Abortion

[Fragony]

A child after 22 weeks, and don't click if you don't want to be as disgusted as I currently am. Really, why are we allowing this? There are so many people that would do everything to have a child but they have to use the extremily cynical trade that is the adoption (and organ) industry and all the victims it makes. I am not religious, come from the dutch biblebelt but it never clicked with me. But when something is right it is right and this is so very very wrong.

EDIT: We've been here before and it has been very clearly ruled that pictures of late term abortions are not suitable for this site. Picture removed. BG

That is not a foethes it's a baby.

[Geoffrey S]

Might want to warn people a bit more before they click. Can't say I was prepared for that, though I agree it is distressing.

As for abortion, for some time I've been of the opinion that it should be made completely illegal in all cases except for medical necessity. I'm not religious, but I also don't see it as a right of man to decide over whether someone should live or never get the chance. Currently it's too easy an alternative for caution or living with consequences.

A necessity for that to work is, as you mention, that the current shambles which is the adoption system is rebuilt from the ground up. At the very least, the Dutch government doesn't support it as a realistic opportunity as a friend found out first-hand, and I wouldn't be particularly surprised if it isn't a similar situation elsewhere.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Let me make this very clear - posted photographs of aborted foetuses are not permitted, nor links to sites that host such pictures. This is an ongoing debate, and these pictures are available to the interested on many sites for the effort of a google search.

This is a PG rated site. Please feel free to continue the debate, but any breaches of the above advice will draw sanction.

:bow:

[Fragony]

EDIT: We've been here before and it has been very clearly ruled that pictures of late term abortions are not suitable for this site. Picture removed. BG

Not with me, sorry.

[Banquo's Ghost]

That's OK. By the way, it would be helpful if you could clear your inbox so that private messages can get to you.

:bow:

[Xiahou]

What's the big deal anyhow? It's nothing more than an excised tumor- just an unwanted growth in the woman's body that a doctor removed for her. :dizzy2:

[TevashSzat]

Just did a google search for it and didn't find it very disgusting/wrong at all.

To me, alot of the dissection stuff is worse, especially if you're going to med school and have to dissect cadavers

[ICantSpellDawg]

Just did a google search for it and didn't find it very disgusting/wrong at all.

To me, alot of the dissection stuff is worse, especially if you're going to med school and have to dissect cadavers

Cadavers from a Homicide maybe.

I absolutely agree. If people can't see the pictures, they may well go around believing the bodies to be "clumps of cells"

go to www.google.com and cut and paste "abortion 22 weeks"

[Fragony]

Well this has shocked me terribly. I heard that there are states where women have to look at their kid before an abortian and I found it cruel but I was completily wrong I never knew it was like this. I was always against it out of principle but that principle was that you buy what you break, but this is a whole lot more and there is absolutily nothing that could ever justify this especially when it is in general little more then a quik solution for being careless. This is so very very wrong I don't know where to begin I am absolutily disgusted.

[Lemur]

It's worth pointing out that at 22 weeks you're talking about a five-and-a-half month pregnancy. That's quite late to be getting an abortion, I believe. According to 2008 numbers (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html), only a tiny percentage of medical providers will even consider aborting a 24-week pregnancy.

I'm not taking a position, just injecting some facts.

[gibsonsg91921]

Yeah, Lemur's right. Ron Paul refused to perform one, ever, as far as I know. At least that's what he said.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

go to www.google.com and cut and paste "abortion 22 weeks"

To be honest, it's hard to believe that people are doing that to what is essentially a part of them...knowing it's true makes it even more terrible.

I'm generally against abortion - I'm for it only if there's been a rape and the abortion is done ASAP, before the baby has any chance to be a baby (essentially), or if the mother will otherwise almost certainly die.

What is above, however, is just terrible.

EDIT: Honestly, who would take a picture like that anyways?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Who would perform an abortion at 22 weeks?

CR

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Who would perform an abortion at 22 weeks?

CR

Obviously someone rather sick. Really, if it was rape, you'd think they would have had it much sooner. I'd rather not assume anything, but either there was a large chance of death to the mother, or the parents, as much as I hate to even think this...well...backed out. :whip:

[Viking]

EDIT: Honestly, who would take a picture like that anyways?

That would be your typical anti-abortion extremist. :2thumbsup: He'd also a make a big poster out of the image, paste it to his van, and then drive around with it. :dizzy2:



Who would perform an abortion at 22 weeks?

CR

In which countries is abortion at 22 weeks allowed anyway? :inquisitive:

[Ser Clegane]

In which countries is abortion at 22 weeks allowed anyway? :inquisitive:

In the US for example - that's one of the reasons why you have such a strong and vocal anti-abortion movement there.
It's unfortunately an "all-or-nothing" game currently, although (at least from what I gathered here and elsewhere) a not so vocal majority would be quite willing to compromise on legal abortions during the first 8-12 weeks of pregnancy.
A pity that the extremists on both ends of the spectrum are dominating the debate and are apparently able to block a compromise. :shame:

[Fragony]

Not here. But it shows pretty well what it could have been. 2 weeks or 22 weeks what is the difference it's taking a life, I wish the 'mothers' a grand time trying to work out what their child could have become.

[Ser Clegane]

2 weeks or 22 weeks what is the difference it's taking a life,
If that is the case, I wonder if all those who oppose the abortion of 2 week old cells are also advocating a complete ban of alcohol for women and any smoking in the presence of women who could potentially be in the first weeks of a pregnancy...

[Fragony]

If that is the case, I wonder if all those who oppose the abortion of 2 week old cells are also advocating a complete ban of alcohol for women and any smoking in the presence of women who could potentially be in the first weeks of a pregnancy...

Going to be very carefull here but I think there is a difference between being irresponsible and not taking responsibility at all. It are not just cells they are a human in progress and we just don't have the right to not allow it to live, if it is unfit for life it will die anyway and I am a lot harsher there but it should get the chance imho being alive is your most fundamental right.

[Rodion Romanovich]

If that is the case, I wonder if all those who oppose the abortion of 2 week old cells are also advocating a complete ban of alcohol for women and any smoking in the presence of women who could potentially be in the first weeks of a pregnancy...
Good point, I agree completely! Taking drugs while pregnant hurts the fetus tens or hundreds of times as much as it does a grown-up. Drinking or taking drugs before the 4th month is very harmful, and drinking more than one glass of wine per week after that is also risky. Better to have a mega-celebration party with getting really drunk AFTER the child is born! But then you're probably drunk/high enough by the joy of having a child anyway :2thumbsup: , no drugs can substitute the real joy and happiness that nature can give. :yes:

[Ser Clegane]

Going to be very carefull here but I think there is a difference between being irresponsible and not taking responsibility at all. It are not just cells they are a human in progress and we just don't have the right to not allow it to live, if it is unfit for life it will die anyway and I am a lot harsher there but it should get the chance imho being alive is your most fundamental right.

I am aware that we are starting to touch a somewhat fuzzy issue here - but would abortion by binge drinking simply be irresponsible and frowned upon or would it already fall under the "not taking responsibility at all" which should be forbidden by law?

If one seriously considers the abortion of 2 week old human cells to be comparable with the murder of a baby - killing the same cells by negligence should not be acceptable at all (even if you are not aware of the pregnancy - ignorance can hardly be an excuse for killing a human being).

[Fragony]

I am aware that we are starting to touch a somewhat fuzzy issue here - but would abortion by binge drinking simply be irresponsible and frowned upon or would it already fall under the "not taking responsibility at all" which should be forbidden by law?

If one seriously considers the abortion of 2 week old human cells to be comparable with the murder of a baby - killing the same cells by negligence should not be acceptable at all (even if you are not aware of the pregnancy - ignorance can hardly be an excuse for killing a human being).

In law it would be the difference between neglectance and criminal intent which we handle differently. It's ultimatily up to from which you define it to be alive, I say from the go.

[Rodion Romanovich]

In law it would be the difference between neglectance and criminal intent which we handle differently. It's ultimatily up to from which you define it to be alive, I say from the go.
But what if it is neglectance of a kind where you know the consequences of the neglectance will be death? Is there really any reason to treat that differently from murder? Note that in this case the neglectance also isn't inactivity, but rather a deliberate activity which will lead to this consequence, so you can't apply the principle that inactivity can't be a crime in this case.*

* OT: this principle that inactivity isn't a crime, by the way, doesn't really work as intended unless complemented with the idea that certain actions come with responsibilities and that you accept this responsibility by taking that action. For example, that getting pregnant means you have accepted the responsibility for treating your child well, whereas you have no obligations at all before you accept any responsibilities by own choice in this manner. I.e. the idea of "accepted responsibility", which I think is very sensible.

[Fragony]

But what if it is neglectance of a kind where you know the consequences of the neglectance will be death? Is there really any reason to treat that differently from murder? Note that in this case the neglectance also isn't inactivity, but rather a deliberate activity which will lead to this consequence, so you can't apply the principle that inactivity can't be a crime in this case.*

* OT: this principle, by the way, doesn't really work as intended unless complemented with the idea that certain actions come with responsibilities, such as getting pregnant meaning you have a responsibility for treating your child well. I.e. the idea of "accepted responsibility", which I think is very sensible.

How much of a scumbag a drunk roadkiller may be he didn't have the intention but there is such a thing as criminal neglect and that should apply there. It's pretty bad but it's not -not going to say it-

[Tribesman]

Its funny isn't it , people say oh but what about rape cases and threats to the mothers health/life .
We don't have abortion over here ...well unless of course its a case of rape or threat to health case...in which case it goes through the courts,and medical hearings , and the courts and the courts ...and the courts and medical hearings again ...just to be sure you know as we wouldn't want any mistakes .
So while we don't have abortions we have a process that makes sure any abortions dealt with under the process are in the much later term than they would be without the ban on abortions .
It really is a no-win situation .

[Rodion Romanovich]

How much of a scumbag a drunk roadkiller may be he didn't have the intention but there is such a thing as criminal neglect and that should apply there. It's pretty bad but it's not -not going to say it-
If he drugged himself drunk and went into a car, he probably knew he would be likely to cause death. But if he was so drunk he didn't know that when stepping into the car, then he knew when getting himself so drunk that this would make him lose his capability of resisting the temptation to step into a car and run somebody over, that doing so would likely cause death.

Of course he can, and should be blamed. Just drugging yourself try try and gain legitimacy for committing a horrendous crime should not be endorsed by society. Do you realize the consequences of giving milder sentences just because the murderer was drunk? That means that anyone wishing to murder someone just gets drunk before committing the crime to get a lower sentence, something which would undermine the entire justice system.

Most funny thing is how you consistently show no understanding of people who suffer their entire life and then turn mad and commit crimes, but have compassion for rich problem-free upper-class people who deliberately deprive them of self-control and commit crimes. Self-control is a precious thing that not all people have, and if those who have it don't realize how great a gift it is, then they don't deserve it, or any understanding either. I'd rather pity someone who has lived on the verge of starvation all life, bullied and never loved by any woman, who commits a murder in a sober state, than a rich bully who gets drunk, steps into a car and runs over an innocent person, and says "oops, you can't really blame me, because I was drunk".

[Fragony]

http://home.quicknet.nl/qn/prive/h.dillen/images/ambulance.gif

[Rodion Romanovich]

That is a very fine ambulance you found there. I guess it means I've just lost the discussion and have to admit that you're right, which you of course are because you found the nicest ambulance picture of us both. A very fine ambulance. Perhaps you can find a picture of policecar too?

[Fragony]

And it was just for you. Nope, you kinda lost me between abortion and my upper class.

[KrooK]

Its probably first time when I completely agree with Fragony.
He is absolutely right. Edition of his post by BG is just ugly.
People who are for abortion can say that its ok, nothing bad happens.
You BG don't allow Fragony on showing how "ok" is it.

[Ser Clegane]

How much of a scumbag a drunk roadkiller may be he didn't have the intention but there is such a thing as criminal neglect and that should apply there. It's pretty bad but it's not -not going to say it-

Of course there is indeed a difference between criminal neglect and intent.
Nevertheless - there are laws against drunk driving for the specific reason that you are endangering other people's lives in a non-acceptable way when you are driving drunk.
If you believe that 2 weeks old cells should enjoy the same legal (and moral) protection as a newborn baby or a 5-months old foetus, you should consequently advocate that behaviour that poses significantly endangers the further development (or even "life") of these 2 week old cells is legally considered to be similar to drunk driving, i.e. forbidden.

I don't want to insinuate that there aren't people who aren't as strongly against drinking/smoking by or smoking in the presence of women who are (even potentially) pregnant as they are against abortion already during the first weeks - however, my subjective impression is that I hardly hear anybody demanding laws that would protect the unborn from the influence of alcohol and nicotine.

[Fragony]

I see your point and I have no argument against that

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Its probably first time when I completely agree with Fragony.
He is absolutely right. Edition of his post by BG is just ugly.
People who are for abortion can say that its ok, nothing bad happens.
You BG don't allow Fragony on showing how "ok" is it.

BG just removed it for being a little bit "too much" for younger viewers of this forum. Anyone who thinks they can take it can type in McGruff's way of viewing the picture - Google.com.

[ICantSpellDawg]

"right-wing extremists" are "crazy and sick" for posting those pictures. What about the people who took pictures of the Holocaust victims? Were they sick? Oh, I forgot that the difference was that those victims were human...

Wait, weren't there a number of people who disagreed that they were fully human? I'm sure that they called those photographers sick, too.

The real difference was that those people were forced to bury the bodies for what they allowed to happen.

[HoreTore]

Bah. If the fetus/baby/clump of cells/whateva is going to get the sack anyway, I really don't see any good reasons why the time it happens should matter.

Except medical reasons for the womans health though. Abortions become bigger operations the longer you wait, so obviously it's best to encourage people to do it as quickly as possible.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

"right-wing extremists" are "crazy and sick" for posting those pictures. What about the people who took pictures of the Holocaust victims? Were they sick? Oh, I forgot that the difference was that those victims were human...

Wait, weren't there a number of people who disagreed that they were fully human? I'm sure that they called those photographers sick, too.

The real difference was that those people were forced to bury the bodies for what they allowed to happen.

I didn't say that anyone was "crazy or sick" for taking that picture. In a way, I'm glad they did - it would raise awareness.

[Rodion Romanovich]

"right-wing extremists" are "crazy and sick" for posting those pictures. What about the people who took pictures of the Holocaust victims? Were they sick? Oh, I forgot that the difference was that those victims were human...

Wait, weren't there a number of people who disagreed that they were fully human? I'm sure that they called those photographers sick, too.

The real difference was that those people were forced to bury the bodies for what they allowed to happen.
Medically speaking, at an early stage the pre-fetus isn't really much more human than a bacteria, since it just like a bacteria has only one cell. It takes about 4 months until you can see the difference between a pig/rat and a human fetus. Yet, you think it's ok to kill pigs for eating and rats because they disgust you, but not a fetus whom you can't distinguish from one of those. As for Holocaust victims, to call people that are obviously human non-human is a completely different matter, and I fail to see what the Holocaust has to do with rape victims wanting to have an abortion of a piece of tissue without feelings. The fetus before 4 months hardly has any feelings, and not much more than simple reflexes at most - like a fish or insect which you wouldn't hesitate to kill. The whole argument about that it can't be aborted because it's too close to human doesn't really apply unless you're a militant vegetarian, which I personally am not - nothing is as great as a tasty, well-fried of BBQed steak :2thumbsup:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Medically speaking, at an early stage the pre-fetus isn't really much more human than a bacteria, since it just like a bacteria has only one cell. It takes about 4 months until you can see the difference between a pig/rat and a human fetus. Yet, you think it's ok to kill pigs for eating and rats because they disgust you, but not a fetus whom you can't distinguish from one of those. As for Holocaust victims, to call people that are obviously human non-human is a completely different matter, and I fail to see what the Holocaust has to do with rape victims wanting to have an abortion of a piece of tissue without feelings. The fetus before 4 months hardly has any feelings, and not much more than simple reflexes at most - like a fish or insect which you wouldn't hesitate to kill. The whole argument about that it can't be aborted because it's too close to human doesn't really apply unless you're a militant vegetarian, which I personally am not - nothing is as great as a tasty, well-fried of BBQed steak :2thumbsup:

Much more human? This is medical speak; that there are grades and levels of humanity?

Actually, looks aren't the qualifier of what a human is. Genetically it is a human - if it is able to progress, it will eventually look like us. Babies don't look like you or I, but we call them human because it is so glaringly obvious that they are. In fact, they look and act more like monkeys with dwarfism. Does that mean that they are not human?

"Hardly any feelings" - that's a good one.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Much more human? This is medical speak; that there are grades and levels of humanity?

Actually, looks aren't the qualifier of what a human is. Genetically it is a human

So is a piece of skin cells you rub off from yourself every time you scratch yourself.

[ICantSpellDawg]

So is a piece of skin cells you rub off from yourself every time you scratch yourself.

No - it has my genetic code - it is a part of me.

[Rodion Romanovich]

No - it has my genetic code - it is a part of me.
Yes, and you're a human, as far as I know

[ICantSpellDawg]

Yes, and you're a human, as far as I know
Right, but that little piece of human "bacteria" has a genetic code distinct from both the mother and the father. Numerous traits are already determined.

Big difference from skin, sperm, egg, hair. It is a Whole person, while the aforementioned tiny body parts are not.

I understand where you are coming from. Laws are already too drawn out and many seem to be unnecessary in defending freedoms of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This, in my opinion is of the utmost importance in realization of those freedoms for everyone as we have all been at that stage of our development.


What the... where is "Enjoy crusading for your perfect moral world." from?

[Myrddraal]

So is a piece of skin cells you rub off from yourself every time you scratch yourself.

What TuffStuff said, that argument is empty.

The problem with this debate is that it always get's polarised. I believe that Frag was appaled by how late the abortion was. At what point does it 'become' human. At what point is it just a bunch of tissue.

The heart begins to beat on the 23rd day after conception right? Wikipedia tells me: a six-week-old human embryo can arch its back and neck. By seven weeks, movement in the arms and legs can be detected by ultrasound. In these early movements, the limbs move together; they begin to move independently by the ninth week as the controlling neurons in the spinal cord develop. At week 11, the fetus can open its mouth and suck its fingers; at week 12, it begins to swallow amniotic fluid.

What characteristics define humanity?

What is the difference between a man in a coma (who is predicted to come out of his coma in 9 months), and a baby (who is predicted to be born in 9 months).


Frankly I find it hard to see a real difference, and those who dare to define a date on which a clump of cells becomes a human are treading dangerous territory.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Right, but that little piece of human "bacteria" has a genetic code distinct from both the mother and the father.

So has a great deal of skin cells you rub off, because plenty of cells end up getting small mutations anyway. Especially skin cells, that are exposed to a lot of rebuilding and sun UV radiation.



Big difference from skin, sperm, egg, hair. It is a Whole person, while the aforementioned tiny body parts are not.

Cloning says they can likely be made into a whole person. Given that their DNA is often slightly different from the DNA your single pre-fetus cell had when you were in the womb, that is a new, unique person you just scratched off yourself. Not to mention the monkey you see at the zoo has maybe 99% (or was it 95%, doesn't really matter) identical DNA with yourself, but people still think it's ok to keep the "not enough human" monkeys in cages all life. Again, anti-abortion more or less implies veganism.



What the... where is "Enjoy crusading for your perfect moral world." from?
lol, it was posted 10 minutes ago

[ICantSpellDawg]

lol, it was posted 10 minutes ago

By me? where?

[Rodion Romanovich]

What TuffStuff said, that argument is empty.

The problem with this debate is that it always get's polarised. I believe that Frag was appaled by how late the abortion was. At what point does it 'become' human. At what point is it just a bunch of tissue.

I don't think we should wait with abortions to the time when the fetus becomes suffiently human, but rather to when it becomes sufficiently alive. And it does become alive at about the time when it becomes capable of thinking and comprehens pain and fear. Seing as the nervous system is developed quite late, it should be no problem doing abortions before then.


by the ninth week as the controlling neurons in the spinal cord develop
That seems like a reasonable maximum date.



What characteristics define humanity?

That is a philosophical question which is a whole topic of itself, which I btw think isn't needed here since it was the notion of being "sufficiently alive" that I chose, not of "sufficiently human".

[Rodion Romanovich]

By me? where?
Check recent posts made by user, in your own profile :balloon2:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Check recent posts made by user, in your own profile :balloon2:

I can't find it. I don't remember ever posting that - I never use "Crusading" in sentences. Except for right here.

You quoted it, would you mind providing a link? I can't for the life of me find where I posted it in the last 4 days. It's not a point that I'm trying to make, It's just that I don't like not remembering things that I quoted as writing.

[Xiahou]

Of course there is indeed a difference between criminal neglect and intent.
Nevertheless - there are laws against drunk driving for the specific reason that you are endangering other people's lives in a non-acceptable way when you are driving drunk.
If you believe that 2 weeks old cells should enjoy the same legal (and moral) protection as a newborn baby or a 5-months old foetus, you should consequently advocate that behaviour that poses significantly endangers the further development (or even "life") of these 2 week old cells is legally considered to be similar to drunk driving, i.e. forbidden.

I don't want to insinuate that there aren't people who aren't as strongly against drinking/smoking by or smoking in the presence of women who are (even potentially) pregnant as they are against abortion already during the first weeks - however, my subjective impression is that I hardly hear anybody demanding laws that would protect the unborn from the influence of alcohol and nicotine.How on earth are you trying to compare an unhealthy behavior with a deliberate act? Legislation against pregnant smokers would be to limit an unhealthy behavior. That's different than deliberately killing an unborn baby. You're talking about the government barging into people's homes to make sure they're living an approved lifestyle vs the overt act of killing. You may as well equate a mother smoking around her newborn with one who deliberately drowns her baby in a tub. The argument is a red herring.

[Viking]

"right-wing extremists" are "crazy and sick" for posting those pictures. What about the people who took pictures of the Holocaust victims? Were they sick? Oh, I forgot that the difference was that those victims were human...

Wait, weren't there a number of people who disagreed that they were fully human? I'm sure that they called those photographers sick, too.

The real difference was that those people were forced to bury the bodies for what they allowed to happen.

I merely said who likely made and published those photographs. While there is nothing with taking photographs to aid ones case, forcing these sort of pictures upon the public is perverted.

[Ser Clegane]

How on earth are you trying to compare an unhealthy behavior with a deliberate act? Legislation against pregnant smokers would be to limit an unhealthy behavior. That's different than deliberately killing an unborn baby. You're talking about the government barging into people's homes to make sure they're living an approved lifestyle vs the overt act of killing. You may as well equate a mother smoking around her newborn with one who deliberately drowns her baby in a tub. The argument is a red herring.

That is very interesting.

From what I gathered in the past you are clearly anti-abortion. So you would consider banning abortion to be OK, but regulating behaviour that is known to significantly increase the chance of miscarriages (i.e. to induce abortions) or cause birth defects is "barging into people's homes".

Now how about the drunken driver example (and that is what I am comparing the smoking/drinking during pregnancy to in terms of "criminal level" - as you would notice if you read my previous posts)?
Should drunk driving be allowed in your opinion? What business of yours or the government's is it if I drive home in my car in a drunken stupor? I am certainly not deliberately trying to kill anybody - sure it's a rather unhealthy behaviour (for me and others) but who are you to barge into my home (or my car) and tell me not to drink and drive?
After all it only increases the chance that I have a crash and kill somebody when I drive around drunk.

[Xiahou]

That is very interesting.

From what I gathered in the past you are clearly anti-abortion. So you would consider banning abortion to be OK, but regulating behaviour that is known to significantly increase the chance of miscarriages (i.e. to induce abortions) or cause birth defects is "barging into people's homes".Do you favor laws banning mothers from smoking in front of their children? What about laws banning parents from taking their children to McDonalds? Or should we jail parents who let their children become obese? This is what your argument is.

Unless the government is going to raise our children for us, it can't completely regulate unhealthy behavior and irresponsible parenting. Parents have legal guardianship of their children and unless they're abusive or criminally neglectful, there's little for the government to do. There's always going to be bad parents. You seem to be saying that there's no difference between a bad parent and a murderous one. Just because I don't want a mother to be able to legally kill her child it doesn't mean I think it's practical or right for the government to monitor every single thing she exposes her child to. I can't believe that anyone would fail to see the difference here.

Drunken driving is a entirely different kettle of fish. Driving on public roads is a heavily regulated and taxed privilege that is granted by the state. The government sets its own rules and regulations for the licensure of drivers and drivers agree to abide by those rules when they receive a license. While I'm sure you'd find my views on drunken driving interesting, they would bear little relevance to the current topic.

[Rodion Romanovich]

I can't find it. I don't remember ever posting that - I never use "Crusading" in sentences. Except for right here.

You quoted it, would you mind providing a link? I can't for the life of me find where I posted it in the last 4 days. It's not a point that I'm trying to make, It's just that I don't like not remembering things that I quoted as writing.
damn, I'm very sorry, it was a post by another, with a too similar looking (for my poor eyes) avatar. I apologize most humbly :bow:

[Ser Clegane]

Do you favor laws banning mothers from smoking in front of their children?
Would I believe that a several week fetus is equivalent to a living human being and should enjoy the same protection of its life, then I would indeed favor laws that ban behaviour that bears a high risk of killing that fetus.



Drunken driving is a entirely different kettle of fish. Driving on public roads is a heavily regulated and taxed privilege that is granted by the state. The government sets its own rules and regulations for the licensure of drivers and drivers agree to abide by those rules when they receive a license. While I'm sure you'd find my views on drunken driving interesting, they would bear little relevance to the current topic.
That's a bit of a circular argument - so banning of drunk driving is OK because driving is regulated anyway? Why exactly do you think that the state has more right to heavily regulate driving and by doing so ensuring the safety of its citizens than it would have to protect the life of the equivalent of a newborn?
Just because the state built the road with your tax money?

[Xiahou]

Would I believe that a several week fetus is equivalent to a living human being and should enjoy the same protection of its life, then I would indeed favor laws that ban behaviour that bears a high risk of killing that fetus.Then why don't you favor it after they're born? :rolleyes:

This really isn't a productive line of discussion. I suspect everyone here (perhaps even yourself) can see your comparison isn't valid. Wasting time by continually pointing out that the illegality of murder and the illegality of an unhealthy lifestyle are vastly different isn't doing anything for the original topic. Your original argument, I believe boiled down to "How can you oppose abortion and not support laws banning smoking around women who might possibly be pregnant?" There's no comparison there- at all.

If that is the case, I wonder if all those who oppose the abortion of 2 week old cells are also advocating a complete ban of alcohol for women and any smoking in the presence of women who could potentially be in the first weeks of a pregnancy...

[Ser Clegane]

Then why don't you favor it after they're born? :rolleyes:
If it can be shown that that smoking in front of your children poses a significant risk to their lives I would indeed favor it


This really isn't a productive line of discussion. I suspect everyone here (perhaps even yourself) can see your comparison isn't valid.
What do you base this suspicion on?


Wasting time by continually pointing out that the illegality of murder and the illegality of an unhealthy lifestyle are vastly different isn't doing anything for the original topic. Your original argument, I believe boiled down to "How can you oppose abortion and not support laws banning smoking around women who might possibly be pregnant?" There's no comparison there- at all.

Nobody forces you to "waste your time" - it is your decision alone to post or not to post.
If you believe the argument is irrelevant to the original topic I guess we have to agree to disagree
Personally I think that pointing out a certain double-standard between calling for state intervention when a mother consciously decides to abort on one hand, and considering it to be a completely personal (albeit perhaps not so nice) decision and no business of the state if you end your pregnancy by consuming nicotine and or alcohol in higher doses on the other hand, is relevant to the discussion.

At what point exactly does it become OK to value personal lifestyle over the "life" of the fetus?

[Xiahou]

At what point exactly does it become OK to value personal lifestyle over the "life" of the fetus?The only time your argument even begins to approach validity is when you totally distort the facts, which you've done increasingly as your argument was attacked. You originally tried to claim that it's hypocritical to oppose abortion and not support a smoking ban- that's the practical extension of your "complete ban of alcohol for women and any smoking in the presence of women who could potentially be in the first weeks of a pregnancy..." and it's utter nonsense- a passing whiff of smoke is insignificant. Later you change the charge to the mother's smoking "significantly increasing" the risk of birth defect or miscarriage. It is significant in a statistical sense, but it's far from a guarantee- most women who smoke during pregnancy do not miscarry or have children with birth defects as a result. The differences between complication rates with mothers who smoke and mothers who don't is small. Further, not smoking is no guarantee of avoiding miscarriage or birth defects. We're talking about a few percentage points difference in the overall risk. Then, in a further attempt to prop up your flagging argument you claim:

Would I believe that a several week fetus is equivalent to a living human being and should enjoy the same protection of its life, then I would indeed favor laws that ban behaviour that bears a high risk of killing that fetus.That claim is downright fallacious in regards to tobacco or alcohol- you've pretty much abandoned all basis in reality at this point.


If it can be shown that that smoking in front of your children poses a significant risk to their lives I would indeed favor itI'm sure you're familiar with the studies that suggest second hand smoke increases the risk of cancer, emphysema, or a myriad of other illnesses- much like pregnant mothers who smoke have an increased risk of giving their children birth defects. So, I guess you favor a smoking ban, yes?


What do you base this suspicion on?The obviousness of the arguments.
Your argument is one of opposing murder means the government must take complete responsibility for regulating all aspects of a person's health. Allowing unhealthy behavior is apparently no different than allowing murder in your mind. I'm not sure where this idea comes from, but most should be able to tell there's a difference.

[Papewaio]

So it would be okay with you for a mum to be, to have a hot bath and a G&T?

[Viking]

This really isn't a productive line of discussion. I suspect everyone here (perhaps even yourself) can see your comparison isn't valid.

.


Further, not smoking is no guarantee of avoiding miscarriage or birth defects. We're talking about a few percentage points difference in the overall risk.

Which is no argument.


I'm sure you're familiar with the studies that suggest second hand smoke increases the risk of cancer, emphysema, or a myriad of other illnesses- much like pregnant mothers who smoke have an increased risk of giving their children birth defects. So, I guess you favor a smoking ban, yes?

Babies become smokers themselves during the pregnancy if the mother is smoking...this is not about second hand smoking.



Your argument is one of opposing murder means the government must take complete responsibility for regulating all aspects of a person's health. Allowing unhealthy behavior is apparently no different than allowing murder in your mind. I'm not sure where this idea comes from, but most should be able to tell there's a difference.

The goverment should not react if a child is being mistreated in a way that may soon lead to death (in this case...miscarriage)?

[ICantSpellDawg]

.
Babies become smokers themselves during the pregnancy if the mother is smoking...this is not about second hand smoking.



How? The smoke can't be going into the lungs.

[Viking]

How? The smoke can't be going into the lungs.

The poisonous substance from the cigarettes enters the circulatory system of the baby through the blood of the mother. This is what may lead to miscarriage.

[Fragony]

The only time your argument even begins to approach validity is when you totally distort the facts, which you've done increasingly as your argument was attacked.

I think he raises one hell of a point, and it's a legal argument he makes not a moral. If you want to classify something as being alive you have to be consistent and apply all human rights and that is a juridical minefield, when there is a miscarriage the whateveryoucallitthere would have to do deal with it as if it could have been a crime, you don't want to do that to someone to someone who just lost her baby, there can be so many reasons the pregnancy failed but if you already classify it as being a human you have no ther choice to treat it like that. It is never a good thing to complicate things. I like what they do in Texas(?), they let the mother see what is growing in her, and they should aid her in giving birth to it and finding the baby a good home.

[Ironside]

What characteristics define humanity?

What is the difference between a man in a coma (who is predicted to come out of his coma in 9 months), and a baby (who is predicted to be born in 9 months).


Frankly I find it hard to see a real difference, and those who dare to define a date on which a clump of cells becomes a human are treading dangerous territory.

It always get wierd and contradictual.

Living, having working organs, brain activity and unique genetical profile isn't foolproof enough to be human.

Conception is also wierd, as you're giving rights based on that the cells will probably eventually growing into what we all agree to be human, but at the same time you're limiting those rights quite severely when it comes to saving them in very early age (the older they're the more rights they seem to get on this), letting it go more or less naturally (notice that the same lack of medical care for any other age would be considered apalling).

Ser Clergance and Fragony is showing on one example of this. There's much more...

[Papewaio]

I'm not sure, but the nicotine might get past the placenta.

Also it isn't a few percentage points in increase in miscarriage, its more like 50% higher from smoking, plus lower birth weights (which have a host of associated issues) and higher chances that a smoking mother during and after birth will cause problems like asthma in the child.

[HoreTore]

they let the mother see what is growing in her

They "let her", or they "force her"?

@Pape: The nicotine is the fun part of the tobacco, there are a lot of other nasties there. And once you carry them in your blood, you're bound to transfer them to the baby when you share bloodstreams.

[Big_John]

clearly the answer is we should ban all abortion, but make women who would want an abortion take up smoking (or some other drug if they already smoke). that way, the abortion-hopefuls get a chance at their wish without offending the anti-abortionists (or, consequently, the law).

see, smokers aren't "murdering baby humans" they're just rolling the dice.. if the baby comes to term, well, them's the breaks. better luck next time. we could take bets on the outcome. open the books on this bad boy, the revenues will pay for the medical bills!



i think i'll call this cute little guy "johan"

http://psyberia.ru/img/blastocyst.jpg


come on, johan, daddy needs a new pair of shoes!!

[Fragony]

They "let her", or they "force her"?

Do you have a problem with that?

[HoreTore]

Do you have a problem with that?

If they would just let her; nope. Just the way it should be.

If they force her; yes.

[Fragony]

Shouldn't be dragged at their hair in front of the monitor, but if they are psychologically up to it I see no problem, might make them consider less convenient but more humanitarian solutions. Middle road would be not covering the procedure in their insurance if they refuse, after all not all possibility's were exploited so why should the collective pay for their convenient bliss.

[HoreTore]

Shouldn't be dragged at their hair in front of the monitor, but if they are psychologically up to it I see no problem, might make them consider less convenient but more humanitarian solutions. Middle road would be not covering the procedure in their insurance if they refuse, after all not all possibility's were exploited so why should the collective pay for their convenient bliss.

Because the atmosphere of such a thing might create an unnecessary trauma for the woman, especially if her psyke is not that strong in the first place(which may not be discovered by the doctors). If she wants to, then by all means, she should of course be able to, but I see no reason to play with peoples minds.

Unless, of course, the idea is to screw up those who take abortions to serve as examples to others.... But that reminds us of a world we don't really want to live in, doesn't it?

[Myrddraal]

i think i'll call this cute little guy "johan"

What was that? :inquisitive: You're misinformed if you think these invisible clumps of cells are what pops out after most abortions.

Again, we polarise the debate, it's either a clump of cells, or a born baby. It's stage of development is pushed out of view by arguments like this.



Thanks for your reply Ironside.


Living, having working organs, brain activity and unique genetical profile isn't foolproof enough to be human.

The danger is that if you expect more for a human to be considered alive, then you must apply those criteria evenly.

What is the difference between the man in the coma and the mostly developed featus? If anything, the mostly developed featus shows more nervous activity. So why not kill off the man in the coma?

The reason we don't kill him is because we respect his opportunity to have a life after the coma. If he has a chance of getting out of his coma, he has the potential for life, and we respect that.

When it comes to an unborn baby, we don't apply the same standards. It's not enough to have the potential for life any more, you have to have something more than that.


This is difficult for me to morally accept.




Conception is also wierd, as you're giving rights based on that the cells will probably eventually growing into what we all agree to be human, but at the same time you're limiting those rights quite severely when it comes to saving them in very early age (the older they're the more rights they seem to get on this), letting it go more or less naturally (notice that the same lack of medical care for any other age would be considered apalling).


Actually as you get older it is often the case that you effectively have less of a right to healthcare. If you're very old and ill, they often consider treating you as an extension of your life (rather than saving it). Often old people with serious illnesses will stop receiving treatment and will be 'allowed to die', often with the consent of the family. At what point is it still worth treating someone, if their old age and health will probably have them back in hospital tomorrow.

When you're in the prime of your life however, people will go to huge lengths to save you from serious injury or illness.

When you're in the womb, you are much more fragile, and it's much more difficult to predict what might cause a miscarriage (and hence very difficult to prevent). I don't think it's a lack of respect for the unborn child that makes the treatment more limited, but rather an actual limitation on what can be done. I'm sure most women who've had a miscarriage would shift heaven and earth to avoid it, but they also probably didn't see it coming.

[Ironside]

The danger is that if you expect more for a human to be considered alive, then you must apply those criteria evenly.

An example Man "pregnant" with own twin (http://www.abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=2346476&page=1). TBH your "potential" to life is actually the best argument I've heard to why you cannot treat the twin as an alive human.
You could of course within a few years clone the twin and make the twin have the same potential as anybody else, as the genetical code is most likely to be functional.


What is the difference between the man in the coma and the mostly developed featus? If anything, the mostly developed featus shows more nervous activity. So why not kill off the man in the coma?

The reason we don't kill him is because we respect his opportunity to have a life after the coma. If he has a chance of getting out of his coma, he has the potential for life, and we respect that.

When it comes to an unborn baby, we don't apply the same standards. It's not enough to have the potential for life any more, you have to have something more than that.

This is difficult for me to morally accept.

The problem with "potential" is that it's a relative concept. At what point does this potential for life start to become absurd to keep up? see above for one example.

And that is the problem, that's a huge area of grey that every time you draw a line you'll get examples of where it should be on the other side of the line.


Actually as you get older it is often the case that you effectively have less of a right to healthcare. If you're very old and ill, they often consider treating you as an extension of your life (rather than saving it). Often old people with serious illnesses will stop receiving treatment and will be 'allowed to die', often with the consent of the family. At what point is it still worth treating someone, if their old age and health will probably have them back in hospital tomorrow.

When you're in the prime of your life however, people will go to huge lengths to save you from serious injury or illness.

So due to practical reasons when people are old (aka thier "potential" is low) it's ok to not try to save them. If a foetus (or a child for that matter) has genetical defects (aka thier "potential" is low), is it then ok to not try to save them?


When you're in the womb, you are much more fragile, and it's much more difficult to predict what might cause a miscarriage (and hence very difficult to prevent). I don't think it's a lack of respect for the unborn child that makes the treatment more limited, but rather an actual limitation on what can be done. I'm sure most women who've had a miscarriage would shift heaven and earth to avoid it, but they also probably didn't see it coming.

Shades of grey as usual. As mentioned smoking is appearently ok to do while smoking, but not recommendable due to the increased risks. To get back on the abortion debate, before it was legal it existed several products with somewhat practical applications, but when used durnig pregnacy had a high risk of creating a miscarriage.
It wouldn't surprice if it's exist products with the same purpose today. Should they be legal? Should they be illegal to use while pregnant? If no, you're de facto allowing private abortions, if yes, you then need to decide on what level this increased risk should be allowed to and either accept that there's gonna be a lot of women peforming this borderline activity and/or have a massive control apparatus that controls that women don't perform these things while pregnant. De facto a grey area.

[Big_John]

What was that? :inquisitive: it's a human blastocyst, in utero.
You're misinformed if you think these invisible clumps of cells are what pops out after most abortions.depends on when the abortion is performed.
Again, we polarise the debate, it's either a clump of cells, or a born baby. It's stage of development is pushed out of view by arguments like this.the problem here is we have some people who generally want to entirely ban the procedure, thus polarizing the debate a priori.

some people will never abide abortion of any "stage of development" of little johan there, and some people (far fewer, i imagine) will never abide the infringement of a woman's right of determination over her own body. we have to ignore these people if consensus is possible.

now, philosophically speaking, people get tangled up in discussions of what is "human" and what is "alive". but this imprecise language muddles the issue. human fetuses are obviously alive and human, but they are not obviously persons, and that is the issue. legal rights are extended to persons, not clumps of human cells. my severed finger is human and alive (for some time at least), but no one is going to give it the right to vote.

this "potential for personhood" idea is unconvincing. i can't worry about the infinite future, and what possible persons may never be because of my actions. moreover, i can't see what continuity would allow one to equate the identity of a fetus with the identity of persons. it's a fallacious equivalence. i deny that early stages even possess a personal identity, being 'clumps of cells' such as they are.

in addition, a potential-personist should be against any form of contraception, logically speaking, unless the human zygote is magically imbued with some special significance by virtue of having a complete genome (like my severed finger). so unless these same people that want to ban the 'murder of potential people' also want to ban condoms, they are being hypocritical.

i consider the notion that the early stage 'clump of human cells' can be a person to be absurd. but later stage fetuses i think certainly have an argument. but even if we consider the fetus to be a person at some point in development (as almost everyone does), we still have a unique situation on our hands. we have one person literally living inside of and off of another person's body. one of those people is entirely dependent on the other.

there are a couple of interesting thought experiments that illustrate these ideas. i'll try to reproduce them from memory:

1) let's say you wake up one day and find that in the night, someone has hooked up a man without kidneys to your kidney's. effectively, you have become a human dialysis machine. you don't know this person, they are fully awake and conscious, but they have no knowledge of how or why they were hooked up to you. you can easily detach him from your body, but doing so would kill him. do you have an obligation to remain attached to him, preserving his life for the rest of your life? what if it's only a 9-month dialysis, after which he can be detached safely? what if he wasn't awake and conscious, but in a coma?

2) let's say an alien descends from the sky one day and tells you that he's opening a new planet, just a few galaxies over. it's going to be a nice, lush tropical planet full of ewoks and chocolate. but, he's looking for one more ingredient, you. he needs millions of you to make the planet's ecosystem complete. all he needs from you is your consent, and he can painlessly and instantly clone you a million times over and be on his way. there are millions of potential people waiting for you to just say, "okay". do you have any kind of duty to say yes? what does potential personhood really count for anyway?

the obvious retorts to these arguments are something like:

1) women consent to support the pregnancy by virtue of consenting to sex in the first place. therefor, the dialysis analogy does not hold.

2) the potential of a fertilized ovum is different from the potential of a cloned human, because it's either activated in some sense, or more 'natural'.


no matter how you fall on that though, clearly the idea of potential is complicated and doesn't resolve the issue at all, imo.





what we are left with is a balancing of a woman's rights to freedom and self-determination against the right to potential personhood, at least until the fetus is viable outside of the woman's body. how you weigh those two things determines where you are in the debate. imo, potential personhood doesn't count for much. and i think abortion up to the point (roughly) at which the fetus could exist independently of the mother's body should be permissible (whenever that may be.. end of first trimester? end of second? anyone know?).

what are the statistics on abortions anyway? do most of them occur during or after the first trimester?

[Xiahou]

Sorry Big John, you have a lot of words there but you didn't say much...

but they are not obviously personsYour entire argument hinges on that assumption that you state as "obvious"- many would disagree. Take that away, and pretty much everything else you've written has no weight.

I will take the time to knock down one of the flimsier arguments that I see again and again in these threads:
in addition, a potential-personist should be against any form of contraception, logically speaking, unless the human zygote is magically imbued with some special significance by virtue of having a complete genome (like my severed finger). so unless these same people that want to ban the 'murder of potential people' also want to ban condoms, they are being hypocritical.A sperm or an egg will never grow into anything on their own- much like your severed finger. When combined they are indeed "magically imbued" (it's actually scientific, but if you prefer to think it magic I wont stop you) with the ability to grow into adulthood.


1) let's say you wake up one day and find that in the night, someone has hooked up a man without kidneys to your kidney's. effectively, you have become a human dialysis machine. you don't know this person, they are fully awake and conscious, but they have no knowledge of how or why they were hooked up to you. you can easily detach him from your body, but doing so would kill him. do you have an obligation to remain attached to him, preserving his life for the rest of your life? what if it's only a 9-month dialysis, after which he can be detached safely? what if he wasn't awake and conscious, but in a coma?
Add to this that the comatose person had no say in being attached to you and it might turn into an interesting debate about abortion as a result of rape. However, the huge majority of abortions are from consensual sex.

[Big_John]

Sorry Big John, you have a lot of words there but you didn't say much...something is better than nothing.


Your entire argument hinges on that assumption that you state as "obvious"- many would disagree. Take that away, and pretty much everything else you've written has no weight.i said "not obviously persons", i.e. it is not obvious whether fetuses are persons or not. can't say i'm surprised you chose to read your own meaning into it, though.


I will take the time to knock down one of the flimsier arguments that I see again and again in these threads:A sperm or an egg will never grow into anything on their own- much like your severed finger. When combined they are indeed "magically imbued" (it's actually scientific, but if you prefer to think it magic I wont stop you) with the ability to grow into adulthood.a fertilized egg won't grow into anything on it's own either. don't believe me? take the fertilized egg out of the woman and drop it on the ground. let's see how often it grows up into a construction worker.


Add to this that the comatose person had no say in being attached to you and it might turn into an interesting debate about abortion as a result of rape. However, the huge majority of abortions are from consensual sex.i already noted this criticism to the dialysis analogy, try reading a whole post before jerking both your knees.

myself, i don't think that a woman deciding to have sex automatically means she can't decide later that she doesn't want to devote the next 9 months of her life to the blastula mitosizing in her uterus.


as i said, the question boils down to, at what point does the right to potential personhood of the embryo overtake the rights of self-determination and freedom of a woman? at birth? when the fetus could survive independently? first trimester? conception? and why?

why not actually address the real issue instead of creating strawmen? something is better than nothing.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

myself, i don't think that a woman deciding to have sex automatically means she can't decide later that she doesn't want to devote the next 9 months of her life to the blastula mitosizing in her uterus.


If you have consensual sex, you are accepting the risks of such behaviour freely, including a possible pregnancy. If you are not prepared for that, use birth control. If there is still a pregnancy, it is your responsibility as a result of having considered the benefits of having sex. The baby should not be an inconvenience to be thrown aside after consensual sex, it should be nurtured and cared for as if it were planned.

I will attempt to create an analogy. If I asked my father to help me paint my house, and he broke a bone in the process (the "inconvenience"), I would be obliged to care for him until he recovered. Not the best analogy, but you can see my point.

[Big_John]

If you have consensual sex, you are accepting the risks of such behaviour freely, including a possible pregnancy. If you are not prepared for that, use birth control. If there is still a pregnancy, it is your responsibility as a result of having considered the benefits of having sex. The baby should not be an inconvenience to be thrown aside after consensual sex, it should be nurtured and cared for as if it were planned.what baby? we're talking about embryos.

and what if the couple does use birth control, but it fails. is abortion OK in that case?


I will attempt to create an analogy. If I asked my father to help me paint my house, and he broke a bone in the process (the "inconvenience"), I would be obliged to care for him until he recovered. Not the best analogy, but you can see my point.no, i really can't. again, i've already noted the consent counter-argument. but why does consent at one point automatically mean inability to change one's mind? what if the woman consented under the belief that the father would help support the future child, and then the dude dies?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

and what if the couple does use birth control, but it fails. is abortion OK in that case?

No. The point is that you willingly took the risk. I have no problem with an abortion after a proven rape. However, if you take the risk, you accept the potential outcomes.

[Big_John]

No. The point is that you willingly took the risk. I have no problem with an abortion after a proven rape. However, if you take the risk, you accept the potential outcomes.but why does consent to the risk in the past automatically overrule free choice in the future?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The debate on abortion hinges (mostly) on when you consider the foetus to actually become a human being in it's own right. If you can't pinpoint the moment do you want to hedge on the side of caution or the side of liberality?

For myself I can't prove that a one celled embryo isn't a human being so I can't in good concience ever back abortion.

[Fragony]

No. The point is that you willingly took the risk. I have no problem with an abortion after a proven rape.

Friend of mine is a rape-child, he didn't really enjoy learning about that but he prefers to be alive. Not going to judge abortion after rape but he turned out to be a great guy if you don't anger him, with not so good taste in women (for the dutchies he's dating that big brother kelly-creature)

[Banquo's Ghost]

. I have no problem with an abortion after a proven rape.

I can't say I have ever come to terms with this position. If one believes the embryo is a human being imbued with the right to life, how can it be permissible to consider killing it just because it's mother was raped? That is not the fault of the child whose life is at risk.

If one believes that the right of a woman override that of the foetus, then the argument becomes one of timing - at Big_John notes, a discussion ensues as to when that foetus becomes a person with over-riding legal rights.

If one believes the baby is human right from conception, then there is no permissible reason for killing that child.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Best pro-abortion argument:
* Of course a fetus isn't human - they have much fewer hitpoints!

Best anti-abortion argument:
* OMG noobs stop spawnkilling!

[Fragony]

I can't say I have ever come to terms with this position. If one believes the embryo is a human being imbued with the right to life, how can it be permissible to consider killing it just because it's mother was raped? That is not the fault of the child whose life is at risk.

Well I think abortion is acceptable if there are serious health-issues for the mother, that includes severe psychological trauma. If she's not up for it which I can fully understand it should be possible.

[Myrddraal]

Big_John, imo you've pinpointed the core of the debate nicely.

Philipvs imo you give a very good argument for completely banning abortion (with repect to Big_John's point).

I'm not sure I agree with banning abortion completely, however like Philipvs I would prefer, when faced with shades of grey concerning human life, to take the safe extreme rather than the very morally dubious extreme.

I certainly don't agree with the current legal limits on abortion in the UK, and am appaled to hear they're trying to expand them.

More to come, this is a bit of rushed post (sorry).



EDIT:

I have no problem with an abortion after a proven rape.

I also can't understand this argument. Either the fetus has rights to life, or it doesn't.

I can see an argument for abortion (even at very late stages in pregnancy) where the birth or growth of the child could kill or seriously injure the mother. That's a different kettle of fish however.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I also can't understand this argument. Either the fetus has rights to life, or it doesn't.

I can see an argument for abortion (even at very late stages in pregnancy) where the birth or growth of the child could kill or seriously injure the mother. That's a different kettle of fish however.

If the mother is raped, she has not made any sort of descision or accepted any sort of risk in having a child - it has been forced upon her. Nonetheless, I believe after a rape, which she could not have prevented, she has a right to choose. What if a fourteen year old girl is raped and becomes pregnant? Should her life just disappear? The reason that this is such a big issue in America is that no side can see the other. There needs to be a level of compromise. Abortion cannot either be illegal altogether or completely legal - there needs to be a clause for exceptions or for regulations, depending which side you're on.

I see abortion where the mother has a very good chance of dying as terrible, but necessary. I can only imagine what sort of psycological harm that must do to the mother.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If the mother is raped, she has not made any sort of descision or accepted any sort of risk in having a child - it has been forced upon her. Nonetheless, I believe after a rape, which she could not have prevented, she has a right to choose. What if a fourteen year old girl is raped and becomes pregnant? Should her life just disappear? The reason that this is such a big issue in America is that no side can see the other. There needs to be a level of compromise. Abortion cannot either be illegal altogether or completely legal - there needs to be a clause for exceptions or for regulations, depending which side you're on.

I see abortion where the mother has a very good chance of dying as terrible, but necessary. I can only imagine what sort of psycological harm that must do to the mother.

How can you say "well the mother had no choice, so the child suffers" that arguement can be extended...

The mother didn't choose a Downs child...a child with a cleft pallette....a dyslexic child...a girl.

Slippery slope.

I don't think you can have shades of grey here.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

The mother didn't choose a Downs child...a child with a cleft pallette....a dyslexic child...a girl.

Slippery slope.

I don't think you can have shades of grey here.

Actually, you just mentioned a slightly gray area. If a child will be born with something that will make their life short and miserable, should they be kept alive or aborted?

I'm not mentioning my opinion on this particular issue on purpose.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Actually, you just mentioned a slightly gray area. If a child will be born with something that will make their life short and miserable, should they be kept alive or aborted?

I'm not mentioning my opinion on this particular issue on purpose.

No, it's a massively grey area. Cleft Pallettes are aborted sometimes, even though a simple operation in childhood will fix the problem.

In any case, who says Downs Syndrome people are miserable? Should we kill people just because they have cancer, or are in a wheelchair.

Grey areas are not something I am willing to have on my concience.

[Rodion Romanovich]

The inconsistency between saving children that would be killed if nature/God had its will, and abortion children which would live if nature/God had its will, is interesting. A relevant issue is what people who support/oppose abortion think of, say, saving far too early born children who would die by nature, or making surgery on children that would die/be rejected by the opposite sex if not having surgery. Saying no to all playing God is something I can accept as justifiable. But saying yes to some instances but not other, requires some justification, I think. I'm not entirely pleased with my own probably rather arbitrary choices in the matter, if I have to choose a policy other than leaving all for nature to decide. Any thoughts?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Artist Hanged herself after aborting twins.

link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/22/nartist122.xml)

[Viking]

Way to go. :dizzy2:

[Papewaio]

"She had a long history of anxiety and depression. Despite my best efforts, she was not willing to see a counsellor after the termination."

Not exactly the best choice for a counter argument.

[Myrddraal]

I didn't realise TuffStuff had made an argument. For all you know he could be commenting on the apparent lack of counsellors available.

Feeling defensive today? Not exactly an open mind.

[Papewaio]

I'm feeling defensive now :laugh4:

The article's headline is making a B line for suicide because of abortion. If she had had no prior mental health problems then the statement "Artist hanged herself after aborting her twins" could be assigned with far more accuracy. However the fact that there are other circumstances alluded to in the article means it wasn't just a case of abortion causes would-have-been mums to knock themselves off after removing the vestiges of being knocked up.

So as an argument for or against abortion it is more of a red herring.

=][=

As for rape, I don't think we should be awarding rapists with the gift of spreading their genes, that would just be a form of eugenics if it is enforced by the state. Iff the mother choses to have the child should she go to term. The state should not be forcing a victim to have or raise a child that is the result of someone else's criminal activities.

[Viking]

Not exactly the best choice for a counter argument.

It is void since there are no laws that enforce abortion of apparently normal fetuses, AFAIK. If some women commit suicide because of an abortion (I count 1 so far), then it is absurd to forbid abortion, let alone restrict it, because of that. People suicide over much.

[Myrddraal]

I'm feeling defensive now :laugh4:

any day :wink:


The state should not be forcing a victim to have or raise a child that is the result of someone else's criminal activities.

Who said anything about raising children?

Again, I can't help but think that most people take this debate to extremes. They forget that giving birth does not equal raising a child, and that there is demand for adoption.

Besides, that argument "The state should not be forcing a victim to have or raise a child that is the result of someone else's criminal activities." is kind of irrelevant.

I think everyone here will unanimously agree, the state should not force people to have children with unknown criminals. However, the question is, does the child already exist as a being with rights in the womb? Because if it does, it's too late to choose wether or not to have a child, you already do.

We aren't allowed to kill orphans just because we don't have anyone who wants to raise them.

This is why I just don't get the rapist argument.

And here's me being defensive; I'm weary of that argument, bringing emotionally strong subjects such as rape into an argument where it's not really relevant isn't a good way to make an informed decision.

[Fragony]

Well, the health of the mother comes first, if it's psychologically to hard to give birth after a rape which I can understand it should at least be optional, gut says no but I can see where they are comming from.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Ok, well that is at least an arguement for rape-abortion. The problem there though is who decides if she is psychlogically up to it

[Myrddraal]

And this is the guise under which Abortion in the UK was introduced.

You need 2 doctors signatures saying that having the child will harm the mother.

If not abused, this would be the perfect system in my opinion.

The trouble is that one possible harm is phycological harm, which is perfectly valid, again, if not abused, but it is abused. Abortion now occurs pretty much on demand, with phycological being the reason used.


Now, they're trying to drop one of the doctors signatures, and increase the time limit on abortions.


On another note, Pape, what do you think of the arguments in this thread before the "woman hangs herself" post? In particular those I tend to subscribe to (:wink:) (The potential for life and the comparison with a comatosed man, and the problem with erring on the morally dangerous sides of grey areas such as when does a fetus become a human child)

[Papewaio]

In My Dishonourable Opinion (IDMHO).

I have said this in the past: "Men can decide if and when women have an abortion when women decide if and when men have a vasectomy."

So I take abortion arguments with a grain of salt as my role would be limited at most to support not the actuator.

I believe in evolution. Those who chose not to breed will steadily overtime remove themselves from the gene pool. Abortionists will quite possibly die out. I still think though that we should have a choice as individuals and not be bound by our genes or them being combined with someone else.

I think rape is a relevant argument as we should include all the possibilities on the table. Also starting with the more 'black and white' examples will help us give more information for the grey areas. Again I don't believe in eugenics, but if a women cannot abort a rapists child that is eugenics (an increase in frequency of a gene type associated with a trait due to government interference).

As we are not an underpopulated species facing extinction, I do not see any pressing moral force of society determining the rights of individuals.

However there is a point where a fetus is definitely capable of life outside the womb. It is at this point that we should have a definite no for abortions. I would say that anything beyond 13 weeks is probably wrong, but that is based on a qualitative feeling not a quantitative why and why not.

As for a man in a coma. Iff they are never going to recover should we be spending money on the individual or spreading it out for those who can recover... such as say a children's burn unit?

[Myrddraal]

I see the eugenics argument. Again I think it stands alone well, (like the rape arguments) but doesn't combine at all with a concept of rights for an unborn child. That's imo the core of the argument. At which point should an unborn child recieve basic rights such as the right to life.

I think you're right about looking at the black and white cases. From a personal point of view, I'm very afraid of one end of the spectrum. It would weigh on my mind (if I were a doctor) to perform an abortion at at any point during pregnancy (see coma argument below). That doesn't mean I would ban it I don't think (again, see below). However I would be dead against performing late abortions.


The argument in my mind has two key points 1 - When does a fetus become 'alive' and 'human' enough to deserve 'human' rights? 2 - Is the potential for growth into human life valuable enough to assign the thing with potential some rights?

The first argument has me thinking about nerve impulses, heart beating and the actual development of the fetus. I tend to be conservative (I am generally on this issue) because I don't like grey area's when a human life might be at stake.

The second argument is the one I illustrated with the idea of a comatose man. It's not the idea of a comatose man who'll never wake up, but one who's predicted to wake up in 9 months.

If that man has no conscious nervous activity, then how different is he really from a newly concieved child? Obviously physically he looks massively different, but if artificially given nutrients and water, he will live a life in 9 months time. The analogy with a fetus is quite strong in that regard. I wouldn't dream of killing a man just because he has no thoughts (for now) and needs feeding through a tube for 9 months, and I would call those who do murderers. So why a baby being fed by a tube?

Obviously the analogy breaks down at some point, but nonetheless it does illustrate that in a similar (if not identical) situation, people attach a value to the potential for normal human conscious life. Perhaps because we can see and appreciate the existence of the comatosed man, and thus appreciate more that the tube feeding him is only temporary?

These are my thoughts, and why I (in general) tend towards the anti-abortion camp more than the pro-abortion camp. The only time I would feel truely confortable with abortion is in the case of potential harm to the mother.

Any pro-'abortion on demand'ists who can explain to me how I could reconcile my morals with abortion? Cmon, this is a debating forum :grin:

[Quirinus]

IMO the comatose-person analogy is flawed. A comatose man had lived a life before the 'coma'. He is, most definitely, inarguably, a person, while an embryo is in the grey area. They are not comparable.


The argument in my mind has two key points 1 - When does a fetus become 'alive' and 'human' enough to deserve 'human' rights? 2 - Is the potential for growth into human life valuable enough to assign the thing with potential some rights?
1. I don't think that can be defined by law. I'm sure this point has been raised before, but if a foetus is considered human by 12 weeks, is an 11-week foetus automatically not a human being? It can be easy to judge when the foetus is near term, or if it's still a zygote, but borderline cases are messy. Where do we draw the line?

2. In my opinion, no. Gametes have potential for life, but I don't see anyone hankering or getting sentimental about them ('Johan' excluded :laugh4:).


I don't think a personal aversion to abortion should translate to supporting an abortion ban, just as you don't ban online pornography just because you think it's disgusting. I hardly need to point out that allowing abortion doesn't mean abortion is mandatory.

[Papewaio]

Choice, life is about making choices and taking responsibility for them.

Rights come with responsibilities too.

Human rights are social contracts. They do not automatically exist, if that was so we would not have to wrap them in laws and enforce them, there would be no way to avoid them if they were truly universal any easier then avoiding gravity.

As they are social contracts they can be given and taken away. I would prefer to see abortion used as a last option and only for health reasons or when the woman had no choice in the conception. But as I have already stated I would not want a committee of women deciding on having me neutered. :dizzy2: :sweatdrop: I bet I would be a lot more proactive in taking out the garbage if that was the case.

If we are arguing potential for human life we have to define when human life starts and more importantly at what point the potential could have been triggered. If we give a fetus human rights at the point of conception, why not the step before that and make all men mass murders and tissues to be redefined as genocide sites? :laugh4:

A bigger question is not just the right to life, but the right to live an unfettered one. A right to lifestyle so to speak. That is often what this debate greys into and sometimes depressingly so. The right of the mothers life (health) vs unborn and also the mothers right to lifestyle vs the unborn (life). It is a catch 22 do we want people using abortion as a regular option? Do those same people who use it on a regular option... do we want them breeding/raising children in the first place?

[Viking]

There are gahzillions of babies that never got born because x did not have sex when she could've gotten pregnant. That a certain DNA has gotten all the way to a fetus, only means that it is more of a human than those humans being only theoretical. The theoretical humans got nowhere, while the aborted reached fetus stage. It is really disgusting to assign human rights to a thing that does not think, and that will not be aware of its own existance until year(s) later.

If one is in coma and has no hopes of recovery, it is not murder of a person to unplug the life support since this "person" is not aware of his own existence and will never be so again. A person that is in coma, but may recover was, is not/may not , but can again be aware of his own existence; such that we would not talk about the same 'potential' as we can talk about when it comes to a fetus since this person already has a legacy.

[KukriKhan]

...It is really disgusting to assign human rights to a thing that does not think, and that will not be aware of its own existance until year(s) later.

If one is in coma and has no hopes of recovery, it is not murder of a person to unplug the life support since this "person" is not aware of his own existence and will never be so again...

Respectfully: how do you (or anybody) know that?

[Fragony]

There are gahzillions of babies that never got born because x did not have sex when she could've gotten pregnant. That a certain DNA has gotten all the way to a fetus, only means that it is more of a human than those humans being only theoretical. The theoretical humans got nowhere, while the aborted reached fetus stage. It is really disgusting to assign human rights to a thing that does not think, and that will not be aware of its own existance until year(s)

I am all in favor of euthanesia, but abortion no. Doesn't matter for me what it is, you can call your car the terminator if you want but it's still a car whatever you call it. But a car will never be anything more then a car but a fetus will grow into a human unless you do something that makes sure he/she not it won't.

[Quirinus]

I am all in favor of euthanesia, but abortion no. Doesn't matter for me what it is, you can call your car the terminator if you want but it's still a car whatever you call it. But a car will never be anything more then a car but a fetus will grow into a human unless you do something that makes sure he/she not it won't.
I don't quite follow your argument. How is euthanesia okay but abortion not? Maybe the old person might get a flash of insight that combines Einstein's theories into the Theory of Everything. Or invent a new flavour of cereal. You never know. He/she clearly has the potential.

[Fragony]

I don't quite follow your argument. How is euthanesia okay but abortion not? Maybe the old person might get a flash of insight that combines Einstein's theories into the Theory of Everything. Or invent a new flavour of cereal. You never know. He/she clearly has the potential.

It has to be a concious decision that's all. Someone who wants to be euthanesised has it. Coma, I say no but I am no expert on that, also such a thing as being braindead all gone anyway.

[Viking]

Respectfully: how do you (or anybody) know that?


Well, from my own personal experience, I am not able to remember anything that happened to me when I was younger than 3-5 years old. One argument would though be maybe that the memory is just not working properly yet; but then again that would directly affect whether you are able to conceive your own existence or not.

Regarding the coma issue, the knowledge comes from brain scanning; one can check how active a certain region is by measuring blood flow. Whether recovery is possible or not, one can be 99,99% certain about in the most extreme cases, like Terri Schiavo, who had lost 50% of her brain mass.



I am all in favor of euthanesia, but abortion no. Doesn't matter for me what it is, you can call your car the terminator if you want but it's still a car whatever you call it. But a car will never be anything more then a car but a fetus will grow into a human unless you do something that makes sure he/she not it won't.

It's all about whether one should judge a book by it's cover or not. A human who died recently is not worthy of normal human rights, even though it certainly looks like a person and consist of literally everything that constitutes a human, but consciousness.

[Caerfanan]

I am aware that we are starting to touch a somewhat fuzzy issue here - but would abortion by binge drinking simply be irresponsible and frowned upon or would it already fall under the "not taking responsibility at all" which should be forbidden by law?

If one seriously considers the abortion of 2 week old human cells to be comparable with the murder of a baby - killing the same cells by negligence should not be acceptable at all (even if you are not aware of the pregnancy - ignorance can hardly be an excuse for killing a human being).
You've got a point there mate.

And what about those woman who kill themselves while trying to get rid of a baby they got because they got raped three months ago by their uncle and they are 15 and living in a place where it's forbidden? What about the future of a child born of a single unwilling mom wo will hate the baby and make it responsible for whatever. Im' waaaaaaaaay more favorable to contraception, then abortin in special case and the most early as it is possible. But sometimes it's hard... I met two women who had to have an abortion (yes, Frag, I know it was technically possible for them to fall in love with the baby and raise it). Trust me, except maybe in case of a rape, it's painful, psychologically for the woman who does it. Really painful...

About the "while you think of people trying to have a child and who can't". Shall I eat like an ogre and have a heart attack at 35 because there are so many people starving out there and because I can eat a lot if I wish?

[Caerfanan]

Right, but that little piece of human "bacteria" has a genetic code distinct from both the mother and the father. Numerous traits are already determined.

Hmmm... What about viruses and bacterias, which have also a different DNA than yours and that you host unwillingly?

I don't think that speaking of "genetic code" so as to define "when we are allowed to get rid of something" is a good argument. I see what you mean, but considering this "when life starts", some could answer "at the creation, we're a whole".

Some close to god could, maybe, consider that if we're capable of choosing this, it's because god had planned that we could choose, don't you think?
(edited for typos)

[Caerfanan]

How? The smoke can't be going into the lungs.
Errr, through chemicals in the mother's blood exchanging with her child's blood through the placenta (is it called like this in english?). Tobacco does not hold problems with the lung, although this is the worst and most obvious one

Same as some substances give problems to a baby to be development, tobacco has flows as well for pregnant women...

[Fragony]

even though it certainly looks like a person and consist of literally everything that constitutes a human, but consciousness.

To be or not to allow, that's the question.

[Caerfanan]

So due to practical reasons when people are old (aka thier "potential" is low) it's ok to not try to save them. If a foetus (or a child for that matter) has genetical defects (aka thier "potential" is low), is it then ok to not try to save them?

Wow. Good way of puting it. Very good.

[Caerfanan]

1. I don't think that can be defined by law. I'm sure this point has been raised before, but if a foetus is considered human by 12 weeks, is an 11-week foetus automatically not a human being? It can be easy to judge when the foetus is near term, or if it's still a zygote, but borderline cases are messy. Where do we draw the line?
There it is. IMHO it's not a matter of should it be allowed or not, but rather, when, or under which circumstances does it have to be considered a crime?

[Caerfanan]

It has to be a concious decision that's all. Someone who wants to be euthanesised has it. Coma, I say no but I am no expert on that, also such a thing as being braindead all gone anyway.
And then some people against euthanasia would say "yes, but right now this person is suffering too much to make a clear decision, and is not, roght now responsible". Tough point, unfortunately, which, again, brings to the "where's the limit", not the "should it be allowed, or forbidden"

Oooh, just a food for thoughts, in France a guy born with a severe handicap suited his parents for not aborting and bringing him into a life of unbearable suffering..... "Perruche" is the name if I'm correct. I remember that he lost the trial... Thank's whoever made that decision.... Now where are we going....

[Viking]

To be or not to allow, that's the question.

Sex is stage one, fetus is stage two. A woman not having sex when she is not pregnant is obviously not allowing someone to come into existence. :shrug:



And then some people against euthanasia would say "yes, but right now this person is suffering too much to make a clear decision, and is not, roght now responsible". Tough point, unfortunately, which, again, brings to the "where's the limit", not the "should it be allowed, or forbidden"

Oooh, just a food for thoughts, in France a guy born with a severe handicap suited his parents for not aborting and bringing him into a life of unbearable suffering..... "Perruche" is the name if I'm correct. I remember that he lost the trial... Thank's whoever made that decision.... Now where are we going....

Just a friendly piece of advice: use the multi quote function (the white sheet of paper next to the "quick reply" button). press it on each post you want to quote, and on the last post of your quotation press "quote" instead. Beware as it messes up the order of the quotes; but at least try stick all quotes in one post anyway such that the threads are easier to navigate through. :bow:

[Caerfanan]

Just a friendly piece of advice: use the multi quote function (the white sheet of paper next to the "quick reply" button). press it on each post you want to quote, and on the last post of your quotation press "quote" instead. Beware as it messes up the order of the quotes; but at least try stick all quotes in one post anyway such that the threads are easier to navigate through. :bow:
Oh. OK, I didn't knew that it was a multiquote function, I thought that some painfully copied text in order to make one post. Thank's for the piece of advice...

Eller tack om du är viking! :viking:

[ICantSpellDawg]

How about this story - This seems to be less a question about whether or not Abortion is homicide - it clearly is. The question is; what is more valuable than human life? Here, the Yale art department has decided that Art is.

Abortion is homicide. Anyone who marginalizes this fight is an enabler.

For senior, abortion a medium for art, political discourse (http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/24513)
Martine Powers
Staff Reporter
Published Thursday, April 17, 2008

Art major Aliza Shvarts '08 wants to make a statement.

Beginning next Tuesday, Shvarts will be displaying her senior art project, a documentation of a nine-month process during which she artificially inseminated herself "as often as possible" while periodically taking abortifacient drugs to induce miscarriages. Her exhibition will feature video recordings of these forced miscarriages as well as preserved collections of the blood from the process.

The goal in creating the art exhibition, Shvarts said, was to spark conversation and debate on the relationship between art and the human body. But her project has already provoked more than just debate, inciting, for instance, outcry at a forum for fellow senior art majors held last week. And when told about Shvarts' project, students on both ends of the abortion debate have expressed shock . saying the project does everything from violate moral code to trivialize abortion.

But Shvarts insists her concept was not designed for "shock value."

"I hope it inspires some sort of discourse," Shvarts said. "Sure, some people will be upset with the message and will not agree with it, but it's not the intention of the piece to scandalize anyone."

The "fabricators," or donors, of the sperm were not paid for their services, but Shvarts required them to periodically take tests for sexually transmitted diseases. She said she was not concerned about any medical effects the forced miscarriages may have had on her body. The abortifacient drugs she took were legal and herbal, she said, and she did not feel the need to consult a doctor about her repeated miscarriages.

Shvarts declined to specify the number of sperm donors she used, as well as the number of times she inseminated herself.

Art major Juan Castillo '08 said that although he was intrigued by the creativity and beauty of her senior project, not everyone was as thrilled as he was by the concept and the means by which she attained the result.

"I really loved the idea of this project, but a lot other people didn't," Castillo said. "I think that most people were very resistant to thinking about what the project was really about. [The senior-art-project forum] stopped being a conversation on the work itself."

Although Shvarts said she does not remember the class being quite as hostile as Castillo described, she said she believes it is the nature of her piece to "provoke inquiry."

"I believe strongly that art should be a medium for politics and ideologies, not just a commodity," Shvarts said. "I think that I'm creating a project that lives up to the standard of what art is supposed to be."

The display of Schvarts' project will feature a large cube suspended from the ceiling of a room in the gallery of Green Hall. Schvarts will wrap hundreds of feet of plastic sheeting around this cube; lined between layers of the sheeting will be the blood from Schvarts' self-induced miscarriages mixed with Vaseline in order to prevent the blood from drying and to extend the blood throughout the plastic sheeting.

Schvarts will then project recorded videos onto the four sides of the cube. These videos, captured on a VHS camcorder, will show her experiencing miscarriages in her bathrooom tub, she said. Similar videos will be projected onto the walls of the room.

School of Art lecturer Pia Lindman, Schvarts' senior-project advisor, could not be reached for comment Wednesday night.

Few people outside of Yale's undergraduate art department have heard about Shvarts' exhibition. Members of two campus abortion-activist groups . Choose Life at Yale, a pro-life group, and the Reproductive Rights Action League of Yale, a pro-choice group . said they were not previously aware of Schvarts' project.

Alice Buttrick '10, an officer of RALY, said the group was in no way involved with the art exhibition and had no official opinion on the matter.

Sara Rahman '09 said, in her opinion, Shvarts is abusing her constitutional right to do what she chooses with her body.

"[Shvarts' exhibit] turns what is a serious decision for women into an absurdism," Rahman said. "It discounts the gravity of the situation that is abortion."

CLAY member Jonathan Serrato '09 said he does not think CLAY has an official response to Schvarts' exhibition. But personally, Serrato said he found the concept of the senior art project "surprising" and unethical.

"I feel that she's manipulating life for the benefit of her art, and I definitely don't support it," Serrato said. "I think it's morally wrong."

Shvarts emphasized that she is not ashamed of her exhibition, and she has become increasingly comfortable discussing her miscarriage experiences with her peers.

"It was a private and personal endeavor, but also a transparent one for the most part," Shvarts said. "This isn't something I've been hiding."

The official reception for the Undergraduate Senior Art Show will be from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. on April 25. The exhibition will be on public display from April 22 to May 1. The art exhibition is set to premiere alongside the projects of other art seniors this Tuesday, April 22 at the gallery of Holcombe T. Green Jr. Hall on Chapel Street.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I didn't see that pic in the OP, but from the way people are talking I'm glad I didn't, I definetely won't be searching for it in Google.

I suppose at 22 weeks the baby must look pretty human, which is why it seems so horrific. But untimately, as far as I'm concerned, any abortion is murder.

[CountArach]

I didn't see that pic in the OP, but from the way people are talking I'm glad I didn't, I definetely won't be searching for it in Google.

I suppose at 22 weeks the baby must look pretty human, which is why it seems so horrific. But untimately, as far as I'm concerned, any abortion is murder.
And allowing the mother to die when a simple abortion could have saved her life isn't?

[ICantSpellDawg]

And allowing the mother to die when a simple abortion could have saved her life isn't?

Who is arguing for that?

I have never met someone who was "pro-life" who seeks laws to stop mothers from defending themselves from death. I believe in self defense.

[CountArach]

Caledonian claimed "any abortion is murder". It sounds to me like he isn't standing up for that at all.

[Rhyfelwyr]

In the horrible situation in which the mother's life was threatened directly by the pregnancy, then I would say there should be no laws against an abortion under those circumstances.

I think though you have to look at those cases individually. I'm no doctor so I don't know when and how exactly the mothers life could be threatened. Ultimately if her life is at risk she should have a choice.

[Viking]

In the horrible situation in which the mother's life was threatened directly by the pregnancy, then I would say there should be no laws against an abortion under those circumstances.

I think though you have to look at those cases individually. I'm no doctor so I don't know when and how exactly the mothers life could be threatened. Ultimately if her life is at risk she should have a choice.

If the fætus has the same rights to live as a years old human; then why it is right to kill it now? The fætus has done nothing wrong; it cannot help that it threatens the mother's life; one life is valued above the other, but why?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

If the fætus has the same rights to live as a years old human; then why it is right to kill it now?

Logic.

The fetus has done nothing wrong, but the woman has a better chance of survival than a motherless fetus, the fetus is less developed than a mother, and, in case you haven't noticed, it would appear to me that adults have more rights than children in most countries.

[ICantSpellDawg]

If the fætus has the same rights to live as a years old human; then why it is right to kill it now? The fætus has done nothing wrong; it cannot help that it threatens the mother's life; one life is valued above the other, but why?

Are you not aware of self-defense statutes? Don't say that I get that from Religion - that is entirely secular and reasonable.

Check out this article:

In Praise of Criticism (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/in_praise_of_criticism.html)
By Kathleen Parker


Pope Benedict XVI's visit to the U.S. has afforded the American media and others an opportunity to remind us that the Catholic Church is "out of step" with modern times.

That is both a criticism and compliment -- praising with faint damnation.

What exactly about modern times would compel a pope to change his institutional mind about the fundamental belief in, say, the dignity of all human life?

The central life issue is, of course, abortion, about which even a majority of American Catholics (58 percent) differ from the church's view. Other related concerns include embryo-destructive research, cloning and assisted suicide.

The Catholic Church persists in opposing all of the above, insisting that life begins at conception, all life has value, no human being has the right to terminate the life of another. Case closed.

And, really, who would insist otherwise? In the abstract, few. In practice, millions.

Though we know that life biologically begins at conception, we've decided to disagree about when that life becomes "human."

And, though we sort of believe that all life has value, our actions suggest that we think imperfect life has less value. Increasingly, Down syndrome babies today are terminated, for instance.

If we quantify human life only according to productivity, then imperfect life inarguably is less valuable. But is it less human? Nazi eugenicists thought so. But measuring productivity requires a detached calculation -- and, inevitably, bureaucratic enforcement -- that defines inhuman.

This is not, by the way, a judgment of people who have made difficult choices. None of us really knows which path we would take until presented with the intersection that forces such contemplations.

Finally, all agree that no human being has the right to take another's life except in self-defense. Since most abortions are for reasons other than the mother's health, our current practices are possible only if the unborn are considered "not human."

Keeping that definition alive is the trick. Human or not? Who decides?

A majority of Americans are comfortable with the view that a woman, her doctor and her God should decide. But what if there were irrefutable proof that a fetus at conception is fully human? Would we then feel that government has a role in protecting unborn life?

These questions are especially tricky for Catholics. For those who side with the pope, the answer is clear: If life is a gift of the creator, then only the creator can be the ultimate arbiter of conception (though the church does allow for limiting and spacing babies on the basis of informed conscience, just not through artificial means).

To believe in God's autonomy over human life, however, is a hard sell. How does one justify creating more mouths when so many can't be fed? My own Catholic grandmother, the youngest of 11 children, was handed over to the nuns at age 4 when her family could no longer feed her.

And yet, the nuns did feed my grandmother. And she did manage to grow up and marry and create my father, who then created me. So.

Pro-choice arguments are, nonetheless, compelling. Privacy from government intrusion, yes. Women's autonomy over their own bodies, yes. All children wanted, well, of course. But none of those testaments to logic alters the essential truth that life begins when egg and sperm commingle and that every one of us was at that far end of the life continuum before we were able to dabble in ethics and trifle with electronic keyboards.

The question is how we reconcile what is true with what is merely convenient? That we might choose a path other than the pope's is the prerogative of a free people -- and no one recognizes that freedom with greater consistency than this pope. No one has to be Catholic.

But to ask Benedict to change the church's rules to suit modern appetites and lifestyles is to ask that he forsake the sanctity of human life for the benefit of earthly delights. Those are not his concerns.

Even for non-Catholics like me, there's something comforting about a stubborn pope in a world of moral relativity. Like a strong father, he ignores his children's pleas for leniency knowing that his rules, though tough, serve a higher purpose.

If Benedict were to relent and compromise the value of human life, what would be left to debate? Perhaps only one's own time to die. And then ...

Who decides?
kparker@kparker.com

Copyright 2008, Washington Post Writers Group

[Viking]

Logic.

The fetus has done nothing wrong, but the woman has a better chance of survival than a motherless fetus, the fetus is less developed than a mother

But if killing a fætus really is murder, it doesn't seem quite right to murder someone innocent to let someone else survive.


and, in case you haven't noticed, it would appear to me that adults have more rights than children in most countries.

So are you suggesting that children doesn't have equally much right to life as adults?


Are you not aware of self-defense statutes? Don't say that I get that from Religion - that is entirely secular and reasonable.

Check out this article:

In Praise of Criticism (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/in_praise_of_criticism.html)
By Kathleen Parker


Pope Benedict XVI's visit to the U.S. has afforded the American media and others an opportunity to remind us that the Catholic Church is "out of step" with modern times.

That is both a criticism and compliment -- praising with faint damnation.

What exactly about modern times would compel a pope to change his institutional mind about the fundamental belief in, say, the dignity of all human life?

The central life issue is, of course, abortion, about which even a majority of American Catholics (58 percent) differ from the church's view. Other related concerns include embryo-destructive research, cloning and assisted suicide.

The Catholic Church persists in opposing all of the above, insisting that life begins at conception, all life has value, no human being has the right to terminate the life of another. Case closed.

And, really, who would insist otherwise? In the abstract, few. In practice, millions.

Though we know that life biologically begins at conception, we've decided to disagree about when that life becomes "human."

And, though we sort of believe that all life has value, our actions suggest that we think imperfect life has less value. Increasingly, Down syndrome babies today are terminated, for instance.

If we quantify human life only according to productivity, then imperfect life inarguably is less valuable. But is it less human? Nazi eugenicists thought so. But measuring productivity requires a detached calculation -- and, inevitably, bureaucratic enforcement -- that defines inhuman.

This is not, by the way, a judgment of people who have made difficult choices. None of us really knows which path we would take until presented with the intersection that forces such contemplations.

Finally, all agree that no human being has the right to take another's life except in self-defense. Since most abortions are for reasons other than the mother's health, our current practices are possible only if the unborn are considered "not human."

Keeping that definition alive is the trick. Human or not? Who decides?

A majority of Americans are comfortable with the view that a woman, her doctor and her God should decide. But what if there were irrefutable proof that a fetus at conception is fully human? Would we then feel that government has a role in protecting unborn life?

These questions are especially tricky for Catholics. For those who side with the pope, the answer is clear: If life is a gift of the creator, then only the creator can be the ultimate arbiter of conception (though the church does allow for limiting and spacing babies on the basis of informed conscience, just not through artificial means).

To believe in God's autonomy over human life, however, is a hard sell. How does one justify creating more mouths when so many can't be fed? My own Catholic grandmother, the youngest of 11 children, was handed over to the nuns at age 4 when her family could no longer feed her.

And yet, the nuns did feed my grandmother. And she did manage to grow up and marry and create my father, who then created me. So.

Pro-choice arguments are, nonetheless, compelling. Privacy from government intrusion, yes. Women's autonomy over their own bodies, yes. All children wanted, well, of course. But none of those testaments to logic alters the essential truth that life begins when egg and sperm commingle and that every one of us was at that far end of the life continuum before we were able to dabble in ethics and trifle with electronic keyboards.

The question is how we reconcile what is true with what is merely convenient? That we might choose a path other than the pope's is the prerogative of a free people -- and no one recognizes that freedom with greater consistency than this pope. No one has to be Catholic.

But to ask Benedict to change the church's rules to suit modern appetites and lifestyles is to ask that he forsake the sanctity of human life for the benefit of earthly delights. Those are not his concerns.

Even for non-Catholics like me, there's something comforting about a stubborn pope in a world of moral relativity. Like a strong father, he ignores his children's pleas for leniency knowing that his rules, though tough, serve a higher purpose.

If Benedict were to relent and compromise the value of human life, what would be left to debate? Perhaps only one's own time to die. And then ...

Who decides?
kparker@kparker.com

Copyright 2008, Washington Post Writers Group


The fætus is defenceless, it cannot practise its own right to self defence. Not quite fair.

[ICantSpellDawg]

The fætus is defenceless, it cannot practise its own right to self defence. Not quite fair.

I was referring to the question "why should people have the right to defend their own lives even when it could cause the death of another"

The article is a separate thought.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

But if killing a fætus really is murder, it doesn't seem quite right to murder someone innocent to let someone else survive.

It's simple probabilities. If it really is a danger to the life of the mother, not only may the fetus die anyways, but it won't have a mother. The logic is that it's better to have the mother survive - it's terrible, but necessary.

On the other hand, giving the mother the choice to kill the baby whenever she wants? That's terrible and unnecessary.




So are you suggesting that children doesn't have equally much right to life as adults?


So they do? Oh, excellent, we're making progress.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Obiously if the mother's life is at risk before the baby is capable of surviving on its own, then this sounds like a terrible thing to say, but you basically have to cut your losses.

Because if it is inevitable the baby will die with the mother anyway, then the mother may as well be saved. In these circumstances the mothers right to self-defence, or you could say to life, clinches it.

On a side note, feels weird to be backed up by the Pope. May I point out this is not just an issue for the Catholic Church, there is also a lot of opposition to abortion from Protestants, with Ian Paisly leading a campaign against it.

[Viking]

It's simple probabilities. If it really is a danger to the life of the mother, not only may the fetus die anyways, but it won't have a mother. The logic is that it's better to have the mother survive - it's terrible, but necessary.

Yeah, I think it is logic, but I do not think that logic leads us to that killing a fætus is murder. Methinks it's pure faith to assign human status to a cluster of cells that is not capable thinking, yet. Therefore I am pondering about why logic suddenly enters the stage.



So they do? Oh, excellent, we're making progress.

That's my viewpoint, but I was making a question.


I was referring to the question "why should people have the right to defend their own lives even when it could cause the death of another"

The article is a separate thought.

Okay.


Because if it is inevitable the baby will die with the mother anyway, then the mother may as well be saved. In these circumstances the mothers right to self-defence, or you could say to life, clinches it.

Well, ultimately, she brought this danger upon herself, as well as dragging someone innocent into it and getting him killed, rather than hoping for a miracle.

[Quirinus]

Obiously if the mother's life is at risk before the baby is capable of surviving on its own, then this sounds like a terrible thing to say, but you basically have to cut your losses.

Because if it is inevitable the baby will die with the mother anyway, then the mother may as well be saved. In these circumstances the mothers right to self-defence, or you could say to life, clinches it.
Does that mean that it is not murder when two stranded mountaineers kill their third companion to survive? All three of them won't survive if the third guy was not killed. They're cutting their losses, right?

:juggle2:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Does that mean that it is not murder when two stranded mountaineers kill their third companion to survive? All three of them won't survive if the third guy was not killed.


If they can show with reasonable certainty that sacrificing one life saved the rest, and there really is no other choice, I honestly don't see why it should be.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Does that mean that it is not murder when two stranded mountaineers kill their third companion to survive? All three of them won't survive if the third guy was not killed. They're cutting their losses, right?

:juggle2:

Sometimes not taking actions can be as bad as taking actions. If you don't kill one mountaineer, you are basically condemning both mountaineers, plus yourself, to death.

This is getting very horrible and complicated now.:sweatdrop:

I hope I am not abandoning my principles amongst all the confusion.:juggle2:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Sometimes not taking actions can be as bad as taking actions. If you don't kill one mountaineer, you are basically condemning both mountaineers, plus yourself, to death.

This is getting very horrible and complicated now.:sweatdrop:

I hope I am not abandoning my principles amongst all the confusion.:juggle2:

Clearly not. What do you mean they will all die unless they kill the third? What could possibly be happening that would demand a human sacrifice?

Have mountaineers gone retarded?

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

I think this hypothetical scenario involves three mountaineers on a rope. The rope will snap, dooming all of them, unless the one at the bottom is cut free, resulting in his demise, but the survival of the other two climbers.

Edit-Or perhaps they need to eat him to live.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I think this hypothetical scenario involves three mountaineers on a rope. The rope will snap, dooming all of them, unless the one at the bottom is cut free, resulting in his demise, but the survival of the other two climbers.

Edit-Or perhaps they need to eat him to live.


Right. All of that delicious meat - they'd probably die anyway if they didn't keep the third guy for later.

They should all hang on - they will most likely all die anyway if they are just going to hang there. Imagine killing a guy right before you died. I wouldn't.

The reality is that they wouldn't be prosecuted because their life was in insane danger and that seemed like an alternative that would save the most lives.

If they just killed the third guy because he ate 1/3rd of the food or because he snored and they had a headache, there may be hell to pay.

[Quirinus]

Clearly not. What do you mean they will all die unless they kill the third? What could possibly be happening that would demand a human sacrifice?

Have mountaineers gone retarded?
If you'd stop knee-jerking to any contrary argument, you'd see that I meant the mountaineers would starve to death.


I think this hypothetical scenario involves three mountaineers on a rope. The rope will snap, dooming all of them, unless the one at the bottom is cut free, resulting in his demise, but the survival of the other two climbers.

Edit-Or perhaps they need to eat him to live.
The latter. The point of this exercise being, who chooses who dies? Note that I'm not arguing for anti-choice (or 'pro-life' or whatever one calls it). Just pointing out the contradiction in the argument that says "the fetus may be allowed to be aborted if and only if the mother's life is in danger, but at the same time, fetuses have full human rights and that killing one is tantamount to homicide".

[Ironside]

Taken from the other thread, I rather take this here.


That points out the real problem. It is either black or white with this issue, but people are drawn to middle ground -even if it doesn't make much sense.

Political reality suggests that if you find a "middle ground" less people will complain, but it says nothing about the moral reality.

So I do understand where you are coming from. I just 100% disagree. I also understand the greay area people. My disagreement lies within the 1%-99% area.

Read that article that I had posted earlier, I think that it sums up the argument nicely.

Tuff, abortion is very far from black and white. It goes into the question of "what is a Human?", "what is I?" and "what is life?" and while seemingly easy to see at first glance, it will incredibly complicated If I cut off someones head, but keep the body alive, did I commit murder? Your instinct say yes, but how can you define the poor person as dead without also defining a embryo without a nerve system as dead?

As you can see, you cannot even judge an adult and a embryo on the same scale for starters.

Using potential for life isn't gonna work either as then you'll need to define what potential for life that's acceptable and what's not, for example what to do with a foestus that in thid month is found to most certain be dead within a week the 5:th month, 7:th month, at birth, or a few years after? When are the potential for life low enough to be deemed dead in practice?

And besides, none of the countries that are forbidding abortion are actually granting the same rights as for a newborn or older person and thus in practice not considering an embryo to be fully "human". Otherwise, the question if it was a miscariage or negligent homicide would be pretty common.

[ICantSpellDawg]

If you'd stop knee-jerking to any contrary argument, you'd see that I meant the mountaineers would starve to death.


The latter. The point of this exercise being, who chooses who dies? Note that I'm not arguing for anti-choice (or 'pro-life' or whatever one calls it). Just pointing out the contradiction in the argument that says "the fetus may be allowed to be aborted if and only if the mother's life is in danger, but at the same time, fetuses have full human rights and that killing one is tantamount to homicide".


Right. I think the hanging argument is better. Both hanging. One man with one hand on the mountainside and the other hand supporting a guy further down. The first guy can let go and I don;t think anyone would have anything but support and condolences.

The eating argument isn't good because they probably won't die simultaneously, and when one eventually does die, the other two can eat him anyway.

[Ironside]

Right. I think the hanging argument is better. Both hanging. One man with one hand on the mountainside and the other hand supporting a guy further down. The first guy can let go and I don;t think anyone would have anything but support and condolences.

The eating argument isn't good because they probably won't die simultaneously, and when one eventually does die, the other two can eat him anyway.

You are aware that it has been cases with people forced to play that lottery and the winners have survived to tell the tale? :inquisitive: Not always that easy as what you described above (that's stage one, stage two is when there's extreme starvation and the dead ones are already eaten...).

Crew members of the whaleship Essex for example...

But I guess that we could put in a situation where it's either the mother or the child that will die, or both. How to choose? The good old lottery?

[ICantSpellDawg]

People love to use the agreed upon exception to defend the corrupt rule.

[Ironside]

People love to use the agreed upon exception to defend the corrupt rule.

In a black and white world, there are no exceptions.

Welcome to the world of gray.

[ICantSpellDawg]

In a black and white world, there are no exceptions.

Welcome to the world of gray.

Some things are gray, others aren't. If you see things as ONLY gray, isn't that a figurative black and white?

Sub-figuratively

[Ironside]

Some things are gray, others aren't. If you see things as ONLY gray, isn't that a figurative black and white?

Sub-figuratively

No, but some areas are white or black enough to be agreeable by almost all to be black and white.

But the point is if you're saying life begins at conception,... because life begins at conception (this is the annoying position you end up in when you cannot define why without being forced to a bunch of clear exceptions) you're already in that grey area.

And when you're already there it's much easier to view things in a progressive scale where there isn't a sudden moment where "life" suddenly exists, but you can still see that it occurs during this time.

[RoadKill]

Here is my opinionn abortion. If aborting a seedling that is not human yet is considered abortion then I guess gettng nailed in the balls and killing milions of sperm is considered abortion as well.

So guys don't get kicked in teh balls or you're comited murder.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

So guys don't get kicked in teh balls or you're comited murder.

:rolleyes:

No, you haven't. You're fifteen in Canada, right? You've probably taken at least two or three classes that tell you why your statement isn't true.

[RoadKill]

You just had to point that out didn't you..

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

You just had to point that out didn't you..

What, the age? I don't consider that an insult - just that you'd know that the sperm is, as of yet, not a human, and not capable of becoming one in it's current state and location. Therefore, not murder - though murdering someone who kicked you there might not be out of your mind. ~;)

[Rhyfelwyr]

@TuffStuff - I was thinking more along the lines of the rope scenario. Sorry if I came over a bit strongly saying kill, I was thinking more along the lines of allowing them to die (eg one at the bottom of the rope letting go).

I really don't know whether or not it would be right to allow several people to die, just because you didn't kill another.

Although the act of killing (at it again, I mean allow to die) in itself would probably make it wrong.

Maybe the only right thing to do would be to do a Bruce Willis and volunteer yourself to get left behind, or in this case let go?

But then you'd have to be at the bottom of the rope anway.:dizzy2:

Can I make it clear though that I wouldn't kill anyone who didn't want to be killed. I wouldn't stab and ice-pick into a mountaineer and eat his flesh in the starving scenario. Not just because its disgusting but because I would never do that if it wasn't agreed to. Nor would I stamp on his hand to make him let go of the rope.

I'd ask them if they were willing to let go of the rope. They let go in their own time (preferably before it snaps), and they choose to sacrifice themselves. If they couldn't summon the courage to let go, I wouldn't make them.

In the starving scenario, I wouldn't even considering deliberately letting anyone die, unless they absolutedly insisted on it. But then thats basically suicide. I would just share what food we have, since in this scenario its impossible to calculate what exactly is needed for each individual to survive.

This is hard work.:sweatdrop:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I'd ask them if they were willing to let go of the rope.

I would also. If they refuse, try the icepick suggestion. ~;)

[ICantSpellDawg]

@TuffStuff - I was thinking more along the lines of the rope scenario. Sorry if I came over a bit strongly saying kill, I was thinking more along the lines of allowing them to die (eg one at the bottom of the rope letting go).

I really don't know whether or not it would be right to allow several people to die, just because you didn't kill another.

Although the act of killing (at it again, I mean allow to die) in itself would probably make it wrong.

Maybe the only right thing to do would be to do a Bruce Willis and volunteer yourself to get left behind, or in this case let go?

But then you'd have to be at the bottom of the rope anway.:dizzy2:

Can I make it clear though that I wouldn't kill anyone who didn't want to be killed. I wouldn't stab and ice-pick into a mountaineer and eat his flesh in the starving scenario. Not just because its disgusting but because I would never do that if it wasn't agreed to. Nor would I stamp on his hand to make him let go of the rope.

I'd ask them if they were willing to let go of the rope. They let go in their own time (preferably before it snaps), and they choose to sacrifice themselves. If they couldn't summon the courage to let go, I wouldn't make them.

In the starving scenario, I wouldn't even considering deliberately letting anyone die, unless they absolutedly insisted on it. But then thats basically suicide. I would just share what food we have, since in this scenario its impossible to calculate what exactly is needed for each individual to survive.

This is hard work.:sweatdrop:

I would probably go through the same motions. I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I killed a man and could have traded spaces.

[RoadKill]

In my opinion if I was a women, I would not even consider abortion. You never know who will be coming out of your vagina, maybe Bill Gates, or even a Brad Pitt.

[Adrian II]

In my opinion if I was a women, I would not even consider abortion. You never know who will be coming out of your vagina, maybe Bill Gates, or even a Brad Pitt.If I were a woman, I'd rather have Brad Pitt going into my vagina if you ask me.
Bill Gates, on the other hand..

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Bill Gates, on the other hand..

I think that on this forum, you don't want to finish that sentence. :laugh4:


As if he hasn't screwed us enough with Vista. :no:

[RoadKill]

I think that on this forum, you don't want to finish that sentence. :laugh4:


As if he hasn't screwed us enough with Vista. :no:


HHAHAHAHAHA!!! You guys crack me up.

[CountArach]

If I were a woman, I'd rather have Brad Pitt going into my vagina if you ask me.
When I opened this thread this isn't even close to what I expected to read...

[Furious Mental]

Or you could be giving birth to Hitler. How about that?

[atheotes]

:laugh4:

If were a woman i would ask all you guys to shut up as it is noe of your business!!! :sweatdrop:

[RoadKill]

Or you could be giving birth to Hitler. How about that?

Yah.. That would suck..

"HITLER!!! DO YOUR HOMEWORK!!!!"

"NO! SCREW YOU MOM!"

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

A child after 22 weeks, and don't click if you don't want to be as disgusted as I currently am. Really, why are we allowing this? There are so many people that would do everything to have a child but they have to use the extremily cynical trade that is the adoption (and organ) industry and all the victims it makes. I am not religious, come from the dutch biblebelt but it never clicked with me. But when something is right it is right and this is so very very wrong.

EDIT: We've been here before and it has been very clearly ruled that pictures of late term abortions are not suitable for this site. Picture removed. BG

That is not a foethes it's a baby.


Argeed. I mean, if you don't want a kid, Don't Have Sex or if you do, use condoms/birth control. If you don't want the kid, put it up for adoption. Is that that hard to do?? :juggle2: :shame: