Abortion

[Goofball]

Im prolife in all circumstances except rape period Its funny how people can support abortion where the person about to die has not done one thing wrong but yet are anti death where the person has committed the most hanoues act (murder) on another human that is possible funny huh

Speaking of "funny," I find your position to be the most nonsensical out of all of the other positions I have ever heard about abortion.

Typically, people are against abortion because they believe that life has already begun in the womb and they believe that it would be murder to abort that life. I don't agree with that view, but I can certainly respect it. The only difference between me and pro-life folks is the stage at which we believe life has begun. Unfortunately, there really is no way for either side to prove their point one way or the other.

Your position, on the other hand, is truly perplexing. You say that you are against abortion for any reason except in the case of rape. I assume you are against abortion because you feel that it is the murder of a newly begun life. Given that belief, the fact that you are willing to allow the murder of a young life simply because his/her father was a rapist is utterly barbaric.

Should we also be able to murder people who were fathered by murderers? Or armed robbers? How about car theives? Shoplifters? Politicians?

[Don Corleone]

Or Canadians?

Just kidding, amigo. Pretty city you have there, Vancouver. I know you're in Victoria, but not too far away. I almost gave you a ring to grab a beer before we sailed, but I think after pregnant wifey being on a plane for 7 hours, it would have been the last thing I ever did.

[Goofball]

Or Canadians?

Just kidding, amigo. Pretty city you have there, Vancouver. I know you're in Victoria, but not too far away. I almost gave you a ring to grab a beer before we sailed, but I think after pregnant wifey being on a plane for 7 hours, it would have been the last thing I ever did.

That's a damn shame, ma man. It would have been a helluva good outing. What do you mean "sailed?" Did I miss something? Did you and Mrs. Corleone go on a cruise?

[bmolsson]

One thing I was thinking of. If we are to ban abortion in order to save lives, would it also be a good idea to force organ donorship ? Mandatory blood donation monthly ? Mandatory sperma donations ?
After all if a women can't make decisions over her own body, why should anyone be able to do so ? Aren't we just the property of the majority ????

[Strike For The South]

Your position, on the other hand, is truly perplexing. You say that you are against abortion for any reason except in the case of rape. I assume you are against abortion because you feel that it is the murder of a newly begun life. Given that belief, the fact that you are willing to allow the murder of a young life simply because his/her father was a rapist is utterly barbaric.

Im not saying just because the mother got raped the baby should be killed Im saying many women enough time trying to deal with the fact they got raped and then you had a baby on top of it. Everytime the woman looks at that baby shell be reminded of what happened and might be prone to take retibuiton (my word of the day ) on the child. Chances are it wont be the most healthy home life. And the woman never consented meaning she had no plans to have sex and run the risk of a child it was forced upon her thats a big difference in my eyes

[bmolsson]

Im not saying just because the mother got raped the baby should be killed Im saying many women enough time trying to deal with the fact they got raped and then you had a baby on top of it. Everytime the woman looks at that baby shell be reminded of what happened and might be prone to take retibuiton (my word of the day ) on the child. Chances are it wont be the most healthy home life. And the woman never consented meaning she had no plans to have sex and run the risk of a child it was forced upon her thats a big difference in my eyes

I am sorry, but this seems to be more about the woman than the child. If you are pro-life, then even a child from a rape should be protected, at the expese of the woman.
If you say that a woman that has got pregnant while having consent sex, should not be allowed to have an abortion, while a woman that got raped, then it's more about you wanting to punish the woman that wasn't "careful" enough.

I honestly can't see this fit at all.

[Strike For The South]

I am sorry, but this seems to be more about the woman than the child. If you are pro-life, then even a child from a rape should be protected, at the expese of the woman.
If you say that a woman that has got pregnant while having consent sex, should not be allowed to have an abortion, while a woman that got raped, then it's more about you wanting to punish the woman that wasn't "careful" enough.

I honestly can't see this fit at all.

Its not that the baby shouldnt be protected I beilve adoption first and foremost but the woman is probally still going through truma during the nine months shes preagnent Abortion should be the last thing on your list but

[Don Corleone]

That's a damn shame, ma man. It would have been a helluva good outing. What do you mean "sailed?" Did I miss something? Did you and Mrs. Corleone go on a cruise?

Yeah, we just got back from a 2 week cruise to Alaska. Went salmon fishin in Ketchikan, took a sea plane over the top of Mendenhall glacier at Juneau (and saw a grizzly and some mountain goats) went up to Denali, Fairbanks... the works. We had a blast, and if I really thought I could have talked my wife into waiting a couple of hours to get onto the boat (we sailed out of Vancouver) I would have called you and met you for a beer or two down in the Gasworks. Next time, mate.

[Don Corleone]

Never mind, rant erased. GC, you need to go read up on some history and see where the ideas you're espousing have led society in the past. Lots of men before you also found morality burdensome and when they came to power, decided to forgo it in order to implement their ideas of a greater society.

[Ironside]

In biology, a lifeform has traditionally been considered to be a member of a population whose members can exhibit all the following phenomena at least once during their existence:

1. Growth
2. Metabolism, consuming, transforming and storing energy/mass; growing by absorbing and reorganizing mass; excreting waste
3. Motion, either moving itself, or having internal motion
4. Reproduction, the ability to create entities that are similar to, yet seperate from, itself
5. Response to stimuli - the ability to measure properties of its surrounding environment, and act upon certain conditions.

I would recommend you to redefine this one, as fire fits all criterias and I wouldn't call fire alive.

[Soulforged]

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.

Then this post confirms my guesses, at least for now. This will also permit the harvesting of fetus and many aplications on medical science. Why not clonation? I'm all for pro-evolution, of course while the fetus don't present any human factions. Then the fetus is only considered alive, or like an human being when it's out of the belly, when it's born, that's interesting.

[Petrus]

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).

Yes, that's what i meant about this drawing.

On the other points i i going to try to be clear and to avoid confusion of terms.

1) I think abortion concerns not only one but two beings and that their respective rights, in this situation, are contradictory.

A woman has the right to dispose of her body, whatever the circumstancies, just like any other human being.

A embryo/fetus has the right to remain alive whatever the circumstancies, just like any other human being.

In short i think it is necessary to solve this contradiction to evaluate those rights relatively to the dependance of the embryo/fetus toward it's mother.

i.e. a children does not have the right to vote or to decide about his life as he is not an adult and is considered as unable to evaluate correctly the consequences of his decisions, so there is a delegation of some of his rights to his parents.

I the case of abortion, i think that as long the embryo is totaly dependant of it's mother to remain alife then she must be free to decide.

After this stage abortion should be illegal to the exception of a threat to the mother's life.

I did not find another way to solve this problem, all other moral/philosophical/medical reasoning being very heavily burdened by every individual's personal feeling.

2) Well, if this concerns 'long term' abortion, then i think you have my answer to this. About right and left, i think women's disposal of their own sexuality is something utterly important that shall not be let to political standards : it concerns half of the humanity and is a necessity for independance and personal blooming (?).

Hence it shall be treated independantly of the political color of the person that presents arguments.

To give you an example, the law that legalized abortion in France was proposed by a conservative gouvernement and voted by both the left and most of the right in parliament, something very uncomon.

[Ser Clegane]

I would recommend you to redefine this one, as fire fits all criterias and I wouldn't call fire alive.

Only if you take rather antiquated view that "fire" is an entity

As fire is only the feature of a chemical process (oxydation) that is visible to the human eye I do not think the definition would apply.

Also I wonder how fire "measures properties of its surrounding environment"

[bmolsson]

Also I wonder how fire "measures properties of its surrounding environment"

With a burning interest I would assume.....

[Ironside]

That's a bit tricky. Technically, fire doesn't move; it only grows. Unless those two categories can be interchangable, fire isn't alive.

So trees moves around at your place?

As fire is only the feature of a chemical process (oxydation) that is visible to the human eye I do not think the definition would apply.

And what is life if not only a feature of a (complicated) chemical process, that "strives" to repeat itself?

Also I wonder how fire "measures properties of its surrounding environment"

How does a bacteria measure the property of its surronding environment? Both fire and bacterias react upon changes, but how is this measurment defined?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I the case of abortion, i think that as long the embryo is totaly dependant of it's mother to remain alife then she must be free to decide.

A newborn baby is totaly dependant of it's mother to remain alive for quite sometime. Should she be free to decide then if it lives or dies?

[Petrus]

A newborn baby is totaly dependant of it's mother to remain alive for quite sometime.

Where did you get that?

[Ser Clegane]

And what is life if not only a feature of a (complicated) chemical process, that "strives" to repeat itself?

Two different things here.

If you take a human being you have a corporal entity that meets the criteria of being a lifeform by the means of complicated chemical reactions

Fire is merely a visible effect of a chemical reaction (and by your logic quite a lot of chemical recation would meet the criteria for life)

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
A newborn baby is totaly dependant of it's mother to remain alive for quite sometime.



Where did you get that?

Leave a newborn baby alone by itself for a few days and see how well it fairs. All you will find is a dead baby.

[Ironside]

Two different things here.

If you take a human being you have a corporal entity that meets the criteria of being a lifeform by the means of complicated chemical reactions

Fire is merely a visible effect of a chemical reaction (and by your logic quite a lot of chemical recation would meet the criteria for life)

Using a human when straighting out a grey-zone.
What about bacterias?
And what has this to do with the original points that defined life?

All you actually need to do is to define one word in one of the arguments and fire isn't "alive".

BTW those arguments makes virus alive too. but for another reason.

[Ser Clegane]

Using a human when straighting out a grey-zone.
What about bacterias?

If you take a bacteria you have a corporal entity that meets the criteria of being a lifeform by the means of complicated chemical reactions

Happy now?

BTW, the given definition already excludes fire - it needs no further change.

[Petrus]

Leave a newborn baby alone by itself for a few days and see how well it fairs. All you will find is a dead baby.

You mean that new born babies are let to their mother's attention to the exclusion of everyone else in your clinics?

Is it a tradition, a way of life?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

You mean that new born babies are let to their mother's attention to the exclusion of everyone else in your clinics?

Is it the natural state of man to be born in a clinic? Can the baby survive on its own ? If not the actual mother it at least needs a surrogate mother.

[Petrus]

Is it the natural state of man to be born in a clinic? Can the baby survive on its own ? If not the actual mother it at least needs a surrogate mother.

On this point we can fully agree and as i do not tink neccessary to give you a 'no' answer to your first two questions, that makes at least a happy ending for the week-end.

Have a good sunday church!

[BDC]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18725154.200.html

Quite interesting, although you need to subscribe/get the magazine to see the rest.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

A Baby can breath, eat, and has all it's faculties.

A baby cannot eat. It needs its mothers milk or some artificial substitute. It also cannot see or walk or even crawl for that matter. It hardly has all its faculties.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

It has the rudimentary and self-sufficient beginnings of it's faculties.

Do these things miracuosly appear at birth or were they there in the womb? The answer is obvious.

Bottom line is that it is alive without being a parasitic attachment.

Again an infant must feed from its mothers breast or some artificial facimily so it is still a parisite. Its still quite attached to its mother.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Wrong, it's just eating food. In the womb it is actually attached to the mother physically.

Try feeding a newborn food sometime. It cant eat it.

They appear late during the womb. At that point I believe abortion would be unethical.

But there programed in from the start.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The milk is the food, whether from a bottle or a breast.

It gets the same "food" in the womb.

So? A lump of cells is no more a baby than a heap of building materials is a building. [/plagiarism-ish]

So than a baby is no more a fully developed human being than a wall is to a building. Fact is everything needed to produce a fully functioning human being is there from the moment of conception.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

You're splitting hairs.

And your not?