Late Term Abortion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wakizashi

and it all comes full circle. :juggle2:. Ms. Waki says Strike clearly doesn't have a vagina... good news :thumbsup:

---

How self richeous. I still would like to point out pregnancies dont just happen you need sex in order for it to happen. Everyone knows this. I have already disscused earlier in the thread that you should know man or woman what all sex entails Im not saying you should save yourself becuase thats just stupid but you must be wary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

That's correct, if you define it so. But just like any other human being, it does not have the right to grow in, and feed on, someone else's body.I am so intimidated by your persuasive reasoning.

Good night.

---

lol. Humans are mammals and that is how mammals reporduce. You make it sound like the baby is some kind of parisite. I think it is quite self richeous of the woman to decide she has the power just becuase she was given the parts to carry life. What an ego those women have.

I've got to agree with SFTS, at least partially. When you have sex, you take the risk of getting pregnant. If that birth will harm the mother, or she was raped, she has the right to get rid of it - before the end of the first trimester in the second case, or at the earliest possible opportunity in the first. However, she does not have the right to kill something as a form of birth control following consensual sex. Full stop.

Adrian II (just picking on you, nothing personal ~;)) says that the female has the complete right to her own body. However, the fetus is also a human being, even if it is in a lesser stage of development than the female. It also, therefore, has rights as a human. A basic human right is the one to life.

A clarification, please:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Note that the rhythm method, the only form of birth control approved by the Catholic Church, works by causing fertilized eggs to spontaneously abort.

---

Are you very sure you're correct on this? If you are right, then I have seriously misunderstood the mechanics and intent of that method, lo these many decades. I thought the point of counting days and tracking menstrual cycles was to prevent fertilization in the first place.

My mother hated the rhytm method, because it didn't work. She bore 3 more children than she had originally hoped to have, she admitted in her 60's after all her highly-loved kids had grown. And her church's (R.Catholic) insistence on it as the only non-sinful way to not have children, eventually drove her from the church into the arms of Lutherans.

Ok, I'm going to voice my opinion here. Clearly from whats been said in my absence I'm way out of my depth here but...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

But just like any other human being, it does not have the right to grow in, and feed on, someone else's body.

---

Strictly according to law, Adrian you are correct, however the key thing you forgot is that with the woman's consent that would be fine, this may be why other people are so adamantly opposed to your pov. Then again it may not.

I understand that you're not advocting that 8 month along preganancies should be aborted, but at the moment that is where your line of reasoning is taking you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

No she does not have that right. As soon as the sperm hits the egg and conception happens that baby has all the rights as any other human including protection from murder. A human mother holds just as much power of the infant when its born its just outside of herm

---

Again according to law I'm fairly sure you're wrong. Ideally, in your mind, a foetus should have all rights from conception. Unfortunately your approach doesn't provide any 'way out' for rape victims, who had no choice in the matter of conception. In this case in particular abortion should be allowed. Also ot all depends on the defintion of what is alive, which, as has been said, is extremely elusive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

That should read innocent human life. Harming something that has done no wrong is much diffrenent than punshing a heinous offense.

---

So you are advocating that 'murder' is allowed in certain circumstances? Murder is never the answer. I'll be panned as a hypocrite now but I feel it had to be said. Again it's down to your definition of what is alive, and whether the woman in question has the right to control her own body.

Sorry for any offence caused by my blundering, underformed and seemingly contradictory opinions on such a contentious matter.

Curio

Well around and round we go.

The abortion argument basically has two parts. 1) The rights of woman to control her own body. 2) The need to protect human life.

Pro-choice give women there rights, but fails to protect human life. (Depending on your view)

Pro-life protects human life, but removes womens rights.

So a compromise must be reached, but there is a sticking point. What constitute human life?

So would argue that as soon as a egg is fertilized by a sperm it is a new human life. Others that it is not until birth does a baby constitutes Human life. Again a compromise must be reached.

I would say that the logical point between contraception and birth 24 weeks would be a good set point as the fetus could now survive with out the mother.

So allowing abortion up to 24 weeks seems the most fair compromise. It provides women the right to control her own body for most of the pregnancy, and protects life once it is not dependent on the mother.

As for the examples of Siamese twins, one twin is often sacrificed to save the other. Plus in my recommendation I acknowledge that this the set point of 24 weeks is a compromise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m52nickerson

I would say that the logical point between contraception and birth 24 weeks would be a good set point as the fetus could now survive with out the mother.

---

This is after twenty-two weeks. Don't click it if you don't like the sight of dead humans.

EDIT: Such linked pictures have been discouraged before in these threads. Those who wish to view such images can do the search themselves. BG

Why 24 weeks does the baby all of a sudden magicaly become human at 25 or is that just at the point where it becomes to recgonizable to kill. That is such an arbatary number.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Why 24 weeks does the baby all of a sudden magicaly become human at 25 or is that just at the point where it becomes to recgonizable to kill. That is such an arbatary number.

---

And the only time conception is a non-arbitary point is if you don't think hard enough. For starters, to separate embryos from alive, unique induviduals that we consider in principle dead, then we need to introduce a truely arbitary thing caled potential for life.

Sure easy enough for those who end up born and living a long life, but that would for example mean that a foestus that will die before birth isn't a human so it's perfectly fine to abort it by the charming method DA described.

But we cannot have that so then you have run with that they might have a potential for life. Arbitary? No, of course not. :book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

No she does not have that right. As soon as the sperm hits the egg and conception happens that baby has all the rights as any other human including protection from murder. A human mother holds just as much power of the infant when its born its just outside of herm

---

And that is a legal hellhole if the law is going to follow that principle. For example, you cannot shovel up a bottle of liquor on child and force them to drink, so by the same principle a pregnant woman cannot drink. But it's also considered extreme negligence if a child aquire the liquor by accident, so a sexually active woman can't drink.


Kukri, the rhyme method have periods were the ovum get fertlized but not attached, aka no pregnancy. http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/32/6/355.pdf

No anti-choice advocate has yet explained to me why a person has the right to live and feed off another person.

I wish I hadn't read DA's above post. To think that that happens, well I'd rather not.

And the baby has the right to live and feed off another person because presumably it is at least partly the mother's fault that she is pregnant. I don't think the baby asked to be there. But if the mother has a change of heart, just pull out the scissors! :2thumbsup:

And even if the mother does show remorse that does not make it acceptable. If you kill an adult and show remorse, do you not still go to prison?

And as for the argument that the baby won't be loved or cared for, that is just unbelievable. So if an elderly person in a care home has no relatives to visit him, should they just be taken round the back of the building and shot (or is it the good old scissors and tube to the head?).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

No anti-choice advocate has yet explained to me why a person has the right to live and feed off another person.

---

You're building a strawman there. First, you're calling pro-lifers "anti-choicers" which is incorrect because they are not primarily against making choices, they are against what they see as the killing of another human being.

As to the second part of your statement, the counter-question is "when does one human being have the right to kill another?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Craterus

No, it's to do with what you said. That's why I quoted part of your post. ~:rolleyes:

---

Nickerson says that a foetus is to be considered a human at 24 weeks, I say that is arbitrary, and then you post something about an ill violinist? ~:confused: C'mon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

You're building a strawman there. First, you're calling pro-lifers "anti-choicers" which is incorrect because they are not primarily against making choices, they are against what they see as the killing of another human being.

As to the second part of your statement, the counter-question is "when does one human being have the right to kill another?"

---

Let's compromise here; we do not have the right to kill a fetus, but the woman has the right to deny the fetus living inside her. So, we will have to take the fetus out, and then let it live and grow on its own. Sounds like a fine thing, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

And the only time conception is a non-arbitary point is if you don't think hard enough. For starters, to separate embryos from alive, unique induviduals that we consider in principle dead, then we need to introduce a truely arbitary thing caled potential for life.

Sure easy enough for those who end up born and living a long life, but that would for example mean that a foestus that will die before birth isn't a human so it's perfectly fine to abort it by the charming method DA described.

But we cannot have that so then you have run with that they might have a potential for life. Arbitary? No, of course not. :book:



And that is a legal hellhole if the law is going to follow that principle. For example, you cannot shovel up a bottle of liquor on child and force them to drink, so by the same principle a pregnant woman cannot drink. But it's also considered extreme negligence if a child aquire the liquor by accident, so a sexually active woman can't drink.


Kukri, the rhyme method have periods were the ovum get fertlized but not attached, aka no pregnancy. http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/32/6/355.pdf

---

Lol thats a fallacy. As soon as woman finds out she is pregnant she sould stop drinking and smoking the effects in the earlier part of the pregnancy (the part in which she doesnt know) are negligible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Let's compromise here; we do not have the right to kill a fetus, but the woman has the right to deny the fetus living inside her. So, we will have to take the fetus out, and then let it live and grow on its own. Sounds like a fine thing, right?

---

Ok than we can do that but then we should do it for all the infants small children cancer paitients paraplegics and retarded pepole. All types of humans that need help to live.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

No anti-choice advocate has yet explained to me why a person has the right to live and feed off another person.

---

Is this really an arguement you're putting forth. Its how mammals have children its not some intrusion it is a living human. The human got there by having an act that she knew couldvery well lead to pregnancy. I would also like to point what you describe is a parasitic relationship and that is how science defines a baby in the womb

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

No anti-choice advocate has yet explained to me why a person has the right to live and feed off another person.

---

You're against social security too, now? ~;p

The problem I have with your arguments (aside from the Natural Law business) is that unlike women, clumps of cells never have a say in wether they're conceived or not and saying that they're invading a womans body is simply a reversal of the truth.

That said, legislation should always be designed for practical application and a total ban would inevitably be a farce. I'm not against abortion entirely, I just think it should occur early or not at all. First trimester seems reasonable.

Those who say that such a line is arbitrary should realise that enabling everybody to vote at their 18th and nobody before that is arbitrary as well, yet you rarely hear people complaining about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenring

You're against social security too, now? ~;p

The problem I have with your arguments (aside from the Natural Law business) is that unlike women, clumps of cells never have a say in wether they're conceived or not and saying that they're invading a womans body is simply a reversal of the truth.

That said, legislation should always be designed for practical application and a total ban would inevitably be a farce. I'm not against abortion entirely, I just think it should occur early or not at all. First trimester seems reasonable.

Those who say that such a line is arbitrary should realise that enabling everybody to vote at their 18th and nobody before that is arbitrary as well, yet you rarely hear people complaining about it.

---

Well said Sir. And about the point where I stand on the issue; the reason why I've been acting a little more pro choice, is simply because I don't want to see that option go away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

As to the second part of your statement, the counter-question is "when does one human being have the right to kill another?"

---

I already told you.

Basically, this is for the same reason why nations have the right to defend themselves, even if that means killing innocents in the process.

Social security has nothing to do with this.

Nor has the fact that humans are mammals. That's a naturalistic fallacy. Do gerbils have freedom rights? We're mammals alright, but we're human mammals. We do things differently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenring

Those who say that such a line is arbitrary should realise that enabling everybody to vote at their 18th and nobody before that is arbitrary as well, yet you rarely hear people complaining about it.

---

So you cannot see any difference between a nine year old voting and an eighteen year old voting? ~:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Ok than we can do that but then we should do it for all the infants small children cancer paitients paraplegics and retarded pepole. All types of humans that need help to live.

---

If there are retarded people out there still living in their mothers womb against her will, then yes, I certainly support getting them out, retarded or not! :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

So you cannot see any difference between a nine year old voting and an eighteen year old voting? ~:rolleyes:

---

You don't understand the analogy. Some say that drawing the line at any point for pregnancies is arbitrary because fetuses aren't magicly imbued with humanity at any sharp point in time. Allowing people to vote from their 18th onward is arbitrary because that particular point doesn't have any intrinsic significance either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenring

You don't understand the analogy. Some say that drawing the line at any point for pregnancies is arbitrary because fetuses aren't magicly imbued with humanity at any sharp point in time. Allowing people to vote from their 18th onward is arbitrary because that particular point doesn't have any intrinsic significance either.

---

Yes, I know that nothing special happens when you're eighteen; but it's sort of more special to decide if something is murder or not. A line would have to be relatively arbitrary yes; but it does not have to be one hundred percent arbitrary; as in, let's just pick a random number of weeks.
24 sounds fine just because the baby has a greater chance to survive premature birth? Bollocks, look to the physical attributes that has got to do with conscience. If you're killing a vegetable that has no hopes what so ever to regain any sort of conscience; how on Earth is that equal to killing someone that has great chances to survive the coma and be just fine after a few months? (point: their lives are both 100% dependant on support)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

Yes, I know that nothing special happens when you're eighteen; but it's sort of more special to decide if something is murder or not. A line would have to be relatively arbitrary yes; but it does not have to be one hundred percent arbitrary; as in, let's just pick a random number of weeks.
24 sounds fine just because the baby has a greater chance to survive premature birth? Bollocks, look to the physical attributes that has got to do with conscience. If you're killing a vegetable that has no hopes what so ever to regain any sort of conscience; how on Earth is that equal to killing someone that has great chances to survive the coma and be just fine after a few months? (point: their lives are both 100% dependant on support)

---

And that's where the violinist example comes in. It's talking about dependency. Hence why I mentioned it.

If the baby is dependent on the mother, then she should have the right to choose to get rid of it.

There's another analogy I like about seeds but I'm a little hazy so you can look it up if you're interested.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Craterus

And that's where the violinist example comes in. It's talking about dependency. Hence why I mentioned it.

If the baby is dependent on the mother, then she should have the right to choose to get rid of it.

There's another analogy I like about seeds but I'm a little hazy so you can look it up if you're interested.

---

I have not been argumenting against late term abortion, though, only about when a human is human (which is not at all the same line of argumentation); which of course there is no absolute answer to at all. Nothing is ever perfectly round, but some figures are rounder than others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Why 24 weeks does the baby all of a sudden magicaly become human at 25 or is that just at the point where it becomes to recgonizable to kill. That is such an arbatary number.

---

Yes it is. The whole point of the my post was to provide a compromise.

Strike I know you have argued that a Women does not have the right to end a pregnancy. So if we outlawed abortion are we also going to prevent the mother from drinking, or smoking, or taking some legal over the counter medicine? What about handling used cat litter? Are we going to make the mother eat right, drink more fluids?

All these things, and more, could hurt of kill the fetus. If the mother does not want the child and will give it up after the birth what does she care?

Is it fair to have a child born with sever birth defects and suffer there whole life, or end its existence before it even chance to develop to a point of awareness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m52nickerson

Yes it is. The whole point of the my post was to provide a compromise.

Strike I know you have argued that a Women does not have the right to end a pregnancy. So if we outlawed abortion are we also going to prevent the mother from drinking, or smoking, or taking some legal over the counter medicine? What about handling used cat litter? Are we going to make the mother eat right, drink more fluids?

All these things, and more, could hurt of kill the fetus. If the mother does not want the child and will give it up after the birth what does she care?

Is it fair to have a child born with sever birth defects and suffer there whole life, or end its existence before it even chance to develop to a point of awareness.

---

We cant control everything the woman does however we can control this. My arguement is not one based on emotion it is based on logic. The human inside the mother has rights. just like a child. Can we stop mothers from doing dumb things that may harm there kids no but we can stop abuse and murder and thats exactly what this is about. Protecting rights of another human.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

We cant control everything the woman does however we can control this. My arguement is not one based on emotion it is based on logic. The human inside the mother has rights. just like a child. Can we stop mothers from doing dumb things that may harm there kids no but we can stop abuse and murder and thats exactly what this is about. Protecting rights of another human.

---

Then you are against capital punishment?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m52nickerson

Then you are against capital punishment?

---

That's a bad comparison - with capital punishment, you have a (usually) guilty party. With an unborn child...well, it's kind of hard for it to be guilty of a crime.

I'm against capital punishment in peacetime anyways. But that's another topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m52nickerson

Then you are against capital punishment?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

That's a bad comparison - with capital punishment, you have a (usually) guilty party. With an unborn child...well, it's kind of hard for it to be guilty of a crime.

I'm against capital punishment in peacetime anyways. But that's another topic.

---

:smash:

We have discovered that after we have killed certain "guilty" people, all evidence actually points out that they were innocent. This doesn't happen a lot, but it happens and is worthy to note. So it would seem hypocritical to kill a prisoner, who could later be found to be innocent, and not abort a fetus (during the first trimester of course) who is also innocent. I refuse to play that moral game.
The question it seems, is not whether abortion should be banned or not, but what is "human"?. Its not very defined, and the argument for or against aborting a fetus is superfluous. You ban it, and it will still happen, only another innocent person (along with fetus) is putting their life in danger, physically and/or judiciously. If you don't put restrictions on it (such as late term abortions without direct physical danger to the mother) and it could very well be abused, not just by uneducated teen girls, but also partners who "don't think its the right time yet."

Unfortunately, it is a quagmire topic, and nobody can agree wholeheartedly, and I wouldn't expect it to. However, having studied law for several years now, and having read the Inalienable Rights of Man, a fetus which cannot sustain life outside the mothers womb is not a citizen of this country, is not human as Children have rights of their own Inalienable Rights, under sed Human Rights Articles, which have been provisioned under the United States Constitution.

"Inalienable (Individual) Rights are: natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They are the most fundamental set of human rights, natural means not-granted nor conditional. They are applicable only to humans, as the basic necessity of their survival."

These rights can only be applicable to the "holder" of the Fetus, as naturally the mother's right to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness trumps.

Liberty is divided into four types : natural, personal, civil and political. The first two are inalienable, the latter two are government granted. What this means, is essentially, that in Nature's law, and in her own personal world, if a mother wants an abortion, she will have it. Civil Law, however can regulate her own personal views, but it cannot ban them entirely. If you look at how many people are jailed every year for Marijuana Possession, it becomes clear how devastating jailing abortionists would become on our current funding for Prisons, and is a problem (much like Marijuana is now) that will continually persist. This is why, Society's views on Marijuana have softened so much, its more acceptable because it is widespread, and theres very little we can do to actually stop it. Not to mention, it isn't that heinous.

Now it falls under the "mother's" Pursuit of Happiness; because we cannot completely get rid of abortions entirely, it can still be regulated up to a point. Under Civil Law, which is what this argument would fall under, if we ban abortion, then Mother's who seek out such a practice, would not get proper medical treatment, and the mother puts herself in great risk, of death, or contracting an infection, or illness. You get hedge-abortionists, who may not have qualification to do the job, which leads to the possibility of causing undue stress or harm unto the child, before it's death. I'd rather have it done as professionally, as clean, and as harmless as possible to both mother, and safely dead fetus.