babies out of wedlock/whatever is appropriate for the culture/etc, medical complications are rare. In short, in some kind of fantasy existence, I'd agree. The problem is that women are raped all the time, "boyfriends" impregnate and then leave girls, often mentally or physically abusing them, in most current legal situations the man has little to no say given the situation even though half ot it is his DNA (I knew 2 men who had girlfriends who got pregnant purposefully and vindictively in spite of them), families abandon or push away girls who violate social stigmas by getting pregnant purposefully or accidentally, the list goes on and on. I've unfortunately experienced most all of those with women (girls) who've been related to close to me. It's the stuff of nightmares that ruins lives. Tincow already wrote a very thoughtful post that mirrors quite a bit of my personal opinion, which goes "well" with my life experiences. In short, the old adage "You'll wish you'd never been born" is the best way to sum it up. The quality of life for the child-to-be in any circumstances, as well as the mental and psychological damage that the child, mother, and others suffer would far outweight any "positives" had they been born.

I guess it just annoys the hell out of me when I see self-righteous bible-thumpers standing on their pulpits shouting "MURDERERS!" at others that have been through far, far worse than they could ever imagine in their sheltered little lives.

My $199.95 USD.

[ICantSpellDawg]

This right here is the sticking point that our neoconservative christian "friends" don't get. In a perfect world, abortion would rarely ever happen. People wouldn't have unprotected sex, rape doesn't happen, no babies out of wedlock/whatever is appropriate for the culture/etc, medical complications are rare. In short, in some kind of fantasy existence, I'd agree. The problem is that women are raped all the time, "boyfriends" impregnate and then leave girls, often mentally or physically abusing them, in most current legal situations the man has little to no say given the situation even though half ot it is his DNA (I knew 2 men who had girlfriends who got pregnant purposefully and vindictively in spite of them), families abandon or push away girls who violate social stigmas by getting pregnant purposefully or accidentally, the list goes on and on. I've unfortunately experienced most all of those with women (girls) who've been related to close to me. It's the stuff of nightmares that ruins lives. Tincow already wrote a very thoughtful post that mirrors quite a bit of my personal opinion, which goes "well" with my life experiences. In short, the old adage "You'll wish you'd never been born" is the best way to sum it up. The quality of life for the child-to-be in any circumstances, as well as the mental and psychological damage that the child, mother, and others suffer would far outweight any "positives" had they been born.

I guess it just annoys the hell out of me when I see self-righteous bible-thumpers standing on their pulpits shouting "MURDERERS!" at others that have been through far, far worse than they could ever imagine in their sheltered little lives.

My $199.95 USD.

Rape is responsible for between 0.35% and 1% of annual abortions in the U.S.
Incest accounts for about 0.03%.
Pysical Life of the mother is responsible for 0.2%.
Physical health of the mother 1.0%

more stats (http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html#3)

I'm not a practitioner of any religion, it helps but is not necessary in this argument any more than it is necessary in an argument tackling world hunger.

[Lemur]

There's another very common scenario for abortions that I don't hear anyone talking about -- severe birth defects. Haven't you noticed how few kids you see these days with Downs Syndrome? Here are some statistics:

Canada: (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=%5CCulture%5Carchive%5C200504%5CCUL20050405a.html) "[A] Canadian study of 22,000 women who received prenatal diagnosis found that 88 percent of the women carrying a child diagnosed with Down syndrome had an abortion."

United States: (http://www.michigansthumb.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15855273&BRD=2292&PAG=461&dept_id=476228&rfi=6) "About 90 percent of women who receive a positive test for Down syndrome get an abortion, said Dr. Ray Bahado-Singh of Wayne State University’s Department of Maternal Fetal Medicine."

This is another thorny issue. Children born with Downs Syndrome usually develop heart problems and mental retardation. Their average lifespan is 49 years. They place immense stress on their support mechanisms, both the state and family. Who am I to tell a parent that they must not abort that fetus? Hell, I know how hard it is to raise a healthy child, and can only imagine how rough it is with a boy or girl who has severe development problems.

On the other hand, we're talking about a human life. George F. Will called the current attitude towards Downs Syndrome babies "a search and destroy mission." (Coincidentally, he has an adult son with Downs Syndrome.)

Anyway, from what I've read, the abortion debate comes to an end when you're told you have a fetus with severe defects. According to obstetricians, it doesn't matter if you're Democrat, Republican, Northerner, Southerner, Pro-Life, Pro-Choice ... at that moment none of it matters. And 90% of women and their men decide to terminate.

Food for thought.

-edit-

One more thought and a question:

What will this mean when it's possible to test for gayness, which I expect we will see within the next ten years? Will people choose to terminate a homosexual fetus? Will the gay population vanish in a couple of generations? What will a far-right couple do, if they know they have to choose between raising a homosexual and abortion?

And here's a serious question: Your wife/girlfriend is pregnant. You're in the exact circumstances financially and emotionally that you're in right now. A test shows that the fetus is extremely damaged. You know with 99% probability that the child will be mentally and physically crippled, assuming the kid even lives past two years. What do you do?

[ICantSpellDawg]

There's another very common scenario for abortions that I don't hear anyone talking about -- severe birth defects. Haven't you noticed how few kids you see these days with Downs Syndrome? Here are some statistics:

Canada: (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=%5CCulture%5Carchive%5C200504%5CCUL20050405a.html) "[A] Canadian study of 22,000 women who received prenatal diagnosis found that 88 percent of the women carrying a child diagnosed with Down syndrome had an abortion."

United States: (http://www.michigansthumb.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15855273&BRD=2292&PAG=461&dept_id=476228&rfi=6) "About 90 percent of women who receive a positive test for Down syndrome get an abortion, said Dr. Ray Bahado-Singh of Wayne State University’s Department of Maternal Fetal Medicine."

This is another thorny issue. Children born with Downs Syndrome usually develop heart problems and mental retardation. Their average lifespan is 49 years. They place immense stress on their support mechanisms, both the state and family. Who am I to tell a parent that they must not abort that fetus? Hell, I know how hard it is to raise a healthy child, and can only imagine how rough it is with a boy or girl who has severe development problems.

On the other hand, we're talking about a human life. George F. Will called the current attitude towards Downs Syndrome babies "a search and destroy mission." (Coincidentally, he has an adult son with Downs Syndrome.)

Anyway, from what I've read, the abortion debate comes to an end when you're told you have a fetus with severe defects. According to obstetricians, it doesn't matter if you're Democrat, Republican, Northerner, Southerner, Pro-Life, Pro-Choice ... at that moment none of it matters. And 90% of women and their men decide to terminate.

Food for thought.

That's horrific. I want to have that debate - it is barbaric. 90%? that is insane.

As an aside: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/962162/posts

http://mysite.verizon.net/res6rexj/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/umbert_74.jpeg

[Lemur]

TuffStuff, here's a fairly good article (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/09/us/09down.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin) about the Downs Syndrome/abortion situation.

I think birth defects are the elephant in the room when it comes to the entire abortion issue. Pregnancy due to rape just isn't that common. And I find it hard to believe that many woman are insane enough to use abortion as their primary method of birth control. My wife and I went through a miscarriage, which is basically a spontaneous abortion, and I can assure you that it ain't something you would do lightly, or often.

No, I suspect that a huge portion of the terminated pregnancies in the U.S. are due to birth defects. When you've got 90% of positive Downs syndrome tests resulting in abortions, well, add it up.

BTW, I can't make out what the fetus is supposed to be doing in frame 4 of your cartoon.

[TinCow]

That's horrific. I want to have that debate - it is barbaric. 90%? that is insane.

That does not surprise me, and it is in fact the single most relevant aspect of abortion to my life and the lives of most people I know. My wife is vehement that she will not carry to term a child with a serious birth defect. Since many genetic birth defects, like Down Syndrome, cannot be detected in the first trimester, such a situation will certainly cause me to have something of a moral dilemma. My plan to confront this dilemma is to get lucky and not have the problem in the first place. :laugh4:

[ICantSpellDawg]

TuffStuff, here's a fairly good article (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/09/us/09down.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin) about the Downs Syndrome/abortion situation.

I think birth defects are the elephant in the room when it comes to the entire abortion issue. Pregnancy due to rape just isn't that common. And I find it hard to believe that many woman are insane enough to use abortion as their primary method of birth control. My wife and I went through a miscarriage, which is basically a spontaneous abortion, and I can assure you that it ain't something you would do lightly, or often.

No, I suspect that a huge portion of the terminated pregnancies in the U.S. are due to birth defects. When you've got 90% of positive Downs syndrome tests resulting in abortions, well, add it up.

BTW, I can't make out what the fetus is supposed to be doing in frame 4 of your cartoon.

"Only 1% of women aborting say they have been advised that their unborn baby has a defect, and only I% say they became pregnant by rape or incest."

Most women use abortion as a form or birth control (a back-up method)

[Lemur]

"Only 1% of women aborting say they have been advised that their unborn baby has a defect, and only I% say they became pregnant by rape or incest."

Most women use abortion as a form or birth control (a back-up method)
You're gonna need to provide a link to a non-advocate site for your numbers, friend. It's not that I'm doubting you, but I would like to see the source.

[ICantSpellDawg]

That does not surprise me, and it is in fact the single most relevant aspect of abortion to my life and the lives of most people I know. My wife is vehement that she will not carry to term a child with a serious birth defect. Since many genetic birth defects, like Down Syndrome, cannot be detected in the first trimester, such a situation will certainly cause me to have something of a moral dilemma. My plan to confront this dilemma is to get lucky and not have the problem in the first place. :laugh4:

no more dilemma for you (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/09/AR2005110902079.html)

Yes they can. I'm sad to say it, but now parents can kill their own children and feel even less guilty about it.

[ICantSpellDawg]

You're gonna need to provide a link to a non-advocate site for your numbers, friend. It's not that I'm doubting you, but I would like to see the source.

here you go (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#Reasons_for_abortions)

I'm sorry, it's 2% according to that study.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

But hey, if you wish to be mentioned in the same breath as Talibanistan and their likes; be my guest. I don't live in the US, so I really couldn't care what you do with your citizens.

Given that a healthy slice of the "liberal" establishment in Europe holds precisely that view at present, what loss would it represent?

Note: I'm using "liberal" in USA parlance, which is not the same way my Euro friends use the term.

[Whacker]

Calling BS on the stats also, AND also the fact that even if you could get a "fair picture" from what's reported (which I doubt), one can't account for all of the unreported metrics. Women who are raped have a good chance of not reporting it. That's not the only factor, there are many others.

And my wife and I yet again are in the same mode of thought as Tincow. If she was pregnant with a child that we knew was going to have severe birth defects, we would abort the pregnancy. There are a large number of reasons, but the one that stands out and is constantly dismissed is quality of life for both our children to be, and ourselves.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

What this world needs is a HEAVY dose of birth control. Human beings are indeed a virus, and we're breeding and spreading out of control, full of ourselves and our arrogance believing this planet is ours by right of divine gift or some other mystical being.

Since we are the ones who live here and, to the best of our knowledge, the only beings who are also self-aware, who else could claim ownership? Unless, of course, you would prefer octasquid overlords?

If we are a "virus" that is overproducing, then we'll wipe ourselves out by killing the host. If that occurs where do you want me to send the "you were right all along" message? :devilish:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Calling BS on the stats also, AND also the fact that even if you could get a "fair picture" from what's reported (which I doubt), one can't account for all of the unreported metrics. Women who are raped have a good chance of not reporting it. That's not the only factor, there are many others.

And my wife and I yet again are in the same mode of thought as Tincow. If she was pregnant with a child that we knew was going to have severe birth defects, we would abort the pregnancy. There are a large number of reasons, but the one that stands out and is constantly dismissed is quality of life for both our children to be, and ourselves.

The .35%-1% rape stat is a liberal estimate based on the reality of undereporting and I did post the links. The 1% birth defect stat was one study, another put the rate at 2%

Read the last 2 posts before this me by me and all of your problems will be answered.

[KukriKhan]

A bit earlier in the thread, countries like Talibanistan, Nobodycaresistan, etc were cited as backwards places where abortions are prohibited.

I looked around, and found this place: LINK (http://www.reproductiverights.org/pub_fac_abortion_laws.html), listing which country allows what level of abortion.

It turns out that there are 56 countries (39% of world pop)that allow abortion without restriction:


Albania
Armenia
Austria*
Azerbaijan
Bahrain
Belarus
Belgium*
Bosnia-
Herzegovina–PA
Bulgaria
Cambodia*
Canada°
Cape Verde
China°–S
Croatia–PA
Cuba–PA
Czech Rep.–PA
Dem. People's Rep. of
Korea°
Denmark–PA Estonia
France*
Fmr. Yugoslav Rep. Macedonia–PA
Georgia
Germany*
Greece–PA
Guyana†
Hungary
Italy–Δ/PA
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Latvia
Lithuania
Moldova
Mongolia
Montenegro–PA
Nepal–S
Netherlandsv
Norway–PA Portugal–‡PA
Puerto Ricov
Romania*
Russian Fed.
Serbia–PA
Singapore***
Slovak Rep.–PA
Slovenia–PA
South Africa
Sweden**
Switzerland
Tajikistan
Tunisia
Turkey–‡SA/PA
Turkmenistan
Ukraine
United States–v◊PA
Uzbekistan
Vietnam°

And about 30 that ban it outright. The remainder allow for various reasons.

Not entirely germaine to the discussion, I admit, except as a reply to the tangent introduced earlier.

[Lemur]

here you go (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#Reasons_for_abortions)

I'm sorry, it's 2% according to that study.
Actually, that's the 1987 numbers. The more recent study lists 3.3% as "risk to fetal health." Sounds like birth defects to me. And 2.1% are listed as "other."

Here's (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0904509.html) the study Wiki cites for 2000. Some interesting stuff in there. I'll admit, I thought fetal defects would rank much higher.

[TevashSzat]

The pro-life movement attempts to defend all life from individual and government stances against life. From euthanasia, abortion and starvation to war and the spread of life threatening diseases.

If what you say is true, why does basically all the pro-life organizations mostly focused on abortion? Why not just as much on war? If pro-life is truly pro-life shouldn't they be in favor of world peace/banning all guns, ect...


Find me someone who is strongly pro-life and doesn't believe in attacking world hunger. Non-issue for this discussion, unless you are using it as an excuse for population control through the use of abortion.

But the problem is that spending your time and effort on abortion instead of world hunger creates much less results. You can stop every abortion right now and you would still "save" less people than if you lower world hunger by like 20%.

I don't think anyone would object to world hunger, yet theres plenty of people for pro-choice. If the pro-life movement shifted its focus from abortion to ending world-hunger, how many more people could have been saved? Millions, without doubt.

As for your reasoning that I'm just trying to change the topic, the same reasoning goes behind my assertion as that its better to invest resources into preventing a whole region from selling/procuring nuclear weapons instead of just one person.

Will both courses create results? Yes, they probably will, but do you get the same bang for the buck? Of course, not

[HoreTore]

Also - calling people who are against abortion as kins of the taleban is a pretty weak argument, eh hore?

Take a look at Kukri's list, and you'll notice that only a few(Ireland, perhaps Brazil, while San Marino and Malta isn't real countries anyway) civilized nations ban it, the others are all despotic and oppressive dirtbag countries.

Of those who allow it, however, you see countries with a strong and working democracy, with a respect for human rights(including yours), plus the ex-soviets and the revolutionaries. Coincidence? Not really. The laws of the land will, of course, always reflect the level of civilization.

@ Seamus: Haha! Point taken :beam:



Oh, and as usual, I agree with whacker in this thread.

[Husar]

BTW, I can't make out what the fetus is supposed to be doing in frame 4 of your cartoon.
Was wondering at first as well, it's wearing a baby harp seal costume, if you have good eyes(and a bit of imagination), it says so on the box as well, apparently.

[Ironside]

Yes, we who view life as having begun at conception recognize this as a death -- even when we are unaware of that death. Many catholics pray daily for the eternal peace of such souls. The Church advanced the concept of Limbo long since -- though it is little talked about today -- with the concept that, in God's time and mercy these souls too might be saved.

I've never gotten away from the "kill your unborn/recently babtised child, making the ultimate sacrifice" problem though. The child goes to Limbo/Heaven and the parent ends up in hell.

Isn't Limbo out of Catholic teachings nowadays though, and not merely not spoken of?


Morally however, a spontaneous abortion or failed implantation was NOT the result of a purposive action. No effort was made to end the life in question, and the "parents" were likely unaware that it had begun or concluded. It is an "accident" of life no different than were I to trip at the top of my stairs and break my neck. Though I hope that not too many of you are rooting for that event after this post.

As I mentioned to Xiahou, to do nothing because it's an "accident" is the same as the medical personal leaving you to die because it was a natural incident. You usually don't do that to people.

Thanks for your answers :bow:

Tuff, as Tincow was into, the main flaw with the article is that it's still too wide of a concept. Those parts of your unborn twin Tincow mentioned or my personal wierdness favorites, twins where one has developed into what in practice is a parasite, would still be considered as human as any child or adult would be, by only using those guidelines.

Viking is accurate on the "1/3 of my generation is missing" of course, it ends up as a "what if" -scenario.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Take a look at Kukri's list, and you'll notice that only a few(Ireland, perhaps Brazil, while San Marino and Malta isn't real countries anyway) civilized nations ban it, the others are all despotic and oppressive dirtbag countries.

San Marino and Malta "is real countries anyway"



Of those who allow it, however, you see countries with a strong and working democracy, with a respect for human rights(including yours), plus the ex-soviets and the revolutionaries. Coincidence? Not really. The laws of the land will, of course, always reflect the level of civilization.


What a joke - here are 38 out of the 56 listed. Rectal Cranial inversion is a serious medical issue, have a doctor look into it.




Albania
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Bahrain
Belarus
Bosnia-
Herzegovina–PA
Bulgaria
Cambodia*
Cape Verde
China°–S
Croatia–PA
Cuba–PA
Dem. People's Rep. of
Korea°
Fmr. Yugoslav Rep. Macedonia–PA
Georgia
Greece–PA
Guyana†
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Moldova
Mongolia
Montenegro–PA
Nepal–S
Netherlandsv
Romania*
Russian Fed.
Serbia–PA
Singapore***
Slovak Rep.–PA
Slovenia–PA
South Africa
Tajikistan
Tunisia
Turkey–‡SA/PA
Turkmenistan
Ukraine
Uzbekistan
Vietnam°


Vikings argument was flawed. The idea that sex sells are as wholly human as embryo's or fetuses is ludicrous. He could use the same argument against infants. The reality is that this is an issue for a reason and more and more people are starting to realize that. That is no coincidence.

Again, most Europeans do not understand American laws and protests regarding the issue because you have more balanced laws in your own countries. If you had undemocratic laws that were very morally questionable, you would have similar issues with them I'm sure - unless you are telling me you don't question arbitrary laws given to you by your judicial system, in which case I view your criticism of our cause as legitimate.

[HoreTore]

My statement was correct, wasn't it? Shining democracies + ex-soviets/revolutionaries


Albania - democracy, might get it from former yugoslav commies
Armenia - former soviet, now a democracy
Austria* - democracy
Azerbaijan - former soviet
Bahrain - one exception, this is a muslim state in the gulf
Belarus - former soviet turned despot
Belgium* - democracy
Bosnia-
Herzegovina–PA - former commie
Bulgaria - former commie
Cambodia* - second exception, a corrupt democracy in asia
Canada° - democracy
Cape Verde - democracy
China°–S - commie
Croatia–PA - former commie, now democracy
Cuba–PA - commie
Czech Rep.–PA - democracy
Dem. People's Rep. of
Korea° - commie
Denmark–PA - democracy
Estonia - former commie
France* - democracy
Fmr. Yugoslav Rep. Macedonia–PA former commie
Georgia - democracy, former commie
Germany* - democracy
Greece–PA - democracy
Guyana† - third exception, a latin democracy
Hungary - democracy, former commie
Italy–Δ/PA - democracy
Kazakhstan - former commie
Kyrgyzstan - former commie
Latvia - former commie
Lithuania - former commie
Moldova - former commie
Mongolia - former commie
Montenegro–PA - former commie
Nepal–S - fourth exception, another asian democracy/kingdom
Netherlandsv - democracy
Norway–PA - democracy
Portugal–‡PA - democracy
Puerto Ricov - US vassal
Romania* - former commie
Russian Fed. - former commie, now "democracy"
Serbia–PA - former commie
Singapore*** - fifth exception, another asian democracy
Slovak Rep.–PA - democracy
Slovenia–PA - democracy
South Africa - democracy
Sweden** - democracy
Switzerland - democracy
Tajikistan - former commie
Tunisia - 6th exception, a muslim democracy/dictatorship
Turkey–‡SA/PA - democracy
Turkmenistan - former commie
Ukraine - former commie, sort of democratish
United States–v◊PA - democracy
Uzbekistan - former commie
Vietnam° - commie

Oh, and Malta and San Marino don't count, they're way too small...

[Xiahou]

Isn't Limbo out of Catholic teachings nowadays though, and not merely not spoken of?
Off-topic, but afaik, it was never a Catholic teaching.

[Tribesman]

Off-topic, but afaik, it was never a Catholic teaching.
Sort of , it is a strange take it or leave it "teaching" , many priests (over here anyway) took it and passed it onto their parishoners as a teaching of the church .
Which was a bit of a bugger for their parishoners who lost a child before baptism .

[seireikhaan]

Hmm, do I dare throw my :2cents: into the ring...?

Ah, what the heck.

Roe vs Wade? Not so good, imho. Think the court overstepped its bounds a bit, on account that the constitution states that things it doesn't cover should be left to states. Right to privacy? Well, I think its kind of a twisted argument there, on account that they kinda lost some of that when they conceived. Ask any parents with smaller children, and I'm sure they'll say they wish they had more privacy. ~D I know mine did. :evil:

As for the moral issue...egh. I'm a bit conflicted. Personally, I think killing is one of the most atrotious things a person can do. On the other hand, allowing a person to just suffer because of a genetic defect feels just wrong too. When I get married, I must admit, if I found out my kid was gonna have some kind of serious birth defect, I'd say there's probably a 98% chance I'd abort the child. But that's years ahead of me, for now.

However, I must admit that I often get very annoyed with pro-life groups, as every one that I've met has only been concerned with abortion. War? Nah, not important enough for our efforts. :confused: In recent years, my high school(which is Catholic) has really gotten me riled up. We have a HUGE pro-life group. It is easily the biggest non-athletic club at our school. The club Pres does our schools announcements every day(except a few days when his idealogical mini-me of a younger brother does them), in addition to being the student body president as well. I can never get him, nor the club, to get any sort of interest in acting against the war, despite that, you know, people tend to die in it. Furthermore, our school, who claims to champion human dignity and the value of life, actually has FORBID an anti-war group from being formed at the school, so those folks have to do it on their own at each other's houses(btw, there's only four people who participate in it). So far the only reason I've ever been able to deduce from mostly elusive teachers is that the school doesn't want to appear anti-American. Well, GAH!

[ICantSpellDawg]

Hmm, do I dare throw my :2cents: into the ring...?

Ah, what the heck.

Roe vs Wade? Not so good, imho. Think the court overstepped its bounds a bit, on account that the constitution states that things it doesn't cover should be left to states. Right to privacy? Well, I think its kind of a twisted argument there, on account that they kinda lost some of that when they conceived. Ask any parents with smaller children, and I'm sure they'll say they wish they had more privacy. ~D I know mine did. :evil:

As for the moral issue...egh. I'm a bit conflicted. Personally, I think killing is one of the most atrotious things a person can do. On the other hand, allowing a person to just suffer because of a genetic defect feels just wrong too. When I get married, I must admit, if I found out my kid was gonna have some kind of serious birth defect, I'd say there's probably a 98% chance I'd abort the child. But that's years ahead of me, for now.

However, I must admit that I often get very annoyed with pro-life groups, as every one that I've met has only been concerned with abortion. War? Nah, not important enough for our efforts. :confused: In recent years, my high school(which is Catholic) has really gotten me riled up. We have a HUGE pro-life group. It is easily the biggest non-athletic club at our school. The club Pres does our schools announcements every day(except a few days when his idealogical mini-me of a younger brother does them), in addition to being the student body president as well. I can never get him, nor the club, to get any sort of interest in acting against the war, despite that, you know, people tend to die in it. Furthermore, our school, who claims to champion human dignity and the value of life, actually has FORBID an anti-war group from being formed at the school, so those folks have to do it on their own at each other's houses(btw, there's only four people who participate in it). So far the only reason I've ever been able to deduce from mostly elusive teachers is that the school doesn't want to appear anti-American. Well, GAH!

I appreciate your feelings and I respect them. I also appreciate that you see the Roe decision for what it is.

In reality, issues of compassion and humanitarianism need to hook you at a young age. This usually happens due to one focal point - for me that was the issue of abortion. It opened my eyes to other issues regarding both human decency and failings.

The abortion fight keeps me firmly grounded to my compassion. I focus on the life and health of children and the ceaseless struggle for their healthy and loving upbringing; whether this is protecting them before they can voice their opinions or protecting them from abuse and starvation.

This is my humanizing strong point. I am, in Ron Paul's words, and "unshakable foe of abortion". Due to the strength of other movements and my personal involvement in the abortion movement, that is my bulkhead and focus - I am devoted to it first and feel that I best serve the well being of children by focusing my efforts toward ending or severely limiting the practice.

As I learn to better multi-task other issues will grab my focus as well.

[Viking]

So you, or your humanity are determined by your specific DNA?

The DNA is the fundament which experiences shape. The same experiences will have different outcome on "different DNA".



Vikings argument was flawed. The idea that sex sells are as wholly human as embryo's or fetuses is ludicrous. He could use the same argument against infants. The reality is that this is an issue for a reason and more and more people are starting to realize that. That is no coincidence.


That would not be related to "the 1/3 argument". If the couple does not have sex, no children will come into existence. If they abort it, it will neither.

[ICantSpellDawg]

The DNA is the fundament which experiences shape. The same experiences will have different outcome on "different DNA".

So when people receive their DNA, they receive their humanity or "personhood" in your interpretation?




That would not be related to "the 1/3 argument". If the couple does not have sex, no children will come into existence. If they abort it, it will neither.

Faulty.

-Without sex, no child will come into existence - True (but technically false - there are now others avenues of creation).

-If they abort it, no child will come into existence - False, the child has already come into existence, depending on a reasonable physical an philosophical definition of the words existence and child (which is not impacted by location).

[Viking]

So when people receive their DNA, they receive their humanity or "personhood" in your interpretation?

No, the person they are/become is the sum of DNA and experience. If you alter one of the two factors, the outcome is bound to be different.




-If they abort it, no child will come into existence - False, the child has already come into existence, depending on a reasonable physical an philosophical definition of the words existence and child (which is not impacted by location).

Is this a child, a human being?:


https://img120.imageshack.us/img120/6259/tubalpregnancywithembrycj3.jpg
(7th week, source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo)





to me, it looks much like an embryo.

[KukriKhan]

Moderator's Note: Viking's spoilered image is OK, to illustrate his point/question, as it relates to the "when is a human a human?" issue currently under discussion.

Tread carefully, however, in this area. Images of post-abortion "tissue", or graphic descriptions of such, will not be allowed.

Thank you for your attention. Please carry on. :bow:

[ICantSpellDawg]

No, the person they are/become is the sum of DNA and experience. If you alter one of the two factors, the outcome is bound to be different.





Is this a child, a human being?



to me, it looks much like an embryo.


Actually - that picture is of an ectopic pregnancy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectopic_pregnancy) at less than 5 weeks.
Here is a 7 week old.

http://www.lifechoicesonline.org/unborn-7wks.gif

Is This a human being? If not, what kind of mystical creature is it? Their DNA and their gender are determined at conception
In a few days, our 7 week old here will have nipples

[Vladimir]

Oh, and Malta and San Marino don't count, they're way too small...

Sounds like the typical pro-abortion mindset.

[Viking]

Actually - that picture is of an ectopic pregnancy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectopic_pregnancy) at less than 5 weeks.


ops.





Here is a 7 week old.

http://www.lifechoicesonline.org/unborn-7wks.gif
Is This a human being? If not, what kind of mystical creature is it? Their DNA and their gender are determined at conception
In a few days, our 7 week old here will have nipples


While it is starting to look like a human, I cannot agree that killing it is murder. A DNA and gender does not make a person. This mystical creature is a human being in development; it isn't a human just yet. Bah, discussing this is discussing semantics for the most part: it will rarley lead anywhere. :stupido:

[ICantSpellDawg]

ops.





While it is starting to look like a human, I cannot agree that killing it is murder. A DNA and gender does not make a person. This mystical creature is a human being in development; it isn't a human just yet. Bah, discussing this is discussing semantics for the most part: it will rarley lead anywhere. :stupido:

It isn't murder. Murder is a legal term. Killing the unborn is homicide and should be considered murder by the law.

I'm going to let you in on a little secret. You are also a Human being in development. So am I. All that that illustrates to us is that we are growing human beings.

If DNA and gender don't make a person, what does? I have established my opinion and beliefs about when a person is a person, you have not.

I'm arguing a consistent point. Words or no words my point is that you shouldn't get away with killing people, regardless of where they are or what body parts they have or don't have. It is an abhorrent, de-humanizing killing that the law allows. There are others and we will address them all.

The pro-abortion argument is covered up by semantics because the underlying point is weak.

[Viking]

It isn't murder. Murder is a legal term. Killing the unborn is homicide and should be considered murder by the law.

c'mon



I'm going to let you in on a little secret. You are also a Human being in development. So am I. All that that illustrates to us is that we are growing human beings.If DNA and gender don't make a person, what does? I have established my opinion and beliefs about when a person is a person, you have not.


I am growing, but I have a personality, a face and I can survive outside the vomb.



I'm arguing a consistent point. Words or no words my point is that you shouldn't get away with killing people, regardless of where they are or what body parts they have or don't have. It is an abhorrent, de-humanizing killing that the law allows. There are others and we will address them all.

The pro-abortion argument is covered up by semantics because the underlying point is weak.

You are killing an embryo, not a person. An embryo has no personality, has no ability of thinking; it has nothing that constitutes a person but DNA and a gender.

[rory_20_uk]

A gender by genotype, but the phenotype of gender can take longer to fully develop - and indeed sometimes isn't even clear when born.

~:smoking: