Abortion

[Ser Clegane]

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

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

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

[Fragony]

I see your point and I have no argument against that

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

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

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

[ICantSpellDawg]

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

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

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

[HoreTore]

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

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

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

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

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

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

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

[Rodion Romanovich]

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

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

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

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

[ICantSpellDawg]

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

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

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

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

[Rodion Romanovich]

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

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

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

[ICantSpellDawg]

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

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

[Rodion Romanovich]

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

Yes, and you're a human, as far as I know

[ICantSpellDawg]

Yes, and you're a human, as far as I know

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

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

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


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

[Myrddraal]

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

What TuffStuff said, that argument is empty.

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

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

What characteristics define humanity?

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


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

[Rodion Romanovich]

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

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

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

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

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

lol, it was posted 10 minutes ago

[ICantSpellDawg]

lol, it was posted 10 minutes ago

By me? where?

[Rodion Romanovich]

What TuffStuff said, that argument is empty.

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

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

by the ninth week as the controlling neurons in the spinal cord develop

That seems like a reasonable maximum date.

What characteristics define humanity?

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

[Rodion Romanovich]

By me? where?

Check recent posts made by user, in your own profile

[ICantSpellDawg]

Check recent posts made by user, in your own profile

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

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

[Xiahou]

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

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

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

[Viking]

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

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

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

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

[Ser Clegane]

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

That is very interesting.

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

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

[Xiahou]

That is very interesting.

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

Do you favor laws banning mothers from smoking in front of their children? What about laws banning parents from taking their children to McDonalds? Or should we jail parents who let their children become obese? This is what your argument is.

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

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

[Rodion Romanovich]

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

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

damn, I'm very sorry, it was a post by another, with a too similar looking (for my poor eyes) avatar. I apologize most humbly

[Ser Clegane]

Do you favor laws banning mothers from smoking in front of their children?

Would I believe that a several week fetus is equivalent to a living human being and should enjoy the same protection of its life, then I would indeed favor laws that ban behaviour that bears a high risk of killing that fetus.

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

That's a bit of a circular argument - so banning of drunk driving is OK because driving is regulated anyway? Why exactly do you think that the state has more right to heavily regulate driving and by doing so ensuring the safety of its citizens than it would have to protect the life of the equivalent of a newborn?
Just because the state built the road with your tax money?

[Xiahou]

Would I believe that a several week fetus is equivalent to a living human being and should enjoy the same protection of its life, then I would indeed favor laws that ban behaviour that bears a high risk of killing that fetus.

Then why don't you favor it after they're born?

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

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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

[Ser Clegane]

Then why don't you favor it after they're born?

If it can be shown that that smoking in front of your children poses a significant risk to their lives I would indeed favor it

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

What do you base this suspicion on?

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

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

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

[Xiahou]

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

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

Would I believe that a several week fetus is equivalent to a living human being and should enjoy the same protection of its life, then I would indeed favor laws that ban behaviour that bears a high risk of killing that fetus.

That claim is downright fallacious in regards to tobacco or alcohol- you've pretty much abandoned all basis in reality at this point.

If it can be shown that that smoking in front of your children poses a significant risk to their lives I would indeed favor it

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

What do you base this suspicion on?

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

[Papewaio]

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

[Viking]

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

.

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

Which is no argument.

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

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

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

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

[ICantSpellDawg]

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

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