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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Henry V

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

---

Quite...

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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

---

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

Quote:

---

A man who holds dispicable views is dispicable,

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

:shame: Other way around mate.

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

:shame: Other way around mate.

---

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

What else is there?

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

Well at least we agree on something.

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Well at least we agree on something.

---

GROUP HUG!!!!

Quote:

---

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

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

---

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

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

Edit -

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

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

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

GROUP HUG!!!!

---

~:grouphug:

Quote:

---

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

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Edit -

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

---

Maybe.:beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Okay, but when does the foetus aquire the inalienable right to life?

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

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

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

---

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

Please, think of the nutjobs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

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

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

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

---

I don't believe that addressed my question:

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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

---

the situation isn´t the same....

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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

Crazed Rabbit

---

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

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

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

Do the fathers have to watch too btw ?

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


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


But this proposed law is:

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

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

C) impractical on a number of levels.



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

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

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

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

Critique of South Carolina's proposed law = OK.

Discuss the underlying issue (abortion) = OK

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

Thanks for your cooperation. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

the situation isn´t the same....

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

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

True that.

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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

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

---

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



As for the statement that life begins with conception and therefore the embryo is given full rights from that point, does the twin in these cases still maintain these human rights (they were alive, human and a unique being formed at conception)?
If not, when did they lose it?
Boy 'pregnant' with twin brother
Man With Twin Living Inside Him

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

So, somehow the baby magically has its brain turned on as it is passing out of the mother's womb?

---

Natural rights don't deal with the supernatural or with potentialities, they deal with realities only. Once a fetus is outside the womb and lives, it is a person. Prior to that it is not. The mother decides when and how it comes out because it is her body that carries it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

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

---

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

Quote:

---

As for the statement that life begins with conception and therefore the embryo is given full rights from that point, does the twin in these cases still maintain these human rights (they were alive, human and a unique being formed at conception)?
If not, when did they lose it?
Boy 'pregnant' with twin brother
Man With Twin Living Inside Him

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

So one week before going into labour she can still have an abortion?

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

By definition a sperm cell is only half a person, it only has 50% of the required genetic material.

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Yes.

---

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

I sense we will not resolve this.

Quote:

---

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

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

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

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

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

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

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

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

---

Yeah but look at how many idiots get born :laugh4:

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

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

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

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

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

I have two views.


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

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

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

:hanged: