Abortion

[Redleg]

Okay apart from chatting up the young nurses what is your job at Uni? You don't have to answer if you don't want to.

He has only mentioned what he does like a dozen or so times.

He is a pollster - or is it a poll analysist.

[Papewaio]

He has almost as many posts as Jag... so even if he has said it ten times that is only 1 out of a thousand posts.

Poll Analyst... hmm there is a San Francisco or Sydney joke in there methinks.

[Soulforged]

I think this question has to be answered by the authorities (=by the law), depending of rational thoughts as well as tradition.

Since the treaty signed on a convention on Costa Rica (i don't remember the year very well but it has to be after the 60's) the human being is considered like one since the moment of conception (this brings up certain other concecuenses), wich means the union of the espermatozoide with the ovum. But you should look at your own law for this. This is only mine. The rights of the will-to-be human being are considered irrebocables since the birth (he has to live only for a few seconds, that's all).

The only exception, because of this, prevented on our criminal code from abortion, is the case when the life of the mother is seriously menaced if the fetus keeps growing or if he borns. And to the contrary of what Gawain may think there exists cases of this type, being one of them when a child of 9 years (that already happened here) gets pregnant and obviously her body is not prepared to give birth to the child, for instance the doctors must recommend abortion.

If you ask to me the fetus is only considered a person (and entity who can adquire rights) when it's born. But that's my opinion, sure that someone with medical education may have a word or two on that.

[lars573]

That's quite a statement Gawain. Good luck backing it up.

Go to Russia were abortion was the only form of birth control. Until the hammer and scyth fell abortion was birth control. Things like condoms and birth control pills were evil capitalist plots to sterilize the mother lands youth. I remember news program about 1993 where they talked to a 25 (at the time) yearold woman who had been through 9 abortions since she was like 17.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

He has only mentioned what he does like a dozen or so times.

He is a pollster - or is it a poll analysist..

Sort of I work in the political research department. I call people on the phone to take these polls were always talk about and help formulate the questions.

[Uriel]

I have a bit of a strange position, in that I'm Christian and generally anti abortion but think that abortions should be available if needed. I believe that the pro-life groups that think they are basing their anti abortion stance on the Bible are simply wrong (or at least over egging the pudding). All of the statements in the Bible that can be interpreted as anti abortion are indirect.

Here's one statement that's relatively direct in Exodus 21:22-23:

"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury [i.e., to the mother], the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury [i.e., to the mother], you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot…"

Here we have a reference to the causing of miscarriage by violence. It clearly does not place the value of embryonic life as the same as the life of the woman. Therefore, according to Exodus, the causing of miscarriage (indirect abortion) is bad but is not murder. You could say it's an accident, I suppose, therefore dealing with manslaughter rather than murder. But I think the implication is that the foetus isn't considered to be fully human.

When looking at biology I find things a little more difficult. As far as I can see there are two possible times for a definite start to human life. These are conception and birth. We know that babies can survive prematurely. I'm convinced that treatment for premature babies will improve and survival prospects will get better for people born prematurely. The criteria for when a fetus is 'viable' will continue to change. This leaves me believing that conception is the real definite starting point for human life. As a result I don't like the idea of abortion and would hope that people would choose otherwise. I would hope that people are given every other viable option to consider in addition to (and in preference over) abortion. In reality it would be stupid to ban it as backstreet abortions would increase dramatically and we'd see a lot of mothers dying again as a result

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Take a good look at this picture. It's one of the most remarkable photographs ever taken. The tiny hand of a foetus reaches out from a mother's womb to clasp a surgeon's healing finger. It is, by the way, 21 weeks old, an age at which it could still be legally aborted. The tiny hand in the picture above belongs to a baby which is due to be born on December 28. It was taken during an operation in America recently. Paul Harris reports on a medical development in the control of the effects of spina bifida ... and on a picture which will reverberate through the on-going abortion debate here

Your first instinct is to recoil in horror. It looks like a close-up of some terrible accident. And then you notice, in the centre of the photograph, the tiny hand clutching a surgeon's finger.

LINK

[yesdachi]

Picture says a thousand words.

[Petrus]

LINK

The photoshop painting is still fresh on your propaganda picture.

Do you really think you can make your position acceptable to people by systematically lying to them and to appeal only to their emotions, never to their reasoning?

If this is it the only way you found to make your point, then it must be specially wrong, whatever it can be.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The photoshop painting is still fresh on your propaganda picture.

Are you trying to say this photo is fake?

Do you really think you can make your position acceptable to people by systematically lying to them and to appeal only to their emotions, never to their reasoning?

So you do think its fake and that the story is a lie?

If this is it the only way you found to make your point, then it must be specially wrong, whatever it can be.

The only way? Have you been following this thread or read any of my posts on the topic over the last few years. My only way. Thats a laugh.

As was said a picture is worth a thousand words. You just cant handle the truth.

[drone]

Real or fake, this photo doesn't really mean anything. Infants (even premature ones) all have the grasping reflex. This is built in along with the sucking reflex. These these are not conscious actions, but reflexes built in for the survival of the very young. Run anything along the palm of a newborn's hand, and he/she will clamp down. It is an cool picture, but if it gets misinterpreted for the purposes of political protest, it becomes propaganda.

Now if you want to debate whether baby reflexes are a sign of being "alive", I'll let someone else take that one over...

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Now if you want to debate whether baby reflexes are a sign of being "alive", I'll let someone else take that one over...

That was my point. That and looking at that picture how can you deny the humanity there?

[Ser Clegane]

Judging from the reactions to the picture I can only assume that a number of people think that abortion in week 21 is OK.

Usually I dislike the frequent use of such pictures in abortion discussions, as they usually represent phases of a pregnancy in which the majority of the pro-choice faction would clearly oppose an abortion

Of course there seem to be some exceptions...

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Usually I dislike the frequent use of such pictures in abortion discussions, as they usually represent phases of a pregnancy in which the majority of the pro-choice faction would clearly oppose an abortion

Me too. Their usually done for shock value. Much like showing a beheading. This though is a picture of joy and hope not disgust and death.

[Petrus]

Are you trying to say this photo is fake?

So you do think its fake and that the story is a lie?

The only way? Have you been following this thread or read any of my posts on the topic over the last few years. My only way. Thats a laugh.

As was said a picture is worth a thousand words. You just cant handle the truth.

A picture can stand a billion words and still have no meaning.

In the case of fetus pictures, this is but a show, not an information.

You can find real pictures of 20 weeks old fetus and know nothing about their developpement.

At this age, they can, under some circumstances, remain alive without their mother.

Which means that you chose for your example the show of a supposed abortion which is illegal except under the direst circumstances concerning the mother's life.

By this way you illustrate abortion with an image that does not concern abortion and that is specially designed to make feel horror to it's viewers.

Is it what you call the truth?

If you want to fight/defend abortion, i do not understand how you can pretend to do it with this kind of supposed argument.

Are you writing for sheeps or for responsible individuals?

And yes i have read your posts in this thread and i think they stand at the same level, you mix links of pure propaganda with other that contain informations, you quote statements after shorting them and without explaining them, you never develop your arguments to their full extand, in fact you seem to play in a show, not in a debate, you do not try to convince, only to make already convinced readers confortable.

I ignore wether this is limited to this thread or not but your attitude concerning others pain and the way you treat it is disgusting in this very threat.

[Ser Clegane]

This though is a picture of joy and hope not disgust and death.

Actually I also like the picture as such.

It's not necessarily the shock value I am referring to - it's the fact that often late stage abortions are shown to make the argument that abortion=murder, while most pro-choicers would vehemently oppose late stage abortions anyway - so such pictures actually have nothing to do with the actual discussion (unless you talk to one of those radical pro-choicers who seem to have the opinion that a baby miraculously receives the spark of life when it leaves its mothers body)

[Don Corleone]

Petrus,
I'm having a hard time following your reasoning. People that support abortion generally support it because they claim the fetus isn't a human being yet. Gawain is offering evidence that at week 21, it is indeed a human being. You turn around and accuse him of manipulating people's emotions. Which is it? Are you looking for evidence of humanity, or are you looking for people to make the argument for viablility in a vacuum of pure reason, with nothing so confusing as empirical observations?

Kurki,
I think you're 100% correct. The abortion debate really is a 'when does life begin' debate, because I've never met anyone who claims it's okay to kill an infant later the same day it's been born. I've never seen a good argument made for 'life begins at birth', but I would be interested to hear it. This is a really difficult question, because the definition of what it means to be alive is widely argued. Some bio-ethicists claim that viruses aren't alive. Others have argued that fire is. Personally, I hold that life begins with viability. And I know this can be viewed as a cop-out, because the age of viability is dependent on the available technology, but let's face it folks, there aren't going to be any simple answers to these questions. We need something that at the very least is definable. The solution we have in the USA right now is abominable and does not work.

[Don Corleone]

Actually I also like the picture as such.

It's not necessarily the shock value I am referring to - it's the fact that often late stage abortions are shown to make the argument that abortion=murder, while most pro-choicers would vehemently oppose late stage abortions anyway - so such pictures actually have nothing to do with the actual discussion (unless you talk to one of those radical pro-choicers who seem to have the opinion that a baby miraculously receives the spark of life when it leaves its mothers body)

I hate to sound like a broken record on this one, Ser C, but you're applying a Euro-centric view of abortion. In most states in the USA, a woman 'has the right to choose' whether to go to an abortion clinic or the delivery room after her water breaks. Every time somebody has attempted to limit discretionary abortion in the 3rd trimester, President Clinton or the court systems have found a way to block it.

[Petrus]

Petrus,
I'm having a hard time following your reasoning. People that support abortion generally support it because they claim the fetus isn't a human being yet. Gawain is offering evidence that at week 21, it is indeed a human being. You turn around and accuse him of manipulating people's emotions. Which is it? Are you looking for evidence of humanity, or are you looking for people to make the argument for viablility in a vacuum of pure reason, with nothing so confusing as empirical observations?

I am not discusting humanity of a fetus or of an embryo, it seems obvious to me that a feconded human egg is human.

What i discuss is this image that does not show a fetus how it is like but a reaction that is human although it is not a fetal's reaction : it plays upon the watcher's sensitivity but not to reality.

The only evidence revealed by this picture is a manipulation of it's watcher, an attempt to make believe something that is false.

The other thing i find unacceptable is the fact that it is supposed to represent a 21 weeks fetus, something that does not correspond to the abortion question as it is outside the limits of this question.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The only evidence revealed by this picture is a manipulation of it's watcher, an attempt to make believe something that is false.

And what would that be? That its alive or human?

The other thing i find unacceptable is the fact that it is supposed to represent a 21 weeks fetus, something that does not correspond to the abortion question as it is outside the limits of this question.

How so?

[Don Corleone]

Petrus,
Is it your point that Gawain is manipulating people's emotions by showing a photograph that implies the fetus is aware and grateful of the doctor's aid, when in reality it's simply executing an instinctual reaction? If so, you have a point.

But to your other new points:
1) If you accept that a fertilized egg is a human being, how can abortion ever be justified in your eyes?

2) Late-term abortions are not a boogeyman. We have plenty of them every day here in the US. I believe Canada as well. One of the few ways that North America is more left leaning than Europe. (Abortion rights in the US is generally a left-leaning argument).

[Reverend Joe]

I have a hard understanding why Rightists are so vehemently opposed to abortion, yet are willing to accept the death penalty. Why can't we all agree to go along with policies that don't limit the freedoms of man? It would stop my leftist friends from looking at me funny when I tell them that I have no objections to the death penalty and tobacco. It would also end dull, repetitive argumants such as this one. For god's sake, the "Nature of Man" thread lasted for about 3 days, and that was the most interesting thread the backroom has had since I got here, and this crap keeps going and going.

Just kill the bastards, or let them kill themselves.

[Don Corleone]

I have a hard understanding why Rightists are so vehemently opposed to abortion, yet are willing to accept the death penalty. Why can't we all agree to go along with policies that don't limit the freedoms of man? It would stop my leftist friends from looking at me funny when I tell them that I have no objections to the death penalty and tobacco. It would also end dull, repetitive argumants such as this one. For god's sake, the "Nature of Man" thread lasted for about 3 days, and that was the most interesting thread the backroom has had since I got here, and this crap keeps going and going.

Just kill the bastards, or let them kill themselves.

The death penalty is executing another human being because they have committed some act that society has deemed unacceptable (murder, rape, etc). The argument here is whether or not the victim actually deserves it, in other words culpability of the victim. As far to the right as I am, I have to say that I believe there's nothing a human being can do that deserves execution.

Abortion is killing a fetus because it's inconveniant, expensive, interfering with the mother's lifestyle, etc. I've never heard anyone put forward an argument about the culpability of the fetus as a valid argument for abortion. If you'd like to, please, by all means, it might be rather interesting.

If your goal is to eliminate laws that restrict the freedoms of people, wouldn't we be required to legalize rape in your world? But bonus points for consistency of arguments.

[Ser Clegane]

I hate to sound like a broken record on this one, Ser C, but you're applying a Euro-centric view of abortion. In most states in the USA, a woman 'has the right to choose' whether to go to an abortion clinic or the delivery room after her water breaks. Every time somebody has attempted to limit discretionary abortion in the 3rd trimester, President Clinton or the court systems have found a way to block it.

I know - but I think it's safe to say that even in the US the majority of the people who are pro-choice would gladly settle for a 12-week solution.

I saddens me to see that the all-or-nothing attitude of a handfull of people results in some extreme abortuin cases that the vast majority of people would consider to be murder if they really take the time to think about it.

I can only repeat, that, though I am pro-choice, if I only could chosse between the two extremes, I would rather advocate a complete ban of abortions than the complete legality of abortion at any stage.

[Reverend Joe]

How's this for culpability:

-Every child that is born represents an added burden to the world. If the child is unwanted, or a product of rape, that is an added burden.

-As expensive as abortion is, raising a child is far more expensive, and can potentially ruin someone's life.

-You may argue that by simply abstaining from sex, there is no need to abort unwanted children- but try never having sex with someone you love, just because you are not allowed to have children. Also, contraceptives (besides abortion) do not work 100% of the time, and the more effective methods- the birth control pill, etc.- have some inherent risks involved, such as a higher risk of heart attack.

Rape, by the way, is a severe infringement on the victim's rights, so there is no way it could be justified, as opposed to the death penalty, or abortion.

[drone]

Petrus,
Is it your point that Gawain is manipulating people's emotions by showing a photograph that implies the fetus is aware and grateful of the doctor's aid, when in reality it's simply executing an instinctual reaction? If so, you have a point.

This was the point of my post on reflex action. I'm not intending to make judgements about the state of awareness of a unborn at any stage in pregnancy, because I just don't know it. And neither does anyone else.

I have a hard understanding why Rightists are so vehemently opposed to abortion, yet are willing to accept the death penalty. Why can't we all agree to go along with policies that don't limit the freedoms of man? It would stop my leftist friends from looking at me funny when I tell them that I have no objections to the death penalty and tobacco.

From the Hypocracy thread, my thoughts on your question:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...t=53076&page=3

In my statement, I'm not saying abortion is right or wrong, or making any declarations about when a fertilized egg becomes a living human. Nobody truly knows that now. I'm just saying that it's a bit odd for someone to oppose the death of a person convicted of a heinous crime, and yet support a woman's choice to potentially end the life of an innocent.

[Reverend Joe]

Drone- I don't understand your point...

[Don Corleone]

How's this for culpability:

-Every child that is born represents an added burden to the world. If the child is unwanted, or a product of rape, that is an added burden.

-As expensive as abortion is, raising a child is far more expensive, and can potentially ruin someone's life.

-You may argue that by simply abstaining from sex, there is no need to abort unwanted children- but try never having sex with someone you love, just because you are not allowed to have children. Also, contraceptives (besides abortion) do not work 100% of the time, and the more effective methods- the birth control pill, etc.- have some inherent risks involved, such as a higher risk of heart attack.

Rape, by the way, is a severe infringement on the victim's rights, so there is no way it could be justified, as opposed to the death penalty, or abortion.

If you really feel that way, you should do the only moral thing and go get yourself sterilized today. If economic needs are grounds for termination, maybe instead of retirement, we should start up some concentration camps. Wow, you're really hard over on babies, aren't you amigo?

In your answer to my rape point, you sidestepped the fundamental issue of abortion... is the fetus a victim with rights or not? According to you, no. So, I'd be interested in hearing from you, what is the difference between a fetus one hour before birth and a baby, one hour after? Is being attached to a placenta grounds for abortion? I'm not baiting, I seriously want to know from somebody in the '3rd trimester is okay' camp, what the basis for their decision is. If you're not in that camp, I apologize in advance for mislabeling you, but you might want to re-tailor your arguments to highlight that.

[Reverend Joe]

This might kinda freak/creep you out, so be warned...

According to my scientific learning, viruses are nto alive because they are (1) incapable of independant reproduction and (2) incapable of life without directly feeding off of a living being's metabolic processes. This definition also includes highly evolved parasites, such as tapeworms, etc. Because gross parasites (meaning large, not grotesque) are completely dependant uopn another living organism for their metabolic and reproductive processes to operate, they are not technically alive.

You can probably see where this is going, but I am going to go ahead and put it in writing.

Obviously, feti and babies are not naturally designed to reproduce from birth, so that's a moot point; however, they are entirely dependant upon the placenta as a feeding tube. Even when they are removed prematurely, they still require an artificial feeding tube and a womb-like environment until they reach the natural state of independance. Therefore, feti are not technically alive, because they are not human yet- they are protohumanoid parasites.

I do understand your argumant against an economic grounds for abortion... there might have to be some limits on that.

[Ser Clegane]

Actually, if you want to be really strict about the living organism definition, you could probably say that a baby is not "alive" until it can walk and find its own food, since it is still dependant upon the mother for direct nourishment

Whose definition is that supposed to be?

I think you are seriously mixing something up here.