Abortion Debate (As Scheduled)

[Vuk]

Do I really have to tell you? Fifteen years ago my girlfriend aborted, hence I used a medical procedure to the detriment of humanity, hence it looks like I can be put more or less on par with Hitler and Stalin, hence no more debate.

Not really, as I never equated anything, but only pointed out that something being a medical procedure does not mean that it isn't murder. And FYI I think we are going through one of the darkest chapters in human history, where human life is being thought of as nothing at all, and being taken by the millions while everyone smiles on. It is not a deranged guy with a funny mustache behind it, but worse! Mothers kill their own babies! Whatever maternal right women had, they lost in this sad chapter of history. What kind of society do we live in when daily mothers murder their babies and one half of society really doesn't care, and the other half defends it as the mother's right? I think that is very sad, and I think your gf did a very horrible thing. That does not mean that I think she is Hitler or Stalin or even on par though. The were single people who murdered millions. I'm sorry if you find that offensive, but I cannot classify killing an innocent baby so that you do not have the responsibilty of raising it after you created it as anything else.

EDIT: And before accusations of supporting abortion clinic bombing come, no, I do not think that a murder justifies a murder.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Do I really have to tell you? Fifteen years ago my girlfriend aborted, hence I used a medical procedure to the detriment of humanity, hence it looks like I can be put more or less on par with Hitler and Stalin, hence no more debate.

I believe that his point was to assert that simply labeling it a "medical procedure" did not address the moral element of whether or not it is "life" or a parasitic growth that can become life. His goal was not to equate you with Hitler or Stalin. He should have made the referant clearer.

Let's make a good effort to be clear and respectful folks.

Btw, I don't recall reading that the Stalin regime was involved in much in the way of twisted medical experiments -- Stalin was always focused on the main issue of preserving his power and didn't do much in the way of "frills." The Nazis and certain elements in Imperial Japan were the one's doing the medico-horror shows. EMFM or one of the other Stalin-loathers can confirm this.

For me, life begins at conception. Thus the loss of "surplus" sperm during urination or the monthly cycling of ovum does not constitute anything that harms life. Belief that life begins at conception, and that the foetus therefore has rights from that point forward, does dominate the rest of issue for me.

[Tristuskhan]

Not really, as I never equated anything, but only pointed out that something being a medical procedure does not mean that it isn't murder. And FYI I think we are going through one of the darkest chapters in human history, where human life is being thought of as nothing at all, and being taken by the millions while everyone smiles on. It is not a deranged guy with a funny mustache behind it, but worse! Mothers kill their own babies! Whatever maternal right women had, they lost in this sad chapter of history. What kind of society do we live in when daily mothers murder their babies and one half of society really doesn't care, and the other half defends it as the mother's right? I think that is very sad, and I think you gf did a very horrible thing. That does not mean that I think she is Hitler or Stalin or even on par though. The were single people who murdered millions. I'm sorry if you find that offensive, but I cannot classify killing an innocent baby so that you do not have the responsibilty of raising it after you created it as anything else.

And you know what? Neither I or her have any true regrets about it, we were eighteen, had our life to build and did not want to spend our lives working in a food-processing factory in order to raise the kid. And of course you don't equate things, you just say that "it is not a deranged guy with a funny mustache behind it, but worse". Very glad to hear that.

Boy, abortion is of all times, not only a modern issue, the difference beeing that legal abortion is much cleaner than hidden abortion. Do you realise how many women bled themselves to death practising hand-made illegal abortions? Read "the cider house rules" by John Irving if you can. Abortions just can't be prevented, the best to be done is to have a clean medical procedure for it.

[Ironside]

I'm all for giving fetuses full human rights.

I'm not, particullary considering the amount of spontanious abortions (that are much higher than the man made ones). Giving them full human rights would mean that thier death would suddenly be a great concern, unless you have some particular idea that doing anything "unnatural" when it comes to life and death is bumbling around with powers you shouldn't have.

FFS I am going to be really careful here. If he had a choice, would he rather not exist? I very good friend of mine is a rape-child, and he was devastated when learned that and he is totally out of control sometimes and things aren't going very well. But when given the choice, well having the choice.

That can easily become metaphysical. If your parents had sex a few days later then your conception, you wouldn't exist, but your parents would have another child. So your birth prevented another person's existance, thus you did in one way kill that person. Was that person given a choise? True, the matter is more complicated due to the presence of a physical being, but the question is the same.

Personally I run with pragmatism, abortions have been made since stone age no matter the laws, better to come up with a fair comprimise between the rights of the mother and the rights of the unborn child then to press the mattor into some kind of absolutism.

BTW, in vitro fertilization were several fertilized eggs are used and some thrown away? Should be legal or not? On what grounds?

[Vuk]

I believe that his point was to assert that simply labeling it a "medical procedure" did not address the moral element of whether or not it is "life" or a parasitic growth that can become life. His goal was not to equate you with Hitler or Stalin. He should have made the referant clearer.

Let's make a good effort to be clear and respectful folks.

Btw, I don't recall reading that the Stalin regime was involved in much in the way of twisted medical experiments -- Stalin was always focused on the main issue of preserving his power and didn't do much in the way of "frills." The Nazis and certain elements in Imperial Japan were the one's doing the medico-horror shows. EMFM or one of the other Stalin-loathers can confirm this.

For me, life begins at conception. Thus the loss of "surplus" sperm during urination or the monthly cycling of ovum does not constitute anything that harms life. Belief that life begins at conception, and that the foetus therefore has rights from that point forward, does dominate the rest of issue for me.

Sorry Seam, I thought I had made that quite clear with the way I had worded it. In fact, I do not see how I could have made it clearer.
As for Stalin, I did not say that Stalin did them himself, but I said under Stalin. The commies did all kinds of messed up experiments on people. Memory is foggy, but I am sure that EMFM could back me up.

And you know what? Neither I or her have any true regrets about it, we were eighteen, had our life to build and did not want to spend our lives working in a food-processing factory in order to raise the kid. And of course you don't equate things, you just say that "it is not a deranged guy with a funny mustache behind it, but worse". Very glad to hear that.

Boy, abortion is of all times, not only a modern issue, the difference beeing that legal abortion is much cleaner than hidden abortion. Do you realise how many women bled themselves to death practising hand-made illegal abortions? Read "the cider house rules" by John Irving if you can. Abortions just can't be prevented, the best to be done is to have a clean medical procedure for it.

My point is not that you or your gf are worse, but that humanity is worse. You did not kill all the babies killed by abortion, humanity as a whole did. I said that this was a dark chapter in human history, not in yours. You know what Trist, I usually avoid using people's personal experience as examples, esp when I deem what they do as murder, as that can be a very sensitive issue, but you willing brought your own experience into the debate. If you and your gf did not want the baby, then you could have not had sex yet. And do you know what? My dad worked three jobs at a time. He worked crappy physical labour jobs that almost paid nothing. He raised 6 kids with my mom who stayed at home. They were both very happy people who do not regret the choices they made in life. I am alive, thanks to them. They made a decision to have unprotected sex when they didn't want children, and it was not a smart one, but they took responsibility for their stupid decision, and their lives were not over. They are now the parents of 6 children, two of whom have college degrees, and 3 of whome are currently attending college. My sister now makes more money with her one job than my dad did with all three, and my ma is going to be able to live the rest of her life in economic security. They made a stupid decision, but at least they only made one. You cannot justify killing a baby because you had sex knowing the risks and do not want to work and support you kid. And BTW, it is much much easier for a parent to go to college now adays.
As far as illegal abortions, those were done because of the horrible stigma associated with single mothers, something that you do not have to worry about now.

[Vuk]

That can easily become metaphysical. If your parents had sex a few days later then your conception, you wouldn't exist, but your parents would have another child. So your birth prevented another person's existance, thus you did in one way kill that person. Was that person given a choise? True, the matter is more complicated due to the presence of a physical being, but the question is the same.

No he did not, because killing someone is not preventing them from having life, but from taking the life from them when they have it. If something does not have life, life cannot be taken away. If life is not taken away, then it cannot be killed.

[HoreTore]

For me, life begins at conception. Thus the loss of "surplus" sperm during urination or the monthly cycling of ovum does not constitute anything that harms life. Belief that life begins at conception, and that the foetus therefore has rights from that point forward, does dominate the rest of issue for me.

The fetus may have every right it wants, it still cannot be given a right that violates another persons rights. As such, a woman will still be able to decide that the fetus can't stay in her womb anymore, since she has the right to decide what persons(and you've already made the fetus into a person) she wants to associate with - if she no longer wants to associate with the fetus, then it's bye, bye fetus, no matter how many rights they have. They're free to find another womb to grow in though, of course.

[HoreTore]

I'm not, particullary considering the amount of spontanious abortions (that are much higher than the man made ones). Giving them full human rights would mean that thier death would suddenly be a great concern, unless you have some particular idea that doing anything "unnatural" when it comes to life and death is bumbling around with powers you shouldn't have.

Yeah, that's another issue for the pro-lifers. Once you treat a fetus as a human, you'll have to start investigating spontaneous abortions for possible homicides. Sounds like a jolly good idea, at least if your mission in life is to cause even more pain and suffering.

[Vuk]

The fetus may have every right it wants, it still cannot be given a right that violates another persons rights. As such, a woman will still be able to decide that the fetus can't stay in her womb anymore, since she has the right to decide what persons(and you've already made the fetus into a person) she wants to associate with - if she no longer wants to associate with the fetus, then it's bye, bye fetus, no matter how many rights they have. They're free to find another womb to grow in though, of course.

No, because when she decided to take in a helpless human being who is completely dependent on her, that human being becomes her responsibility until it is at a stage where either it can take care of itsself or where others can take care of it. If she did not want it in her stomach, then she did not have to put it there. If I am a parent living in the Appalachians and I decide that I do not want my 3 year old anymore, I cannot throw her out into the cold and let her die because I do not want to associate with her anymore. Why do we have child support? Because parents DO have a responsibility to their kids, whether they like it or not.

[Tristuskhan]

As far as illegal abortions, those were done because of the horrible stigma associated with single mothers, something that you do not have to worry about now.

Indeed, but I fail to see the difference between an abortion caused by the fear of a stigma and an ordinary one in our current society. Would abortion be illegal nowadays, women would still be bleeding themselves dry too often, no matter the reason why they do it. And it's something one can't support. Blood is blood, nevermind the reason why it is spilled.

[Che Roriniho]

Until a fetus can survive outside the mother, it isn't a baby. A person's appendix can be removed, and removing a fetus is exactly the same. I wouldn't care 2 hoots if I was aborted, as, weell, I wouldn't be around to care.

[Lemur]

This seems to be a very interesting statistic. Though the vast majority of Americans approve of abortion in certain circumstances, it would appear that Americans are moving more to the cautious edge of defining certain circumstances.

Not to step on CA's more serious poll-smoking, but apparently there are problems with that Gallup poll. Makes sense; why would Americans' opinions shift so much in just a year?

The nuance that I've written about recently deals with the simple fact that Americans seem to care quite a bit why a woman seeks an abortion. And once they are aware of a plausible rationale, anti-abortion attitudes appear to relax.

The best example comes from 2003, at the very height of one of the congressional battles over so-called "partial-birth" abortions. The very same ABC poll that showed 62% of Americans favoring a ban on these much-demonized procedures also showed that 61% favored a "health of the mother" exception, even in these cases.

It's an article of faith among right-to-lifers, of course, that a "health exception" makes a mockery of any abortion restrictions. And that's why in a famous moment in one of the presidential debates last year, John McCain sneered and held up "quote marks" when referring to a "health exception." The public reaction was not positive, indicating that abstract hostility towards abortion may well disguise a more sympathetic attitude when it comes to actual women making actual decisions about a pregnancy. To put it another way, who cares if there's a shift towards self-reported "pro-life" sentiments, if consistent majorities basically approve of the constitutional and legal status quo?

In any event, it's maddening that so few polls on abortion get into these sorts of questions. Until they do, we are all entitled to dismiss the big headlines, and rely on hard data like election results to determine which basic direction in abortion policy Americans tend to support. Based on that data, the anti-abortion cause is not doing very well.

[Vuk]

Indeed, but I fail to see the difference between an abortion caused by the fear of a stigma and an ordinary one in our current society. Would abortion be illegal nowadays, women would still be bleeding themselves dry too often, no matter the reason why they do it. And it's something one can't support. Blood is blood, nevermind the reason why it is spilled.

Sorry Tris, but I fail to understand you.

Until a fetus can survive outside the mother, it isn't a baby. A person's appendix can be removed, and removing a fetus is exactly the same. I wouldn't care 2 hoots if I was aborted, as, weell, I wouldn't be around to care.

lol, a baby by your definition cannot survive without people taking care of it either. Babies, inside or outside the womb are helpless. And trust me, if you were a baby and had urine injected into your viens so that your entire tissue mass became inflamed and died a dispicably horrible death (an actual medical abortion method that was used by doctors in the US), you would have cared. By your reasoning, Hitler was ok too. Those Jews aren't around to care, so who cares? (To clarify, no, I am not saying people who support abortion are Hitler, but that the victim not being around to care doesn't make a darn)

[Kadagar_AV]

Vuk, never heard of Godwin's law, huh?

Your argumentation technique has much to wish for.

[KarlXII]

Right. I can understand the point. I'd just say that it's "responsibilities" for people around, but actually a punishment for the parents in most cases.

To keep on a ground I know, life is still a punishment for my father 64 years after his birth for being an unwanted child. Something he was not responsible of but definitely was the victim.
You all anti-abortionnists always think about the parents responsibilities and never about the child's future feelings, likely to be really unbalanced, and the way he or she will pass it to his own children.

Children are only a punishment if you treat them like one. Rape victims, I have no problem with them getting an abortion, it wasn't their choice to get knocked up. It's people who go "Well, I'm going to have sex knowing the risks and not live up to my responsibilities should something happen." that bother me.

[Vuk]

Vuk, never heard of Godwin's law, huh?

Your argumentation technique has much to wish for.

I have heard of it Kadagar, and thank you for your thoughtful post. There is nothing wrong with mentioning Hitler in a debate, there is only a problem when people start saying "Oh, Hitler had hair like yours, so you must be Hitler", or "You said Hitler! See how dumb you are?!" You are doing the latter.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Btw, I don't recall reading that the Stalin regime was involved in much in the way of twisted medical experiments -- Stalin was always focused on the main issue of preserving his power and didn't do much in the way of "frills." The Nazis and certain elements in Imperial Japan were the one's doing the medico-horror shows. EMFM or one of the other Stalin-loathers can confirm this.

This is mostly true. However, that isn't to say that the Soviets didn't like to experiment. Whether it is medical or not depends entirely on your definition thereof.

I'm all for giving fetuses full human rights.

But the mother still has full human rights. So, what is the situation we have then? The fetus has the right to live and become a human, check. But where does it say that since I'm a human being, I'm entitled to live where I want, including inside another human? If I want to live on another persons property(or body, in this case), I would have to ask their permission first, of course. So, the fetus has every right to live, but the woman has the right to evict the fetus from her body, since the fetus has no right to live on another persons property.

Isn't it the responsibility of a parent to provide a place for their child to live in most Western countries, and to provide their child the basic necessities of life? If the womb is the only place the fetus can live (and in the vast majority of cases, the woman is not pregnant because of a rape), then if the fetus had full rights as a child it would be the responsibility of the mother to ensure to the best of her ability that the fetus is living in adequate shelter.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Don't forget about the Soviet ape soldiers...

Scenario 1: I make a girl pregnant, she gives birth. We are not right for each other, we try a couple of years but it fails. Child is left fatherless/motherless or perhaps has to grow up with two parents hating each other. Alternatively has to spend every other week/year/whatever in Austria and England.

Scenario 2: I make a girl pregnant, she does NOt give birth. We split up, she now has a child and is married, I have a new girlfriend.

Now, explain why scenario 1 is better than scenario 2?

Scenario A: I make a girl pregnant, she gives birth. We are not right for each other, we try a couple of years but it fails. Child is left fatherless/motherless or perhaps has to grow up with two parents hating each other. Alternatively has to spend every other week/year/whatever in Austria and England.

Scenario B: I make a girl pregnant, she gives birth. So we kill the infant, we split up, she now has another child and is married, I have a new girlfriend.

Now, explain why scenario A is better than scenario B?

[rory_20_uk]

Scenario A: I make a girl pregnant, she gives birth. We are not right for each other, we try a couple of years but it fails. Child is left fatherless/motherless or perhaps has to grow up with two parents hating each other. Alternatively has to spend every other week/year/whatever in Austria and England.

Scenario B: I make a girl pregnant, she gives birth. So we kill the infant, we split up, she now has another child and is married, I have a new girlfriend.

Now, explain why scenario A is better than scenario B?

Doesn't sound much better to me.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Doesn't sound much better to me.

So you support infanticide?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Don't forget about the Soviet ape soldiers...



Scenario A: I make a girl pregnant, she gives birth. We are not right for each other, we try a couple of years but it fails. Child is left fatherless/motherless or perhaps has to grow up with two parents hating each other. Alternatively has to spend every other week/year/whatever in Austria and England.

Scenario B: I make a girl pregnant, she gives birth. So we kill the infant, we split up, she now has another child and is married, I have a new girlfriend.

Now, explain why scenario A is better than scenario B?

There is also option C, which is adoption.

[rory_20_uk]

So you support infanticide?

Well, you know the phrase: "ask a stupid question..."

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Yeah, that's another issue for the pro-lifers. Once you treat a fetus as a human, you'll have to start investigating spontaneous abortions for possible homicides. Sounds like a jolly good idea, at least if your mission in life is to cause even more pain and suffering.

No you don't, no more than you have to investigate all fatal heart attacks as potential murders by, say, suxamethonium chloride.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well, you know the phrase: "ask a stupid question..."

But the thing is Kadagar wasn't even trying to argue that a foetus isn't a human life, he simply said he was saving it trouble by killing it.

[Kadagar_AV]

But the thing is Kadagar wasn't even trying to argue that a foetus isn't a human life, he simply said he was saving it trouble by killing it.

Huh?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Huh?

That is how it came across to me as well - perhaps you would like to clarify?

[Vuk]

Huh?

Sorry, but that is what it came across as to me too.

[Kadagar_AV]

But the thing is Kadagar wasn't even trying to argue that a foetus isn't a human life, he simply said he was saving it trouble by killing it.

I killed it? I stuck my hands up her womb and strangled it or what?

I didnt even know she had got pregnant untill some weeks after the abortion.

[Vuk]

I killed it? I stuck my hands up her womb and strangled it or what?

I didnt even know she had got pregnant untill some weeks after the abortion.

But you still think it was the right thing to do?

[Rhyfelwyr]

I didnt even know she had got pregnant untill some weeks after the abortion.

I suppose that is kind of different then. I bet that a lot of people that say there are pro-choice would not choose to have an abortion when their own child is involved, if they were there at the time and were part of the decision-making process.

It's all very well taking about rights and all but when it gets down to it I think most people would see it 'aint right.