NationStates Jolt Archive

This might be personal, but i psoted a proposal for ANTI ABORTION in UN Propsoals. What is your view on it?

This might be personal, but i psoted a proposal for ANIT ABORTION in UN Propsoals. What is your view on it?

ANIT? I don't know really... :D

Abortion banned for the White race. Other, frankly, we should encourage the practice.

It'll probably be close, but I can assure you my nation will vote against it.

I doubt it will be close at all. I will ceratinly vote against this.....and I'm putting forth a tentative modalert, as this could belong in the UN forum.

I frankly think its a matter of national soviery. Why can't we outlaw the death penalty? Its a similar thing.

Abortion banned for the White race. Other, frankly, we should encourage the practice.

And most of you National Socialists claim not to hate other races. :roll:

Here we go again... :roll:

I'm pro-choice, though i myself would never have an abortion. Every other woman has the right to make that decision for herself, it is not my place to tell them they can't. If it is made illegal that will just lead to back alley abortions with unsterilized instruments and people who might not know what they're doing. That leads to death and infertility. People will not stop having them if they are made illegal.

I'm guessing 6 more posts 'till a flame war?

Hmmm...*retreats to underground concrete shelter with fireproof oxygen suit in preparation for coming flamewar*

I'm pro-choice, though i myself would never have an abortion. Every other woman has the right to make that decision for herself, it is not my place to tell them they can't. If it is made illegal that will just lead to back alley abortions with unsterilized instruments and people who might not know what they're doing. That leads to death and infertility. People will not stop having them if they are made illegal.
Well, there are laws against murder and people still commit murder. Does that mean we should make murder legal, because people do it anyway?

more practiced! ITS MURDER! killing a human life! what is more wrong than murder?

Abortion isn't the same as murder, at least not to me. A woman does not deserve to die or be sterile for the rest of her life because she makes that decision. A fetus, at the time it is aborted, could not survive without it's mother, it is a part of her body and she has the right to do with it as she pleases. I absolutely do not believe in late term abortions, when the baby could survive on its own, out of its mother's body. I also don't believe in using it as a form of birth control or just having them on whims. Some women who get pregnant are raped, or having the child will put their life at risk, sometimes birth control simply fails. It is not always about people being irresponsible.

For those of you who are leaving, outrageous posts about "ANTI ABORTION" are you the 13 year old pregnant girl? I highly doubt it, so unless God chose you to make decisions for the rest of the world, dont be.
Abortion is someones personal decision, if you think that your higher than them, and you have a right in telling someone what to do, your obviously wrong yourself.

Just because the fetus lives off its mother doesnt meean it isnt human. God puts a soul into the baby at conception. If God wishes for her to have a baby she WILL have it.

All those with me, join my cause for God and stop Abortion!
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=83201
Click There ^

Just because the fetus lives off its mother doesnt meean it isnt human. God puts a soul into the baby at conception. If God wishes for her to have a baby she WILL have it.

As a theist, you have a right to believe this. You do not have a right to pass laws on the rest of us based on your religion's beliefs, however. Likewise, the God/soul argument doesn't hold much water to those on this board who do not believe in that.

That argument only works for people who believe in God or believe he/she controls our destiny. I do believe in some higher power, but i don't believe it has any control over our lives. We don't all have the same morality, i usually just agree to disagree, unless someone is being really hateful and mean.

anyhow, you cannot kill a baby regardless of God or not. IT IS A HUMAN! How would you like it if you were a child in the womb and knew that you were gonig to be born and your mother killed you? Just think...

Join Me http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=83201

anyhow, you cannot kill a baby regardless of God or not. IT IS A HUMAN! How would you like it if you were a child in the womb and knew that you were gonig to be born and your mother killed you? Just think...

I wouldn't like it. I wouldn't not like it. Undeveloped cells in the womb don't have the capacity to feel or care.

It's not a human - it's an undifferentiated mass of cells most of the time.

MY reply is for Anbar & Ephyon. I agree with Anbar, just because the practise of a mostly Catholic God is most relevently practised doesnt mean we should have to be involved, in what mainstream north America practises, Yes it is true that it is a child, growing inside one, BUT, should Children be having children??, in respect to my last comment!

Fetus's do not have that kind of self-awareness, as much as you would like to think they do. They are not fully formed human beings. You are not going to get me to change my opinion, i am not going to get you to change yours. Let's just respect what the other person feels.

Although it is a mass of cells, THATS WHAT A HUMAN IS! I know it is a bit much to take in but we are a mass of cells and we have NO KNOLEDGE as to if a fetus can feel or not, for we have no memory of being a fetus, so you cannot actively say a fetus has no feeling or it isnt human, because we are also jsut a mass of cells as humans.

Abortion isn't the same as murder, at least not to me. A woman does not deserve to die or be sterile for the rest of her life because she makes that decision. A fetus, at the time it is aborted, could not survive without it's mother, it is a part of her body and she has the right to do with it as she pleases. I absolutely do not believe in late term abortions, when the baby could survive on its own, out of its mother's body. I also don't believe in using it as a form of birth control or just having them on whims.
Abortions are performed as a method of birth control over 90% of the time.

Some women who get pregnant are raped, or having the child will put their life at risk, sometimes birth control simply fails. It is not always about people being irresponsible.
These account for less than 1% of all abortions.

Okay, there is only one kind of safe sex, NO SEX! IF you dont want to have a baby dont have sex. That's what it is for. If you have sex, you take the risk of having a baby.

anyhow, you cannot kill a baby regardless of God or not. IT IS A HUMAN! How would you like it if you were a child in the womb and knew that you were gonig to be born and your mother killed you? Just think...

I wouldn't like it. I wouldn't not like it. Undeveloped cells in the womb don't have the capacity to feel or care.

It's not a human - it's an undifferentiated mass of cells most of the time.
Why don't we make abortion legal until one is an adult. After all, they aren't fully formed humans until then.

Abortion banned for the White race. Other, frankly, we should encourage the practice.

That was the thinking of Planned Parenthood's patron saint.

Even for teens, TEENS KNOW THEY CAN HAVE A BABY! ANd its illeagle for minors to have sex. If you want to take it from a different point of view, It could be a punishment for teens underage.

Fetus's do not have that kind of self-awareness, as much as you would like to think they do. They are not fully formed human beings. You are not going to get me to change my opinion, i am not going to get you to change yours. Let's just respect what the other person feels.

It's difficult on an issue like this. Surely, you find it hard to respect people who think murder is allowable? That's how a lot of anti-abortionists see pro-choicers.

*runs naked through thread whilst yelling*

aaaaaabbbbbbbooooorrrrrtttttiiiiiioooooonnnnnn iiiiisssss bbbbaaaddddd!!!!

Even for teens, TEENS KNOW THEY CAN HAVE A BABY! ANd its illeagle for minors to have sex. If you want to take it from a different point of view, It could be a punishment for teens underage.

Huh?! last time i Checked, where i lived, it was'nt illegal if you were over 13....

Anyhow, they KNOW they can get pregnant and they CHOOSE to take that risk. The willingly know they can get pregnant and choose to ignore it. Make them have it and put it up for adoption. I do think is SOME RARE cases, such as if the mother is in dying conditions the baby could be aborted, but not for stupid reasons like " i didn't know it could happen" and such.

Although it is a mass of cells, THATS WHAT A HUMAN IS! I know it is a bit much to take in but we are a mass of cells and we have NO KNOLEDGE as to if a fetus can feel or not, for we have no memory of being a fetus, so you cannot actively say a fetus has no feeling or it isnt human, because we are also jsut a mass of cells as humans.

Yes, we do know when a fetus can feel because we know when the neural pathways for to do so. THis does not happen before the time when the vast majority of abortions are performed. Humans are a mass of cells that includes a functioning brain. A fetus does not have that.

anyhow, you cannot kill a baby regardless of God or not. IT IS A HUMAN! How would you like it if you were a child in the womb and knew that you were gonig to be born and your mother killed you? Just think...

I wouldn't like it. I wouldn't not like it. Undeveloped cells in the womb don't have the capacity to feel or care.

It's not a human - it's an undifferentiated mass of cells most of the time.
Why don't we make abortion legal until one is an adult. After all, they aren't fully formed humans until then.

Snubis, you know quite well that the argument does not mean that the person has to be fully formed, just the parts of the brain relevant to pain and self-awareness. Quit arguing useless semantics, many of us know that you've done this debate to death before.

How do you know that 90% of abortions are used as a form of birth control? Even if that's true, that is the fault of all those people who refuse to teach kids about birth control because they don't want them to have sex. Teaching them only abstinence will not prevent them from having sex. If they want to, they will, no matter what you say. If you don't want them to have abortions, teach them about birth control and how to use it correctly. Teach abstinence too, but you can't teach only abstinence. I spent five years volunteering and working at my local AIDS organization. We always taught people how to put on condoms, how to insert female condoms, etc. Birth control fails a lot more often than people think because there are many people who are not taught how to properly use it. Until people in all countries, especially developing ones, are taught to use birth control and until it is made affordable for those in developing countries, there will contine to be abortions.

Even if it is semi-illeagle, is there some way to make it so if they KNOWINGLY had sex knowing they could have a baby they should be forced to carry it out unless they are threated by it and are dying?

Even for teens, TEENS KNOW THEY CAN HAVE A BABY! ANd its illeagle for minors to have sex. If you want to take it from a different point of view, It could be a punishment for teens underage.

So the validity of a child's life hinges on its use in punishing an irresponsible person, now? I thought it was a shining gift from God a page ago.

Do you have any idea at all in your head about the social and economic issues tied up in what you are suggesting? Cost to raise a child - as punishment. Effect on a young person's life, likely to last the rest of theirs and ruin the child's - for punishment? One more screaming mouth to feed, to grow up o another stunted, socially backwards individual - as punishment?!

People need to take responsibility for their actions. People have sex, there is always the chance that a pregnancy will result from that act, people need to accept that possibility and take responsibility for the child they have just created.

interesting Bible fun facts, for those who claim Christianity is "clear" about abortion:

One Mosaic law about miscarriage specifically contradicts the claim that the bible is antiabortion, clearly stating that miscarriage does not involve the death of a human being. If a woman has a miscarriage as the result of a fight, the man who caused it should be fined. If the woman dies, however, the culprit must be killed:

"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

"And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth . . ."--Ex. 21:22-25

The bible orders the death penalty for murder of a human being, but not for the expulsion of a fetus.


Many antiabortionists quote the sixth commandment, "Thou shalt not kill" (Ex. 20:13) as evidence that the bible is antiabortion. They fail to investigate the bible's definition of life (breath) or its deafening silence on abortion. Moreover, the Mosaic law in Exodus 21:22-25, directly following the Ten Commandments, makes it clear that an embryo or fetus is not a human being.

An honest reader must admit that the bible contradicts itself. "Thou shalt not kill" did not apply to many living, breathing human beings, including children, who are routinely massacred in the bible. The Mosaic law orders "Thou shalt kill" people for committing such "crimes" as cursing one's father or mother (Ex. 21:17), for being a "stubborn son" (Deut. 21:18-21), for being a homosexual (Lev. 20:13), or even for picking up sticks on the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32-35)! Far from protecting the sanctity of life, the bible promotes capital punishment for conduct which no civilized person or nation would regard as criminal.

[credit due to Dan Barker]

YES! I Agree. Please sign my petition thing here
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=83201

People need to take responsibility for their actions. People have sex, there is always the chance that a pregnancy will result from that act, people need to accept that possibility and take responsibility for the child they have just created.

1) it's not a child until it reaches viability

2) having an abortion IS taking responsibility.

No, having an abortion is avoiding responsibility. It's hiding from the consequences of your action.

Don't dictate to someone if a fetus is a child or not. You're always telling people not to tell you it's a child, so don't tell me it's not.

No, having an abortion is avoiding responsibility. It's hiding from the consequences of your action.

No, giving birth to a child you can't afford or properly care for so that you can inflict it on the state and society when it grows to be an impoverished, damaged adult is avoiding responsibility.

Don't dictate to someone if a fetus is a child or not. You're always telling people not to tell you it's a child, so don't tell me it's not.

Anyone can tell anyone anything they want, it's called freedom of speech. Some people are actually strong enough to debate the issue, believe it or not, rather than just telling people to stop talking.

I am one of those pro-choicers, so if i am seen as a person who supports murder, so be it. People are entitled to their opinions. I will defend mine but i will never insult yours. Even when people start insulting me i do not resort to insults and namecalling, that is not who i am. Any of my friends will tell you how i calmly stand my ground, i never really saw it as anything special, it's just how i have always been, but one of my closest friends said i am her hero in that way. I will tell you exactly how i feel, you'll know, but i do it in a rational, intelligent way. A debate is about expressing your opinion and having other people challenge it and you challenging theirs in return. I am not afraid to state what i feel, but i never try to pass it off as fact, simply my opinion. I respect other people's right to believe what they want, unless you start hurting people because of your point of view, i will continue to respect that. I would actually respect someone less if they suddenly changed their opinion because of me. I admire people who have the courage to stand up for their convictions. I will lose my respect for you if you start insulting me or belittling me, but i will not stoop to that level.

That was in response to the earlier comment someone made to me, so you don't think it came out of left field...lol.

No, having an abortion is avoiding responsibility. It's hiding from the consequences of your action.



it is not possible for a female to "hide" from the reality of a pregnancy. she must deal with the consequences of the actions she and her partner took, and chosing to have an abortion is one way of dealing with them. please explain how giving up a child for adoption is more responsible, since it means expecting others to take care of what you chose to bring into the world.


Don't dictate to someone if a fetus is a child or not. You're always telling people not to tell you it's a child, so don't tell me it's not.

whether or not you feel fetuses are human lives, there is no question that they are not children. "child" is defined by my dictionary as "a person between birth and puberty," so a fetus clearly does not fit that definition.

interesting Bible fun facts, for those who claim Christianity is "clear" about abortion:

One Mosaic law about miscarriage specifically contradicts the claim that the bible is antiabortion, clearly stating that miscarriage does not involve the death of a human being. If a woman has a miscarriage as the result of a fight, the man who caused it should be fined. If the woman dies, however, the culprit must be killed:

"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

"And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth . . ."--Ex. 21:22-25

The bible orders the death penalty for murder of a human being, but not for the expulsion of a fetus.

So we see that unborn children are valued, or else why would the man be punished? Also, Christianity was pretty much united in opposition to abortion up until the last century.

Many antiabortionists quote the sixth commandment, "Thou shalt not kill" (Ex. 20:13) as evidence that the bible is antiabortion. They fail to investigate the bible's definition of life (breath) or its deafening silence on abortion. Moreover, the Mosaic law in Exodus 21:22-25, directly following the Ten Commandments, makes it clear that an embryo or fetus is not a human being.

There is plenty in the Bible to indicate that human life begins in the womb. I cite the following passages as examples: Job 31:15; Ps. 22:9,10; Ps. 139:13--16; Isa. 44:2; Isa. 44:24.

An honest reader must admit that the bible contradicts itself. "Thou shalt not kill" did not apply to many living, breathing human beings, including children, who are routinely massacred in the bible. The Mosaic law orders "Thou shalt kill" people for committing such "crimes" as cursing one's father or mother (Ex. 21:17), for being a "stubborn son" (Deut. 21:18-21), for being a homosexual (Lev. 20:13), or even for picking up sticks on the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32-35)! Far from protecting the sanctity of life, the bible promotes capital punishment for conduct which no civilized person or nation would regard as criminal.

An honest reader would not be so foolish as to consider the Sixth Commandment applicable to all forms of killing; in context, it is clear that the meaning is one of "murder" (i.e., unlawful killing, by the Law of God). Execution was of course prescribed for murderers.

I respect other people's right to believe what they want, unless you start hurting people because of your point of view, i will continue to respect that.

And so it is with anti-abortionists. They see children being killed by abortion and have trouble respecting pro-choicers.

interesting Bible fun facts, for those who claim Christianity is "clear" about abortion:

One Mosaic law about miscarriage specifically contradicts the claim that the bible is antiabortion, clearly stating that miscarriage does not involve the death of a human being. If a woman has a miscarriage as the result of a fight, the man who caused it should be fined. If the woman dies, however, the culprit must be killed:

"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

"And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth . . ."--Ex. 21:22-25

The bible orders the death penalty for murder of a human being, but not for the expulsion of a fetus.

So we see that unborn children are valued, or else why would the man be punished? Also, Christianity was pretty much united in opposition to abortion up until the last century.



yes, the passage shows they are valued...but NOT as equivalent to the life of the mother, who is a born human being.

as for the other passages, none of them support your claim that a fetus is equivalent in status to a human infant.

and yes, Christianity has been notoriously opposed to abortion. Christianity was also united in its approval of slavery for hundreds of years...doesn't make it right.

whether or not you feel fetuses are human lives, there is no question that they are not children. "child" is defined by my dictionary as "a person between birth and puberty," so a fetus clearly does not fit that definition.

Oh, honestly. :roll:

child

1. A person between birth and puberty.
2. a. An unborn infant; a fetus.
b. An infant; a baby.

(source: http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/c/c0291300.html)

yes, the passage shows they are valued...but NOT as equivalent to the life of the mother, who is a born human being.

Which is why I have no particular problem with abortion when the mother's life is endangered. But you simply can't read into that passage that abortion is simply "allowable" according to the Bible.

as for the other passages, none of them support your claim that a fetus is equivalent in status to a human infant.

I was addressing the beginnings of life with those passages.

and yes, Christianity has been notoriously opposed to abortion. Christianity was also united in its approval of slavery for hundreds of years...doesn't make it right.

1) How anyone can think that permitting abortion is in any way equivalent to opposing slavery is beyond me. The original feminists, in fact, argued that abortion was a means of enslaving women!

2) Christianity was not as united in approval of slavery as you suggest. Slavery was always an uneasy institution for the church as a whole, even going back to Late Antiquity. The difficulty is that slavery is not condemned in the Bible, and when the proper relationship between slave and master is realized, it can be a relationship that reflects the Christian's to God. However, the Bible does provide a lot of regulations, and the reasons for slavery in the Bible clearly differ from the economic reasons behind black slavery in America.

lol, that is one well written issue statement you have there :roll: . guess that matches up to the current studies showing a negative corellation between education level and pro-life stance :). (www.clas.ufl.edu/users/billrad/AbortUS/ Abortion%20Politics%20in%20the%20US.PPT)

lol, that is one well written issue statement you have there :roll: . guess that matches up to the current studies showing a negative corellation between education level and pro-life stance :). (www.clas.ufl.edu/users/billrad/AbortUS/ Abortion%20Politics%20in%20the%20US.PPT)

Some of the worst tyrants in history have been among the most educated. Some of the most virtuous people in history have been among the least educated. So, you think you've proven something? It wouldn't surprise me that people with higher levels of education tend to be pro-choice; our educational system is inclined to present abortion as a morally neutral option.

Also, your link doesn't work.

I'm pro-choice, though i myself would never have an abortion. Every other woman has the right to make that decision for herself, it is not my place to tell them they can't. If it is made illegal that will just lead to back alley abortions with unsterilized instruments and people who might not know what they're doing. That leads to death and infertility. People will not stop having them if they are made illegal.

This would not really be the issue. The question is whether abortion is considered murder or not. If it is murder, than it is illegal by default. It might not stop people from having abortions, but by your logic, murder could be legal because people still do it after it's outlawed. By making a decision not based on morality, you'd only really prolong the issue.

Abortion isn't the same as murder, at least not to me. A woman does not deserve to die or be sterile for the rest of her life because she makes that decision. A fetus, at the time it is aborted, could not survive without it's mother, it is a part of her body and she has the right to do with it as she pleases. I absolutely do not believe in late term abortions, when the baby could survive on its own, out of its mother's body. I also don't believe in using it as a form of birth control or just having them on whims. Some women who get pregnant are raped, or having the child will put their life at risk, sometimes birth control simply fails. It is not always about people being irresponsible.

Who the hell are you to define what constitutes life and what does not? I'll bet some of the Nazi nutjobs that populate this site would say non-whites are not human and blelive it very strongly. Should we acknowledge their "right" to "defend the white race" with lethal force? By your logic the answer would be yes. So here is a bit of advice for you and the American government: Life is not yours to define.

I said "to me" it's not murder, i didn't say anyone had to believe that and i never said it was a universal definition. I never said in the post you quoted that a fetus isn't alive, i simply said that it cannot survive outside the woman's body, and it can't. You can't deny that a fetus that has only been in the womb for two months can't survive outside the body. That's why pregnancy is nine months. I do believe though that a fetus is not "alive," not in the true sense many people have of the word. I'm sorry if i didn't state more clearly it is just my personal belief. I simply stated my personal belief, as everyone else has. I never once said you can't believe what you want, i was simply responding to someone else's opinion with my own, that is what a debate is all about. Like everyone else in this thread, i was defending my point of view. According to my logic Nazis should not be allowed to murder non-whites just because they are non-white because accrording to my logic that is not the same as abortion. You seem to think it is, that's fine, you are entitled. We simply don't believe the same thing, i can live with that, can you?

The issue is not "Was the mother raped" or "Is the baby wanted or unwanted" the issue is "What is the nature of the unborn". Would you kill a 1 year old child just because his father was a rapist? Would you kill a 1 year old child just because they were an unwanted child? Of course not. By saying "what if the mother is raped" or "What if the baby is unwanted" it is going around the issue. The issue is "What is the nature of the unborn" Now that i have that cleared up...

There are 4 main differences between a fetus and a baby

1. Size

Is a short person less human then a tall person? No, so size shouldnt be an issue.

2. Level of Development

Is a 4 year old more human then a 20 year old, even though the 4 year old is less developed then a 20 year old? No, so level of development shouldnt be an issue.

3. Environment (the fetus lives in its mother's womb)

Is a baby in an incubator less human then a baby outside of an incubator? No, so environment shouldnt be an issue.

4. Dependency (the Fetus is dependant on its mothers body)

Is a diabetic person who is dependant on insulin less of a human then a non diabetic person? Is a person in the hospital and on a respirator less of a human then one who isnt? No, so dependency shouldnt be an issue.

Honestly
Abortion is No Nations Decision, its someones personal decision.. Unless you were there when the baby was being concieved, and you could have prevented it, dont stick your face in it, not only is that ignorant, but its all giveing everyone the right to validate the point you have not too much of a life, and the only thing you do is bitch about others issues. Give it a rest.

The issue is not "Was the mother raped" or "Is the baby wanted or unwanted" the issue is "What is the nature of the unborn". Would you kill a 1 year old child just because his father was a rapist? Would you kill a 1 year old child just because they were an unwanted child? Of course not. By saying "what if the mother is raped" or "What if the baby is unwanted" it is going around the issue. The issue is "What is the nature of the unborn" Now that i have that cleared up...

There are 4 main differences between a fetus and a baby

1. Size

Is a short person less human then a tall person? No, so size shouldnt be an issue.

2. Level of Development

Is a 4 year old more human then a 20 year old, even though the 4 year old is less developed then a 20 year old? No, so level of development shouldnt be an issue.

3. Environment (the fetus lives in its mother's womb)

Is a baby in an incubator less human then a baby outside of an incubator? No, so environment shouldnt be an issue.

4. Dependency (the Fetus is dependant on its mothers body)

Is a diabetic person who is dependant on insulin less of a human then a non diabetic person? Is a person in the hospital and on a respirator less of a human then one who isnt? No, so dependency shouldnt be an issue.

1. No one uses this reason, I assume you're just pointing it out.

2. You're oversimplifying, as Snubis had tried to do (well, the difference is that Snubis should have known better). At the point that the vast majority of abortions are performed, the fetus is an undifferentiated mass of cells, which has little to no neurological functioning. Thus - not alive mentally, and to me, not alive physically. Not on the same level as a person, anyway.

3. Those babies are already born - so there is a big difference between the example and what you're applying it to.

4. Dependency ties in to #2, so I've said all that I need to.

2. You're oversimplifying, as Snubis had tried to do (well, the difference is that Snubis should have known better). At the point that the vast majority of abortions are performed, the fetus is an undifferentiated mass of cells, which has little to no neurological functioning. Thus - not alive mentally, and to me, not alive physically. Not on the same level as a person, anyway.

Fetal heartbeats can be detected as early as 18 days after conception. Surely, hearts are not "undifferentiated masses of cells"? Are most abortions performed before 18 days after conception?

2. You're oversimplifying, as Snubis had tried to do (well, the difference is that Snubis should have known better). At the point that the vast majority of abortions are performed, the fetus is an undifferentiated mass of cells, which has little to no neurological functioning. Thus - not alive mentally, and to me, not alive physically. Not on the same level as a person, anyway.

Fetal heartbeats can be detected as early as 18 days after conception. Surely, hearts are not "undifferentiated masses of cells"? Are most abortions performed before 18 days after conception?

Frogs have beating hearts, and are routinely dissected while alive...anyway, I've added emphasis top what you seem to have missed. Please actually read my points before responding to them.

I said "to me" it's not murder, i didn't say anyone had to believe that and i never said it was a universal definition. I never said in the post you quoted that a fetus isn't alive, i simply said that it cannot survive outside the woman's body, and it can't. You can't deny that a fetus that has only been in the womb for two months can't survive outside the body. That's why pregnancy is nine months. I do believe though that a fetus is not "alive," not in the true sense many people have of the word. I'm sorry if i didn't state more clearly it is just my personal belief. I simply stated my personal belief, as everyone else has. I never once said you can't believe what you want, i was simply responding to someone else's opinion with my own, that is what a debate is all about. Like everyone else in this thread, i was defending my point of view. According to my logic Nazis should not be allowed to murder non-whites just because they are non-white because accrording to my logic that is not the same as abortion. You seem to think it is, that's fine, you are entitled. We simply don't believe the same thing, i can live with that, c
an you?

Your logic is scewed. You dont feel a fetus is human just asa Nazi doesnt feel a jew is human. Connect the dots. The issue of abortion is more than a simple disagreement. Opinions such as yours have lead to horrible evil. I feel no more need to respect your justification for mass murder than than I would the justification used by the Nazi party for its crimes. Do you understand my position now?

Abortion is the murder of a human. Plain and simple.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

The debate on abortion comes down to a dichotomy between the opposing beliefs that whatever the feotus is (human or otherwise is irrelevant) either has rights or does not. Some would argue that feotuses are human and hence are entitled to all the rights of humans. Others argue that because of various mitigating factors, feotuses have not yet attained that human status.

First we need to clear up quite a few of the Medical falicies surrounding this thread. First, abortions are generally not performed after 23 weeks term (at least that's the UN's WHO recommended limit, followed and adopted by nearly all countries (sweden is the only one not to sign, but that's cause untill recently they didn't join the UN)). At this stage, the major organs are beggining to form. Neuron growth in the brain is growing exponentially, however, the feotal brain has not yet undergone neural migration, meaning there is likely no cause/effect synapses yet formed. The Prehepial Nervous system is only just started to develop. The bottom line here is that the feotus cannot sense the outside world, they can reciev input, but not acknowledge that it came from outside.

Second is the reasons for abortions. Someone said only 1% were for the mother's health. Firstly this is utter trash, I work at the Royal Children's Hospital in Melbourne Australia, and I checked with the director of Adolescent Health Services, Professor Suzzane Sawly (funny name I know, but she does exist) and the head of psych services, Prof. Ian Douglas, both concurr that anything up to 70% of abortions in females (you'd hope so, aye) under the age of 18 are for medical necessity. It must be realised that teenager girl's pelvises simply have not yet developed to carry or deliver an infant at term.

In my work as an Emergency Dept. registrar, I have in three years, two occasions that I have been required in theatre to oversee teenage deliveries. One girl, 17, safely delivered, the other's pelvis shattered in 3 places as the baby pushed through, severing her right inferior femoral ANV (artery, nerve, vein) intersection. It took 31 units of blood, 11 aterial clamps, 14ml Adrenaline and 3 hours work by our team just to stabilise her, in preperation for emergency surgery to repair the pelvis, which took another 8 hours to complete. On last report, she still had to walk with crutches. The girl was 16, she's lost her entire life to a baby that her parent's wouldn't let her abort, despite the advice of 3 doctors to do so.

And please, if you've heard feotal cardiac activity at 18 days, please take the Nobel prize in Phys/Med, cause at that time, it's a roughly spherical group of about 14000 cells, of which 3% have differentiated. Please tell me where on earth you got that, cause I'd love to have a look. I just hope it's not Fellowship University.

Now, to the rights part of the debate at last.

There is a concept in rights discussions that a person does not have a right untill they are aware they have that right. This can be easily applied in this debate. As a baby cannot use it's Prehepial Nervous System to detect the outside world, it has no expirience of anything outside its self. Most of us accept a basic definition of a human being being alive is that it is concious of itself as an individual entity in the world. As the feotus cannot expirience the outside world, it has no knowledge that the outside exists, and hence does not know it is alive. If the feotus cannot know it is alive, it cannot know that it has the right to life. Once it can expirience the outside world, it has the right to life, just as everyone who can does.

As you can see, if we are to follow the concepts of rights that everyone seems to be using to debate this thread, largely independant of the church (which has no place in this debate, as it is a belief system for INDIVIDUALS, that is, people can follow it if they want to, but it should not be imposed. You can't impose a belief system on anything, it must be accpeted from within), we must conclude that the WHO's guidlines to abortion (up to but no later than 23 weeks term), should be at the mother's fully consentual discresion.

Have a nice day

I'm all for choice.

I'm all for us males staying the hell out of it and letting the pregnant people make up their own damn minds. I can't get pregnant, so I'll never be faced with the ultimate choice, and since I'll never be faced with it, I can't honestly say I know what I would do in that situation. There are some situations you just can't empathize with, and I think this is one of them.

Well, there are laws against murder and people still commit murder. Does that mean we should make murder legal, because people do it anyway?Ok, nice comment. Yes, we should make murder legal, so we could have professional murderers to do the job with sterilized instruments, so that would cause less death amongst the victims.

What are you babbling about? You cannot compaire abortion with murder like that! It just doesn't make any sense. It doesn't matter how professionally murderer murders and with how sterilized equipment, the dead will still be dead. But abortion's idea is not only to just snuff somebody.

And besides, the mother is responsible of the child, as the child cannot take responsibility even over it's own life. It's not even self-aware. And most of all, it cannot survive without the womb, taff luck.

Meanwhile, the "fathers" get away with it. Is it that hard to use protection?

2. You're oversimplifying, as Snubis had tried to do (well, the difference is that Snubis should have known better). At the point that the vast majority of abortions are performed, the fetus is an undifferentiated mass of cells, which has little to no neurological functioning. Thus - not alive mentally, and to me, not alive physically. Not on the same level as a person, anyway.

Fetal heartbeats can be detected as early as 18 days after conception. Surely, hearts are not "undifferentiated masses of cells"? Are most abortions performed before 18 days after conception?

Frogs have beating hearts, and are routinely dissected while alive...anyway, I've added emphasis top what you seem to have missed. Please actually read my points before responding to them.

Frogs aren't human by any definition of the term. Fetuses are the earliest stage of human development. As to neurological functioning---signals from the brain have been measured at 7 weeks.

And please, if you've heard feotal cardiac activity at 18 days, please take the Nobel prize in Phys/Med, cause at that time, it's a roughly spherical group of about 14000 cells, of which 3% have differentiated. Please tell me where on earth you got that, cause I'd love to have a look. I just hope it's not Fellowship University.

That's the earliest figure I've seen. Day 21 or day 22 are more common figures for the first heart beat.

There is a concept in rights discussions that a person does not have a right untill they are aware they have that right.

That's utterly ridiculous. Either rights are universal or they are non-existent.

This can be easily applied in this debate. As a baby cannot use it's Prehepial Nervous System to detect the outside world, it has no expirience of anything outside its self. Most of us accept a basic definition of a human being being alive is that it is concious of itself as an individual entity in the world. As the feotus cannot expirience the outside world, it has no knowledge that the outside exists, and hence does not know it is alive. If the feotus cannot know it is alive, it cannot know that it has the right to life. Once it can expirience the outside world, it has the right to life, just as everyone who can does.

I say rights are independent of individual ability to recognize of them as applying to oneself. I say life begins at conception.

As you can see, if we are to follow the concepts of rights that everyone seems to be using to debate this thread, largely independant of the church (which has no place in this debate, as it is a belief system for INDIVIDUALS, that is, people can follow it if they want to, but it should not be imposed. You can't impose a belief system on anything, it must be accpeted from within), we must conclude that the WHO's guidlines to abortion (up to but no later than 23 weeks term), should be at the mother's fully consentual discresion.

There is a system of belief behind everything you've presented as well: rights theory and secular humanism.

Just because the fetus lives off its mother doesnt meean it isnt human. God puts a soul into the baby at conception.
Your argument apears to be one for legalising abortion, not against. After all, If God wishes for her to have a baby she WILL have it.
thus, if she has an abortion, obviously God didn't want her to have it, because it wasn't born, right?

It's not a human - it's an undifferentiated mass of cells most of the time.

Being a student of biology, I must disagree with your statement. The cells in a fetus begin to divide and differentiate immediately after the moment of conception, though it is still not fully formed or independent immediately after birth. Should it be legal, then, to kill newborn infants simply because they are still developing and dependent on others for care?

That being said, I believe strongly that abortion, when legal, has the potential to be abused. Many would look to it as a form of birth control, which it is most certainly not. The idea that every woman who makes a mistake should be able to fix it by ending another life is completely horrendous. In the event that an unwanted baby is concieved, there are many adults who cannot concieve their own children, or who simply wish to adopt who would be glad to recieve that child.

In addition, many women who elect to undergo the procedure experience negative psychological effects as a result of what they have done. It is a very emotionally painful ordeal to kill your own child, once it has become irreversible. I know a young woman who, in the past two years has had two abortions, and neither was her first. Both caused her much anguish and emotional distress, yet she had to undergo the procedure because of the demand that is on her to excel, and that apparently cannot be accomplished in our society when one has a child.
Perhaps both sides of the abortion debate should consider all the facts, as well as the moral repercussions on society. We live in a world today where morals are relative, and only necessay when it suits us. I find it interesting that every argument about abortion centers around killing the unborn children, when part of the problem is that these unwanted children are being concieved in the first place by irresponsible adults unwilling to accept the outcome of their actions.
I do not mean to offend anyone by the above statement; I wish only to express my opinion on the matter.

Her Royal Majesty,
Queen Jocelyne of West Sophiata

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Easy solution. Just keep it legal. Those who are against it don't have to do it.

Question for all you pro-ifers?

Do you and Pat Buchannon pray together?

This all comes down the question is if the fetus is a human and if you say that the fetus is not tell em when does he/ she become a person. I am prolife and this comes down to human rights. soo if any1 knows answer the question. ohh and it cannot be when the PERSON exits the mother because would'nt "partial birth" abortion be murder then?

Easy solution. Just keep it legal. Those who are against it don't have to do it.

That is not a solution. If the pro-life position is correct than abortion is not a right and cannot stay legal. Talk about unclear on the concept. :roll:

Easy solution. Just keep it legal. Those who are against it don't have to do it.

Why dont we just keep slavery legal too, hey you dont like it, you dont have to own one.

Question for all you pro-ifers?

Do you and Pat Buchannon pray together?

No.

Bringing people into the world who can't be supported is wrong. Therefore, we should have abortion. Even if you don't agree with that, isn't it better to have fewer laws than more?

The issue is not "Was the mother raped" or "Is the baby wanted or unwanted" the issue is "What is the nature of the unborn". Would you kill a 1 year old child just because his father was a rapist? Would you kill a 1 year old child just because they were an unwanted child? Of course not. By saying "what if the mother is raped" or "What if the baby is unwanted" it is going around the issue. The issue is "What is the nature of the unborn" Now that i have that cleared up...

There are 4 main differences between a fetus and a baby

1. Size

Is a short person less human then a tall person? No, so size shouldnt be an issue.

2. Level of Development

Is a 4 year old more human then a 20 year old, even though the 4 year old is less developed then a 20 year old? No, so level of development shouldnt be an issue.

3. Environment (the fetus lives in its mother's womb)

Is a baby in an incubator less human then a baby outside of an incubator? No, so environment shouldnt be an issue.

4. Dependency (the Fetus is dependant on its mothers body)

Is a diabetic person who is dependant on insulin less of a human then a non diabetic person? Is a person in the hospital and on a respirator less of a human then one who isnt? No, so dependency shouldnt be an issue.

1. No one uses this reason, I assume you're just pointing it out.

2. You're oversimplifying, as Snubis had tried to do (well, the difference is that Snubis should have known better). At the point that the vast majority of abortions are performed, the fetus is an undifferentiated mass of cells, which has little to no neurological functioning. Thus - not alive mentally, and to me, not alive physically. Not on the same level as a person, anyway.

3. Those babies are already born - so there is a big difference between the example and what you're applying it to.

4. Dependency ties in to #2, so I've said all that I need to.





1. I'm trying to show that the differences between a baby and a fetus arent that big, and arent big enough to make a fetus that different from a baby.

2. So you would be justified in killing a mentally retarded person because they have less neurological functioning as a normal person. Or a comatose person?

3. How is being born a big difference. The difference is in only the environment. That shouldnt justify killing it.

Bringing people into the world who can't be supported is wrong. Therefore, we should have abortion. Even if you don't agree with that, isn't it better to have fewer laws than more?

But unwanted babies CAN be supported, if the mothers would only give them up for adoption. And laws are meant to protect people. What you said is not a valid argument, because all laws arent the same.

pro death people oh sorry i mean pro-choice please tell me when the fetus becomes a person. if u can.

Voluntary abortion is ALWAYS justified. In addition, it should be SOLELY the mother's choice.

The absolute right to your own body is a logical derivation of the right to LIFE. A fetus is only in a mother's body by HER PERMISSION. It has no right to be there.

Therefore the mother may opt to remove the baby from her womb. If it dies, then that is merely a tragic consequence.

Of course it if survives outside the mother's womb (a 7-9 month baby), then the process should just be treated as a C-Section.

obviously you know nothing of the methods used to kill the child in the womb.
and y have u avoided my question maybe because you cannot answer it... :?

wow. im gone for 12 hours and it erupts. SUPORT THE aNIT ABORTION IN THE UN =D!

pro death people oh sorry i mean pro-choice please tell me when the fetus becomes a person. if u can.

It doesn't matter when it becomes a human, because the life is inconsequential because it hasn't done anything yet.

If you are thinking something like "but all human life is consequential" we have a basic irreconcilable philosophical difference (you are probably religious, I form my ethical systems from the bottom up without regard to what other people think or what a holy text says). Don't bother trying to argue with me, you'll probably make good points and all but I won't really listen to you.

Also, I don't really like arguing with people who can't be bothered to write out the word "you," but I felt the point had to be made.

obviously you know nothing of the methods used to kill the child in the womb.
and y have u avoided my question maybe because you cannot answer it... :?

Of your first question I know the methods used to kill the fetus. A saline injection is the most fommon. A woman has a right to remove teh fetus from her body, which usually entails killing the fetus.

And secondly a fetus becomes a person when it leaves the woman's body.

That question is also irrelevant... regardless of whether or not it is human it still does NOT have the right to be in the woman's body, and is only there by her permission.

"Abortion opponents love little fetuses as long as they're in someone else's uterus."
--Joceylyn Elders

its not a matter of if it has the right to be there. Because it DOES!. The woman knowingly had the child and put it their. Having sex was the child's permision to be in the womb. By having sex the woman knows a baby could be there and she is saying "yes I will let a baby in me" if she has sex. Period.

Of your first question I know the methods used to kill the fetus. A saline injection is the most fommon. A woman has a right to remove teh fetus from her body, which usually entails killing the fetus.

And secondly a fetus becomes a person when it leaves the woman's body.

That question is also irrelevant... regardless of whether or not it is human it still does NOT have the right to be in the woman's body, and is only there by her permission.

"Abortion opponents love little fetuses as long as they're in someone else's uterus."
--Joceylyn Elders

You're my new favourite libertarian.

its not a matter of if it has the right to be there. Because it DOES!. The woman knowingly had the child and put it their. Having sex was the child's permision to be in the womb. By having sex the woman knows a baby could be there and she is saying "yes I will let a baby in me" if she has sex. Period.

And Jews gave permission to the Holocaust by refusing to leave Germany.

Nowhere did the woman make a binding contract or agreement to the baby... she has no contractual obligation to keep the baby inside her body.

don't bring Jews ionto this...=P

ok tell me if the child becomes a person as it leaves the womans body why is there a thing called partial birth abortion? and since when has a c-section included poisoning the child first? and what about other mthods such as the vacuum method? and tell what about retard or paralyzed people? becuase they have done nothin does that make their life inconsequential? no!

ok tell me if the child becomes a person as it leaves the womans body why is there a thing called partial birth abortion? and since when has a c-section included poisoning the child first? and what about other mthods such as the vacuum method? and tell what about retard or paralyzed people? becuase they have done nothin does that make their life inconsequential? no!

Partial birth abortion is when a child is extracted from a woman's body but can still live viably on its own. This is in the 7+ month stage of pregnancy.

A woman is within her rights to inject poison into herself... since the baby is part of the woman's body at that time.

The vaccum method clears any potential moral gray area that the saline method could have created... it is 100% justified under all circumstances.

Either way A WOMAN HAS AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO EXTRACT A BABY OR ANY OTHER OBJECT FROM HER BODY.

And why the hell are you working retarded or paralyzed people into this?

this is nothing to do with the holocost. And second the holocost was wrong unless you are a nazi!

this is nothing to do with the holocost. And second the holocost was wrong unless you are a nazi!

The poster made an analogy regarding implicit consent. I used the Holocaust as an anecdote to show why he was wrong.

and tell what about retard or paralyzed people? becuase they have done nothin does that make their life inconsequential? no!

I told you I don't want to argue that point. And if you *really* want to argue with me use proper English.

so you are comparing killing millions of innocent children in a year as the holocost? wow sounds like you are more on our side. And you not wanting to argue the point i mean comeon at least come up with some b.s. like the rest of you killers to defend your cause

so you are comparing killing millions of innocent children in a year as the holocost? wow sounds like you are more on our side. And you not wanting to argue the point i mean comeon at least come up with some b.s. like the rest of you killers to defend your cause

If you actually read the context where my post was, the previous speaker said that women implicitly consent to having a baby when they have sex.

I was applying that same logic (Jews implicitly consented to being killed when they decided to live in Germany) to the Holocaust to show how absurd it was.

whats the diffrence between a jew in germany and the fetus in the womb (rhetorical question)? And if you ever read discriptions of the holocost it speaks about how jews hid from the nazi gov. and how the tried to escape. so how can a baby do this? how can a baby hide from a homicidel mother when the child is stuck with the woman it cant. the child doesnt even know the mother is going to kill him/her.

The mother owns teh land (her fetus) where the baby resides.

She has the right to evict him just like a landlord has the right to evict deadbeat tenants.

The Jews actually owned the land that hte Nazis later appropriated for themselves.

If she never wanted the "tenant" she never should have had sex inviting the child into her womb!

If she never wanted the "tenant" she never should have had sex inviting the child into her womb!

I never said i didn't understand your position, i do, and i respect it. I was just simply trying to point out that i never claimed you have to believe what i do. If you can't respect or understand my point of view, that's fine, you don't have to. I know what you mean with your comments about my logic, to you it is skewed, i get that. I believe non-whites are just as human as whites, i don't believe fetus's are just as human as the rest of us. I do think Nazis have the right to hate non-whites, they just don't have the right to kill them. I know that you see my pro-choice stance as having the same point of view about fetus's as Nazis have about non-whites. You have the right to feel that way. All i meant is that i can agree to disagree, if you can't, don't, that's fine. You are not going to change my mind though, and i know i won't change yours, that is never my intention, i just like discussions.

If she never wanted the "tenant" she never should have had sex inviting the child into her womb!

Even if a landlord invites the tenant, he can still kick out the tenant whenever he feels like as long as there's no contract.

And as I've shown before the whole implied consent argument is BS.

yah but did the child willingly go into the mother who wanst to kill that perso. NO! the child did not, whereas a tenant willingly accepts living on some1's territory

The mother still has teh right to her own body.

If she never wanted the "tenant" she never should have had sex inviting the child into her womb!
"Inviting the child into her womb!"? That sounds REALLY CREEPY on about a MILLION LEVELS! When's the last time YOU 'invited' a 'child' into your 'womb', if you know what I mean?

Also, once a CHILD becomes a TENANT in your WOMB, shouldn't it have to PAY RENT? Or do you live in some sort of COMMIE SOCIALIST 'PARADISE' where RENT has been ABOLISHED? FOR SHAME, SAY I!

but the child is it's own person!

yah but did the child willingly go into the mother who wanst to kill that perso. NO! the child did not, whereas a tenant willingly accepts living on some1's territory

Um.... zygotes don't have the ability to consent one way or another; consent is limited to rational parties; unless you consider sperm sentient, I guess...

yah but did the child willingly go into the mother who wanst to kill that perso. NO! the child did not, whereas a tenant willingly accepts living on some1's territory
Well if the kid doesn't WANT to be there then there shouldn't be any PROBLEM kicking him or her out! I guess I don't 'get' your 'point'.

but the child is it's own person!


.BEgs the question: is a collection of undifferentiated cells a person?

no i do not live in a commi society. and if you are so imature to make jokes about a serious discussion you can just go away. and your comment didnt even say anything of value futplex

consent is limited to rational parties;
So if I agree to wear lime jello on my head on a whim I haven't CONSENTED? In YOUR crazy world, maybe!

Also, I gotta say that rational parties are the WORST KIND of parties -- everyone just sits around doing Algebra!

unless you consider sperm sentient, I guess...
Typical sexist drivel to say that EGGS aren't SENTIENT! STOP OPPRESSING ME WITH YOUR PATRIARCHAL ALPHABET, GODDESS-HATER!

no i do not live in a commi society. and if you are so imature to make jokes about a serious discussion you can just go away. and your comment didnt even say anything of value futplex

Well at least it was in proper English.

Forgot to add something. I also understand that to some people this is more than just a difference of opinion. To me, that's is pretty much what it is, we don't all agree, that makes things interesting. If you want to continue this as a discussion, knowing you are not going to change my mind, i am always willing to do that. If you feel that you need to try and change my mind or want to call me a murderer or something like that, i will not continue to respond. That is not to say anyone on here has called me one, i'm just making a point. I respect anyone who has had rational, intelligent responses. If you can't respect me in return, so be it.

ok well if it is a collection of undifferential cells then why compare it to full grown person? and a child of 2 months does notknow how to make decisions does that make him anyless of a human your argument does not hold water!

no i do not live in a commi society. and if you are so imature to make jokes about a serious discussion you can just go away. and your comment didnt even say anything of value futplex
Well at least it was in proper English.
I dunno. Random capitalized words aren't necessarily the mark of an educated person.

most of you do not know how to discuss a topic correctly when someone asks somethin or makes a statment you just attack the person instead of their argument which is sooo convincing of course

which applies to every1 but rangervill pretty much even i did it.

ok well if it is a collection of undifferential cells then why compare it to full grown person? and a child of 2 months does notknow how to make decisions does that make him anyless of a human your argument does not hold water!

I wouldn't compare a collection of undifferentiated cells a full grown person. I also didn't say consent had anything to do with personhood; enough of with thestrawmen already.

yet you were comparing the two as if they were the same circumstances.

yet you were comparing the two as if they were the same circumstances.


uhhh... no I didn't. All I said that you can't put a 'consent' based argument on an irrational actor incapable of consenting one way or another.

sorry that was global.

yah but did the child willingly go into the mother who wanst to kill that perso. NO! the child did not, whereas a tenant willingly accepts living on some1's territory

Is it her womb?

Does it matter that the fetus wasn't asked? NO!

Try again without the crap emotive pleas.

2. You're oversimplifying, as Snubis had tried to do (well, the difference is that Snubis should have known better). At the point that the vast majority of abortions are performed, the fetus is an undifferentiated mass of cells, which has little to no neurological functioning. Thus - not alive mentally, and to me, not alive physically. Not on the same level as a person, anyway.

Fetal heartbeats can be detected as early as 18 days after conception. Surely, hearts are not "undifferentiated masses of cells"? Are most abortions performed before 18 days after conception?

Frogs have beating hearts, and are routinely dissected while alive...anyway, I've added emphasis top what you seem to have missed. Please actually read my points before responding to them.

Frogs aren't human by any definition of the term. Fetuses are the earliest stage of human development. As to neurological functioning---signals from the brain have been measured at 7 weeks.

Frogs are about as human as I consider fetuses. Guess we're at a draw on that, huh?

Study brain development a bit before you post stuff like this, because I already stated that the pertinent level of development is the point at which pain can be felt and sensory input taken in. This does not happen until the third trimester. I couldn't care less about trace activity before then.

The issue is not "Was the mother raped" or "Is the baby wanted or unwanted" the issue is "What is the nature of the unborn". Would you kill a 1 year old child just because his father was a rapist? Would you kill a 1 year old child just because they were an unwanted child? Of course not. By saying "what if the mother is raped" or "What if the baby is unwanted" it is going around the issue. The issue is "What is the nature of the unborn" Now that i have that cleared up...

There are 4 main differences between a fetus and a baby

1. Size

Is a short person less human then a tall person? No, so size shouldnt be an issue.

2. Level of Development

Is a 4 year old more human then a 20 year old, even though the 4 year old is less developed then a 20 year old? No, so level of development shouldnt be an issue.

3. Environment (the fetus lives in its mother's womb)

Is a baby in an incubator less human then a baby outside of an incubator? No, so environment shouldnt be an issue.

4. Dependency (the Fetus is dependant on its mothers body)

Is a diabetic person who is dependant on insulin less of a human then a non diabetic person? Is a person in the hospital and on a respirator less of a human then one who isnt? No, so dependency shouldnt be an issue.

1. No one uses this reason, I assume you're just pointing it out.

2. You're oversimplifying, as Snubis had tried to do (well, the difference is that Snubis should have known better). At the point that the vast majority of abortions are performed, the fetus is an undifferentiated mass of cells, which has little to no neurological functioning. Thus - not alive mentally, and to me, not alive physically. Not on the same level as a person, anyway.

3. Those babies are already born - so there is a big difference between the example and what you're applying it to.

4. Dependency ties in to #2, so I've said all that I need to.


1. I'm trying to show that the differences between a baby and a fetus arent that big, and arent big enough to make a fetus that different from a baby.

2. So you would be justified in killing a mentally retarded person because they have less neurological functioning as a normal person. Or a comatose person?

3. How is being born a big difference. The difference is in only the environment. That shouldnt justify killing it.

2. Yes, I would allow a comotose person who has no hope of recovery to die. There is no point in continued life in that case. A mentally retarded person has a life, feels pain, and intakes sensory input. Thus, they should not be killed.

3. You're taking my statement out of context. You compared a fetus to a diabetic person on insulin. A fetus has not lived in the world and (in the case I advocate) takes in no sensory input. A diabetic person does, thus your argument is invalid based on my reasoning for #2. You cannot isolate the variables of the argument and expect them to stand alone, because they do not stand alone.

It's not a human - it's an undifferentiated mass of cells most of the time.

Being a student of biology, I must disagree with your statement. The cells in a fetus begin to divide and differentiate immediately after the moment of conception, though it is still not fully formed or independent immediately after birth. Should it be legal, then, to kill newborn infants simply because they are still developing and dependent on others for care?

Being a student of psychology, my use of biological terminology is prone to error. I've already stated my position in the post just above on neural development, so there you have it.

That being said, I believe strongly that abortion, when legal, has the potential to be abused. Many would look to it as a form of birth control, which it is most certainly not. The idea that every woman who makes a mistake should be able to fix it by ending another life is completely horrendous. In the event that an unwanted baby is concieved, there are many adults who cannot concieve their own children, or who simply wish to adopt who would be glad to recieve that child.

Yeah, and a life with an unfit mother/the current adoption situation is also quite unpleasant. Hmm, abortion is bad because it can be abused, so preganancy (even more abuseable, with a result which lasts one disfunctional lifetime) is the default?

Abortion is now legal, if you feel that abuse is so likely, please point me to some figures which show rampant abortions being performed. Somehow, I don't think you'll find any. I know that I've never heard anyone say, "Well, John and I ---- like bunnies, but that's ok, because I've got an Abortion Club Saver's Card!" Such naysayingdoesn't seem too well supported by the reality of legalized abortion...

In addition, many women who elect to undergo the procedure experience negative psychological effects as a result of what they have done. It is a very emotionally painful ordeal to kill your own child, once it has become irreversible. I know a young woman who, in the past two years has had two abortions, and neither was her first. Both caused her much anguish and emotional distress, yet she had to undergo the procedure because of the demand that is on her to excel, and that apparently cannot be accomplished in our society when one has a child.

Hmm, your friend's story is compelling, maybe she ought to close her legs. Sorry to be offensive, but on any issue, I really hate when people bring their half-witted friends into the matter, just because they are doing stupid things. A horrible precedent in modern lawmaking - catering to the lowest common denominator. There are a lot of other things which likewise put strain on one's psychological well-being - carrying a rape-baby, a horrible life made worse by such a predicament which will not be bettered for several decades, if at all, and so forth. It's a messy situation, and I know I find it funny that people will so infrequently take into account the psychological damage done by carrying an unwanted pregancy to term, and the damage that will later result from the upbringing of the unwanted child.

Perhaps both sides of the abortion debate should consider all the facts, as well as the moral repercussions on society. We live in a world today where morals are relative, and only necessay when it suits us. I find it interesting that every argument about abortion centers around killing the unborn children, when part of the problem is that these unwanted children are being concieved in the first place by irresponsible adults unwilling to accept the outcome of their actions.

Well, by the time the question of abortion comes around (an issue which does, after all, center around killing a fetus), one is often speaking of an already pregnant person. It's a given that they ought not to be pregnant, however I think you'd find a high correlation of pro-lifers who are likewise against sex-ed, so wish in one hand...

Note: I'm wrapping up my OOC arguments from when this was in General. No new IC arguments, as that would throw my current argument to a new direction.

This might be personal, but i psoted a proposal for ANTI ABORTION in UN Propsoals. What is your view on it?
Abortion is morally wrong. Human life at all stages is to be held sacred, from conception to death. I see it basically the same as murdering a human being.

This might be personal, but i psoted a proposal for ANTI ABORTION in UN Propsoals. What is your view on it?
Abortion is morally wrong. Human life at all stages is to be held sacred, from conception to death. I see it basically the same as murdering a human being.

First of all, to call something morally wrong means nothing. Morals are different for each person, I'm sure you would find it immoral to eat a human, but there are (or used to be) tribes in Africa that found it to be a sacred tradition.

Second, the statement "Human life at all stages is to be held sacred" should have been replaced with "I believe that human life at all stages should be held sacred" because you are just plain lying if you say the first one.

And third, if you see it the same as murdering a human being, would you see taking a comotose patient off of life support as murdering a human being? The only real difference between the two is that the hospital patient is out of the womb. It costs the hospital money and work to keep the patient on life support just as it costs the mother money and work to keep the baby alive. And the hospital chose to accept the comotose patient, and most of the time it is the mothers choice to have sex, which leads to the unwanted pregnancy (and in the cases it doesn't abortion should most certainly be an option).

if someone is on life support you are supposed to keep them alive as long as possible, or until they are brain dead and not even living anymore and cannot survive without ARTIFICIAL help.

The issue is not "Was the mother raped" or "Is the baby wanted or unwanted" the issue is "What is the nature of the unborn". Would you kill a 1 year old child just because his father was a rapist? Would you kill a 1 year old child just because they were an unwanted child? Of course not. By saying "what if the mother is raped" or "What if the baby is unwanted" it is going around the issue. The issue is "What is the nature of the unborn" Now that i have that cleared up...

There are 4 main differences between a fetus and a baby

1. Size

Is a short person less human then a tall person? No, so size shouldnt be an issue.

2. Level of Development

Is a 4 year old more human then a 20 year old, even though the 4 year old is less developed then a 20 year old? No, so level of development shouldnt be an issue.

3. Environment (the fetus lives in its mother's womb)

Is a baby in an incubator less human then a baby outside of an incubator? No, so environment shouldnt be an issue.

4. Dependency (the Fetus is dependant on its mothers body)

Is a diabetic person who is dependant on insulin less of a human then a non diabetic person? Is a person in the hospital and on a respirator less of a human then one who isnt? No, so dependency shouldnt be an issue.

1. No one uses this reason, I assume you're just pointing it out.

2. You're oversimplifying, as Snubis had tried to do (well, the difference is that Snubis should have known better). At the point that the vast majority of abortions are performed, the fetus is an undifferentiated mass of cells, which has little to no neurological functioning. Thus - not alive mentally, and to me, not alive physically. Not on the same level as a person, anyway.

3. Those babies are already born - so there is a big difference between the example and what you're applying it to.

4. Dependency ties in to #2, so I've said all that I need to.


1. I'm trying to show that the differences between a baby and a fetus arent that big, and arent big enough to make a fetus that different from a baby.

2. So you would be justified in killing a mentally retarded person because they have less neurological functioning as a normal person. Or a comatose person?

3. How is being born a big difference. The difference is in only the environment. That shouldnt justify killing it.

2. Yes, I would allow a comotose person who has no hope of recovery to die. There is no point in continued life in that case. A mentally retarded person has a life, feels pain, and intakes sensory input. Thus, they should not be killed.

3. You're taking my statement out of context. You compared a fetus to a diabetic person on insulin. A fetus has not lived in the world and (in the case I advocate) takes in no sensory input. A diabetic person does, thus your argument is invalid based on my reasoning for #2. You cannot isolate the variables of the argument and expect them to stand alone, because they do not stand alone.


2. But would you go through the act of KILLING a comatose person. There is a difference in Killing something, and letting it die. But do you think that a mentally retarded person is LESS of a human then a normal person? Because if you dont, then you have no grounds to say that a fetus is less of a person then a baby.

3. But is someone who is dependent on insulin less of a person then someone who is not? Is someone who is dependent on oxygen less of a person then someone who is not? If all of the variables independently show that a fetus isnt different then a baby, then they wont show something different when all of them are put together.

This might be personal, but i psoted a proposal for ANTI ABORTION in UN Propsoals. What is your view on it?
Abortion is morally wrong. Human life at all stages is to be held sacred, from conception to death. I see it basically the same as murdering a human being.

First of all, to call something morally wrong means nothing. Morals are different for each person, I'm sure you would find it immoral to eat a human, but there are (or used to be) tribes in Africa that found it to be a sacred tradition.

Second, the statement "Human life at all stages is to be held sacred" should have been replaced with "I believe that human life at all stages should be held sacred" because you are just plain lying if you say the first one.

And third, if you see it the same as murdering a human being, would you see taking a comotose patient off of life support as murdering a human being? The only real difference between the two is that the hospital patient is out of the womb. It costs the hospital money and work to keep the patient on life support just as it costs the mother money and work to keep the baby alive. And the hospital chose to accept the comotose patient, and most of the time it is the mothers choice to have sex, which leads to the unwanted pregnancy (and in the cases it doesn't abortion should most certainly be an option).

Moral relativism is not an acceptable argument in the context of the law. If someone belives it is ok to put a hollow point between your eyes is that his righ? Of course not. As to the argument about the amount of work neccessary to keep a baby alive it is at best nonspecific. Hospitals do not chose whether or not to keep comatose patients alive. Do your home work from time to time and maybe you will be less of an irritation.

Moral relativism is not an acceptable argument in the context of the law. If someone belives it is ok to put a hollow point between your eyes is that his righ? Of course not. As to the argument about the amount of work neccessary to keep a baby alive it is at best nonspecific. Hospitals do not chose whether or not to keep comatose patients alive. Do your home work from time to time and maybe you will be less of an irritation.

Actually moral relativism is still an acceptable argument in terms of legality, though not clearly in the case of abortion. In liberal theory, the government takes a position of 'benign neglect', allowing individuals within the society to make their own moralities, constrained by the limits enforced by the government which ensure that the abilities of others to choose their own conception of the 'good' are not violated. Clearly killing someone does violate the ability of others to live their lives as they see fit.
Since the real argument on abortion is whether fetuses ultimately human and thus subject to liberal rights, relativism doesn't really apply.

2. But would you go through the act of KILLING a comatose person. There is a difference in Killing something, and letting it die. But do you think that a mentally retarded person is LESS of a human then a normal person? Because if you dont, then you have no grounds to say that a fetus is less of a person then a baby.

3. But is someone who is dependent on insulin less of a person then someone who is not? Is someone who is dependent on oxygen less of a person then someone who is not? If all of the variables independently show that a fetus isnt different then a baby, then they wont show something different when all of them are put together.

2. Well, typically only those with no hope of recovery are brain dead, if they have a chance of recovery, then no. If they do, they're a shell, and can be discarded - life support can be withdrawn. A mentally retarded person is not on the level of a fetus, no matter how much you assert that they are. A fetus has not lived and has not taken in sensory input. A mentally handicapped person has lived, taken in input, and formed memories. They have been a functioning person on some level. A fetus has not, even in the form of the later stages of development which you seem hell-bent on centering this debate around, despite the rarity of abortions performed at this stage.

3. The baby at that point is the mother. It's had no life, it's not lived independently. Any example you cite has been ridiculous (and I stand by the extreme nature of that claim), because you're talking about people who are lacking on necessity of life or another, but function and live otherwise. A fetus does not do this, and never has. The individual elements mean nothing, and only act as distractions - the whole sums it up. Physically dependent + no developed mind = not a human at the level of that which holds a right to life.

Hospitals do not chose whether or not to keep comatose patients alive. Do your home work from time to time and maybe you will be less of an irritation.

Actually, yes they do. Between the hospital and the family, a decision is made as to whether a patient lives or dies, should they be beyond hope of recovery (i.e. a permananet vegetable). Or, do you live in a happy magic land where no one ever has to deal with the decision of pulling the plug?

Hospitals do not chose whether or not to keep comatose patients alive. Do your home work from time to time and maybe you will be less of an irritation.

Actually, yes they do. Between the hospital and the family, a decision is made as to whether a patient lives or dies, should they be beyond hope of recovery (i.e. a permananet vegetable). Or, do you live in a happy magic land where no one ever has to deal with the decision of pulling the plug?

Not only that, but it is a waste of resources to keep these people alive.

This might be personal, but i psoted a proposal for ANTI ABORTION in UN Propsoals. What is your view on it?
Abortion is morally wrong. Human life at all stages is to be held sacred, from conception to death. I see it basically the same as murdering a human being.

First of all, to call something morally wrong means nothing. Morals are different for each person, I'm sure you would find it immoral to eat a human, but there are (or used to be) tribes in Africa that found it to be a sacred tradition.

Second, the statement "Human life at all stages is to be held sacred" should have been replaced with "I believe that human life at all stages should be held sacred" because you are just plain lying if you say the first one.

And third, if you see it the same as murdering a human being, would you see taking a comotose patient off of life support as murdering a human being? The only real difference between the two is that the hospital patient is out of the womb. It costs the hospital money and work to keep the patient on life support just as it costs the mother money and work to keep the baby alive. And the hospital chose to accept the comotose patient, and most of the time it is the mothers choice to have sex, which leads to the unwanted pregnancy (and in the cases it doesn't abortion should most certainly be an option).
The first point I made is that I don't call too many things immoral. Tampering of life without the consent of the person is one of the few things I call morally wrong. As for you're last point, at least comatose patients usually have a living will. If not, well as I see it, try keeping them alive for a few years. If that doesn't work, then they have the right to shut down life support.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Maybe being a small island nation screws with one's head in some way. But our position is and always has been that it's not the morality of an act which should determine its legality, but the morality of a law's effect on society. Adultery is immoral, but making it a crime results in many wasted lives and prisons where we don't have space for the real criminals. Abortion of a viable fetus is as bad as any murder, but all previous laws against abortion tend to kill the mothers without saving the babies. If you want to stop abortion, redistribute wealth so pregnant teens don't have to worry about starving.

yah you compare this to adultry? well does society endorse adultry? no i doesnt it is looked down upon! And people who have an abortion will not crowd the jail because if there are no abortion death clinics then it is almost impossible to have an abortion.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

the teenage mother could in theory put the child up for adoption. Perhaps you, like me, are new to the UN, but I have at least read most of the rest of this debate, and this solution has been presented several times.

Please see my response to this "solution" here (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=83201&start=20) (about halfway down the page).

i know alot of people who have adopted children and most of those children came into their families after the age of 7 and those children have been fine. And you are saying because a child is mentally disabeled or because he/she doesnt have parents who care for them the should die? thats a load of bull. Many of those people could become productive members of society. Idk about you but i dont like KILLING of my own race. Most European countries have this very problem. they have a negative birth rate and are killing themselves off.

Possum Prop 21 Late term abortions

Mother always said “I brought you into this world, I can take you out.” I’m proposing that the mother of child reserves the right to terminate her child at her discretion. This would include any children she is the legal guardian of up to her own age.

well, y dont u tell ur mom that!

Uh, I did. Where do you think I got it?

i know alot of people who have adopted children and most of those children came into their families after the age of 7 and those children have been fine. And you are saying because a child is mentally disabeled or because he/she doesnt have parents who care for them the should die? thats a load of bull. Many of those people could become productive members of society. Idk about you but i dont like KILLING of my own race. Most European countries have this very problem. they have a negative birth rate and are killing themselves off.

Many people do adopt children. Not, however, nearly as many as there are children to be adopted.

And I'm not talking about killing children; I'm talking about terminating pregnancies. I do not accept the claim that a 6-week (or even a 10-week) embryo is morally equivalent to a child.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

Some would argue that some 30 year olds should never have been born. Does that make it right?

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Sorry if this was posted already but here goes.

To those people who suggest that abortion should be ok because the fetus can not survive outside of the womb.

There are alot of old people that can not survive on thier own or are in a coma or would die if they were disconected from whatever machine they're hooked up to (whether concious or not). Are you suggesting that we should allow the caretakers of these people to be able to decide if they should kill or euthinize(sp?) these people simply because they can not make it on thier own any more?

[no I am not trying to be flamatory I want honest opinions]

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

if someone is on life support you are supposed to keep them alive as long as possible, or until they are brain dead and not even living anymore and cannot survive without ARTIFICIAL help.

Why does it matter if the help is artificial? The doctors are still paying money to keep the comotose patient alive. And a child could not survive on it's own, it is essentially a parasite living off the mother. So what gives the government the right to enslave that women? It would be the same as if you had to run on a hampster wheel to generate electricity to keep the life support system of the comotose patient working.

This might be personal, but i psoted a proposal for ANTI ABORTION in UN Propsoals. What is your view on it?
Abortion is morally wrong. Human life at all stages is to be held sacred, from conception to death. I see it basically the same as murdering a human being.

First of all, to call something morally wrong means nothing. Morals are different for each person, I'm sure you would find it immoral to eat a human, but there are (or used to be) tribes in Africa that found it to be a sacred tradition.

Second, the statement "Human life at all stages is to be held sacred" should have been replaced with "I believe that human life at all stages should be held sacred" because you are just plain lying if you say the first one.

And third, if you see it the same as murdering a human being, would you see taking a comotose patient off of life support as murdering a human being? The only real difference between the two is that the hospital patient is out of the womb. It costs the hospital money and work to keep the patient on life support just as it costs the mother money and work to keep the baby alive. And the hospital chose to accept the comotose patient, and most of the time it is the mothers choice to have sex, which leads to the unwanted pregnancy (and in the cases it doesn't abortion should most certainly be an option).

Moral relativism is not an acceptable argument in the context of the law. If someone belives it is ok to put a hollow point between your eyes is that his righ? Of course not.

Does it mean it is wrong in every single case just because your morals are based on it? Not neccesarily. It is a two way street, you cannot base laws on any set of morals, because no set of morals are correct. You can only base laws on what will be good for society.

As to the argument about the amount of work neccessary to keep a baby alive it is at best nonspecific. Hospitals do not chose whether or not to keep comatose patients alive. Do your home work from time to time and maybe you will be less of an irritation.

Hospitals do choose, if there is nobody to pay the bill for the life support they cut the patient off. Maybe you should do your "homework" from time to time, espescially before you tell someone else to, otherwise you just make yourself look like a dumbass in front of everyone.

This might be personal, but i psoted a proposal for ANTI ABORTION in UN Propsoals. What is your view on it?
Abortion is morally wrong. Human life at all stages is to be held sacred, from conception to death. I see it basically the same as murdering a human being.

First of all, to call something morally wrong means nothing. Morals are different for each person, I'm sure you would find it immoral to eat a human, but there are (or used to be) tribes in Africa that found it to be a sacred tradition.

Second, the statement "Human life at all stages is to be held sacred" should have been replaced with "I believe that human life at all stages should be held sacred" because you are just plain lying if you say the first one.

And third, if you see it the same as murdering a human being, would you see taking a comotose patient off of life support as murdering a human being? The only real difference between the two is that the hospital patient is out of the womb. It costs the hospital money and work to keep the patient on life support just as it costs the mother money and work to keep the baby alive. And the hospital chose to accept the comotose patient, and most of the time it is the mothers choice to have sex, which leads to the unwanted pregnancy (and in the cases it doesn't abortion should most certainly be an option).
The first point I made is that I don't call too many things immoral. Tampering of life without the consent of the person is one of the few things I call morally wrong.

I never said that you didn't find it morally wrong, I just said that the fact that you find it morally wrong means nothing, and should not mean anything to anyone else unless you have objective reasoning for such a feeling.

As for you're last point, at least comatose patients usually have a living will. If not, well as I see it, try keeping them alive for a few years. If that doesn't work, then they have the right to shut down life support.

So you basically legalize slavery? I'll use the same metaphor I used before, telling hospitals they have to keep comotose patients alive is just like putting you on a hamster wheel, and telling you that you have to run to power the life support. It's slavery, plain and simple. And I doubt you have any idea how much money it costs to run life support for a year, hospitals would go bankrupt and other patients would die needlessly because the rooms are backed up with comotose patients.

Some would argue that some 30 year olds should never have been born. Does that make it right?

If the 30 year old cannot live without the mother, and the only way to get rid of the 30 year old is to kill him. Then yes.

OOC: Well, since this has been moved to the UN, maybe I'll take advantage of that...

Abortions are ill advised among us, as abortion results in the loss of a mind to the collective intelligence of our Dominion. Those pregnancies which are determined to be likely to result in a defective product, however, are to be terminated immediately. Such a child weakens the gene pool, and can serve no purpose within our society. Furthermore, a defective intelligence weakens our society, contributing nothing but error. Of course, this is the policy in place to deal with any of us who cease to be productive, be the individual unborn, born, or aged. Those too old to contribute any longer are euthanized, thsoe who never will are aborted. Defects are to be removed. There is no dispute amongst us, we know it is best for the whole. Should you choose to argue this policy, do keep your old men in the sky out of the debate - we have no time for figments of your imagination. Good day.

Dr. Fred Mallory, Tsar of the Dominion
We are Anbar.

The debate seems to have remained centred on moral comparisons and the application of rights.

Now, the last time I wrote anything, I was attacked on 2 major points of contention, of which only one has much relavance to the debate at hand.

Hence I'll deal with the first points first.

Fetal heartbeats. Think about exactly what the feotus is at this point in time, 18-23 days. It is an oblong shaped mass of between 14000 and 50 000 cells. The fetal stem cells have only just migrated from the centre of the mass, the feotus has no identifiable structures, no recognisable shapes to make examinations or comparisons possible.

Now, even if we are to somehow assume that there is some sort of heart in their, propelling some sort of blood around a non-existant system of blood vessels, we also must consider the mother's body is between this imagined heart and the stethoscope. Working from the womb out, there is the fetal fluid and sac, uterine lining, connective tissue, abdominal muscles, abdominal wall, fat layer and finally skin. The 3mm of skin alone would be enough to muffle the imaginary sound of an imaginary heart.

On the subject of heartbeat, the first check-up for it is done at 6 weeks term, and the lack of a heartbeat is only grounds for declaring a miscarriage at 14 weeks. Infact, the general diagnosis of pregnancy (general, not universal) is after a woman has missed 2 periods. That's 2 months, 60days, so most people don't know they're pregnant at 18days. A source for the claim of 18 days would be really nice.



Now to rights, the meaty half of the debate.

we have heard that rights are either universal or non-existant. We have heard the widely accepted notion that knowlege is a necessary precursor to right debunked as "rediculous". Frankly, simply lambasting something is not enough to remove it as relavant materiel from the debate.

To claim anything, we must know it exists. Anything from pay cheques to God, must have a grounding somewhere in our mind. This is why education is such an important part of Rights, people have no ability to claim rights, if they do not know they are entitled to them. If a person has no idea that they have the right to eat icecream at 7pm on a Thursday night, they can never claim that right, as long as they are ignorant to it.

Now, applying that to foetuses that have not yet reached 23 weeks term, at this stage in development, the major organs are just begining to take shape and grow. The tissue is present, all that remains is to wire it together and get the systems running. The brain, the organ essential to the debate, has just separated into the brainstem (controlling automatic functions) and the "higher brain", a lump of as yet unfolded cells, who will soon migrate to different areas, to form the upper, concious and thinking part of the brain. The important point here is that that part of the brain that processes input from the senses has not yet formed or organised itself.

The ultimate effect is that the feotus cannot recognise its independence of the world, that it is a seperated entity. We humans owe our position as masters of the planet to our conciousness ability recognise the world is independant of us, and us of it. If a feotus cannot realise an existing outside world, it cannot possibly recognise it is alive, as to it, it is the world, not part of it, alive. Therefore, it does not know it is alive, and hence cannot claim the right to remain alive.

And thirdly, the point about belief systems. Yes, I attacked the church as irrelevant to this debate, and it remains irrelevant, and yes, the underpinning ideas in my position are secular humanist rights, but that is also the context of the debate, and is hence relevant to the debate. I was arguing within that context and pointing out that the church has no influence in this debate's context.

The Enlightenment philosophers discovered this very point in their attempts to create a system of rights based purely on logic and reason. As we have seen, no particular belief system is any more truthful than any other, and by this any attempt to create a system is bound to fail. Therefore we see that the ultimate extension of "rights" expounded by Cartesian logic is that we have no rights at all, quite ironic really.

The mother must be allowed to choose the fate of her baby, as we are in no position to pass judgement on the moral worth of anything.

Have a nice day.

To claim anything, we must know it exists. ... they can never claim that right, as long as they are ignorant to it.

Now, applying that to foetuses ..... The important point here is that that part of the brain that processes input from the senses has not yet formed or organised itself.

The ultimate effect is that the feotus cannot recognise its independence of the world, that it is a seperated entity. ... If a feotus cannot realise an existing outside world, it cannot possibly recognise it is alive, as to it, it is the world, not part of it, alive. Therefore, it does not know it is alive, and hence cannot claim the right to remain alive.



So are you saying that if someone dosen't know that they have the right to something that others cant protect thoes rights for that person? Say some mentaly challanged individual does not know that they have the right to say no when their abusive fater, busdriver or who ever rapes them. Is it O.K. for them to get raped even though they didn't know their rights or should others step in on their behalf?

Another argument:

Say you are a teacher coach or whoever and you have a student who is showing alot of promise and you know that they have alot of potental to turn into the best player/doctor/scientist ever but, nope, sorry, not going to happen because it was to inconvenient for their parent(s) to take them to school or the noise of practice(musical or sports) was an inconvenience to the neighbors...what ever the case they can now no longer become what ever it was they had the potential to become because someone thought they were an inconvenience. Do you think that is right? If you do not think it is o.k. but yet still think that abortions are O.K. because you believe that a growing group/cluster of cells does not constitute a life, well, do you think it is possible that you are contradicting yourself? After all a fetus has alot more potential to grow up into a breathing, brain wave producing child than those students or players do of becoming whatever it was they had the potential to be.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

I find it very funny when you people, who call yourselves enlightened, who call yourselves civilized,
This is how I knew you weren't talking about me.

ignore something you can't argue against. Are you too proud to admit your wrongs? My friend in the Armed Republic of Of Portugal made several very good points against abortion, which you have ignored for the longest time. Now I make an argument about the job of a doctor to protect life, not destroy it.
Damn straight! So-called 'doctors' wiped out the Polio virus -- you know what I call them? GENOCIDAL SPECICIDES!

I think we all need to learn to ACCEPT -- nay, WELCOME -- the various bacteria, virii, parasites, and fungi that surround us. HUG YOUR ATHLETE'S FOOT TODAY! Throw away that iodine. Be a lover, not a disinfecter!

Once again, the voice of reason goes ignored.
I appreciate the compliment, but actually a couple of people replied to me before I think.

Also, if you people want God left out of this forum, I will happily comply as long as the rest of you do.
If God's everywhere, then He's in these forums. Unless God could create a forum so dull that even He didn't read it, but I guess I'll leave that question to the theologians.

Sincerely.
The Proud Rogue Nation of Futplex

It is not clear that the job of a doctor is to protect life at all costs. We in Gurthark believe that the job of a doctor is to do what is best for his or her patients--protecting the mental and physical wellbeing of a person, in our mind, outweighs protecting the life of a clump of cells with no developed central nervous system.

Similarly, Gurthark supports the right to die with dignity, and disapproves of doctors who refuse to respect the expressed wishes of competent patients in the interest of "protecting life."

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

It is not clear that the job of a doctor is to protect life at all costs. We in Gurthark believe that the job of a doctor is to do what is best for his or her patients--protecting the mental and physical wellbeing of a person, in our mind, outweighs protecting the life of a clump of cells with no developed central nervous system.

Similarly, Gurthark supports the right to die with dignity, and disapproves of doctors who refuse to respect the expressed wishes of competent patients in the interest of "protecting life."

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

Too often, "mental well-being" simply equates to being able to do and feel as one pleases. That should not be sufficient justification for this serious procedure.

If the doctors' discretion could be confined to preserving the ohysical health and life of the mother, there would be far less controversy.

Too often, "mental well-being" simply equates to being able to do and feel as one pleases. That should not be sufficient justification for this serious procedure.

If the doctors' discretion could be confined to preserving the ohysical health and life of the mother, there would be far less controversy.

There seems to be a common sentiment that many women make the decision to terminate a pregnancy lightly.

Although I cannot prove that this never happens, I have extensive anecdotal evidence that it is quite rare. I have personally known several women who had abortions, and none of them saw it as a light or easy decision; in fact, without exception each considered it the weightiest decision she had ever had to make. I also know of no doctors who would encourage a woman to have an abortion on a whim.

Personally, I do not believe this is terribly relevant--I think that a woman's right to control her own body would outweigh the interest of a barely-differentiated mass of cells even if it *were* on a whim. But in general, it isn't.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

I made but one prayer to god, Oh Lord, make mine enemies rediculous, and he granted it - Voltaire.

And absurd have become the claims, opponents have prescribed to me what I was thinking, which apart from being the absolute hight of arrogance, is also the mark of an illogical argument.

But to address these arguments, in inverse order.

While this is a lovely example, full of nice emotive fiction, the fact remains that coach Bob does not have the right to MAKE little Jenny continue her sport, or any of the other variations on that theme, as long as the state does not control its children. The system advocated here is akin to acient Sparta, where the state had control over every aspect of the kids lives. We've moved on from then, and we now give Parents control and responsibility for their children. And surprise surprise, most parents act in their children's best interests. So, in short, yes, it's right. We as a modern society grant parents the power to make decsions on behalf of their children. Feel free to loby the parents as much as you like, up to the point that they take out an apprehended violence order against you, but you have no right to change their wish. The coach can plead, but not force. Same deal in abortions, please feel free to convince the mother to change her mind, but don't get in the way of it happening (ie shooting doctors or nurses that peform them, or blockading centres or anything else like that)

Then, the issue of awareness. Now, on two counts you've misrepresented or misunderstood me, either way. First, for us to defend anythings rights, they must posses them (that's just basic logic), and as I outlined, 23 week old feotuses cannot have rights, as they cannot realise them primarily because it is not possible for them to recognise their existance independant of the world. Their brains are wired to not to recognise anything from their PNS, no sensory input. Here lies the distinction between a feotus and a mentally disabled person. The disabled person can recognise they are alive, they can recognise their individual right not to be raped by expirience, of not being raped. A 23 week feotus cannot recognise its little toe, let alone its rights. We can and should defend the disabled person, as they posses rights, however it is not necessary or moral to defend the non-existant rights of a feotus.

Lastly, the issue of a doctors responsibiltiy. Now, we've heard that a doctor's only mandate is to save lives. Now, if this were true, why do doctors practise pallative care, the practise of easing pain of terminally ill paitients. Hmm, oh cause that's the real mandate of doctors, acting in the best interests of their paitients. That's the Hippocratic Oath, that most doctors educated in the European tradition take. To put their paitient's best interests first. And sorry, in an abortion, the MOTHER is the paitient, as the human in the equation, and her wishes must be respected.

Still remember, the logical extension of all these rights we're arguing over is that we have no rights at all.

Have a nice day.

Again, however, the argument can be made for both sides...the mother or the unborn child. By simply saying "it's not human," you are in essence also trying to force your own beliefs on others as much as those who quote scripture.


I know several things about the subject.

1.) if the fetus isn't human, what is it? A Horse? It's not going to grow into a third leg for the mother, and it's not going to become a mongoose at a later stage, so that doesn't leave a whole lot If it's a human at a very early stage of development, why is that any different than a human at a later stage of development? Do we have the right to kill ANY human who relies on another or a machine for life? Do we have the right to kill anyone who can't make logical decisions? If we could kill someone who would never feel the pain, does that make it alright? .

2.) I'm not overly religious, I just believe that mankind is a special race- one worth protecting. More importantly, those of us least able to protect ourselves deserve our aid.

3.) I truly do feel for the mother in many of these situations. An unwanted pregnancy can be a difficult thing to deal with. It can sometimes be traumatic and painful. So can an unwanted death, from the unborn's perspective. And IMO, the bottom line is that the unborn's right to not die outweighs the mother's right to not go through traumatic events (which isn't a right anyway).



I wish there was a way to do both...to remove the fetus and let it grow elsewhere and let the mother go about her life. Maybe in time, medical science will find a way to assuage BOTH side of this debate in that manner. Until then, we'll keep arguing this topic ad infitum.

Again, however, the argument can be made for both sides...the mother or the unborn child. By simply saying "it's not human," you are in essence also trying to force your own beliefs on others as much as those who quote scripture.
This is surely only true of the fetus is human, though, right? If the fetus isn't human then saying 'it's not human' is not trying to force anyone's beliefs on it, as you can only force your beliefs on another human (or at least I assume that's your main concern).
1.) if the fetus isn't human, what is it? A Horse?
Of course not! Everyone knows that feti are parakeets.

It's not going to grow into a third leg for the mother, and it's not going to become a mongoose at a later stage, so that doesn't leave a whole lot If it's a human at a very early stage of development, why is that any different than a human at a later stage of development?
Same argument applies to eggs and sperm. If I don't go around copulating all the time does that make me guilty of crimes against humanity? ALL THAT PROTO-HUMAN GOING TO WASTE!

3.) I truly do feel for the mother in many of these situations. An unwanted pregnancy can be a difficult thing to deal with. It can sometimes be traumatic and painful. So can an unwanted death, from the unborn's perspective. And IMO, the bottom line is that the unborn's right to not die outweighs the mother's right to not go through traumatic events (which isn't a right anyway).
People have a right to not die? God sure doesn't seem to respect that right, then.

I wish there was a way to do both...to remove the fetus and let it grow elsewhere and let the mother go about her life. Maybe in time, medical science will find a way to assuage BOTH side of this debate in that manner. Until then, we'll keep arguing this topic ad infitum.
So you agree this discussion is pointless? Neat!

Lastly, the issue of a doctors responsibiltiy. Now, we've heard that a doctor's only mandate is to save lives. Now, if this were true, why do doctors practise pallative care, the practise of easing pain of terminally ill paitients. Hmm, oh cause that's the real mandate of doctors, acting in the best interests of their paitients. That's the Hippocratic Oath, that most doctors educated in the European tradition take. To put their paitient's best interests first. And sorry, in an abortion, the MOTHER is the paitient, as the human in the equation, and her wishes must be respected.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry, that's patently false. I assume you've never even read the Hippocratic Oath (At least I hope not). It SPECIFICALLY restricts doctors from carrying out abortions...yes it is actually in the oath.

Read for yourself:


THE HIPPOCRATIC OATH
I swear by Apollo the physician, by Æsculapius, Hygeia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgement, the following Oath.


"To consider dear to me as my parents him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and if necessary to share my goods with him; to look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art if they so desire without fee or written promise; to impart to my sons and the sons of the master who taught me and the disciples who have enrolled themselves and have agreed to the rules of the profession, but to these alone the precepts and the instruction. I will prescribe regimen for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgement and never do harm to anyone. To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death. Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion. But I will preserve the purity of my life and my art. I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art. In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves. All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal. If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot."



There is no debate here...Doctors who perform abortions are in direct violation of their own oath.

People have a right to not die? God sure doesn't seem to respect that right, then.


I guess if you're a Christian, you'd then say that no one has any rights, since God doesn't seem to respect the right to freedom from slavery, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to bear arms....shall I go on?

In America, we are proscribed the right to life by our Constitution- that it cannot be taken from us forcibly without due process of law. Surprise! The same right exists in every Western country and 99.9% of the non-western world.

This is surely only true of the fetus is human, though, right? If the fetus isn't human then saying 'it's not human' is not trying to force anyone's beliefs on it, as you can only force your beliefs on another human (or at least I assume that's your main concern).

No, it's not. I was responding to the pose above where one person called it human, and the other person said they were forcing beliefs on others by saying that, then went into a discussion that it is NOT human, and hterefore it's okay to kill it.

I choose, rather, to err on the side of caution. If I'm wrong, and it is not yet human, the alternative consequence is that a child is born and the mother goes through labor and the after effects. That's not a good thing.

If I decide that, in absence of definitive proof, it is NOT human, and I am WRONG, I have committed MURDER, and that is an alternative that is far worse than the first.

This is surely only true of the fetus is human, though, right? If the fetus isn't human then saying 'it's not human' is not trying to force anyone's beliefs on it, as you can only force your beliefs on another human (or at least I assume that's your main concern).

No, it's not.
Yes, that may have something to do with the fact that I WASN'T RESPONDING TO YOU.

To reduce confusion in the future, I will try to make sure that whenever I use the words 'you' or 'your' I actually mean 'Wastra'. I hope this meets with your approval.

I wish those that were "pro-choice" would be consistent in their arguments. 1. If it is about choice, then why does 1/3 of the parties involved get to make the choice (the woman)? Secondly, I think the next time I am in Florida or some other coastal region and I see the section of beach roped off because of turtle eggs, I am gonna dance a jig on 'em. They are not babies till they are born, they can't live outside of their eggs yet, and it is survival of the fittest after all.

I wish those that were "pro-choice" would be consistent in their arguments. 1. If it is about choice, then why does 1/3 of the parties involved get to make the choice (the woman)? Secondly, I think the next time I am in Florida or some other coastal region and I see the section of beach roped off because of turtle eggs, I am gonna dance a jig on 'em. They are not babies till they are born, they can't live outside of their eggs yet, and it is survival of the fittest after all.

Only the woman is allowed to make the decision because it is her body.

Not the man's body or the baby's body.

In America, we are proscribed the right to life by our Constitution- that it cannot be taken from us forcibly without due process of law. Surprise! The same right exists in every Western country and 99.9% of the non-western world.

It also states in the constituition that you are given the rights provided to you by the constituition, when born or naturilized in the states.

The constituition does not afford the rights to an unborn child nor does it recognize an unborn child which was conceived in the United States as a citizen.

The constituition is not a document which can be construed to take an anti-abortion stance. In fact the tenth amendment can be considered in support of the womans right to choose.

I'm confused by this issue. Pro-choice means you have the right to keep your child. So if you don't want an abortion... don't get one. If someone else wants to get one, let them. If you're a pro-life advocate, why does the decision of someone you'll never meet to get an abortion get you upset? If they were to not get pregnant in the first place, how would that affect your life in any way differently? I could see if humans were an endangered species, or an essential part of an eco-system or something...

Personally, I would never ask my girlfriend or wife to have an abortion. But I'm not about to jump down the throat of a woman who would, either... even if it was my wife or girlfriend. Religiously, I believe that if it's wrong, then God will judge accordingly at the appropriate time.

I ask these questions reasonably, to get reasonable answers. Please only respond in a kind and intelligent fashion, or I (and likely everyone else) will ignore your point of view entirely.

Thomas Cornelius Meinrad Augustine
The Holy Republic of Aegonia

Anti Abortion Stance : why?
Because they're obsessive control freaks <-- ultra liberal POV
Because they're trying to prevent a murder <-- Religious Fundie POV

Pro Abortion Stance : why?
Because it's financially/emotionally/physically necessary for the mother. <-- Ultra liberal POV
Because they're lazy fornicating sinners who're going to hell <-- Religious fundie POV

These're the effective reasons for their stances. They're based entirely on private belief and almost no one involved in the debate knows WHAT the fuck they're talking about with regards to the actual mechanics of the process. However no zealot ever let that slow them down in the pursuit of converting the heathens of either side. Zealotry in any debate is downright offensive, and if you can't construct a case for your opinion please sod off back to primary school where you can get away with not backing your arguments up.
Anyway
Who're we to decide? Halfway between angel and ape doesn't make us God. If it's such a huge crime and God is so adamantly against it, why don't abortion clinics get hit by lightning from a clear sky? And if it's entirely morally correct, why do people who'd be considered rational and nice human beings support it's banning? Personally I support a woman's right to decide what happens to a mass of protien within her abdomen until it looks like a mini human, as opposed to a fish-thing. But my support for this will not involve me going out and throwing stones at anti abortion protestors, just as a very good friend of mine, who is anti abortion, is yet to firebomb any clinics.

Civil Freedom. Live It.

I wish those that were "pro-choice" would be consistent in their arguments. 1. If it is about choice, then why does 1/3 of the parties involved get to make the choice (the woman)? Secondly, I think the next time I am in Florida or some other coastal region and I see the section of beach roped off because of turtle eggs, I am gonna dance a jig on 'em. They are not babies till they are born, they can't live outside of their eggs yet, and it is survival of the fittest after all.

It isn't the baby's body that is utterly destroyed in the abortion? I bet it chose that method to die right?

I wish those that were "pro-choice" would be consistent in their arguments.
But that's JUST what they're EXPECTING!

1. If it is about choice, then why does 1/3 of the parties involved get to make the choice (the woman)?
I suppose we could put it to a vote, but apparently fetuses in the first trimester have difficulty pulling the levers in voting booths. Perhaps there will be a technological solution for this soon.

Secondly, I think the next time I am in Florida or some other coastal region and I see the section of beach roped off because of turtle eggs, I am gonna dance a jig on 'em. They are not babies till they are born, they can't live outside of their eggs yet, and it is survival of the fittest after all.
You think that the only intellectually consistent point of view equates being forced to carry a child to term with not being allowed to stomp on turtle eggs? That's the best metaphor ever!

Zealotry in any debate is downright offensive, and if you can't construct a case for your opinion please sod off back to primary school where you can get away with not backing your arguments up.
I find your anti-zealotry views offensive. DOWN WITH ANTI-ZEALOTRY ZEALOTRY!

Even though, as a Christian woman, I normally do not agree with murdering an unborn baby, if the mother is at too young of an age to be having children, and where the result will be permanent damage to her body, and she may never be able to have children again, an abortion may just be the best decision, in my opinion.

Also, if a woman is raped, under other certain circumstances, she should be able to have abortion as a last option.

However, if a woman selfishly has sex with a man just for her pleasure and a pregnancy is the result, she should have to give birth to the child. Putting it up for adoption is the best choice in that instance.

:lol: @ futplex ah it gets worse. :lol:

As a disciple of Jesus Christ, I do not condon any type of killing, in this case murder. We did not create anything. God created us to multiply. (Genesis 1:28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.") And then after He wiped HIS creation off the earth, save for eight people, He said to multiply. (Genesis 9:1 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth.) So when we start to talk about taking the life of an unborn child, a child that God Himself has known before He put him/her in their mothers womb, (Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you"), then we are stepping off the slippery slope instead of slipping off it. Even though I would sympathize with anyone who has been raped, molested, or possible death if you do give birth, the thing is that God has a purpose for every life that He has created. It's not the baby's fault in this at all, so why should they be sentenced to death. What if your mother had sentenced you.
Before I gave my life to Christ, I actually thought that I had paid to have a baby aborted. For almost ten years I felt such a deep regret. Then one day, the woman told me that she was never pregnant. I didn't care about the money, I was overjoyed that I hadn't contributed to such act. I give this personal info just to let you know that I'm in no position to judge anyone, because I to was guilty of murder, at heart, at one point in my life, but God has lifted that weight off me. And even if you have done it, He will forgive you if you are truly sorry and call upon Him and ask for forgiveness. God is love. 1 Corinthians 13:4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. 8Love never fails.

:wink:

God , Religion , ect...
Those things have caused more human death than some lady getting an abortion.
People have fought holy wars. Killed millions all in the name of their so called god. An Invisible entity with no shape or form. Just a hope. So... In the name of hope you are aloud to kill millions of people and commit horrid acts of genocide and murder , in the name of god. But you arent aloud to extract a fetus.
something that doesnt even have personality yet , something that is developing something that is basically like carry a backpack on the front of you.
But its ok to respect religion and god, even though those 2 things combined have commited more acts of murder death pain torture and violence.
I think Religion has it's views assbackward on this situation.
I think religion should take a look at its past. Its atrocities and see that it is a whole lot worse than an abortion.

It is the hindu's belief that the cow is sacred, however, should they be allowed to pass laws through the UN that eating beef should be made illegal?

Leave religion out of the UN, it is that simple

:wink:

God , Religion , ect...
Those things have caused more human death than some lady getting an abortion.
People have fought holy wars. Killed millions all in the name of their so called god. An Invisible entity with no shape or form. Just a hope. So... In the name of hope you are aloud to kill millions of people and commit horrid acts of genocide and murder , in the name of god. But you arent aloud to extract a fetus.
something that doesnt even have personality yet , something that is developing something that is basically like carry a backpack on the front of you.
But its ok to respect religion and god, even though those 2 things combined have commited more acts of murder death pain torture and violence.
I think Religion has it's views assbackward on this situation.
I think religion should take a look at its past. Its atrocities and see that it is a whole lot worse than an abortion.

God said"Thou shalt not kill". Because God gave man freewill, man is the one who condones killing each other. God said"vengence is mine" So if someone is killing in the name of God, is that person or persons serving God? Jesus Christ, who is the Son of God, who was with God in the beginning and who is God, said to love your enemies. If you love someone you don't kill them. If you love the Living God, who gave His Son as a sacrifice, to save the whole world, and give everlasting life instead of the death that we deserve, then you wouldn't want anyone to be murdered, and you wouldn't want anyone to die without knowing who Jesus is and why He gave His life as a sacrifice. Most of the people who murder in the name of God, try to justify their actions by quoting the Old Testament. But under the new covenant, which is the New Testament Jesus said in Luke 6:29 "If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic." So anyone who truly loves God, will try with all of their strength, to follow His commands. Man is the one, from the time of Cain and Abel, who has had blood lust. The Crusades, where started by people who wanted to conquer, not serve God in the way He intended for man to serve Him. Unless you take the time to ask God who He is and what His will is for you, and read the Bible, then you will not know the truth, until it's too late. And knowing many die without repenting and knowing Gods mercy, grace and forgiveness, weighs on my heart and the heart of all true disciples of Christ.:cry: (2 Peter 3:8But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. 10But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.)

:wink:

God , Religion , ect...
Those things have caused more human death than some lady getting an abortion.
People have fought holy wars. Killed millions all in the name of their so called god. An Invisible entity with no shape or form. Just a hope. So... In the name of hope you are aloud to kill millions of people and commit horrid acts of genocide and murder , in the name of god. But you arent aloud to extract a fetus.
something that doesnt even have personality yet , something that is developing something that is basically like carry a backpack on the front of you.
But its ok to respect religion and god, even though those 2 things combined have commited more acts of murder death pain torture and violence.
I think Religion has it's views assbackward on this situation.
I think religion should take a look at its past. Its atrocities and see that it is a whole lot worse than an abortion.

Haha, I couldn't agree more. Nice argument.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

ok thats a littel extreme but i do think we should bring this in full to the attention of the entire un.

On the question of life support, i do believe that if a person is hooked up to machines and they are only surviving by artificial means and there is no way they will ever breathe on their own again, family members do have the right to shut the life support off.

I would totally disagree with that becuase the person could be competly alive and have a disfunctional lung but the person can still think and have the sam e abilities anyone else.

People who are put on life support and cannot survive on their own, are braindead. If a doctor believes the person will recover, then of course they shouldn't kill them. Did you even read what i said? I said if there is no way the person will survive without machines. If a person has a dysfuntional lung, there is a possibility of survival with a transplant, or other ways. They usually also have some breathing capacity on their own, just not a lot. They would usually be put on oxygen, not life support. Life support is usually reserved for people who are braindead or ones who are in comas. I don't think someone in a coma should have the plug pulled either. As i said, only for people who have been declared clinically braindead and will never wake up or live off of machines.

Okay, i realized i didn't say only for those who will never survive off the machines, who will never wake up, but that is what i meant. I already went through this in another abortion thread, so i didn't clarify my point as well. Sorry.

okl i apologize iwasnt completely full on the details i kinda just rushed out.

:wink:

God , Religion , ect...
Those things have caused more human death than some lady getting an abortion.
People have fought holy wars. Killed millions all in the name of their so called god. An Invisible entity with no shape or form. Just a hope. So... In the name of hope you are aloud to kill millions of people and commit horrid acts of genocide and murder , in the name of god. But you arent aloud to extract a fetus.
something that doesnt even have personality yet , something that is developing something that is basically like carry a backpack on the front of you.
But its ok to respect religion and god, even though those 2 things combined have commited more acts of murder death pain torture and violence.
I think Religion has it's views assbackward on this situation.
I think religion should take a look at its past. Its atrocities and see that it is a whole lot worse than an abortion.

Haha, I couldn't agree more. Nice argument.

"Religious wars are like two little kids fighting over who has the bigger imaginary friend."

I would totally disagree with that becuase the person could be competly alive and have a disfunctional lung but the person can still think and have the sam e abilities anyone else.

I don't think you realize how IMPOSSIBLE it would be to outlaw taking people off life support. You would have hundreds of thousands of life support machines running at the same time, the costs would be astronomical. And it just doesn't have any logic behind it at all, it's like making it a law that you HAVE to help people if they are hurt.

soo how do you propose we fix this problem without killing liveing people and invovling euthenasia

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

soo how do you propose we fix this problem without killing liveing people and invovling euthenasia

Who ever said there was a problem? Oh... right, you. Well, I'll repeat what what I said before, forcing a women to carry her baby is enslavement. It would be the same as if somebody told you you had to run on a hamster wheel to power another persons life support, or forcing hospitals to support coma patients.

soo how do you propose we fix this problem without killing liveing people and invovling euthenasia

We don't

Instead we kill people and use euthanasia.

Hate to break it to you but death occurs all the time, and it is inevitable.

Life support isnt cheap and the lives of the living are much more important then the lives of the comatose who will never recover.

So wait? We don't have to help people if they're hurt? It's ok to just let someone die instead of trying to help? What kind of a sick bastard are you? That's all I have to say.

For the Glory of God!
His Royal Highness:
Emperor Tony I of Vivelo

No we don't just as I don't have to give CPR to someone if i don't want to, even though i am certified to do so.

as far as I'm concerned.... If they really want to die, let them die with some dignity

On the question of life support, i do believe that if a person is hooked up to machines and they are only surviving by artificial means and there is no way they will ever breathe on their own again, family members do have the right to shut the life support off.

If I'm being kept alive by artificial means and have no hope of recovering, I think I would just rather die. I would be sucking up resources and live would be pointless.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fê|xomun@âûlkakûmo(we like very big butts)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Homophobia is so gay.
Letilan moths! Yay!
http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:TEA1WL6tIGQC:w1.150.telia.com/~u15008589

Wow, one of the most contested subjects in the world :D

At the current moment in the world more people are against abortion than pro aborting. So yes you could force that upon everybody.

However there seems to be an increase in the amount of people who become pro.

Lets put this very practical for you. If you propose this, do note that you can get a counter pro proposal that enforces you to ALLOW abortion. At which point you lost your ability to choice in your own nation to disallow it. I think you would consider that the worst day of your life.

Let ethics slip for one moment and realize the risk of what you are doing.

Wouldn't it be nice for all people of the world who are against abortion to jsut move nicely to your country and live there lives happily the way they want too?

I take this in little thing considerating. Also I know that people who are anti-abortion enough to bring it to a vote probably have very strong ethical feelings about this and consider this almost an elimentary fact of human rights. Therefor this should be a part of them. I would completely understand if you view this is important enough to enforce it on people.

A clear case where ethics and practicallity should create a difficult decision.

My personal opion on this is mostly that this anti-abortis thing is mostly based on someones religious believes. In a country or world of freedom of religion it is questionable to enforce your believes on others. Which would mostly be only allowed if the believes of the other harm yours. And what the religion of the child is, tja. It has had no babtised or any other religious ritual that made him of the same religion as yours. The only exception mabye are as far as I know the jews :P. Because you are born in that religion.

Other than that, I got the impression the christians grew into this thing(not killing childern) , which was a response at the time against the other religions who used cruede and primitive ways to reduce the population growth so that there primitive technology would not overrun the ecology and great famines and stuff. I wonder if anybody could quote me if jezus himself said it too, I am afraid what I read in the bible wasn't sufficent to be sure. It seemed it was a good understanding that the technology could handle this population boom at that time. However that was then, this is now. And it is not the same world. In contrary, we are reaching the maximum of what our world can sustain at our current technology level already. But I want to say that, I do not automatically know if it is so wonderful to disallow it from happing.

We kill animals without effort, and we can be pretty sure that that little lumb of cells have less feelings than most animals. So if you talk about those morals I am against that kind of hypocracy.

I believe further that it is we have a job as people to put people in a world where they can live and not arrive in hell. An abortion usually means the mother (including sometimes the father) is not ready to raise the child. Instead of removing (or killing as I understand some people calling it), but instead letting it be born in a house that is not equiped to raise them properly would severly increase the risk of disturb childeren with problems. While if time has passed and the parent is more settled instead a child can be raised that will have a bright future.

About killing, I really wonder what I should call the waste of sperm that male bodies are forces to let go of once in a while. Technically each one of them has the potential of becoming a human too. I know this seems a stupid and to some people abvious stupid comparison. Butbut look closer and ask yourselfs when, and why when, would you call something a human being? And for those people against contraception, I was actually thinking of the natural waste that even jong boys have when not married yet.

Other than that, I am very concernd with selective abortion. Like childern with health problems, though this could be arguable within limits, or a selection of male or female, which is much much much more difficult to argue. I happen to have the personal believe that mankind is not ready to play any form of god yet.

You think this is contested? You should have seen "ban meat eating" until it got to the point were the same arguments were made continually.

True, but I wasn't talking about the forum.

I was talking about real world. Abortion is a serious contested issue.

Vegities are a bigger minority ( mean there are less of them), and most I know actually never tried to force me into anything, in contrast to anti-abortion people.

Oh and I forgot.
If you are consider it as a relgious thing. Be so kind to give it the same evalution you give the capital punishment.

There is no clearer law that forbids both, captial punishment is even forbidden even more clearly. And it was written in only ten sentences, so it should not be so difficult to look it up.

So make it a little bit more of a brain cracker please than just have you opinion out right away.

Or let the pope decide afcourse :P...that is where he is for, so we don't have to think anymore.

Actually really, that is what he was for. People at that time had much less eduction and a far smaller understanding of the world. Other than that they where working hard to stay alive, instead of reading forums in there spare time. And we can still asume he has some knowledge others might not have. Though protests would again disagree with that :P.

right to life falls under religion more so than ethics... thefor the peoples of The United Socialist States of Cannibal penguins, will not support this proposal.... as religion takes no part in our state. those whom wish to terminate life , may do as they wish

Religeon and ethics are very close.
But just because religeon uses specific ethics, doesn't mean you as an athiest can't either. Just because religeon doesn't approve of killing people on the street. Doesn't mean that as an athiest you have to be in favor of it. Just means you have the freedom to choice for yourself ;).

Any proposal against abortion will not be supported by the Oppressed Peoples of Dakravana; the women who get abortions obviously don't want to take care of the babies, so why should we be bothered with another mouth to feed? We have more important things to spend taxes on then unwanted children whose lives will probably be short and/or miserable after all. Can abortion not be merciful for a child whose life shall be hellish anyway?

how can you consider putting someone to death without their consent in the first place merciful. and even if the child could give consent that is called assisted suicide. how do you know that that person is'nt going to grow up to be a leader of a country or a docter who cures a diesease?

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

I am sick of you people refusing to admit that a growing fetus is a child. I know this argument has been brought up many times. I'm not going to ask when it becomes a child because I know we won't agree, but I will say this. If it is composed of at least one cell, grows and changes, consumes energy, contains complex chemical compunds and is (or will be or at one time was) able to reproduce, it is alive, and killing anything that is alive is wrong. I know we must kill certain living things for our own survival, animals and plants for example, but killing is only okay if it is necessary to survival. So, my fellow UN people, if an abortion is necessary to the survival of the entire human race, go right ahead and abort.

Sorry for focusing on just you, but hey, you said it.

Turn off the computer, go to your door.

Go outside. Whoops. Just killed quite a few things you'd call alive. And it was hardly necessary for your survival, was it?

You must be feeling pretty bad right now, after all, what you did was wrong, wasn't it?

Go have a nice long walk, have some time to think. Whoops. Guess you just killed a whole lot more.

Abortions are the unfortunate side effect of increased promiscuity or criminal activity in society. And like it or not, however you legislate them, they will always be around. You can't stop criminals before the crime unless you know they're going to commit it. You can't tell people to not go and have sex. And make abortion illegal, people will either find someone willing to do one secretly, or do it themselves. Happened before, will happen again.

Sorry, but I'm just sick of people constantly trying to tell others what to do. It doesn't affect you, so why get your knickers in a twist, as they say.

Society made things like murder illegal because they can potentially happen to anyone. I can honestly say that at this point, I have absolutely no fear of being aborted. Do you?

Out of sight, out of mind is something people should remember. If they weren't told about stuff like this, they wouldn't kick up such a fuss. Not saying they shouldn't be told, but there's a lot of things people don't know about, and hence, don't get worked up about it. Like here, for example. I know a Uni residence that frequently doesn't get more than 4 hours of sleep on weekdays. That's harming those people. You don't know, you don't complain.

And heck, if you think it's so wrong, then be happy in knowing that you're being a good person, and will get your just rewards, as will they!

OOC: Apologies to anyone offended, but this is about opinions, and that was mine.

should be aloud in certain cases, as , rape and stuff like that! but besides that, it should be illeagal :evil:

I don't know about your opinion, or that of an aborted child, but I for one would rather live in Hell and have a chance at a better life on Earth than simply be sent straight to Hell without ever seeing earth. Why are we still arguing about this anyways? Am I the only one who remembers someone citing the Hippocratic Oath and pointing out that a doctor who performs an abortion is in direct violation of his/her oath? What more is there to discuss? As far as I can see this has slipped back into a debate over morals, which is exactly what people were bitching at me for. We aren't even talking about abortion any more. We're talking about God and whether He wants abortions. I know someone's gonna yell at me for this, but ANYONE WHO ALLOWS ABORTION OR HAS AN ABORTION IS IN VIOLATION OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS AND WILL SPEND ALL ETERNITY IN HELL FOR IT UNLESS THEY REPENT!!!!!!

For the Glory of God!
His Royal Highness:
Emperor Tony I of Vivelo

Well, I guess it's a good thing that neither hell nor god exists.

Ah, one of those lovely abortion debates. Well I'm all for abortion. Who's to say you can't have one when they had no making of the human in the first place. I believe no one person can make such a decision on things like abortion other than the creators (mother and father obviously) of the fetus. If they desire to have an abortion, let them. If they don't care to have the baby then what makes you think they will do a good job taking care of an unwanted child? Sure someone could adopt it, but are we going to have every baby thats an "abortion baby" given to some child adoption agency? It's just a pointless ordeal. Let those who want to have an abortion have one and those who don't want one not have one. Everyone wins. If your one of those religious people who finds it morally wrong to have an abortion, well then just know that they will supposedly suffer a horrible death in hell. Leave people be to do as they will with abortion. It's not yours or anyones choice to say who can and cannot live. That's like deciding wether or not to push the shiny red button thats attached to a nuke aimed at some poor supposedly evil third-world country. Your still deciding the lives of civilians. And they actually have a knowledge and knowing of fate, a fetus doesn't. I rest my case.

The happy go lucky one who will burn in hell,
S12Murderer

Ahh, the Hippocratic Oath, yes an acient greek document that has been in existance for thousands of years, the ultimate guide to a doctor's responsibility.

Now, I'm not sure where you got that copy from, but that's not what I swore. May I point out to you that the oath, like the bible, has been translated many times over the centuries, in different places. Also bare in mind that there wasn't really many cliniclly reliable methods of abortion (baseball bat not withstanding) availiable in those times, and there's been no recorded practise of abortions in acient greece, so you claim seems highly dubious historically. Most likely you are using either a "modified" version created by the anti-abortion camp for doctors sharing their views to take, or are using an oath that came from the USA early this century, where it was pollitcally motivated to include such a clause.

The one we use here in Oz doesn't have your little convienient line.

We seemed to have moved on to life support machines ect for non-responding individuals. Current practise bears out that those who do not have the ability to have life are not extended the same rights as those who do, the same applies to Abortion, no expirience, no knowledge, no right.

And please, to those advocating aborting congenitively defective feotuses, just who is making that decision, if it's the mother, fine, but that needs to be without encouragement from medical personel,

And to those nutters on about God, Hell, and everything else, please, keep the preching in the pulpit and to those who can be bothered listening, there's no place in this debate for any Sky-pixies ect. Also, as to burning, if you'd like I can present proof that Heaven must indeed be hotter than hell. So there we go, do abortions, burn in hell, don't do abortions, end up a cinder anyway, don't see the problem really.

Abortion is an abominable evil and should not be allowed.

how can you consider putting someone to death without their consent in the first place merciful. and even if the child could give consent that is called assisted suicide. how do you know that that person is'nt going to grow up to be a leader of a country or a docter who cures a diesease?

How do you know the woman you forced to carry the child would not otherwise have had the chance to study and become a great leader or scientist and give the world peace and a cure for all diseases?

i think we MUS :D defend human life, because we would not want that our parents would abort us. if you dont want to have that bay just give that baby in adoption to give he or she a better place to live.

how can you consider putting someone to death without their consent in the first place merciful. and even if the child could give consent that is called assisted suicide. how do you know that that person is'nt going to grow up to be a leader of a country or a docter who cures a diesease?

How do you know the person isn't going to grow up and be the next antichrist? Chances are, if your in a country that will perform abortions, then they are going to kill more people then they save in thier lifetime. Because, according to you, if you can save a person, and you don't, it is murder. If I was to give all my extra funds to eithiopia then I would save many many many people, but I don't, so according to you, I murdered them.

And the child doesn't have to consent, it is a parasite living off the mother, if another human was living off sucking your blood, would it be murder to pull them off of you? It's the same situation as abortion, so why should be treat it any differently?

Hey.

Your both missing the point, its not for abortion, nor is it not for abortition, the real issue is unbiased education of the citizens of a nation and then the giving of the to or not to choice. A government should not force or limit a deep and personal choice on a person and unless you get 100% of a population to willingly agree on it free from manipulation of any kind. If not :wink: then NO ruling party has the right to force an opinion. Yes, I am pointing at all the tinpot dictatorships.

Anyway, forcing the outlaw of abortion ultimately leads to unlawful ones which usualy take place without correct medical knowledge or safetly, health concerns, so if you outlaw it there is an increased and inherent chance of the death of the child yes, but also the mother if complications occur, and if you say such people are fools to do such a thing in such conditions, then its because YOU forced them, they are desperate, and who are you to judge, a person or a tyrannist?

With fond regards to creators of intelligent inspirational coversation,

Representative of Komokom.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

I am sick of you people telling us to leave God out of this argument, when, for the most part, He is being mentioned only by people pointing out that He doesn't exist. I've said it before and I'll say it again. We'll leave our belief in the existance of God out of this if you leave your disbeleif out of it.

Now on to my main point. Even if the Hippocratic Oath that I quoted from Wastra has been "modified" is it not still the doctor's goal to protect all life? Is the fetus alive? What more is there to say? (please don't be an idiot and point out that the doctor is killing when he/she perscribes an antibiotic to kill a bacterial infection).

And a fetus is not really a parasite. Parasites generally don't... for lack of a more direct term... parasite off their own mother's. The child is a creation of love, the illusion of love, or a horrible crime (rape), but it is still a child. It was composed of two human cells, so regardless of when you believe a fetus becomes a child, it can be nothing but human. Therefore its death by the hands of men is murder.

For the Glory of God!
Emperor Tony I of Vivelo

Legally speaking, and morally, only people have rights. The question thus become not whether the fetus is alive, but whether it is a person; this is essentially a matter of faith. THe government is recquired to be neutral in matters of faith; thus while no one is forced to have an abortion, and I certainly respect those that feel it is wrong, I don't think that unless we define a universal code of personhood abortion can ethically be considered wrong.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

First of all sorry about my repeating myself, I got an error message and didn't realize my comment had been posted.

Secondly, I dont recall mentioning rights, or religions place in this area in my last response. I don't know why you quoted me on that. Were you simply fascinated by the ability to quote? I said that the fetus can be nothing other than human, not because it has those rights, or because my religion dictates so, as you seem to think I said. I said that it is human because it is composed of human flesh. It is the product of the union between two humans, and last time I checked, nothing comes out of that union but a human. If you have sex and a dog comes out, I really don't want to know. The circumstances should be no grounds for murder. Take the murder of a more developed human for example. The murder, when compared to the abortion would be one of these three scenarios:
1) "Hi Bob, you were an accident. We only had you for pleasure. We never wanted you" BAM!
2) "Oh Bob, I was raped and you popped out. It's not my fault." BAM!
3) "Oh Bob, it's either you or me. I care more for myself than other human beings" BAM!

*I had planned on those being more creative but I lost my train of thought because it's late at night. I hope you catch my drift anyways.

For the Glory of God!
Emperor Tony I of Vivelo

I quoted you because you assume fetuses are human. Not everything made of human flesh is human; my toe, for instance, isn't a person (I'm fairly certain anyways). In order to make a rationally moral judgement on arbotion, it is nessecary to prove that a fetus posesses 'personhood'. You have yet to do that.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Vivelo/Mallberta:

First, full disclosure: I change my position on this issue (with regards to the government's involvement in it) fairly frequently.

That said, what would you two say to the proposition that it is essentially unknowable whether a "fetus" is a "human?" What implications does this proposition have for this debate? I think it is possible for a reasonable person, accepting this proposition, to take either side in the end. One could say either that the mere possibility of "personhood" is sufficient to proscribe abortion, or that the mere possibility of the absence of "personhood" is sufficient to proscribe government intervention. What are your thoughts on this?

Right, so we get to the point of the Hippocratic Oath and all it's implications.

As I mentioned, it's been translated and we've lost the original exact wording, but the interpretation most often applied to it (and certinally the one that most doctors swear under) is that the doctor must hold the paitient's best interests as paramount. Those "best interests" are the domain of the paitient's will except under two circumstances (this is the legal interpretation), one, where the person is not of fit mind to decide themselves (psyciatchtric paitents with certain delusionally neurosies) and where a paitent is unable to communicate their will, in which case their best interests are the domain of the next of kin. Looking at abortion, (where the mother is acctually the paiteint anyway, so the interests of the feotus are largely irrelevant) the next of kin is the mother, so if she decides it's in the feotus's best interests to be terminated, the doctor must heed those wishes. Nowhere does the Oath say outright that the doctor's duty is to protect life, but it is to act in the interests of the paitent.

And then the "lump of human cells means human", firstly it aint Alive yet (I've proved this enough in this thread so I won't repeat why), and secondly, the absurdity of carrying this idea to it's ultimate end is evident when you consider the question "have you ever clapped your hands?", under the logic you wish to apply, clapping kills Human cells, therefore everyone who claps should be locked up on 50000counts of murder per clap, I'm sorry, but even Hitler would be proud of this effort.

And I must agree, circumstances MUST NEVER be a factor in imposing laws on Abortion (Laws in regard to this should never exist in the first place anyway), as it is not for us to judge the moral actions of others.

You want a universal description of personhood? I don't know about anyone else, but I define a person as someone who is alive, and composed mostly of human cells.

This applies (except for your use of the word "someone", but that's begging the question) to a human organ, such as a heart that is being kept for transplant, or a skin biopsy before it dies. Is such a heart or piece of skin a person?

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

i think we MUS :D defend human life, because we would not want that our parents would abort us. if you dont want to have that bay just give that baby in adoption to give he or she a better place to live.

So you'd force people to go trough 9 months of pregnancy, child-birth and seperation from their child?

Granted, the last one shouldnt be that hard since she wanted it to be aborted in the first place.

I have a better idea though. Since you care so much about that unborn child, we take it out of the woman's body and let *you* take care of it.
Have fun.

1) Even if the Hippocratic Oath that I quoted Wastra on is "modified" as the Knights of Ni said, is it not still the job of a doctor to protect all life?
Nope! Unless you reckon that viruses, bacteria, fungi, etc. don't count as 'life'. Speciesist!
Is the child not alive? What more needs to be said?
Something relevant?
2) Pleas stop calling fetuses parasites. A parasite generally does not feed off of its own mother. A fetus is a human. Think about it. Regardless of when it becomes truly human, which there is a lot of debate about, it is still composed of at least two human cells (the sperm and the egg)
Does this mean that we should also act to prevent any sperm and eggs from dying, or do you draw the line there?
so it cannot be anything other than human.
Sure, it can be an embryo. Isn't that what this argument is about?
How can you argue that a fetus is not human when it is the product of humans' cells joining together with each other and nothing else?
I think that the argument would be that they are the product of humans' cells joinging together and nothing else -- that is, you can have human cells join together and have the result not be a human being.

Why would anyone even think about creating this topic >.<... The fact is, abortion isn't gonna be illegal. Even though it was at one time, it isn't gonna be anymore... I personally think abortion is ok under certain curcimstances.

Quote: "So you'd force people to go trough 9 months of pregnancy, child-birth and seperation from their child? " End Quote

You do realize that there are thousands of people waiting to adopt someone, 'cause they are unable to have kids. 'Cause perhaps in a married couple, the guy doesn't produce any sperm, or the woman doesn't produce any eggs..

Quote: "Abortion is an abominable evil and should not be allowed." End Quote

What if the mother is going to die 'cause she is pregnant. Then an abortion should be okay, that way one life is lost, instead of two..

Quote: "If I was to give all my extra funds to eithiopia then I would save many many many people, but I don't, so according to you, I murdered them. " End Quote

Actaully I believe that is called man slaughter...

Quote: "And the child doesn't have to consent, it is a parasite living off the mother, if another human was living off sucking your blood, would it be murder to pull them off of you? It's the same situation as abortion, so why should be treat it any differently?" End Quote

You treat it diffrently 'cause the child has to "leech" off it's mother to survive. The grown person sucking your blood doesn't. Also you don't have to pull off the person 'cause the person would eventaully get sick fall to the ground and start throwing up once he/she drank to much blood.

Quote: "And the child doesn't have to consent, it is a parasite living off the mother, if another human was living off sucking your blood, would it be murder to pull them off of you? It's the same situation as abortion, so why should be treat it any differently?" End Quote

You treat it diffrently 'cause the child has to "leech" off it's mother to survive. The grown person sucking your blood doesn't. Also you don't have to pull off the person 'cause the person would eventaully get sick fall to the ground and start throwing up once he/she drank to much blood.

Oh please, use a little imagination.

Quote: "So you'd force people to go trough 9 months of pregnancy, child-birth and seperation from their child? " End Quote

You do realize that there are thousands of people waiting to adopt someone, 'cause they are unable to have kids. 'Cause perhaps in a married couple, the guy doesn't produce any sperm, or the woman doesn't produce any eggs..

You do realise that has nothing to do with what I said?

Abortions are pretty evened out on the who wants it banned scale.
most will tell you they want them legal, so Im sure thats what will happen.
(I am pro-life)

I am sick of you hipocrytes telling us to leave God out of the forum when it's mostly you who are mentioning Him, saying He doesn't exist. I will leave Him out if you leave out the fact that He doesn't exist.

With that said, I move on to my main points.
1) Even if the Hippocratic Oath that I quoted Wastra on is "modified" as the Knights ofNi said, is it not still the job of a doctor to protect all life? Is the child not alive? What more needs to be said?
2) Pleas stop calling fetuses parasites. A parasite generally does not feed off of its own mother. A fetus is a human. Think about it. Regardless of when it becomes truly human, which there is a lot of debate about, it is still composed of at least two human cells (the sperm and the egg) so it cannot be anything other than human. And death of a human, by the hands of another human, is murder. How can you argue that a fetus is not human when it is the product of humans' cells joining together with each other and nothing else? Regardless of the circumstances, the child should not simply be killed. I can understand if it chokes on the umbilicle cord or if it is necessary for the mother's survival that the child be removed. If the latter occurs, the child can be placed in an incubator, and they can try to keep it alive. Just don't stab it.

For the Glory of God!
Emperor Tony I of Vivelo

1.) Antibiotics kill life, amputations kill human cells, many cancer treatments kill cells. Saving life is not the job of a doctor profession, it is the patients life that is task they are set with.
2.)
Sperm and eggs are not human cells, they are human gametes having only half of the chromosomes.

If when doctors amputate limbs they can potentially save a persons life, but at the cost off all those human cells which are alive on the limb. The death of a cell with 48 chromosomes does not make it murder. Also each individual cell carries lysosomes which carry out intracellular digestion, but they have another function, if the cell is in the wrong place or poses a threat to the larger being the packets rupture and kill the cell. This happens all the time in the human body, usually at the bodies bidding, does this make us all murderers though? As you said it is the death of human life at the hands of a human.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

[. . .]
I didn't neccesarily say the fetus is a human being. I believe that, but that's not what I said. I said it is human. If you don't feel that it is a human being yet, it is still a part of a human body. Therefore an abortion could be compared to arbitrarily amputating your leg. They're both just parts of the whole.
[. . .]
Intentional death of a human (or partial human as you idiots refuse to accept that the fetus is human) at the hands of another human is murder.
Cutting off your own leg is murder?

I quote*... a recent text from a newspaper in my country


"The question of abortion, as always, comes back to our political scene. Coming back, however, it renews an old paradox with a dificult solution. Surprisingly, few notice the huge similar in reasoning between those in favor of abortion and the ones used in history to justify other horrible atrocities.

The starting point is the denial of humanity. The abortionists claim, explicitly or, in general, that the embryo does not have human dignity. If it had, obviosouly that their reasoning would crumble, for no interest has priority before the right to life. Now, the most worse abominations in history were born necessarily from the same refusal of the human statute. The nazis, they proclaimed that Jewish, gypsies, deficient and so many others, did not belong to the human sort, but to a lower race, by that dispensable. The slavers, they based their ignominious commerce in the certainty from the smaller humanity of those that they bought and they sold. All of the genocides, ethnic cleaning, slaughters and barbarities start from this horrible reasoning.

The second ideia is that the death of the fetus is helpful to society. The abortionists say that they just defend the liberty and the dignity of woman. Also the nazis intended to correct the injustice from the Great War, promote the purity from the German race and its vital space. The slavers, they saw themselves as essential pieces for the prosperity of civilization. Bin Laden considers himself a defender of faith. Criminals of war justify themselves with the same general issues.

But, and this is the third point, those that the practices of abortion allegedly defend finish by being their main victims. No doubts remain that the women that abort are those who more suffer with this apparent solution of their problems. They suffer with the violence, with the emptiness, with the remorse. Also Germany was the biggest martyr of the insanities done by the nazis, and those that through the long centuries adhered to slavery, pursuits and slaughters lived to see the falsehood from the solution created by their own cruelty.

The most most surprising element, however, is the of understand as is possible that honest and grave persons fall in this trap. Because it is evident that to overwhelming majority of the defenders of abortions are normal citizens, rightous and well intended, that they intend just the common wellbeing. They would stay certainly a lot offended and hurt upon to see themselves compared with barbarians and nazis.

That is necessarily the paradox, today as before. Also through the centuries, millions of citizens , prudent and respectful, had slaves, supported the racism or defended genocide. They were manby, the considerate, quiet, and intelligent Germans that voted and supported Adolf Hitler. We have difficulty today in understanding this...
"

J.C.N.

(* in translation some parts were cut and others slightly modified from the original text)

You treat it diffrently 'cause the child has to "leech" off it's mother to survive. The grown person sucking your blood doesn't. Also you don't have to pull off the person 'cause the person would eventaully get sick fall to the ground and start throwing up once he/she drank to much blood.

I believe I already said that the person can only get nourishment from you. Ok, would it be a bettter example if I said that you were the only person with that person blood type and they needed constant transfusions?

I quote*... a recent text from a newspaper in my country


"The question of abortion, as always, comes back to our political scene. Coming back, however, it renews an old paradox with a dificult solution. Surprisingly, few notice the huge similar in reasoning between those in favor of abortion and the ones used in history to justify other horrible atrocities.

The starting point is the denial of humanity. The abortionists claim, explicitly or, in general, that the embryo does not have human dignity. If it had, obviosouly that their reasoning would crumble, for no interest has priority before the right to life. Now, the most worse abominations in history were born necessarily from the same refusal of the human statute. The nazis, they proclaimed that Jewish, gypsies, deficient and so many others, did not belong to the human sort, but to a lower race, by that dispensable. The slavers, they based their ignominious commerce in the certainty from the smaller humanity of those that they bought and they sold. All of the genocides, ethnic cleaning, slaughters and barbarities start from this horrible reasoning.

The second ideia is that the death of the fetus is helpful to society. The abortionists say that they just defend the liberty and the dignity of woman. Also the nazis intended to correct the injustice from the Great War, promote the purity from the German race and its vital space. The slavers, they saw themselves as essential pieces for the prosperity of civilization. Bin Laden considers himself a defender of faith. Criminals of war justify themselves with the same general issues.

But, and this is the third point, those that the practices of abortion allegedly defend finish by being their main victims. No doubts remain that the women that abort are those who more suffer with this apparent solution of their problems. They suffer with the violence, with the emptiness, with the remorse. Also Germany was the biggest martyr of the insanities done by the nazis, and those that through the long centuries adhered to slavery, pursuits and slaughters lived to see the falsehood from the solution created by their own cruelty.

The most most surprising element, however, is the of understand as is possible that honest and grave persons fall in this trap. Because it is evident that to overwhelming majority of the defenders of abortions are normal citizens, rightous and well intended, that they intend just the common wellbeing. They would stay certainly a lot offended and hurt upon to see themselves compared with barbarians and nazis.

That is necessarily the paradox, today as before. Also through the centuries, millions of citizens , prudent and respectful, had slaves, supported the racism or defended genocide. They were manby, the considerate, quiet, and intelligent Germans that voted and supported Adolf Hitler. We have difficulty today in understanding this...
"

J.C.N.

(* in translation some parts were cut and others slightly modified from the original text)

Hey look, Vivelo has a newspaper!

:P

Just to take the most glaring error in the article, it is absolutely non-sensical to compare abortion with the Nazi policy mentioned.

Abortion is about choice. The Nazis killed and / or castrated those they flat out didn't want breeding. See? Not the same.

Everyone who's stuck on that line of thinking, DON'T WORRY. I'm not about to come over to your country and start forcing abortions on people just because I'm in favour of abortion.Not least because I couldn't care less what your people decide to do when pregnant.

As for abortions causing emotional distress, I don't doubt it. But it's the woman's choice to make. If she thinks she'll be able to handle the emotions that follow, she can do what she likes.

Just to take the most glaring error in the article, it is absolutely non-sensical to compare abortion with the Nazi policy mentioned.

Abortion is about choice. The Nazis killed and / or castrated those they flat out didn't want breeding. See? Not the same.

Note that the comparison is woman the one who makes the choice for the fetus to live, comparing to the nazis who made the choice for the jews and others...

Like you said:
...the woman has a choice.
...the jews had no choice cause they were considered sub-human.



Everyone who's stuck on that line of thinking, DON'T WORRY. I'm not about to come over to your country and start forcing abortions on people just because I'm in favour of abortion.Not least because I couldn't care less what your people decide to do when pregnant.


So who's forcing who?

Ahh, the Hippocratic Oath, yes an acient greek document that has been in existance for thousands of years, the ultimate guide to a doctor's responsibility.

Now, I'm not sure where you got that copy from, but that's not what I swore. May I point out to you that the oath, like the bible, has been translated many times over the centuries, in different places. Also bare in mind that there wasn't really many cliniclly reliable methods of abortion (baseball bat not withstanding) availiable in those times, and there's been no recorded practise of abortions in acient greece, so you claim seems highly dubious historically. Most likely you are using either a "modified" version created by the anti-abortion camp for doctors sharing their views to take, or are using an oath that came from the USA early this century, where it was pollitcally motivated to include such a clause.

The one we use here in Oz doesn't have your little convienient line.

We seemed to have moved on to life support machines ect for non-responding individuals. Current practise bears out that those who do not have the ability to have life are not extended the same rights as those who do, the same applies to Abortion, no expirience, no knowledge, no right.

And please, to those advocating aborting congenitively defective feotuses, just who is making that decision, if it's the mother, fine, but that needs to be without encouragement from medical personel,

And to those nutters on about God, Hell, and everything else, please, keep the preching in the pulpit and to those who can be bothered listening, there's no place in this debate for any Sky-pixies ect. Also, as to burning, if you'd like I can present proof that Heaven must indeed be hotter than hell. So there we go, do abortions, burn in hell, don't do abortions, end up a cinder anyway, don't see the problem really.


Personally, I'm not religious (one need not be religious to take a stance for or against abortion), so I assume the heaven and hell references were to someone else.

Here's some links to other translations, all including the line. I'd be interested to read one that DOES NOT have the line because I couldn't find one in the 20+ sites I visited. Many of these are directly from major Medical Schools in the United States, some are from 3rd party sites. There are some from other nations also, including Canada, Nairobi, and Switzerland.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_classical.html
http://classics.mit.edu/Hippocrates/hippooath.html
http://www.hal-pc.org/~ollie/hippocratic.oath.html
http://www.med.umich.edu/irbmed/ethics/hippocratic/hippocratic.html
http://www.indiana.edu/~ancmed/oath.htm
http://hsc.virginia.edu/hs-library/historical/antiqua/texto.htm
http://www.student.virginia.edu/~alphaed/hippo.htm
http://members.tripod.com/nktiuro/hippocra.htm
http://duke.usask.ca/~porterj/DeptTransls/HippOath.html (Canadian medical school...interestingly, it was Canadian Pro-Abortion groups who successfully petitioned to have the oath removed entirely from Canadian Med Schools because that line is in the original texts, and they felt that a modified version of the oath was pointless since it would not hold hte ancientry and pageantry)
http://www.montchoisi.ch/radiologie/SermentE.html (swiss institute of radiology)

The original texts use the word "pessos", the root for Pessary. The Pessos was an oval stone that was inserted into the mouth of the womb in order to produce abortion. It was a very destructive practice, but common just a few years before Hippocrates (it was during his lifetime that it become taboo in Greece), and very reliable at producing an abortion (also at harming the mother). I assume you're just making up the bit of abortion not being practiced in Ancient Greece. It was, but was looked down upon quite heavily. It was also practiced in ancient Rome, and more accepted than in Greece...in fact, it was pretty much encouraged there. The practice of abortion is well documented in many ancient cultures, Greece included. Try researching before posting next time, or at least let us know that you're posting opinion, not fact.

The one you took wasn't likely a Hippocratic Oath at all, but the Declaration of Geneva, the guidelines for which were drawn up in 1947, which has replaced the oath in many countries. It is as follows:



I solemnly pledge myself to consecrate my life to the service of Humanity;
I will give to my teachers the respect and gratitude which is their due;
I will practice Homoeopathy with conscience and dignity;
The health of my clients will be my first consideration;
I will respect the secrets which are confided in me, even after the client has passed away;
I will maintain by all means in my power the honour and the noble traditions of homoeopathic medicine;
My colleagues will be my brothers and sisters;
I will not permit consideration of religion, nationality, race, politics, or social standing to intervene between my duty and clients;
I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from its beginning even under threat, and I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of Humanity;
I make these promises solemnly, freely, and upon my honour;


That's the Declaration of Geneva, a variation of which has been used in Australian medicine since shortly after WWII, and Also most British Schools.

The one I cited in my original post was taken from a framed copy on the wall of my co-worker's office. He was a doctor (has since left the practice), a graduate of the University of Kentucky, which is a public (i.e. State) university in a state in which abortions are legal. The copy was provided by his college of medicine. It is the oath he recited in 1988 when he became a doctor.

The line about "pestuaries/pessaries" (different translation with the same meaning) is neither "convenient" nor was it "placed" there by politically motivated individuals. Quite the contrary; it's in the original greek copies of the oath, and its inclusion in the actual HIPPOCRATIC oath is not debatable. Whether a doctor took the HIPPOCRATIC oath or the Declaration of Geneva is a different argument. You clearly did not if you did not recite the oath I posted or an extremely close interpretation of it. It doesn't make you an oathbreaker or anything, it just means you took a different oath.

Whether a doctor took the HIPPOCRATIC oath or the Declaration of Geneva is a different argument. You clearly did not if you did not recite the oath I posted or an extremely close interpretation of it. It doesn't make you an oathbreaker or anything, it just means you took a different oath.
It also means that, in any sort of a global context, appeals to the Hippocratic oath are irrelevant. Many doctors have never taken it; many others have taken a significantly modified version.

(I won't discuss whether the "pessaries" line could be used to apply to most forms of abortion currently practiced [which are surgical rather than chemical; whether RU-486 even counts as a form of abortion is open to some debate], since it's rather a side-issue.)

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

ahh but the modern hippocratic oath contains no such line about abortion

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_modern.html

thanks for the link you led me to, perhaps you should read the entire website before using it to prove your arguement.

As for the pro-choice people are like nazis, the jewish people, the gypsies, etc. could live on their own with out requiring feeding.

More importantly if a woman takes drugs which induce abortion it is merely a side effect, it is her body, and she can put in it what ever she pleases. If it causes an abortion so be it, however, no one is in the position of moral high ground to dictate what you can and cannot do to your own body. The nazis were not doing things to their own bodies which resulted in harm to others.


As for your body, not you making the choice to perform a miscarriage, one could make drugs which prevented miscarriages, so you could ensure the babies survival at any cost, would a woman be commiting murder if she did not take these drugs?

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---