NationStates Jolt Archive

People, after the locking of our last thread due to the innappropriate behaviour of a small minority, lets give what was a lively and interesting debate a second chance. The debate that we had was healthy, interesting and for the most part, very rational and civil, something that a healthy democracy would be proud of. None of the issues were at all resolved, and there was significant room to continue the debate in a civil manner. I thank all those who participated in making it an enjoyable expirience to be involved in, it's a great shame it ended the way it did.

Anyway, leaving that past behind us, lets try once more at discussing this issue of abortion in the high standards that we set. Bearing this in mind, lets avoid the personal attacks and flames that marred the last attempt.

Before the interruption, I think we had been discussing 3 things,

First was the ability to record the electrical activity of feotuses before the cytoblast has even differentiated. Now, at the stages we are discussing (9days in the case of heartbeat), the feotus is still a microscopic structure called a pro-embryonic disc, that looks kind of like the Theta sign used in maths, the one of a zero with a line through the middle. The placenta hasn't even seperated from the the blob. The outer ring of cells will become the fluid sac that protects the developing embryo from impacts (save that of a baseball bat in the "backyard" abortion markets that spring up when abortion is illegal), the cells in the middle plane will divide in two over the next 3 days, one half to form the placenta, the other to form the feotus. There is no heart to make "heartbeats", infact the tissue that will form the heart the "mesoderm" is still stuck in that middle plane of tissue. May I suggest that what is displayed on that ECG graph (or whatever you're refering to) is one of two things:
1) the electrical impulses that control the mother's diaphram, or any of the other muscles in the abdominal cavity.
2) interference from other electrical equipment in the theatre (I've had the disturbing expirience of an EEG picking up the AC current of a respirator that was next to a kid's bed, The graph looked like they were in a permanant epileptic siezure. The machines are sensitive yes, but nothing sensitive enough to pick up a non-existant heart).

The brain's development is different, it starts at about 3 weeks and will not be complete untill about 7 months term. At 6 weeks, the ectoderm, from which the nerves and skin develop has differentiated into the neural plate, from which more differentiation will happen later on. In some feotuses, the neural plate has gone as far as to form the neural tube, spinal lobes and skin progenitor, but not in very many and these structure certinally do not constitute a functioning brain to be measured.

On the Nazis still, It largely doesn't matter whether feotuses are human or not, it is their inability to posses rights that is the important issue. As I stated before, my approach to establishing this position is logical extension, nothing about the Nazi's views on Jews was logical, or humane, or worth dignifying. To suggest that there were scientific procedures followed in establishing this position is to give it credence. Nothing the Nazis did in regard to "proving" the Jews were an inferior race was scientific in the least. Data was falsified for the purposes of propaganda, blatantly false conclusions were drawn. This is not science, this is hate.

And no, I should not let my expirience of Religious anti-arbortion protesters stop me from trying to show them logic and reason, and as you can see, It hasn't. But please understand my disdain for the religious aspects of this debate. Sick Children's lives were put at risk by those who claim to be "saving the babies", ahhh, I love the smell of hipocracy from the self-rightous.

Have a nice day.

Abortion is wrong.

Abortion should be allowed only for babies born because of rape, incest, or other such things.

If they can go have sex then they can go take care of a baby. Teach the girl some responsibility. And if you can't take care of the baby, you can donate him/her to the government to take care of and find a home for.

YOU spread your legs, YOU deal with the consequences.

YOU spread your legs, YOU deal with the consequences.

Exactly.

Sheesh. Come on people. Debate, don't spout plattitudes.

Hey griff got banned for saying things like watch out. But I do agree wholeheartedly 8)

The misister of CALAMSHAN

The Dictatorship of Griffindon is done with this debate for reasons it can not decently express.

So can we get some fact to disprove my opinion that a Fetus is a sentient self-sustaning life form capable of surviving on its own without it's mother's body.

Can we also get some hard facts that a Baby is NOT called a fetus while inside the womb?

If it was the aim of anti-abortion advocated to save lives, then they should actually be in favor of keeping abortions save. To outlaw them would be to drive the women seeking abortions to have to resort to the methodology of the pre-legalization days, which was barbaric. By criminializing abortions, women were forced to seek out unregulated and often inferior and dangerous practiioners. The result was not only the death of the fetus but all too often the death of the woman, or her sterilization.

It is the case that the Anti-abortionfaction actually advocates for something which is diametricly opposed to their profesed aims. By their methodology of "right to life" they are actually promoting DEATH!

Please think through the consequenses of your actions.

Guardian, you saying that we should ban all laws less someone do some thing crimminal?
That dont fly guy!

If it was the aim of anti-abortion advocated to save lives, then they should actually be in favor of keeping abortions save. To outlaw them would be to drive the women seeking abortions to have to resort to the methodology of the pre-legalization days, which was barbaric. By criminializing abortions, women were forced to seek out unregulated and often inferior and dangerous practiioners. The result was not only the death of the fetus but all too often the death of the woman, or her sterilization.

Well, that's fine with me. You either learn not to have sex with everyone or atleast practice somesort of safe sex or you can go and do this "barbaric" thing.

If it was the aim of anti-abortion advocated to save lives, then they should actually be in favor of keeping abortions save. To outlaw them would be to drive the women seeking abortions to have to resort to the methodology of the pre-legalization days, which was barbaric. By criminializing abortions, women were forced to seek out unregulated and often inferior and dangerous practiioners. The result was not only the death of the fetus but all too often the death of the woman, or her sterilization.

It is the case that the Anti-abortionfaction actually advocates for something which is diametricly opposed to their profesed aims. By their methodology of "right to life" they are actually promoting DEATH!

Please think through the consequenses of your actions.


Margaret Sanger, the feminsit right activist who petitioned for birth control during the early 20th century, began her movement began of all the women she knew who were having self abortions.

During this time in UN history, Abortion was illegal, contraceptives were illegal and mailing information about contraceptives was illegal. Women also had many babies. Often they had more babies than they could feed. also women were more prone to die during child birth during this time. So when some women started having their 6th or 9th baby, they would self abort the baby with A COAT HANGER!

Sanger gave up her wealthy job as a nurse because she was sick of seeing mother who either stabbed their uteruses witht eh coat hanger or got an infection from it and all Sanger could do for them was give them Asprin untill they died.

Which is more humane? an Abortion to prevent a fetus from maturing and living the life of a baby born into poverty until it dies because the family lacks health services, or giving a woman Asprin until she dies, and leaving the family without a mother, primary care provider and secondary income?

Its not off topic to warn the others that words like barbaric are not tolerated by the mods. Furthermore i find the term abortion to be insulting because:

Terms like abortion, and fetus, are used to lower a baby's status to sub human, to avoid the attack of guilt. As stated previously Hitler did the same to the jews. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to see what is at stake here. And im quite sure, as some of the opposition seems educated, that no rational human being could think a "fetus" is anything but human. Its not a tire its not a car its a human.

And answer this. Why is suicide illegal and baby killing legal? I mean it is the womens body so therfore it should be the suicide victims body.

Quote
"A fetus is the name for an unborn baby"

My point exactly so why is killing babies ok again?

And answer this. Why is suicide illegal and baby killing legal? I mean it is the womens body so therfore it should be the suicide victims body.

Suicide is not illegal, but if it was, it would carry the death penalty. :D
I believe you mean Euthanisa which is legal is some cases, namely if the injuried person has no higher brian functions and has previously exressed wishes not to kept on life support.

And could you stay with one nation? using multis to make it seems as if more people are on your side is not a professional way to debate.

Quote
"A fetus is the name for an unborn baby"

My point exactly so why is killing babies ok again?

A fetus, not an unborn baby, thus not human. A fetus is not human or alive. It is not self aware, and can not survive outside the mother's body. Not please do not ask me to repeat what you could scroll up to read.

Hold on there you just said that fetus is an english term for BABY!
And baby's are HUMAN> and killing humans that cant fight back is wrong

Hold on there you just said that fetus is an english term for BABY!
And baby's are HUMAN> and killing humans that cant fight back is wrong

no I didn't

""A fetus is the name for an unborn baby"

ok i didnt qoute it the exact same the first time, but the meaning is the same. You and I both know that baby killing is wrong. The point is moot

Stay On Topic

I've split the junk out of this thread. Next time, I will be deleting nations. If you are incapable of staying on topic with this thread, or this subject matter, do not post.

""A fetus is the name for an unborn baby"

ok i didnt qoute it the exact same the first time, but the meaning is the same. You and I both know that baby killing is wrong. The point is moot


I have not said killing babies is wrong. We are not talking about babies, we are talking about Fetuses.

Killing a fetus is not wrong.

I will not get into my views on killing babies as that would be off topic.

You said a fetus is an unborn baby. Now you say its not a baby its a fetus which is it?

And your right I SAID KILLING BABIES IS WRONG because killing babies is indeed wrong. If you dont think it it is, thats sad indeed.

Shouldnt it be up to the woman though? it is her body that will be afflicted by the abortion and she'll be the one who has to live with what she has done. abortion may or may not be murder, but it is the womans right to choose what happens to her body. It is better that she goes through a (relatively) safe procedure done by a professional than that she feels the need to risk her own life using other unsafe methods of abortion. The man responsible should give support, but its ultimately the womans choice, and why should both mother and fetus baby whatever die?

So if i diagree with the oposition it's off topic, right HAK? If thats the case then Im afraid Ill BE WAY OFF TOPIC.

"Shouldnt it be up to the woman though? it is her body that will be afflicted by the abortion "

And the BABY that doesnt matter. The women who chose to have sex and got pregant we should worry about. But an innocent child can be killed with no remorse, and Im supposed to swallow that.

Man this world is really getting sick.

So if i diagree with the oposition it's off topic, right HAK? If thats the case then Im afraid Ill BE WAY OFF TOPIC.

Not what I said at all.

However, if you can't tell the difference, perhaps you should stop posting until you can figure it out.

Otherwise...

its a personal decision. if you happen to have be in a relationship with an unwanted pregnancy then u will have to make a choice to. until then what anybody else thinks shouldnt affect the choices of the parents! btw is that ooc?

Abortion is wrong.

Abortion should be allowed only for babies born because of rape, incest, or other such things.

If they can go have sex then they can go take care of a baby. Teach the girl some responsibility. And if you can't take care of the baby, you can donate him/her to the government to take care of and find a home for.
I just found this debate and I'm surprised for its blatant lack of facts to support claims. While I am certainly pro-choice, there is much in the pro-life position that I can respect because it has been presented in a respectful manner. I generally respect the arguments of those who respect mine. The most important point I'd like to make about the debate before I enter the debate itself is that we shouldn't be so tied to our position that we can't hear what the other side is saying. I certainly believe what I'm about to argue, but if I wanted to I could certainly play devil's advocate. Objectivity is what makes a good debate. That said...

I agree whole heartedly with the position that people MUST take responsibility for their actions. This is something I try every day to teach my two kids. I only wish that 100% of the world felt the same. My ultimate objection to the argument is a very practical one. IE: not everyone is responsible by nature and when placed in a stressful situation people generally tend to respond in the most natural way. So if abortion is not an option, then babies in dumpsters becomes one. Not to mention, some people are not able to rear children. Maybe it's because of a handicap, or maybe it's because of a drug or alcohol addiction. Again, addicts should take responsibility for their lives, but in the real world, they wouldn't be addicts if they were capable. I don't see who is benefitted by kids being raised in an alley by a junky. Especially not the kids.

Shouldnt it be up to the woman though? it is her body that will be afflicted by the abortion and she'll be the one who has to live with what she has done. abortion may or may not be murder, but it is the womans right to choose what happens to her body. It is better that she goes through a (relatively) safe procedure done by a professional than that she feels the need to risk her own life using other unsafe methods of abortion. The man responsible should give support, but its ultimately the womans choice, and why should both mother and fetus baby whatever die?

I fully agree Thingameboo. As a Christian, I have to respect the free will of others. I have to allow people to have the opportunity to sin. Personally I do not see aborbtion as a sin, because I do not see it as murder. But if I did, I would still be pro-choice because I can not force people to not sin.

As an example, If I believed prostitution was a sin, I could not force legislation that would make prostitution illegal. People have a right to choose sin over righteousness.

Ra-Hoor the premise of your objection that we should allow baby killing because people are irresponsible and there fore might commit yet another crime is well, a bad argument.

Should we allow drunks to drive drunk because if we dont they might steal a car.
No
And we should not support baby killing either

As for being a "Christian" drag look in the bible it says god knows us from conception. In other words were human from the start. And he takes a VERY DIM view of illicit sex. And I dont want to stand by and say nothing in the face of baby slaying because my God, my heart, and common sense says ITS WRONG!

so why should we deny it to those whose god, heart (and i doubt very much anyone who goes through with an abortion enjoys it or thinks its "good") or common sense (if they werent using their common sense, atleast at they saw it, they wouldnt be having an abortion) says its wrong?

I agree NO ONE WHO GOES THROUGH AN ABORTION THINKS IT"S GOOD. and why is that? BECAUSE IT"S AN EVIL ACT AGAINST AN INNOCENT BABY! period

Ra-Hoor the premise of your objection that we should allow baby killing because people are irresponsible and there fore might commit yet another crime is well, a bad argument.

Should we allow drunks to drive drunk because if we dont they might steal a car.
No
And we should not support baby killing either

As for being a "Christian" drag look in the bible it says god knows us from conception. In other words were human from the start. And he takes a VERY DIM view of illicit sex. And I dont want to stand by and say nothing in the face of baby slaying because my God, my heart, and common sense says ITS WRONG!
I never said it was right. I just don't see how banning it will stop it. Laws have never been able to erradicate a problem. Look at the never ending drug war. I am not condoning the practice of abortion. I am addressing the alternatives. What do you propose to do about children being neglected by incapable parents? What would you say is the likelihood that someone raised in a meth house is going to go to school and become a doctor? Yes this certainly happens from time to time, but it is very very rare. That's why we hear about it. You don't hear about sons and daughters of doctors and lawyers going to college and contributing to society because it's so commonplace. When children are raised in far from adequate situations they learn criminal behaviors and learn far from adequate methods of dealing with life's problems. These kids grow up to be adults and deal with adult problems that impact many other people in deviant ways. This effects you and me. It's all good to teach children responsibility. No, it's essential to teach kids responsibility! But sometimes it's just too much to ask from someone who doesn't even know what it means.

I don't think it's right to abort. I don't think it's wrong either. In the end it's a personal choice, and one that will be made regardless of the law.

"Posted: Sat Nov 01, 2003 7:04 am Post subject:

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

Kalamshan wrote:
Ra-Hoor the premise of your objection that we should allow baby killing because people are irresponsible and there fore might commit yet another crime is well, a bad argument.

Should we allow drunks to drive drunk because if we dont they might steal a car.
No
And we should not support baby killing either

As for being a "Christian" drag look in the bible it says god knows us from conception. In other words were human from the start. And he takes a VERY DIM view of illicit sex. And I dont want to stand by and say nothing in the face of baby slaying because my God, my heart, and common sense says ITS WRONG!

I never said it was right. I just don't see how banning it will stop it. Laws have never been able to erradicate a problem. Look at the never ending drug war. I am not condoning the practice of abortion. I am addressing the alternatives. What do you propose to do about children being neglected by incapable parents? What would you say is the likelihood that someone raised in a meth house is going to go to school and become a doctor? Yes this certainly happens from time to time, but it is very very rare. That's why we hear about it. You don't hear about sons and daughters of doctors and lawyers going to college and contributing to society because it's so commonplace. When children are raised in far from adequate situations they learn criminal behaviors and learn far from adequate methods of dealing with life's problems. These kids grow up to be adults and deal with adult problems that impact many other people in deviant ways. This effects you and me. It's all good to teach children responsibility. No, it's essential to teach kids responsibility! But sometimes it's just too much to ask from someone who doesn't even know what it means.

I don't think it's right to abort. I don't think it's wrong either. In the end it's a personal choice, and one that will be made regardless of the law. "

Why bath you'll just get dirty, why eat you'll get hungry again, why care you'll just be disappointed.

Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.
Furthermore who are you to say that that kid born in a meth house wont fight poverty and make it?
And as for what I'd do to parents who abuse/neglect thier children? I'd lock them up throw away the key and make the kids wards of the state. At least that way they get an education.
If there is no right or wrong then we have bigger problems then baby killing my friend.

Why bath you'll just get dirty, why eat you'll get hungry again, why care you'll just be disappointed.

Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.
Furthermore who are you to say that that kid born in a meth house wont fight poverty and make it?
And as for what I'd do to parents who abuse/neglect thier children? I'd lock them up throw away the key and make the kids wards of the state. At least that way they get an education.
If there is no right or wrong then we have bigger problems then baby killing my friend.

I'm saying that some of these kids do make it. What I'm also saying is that the "bad" of the ones that don't outweigh the "good" of the ones that do. Also, I've known many wards of the state. The percentage of those who walk the "straight and narrow" are in the extreme minority. Simply getting an education isn't the save all. You have to grow up valuing an education. You have to learn how to study; learn how to learn. Finally, I don't think that just because there is some natural ambiguity over the definitions of such words as: right and wrong, that we're in any trouble. It means that people can approach the same issue from multiple standpoints. It creates lively debates and the ability to broaden our horizons. I consider these virtues.

"Why bath you'll just get dirty, why eat you'll get hungry again, why care you'll just be disappointed."

Legitimate questions. The same questions that have been contemplated for thousands of years by mystics of all stripes. Buddha illustrated "The Way" to remove one's self from such endless cycles. :wink:

Ghandi was a good man, but if he belived in non violence then I m sure he was not for killing baby's either. And as for endless cycles You must bath or youll stink, you must eat or you starve to death, and you must not kill children because life matters. Good night

It's been a good debate. I hope to have another soon.
:D

---------------PLEASE PEOPLE--------------

Stop the flaming, stop the emotive opinionated stuff, we are hear for a rational argument (according to monty python, and I happen to agree, "a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition"), which means we can leave the "sicko baby killing" comments out of it.

The last thread on abortion was locked due to this stuff happening, we wnat to avoid that happening again.

This is the last request before I'll give up and just ask a MOD to lock the hole bloody thread down.

If we are to debate, we must do it in a calm and civil manner,

ORDER IN THE HOUSE!!!!!!!!

---------------PLEASE PEOPLE--------------

Stop the flaming, stop the emotive opinionated stuff, we are hear for a rational argument (according to monty python, and I happen to agree, "a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition"), which means we can leave the "sicko baby killing" comments out of it.

The last thread on abortion was locked due to this stuff happening, we wnat to avoid that happening again.

This is the last request before I'll give up and just ask a MOD to lock the hole bloody thread down.

If we are to debate, we must do it in a calm and civil manner,

ORDER IN THE HOUSE!!!!!!!!

Ok, then let's leave this opinionated emotional stuff out!
From the original post:

let my expirience of Religious anti-arbortion protesters stop me from trying to show them logic and reason, and as you can see, It hasn't. But please understand my disdain for the religious aspects of this debate. Sick Children's lives were put at risk by those who claim to be "saving the babies", ahhh, I love the smell of hipocracy from the self-rightous.

Isn't Kalamashan the same person who got his topic locked last time? I would love to debate him but I'm afriad he hasn't said any debate other then baby killing is wrong.

What I find EALLY OFFENSIVE is how far the faction opposing abortions may go to push their point. They do not seem to realize the irrationality of their methology. In the state of Minnesota there was enacted in the past year a "Wonman's right to know" law which has produced a pamphlet which all women seeking abortion are supposed to read. But the pamphlet is inaccurate, and full of distortions and lies.

Also the anti-abortion faction causes untold sufering and retards economic development in Africa. Because the option of abortion in included in the birth-control of certain Non-Governmental Agencies which deal with the issue of population control the Anti-abortion faction has lead the fight to deny such angencies funding. There is consensus in Africa that much of their economic and human woes stem from their inability to control their own over-populaion, to rationalize their lives, and even to control the spread of AIDS. the ant-abortion faction through their success "defence of the unborn" actually cause overpopulation, ignorance, and the spread of disease.

Some anti-abortion advocates go so far as to pronounce that to permit abortion as an option is tantamount to REQUIRING all women to have them. Thisa is silly and inflamatory.

i would like you to show me this "phamplet of lies". and pro abortion people are all about lies! they lie about the humanity and the individuality of the child in the womb!

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

dodgy double post

Good, we're back to level ground.

To whoever accused me of emotional substituion, I think that post was an attempt to allow people to undestand my dislike of religion in the context of this debate, rather than a judgement call on abortion, and futhermore, ther is a significant difference between "hipocryts" and "EVIL BABBYYYYYY KILLLLLLLLERRRRRRRRRSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!" I do believe. Hipocoracy is the sign of a flawed argument, the EBKs thingy is the sign of either a coronary bursting, or just shouting to make a weak idea look like it's strong.

For the record, yes, Enodia acted as a result of "Calamsham's" level of virtol in posting, but lets have that behind us, move on.

The point on G W Bush and his foreign aid brings the question of individual choice (not to mention that beloved soverignty) into sharp focus. Rather than allowing an important and useful part of population control programs to operate uninhibited on foreign soil, political (and yes, it is political, as it wasn't imposed by Clinton, it changed with government and can hence be considered political) motivations have caused the imposition of these regulations. It is a tradgedy when the leader of the "free" world, full of rehetoric about "individual's rights", "democracy" and "freedom", turns around and imposes his particular set of views on the people who need these concepts most. Imposing a set of views is unnacceptable in any circumstance, and continuing poverty as a result certinally doesn't help either. Maybe they should follow Rumsfeld's opinion on the USA and it's power "If we have the capability, we have the right to carry that operation out." If a Kenyan mother can get an abortion, let her have it, provided she's less than 23 weeks term.

I don't lie about humanity or individuality of the feotus. It may possibly develop into a infant, it is certinally human (one would hope so), but it does not yet posses rights, and cannot posses rights until such time as it develops an operative PNS. 23 weeks is early enough to ensure that no feotuses will have developed that system yet, and so is a safe cut-off point.

"Get rid of the stupid gene"??????????? my god. is this murder justified, from an anti-arbtionist. Sorry, but when something is outlawed, a black market enevitiably springs up to service a demand, and in this case, it is dangerous and more harmful to society than regulated abortion. In Black Market abortions, late-term terminations, unsafe (baseball bat, tea-spoon, coathanger) methods and sky-high prices are the norm.

Umm, the mother (or I, or you, or my dog) does have a right to remove any organ they want to, stupid an action as that may be, if they have the means to get it removed. It's called the right to bodily autonomy. You can do what you want with your body, cause it's yours and to quote that NS Issue, "keep your hands off my damm organs". As I said, she can't waltz in to a hospital and demand her organs be removed, but if she can find a doctor that will do it, we have no right to stop her. THIS is a case of natural selection weeding out the stupid gene.

The feotus is human, it just doesn't have any rights because it can't differentiate itself from the outside world.

Have a nice day.

In the end its all a matter of opinion.

On one side those who believe the mother has a right to choice about her body, and whomsoever is in her body, because that thing(human or not) doesnt have rights

On the other those who beleive that that thing is one day going to be a human being(in all natural events, whithout outside interferences) and should be protect as such.

Your not going to prove to each other because it goes down to a matter of belief and concepts, not rationality.

(i'm dismissing such arguments as those relating that pro-life isnt pro-life, because since statistics have shown that since abortion has been legalized, in certain places, it has gone up more than twice, then for those in pro-life, more lives have been lost. One for every abortion

Of course, those who are pro-choice only look as the mothers life being lost when abortions fail. And no life being lost when an abortion goes as planed.)

Like all discussions need to be spoken on the same language, so does this one. Since there is no concensus about definitions such as "life" the discusion will keep on being "it is/it isnt alive"

I have hardly participated, and believe me i've had some strong urges to do so! :wink:

The Great Nation of Putergeeks:

1) fully supports a woman's right to choose

2) recognizes that abortion is a matter between the woman and her doctor

My view is if you want to have an abortion, that's your choice, but I have to wonder how sane you are if you don't have a good reason for it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and big butts!
Letilan moths! Yay!
http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:TEA1WL6tIGQC:w1.150.telia.com/~u15008589

HAHA! MUHAHAHAHAA! HA ! Um.. sorry.

It seems like there has to be some sort of compromise on this issue. In basic biology, I learned that at the end of the 4th month, the baby in the mother's womb begins to have characteristics that differ from any other living species. I do not believe abortion is right because by definition of what a living thing is, a baby in the the mother's womb is living, but if there has to be a compromise why not make it illegal after the 4th month except in extreme cases of the mother's health.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

The feotus is human, it just doesn't have any rights because it can't differentiate itself from the outside world.


Don't most governments guarantee rights to all humans? I know the USA does (here in the real world that is). If you admit that an unborn child is human, regardless of its ability to differentiate itself from the outside world, it must have basic human rights.

For the Glory of God!
Emperor Tony I of Vivelo

Therein lies the rub. Personally I don't feel a mass of undifferentiated tissue qualifies as human, and thus cannot be subject to rights.

I will enter this debate. I will state my opinion before I launch into a larger discussion.

I am opposed to abortion. I am also not religious.

There, now that we have that out of the way, I'd like to say why I am opposed to abortion. The basis for my views is rooted in the writings of the modern political philosophers John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rosseau. These philospohers are also the basis for the framing of the United States constitution and now many countries around the world have adopted a fair share of their views. They describe a State of Nature which exists before government, and the existence of rights given to men inherantly because they exist, and the purpose of government is protect these rights. Government does not give rights, it only protects them from infringement. These natural rights (as defined by Locke) are "Life, Liberty, and Property..." (for those of us from the US, the Declaration of Independence is merely Jefferson plagurizing Locke's "2nd Treatise on Civil Government"). In Rosseau's state of nature (as discussed in "Discourse on Inequality"), there is no right to property, as he says property is an invention of society, but perfect liberty and the right to living is an essential part of man's nature. Men have a natural aversion to harming their fellow men. It boils down to the fact that in nature, without government, we still have a few rights -- our lives and our free will. These rights start to exist when we begin to exist, and we begin to exist when we are a small clump of cells in our mother's womb (or test tube, more on this later).

When government is created, it is designed to protect the lives and rights of its citizens and those living under its rule who are not citizens. In my view, government's purpose is to protect the lives of those it governs. An unborn child, which is made out of human cells and has a DNA sequence all of its own (well, unless it is a clone, I'll add a brief discussion of that later). It is an unique piece of human life which will become a breathing, self-aware human given significant time to develop. It is in the government's interest to preserve these lives, as not only do they have the right to be alive as a human, but it also fosters the improvement of society -- another purpose of government. Using this logic, an abortion is the same as the government intruding on our right to freedom of expression, or our right to choose what we do with our lives.

Here begins a new, short discussion. I support human cloning, and I believe that a clone is/would be human in all regards. Their genes may be the same as someone else's, but they will grow up in a different environment, have different experiences, and grow to be a completely different person than the original. The varying expression of genes in regard to environment will likely mean an adult clone would not look that similar to the original person. I have found no reason why a clone would not be a human the same as the rest of us.

Thank you for your time.

Vivelo...I would love to see the day when everyone accepts that a human fetus is alive, but until that day, I do think that some form of compromise has to be reached and because of that, I shall make that very compromise my next proposal.

Khlodsk: 2 points

First, I would challenge you to find a passage in either rousseau or Locke which indicates that rights beginat conception. I suspect you will be unable. THe question of wheter fretuses can be considered human or not thus remains.

Second of all, it's somewhat ironic that as an agnostic/atheist you would select Locke as source of argumentation, given that Locke's argument is explicitly based on the existence of God, and our consequential obligation to each other bsed on God's ownership of us all.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Mallberta

1) You're asking me to find a passage, and I won't play around with words. There are none. But why aren't there any? It wasn't an issue at the time, you need to consider their writings in context of their time of writing in this regard. I am explaining why I think their philosophies imply fetuses are human and thus, have rights.

2) Locke's only reliance on God is the existence of human beings. After that, we have rights because we exist, not because God created us. I'm pretty agnostic, although I do believe in the existence of some higher power. But, knowing religion impassions quite a few people, I personally think it is better to remove it from arguements. Anyway, humans exist period, and I'm using Locke's other arguements in a correct and non-hypocritical sense. We have rights because we exist. Also, Rosseau's state of nature doesn't rely on us being created by God. He describes religion as being a creation of society, if I'm not mistaken.

1) You're asking me to find a passage, and I won't play around with words. There are none. But why aren't there any? It wasn't an issue at the time, you need to consider their writings in context of their time of writing in this regard. I am explaining why I think their philosophies imply fetuses are human and thus, have rights.

Given that the argument here is not whether or not humans have rights, but whether fetuses are human, I fail to see how Locke or Rousseau apply in any way.


2) Locke's only reliance on God is the existence of human beings. After that, we have rights because we exist, not because God created us. I'm pretty agnostic, although I do believe in the existence of some higher power. But, knowing religion impassions quite a few people, I personally think it is better to remove it from arguements. Anyway, humans exist period, and I'm using Locke's other arguements in a correct and non-hypocritical sense. We have rights because we exist. Also, Rosseau's state of nature doesn't rely on us being created by God. He describes religion as being a creation of society, if I'm not mistaken.

Rouseseau is effectively secular; however he doesn't believe in natural rights or laws in the same way Locke does. Locke's theories need God to justify natural law; this is basd on the premise that since we are all property of God, and Man is God's caretaker, we must look after each other. It is difficult to address this part of Locked without addressing God.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Rouseseau is effectively secular; however he doesn't believe in natural rights or laws in the same way Locke does. Locke's theories need God to justify natural law; this is basd on the premise that since we are all property of God, and Man is God's caretaker, we must look after each other. It is difficult to address this part of Locked without addressing God.

I disagree. Locke does not rely on God except for the creation of humans. He relies on the reasonableness of humans in regards to their relationships with one another. Most humans are reasonable and all desire protection from those who would do them harm. Using their reason, they determine that banding together to for an organization (gov't) to look after them all is in their personal interest. I believe it is easy enough to address Locke minus God.

Also, I did not say Rosseau had natural law. I know he doesn't, because he refutes that part of Locke's theory. But he does have natural rights. In his state of nature, there is nothing to control you but yourself (liberty) and other humans won't try to hurt you (life).

In regards to whether a fetus is human or not, I think we can apply the theories of the 2 philosophers I have referenced. Rosseau discusses, in "Discourse of Inequality," how reproduction is carried out in the state of nature, (a man and woman meet up, copulate, then depart). Part of the purpose of sex is to produce children, and children are human. He doesn't discuss when the thing inside the pregnant woman becomes human because there is the understanding that it is human by default. A similar idea could be applied to Locke -- human by default. It's not the greatest arguement, as during that time there was no debate over the humanity of a fetus, but it works.

In my mind, I have a similar belief - a fetus is human, as it will produce a human life after several months of development. Sometimes I wonder how it could be not considered human, and if this arguement has only been created by those who would promote the correctness of abortion. In my mind, a fetus is a stage of human development, not an altogether different being. It has human tissue, and (as I said before) a unique DNA sequence which, if taken out and tested, identifies it as human and not another animal.

More directly on the topic of abortion, I agree with Vivelo on his last point. Having sex is a choice, in most cases, and the people having sex willingly know of the consequences. That would be pregnancy. Use a condom, go on birth control, and/or keep your legs closed: there is where the choice is made. One a woman or girl is pregnant, that choice is made. However, should the child be unwanted, the US has an adoption service, and I know many other countries do as well.

Locke on equality and the state of nature:
The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possesions; for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the owrld by his order and about his buisness; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not another's pleasure...

it's pretty clear.

The rest of your argument is baseless conjecture.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Abortion should be free up till a date when the foetus is still a foetus and thereafter when to give birth to the child would cause extreme risk to the mother.

If it was the aim of anti-abortion advocated to save lives, then they should actually be in favor of keeping abortions save. To outlaw them would be to drive the women seeking abortions to have to resort to the methodology of the pre-legalization days, which was barbaric. By criminializing abortions, women were forced to seek out unregulated and often inferior and dangerous practiioners. The result was not only the death of the fetus but all too often the death of the woman, or her sterilization.

It is the case that the Anti-abortionfaction actually advocates for something which is diametricly opposed to their profesed aims. By their methodology of "right to life" they are actually promoting DEATH!

Please think through the consequenses of your actions.


I find it a curious dilema that the most obdurant advocats for the denial of the woman's right for choice cloak themselves in the mantal of Christianity. Equally the fraction of the "white race" which support the notion of "white supremacy" cloak themselves in their mantle of Christianity. But if one where to support the notion of "white supremacy" whuld it not be in their interest to seek to promote safe and cheapabortion for the poor, which,demographically, are more predominantly "non-white".

Please NOTE: Ihave put some concepts in quotes because I, personally, do not suppor them OR I can no define what they are, though I recognize that some people do seem to understand it or at least support these concepts.


Margaret Sanger, the feminsit right activist who petitioned for birth control during the early 20th century, began her movement began of all the women she knew who were having self abortions.

During this time in UN history, Abortion was illegal, contraceptives were illegal and mailing information about contraceptives was illegal. Women also had many babies. Often they had more babies than they could feed. also women were more prone to die during child birth during this time. So when some women started having their 6th or 9th baby, they would self abort the baby with A COAT HANGER!

Sanger gave up her wealthy job as a nurse because she was sick of seeing mother who either stabbed their uteruses witht eh coat hanger or got an infection from it and all Sanger could do for them was give them Asprin untill they died.

Which is more humane? an Abortion to prevent a fetus from maturing and living the life of a baby born into poverty until it dies because the family lacks health services, or giving a woman Asprin until she dies, and leaving the family without a mother, primary care provider and secondary income?

Legalization of abortion is the legalization of human genocide. If we legalize abortion, not everyone will do it with every child they are impregnated with, but they can, thereby wiping out humanity within one generation. If you legalize abortion, you legalize the end of humanity. It is not a right everyone will exercise, neither are legalizing dangerous drugs or murder, but everyone then has the right. No one has the right to take a life, except possibly in the case of self defense. No one has the right to make a species extinct except for a certain flood-causing celestial being whom I worship but was told to leave out of the debate. Of course, people do kill people and commit genocide of certain animals (and are pretty damn close to doing it to others). Illegalize potential genocide. Don't support the death of humanity. I know this point seems a little extreme if you don't look at the big picture.

If say 10 people per nation have abortions in one year. In one year we lose 709,600 people (that's using the number of NS nations) In two years 1,419,200 virtual people would be aborted. In 9 years more children would be aborted than Jews were killed in the Holocaust (yes I know the Holocaust lasted les than 5 years, but that's still a lot of children who never get a chance to experience life), and I'm sure that more than 10 people/nation have abortions in a year.

For the Glory of God!
Emperor Tony I of Vivelo

Surely by the same logic masturbation should also be a crime? Men everywhere are consigning a number of potential lives equal to the holocaust to death every week!
Abortion should be legalized because as a race we are already overpopulating the planet, and bringing more hungry mouths who will be brought up without love, being children who are forced on the parents, cannot help the situation.
Your Holocaust example is very emotive, but is a completely seperate issue-these were conscious people who were exterminated purely because of their race, not because their parents were unable to cope with looking after them.

Legalization of abortion is the legalization of human genocide. If we legalize abortion, not everyone will do it with every child they are impregnated with, but they can, thereby wiping out humanity within one generation. If you legalize abortion, you legalize the end of humanity. It is not a right everyone will exercise, neither are legalizing dangerous drugs or murder, but everyone then has the right. No one has the right to take a life, except possibly in the case of self defense. No one has the right to make a species extinct except for a certain flood-causing celestial being whom I worship but was told to leave out of the debate. Of course, people do kill people and commit genocide of certain animals (and are pretty damn close to doing it to others). Illegalize potential genocide. Don't support the death of humanity. I know this point seems a little extreme if you don't look at the big picture.

If say 10 people per nation have abortions in one year. In one year we lose 709,600 people (that's using the number of NS nations) In two years 1,419,200 virtual people would be aborted. In 9 years more children would be aborted than Jews were killed in the Holocaust (yes I know the Holocaust lasted les than 5 years, but that's still a lot of children who never get a chance to experience life), and I'm sure that more than 10 people/nation have abortions in a year.

For the Glory of God!
Emperor Tony I of Vivelo

Surely by the same logic masturbation should also be a crime? Men everywhere are consigning a number of potential lives equal to the holocaust to death every week!
Abortion should be legalized because as a race we are already overpopulating the planet, and bringing more hungry mouths who will be brought up without love, being children who are forced on the parents, cannot help the situation.
Your Holocaust example is very emotive, but is a completely seperate issue-these were conscious people who were exterminated purely because of their race, not because their parents were unable to cope with looking after them.

Legalization of abortion is the legalization of human genocide. If we legalize abortion, not everyone will do it with every child they are impregnated with, but they can, thereby wiping out humanity within one generation. If you legalize abortion, you legalize the end of humanity. It is not a right everyone will exercise, neither are legalizing dangerous drugs or murder, but everyone then has the right. No one has the right to take a life, except possibly in the case of self defense. No one has the right to make a species extinct except for a certain flood-causing celestial being whom I worship but was told to leave out of the debate. Of course, people do kill people and commit genocide of certain animals (and are pretty damn close to doing it to others). Illegalize potential genocide. Don't support the death of humanity. I know this point seems a little extreme if you don't look at the big picture.

If say 10 people per nation have abortions in one year. In one year we lose 709,600 people (that's using the number of NS nations) In two years 1,419,200 virtual people would be aborted. In 9 years more children would be aborted than Jews were killed in the Holocaust (yes I know the Holocaust lasted les than 5 years, but that's still a lot of children who never get a chance to experience life), and I'm sure that more than 10 people/nation have abortions in a year.

For the Glory of God!
Emperor Tony I of Vivelo

Surely by the same logic masturbation should also be a crime? Men everywhere are consigning a number of potential lives equal to the holocaust to death every week!
Abortion should be legalized because as a race we are already overpopulating the planet, and bringing more hungry mouths who will be brought up without love, being children who are forced on the parents, cannot help the situation.
Your Holocaust example is very emotive, but is a completely seperate issue-these were conscious people who were exterminated purely because of their race, not because their parents were unable to cope with looking after them.

Interesting debate, this time. Hopefully, I am not part of the derailment again- :(

I find the arguments regarding whether a fetus is human or not confusing. Of course a human fetus is human...but if the question is whether a human fetus is entitled to the same rights as post birth child based on level of developement...then there's room for discussion.

I would like to state for the record of this thread that I have never expressed my personal stance on abortion here in NS....nor am I likely to.

One thing I do not understand is why people believe they have the right to tell a woman what actions she must take with her body. The assumption is that she was the only one involved with a head on her shoulders and capable of making the decision. Then, she pays the ultimate price of becoming a mom while her partner can walk away with impunity. This seems unjust to me.

Legalization of abortion is the legalization of human genocide. If we legalize abortion, not everyone will do it with every child they are impregnated with, but they can, thereby wiping out humanity within one generation. If you legalize abortion, you legalize the end of humanity. It is not a right everyone will exercise, neither are legalizing dangerous drugs or murder, but everyone then has the right. No one has the right to take a life, except possibly in the case of self defense. No one has the right to make a species extinct except for a certain flood-causing celestial being whom I worship but was told to leave out of the debate. Of course, people do kill people and commit genocide of certain animals (and are pretty damn close to doing it to others). Illegalize potential genocide. Don't support the death of humanity. I know this point seems a little extreme if you don't look at the big picture.

If say 10 people per nation have abortions in one year. In one year we lose 709,600 people (that's using the number of NS nations) In two years 1,419,200 virtual people would be aborted. In 9 years more children would be aborted than Jews were killed in the Holocaust (yes I know the Holocaust lasted les than 5 years, but that's still a lot of children who never get a chance to experience life), and I'm sure that more than 10 people/nation have abortions in a year.

For the Glory of God!
Emperor Tony I of Vivelo

Surely by the same logic masturbation should also be a crime? Men everywhere are consigning a number of potential lives equal to the holocaust to death every week!
Abortion should be legalized because as a race we are already overpopulating the planet, and bringing more hungry mouths who will be brought up without love, being children who are forced on the parents, cannot help the situation.
Your Holocaust example is very emotive, but is a completely seperate issue-these were conscious people who were exterminated purely because of their race, not because their parents were unable to cope with looking after them.

dude i dont know where you got you "info" but the world is not over populated we can everyperson in the world into texas alone and everyone can have atleast 1 acre of land.

Texas is big- :) -but not quite that big!

dude i dont know where you got you "info" but the world is not over populated we can everyperson in the world into texas alone and everyone can have atleast 1 acre of land.

[OOC:

Texas has 167.63 million acres (source: USDA). There are approximately 6.3 billion people in the world. That's about 38 people per acre, not one. And, of course, those people have to be fed, which requires farmland. And not every place in Texas is habitable or arable.

BTW, it took me all of 30 seconds of research to discover all of this. Please don't make wild claims if you can't be bothered to check their accuracy.]

A little bunch of cells sucking blood through a tube has as much significance as a mosquito... It cannot think for itself, it has no consciousness, therefore it is not recognizably human.

Therefore, as with insects, there should be no reason why terminating their life is an issue. They are not human, they might possibly become one at some point, but the same is true for an egg in the uterus or sperm in the testes.

The argument that it should be important to keep alive since it MIGHT become a human someday is nonsense, if you were to go with that then by the same policy you should make it illegal for an egg to go through a woman's womb without getting fertilized, since it would die and be ejected from the woman's body... Enforced motherhood? Pretty stupid concept.

Oh, and with Of portugal's point?dude i dont know where you got you "info" but the world is not over populated we can everyperson in the world into texas alone and everyone can have atleast 1 acre of land.The amount of land isn't the issue, the thing is that the people that use land need to have food and water to survive, more if they want to have a high quality of life.

Christianity's beliefs be damned, they are irrelevant.

It is the right of the woman to choose whether or not she wants to continue a pregnancy, not the father or a fundamentalist religious group. Sure, if you believe that abortion is wrong, you should be free to tell people why, but not giving people a choice on what they want to do is pathetic.

Ah, Gurthack beat me to it with his reply. Well done. ;)

Abortion is wrong.

Abortion should be allowed only for babies born because of rape, incest, or other such things.

If they can go have sex then they can go take care of a baby. Teach the girl some responsibility. And if you can't take care of the baby, you can donate him/her to the government to take care of and find a home for.

and while i agree with you wholeheartedly, what about a woman who says she has been raped just to have an abortion? don't think i'm crazy, there are people desperate enough to do that.

-mari, the overruling queen of the republic of lopikland

Abortion is wrong.

Abortion should be allowed only for babies born because of rape, incest, or other such things.

If they can go have sex then they can go take care of a baby. Teach the girl some responsibility. And if you can't take care of the baby, you can donate him/her to the government to take care of and find a home for.

and while i agree with you wholeheartedly, what about a woman who says she has been raped just to have an abortion? don't think i'm crazy, there are people desperate enough to do that.

-mari, the overruling queen of the republic of lopikland

ok...I can see that point....I guess where I get hung up on it is that the potential is there for a human fetus to develope into an independant human.....the question of human seems irrelavent to me.

YOU spread your legs, YOU deal with the consequences.

Is spreading your legs something that really requires consequences, if it doesn't need any? I think not. If we can get rid of the consequences (Including sexually transmitted diseases), then why is casual sex such a bad thing?

why is it such a bad thing? because it is not any old recreation activity the point is to create a child! And when you use this act you willing are allowing the child into you because you know that is the end result!

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

According to the teachings of the great prophet, Xyzzik, the death of an unborn child is a great sin, Atoneable only through death. Also according to Xyzzik: Lust (any sexual intercourse, except with the intention of having a child) is a sin just as great as murder of the few who remain innocent of the sins of life. Both must die in Atonement, but not until the child, if any is born. The child is then placed in the care of the government.

Such is the will of He-who-is-holy, as proclaimed by Xyzzik. All who deny His will are to lose their dirty sinful lives to the Forgivers.

Legalization of abortion is the legalization of human genocide. If we legalize abortion, not everyone will do it with every child they are impregnated with, but they can, thereby wiping out humanity within one generation. If you legalize abortion, you legalize the end of humanity. It is not a right everyone will exercise, neither are legalizing dangerous drugs or murder, but everyone then has the right. No one has the right to take a life, except possibly in the case of self defense. No one has the right to make a species extinct except for a certain flood-causing celestial being whom I worship but was told to leave out of the debate. Of course, people do kill people and commit genocide of certain animals (and are pretty damn close to doing it to others). Illegalize potential genocide. Don't support the death of humanity. I know this point seems a little extreme if you don't look at the big picture.

If say 10 people per nation have abortions in one year. In one year we lose 709,600 people (that's using the number of NS nations) In two years 1,419,200 virtual people would be aborted. In 9 years more children would be aborted than Jews were killed in the Holocaust (yes I know the Holocaust lasted les than 5 years, but that's still a lot of children who never get a chance to experience life), and I'm sure that more than 10 people/nation have abortions in a year.

For the Glory of God!
Emperor Tony I of Vivelo

Surely by the same logic masturbation should also be a crime? Men everywhere are consigning a number of potential lives equal to the holocaust to death every week!
Abortion should be legalized because as a race we are already overpopulating the planet, and bringing more hungry mouths who will be brought up without love, being children who are forced on the parents, cannot help the situation.
Your Holocaust example is very emotive, but is a completely seperate issue-these were conscious people who were exterminated purely because of their race, not because their parents were unable to cope with looking after them.

Of Portgal has a very valid point, derived from logic and reason. Emperor Tony of Vivelo on the other advances an arguement steeped in emotion and illogic. Tony, my man, the LEGALIZATION of abortion is not the same thing as the REQUIREMENT of abortion. No one is forcing the woman to have a safe and legal abortion, at least no one in government. That has been made illegal, as has forced sterilization (except in rare instances), but to use your logic, based upon a religiously-based agruement, is so sad. It is wrong. It is false and based on distortions and lies.

Contrary to the suggestions, I have not conceeded the position, abortion is still morally justifiable.

I did indeed suggest that a feotus is human, but that it is, a human feotus, a human not yet fully formed, not yet able to possess "human" rights. Now, someone suggested that governments (America at least) garuntees rights to "all humans". Now, in this purely technical legal sense, the law only views a child as a "human" if it has taken a breath. Feotuses at 23 weeks do not breath, have no ability to breath even if they had the chance to. Hence, in the narrow legal sense suggested, abortion is provided for. People are not charged on two counts of murder if they kill a pregnant mother, they are charged with Murder, and "illegal abortion". My point is that it is irrelevant wether it's human or horse, it can't posses rights, so terminating it is morally acceptable. And just to reinforce, allowing abortion is very different to requiring it. There will be no end to the human race as a result of abortion being allowed. Overpopulation will kill us before over-abortion.

If we follow the maths provided, 10 abortions a year, we do end up with those figures. Then examine the average pop. of a NS nation, say 200 million people (the game is set up with this as the average), so that's 200 000 000 x 75 000. The result is 15 with twelve zeros behind it. So, there's 7 500 000 000 000 women in the NS world. Say they have 4.8 babies in their lifetime of 54 years (the averages for the real world). That's 666 666 666 666 and 2/3s babies in the NS world a year. Gee, in the face of six hundred and sixty six billion babies, seven hundred thousand will not result in the extinction of the human race. We'd still have 666 665 957 066 little tackers running round. Hmmm, BIG picture indeed. And yes, everytime you clap your hands, you commit a holocaust on your "human" skin cells. And to pick up the Masturbation analogy, there's around 100 million sperm each male kills each time. that's 20 holocausts. However, we ain't dying out as a result.


We welcome the great prophet to the debate, however would ask that he takes his allocated seat in the public gallery, along with the other dieties. I belive the Christian God is quite eager to have a chat. Keep the sky pixies out of it, this is a debate of reason, of avoiding imposition of one's viewpoint on others.

The feotus is not "garunteed" an existance as a human at all. If God exists in his described form, he is the worlds largest abortion provider, consigning just under half of all pregnancies to miscarriage due to a myriad of causes. Do not presume that just because it has potential to be something, that it will.

I think we would find many people to contest the statement that the only point of Sex is for propergation. Sorry if it grates against some belief systems, but people do have sex for fun.

We need to remove the concept of blame for the pregancy from this debate. The fact that I have human rights is removed from the circumstances of my conception, and so with the feotus. In following the logic proposed, we can take two paths, either equally valid. The worrying aspect is the attributation of rights based on circumstances, which must be resisted as it's potential for abuse is so high. Either rights are universal to people who posses them, or they are non-existant. Why, if they are all human and deserving of rights as proposed, do rape and incest concieved feotuses lack the rights of other feotuses, is it legal to kill a 30 yr old who was originally a rape-baby? Clearly we need a better system of deciding than that. The more worrying aspect is if we aply this logic in a different context and say that only people concieved in certain circumstances are elligible for rights, the government could say it must be in wedlock, say it must not be with Jewish people, this is the Nazi rationale and MUST be avoided.


Apply rights in a logical and systematic manner, and we avoid such problems. Feotuses at 23weeks term cannot differentiate between the outside world and themselves, so cannot realise they are alive, so cannot claim the right to life, so abortion can be moraly justified before 23 weeks.

Have a nice day.

this comes down to civil rights...

If you allow free speach, you must allow all speech, no matter how offensive, inaccurate, rascist or awful it seems.

The same is true for abortion, if your people have rights, the very basic one of deciding what to do with their body, they get complete control over their body, it doesn't matter how evil, offensive, and murderous abortions are its a part of the civil rights you must respect. The blade cuts both ways, just as the government can't demand your lung, deny you treatment, or force you to stay on life support (with a living will)

You can encourage abstinance, protected sex, etc. but in the end you have no right to make the decision. Just as you can educate a rascist person, but you cannot strip the right of free speech from him.

A woman's body is her own. If she wants to have a clump of meaningless cells (that *COULD* become a human someday, but is not in fact proven to be a human by being conscious) removed from her body, that is up to her.

Potential is different from being. Just because something might become something else one day is no reason to treat it like it already IS something else.

Of course a fetus is not viable outside its mother's womb... then again, I know 15 year olds who aren't viable. If your claim that abortion is right is because fetus' cannot survive on their own, consider how many children you know that would survive on their own?

If it's ok to kill non-viable organisms, then why not wipe out old people, and retards, etc... Abortion is another form of Nazism...

</Rant>

Afterthought:

If a woman's body is her own to choose what she wants to do with it, what about unborn women? If an unborn baby girl wishes to live, then isn't an obortionist taking away her right to choose what to do with her body?

Afterthought:

If a woman's body is her own to choose what she wants to do with it, what about unborn women? If an unborn baby girl wishes to live, then isn't an obortionist taking away her right to choose what to do with her body?

The issue (or one of the issues; there are many--Global Market has a totally independent and fairly good point about this too) is that it's not even clear what it would be for an embryo to "wish to live". During the first trimester, the nervous system is barely developed at all, and even later in pregnancy, it's fairly rudimentary. It's not particularly clear how it could "wish to live", any more than it's clear how your appendix could "wish to live."

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

why is it such a bad thing? because it is not any old recreation activity the point is to create a child!

What does this even *mean*? Why should human activities have to have a point other than the one the people performing them intend?

I have to admit that I don't envy the partners of anyone who thinks that sex is merely a baby-making endeavor. It doesn't seem like that would be much fun. A bit like going to a restaurant where the chef believes that the point of eating is avoiding starvation.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

Of course a fetus is not viable outside its mother's womb... then again, I know 15 year olds who aren't viable. If your claim that abortion is right is because fetus' cannot survive on their own, consider how many children you know that would survive on their own?

If it's ok to kill non-viable organisms, then why not wipe out old people, and retards, etc... Abortion is another form of Nazism...

</Rant>

15 year olds are quite viable, if you put one of them in an environment without any support from others, lets say if they became orphans, their will to live will make them adapt. The elderly and the mentally retarded are still viable. They still have their vital life functions working, and do not require attachment to another human.

Afterthought:

If a woman's body is her own to choose what she wants to do with it, what about unborn women? If an unborn baby girl wishes to live, then isn't an obortionist taking away her right to choose what to do with her body?

If you are not self-aware, death means nothing to you. If you cannot understand your own existance then what is there to take away? If something does not know it is alive it will not care to stay alive.

My point is that it is irrelevant wether it's human or horse, it can't posses rights, so terminating it is morally acceptable.

I think that you'll find a WIDE difference between what's moral and what's legal. The two are not one and the same.

If you are not self-aware, death means nothing to you. If you cannot understand your own existance then what is there to take away? If something does not know it is alive it will not care to stay alive.

In that case, it would be okay to abort newborns, third-trimester unborns, many extremely meantally handicapped, etc. None of them are self-aware, and none can understand their own existence.

The elderly and the mentally retarded are still viable. They still have their vital life functions working, and do not require attachment to another human.

Siamese twins? People who require pacemakers? Elderly who require machines for life support? They don't fit that mould either.

i was not stating what was right or what was not, i was stating that the fetus would not have a will to live. And it was in response to the unborns will to do something with their body.

The elderly and the mentally retarded are still viable. They still have their vital life functions working, and do not require attachment to another human.

Siamese twins? People who require pacemakers? Elderly who require machines for life support? They don't fit that mould either.

And i am not morally obligated to keep any of them alive. I am especially not obligated to give from my own body to keep them alive.

If you are not self-aware, death means nothing to you. If you cannot understand your own existance then what is there to take away? If something does not know it is alive it will not care to stay alive.

What is the purpose of your existance? According to your statement, if you cannot explain your purpose for being here on this planet, then you do not have a right to live. Do you understand your existance? No cop out statements such as to live and breathe, to make this world a better or worse place, or any of the other statements that explain nothing. No theories. Just facts. What is the purpose of your life?

What needs to be done is the development of a system that can keep a foetus alive outside a womb. I'm sure this is possible as the scientists are able to keep other organisms and even organs in solution to keep them alive for a long time. This would keep the foetus alive without encroaching in the mother's right to do what she wants with her body. She can go on an live a normal life without having to have a baby or an abortion, both of which could be detrimental to her well being. Our nation understands that this would put into question the importance of the female as a breeding machine, but it is our belief that this will be good isntead of bad. People may also ask if their is a lack of humanity in people who are not "of woman born" but this is surely a better alternative than stopping their existence. The Incorruptibles ask for an international scientific endevour to develop a in vitro foetal development system.

If you are not self-aware, death means nothing to you. If you cannot understand your own existance then what is there to take away? If something does not know it is alive it will not care to stay alive.

What is the purpose of your existance? According to your statement, if you cannot explain your purpose for being here on this planet, then you do not have a right to live. Do you understand your existance? No cop out statements such as to live and breathe, to make this world a better or worse place, or any of the other statements that explain nothing. No theories. Just facts. What is the purpose of your life?

No I'm saying if you do not know you are alive, you can be killed and not care. It was in direct response to the prospect of a fetus having a will to live.

No I'm saying if you do not know you are alive, you can be killed and not care. It was in direct response to the prospect of a fetus having a will to live.

If you try to smother a one day old infant, who, we assume, doesn't have any concept of what being alive is, that infant will fight for it's life. No matter how futile. Who's to say that a fetus doesn't, will not, or cannot fight for his/her life? The scientist that can not agree on what came first, the chicken or the egg? Creation or evolution? Less filling, taste great? At what point does life actually begin? Could be the misconception is conception. Sperm swim. Eggs migrate to the uterus. Sounds like life to me.

No I'm saying if you do not know you are alive, you can be killed and not care. It was in direct response to the prospect of a fetus having a will to live.

If you try to smother a one day old infant, who, we assume, doesn't have any concept of what being alive is, that infant will fight for it's life. No matter how futile. Who's to say that a fetus doesn't, will not, or cannot fight for his/her life? The scientist that can not agree on what came first, the chicken or the egg? Creation or evolution? Less filling, taste great? At what point does life actually begin? Could be the misconception is conception. Sperm swim. Eggs migrate to the uterus. Sounds like life to me.

Abortion is wrong.

Abortion should be allowed only for babies born because of rape, incest, or other such things.


Wait...so it's okay to do something wrong because of circumstance? If you make an exception, then that means that the act isn't inherently wrong. If abortion is murder, then it is even if it was the result of a rape or incest, etc.

That being said, I don't believe in a legal ban on abortion primarily because the arguments against it always wind up invoking religion at some point, and people's religious beliefs have no business being codified into law. If that happens, then it is only a matter of time before someone puts a religious belief from a DIFFERENT religion than yours into law, and you get very upset.

No I'm saying if you do not know you are alive, you can be killed and not care. It was in direct response to the prospect of a fetus having a will to live.

If you try to smother a one day old infant, who, we assume, doesn't have any concept of what being alive is, that infant will fight for it's life. No matter how futile. Who's to say that a fetus doesn't, will not, or cannot fight for his/her life? The scientist that can not agree on what came first, the chicken or the egg? Creation or evolution? Less filling, taste great? At what point does life actually begin? Could be the misconception is conception. Sperm swim. Eggs migrate to the uterus. Sounds like life to me.

I wonder who did the experiment of attempting to smother a one day old child? I question this "factoid". It sounds like a manufactured argument. If a fetus had any ability to fight for its own life then it would stop crack-adicted pregnant women from smoking crack, right?

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

you know in nature abortions happen all the time, on the conscious level. A hawk for example, will squash its eggs if there is not enough food.



The Human Race needs to do 4 things

Breath
Eat & Drink
Sleep
and Procreate

our bodies do not like the idea of abstination... They weren't designed to do that, our species evolved being hunted, killed, and endangered by much more powerful species. Most humans would die before they were old enough to fend for themselves, so what is the result? Humans have kids, humans have a lot of kids. That way if 1 kid dies there are still many more who are still alive.

Now we live in a modern world, having ten kids by the time we're 25 is not a bright idea. But our instincts are still telling our race to breed. It is naive to think that we will be sucessful going against our instincts and stop having sex. So what do we have instead? Contraceptives and Abortions, just like the hawk, we will kill our young if they; pose a threat to us, we can't support them, or do not want them.

However sad it may be that the hawk crushes its eggs or the potential mother gets an abortion does not enter into it, this is life, this is the way things work.

thats is such bull! what if i dont want to give taxes to welfare? i mean comeon all those people do is mooch off of our hard earned money anyway! (this is not my opinion but i am useing it as an example)

thats is such bull! what if i dont want to give taxes to welfare? i mean comeon all those people do is mooch off of our hard earned money anyway! (this is not my opinion but i am useing it as an example)

the right to your body and the right to your property are very different things.

What if you don't want to give a kidney to someone? that is the issue, not your money being sent to the federal gvmt.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

thats is such bull! what if i dont want to give taxes to welfare? i mean comeon all those people do is mooch off of our hard earned money anyway! (this is not my opinion but i am useing it as an example)

No legitimate government should rob its citizens. Therefore, welfare is NOT the proper concern of government.

I realize that a tiny marginal tax rate may be necsesary, but it should be based on consumption and not income and only be used on things that individuals logically couldn't do, like defense (though I think our military is too big, we DO need a military), emergenices, and the day-to-day.

i will repeat again that if a fetus is not a baby then a person who has killed a pregnant woman should not be charged with a double murder right?!!

Right

thats is such bull! what if i dont want to give taxes to welfare? i mean comeon all those people do is mooch off of our hard earned money anyway! (this is not my opinion but i am useing it as an example)

No legitimate government should rob its citizens. Therefore, welfare is NOT the proper concern of government.

I realize that a tiny marginal tax rate may be necsesary, but it should be based on consumption and not income and only be used on things that individuals logically couldn't do, like defense (though I think our military is too big, we DO need a military), emergenices, and the day-to-day.

That argument is, in my opinion, very unconvincing. In order to address it, I must ask how you determine property from a theoretical standpoint.

Physical objects that a person owns...

Or do you want the Legalese?

Physical objects that a person owns...

Or do you want the Legalese?

Let me clarify; how do you argue that
a) Property is an 'inalienable' right?
b) how do you determine what constitutes property/ownership?

abortion is the violation of the cholds rights!

sprry everyone wrong forum! =)

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

if the people try to protect themselves, and still concieve, then they should be allowed to abort if neccesarry.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

ye yea what cha think about that one now yeah yeah

Must apologize, I've been tied down with a lot of schoolwork for the past couple days, so I've been unable to hit up the forums.


Locke on equality and the state of nature:
The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possesions; for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the owrld by his order and about his buisness; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not another's pleasure...

I disagree that this relies solely on God. Read it to yourself again. The state of nature has natural law, which is reason. His reference to an 'omnipotent maker' is ONLY to the creation of humans, not to their guidance after creation. They have rights because they exist. The reference to God is the process of their creation. It is possible to applt Locke to a non-religious context and it works just fine.

As for the rest of my message being baseless conjecture, I will say this: I conjecture, but not baselessly. I said that it was my opinion on what Rousseau might say, and then tried to bring in a bit of his writing to support that. As for my last two paragraphs, yes they are my own thoughts, but I hardly think they are baseless. A fetus has a unique DNA sequence (unless a clone or set of paternal twins/triplets etc), in any case it is identifiable as human tissue. I don't see how that can be considered baseless. My last point, regarding where th choice of pregnancy is made, is my own opinion as well, and I explained in as clear of terms as I could why that is. Is it really baseless?

Also, I'd like to say to Vivelo: I agree with you on a more liberal attitude regarding rape, as it was not the woman/girl's choice at that point.

And lastly, to the person who said abortion cannot be discussed without religion, I argue that it cannot be. I consider myself pretty not religious, yet I oppose and attempt to reason out why am opposed to abortion. I also think that Vivelo has done an admirable job of keeping his personal view of religion from entering into this discussion.

Legalization of abortion is the legalization of human genocide. If we legalize abortion, not everyone will do it with every child they are impregnated with, but they can, thereby wiping out humanity within one generation. If you legalize abortion, you legalize the end of humanity. It is not a right everyone will exercise, neither are legalizing dangerous drugs or murder, but everyone then has the right. No one has the right to take a life, except possibly in the case of self defense. No one has the right to make a species extinct except for a certain flood-causing celestial being whom I worship but was told to leave out of the debate. Of course, people do kill people and commit genocide of certain animals (and are pretty damn close to doing it to others). Illegalize potential genocide. Don't support the death of humanity. I know this point seems a little extreme if you don't look at the big picture.

If say 10 people per nation have abortions in one year. In one year we lose 709,600 people (that's using the number of NS nations) In two years 1,419,200 virtual people would be aborted. In 9 years more children would be aborted than Jews were killed in the Holocaust (yes I know the Holocaust lasted les than 5 years, but that's still a lot of children who never get a chance to experience life), and I'm sure that more than 10 people/nation have abortions in a year.

For the Glory of God!
Emperor Tony I of Vivelo

Surely by the same logic masturbation should also be a crime? Men everywhere are consigning a number of potential lives equal to the holocaust to death every week!
Abortion should be legalized because as a race we are already overpopulating the planet, and bringing more hungry mouths who will be brought up without love, being children who are forced on the parents, cannot help the situation.
Your Holocaust example is very emotive, but is a completely seperate issue-these were conscious people who were exterminated purely because of their race, not because their parents were unable to cope with looking after them.

Of Portgal has a very valid point, derived from logic and reason. Emperor Tony of Vivelo on the other advances an arguement steeped in emotion and illogic. Tony, my man, the LEGALIZATION of abortion is not the same thing as the REQUIREMENT of abortion. No one is forcing the woman to have a safe and legal abortion, at least no one in government. That has been made illegal, as has forced sterilization (except in rare instances), but to use your logic, based upon a religiously-based agruement, is so sad. It is wrong. It is false and based on distortions and lies.

I realize the legalization is not the same as requiring it. I realize that it would take a long time. My figures were also very random. Abortions would not stay constant if they were not illegalized. As they would become more and more accepted they would be done more and more, turning sex into something almost purely recreational instead of the reproductive purpose that, excuse my reference to God, God intended it for. That would be less and less children being born. As the birth rate drops, it starts off rather pathetically, but could, long after all of us here debating it are dead, cause us to be a pathetic and dwindling race. The legalization is a subliminal requirement, not by law but by society. People now allowed to do it, therefore they will be tempted to, as more and more of the person's friends have sex and abortions, more people (This is based for the most part on teens) will feel compelled to do it as well. It's a little thing called peer pressure.

Among those who are concerned for the welfare of te human race and the plaet Earth as a whole it is generally recognized that one of the most dangerous factors to the pollution of the ecosystem, to the degradation of the quality of life, of the depletion of natural resources,is the OVERPOPULATION of the world. Just take fossel fuels, we are burning away oil faster and faster because of the demands of the over population and increasing industrialization of the world.

May I suggest your read the essays of Thomas Malthus, an 19th century English Economist. The was the pioneer in the theory of the growth of the humanpopulation and demands on the means of production will grow geographicall (multiply upon itself) while the ability to expand production will only increase arithmatetically (add upon itself). His predictions have trned out remarkably accurate, but he did not envision the health crisis in Africa, nor the mass starvations.

Remember the anti-abortion group "Operation Rescue"? Have you noticed they were going great guns for a while bt stopped about ten years ago? Want to know why?

The leaders of "Operation rescue would travel around the country, ralling people, getting donations, and promoting civil disopediance" where groups of people would were instructed in how to break the aw in their protesting of law protcting the rights of women seeking legal medical consultation and treatment. "Operation Rescue" had also been targeting the providers of legal medical proceedure.

When they reached te State of Minnesota the son of Hubert humphry, the democratic Vice-President under LBJ, Skip Humphry, who was at the time Secretary of State, took note of the past practises of "Operation Rescue" and their announced agenda of advocating the breaking of laws. Armed withthis knowledge Skip Humphry cited "Operations Rescue" and its leaders for conspiring to break laws, under the title of the RICO ACT.

The Rico Act was originally written to combat the Mafia and organized crime. but t was ideally suited to the case of "Operation Rescue". none of the previously announced activities of O.R. took place in Minnesota.

Please note that nothing like "operation rescue" has been attempted as other state's autorney generals took note of what had happened in Minnesota.

"Regardless of society's feelings on the subject, sex is orignally intended for reproduction. It should not be for pleasure. It simply was not intended to be this way" -- Vivelo

Stop using the Internet to debate this topic. Regardless of your feelings on the subject, the Internet was originally intended for national defense. It should not be for pleasure. It simply was not intended to be this way.

Ahh, beautiful debate, best stress relief availiable.

To start with, we have three themes, the first is the purpose of Sex, the second the place and necessity of religion, and the third the issue of the consequences of murdering a pregnant woman.

Now, on the pregnant murder issue, someone seems to be labouring under the misconception that an individual that does murder a pregnant woman is charged with double murder. To be blunt, they're not. The law (the common law system as opposed to the civil law system) does not consider a feotus to be a "person" to be alive untill after it has taken its first breath. Hence no murder charge. This purely legal argument is backed up on a moral level when we consider the no knowledge/no right postulate, a feotus at 23 weeks has no ability to expirience (and hence no knowledge) being alive. Someone has proposed that a one-day-old infant has no knowledge of being alive. Now, apart from the fact that I defined (and this is the most widely accepted definition) being alive in human terms is the ability to recognise a world independant of themselves, it follows that as knowledge is expirience of whatever we're examining. Expirience of a world outside basically equals knowledge and hence a right to life.

Now we come to the critical issue in tonight's debate. That of the right to impose a belief system held as true by one individual upon others. THere exists no such right, anywhere under any circumstances. The issues of the purpose of Sex, and the necessity of religion fall under these categories. An individual's position on both are a product of their individual belief systems, which are unique to each and every person. May I point out that if someone else has an abortion, it is not you personally that is going to Hell, if such a thing exists, it is that particular mother. Now, if someone wants to "save" someone from such a fate, feel free to talk as much as they want, just don't get in the way if they choose to continue. It's not any person's perogitive to impose a belief on anyone else. Leave religion out of the debate cause it's a belief system (which is not universal in any sense), leave personal views on the Morality of Sex out of it too, cause this is a belief system too. I would love to hear a case justifying imposing beliefs on others without their consent. And to be frank, even it doesn't matter how much you compromise you belief system ("I'm being very liberal here"), it doesn't make it any more valid or worthy of acceptance.

And to everyone, I'm sorry If I appear an ogre on the "emotive rubbish" stuff, it's just that the last (very good) thread we had got locked as a result of some over-zealous emotion in the thread. Lets avoid that. Besides, emotive statements are not debating, it's cheap shots to win points when arguments fail. Feel free to give us hypotheticals to examine, but please accept that the purpose of a debate is to contest ideas and see which ones stand up to scrutiny. If it's a poor example, expect it to be labelled as such, but don't let this deter you from proposing good ones.
And yes, Sarcasm, a wonderful thing that I use far too frequently. On a more serious note, it is a valid way of pointing holes in cases, so don't think it's banned. There is a difference between sarcasm and "EVILLLLLLLLL BABBBBBBBBBYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY KILLLLLLLERRRSSSSSSSSS" though, isn't there. Avoid the latter please, and the Nazi stuff.

I'm working 14hour shifts at the moment (untill a collegue gets back from East Timor in a couple of weeks), so sorry if I missed anything, please bring it to my attention.

Have a nice day.

Hmm, taking a break from a poli-sci essay to come and discuss political issues. It's all good.

TheKnightsOfNi makes a good point when s/he says "I would love to hear a case justifying imposing beliefs on others without their consent. And to be frank, even it doesn't matter how much you compromise you belief system ("I'm being very liberal here"), it doesn't make it any more valid or worthy of acceptance." I agree with TheKnightsOfNi, and I often try not to force my views on others (though it can be said I don't always succeed in avoiding this).

And now, to my particular crafty enjoyment, I will use this maxim to demonstrate another reason it is possible to disagree with abortion. Given: forcing your beliefs on others is bad. So, when a fetus is aborted (disallowing it the ability to form opinions of its own), is not terminating it violating its right not to have the beliefs of others forced upon it? It is denying the fetus its ability to think (or to progress to thought) and by doing so the person performing an abortion is forcing their view that abortion is appropriat on the fetus. Hypothetically, the fetus could have developed and (many years later) have become an opposer of abortion. In the same fashion, abortion removes the ability of the fetus (and the human it will become) to choose what happens to their bodies. Who knows?

Anyway, that whole paragraph is meant sort of as a joke, because I'm not that abstract and metaphysical about the correctness of abortion.

The crux of the debate here, and there seems to be no way to persuade one side to agree with the other, is when a fetus become classified as a human, thus possessing the Universal right to life. I say (for the 3rd time, I know it's tedious) that I believe a human cell or cell cluster which will, given time, develop into an independent human life is human and has a right to live. It has its own DNA sequence and will progress to maturity unless an outside force acts upon it.

In regard to the comments made about bodies miscarrying (natural abortion), I say this. It is a natural process. There are many cues on human DNA for a developing fetus to suicide if it has gross errors. It is our own, uncontrollable way of natural selection. I feel that just because human bodies have this ability does not mean that an artificial process should be used to terminate fetuses which have passed all of the body's (and nature's) rigorous examinations. Why persecute those (fetuses) who have already been determined, in a sense, worthy of development (by the woman's body)?

Contraceptives such as condoms and medically prescribe birth control pills as well as vasectomies and the female equavalent and plain old abstinence should be the controlling factor when choosing whether a life should be created or not. After a fetus lives within a mother, that choice has been made (and my reasoning here, the free choice, is what make me also believe abortion solely in the case of rape is acceptable - it was not a choice). Overpopulation should be addressed when choosing whether to concieve a child, not after it is concieved. The world is already past its carrying capacity, but it is not right for those of us who were lucky enough to become adults to choose who will and will not make it to adulthood.

I'll now deal with the purpose of sex, as it has been introduced to this discussion. The primary physical purpose of sex is reproduction, but it is not the only function. The pleasure reaction is supposed to be a reward for reproducing, way back from the time when our minds were too simple to comprehend the need to reproduce for continuance of the species. But, I see no reason why safe sex for recreation is bad. Sex feels good, so enjoy (though I don't advocate over-indulgence - there are other fun things in life).

I wonder who did the experiment of attempting to smother a one day old child? I question this "factoid". It sounds like a manufactured argument. If a fetus had any ability to fight for its own life then it would stop crack-adicted pregnant women from smoking crack, right?

I do indeed hope no one has done such an "experiment", but having children of my own, and having had to gently blow into their mouths to make the mucous come out through their noses or suck the mucous from their noses, when they where unable breath through their noses because of a cold, they did not take kindly to it. How's that for a fact? And the thing about the crack addict, can you stop one from pulling the trigger if they have you subdued with a gun to your head? You have the ability to fight for your life. But, you would be in no position to match your opposition. Perhaps someone could plead for your life on your behalf.

I seriously doubt that people who are so anti-abortion that
they grow very angry and loud are:

1) Out of high school yet, or
2) Have ever been in the situation so they actually had
to make that decision themselves, so they want to make
the choice for everyone else.

If you've been in the position to choose, and you chose not to abort, then you have a lot more on your side of the argument.

I am slightly insulted by Namania's implication that only young, naive people hold more conservative views on abortion. I am college student, I am nearly 20 years old. I have a well-reasoned view against the practice of abortion based on what I have found to be valuable in my life and my studies. I have thankfully not had to face whether or not to have a child yet, but if my girlfriend (whom I hope to marry some day) and I ever needed to cross such a bridge we have both decided that an abortion is out of the question.

Regarding whether people who are opposed to abortion wanting to make choices for others, I do not view opposing abortion as making a choice for other people. An abortion can be viewed as arbitrarily making choices about the life of another human who has done nothing wrong other than been conceived by two outside forces at an ill opportune time. It is not a fetus' fault it exists, so why do we persecute it?

Perhaps you would like to reconsider your assumptions?

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

The crux of the debate here, and there seems to be no way to persuade one side to agree with the other, is when a fetus become classified as a human, thus possessing the Universal right to life. I say (for the 3rd time, I know it's tedious) that I believe a human cell or cell cluster which will, given time, develop into an independent human life is human and has a right to live. It has its own DNA sequence and will progress to maturity unless an outside force acts upon it.


My stem cells could potentially be grown into another human being. Does this mean that if i killed them it'd be murder?

(and my reasoning here, the free choice, is what make me also believe abortion solely in the case of rape is acceptable - it was not a choice)

If abortion is murder, then wouldn't abortions in cases of rape still be murder? If it is murder, then it must still be murder even though the cells were formed through a rape. And therefore it is still wrong, so abortion wouldnt be allowed because it would just be another criminal act and so your logic falls through the floor

its never nessesary to abort a baby b/c thers always sombody out there to take care of the child. y dont they just give it to a orphanage?

There is not always someone ready to take care of the child....witness all of the children currently in foster care, many of whome will reach their majority having ben bumped from home to home. This is a good alternative?

I was lucky. I found a set of parents who not only wanted a child, but who met my approval.

I had parents who gave me the time and space to make the decision-without pressuring me or telling me what I must do-and their stance on abortion is distinctly against.

Frankly, I find that most people who voice an opinion on this issue really have none...because they have never been there. Until you have, you don't have much to say, because you haven't gone through the process.

Enough of my rant-sorry, all.

Believe me-any decision made regarding a child is not taken lightly.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

two identical twins have the same dna, does only one of them have the right to life? And with a little manipulation i could make my stem cells have different dna, will this give it a right to live?

well the govermeny should provide specific instituions to provide caer and shelter for orphanes that were saved from being muredered by abortions.

I've got no time (just woken up and have to leave in 1/2 hour), so it'll just have to be restricted to two quick points, one serious, the other not-so-serious.

The serious point first. Someone picked up on the "can't force views" point to raise the issue of the view of the feotus. Now, on the surface this is a very valid and logical point, however the question has to be asked as to wether the feotus does, or even can posses a view at this age. (Please note, when discussing abortion, I restrict myself to feotuses under 23weeks term.) Now, as I have outlined several times in this thread, the feotus at this age does not possess a brain that is operative in the way we are used to, it is a collection of neurons randomly responding to their environment, and as such, it cannot posses a "view" as we discuss them. From here, the point becomes moot. It was suggested that sometime in the future a feotus could possess a view one way or the other and aborting it would be infringing upon this view. Now, apart from the fact that we deney potential views in society all the time in the interest of smooth operation (take voting for example, only happens once every 3 years), we are discussing rights, views are a side element that pertains to those who want to ban abortion on emotive (ie religious or personal belief) grounds, rather than on the basis of rights.

It's interesting to note that the ultimate extension of rights in this context (as it has been applied here) is that no one has any rights at all. No-one has the right to force this "rights system" on anyone, so there are no rights. lovely.

The less serious issue is my use of Thematic rebuttal (you know, the "three main themes" thing). It's a technique widely employed in Championship Debating, and is the most effective method of dealing with argumentation raised by the opposition, as it shows basic flaws in cases proposed without attacking every individual point, it's just a more efficient way to argue basically, a habit I picked up doing Debating for ages. Yes, it's idiosyncratic and possibly annoying, but it's effective, try it, you'll be surprised how much stronger your case becomes if you can argue on broad general themes rather than on easily attacked individual examples. It makes life hard for your opponent. (I've probably just shot myself in the foot, but oh well)

Have a nice day,

Why is it that the faction which wishes to deny a woman's rigt for self determination will advocate for the abstract rights of an unborn fetus, but sem to care so little for the improvement of the quality of life of all the already born?

Why is it there are those so incensed to "protect the right to life" that they would kill do do so? And why do they advocate for the policies which will actually lead to increased mortality, which would be the case if women were once again forced to seek unsafe abortions?

Why is it that the faction which wishes to deny a woman's rigt for self determination will advocate for the abstract rights of an unborn fetus, but sem to care so little for the improvement of the quality of life of all the already born?

Why is it there are those so incensed to "protect the right to life" that they would kill do do so? And why do they advocate for the policies which will actually lead to increased mortality, which would be the case if women were once again forced to seek unsafe abortions?

Why is it that the faction which wishes to deny a woman's rigt for self determination will advocate for the abstract rights of an unborn fetus, but seem to care so little for the improvement of the quality of life of all the already born?

Why is it there are those so incensed to "protect the right to life" that they would kill do do so? And why do they advocate for the policies which will actually lead to increased mortality, which would be the case if women were once again forced to seek unsafe abortions?

Why is it that the faction which wishes to deny a woman's rigt for self determination will advocate for the abstract rights of an unborn fetus, but seem to care so little for the improvement of the quality of life of all the already born?

Why is it there are those so incensed to "protect the right to life" that they would kill do do so? And why do they advocate for the policies which will actually lead to increased mortality, which would be the case if women were once again forced to seek unsafe abortions?

Just a few comments, as it's the first time I've entered into such a heated debate on here.

A lot of the people making the comments here, have probably never been in the situation where they needed to make such a decision.

Not so long ago, I found myself in a situation, I was young, pregnant and quite frankly scared.

Yes, I know, I got laid, and wasn't careful about it. I hold myself entirely responsible, it is my fault that I was in the situation in the first place, because I didn't think through the answer the a simple yes or no question.

I did consider an abortion. Why?
I've been ill for the past five years, my body couldn't sustain a growing child.

Before I could come to a firm decision, I had a natural miscarriage.
Emotionally, it still hurt, even though I had considered an abortion. It hurt because I'd accepted my circumstance, and I was erring on the side of not aborting. The reason I had a miscarriage was because my body couldn't sustain a child.

Some people think it's an easy choice to make, but for women, in a genuinely bad circumstance, who care about the foetus, it is difficult beyond words. I didn't like considering an abortion, but still did.

Abortion is always a difficult subject, and the arguments will go round, and round because the opinions are always very different, and in some cases, quite extreme.

Having probably not added anything worthwhile to this debate, I shall leave it there.

---------
Londominium Inium

I am sorry for your ordeal.


I certainly never have nor will claim that the decision is made easily or lightly in all, most, or any cases.


Why is it there are those so incensed to "protect the right to life" that they would kill do do so?

As someone who does support the right to life, I feel the same way. Some people take the idea of abortion is murder to the extreme length of seeing abortion doctors as murders...premeditated murderers. They often believe in the death penalty as well. In this case, they're not so much Pro-Life as they are Anti-Abortion. When they take it upon themselves to kill abortion doctors, they have become what they supposedly despise, and IMO also, are murdering criminals who should pay the full price of the the law.

I understand what their mindset is: if you truly believe abortion is cold-blooded murder of the same degree as shooting somone in a back alley, do you not have a responsibility to defend the victims? I don't AGREE with it in the least, mind you, but I know what their mindset is.

Why is it that the faction which wishes to deny a woman's rigt for self determination will advocate for the abstract rights of an unborn fetus, but seem to care so little for the improvement of the quality of life of all the already born?

Why is it there are those so incensed to "protect the right to life" that they would kill do do so? And why do they advocate for the policies which will actually lead to increased mortality, which would be the case if women were once again forced to seek unsafe abortions?

You make a good point, Guardians of Arcana. Some people don't, though I myself do care very much about the welfare of a child after it is born. I feel that mainly it is the responsability of the parents to support a child, though there should be mechanisms to support parents, as it's not the child's fault its parents may not be able to support it. Society should provide for a child/baby should its parents falter -- society was created to protect us from harm, so providing an effective system of adoption/orphanage is the public mandate and responsibility.

Also, your arguements are biased to your side of the table "those who would deny a woman's right" and "pro-life"/"pro-choice" are slanted words both sides use to make themselves sound better and the other side worse. I prefer "oppose abortion" and "support abortion;" they are the most honest and basic terms. I opposed abortion, you support it as an option.

I agree with you, however, in speaking out against the reactionaries who oppose abortion so strongly they feel the need to damage property and infringe on the rights of others, thus making themselves as bad or worse than their enemies. But the point you make about unsafe abortions -- it will only increase mortality rates if people are stupid and attempt to perdorm an abortion. It would be a similar concept concept to when people who use drugs OD. They're doing something illegal and not so smart, and they end up killing themselves with it. They paid the price for their poor decision. (however, I'm not picking up the anti-drug crusade - all I want is for people to not endanger the lives of others if they use drugs). In my other mixed-up bag of beliefs, I believe in the death penalty for cases involving the intentional taking of another human life (but not for an attempt, that's prison IMO) and I generally support the right for people to take their own lives, as strange as I may view it. It is their life, after all. I've thrown this in as an aside to Wastra's comments. However, I have never and still do not believe in vigilante enforcement of the law. The only people who have the ability to sentence to a death penalty (or any penalty for that matter) in my mind are the trial judges and juries after a lawful trial.

Why is it that the faction which wishes to deny a woman's rigt for self determination will advocate for the abstract rights of an unborn fetus, but seem to care so little for the improvement of the quality of life of all the already born?


That's simply just not true- it's liberal propaganda and catch phrases. Conservatives care very much about quality of life for the living, they disagree with Liberals on the best was to alleviate the situation.

The Liberal take on how to help a starving person would be to give them a fish sandwich every day to make sure they're healthy. That's fine, no problem with that at all. That's welfare in a nutshell.

The Conservative take is that they'll get that fish sandwich every day for 6 months provided they're attending fishing classes so that they can go out and learn to fish themselves (unless there sia reason they CANNOT learn to fish). Then, when the time comes, they need to be urged to start fishing instead of showing up for their fish sandwich.

Again, neither is WRONG, but different beliefs of what should be done about the issue. It's two different takes on the nature of humanity and people in general. The liberal take is that some people in society just cannot compete for whatever reasons you choose to cite...intelligence, education, etc. The Conservative take (a very Capitalist approach) is that every CAN compete if they WANT to.

Again, who's right? Probably both to some degree.

No, with conservatives not funding education for fear of raising taxes (but the military is worth 50% of government funds, obviously), their approach is: "Haven't got a fish? TOUGH! That's life. No, you can't have this: this is mine, I earned it, I'm a Christian following the straight and narrow, unlike you. Go out and learn to fish."

The term "Pro-Choice" is actually more accurate than "Pro-Abortion". I support a woman's right to opt for the Abortion if she choses to take that course of medical action. I do not advocate, however, that Abortion is the prefered course of action in any and all cases, as some who are advocates ont he other side would have you think. I have heard the argument, and even read it here, that to support the right to chose is tantamount to the requiring that women use that option.

The term "Pro-life" is, as you point out, emotionally evocative. It is an attempt to give the most politically correct "spin" on the policies they advance.

As I pointed out in an earlier post there was the case of "Operation Rescue" who was travelling about the United States with the express purpose of causing local people to break laws, and deny women their contitutionally protected to seek a medical procedure. They were stopped only when they attempted to carry their campain to the Twin Cities. There they were charged with violations of the law under the RICO Act. This stopped them cold.

Unfortunately there are forces always active to try to force their morality upon others. Case in point, the recent act to limit "Partial Birth Abortions." The law as written and passed by Congress and signed by the President is already under court-imposed restraint.

The term "Pro-Choice" is actually more accurate than "Pro-Abortion". I support a woman's right to opt for the Abortion if she choses to take that course of medical action. I do not advocate, however, that Abortion is the prefered course of action in any and all cases, as some who are advocates ont he other side would have you think. I have heard the argument, and even read it here, that to support the right to chose is tantamount to the requiring that women use that option.

The term "Pro-life" is, as you point out, emotionally evocative. It is an attempt to give the most politically correct "spin" on the policies they advance.

As I pointed out in an earlier post there was the case of "Operation Rescue" who was travelling about the United States with the express purpose of causing local people to break laws, and deny women their contitutionally protected to seek a medical procedure. They were stopped only when they attempted to carry their campain to the Twin Cities. There they were charged with violations of the law under the RICO Act. This stopped them cold.

Unfortunately there are forces always active to try to force their morality upon others. Case in point, the recent act to limit "Partial Birth Abortions." The law as written and passed by Congress and signed by the President is already under court-imposed restraint.

i dont see how you think the term pro-life is a political spin. It is very clear we are striving to save the lives of countless deaths of children. whereas pro-choice is a cover up name. it is the complete opposite because the child has no way to be given a choice.

pro life is just a spin since they are making lives that already here on earth more miserable, putting kids in families without love and send millions through the foster program and out on the streets.

I fail to see what kind of life they are saving for these people.

If they truly wanted to save lives they'd be in third world countries handing out vaccines for measles, mumps, and rubella instead of harping on about unborn children with less of a central nervous system then a jellyfish.

Choice is what it is all about, the womans right to choose put anything into her body.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

while you are prosecuting people for stopping potential life, punishing them, setting up a huge system all that money could have been saving lives of people who are already on this earth.

If abortion is murder, then it is also murder in cases of rape. And thus the 'pro-life' party would, if they maintained any semblence of logic, force the mother to carry the child despite the circumstances which resulted in the child.

You talk about punishing the future mother because it was her fault that she had sex. Following that logic, if you get into a car crash, it is your fault and therefore we should not help you, since you accepted the consequences when you got into the car. And in turn you should be punished for your decision.

You speak of how you do not gaurantee a good life, how any life is better then no life. This is a dellusion entertained by fools. There are many things worse then death. And quite frankly i would not care for the person who insisted i be subjected to the lack of a steady home and constant drifting which is the adoption service before being dumped into the streets. Non-existance is not that much worse if it is at all. Perhaps when you can gaurantee not only the kids a good life but the mother a good life too you can begin to push this proposal.


(note: all plural yous, directed at pro-life platform, no one in particular)

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Ok, lot to respond to.

Choice is what it is all about, the womans right to choose put anything into her body.

I'm arguing it was her choice to insert a part of the male anatomy into her body, now she must live with what happens.

You talk about punishing the future mother because it was her fault that she had sex. Following that logic, if you get into a car crash, it is your fault and therefore we should not help you, since you accepted the consequences when you got into the car. And in turn you should be punished for your decision.

We take care of those who were injured that were not at fault (or at least should, in my mind). The people at fault likely have health insurance or some other way to pay for their own treatment at their own expense, thus they take care of themselves and society does not.

There are many things worse then death. And quite frankly i would not care for the person who insisted i be subjected to the lack of a steady home and constant drifting which is the adoption service before being dumped into the streets. Non-existance is not that much worse if it is at all.

There are things worse than death, but the choice of non-existance should be left up to the one whose life will be ending, not someone else.

The term "Pro-Choice" is actually more accurate than "Pro-Abortion". I support a woman's right to opt for the Abortion if she choses to take that course of medical action. I do not advocate, however, that Abortion is the prefered course of action in any and all cases, as some who are advocates ont he other side would have you think. I have heard the argument, and even read it here, that to support the right to chose is tantamount to the requiring that women use that option.

I did not say you are pro-abortion, and I've never assumed that by legalizing it we have forced it upon people. Vivelo makes a good point, however, by saying when more access to it is created, statistically, more abortions will happen. Anyway, back to the issue at hand. I prefer less spin-oriented terms, like I said. I think both pro-life and pro-choice are emotive and sevre little purpose at present than to try and prove some sort of verbal high ground. As I said, I will remain one who opposes abortion, and I believe those who have previously been called pro-choice should be called "supporters of abortion" as you support the concept. The word support does not mean advocate. My new term in now way implies that you advocate for the usage of abortion only than you believe the practive is acceptable.

Lastly, to Demo-Bobylon: I consider myself a moderate conservative, and I must say I have beem highly displeased with almost all of President Bush's actions. Christianity is not the one true, universal religion, our military is large enough, vouchers are not the answer, giving tax refunds in the time of such a budgetary crisis is ludicrous (I could rant for hours about this), and denying the UN by going into Iraq when the situation is clearly worse in North Korea is a step backward in our already low international reputation. I could do a better job, but sadly I've got about 15 years of waiting to do if I ever want that job.

Ok, lot to respond to.

Choice is what it is all about, the womans right to choose put anything into her body.

I'm arguing it was her choice to insert a part of the male anatomy into her body, now she must live with what happens.


If i go for a bike ride, i therefore except the extremely high risks assosciated with it, and if i get into an accident, no matter what medical treatments that are available to me i should not be allowed to take them because obviously i accepted the risks when i got on the bike?

And what about rape? if its murder it still is murder. And thus cannot be allowed. It was not the womans choice but two wrongs acts do not make it right. The excusable circumstances for abortion show the faults in your arguement.

Humans are nothing but heaps of cells and electrical impulses, without a developed nervous system you have no free will, no thought, no feeling. The removal of something like this from your body is not murder. Emotions are nothing but a level of chemicals in your brain. The idea that you need to protect something without feeling and thought is ludicrous. Until you reach a point where you have a nervous system capable of these things your life means nothing.

In the land of Microbrits it is ok to have an Abortion as it is the Woman who has to make the choice

In the land of Microbrits it is ok to have an Abortion as it is the Woman who has to make the choice

What I'm confused about is this:

Why do people say abortion should only be used in the case of rape and incest?

Are children punishment? All these people who say "you spread your legs, you deal with the consequences" have a sick view of what a child is. Saying abortion is okay in the case of rape and incest has nothing to do with the fact that a fetus is currently growing into a child. It just goes, okay, you weren't a whore, so let's take away this problem.

Personally, I think a woman has a right to an abortion; too many children lead horrible, depressed lives and make the mistakes of their parents. But if you think abortion is wrong, that the end, a child, is what is important, then the means should have no bearing on its legality. If you don't believe in abortion, don't believe in it all the way.

Any comments?

I have a question for you exactly when does the fetus become a person with "rights"

we've told you, when they are born

I have a question for you exactly when does the fetus become a person with "rights"

Rights are acquired gradually, as a function of age (and thus theoretically maturatiy and rationality).

WHen a child is born, they do not have all rights ascribed to them that an adult has. Indeed, according to know young children are more the property of their parents than independent actors. Gradually, more rights are acquired, until they reach age of majority and are considered fully enfranchised citizens.

I have a question for you exactly when does the fetus become a person with "rights"

Rights are acquired gradually, as a function of age (and thus theoretically maturatiy and rationality).

WHen a child is born, they do not have all rights ascribed to them that an adult has. Indeed, according to know young children are more the property of their parents than independent actors. Gradually, more rights are acquired, until they reach age of majority and are considered fully enfranchised citizens.

Actually technically all rights are grantedv when you are born, like the right to vote when you are 18, you may not be able to vote yet but you still technically have the right. You just aren't able to exercise that right yet. A newborn has all the freespeach rights of a college professor but who will be exercising those rights? Or how a 25 year old grad student has the right to run for president. But he cannot exercise it until he is 35.

Soo why then is it considred murder when a parent throw their babies into garbage cans and leave them their to die if it is only part of my body?

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Two themes have arisen scince I was last looking at the thread, the first the concept of the parent's rights and responsibilites over a child, the second, the concept that a pregnancy is somehow a woman's fault.

The prevailing and erroneus view is that when a couple has sex, the woman is solely responsible, and furthermore has carefully considered and balanced the possible risks against the benefits. This view (god forbid) takes the male completely out of the responsibility equation, ignoring the enormous emotion involved in sex. I mean, really, think about it, how many people acctually sit down and balance out risks versus benefit before sex. Maybe before a relationship, but not bedside. Sex is an entirely emotional act, completely devoid of logic, this is why it produces such strong reactions in people. Sex is about love, not logic. The baby should not be punishment for a "sin", as some would have it ( Open your legs, deal with the consequences people), but as a problem with a myriad solutions. One of which is abortion before 23 weeks.

The other theme was regarding parents rights over babies versus baby's rights. In the purely legal terms discussed, there prevails the precedent of dimisnished responsibility, a concept where as the child grows older, it assumes more of its rights and responsibilities that previously were at the parent's discresion. Zilaran is correct in noting the ages at which people can possess certain rights, but incorrect in the interpretation of why this is the case. Rights are granted at certain ages, the right to vote being the most prominant, before voting age, it is assumed the parent will represent the child's best interests at the ballot box, as they are not responsible enough to make such a decision themselves. The rights to run for president ect are meerly restrictions to make sure innappropriate people do not reach such positions of power (obvioulsy failed, GWB got in, maybe an average IQ needs to be a requirment, flawed as those tests are). Diminished responsibility can be applied in the context of abortion easily.

Have a nice day

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Next, the issue of rape...We are giving this option because they in no way consented to the sexual activity. Any other intercourse has had the consent of both parties involved. Rape, the woman had no choice, so she did not agree to possibly have a child.


Vivelo, perhaps you do not realize what you are saying. Murder is okay in circumstances of rape. This is because you

1.) Consider Abortion as Murder
2.) Decide to allow abortion in cases of rape
so using the transitive property murder = abortion
3.) Decide to Allow "Murder" in cases of rape
4.) Therefore an innocent has been murdered due to a rape


About how throwing the baby into a dumpster being wrong we told you at birth it has rights. Read this, think about it, then try to refute it.

Now as to your response about my bike and how kids won't get hurt...

Suicidal chipmunks, on occasion, will run in front of my bike tire (at 30 mph they don't stand a chance) now a chipmunk has a central nervous system, and is therefore capable of some form of thought. The embryo at early stages lacks even this. I am killing a more developed, more intelligent, creatue who can actually feel pain. So while I'm not killing human life i am killing something superior to this. Before you attack me about how a chipmunk is less then a human, how the embryo could have become life, how there is a soul, feelings in the nucleous or so forth let me put this to you: You are made up of millions if not billions of "human life" each cell inside of your with those 48 chromosomes is human life. But you can do whatever the hell you want to those bits of human life because those cells don't have feelings, because it is things with nervous systems which matter not some random collection of stem cells.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

I have one question for those have believers of abortion being wrong in except for the circumstance of rape. Why is it that it is all of a sudden ok to kill with rape? i mean come on, is the child any less of a person if conceived through rape? i dont think so. You should either be entirely against if or for it. Being luke warm is the worst way to defend what you beilieve.,

Okay so lemme get this straight portugal and vivelo, sex is a binding contract and the child is to punish the mother for her lack of abstinence... but the woman can be forced into the contract and it is still binding... Good luck ever getting a court to uphold that.

No we are saying the mother knows what sex is for and should use it as such!

The theme that needs addressing at the moment is that of consequences. Now, for some reason, last time I talked about this I was told that sex does indeed involve logic, but in the same breath that a woman's feelings for her partner will override this. Hmm. Either it does or it doesn't, make up your mind. I will stick with the concept that sex is about love and love has jack all to do with thinking in the face of this ambiguity. Emotion should not be underestimated for the convienience of argument. The consequences are the last thing on anyone's mind while having sex, as you say, maybe the partners work something out beforehand (ie, they discuss it properly), maybe not. Why punish a woman for not talking it through. If we are to follow this punishment through, why not castrate the male partner, as punishment for letting his partner get pregnant. Same logic.

And yes, half-arsed cases don't work. Either abortion is totally wrong in all cases, or it's not. Take a hard line, as portugal is, however in this debate, the hard line is kind of morally repulsive in itself. I cannot condone forcing a woman to take a rape-baby to term. The suicide rate would be astronomical, the woman's self-esteem and respect destroyed. We as a society need to move beyond punishing a woman for suffering a rape.

Have a nice day.

umm so haveing a child is a punishment i always figured it as a gift

Abortion is bad, but it cannot be legislated against because it would only cause more unsafe abortions and prevent safe abortions. It is impossible, within the bounds of reason, to monitor people closely enough to track conceptions so that abortions could be determined. What's more there are natural abortives, certain types of foods and things, along with things like alcohol or cigarettes, that would make even the most die-hard pro-lifer wish the baby hadn't been born, and unless we're willing to say that people are not allowed to eat, drink, or smoke what they like based on information we could not acquire without extreme intrusions into people's private lives, we cannot, in good conscious, ban abortions.

ok i see what your saying. Abortion is wrong but we shouldnt make it illegal because stupid people are going to go off and do it with messed up ways and end up harm the person in them and themselves. Soo to avoid this we allow millions of murders to happen. ahh it makes sense now.

So answer me this why do we out law drugs? people do it anyway. they know it isnt healthy! so why not make it legal i mean cmon whats the harm. same thing with speeding why is it illgal because only STUPID people do other than what the laws says!

Next, the issue of rape...We are giving this option because they in no way consented to the sexual activity. Any other intercourse has had the consent of both parties involved. Rape, the woman had no choice, so she did not agree to possibly have a child.


Vivelo, perhaps you do not realize what you are saying. Murder is okay in circumstances of rape. This is because you

1.) Consider Abortion as Murder
2.) Decide to allow abortion in cases of rape
so using the transitive property murder = abortion
3.) Decide to Allow "Murder" in cases of rape
4.) Therefore an innocent has been murdered due to a rape

The logic there is so bad it's painful.

1) Consider abortion a sub-set of murder
2) Outlaw abortion as murder
3) Realize that murders can be tracked because the disappearance of a logged and recorded person will be noticed, while the disappearance of a person no one has ever seen or knows anything about.

Also, an innocent? Are we saying it would be acceptable for the rapist to kill their victim, because that's pretty illogical. If we are saying that killing a rapist in self-defense is acceptable then we should note that the law is already worded that way if the situation warrents it.

ok i see what your saying. Abortion is wrong but we shouldnt make it illegal because stupid people are going to go off and do it with messed up ways and end up harm the person in them and themselves. Soo to avoid this we allow millions of murders to happen. ahh it makes sense now.

So answer me this why do we out law drugs? people do it anyway. they know it isnt healthy! so why not make it legal i mean cmon whats the harm. same thing with speeding why is it illgal because only STUPID people do other than what the laws says!

If making all drugs legal would prevent every over-dose, I'd be for it in a heartbeat. The point is that people are going to be having abortions either way, so they can do it in a safe and sterile environment, or they can do it with a coat hanger. Personally I'd prefer, if people feel the need to have abortions, that they don't kill themselves in the process. Like I said, unless you're willing to intrude into people's private lives and track conceptions there is absolutely no way to eliminate the dangers of making abortion illegal and you still have the same problem of unborn children dying, so it's no better.

Greetings:

There is only one question I have - is there currently a resolution in the works that would require something of UN members regarding abortion, either coming soon or searching for delegate approval? As the issue of abortion is a large and tumultuous one, it would seem easier to discuss if there was some concrete bill under consideration. If any of those involved in this debate know of any specific proposal being discussed here, please let the Royal Commonwealth know. Thank you.

With Respect,
Minister of Foreign Affairs Voegelin, Royal Commonwealth of Oakeshottland.

Greetings:

There is only one question I have - is there currently a resolution in the works that would require something of UN members regarding abortion, either coming soon or searching for delegate approval? As the issue of abortion is a large and tumultuous one, it would seem easier to discuss if there was some concrete bill under consideration. If any of those involved in this debate know of any specific proposal being discussed here, please let the Royal Commonwealth know. Thank you.

With Respect,
Minister of Foreign Affairs Voegelin, Royal Commonwealth of Oakeshottland.

There have been a few posted recently - "Abortion" and "Abortion Compromise" are two which spring to mind, and I believe there are 2-3 somewhere in the depths of the proposal list. Unfortunately for those who want to promote either a pro-life or pro-choice agenda in relation to a proposal, most of the proposals about abortion tend to languish in the back pages of the list.

i agree with the guy who said it that about sums it up.
you spread your legs you deal with it
don't kill innocent kids that havent even seen the world yet

Greetings:

There is only one question I have - is there currently a resolution in the works that would require something of UN members regarding abortion, either coming soon or searching for delegate approval? As the issue of abortion is a large and tumultuous one, it would seem easier to discuss if there was some concrete bill under consideration. If any of those involved in this debate know of any specific proposal being discussed here, please let the Royal Commonwealth know. Thank you.

With Respect,
Minister of Foreign Affairs Voegelin, Royal Commonwealth of Oakeshottland.

There have been a few posted recently - "Abortion" and "Abortion Compromise" are two which spring to mind, and I believe there are 2-3 somewhere in the depths of the proposal list. Unfortunately for those who want to promote either a pro-life or pro-choice agenda in relation to a proposal, most of the proposals about abortion tend to languish in the back pages of the list.

The RCO thanks you for the clarification.

With Respect,
Minister of Foreign Affairs Voegelin, Royal Commonwealth of Oakeshottland.

ok i see what your saying. Abortion is wrong but we shouldnt make it illegal because stupid people are going to go off and do it with messed up ways and end up harm the person in them and themselves. Soo to avoid this we allow millions of murders to happen. ahh it makes sense now.

So answer me this why do we out law drugs? people do it anyway. they know it isnt healthy! so why not make it legal i mean cmon whats the harm. same thing with speeding why is it illgal because only STUPID people do other than what the laws says!

Only stupid people break the law... Ah right the arguement that because the law says so it must be right. So when hitler made helping jewish people illegal you must have been a complete dumbass to help them escape? Or when slavery was legal, and helping slaves escape was illegal, anyone who helped the slaves get away must've been completely braindead.

Halestrum, they aren't kids, they are a mass of cells without feeling, and without a brain.

Our Earth: The law is worded that you can kill in self defense, the fetus is not considered a threat to your life

i agree with the guy who said it that about sums it up.
you spread your legs you deal with it
don't kill innocent kids that havent even seen the world yet

Questions:

1. Does the woman own her body?

2. Does her body not include her womb?

3. If so, why does she not own her womb when she is pregnant?

4. Is the fetus capable of respecting her rights, specifically her right to her own person?

ok i see what your saying. Abortion is wrong but we shouldnt make it illegal because stupid people are going to go off and do it with messed up ways and end up harm the person in them and themselves. Soo to avoid this we allow millions of murders to happen. ahh it makes sense now.

So answer me this why do we out law drugs? people do it anyway. they know it isnt healthy! so why not make it legal i mean cmon whats the harm. same thing with speeding why is it illgal because only STUPID people do other than what the laws says!

Only stupid people break the law... Ah right the arguement that because the law says so it must be right. So when hitler made helping jewish people illegal you must have been a complete dumbass to help them escape? Or when slavery was legal, and helping slaves escape was illegal, anyone who helped the slaves get away must've been completely braindead.

Halestrum, they aren't kids, they are a mass of cells without feeling, and without a brain.

Our Earth: The law is worded that you can kill in self defense, the fetus is not considered a threat to your life

man you take things way to seriously i mean come on everyone knows killing is wrong! And by saying that thing about hitler perfectly describes what you are doing with baby killing. And tell me all of you people say the baby becomes human at birth. whats the diffrece between a baby 1 miute after bith than one minuite before birth?

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

First thing I'd like to get out of the way, is that I know in a sense a fetus is a human, it feels pain, etc.

However the question is not whether the fetus has nerves per se, a heart, or human DNA. Cows and limbs have such things. And that last time I heard neither eating a cow, nor amputation were illegal nor even immoral (for most.)


The question is a matter of personhood: at what stage do we declare that some organism has the most fundamental rights?

I believe it is at birth which is the most efficient place to declare this. Going before birth is questionable, where do we start? The sperm? Egg? Embryo? Fetus?


Or if after birth, what stage?

As a society, we already declare a an organism a citizen, and hence a person, at birth. I do not see why this should change.

Also we must keep in mind that the question of personhood and value judgment is not asked in a vaccuum. It is a question that must take into account the fact that such embryos would require use of a female body.


Thus it is not just a question of if we value an embryo, but of we value an embryo more then a woman's right to her own body. That is a serious question.

IMO, the right of the embryo to live, is outweighed by the woman's right to her freedom, her future, and society's sexual freedom in general. IMO, an embryo, who's ability to even feel pain or emotions is questionable, is not worth such a sarcrifice.

And I doubt we even consider the fetus a person at an emotional level (which is really where personhood is established).

To establish this claim I usually ask a pro-lifer three questions:

1) Is abortion murder (the answer is usually "yes)?

2) Should murderers get the death penalty? (yes)

3) So should people that have abortions recieve the death penalty?

Now this is where they usually get cold feet. Nobody would really want to see someone locked up for first degree murder and perhaps sentenced to death for sake of an embryo. IMO, that shows that we do care about a fetus. We all do, none of us likes seeing an organism suffer for any reason. But we do not care for them enough to grant them personhood and deprive a woman of certain rights. We do not consider them person's who should be protected by the full extent of the law. In that respect, I don't like seeing cows sent to the slaughter house either, or dogs put to sleep, but I recognize that we as a society should allow such things for sake of the greater good.

I would also like to note that if a fetus is a person, any woman that has a fetus can be investigated for "manslaughter". This was actually done when abortion was first made illegal. This is because if a fetus is a person, like a newborn baby, it must be treated as such. And if a woman kills her newborn by means of neglect, she can be investigated and charged. Well then, so can a woman that through neglect or other means harms a fetus. The idea that a woman can then be put in jail for child abuse, for drinking while she has a fetus is a sobering thought.

I should note certain facts at the moment many may find relevant:



It is generally accepted that until the third trimester of pregancy a fetus does not feel pain. This is because though they have nerves, the nerve cells are not connected to the brain. This makes the embryo's parts for all intents and purposes like the nerves on a detached limb (the brain by itself cannot feel pain.)


http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pain.htm

99 percent of abortions are performed before the third trimester (before the embryo feels pain).

The embryo is not self-aware. (So it is not self-aware and does not feel pain....female adults do.)


Almost all third trimester abortions are considered unethical de facto by medical establishments and done only for emergency reasons:

Third-trimester abortions: Medical intervention to terminate pregnancies during the third trimester is quite rare. The Alan Guttmacher Institute estimates that 1% of all medical terminations of pregnancies are done at or after 21 weeks - (1994 data). It is sometimes done when the fetus has died in the womb. Termination of the life of a fetus is generally prohibited by medical societies' regulations after the 20th or 21st week of gestation. Exceptions do occur if required to save the life of the woman or avoid very serious, disabling health consequences. e.g.:


http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_late.htm

The vast majority of pregancies fail anyways:


--

Failed pregnancies: A very large percentage -- 50% is sometimes mentioned in the medical literature -- of fertilized ova fail to implant themselves in the uterine wall. For them, pregnancy does not even begin.

-- Miscarriages: Approximately 25% of all pregnancies end in a miscarriage -- sometimes called a spontaneous abortion. For whatever reason, the pregnancy cannot continue; the fetus dies and is expelled naturally from the woman's body. Often, this happens so early in pregnancy that the woman is not aware that she was pregnant.

Basically then 75 percent of all fertilized eggs fail to develope into babies anyways.


Now to confront some of the more common but mistaken criticisms of the pro-choice position:


-- Black and other groups at one time were not consider people too.

This is a false analogy. Blacks feel pain, are self-aware and do not require a person's body to survive. If however they did not feel pain, were not self-aware, and instead required attaching themselves physically to people to survive, the argument would be more accurate but of course less compelling, which is more the case. Even if they were self-aware but had to attach themselves to "others" would you say it is mandatory to comply?



-- I'm ok with cases of rape, and deformity, but not usual abortions.


This is basically like saying murder is ok sometimes. By that token we could allow a woman to kill a newborn for being deformed, handicapped or a product of rape.


-- Abortions have souls, are outlawed by Gods etc

The above claims are unrprovable, and it is not wise to make unproven claims into law.

-- The fetus is a potential person.[i]

1) So is a sperm cell.

2) A woman is an actual person, and the actual outweighs the potential.


--[i] If we allow abortion, we can allow the termination of the weak, the elderly, and other immoralities

This is a slippery slope fallacy. That's like saying if I eat any ice cream, I'll soon eat myself into a heart attack. Or if we require a license for driving, soon we'll require a license for everything.


-- Women should be responsible and not punish the fetus for what she did.

This begs the question, as I do not see having sex as irresponsible, nor getting pregant. The only thing irresponsible here is having a kid one does not really want and is not ready for. IMO, this makes not having an arbotion irresponsible if it is needed. I see no moral problem with sex, so I see no moral problem with abortions. Also that above is similiar to saying "meat eaters should be responsible and turn vegan, instead of punishing cows for their own preference."



--Women suffer serious mental trauma from having abortions.


There is no evidence for this. The idea of Post-Traumatic Abortion syndrome is largely urban myth.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_post.htm

The only time a woman has any emotional problems with abortions is when they have a religious problem with abortion, but have one under pressure of friends or family; or when they have one and then develope religious problems with abortion later.

But even still, in the few cases of "trauma" arising from abortion, it should be noted generally giving a kid up for adoption is more traumatic and that the vast majority of women who have abortions feel "relieved" and have no problem.

The phenomenon is similiar to gays that have "guilt" over expressing their homosexuality. It's not anything innate, its a matter of social pressure and bias which caving in to does more harm then good anyways.


This last one is somewhat unrelated but it refers to the "Day After Pill" or RU-486.

Many religious and pro-life groups have been spreading the myth that this pill is dangerous.

As evidence they cite how it was once banned by the FDA. However this ignores the fact that the FDA banned the pill because it "killed babies" not because it was unsafe. Basically because of pressure from pro-life groups, not because it caused serious damage.

Also there is a documented case of one death in europe, being caused by RU-486. One should note this is 1 out of about 500,000 people who use the pill. And there are three noted contraindications in respect to the pill they are:

heavy smoking, heart problems, or high blood pressure.

The woman in question had all three. Besides her there have been no other reports of serious complications in over a dozen studies involving thousands of women.


http://www.religioustolerance.org/aboru486.htm

ok i see what your saying. Abortion is wrong but we shouldnt make it illegal because stupid people are going to go off and do it with messed up ways and end up harm the person in them and themselves. Soo to avoid this we allow millions of murders to happen. ahh it makes sense now.

So answer me this why do we out law drugs? people do it anyway. they know it isnt healthy! so why not make it legal i mean cmon whats the harm. same thing with speeding why is it illgal because only STUPID people do other than what the laws says!

If making all drugs legal would prevent every over-dose, I'd be for it in a heartbeat. The point is that people are going to be having abortions either way, so they can do it in a safe and sterile environment, or they can do it with a coat hanger. Personally I'd prefer, if people feel the need to have abortions, that they don't kill themselves in the process. Like I said, unless you're willing to intrude into people's private lives and track conceptions there is absolutely no way to eliminate the dangers of making abortion illegal and you still have the same problem of unborn children dying, so it's no better.

This brings to mind the pro-choice arguement about the overpopulation of the world. Our planet is overpopulated because we have made it easier for the stupid people to survive. There was a time when we expected people to be smart enough to know that their Hot Pocket or whatever would be hot after 2 minutes in the microwave, or to know that wearing a Superman costume wouldn't let them fly. People were wrong about this, got sued because of it, and now are required by law to print on their product labels, all the obvious information. If we would let the stupid people ignore the obvious fact that abortion by means of coat-hanger, baseball bat etc. will probably result in their own deaths as well as the unborn child's, we wouldn't have this problem. Instead the morons with the most money go around suing people for their own stupidity (McDonalds made me fat; I'm not too f***ing dumb to know not to eat when I'm not hungry). So I say we illegalize abortions and we solve the overpopulation problem when morons perform illegal, black market, coat-hanger abortions.

When you helped a Jew escape a Nazi concentration camp, or a black slave escape a plantation, were you taking a life or saving a life? Unless you did a rather sloppy job and left a nice little trail to follow, you were saving a life. If you have an abortion, are you taking a life or saving one? That's what I thought. Your arguement is nothing. Legality doesn't affect morality. Regardless of the law (in these situations at least) the persons conscience, karma, morals, whatever, tends to take precedence over laws and oaths and vows and anything else. Regardless of how this is voted, there will still be consciensious objectors, protesting and whatnot, and there will be more violent protesters (i.e. Operation Rescue, black market aborters) I would personally like to see this issue either voted down or left to the nations.

For the Glory of God!
Emperor Tony I of Vivelo

I am totally lost on how your first paragraph relates to being pro-choice and how my post reminds you of it as well as how you got onto this question of morality versus laws or how "[My] argument is nothing." You're right legality doesn't affect morality, but since I wasn't talking about either I do not see the significance.

Here's what you need to understand, and what no one who reads what I write can seem to interpret despite the fact that it's one of the first things I say when I enter these discussions.

I'M PRO-LIFE, BUT ANTI-CRIMINALIZATION

I do not believe abortion is right but I believe that it is meaningfully and reasonably impossible to outlaw it. Therefor, for the sake of those people who feel the need to have abortions, for whatever reason, and considering that they will likely have these abortions safely if they're legal, or unsafely if they are illegal, I choose to take the stance that abortions should be legal and safe. If the unborn chilren are going to die either way we may as well save those who are already born and grown. If we take any other stance we will either be destroying the concept of personal freedom and privacy entirely, or endangering the lives of millions of young women because we feel we cannot sanction an unpleasant act that might save their life. I won't let my pride get in the way of my compassion and my rationality. Let's save as many lives as we can, even if we have to get our hands a little dirty in the process.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

I am strck by the elitist bias built into this argument. All this debate and all this rhetoric comes from persons who have considerable advantage in the world. One must assume they have access to computers as they are discussing this on the internet. One must also assume they have a place to live, enough food, and live a reasnably sheltered lifestyle.

Please, for a moment, divorse yourself from your sheltered lives and consider the plight of overpopulation in Asia and in Africa. It is due too this overpopulation and the woes which this calamedy brings the people of many parts of africa have horrible living considiont and such a high rate of infant mortality as to shock the senses.

Practically everyone with any education agrees the core of the problem for many nations in Africa, that which barrs them from development, is population control. The only ones who oppose this are the faction which consider abortion, a part of the whole family planning package, as an abomination. But it is through their interferrence with the funding and operation of proper family planning that so many are forced to suffer.

Why don't you "elites" get of your high horse and look at the whole as a whole. Broaden the scope of this debate, I dare you, to consider the LARGE issue of overpopulation.

I find it quite amazing to see some of the attitudes displayed in the early pages of this thread - ideas such as 'she shouldn't open her legs unless she's ready to deal with the consequences'. May I ask where the man is in all this? Surely it is just as much his responsibility to take precautions when having sex? Obviously we as women know life does not work like that because men ultimately know that it is not their body that will have to go through pregnancy and childbirth, so therefore they are not as inclined to act 'sensibly'. It is for this reason that 'choice' needs to lie in the hands of the woman herself as it is her and her alone that will be experiencing the physical process of pregnancy.

People talk about questions of ownership concerning a woman's body, and this in itself highlights woman's identity as the 'other', for no one would ever question who owns a man's body. Religious and moral arguments aside for a moment, I do think that part of the great opposition to abortion is a social expression of male ownership of the female body.

Now before lots of liberal minded men put pen to paper and cry out at unfair treatment here, let me explain myself a little better. What I am trying to say is that be it overt or covert, there is embedded in our Western socio-historical psyche the idea that woman (as well as all other non-white males) is 'that that is other than man', to be defined in relation to man and more often than not to be defined by and associated with the physical, sexual and natural world as opposed to the rational, political and logical domain of man. We can see just by casting a swift glance back over history, that man has sought to dominate nature to assert the nature of masculinity as superior. Now if we extend this mentality to women then we can see how male domination and ownership of women came into being, and even though we are essentially a lot more liberated now, we cannot deny that these old, core beliefs that western civilisation has been built upon are still reflected in our everyday lives on various different levels by both men and women.

One of the most fundamental issues here is that of rights. The right of a woman over her own body, and the question of the rights of an unborn child. Personally I don't feel the child has any rights whilst wholly dependent on the mother (and no one else). Once a baby is born its wellbeing can be entrusted to another person, the child is a being in its own right free to grow and develop relationships with whoever takes the role of 'family'. However until the moment of birth this is not even a possibility and the baby exists only as an organism within the body of the woman, therefore it is wholly the right of the woman to decide whether to continue acting as a host to this growing organism, or to dispel it from her body. Lets not tug on heartstrings now, the truth is every woman who's had an abortion does not spend her entire life regretting it, and it is nowhere near as traumatic as being a young, single parent raising a child in poverty. Any emotional trauma a woman goes through after having an abortion is a combination of social pressures and feelings of guilt at having denied a woman's 'natural' role as a giver of life. It is up to us to educate people to the fact that abortion in some way shape or form, is as old as time itself, be it coat hangers, gin baths, or herbal remedies. The guilt attached to it is an extension of the deep rooted effect of patriarchy and male insecurity with females as 'givers of life' and the mysteries of nature that woman embodies to man.

Well there you go just a thought...

Right there, you destroyed your arguement, using beliefs is a big No-no.

Yes, it is a matter of value judgment and I am saying where I place my judgment and most importantly "why". Yes beliefs by themselves mean little but one should not judge them until one has examined the reasons why they are held.

It is arguable when it becomes a person.

Which is why I am arguing about it......


Some believe (myself included) that it is at conception. A very small minority believe it is sometime within the pregnancy. Others believe at birth. All suggestions end up being contradicted by those who follow the other beliefs.


Yes but not all beliefs are equal and not all professors recognize the facts or consequences of adhering to certain ideas. Some beliefs are more informed then others.

Therefore, due to an inability to come to an agreement on the matter, it should not be used in law, as seems to be the popular solution in other matters.

Basically until we are certain of something we do not make it law? Sorry but if we were to adhere to that idea, we'd have no laws. Save those of basic math and logic. Some people still consider inter-racial marriage, freedom of speech, and meat eating sketchy. It doesn't mean the law should fail to concern such things.



Most nations, however, give no person the right to take a life outside of self defense.

Pest control, hunting, abortion, death penalty, animal slaughter, etc. It seems as if your "most nations" isn't many at all....if any.



No laws will come out of this. All we are getting here is a very interesting debate.


And I believe that the best laws come from very interesting debate. If we did not debate and just pronounced, we'd make mistakes. If we debate and then pronounce, we make mistakes....but less often. And we can correct them.

This is why democracies are so strong, is because laws do not come from one person or a few people but many minds sharing their inetellectual rescources i.e. engaging in very interesting debate.

Stop comparing us to wild animals.


I never compared you to a wild animal, though I can see why you would percieve as such. Sorry if I offended.

Meat eaters should be responsible and turn vegan? Grow up. The MAIN difference between a cow and an unborn child is that one will, if not led to slaughter, so to speak, will be born and grow up to become a person with rights and freedoms.


Yes the potential person's argument, I already went over that. So can a sperm cell, an egg, or a liver (with cloning and an artificial womb) what's your point?

Should we scoop up every miscarriage and failed egg attachment (75 percent of all births) for an artificial womb in order to "save lives"? Have some sort of "embryo rescue task force"?

In any event we are not talking about whether the embryo will be a person, but whether or not an embryo is a person. This makes your argument a non sequitur.



I don't know who you are asking these questions to, Ethical Vitalists, but I am sure that most people would not say yes murderers should get the death sentence. The subject is very contested, just like abortion. I am against the death sentence in any form because, every person has a right to life (in Vivelo at least), and I don't care where you go, killing the murderer won't bring back the victims, two wrongs don't make a right etc. And if we simply give them a life sentence, they will kill just about as many people as they would if they got "The Chair"


You've missed the point. The point is not whether I agree with the death sentence or not: that's irrelevant.

The point is that if you think abortion is murder, then you should think people who commit abortions should get life in prison or the death penalty (unless you adhere to some other largely unknown idea of punishment).

Do you think this? Do "abortions" really represent some sort of holocaust to you?

I ask again, with all these failed pregnancies, why do we feel a need to end more? I think 50% is rather high.

Why not? They happen all the time and nobody takes much notice or decries an "epidemic". Basically then you would be putting a woman in jail for doing something that happens 75 percent of the time anyways.

And I am not saying "end more for the heck of it", that is where your argument departs from my line of reasoning. I am saying its not worth sacrificing essential rights of the woman for sake of something that happens all the time.


We are not comparing them to an unborn child. We are comparing people's attitudes towards them.

Yes but attitudes are affected by actual facts.



Of course, you all argue there is scientific proof that unborn children are not human. Hitler did the sam thing to Jews. He studied them, he compared the sizes of their heads to the sizes of "Aryan" heads.

That was pseudoscience not generally accepted by the scientific community. Are you prepared to say that all research concerning embryos are false like you would Hitler's studies on Jews? Are you prepared to say that an embryo has self-awareness, feels pain and doesn't require a woman's body?

A big part of actually making an accurate anology is actually representing essential aspects accurately. You make an anaology but fail to take essential traits into consideration. This is what makes your whole argument a false anology. Would you seriously compare the slaughter of chickens to the holocaust? Some extremists do. But"of course they need to grow up"....ummm doesn't that just as well apply to you? Aren't you, like them, ignoring essential distinctions?



He then used this information to provide false propaganda, forcing the Jews into a sub-human stature. I am not saying your proof about the lack of humanity is falsified to promote your point.

LOL. Well an essential point concerning pro-choice argument and Hitler comparisons is whether the information is accurate. Basically you are then saying "It's like that lie what's his name said...except you are telling the truth."





I am merely pointing out that science is not a perfect solution to everything. After these Nazi "experiments", it could be hard to believe any science at all. This sends just another point down the drain. I am pushing for more national sovereignty in this issue. I do not think the UN should dabble in the rights of the nations on the subject of their people.

True but since your analogy is so faulty, and my evidence is clearly accurate, your argument is mute. If it was similiar to Nazi psuedoscience that is one thing: but it's not Nazi psuedoscience, so it should not be treated that way.



The UN should not be allowed to limit or broaden the civil rights of its nations because then we start to lose our distinctiveness and lose members because they are unhappy with the UN forcing them to promote religious freedom or democracy. These are national issues, not international.

No, they are human issues and the UN is supposed to protect the fundamental rights of all persons, no matter what region. If we were all a different species that would be one thing. But IMO, nobody likes having their conscience, freedom, or welfare violated. The UN recognizes all of humanity as important, not just people within certain borders, and that is why the UN promotes civil rights for all of humanity.



All of these are issues that, no matter how the vote goes, no matter how much we compromise will leave, not people, but entire nations and regions disappointed.

Promogenitir inheritence, the control of science by the church, feudalism, the use of torture and public executions, and the very use of technology itself were all "controversial" during certain periods of time, but they were all settled a long time ago. History hardly lends credence to your view that what is controversial now, will be controversial forever.



If the UN starts scaring off members, it will dwindle down to nothing. Then we will be left as a bickering, squabbling, disunited, dying people. Without strong ties such as this, we will destroy each other. Save the UN support national sovereignty on national issues.

And your above is not a scare tactic? No I believe that adherence to what the UN stands for is more important to certain people's token support.

They should enter the UN knowing that compromise is required. If they do not know this, then they better learn. The UN doesn't say "enter and do whatever you want", no, if you want to play a role in international policy you take risks. That comes with the territory. If a nation doesn't like that, it's just tough. Find another international agency. But we aren't going to change the rules just because a few whiners would leave the game.

We are not comparing them to an unborn child. We are comparing people's attitudes towards them. Both blacks (Jews whatever), and unborn children were/are denied humanity and rights.

And I consider a duck to be less then a human, i also consider bacteria, viruses, and protozoa to be less than human, but i don't hear anyone attacking vaccine producers for being nazis. Or comparing restaurants which serve meat to white supremists.

Now before lots of liberal minded men put pen to paper and cry out at unfair treatment here, let me explain myself a little better. What I am trying to say is that be it overt or covert, there is embedded in our Western socio-historical psyche the idea that woman (as well as all other non-white males) is 'that that is other than man', to be defined in relation to man and more often than not to be defined by and associated with the physical, sexual and natural world as opposed to the rational, political and logical domain of man. We can see just by casting a swift glance back over history, that man has sought to dominate nature to assert the nature of masculinity as superior. Now if we extend this mentality to women then we can see how male domination and ownership of women came into being, and even though we are essentially a lot more liberated now, we cannot deny that these old, core beliefs that western civilisation has been built upon are still reflected in our everyday lives on various different levels by both men and women.

Well i'll start crying foul since i do not care for your implication that all men are indoctrinated with the stance that they are superior to women. And that it is mens nature, not in the human nature, to assert dominance over things. You are not helping your position by making statements that all men are all sexist and racist. And especially grating is the suggestion that the only reason i am supporting your position is because i am being covertly sexist.

But I suppose men can't stand on any side of an issue without being evil domineering bastards now can they? Great way to garner support...

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Vivelo part of me thinks you must be sarcastic. In fact part of me wishes to assume just that for the sake of charity. But I will answer your claims anyways.


First off, you argue that the analogy of embryos to cows is flawed. Ok that's true, but you fail to give a reason why we should agree. All you have done is present us with an 'ad hoc' excuse about the fetus being a potential person. We point out so is a sperm, egg, or liver cell. Or whether you would give a killer several sentences for killing a person's "potential" kids. You then say "Well that's different."


Okay, its different but only by degree. And you ignore the fact that this was just assuming for sake of argument your stipulation did hold water: it doesn't.


I am a "potential" nobel prize winner, water is potential ice, and empty space potentially has something in it....what difference does it make?

I still can't stand on water, it still makes no sense to go long ways to dodge "potential objects" in empty space and I still don't have a Nobel prize. This is because potential traits are by their very nature not actual traits, and should thus not be treated as such. When those potential traits are actualized we will act accordingly, until then I'm sorry.

And then you go on a rant about how great it would be if certain "idiots" just died off. This IMO refutes your whole allegation of sanctity of life. This in respect to women resorting to illegal and dangerous abortions.

Again I'm sorry, but actual rights and harm to actual people takes precedence to harm over "potential people." Your line of reasoning is thus bass akwards. It is the equivalent to crashing into an actual object in our way, in order to avoid some potential object that *may* have been there given more time.

We are not comparing them to an unborn child. We are comparing people's attitudes towards them. Both blacks (Jews whatever), and unborn children were/are denied humanity and rights.

And I consider a duck to be less then a human, i also consider bacteria, viruses, and protozoa to be less than human, but i don't hear anyone attacking vaccine producers for being nazis. Or comparing restaurants which serve meat to white supremists.

I am really sick of this argument. There is a massive difference between an unborn human child and a duck, cow, bacteria etc...

...Sperm cell is a rather pathetic analogy as well. Of course the sperm cell has a better chance of becoming human than the rest of these comparisons, but it is still highly unlikesly. I don't know the exact number, but there are very low odds of a sperm cell joining with the egg. Therefore, masturbation or whatever is not murder...

Now here's a solution to the overpopulation problem, illegalize abortion, and let the idiots kill themselves...

Okay its broken into 3 parts which will each be addressed.

1.) The difference is that the cow feels pain, the duck knows fear, the fetus does not.

2.) Its also unlikely a fetus will survive, yet one is murder and the other is not?

3.) Why don't we just remove you instead?

Now I think that we aould all agree that killing is wrong! Now there are some debates on both sides of this issue but if you can answer me this question I will glady take your side.
"A woman driving to a clinic to get an abortion is hit by an ongoing trucker who has been suckin' back on the booze a little to much. Both the lady and her unborn baby were killed in this accident. The man in the truck was chrged with a double murder!! Yet had this lady made it to this clinic she was going to kill her baby anyways so what makes this man a kille he just got to the baby before the doctor did!!!!"

Now I think that we aould all agree that killing is wrong! Now there are some debates on both sides of this issue but if you can answer me this question I will glady take your side.
"A woman driving to a clinic to get an abortion is hit by an ongoing trucker who has been suckin' back on the booze a little to much. Both the lady and her unborn baby were killed in this accident. The man in the truck was chrged with a double murder!! Yet had this lady made it to this clinic she was going to kill her baby anyways so what makes this man a kille he just got to the baby before the doctor did!!!!"

Now I think that we aould all agree that killing is wrong! Now there are some debates on both sides of this issue but if you can answer me this question I will glady take your side.
"A woman driving to a clinic to get an abortion is hit by an ongoing trucker who has been suckin' back on the booze a little to much. Both the lady and her unborn baby were killed in this accident. The man in the truck was chrged with a double murder!! Yet had this lady made it to this clinic she was going to kill her baby anyways so what makes this man a kille he just got to the baby before the doctor did!!!!"
Since she is dead no one can know for sure what her intent was, inless she left behind concrete proof that she wanted to have the abortion.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Well I'm sorry if you feel that critical examination is knocking you down Vivelo. Though it is hardly needed as you alone are the best pro-life criticism I could muster. Some gems from your posts:

I can't answer without having my opinions shot down, even though some pro-choice bastard can rattle of his beliefs completely unscathed.


and also:

what is the harm in letting a few dumbasses kill themselves with baseball bats and coat hangers?

And:

Now here's a solution to the overpopulation problem, illegalize abortion, and let the idiots kill themselves. If the idiots are dead, and the doctors aren't abortiong, maybe they could devote their time to helping the people in third world countries who are dying of diseases that have been conquered in more developed countries.


Just let people die? Well of course, that's obviously what the "pro-life" position is all about.


In regards to the trucker incident, that is a double standard I feel should be corrected. I do not think it should or even could be murder, perhaps you are confusing it with manslaughter. In any regards I would more accurately call it mayhem. Somewhat like removing an organ.


Also, I don't see why the woman's intent would even lessen the crime for those who do consider abortion murder. Let's say Mark goes to kill his cheating wife, along the way he is mugged and shot. Do we let the mugger go now? Do we let criminals go if they intercept other criminals?

Do you imagine what kind of precedent that would set?

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

...These doctors could be out helping cure diseases in third world countries...

...aborting for some irresponsible slut who is just to lazy or stupid to take care of the kid...


Whoa you obviously don't understand the divisions of the medical fields. A surgeon cannot just start making vaccines, a general practicioner cannot just pick up the scalpel and begin operating on a patient. The obstitrician/gynecologist prescribing the medicine / procedure, cannot simply go to another country and begin irradicating disease.

And i question why you challenge this 'irresponsible slut' when you were too lazy to stay awake in Bio class and actually learn how the human system works and then you dare to make uninformed blanket statements and support position which can negatively affect many more lives.

We have proven over and over again that potential life means nothing, since then even the act of sex makes you a mass murderer. we have also proven that just because the fetus is human life means nothing since near every single cell in your body is human, and alive, therefore making it 'human life'

The reason why we can walk all over your arguements and not have the same happen to our arguements is because we have facts and reason on our side, all you have is emotional responses and propaganda.

Now I think that we aould all agree that killing is wrong! Now there are some debates on both sides of this issue but if you can answer me this question I will glady take your side.
"A woman driving to a clinic to get an abortion is hit by an ongoing trucker who has been suckin' back on the booze a little to much. Both the lady and her unborn baby were killed in this accident. The man in the truck was chrged with a double murder!! Yet had this lady made it to this clinic she was going to kill her baby anyways so what makes this man a kille he just got to the baby before the doctor did!!!!"
Since she is dead no one can know for sure what her intent was, inless she left behind concrete proof that she wanted to have the abortion. Ok now just so i may let you know I am pro-life but the issue that comesinto play here is the fact that the man in the truck was wrong either way..... I just do not agree with the fact that this man was charged with a double murder (in some states they would sentence you to deat row Twice) so i guess what i am debating is why does this man get charged with the murder of this baby when it was damn well know that she was going to have an abortion (for instance she is 16 and does not have the money to care for a child) so why give him a double murder HE KILLED THAT BABY BEFOREIT HAD MORE OF A CHANCE TO DEVELOPE!!!! (P.S. this was a real case. i was searching on the web when i found a story about it..... if i do find it again i will post the details on here)

1.) It was manslaughter
2.) Any half-decent lawyer can get the trial reduced to 1 count.

If this actually happened it was a miscarriage of justice. Were the woman to survive and the baby to die it would (or at least should) count as grevious bodily injury. The womans intent does not factor into the law.

Abortion may be the stupidest thing I have ever heard of.

The purpose of our existence is to pass on our genetic traits through the act of sexual intercourse. We continue to do this in a vain attempt to achieve perfection. Should we kill a child before they pass on their genetic traits, or a fetus, which will become a living organism, we are defeating the purpose of living.
Which leads me to one of my pet peeves: People who do not choose to pass on their genetic traits. These people are useless. They are not contributing to the gene pool, and they are using up the world's resources. These people do not need to be alive.

In the world there are thousands upon thousands of young women who end up caring for children because of rape, unprotected sex and immaturaty.

But are they not people of our world? Of our nations and countries? When you say abortion is wrong, what are your terms? When you say abortion is right, what do you mean?

When you say yes to abortion, you say yes to killing your own people without a second glance. You turn a blind eye to those who cannot defend themselves. So does that cary out in all your actions? That you as a nation will turn a blind eye to your fellow countrymen and ignore them or perhaps kill them because they are not considered rightious to have their life?

Or when you say no to abortion, you say no to a mother who was raped and now must look after a child that wont have proper education, proper health care or shelter to sleep in. When you say no to abortion you tell that mother that doesn't have enough money for herself to now care for a young child to spend more!

I am both for and against abortion. I beleive that each individual case should be looked at seperatly. We should not throw out a life by abortion when there is enough family and community support around that unborn child but we also do not want a bunch of small homeless starving children running our streets creating more crime.

Neither is the "right" thing to accept, but sometimes we must learn to compromise.

This debate may never be settled.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
They say, "Greed is just
stupidity in disguise."

[quote="Schmermund"]

When you say no to abortion you tell that mother that doesn't have enough money for herself to now care for a young child to spend more! quote]

You don't seem to have thought this through. What about adoption?

yeah adoption... great idea... so the kid can go traveling around from half-way house to half-way house grow up in the streets and live a miserable experiance.

well if the goverment would make top institutions for these children.

I do not understand what you are tying to say. Are you trying to say that there is something wrong with adoption?

okay, why don't you fund it, so we can give potential life a priority over actual life. And we can all live having wild sex orgies to make sure not a single bit of potential life is wasted. Then we can devote huge amounts of money to preventing miscarriages of any and all children and make it law for the woman to take the medication. Then we can have the over-populated world but without any death of potential life.

My point is that is best that it is best for potential life to be stopped before it actually has emotions, feels pain, and thinks before it grows up to live a miserable existance

I don't say protect it because it's potential, I say protect it because it is.

and i say to you, my liver is human life, my kidneys are human life, but i am in no way legally bound to protect them, much less to protect the organs of someone else.

how are they human life? Do they have a separate genetic code?

everything that has 48 chromosomes is 'human life' i'm killing some just typing this (poor poor skins cells...)

As for this "seperate genetic code" identical twins, have the same genetic code, is only one of them human life? No, since to be human you just need the 48 chromosomes.

46 chromozones, actually.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
They say, "Greed is just
stupidity in disguise."

Just to put in my two cents, I think all abortions should be legal. I think that many conservative politicians who speak out against abortion are really just looking for a more politically correct way to raise the birth rate and encourage women to be stay-at-home mothers.

The government of any nation lacks the knowledge necessary to make ethical decisions about abortion. The doctors preforming the operation are well educated in their field and are capable of advising their patients on medical ethics. Let the educated doctor and his patient make the difficult ethical decision when there is far from a clear consensus on the ethics of abortion. To either ban abortion or, conversely, to ban a doctor from refusing consent to preform the procedure would be imposing the will of one group upon another: either tyranny of the majority or of a small, but powerful, minority.

[Let it be noted that I do not know of any efforts currently to ban doctors from refusing consent, but still the argument holds.]

-The Most Serene Republic of Hyper Evilness yields the floor.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

A living being would be someone (or in some cases, something) that has the ability to think by himself, if not, then the organism is nothing but a living thing, thus, reduced to the level of the insignificant plants. Even then, there is nothing wrong with killing something that hasn't ever lived, if it dies, no one will be hurt, not even it. The woman is the one to decide, for the unborn is still in her body, she is the one to choose to let it live, or take it away before it gets one.

During its time in the body of the woman, the baby, or probably still just an embryon, whatever you English-speaking people call it, it is nothing but a garbage can which you feed with part of your food, nothing else. And since the baby has no real life, the woman has all the rights to kill it off, for all I care.

This debate may never be settled.


I don't know if it should be. As John Stuart Mill said "It is better to debate an issue without settling it, then to settle an issue without debating it."

Abortion may be the stupidest thing I have ever heard of.

The purpose of our existence is to pass on our genetic traits through the act of sexual intercourse. We continue to do this in a vain attempt to achieve perfection. Should we kill a child before they pass on their genetic traits, or a fetus, which will become a living organism, we are defeating the purpose of living.
Which leads me to one of my pet peeves: People who do not choose to pass on their genetic traits. These people are useless. They are not contributing to the gene pool, and they are using up the world's resources. These people do not need to be alive.


This is based on a false conception in biology. Biolgists and evolutionary scientists always distinguish between two types of purposes for the organisms, the "proximate" or brain caused purposes, and the ultimate/genetic, which leads (in part) to the brains we got.

We as human beings mainly go by proximate motives, not ultimate. The ultimate just happened to be served in the past along the way. That is why we are willing to do many things that hamper our transfer of DNA, it serves our proximate purposes at times to do so.

Oh yes Vivelo, I never said the "living" take precedence over the non-living. I said the actual takes precedence over the potential. I recognize that the fetus is alive in the strictest sense of the term, just like my left kidney.

Just to put in my two cents, I think all abortions should be legal. I think that many conservative politicians who speak out against abortion are really just looking for a more politically correct way to raise the birth rate and encourage women to be stay-at-home mothers.

That's an interesting perspective on it. I disagree that they're being deliberatly evil and think that they're probably just trying to watch out for in interests of the child to support their personal ethical views on the matter.

In any case, I'll have fun hurling that at my friend who's basically my polar opposite politically. Thanks for the ammo. *Grin*

Just out of curiosity, what happened to my point about peer pressure?

I can bet you that if abortion was perfectly okay, and made nice and cheap so it could be afforded by the people who can't afford the child, a whole lotta teenage girls would be having sex and abortions over and over. I know a few really slutty girls who would. As I said when I first brought this point up, due to peer pressure, abortions, although not required by law, would become almost socially required (you have to f*** and abort the kid or else you're not cool etc.).

I take that bet, I bet you could not be more wrong, I bet that comment was deemed so ridiculous that the other people here took pity on you and ignored it to spare your humiliation!

I bet you that it is already legal and in my country free or at least affordable. I bet there have been none of the problems you have suggested. I am sure that most would agree that requiring an abortion is not a desirable situation and having an abortion is not a pleasant experience, it can be an invasive medical procedure and even with medical advances that negate that is a difficult experience psychologically. Many in this tread have described the details of abortion procedures to try to strengthen the anti-abortion case. There is NO chance that this could become some sort of badge of honour with teenage girls never mind adult women.

What sort of peer pressure would make this “socially required” this is absolutely absurd! There is no imaginable circumstance where this would be true. “you have to f**k and abort or your not cool!!" Did you even read this before you posted it, did you think it up your self or are you regurgitating someone else’s opinions (at you church youth group or something)? There should be a comprehensive education on sexual health and the use of contraceptives at your school. As an adult well out my nations education system I feel I should request the address of you school and write to them if this is not the case.

I say stop it before it starts, illegalize abortions, support families in need by making food clothes and education more easily available to them. Train the abortion doctors in ways to protect life instead of taking it away.

There is no reason why families in need cannot be supported with abortion legal. Doctors are trained to protect life already what do you think they do in medical school all day.

It would be a slow process, but abortion could eventually stop the spread of humanity... and begin the downfall.


FYI…. The world is over populated people out way resources why is a decline in human numbers a bad thing? Overpopulation will cause an environmental catastrophe and subsequent downfall of the human race! (go on think it through independent of the abortion debate!)
I hope for you sake you were tired or some other way impaired when you wrote all this absolute shit.

46 chromozones, actually.


keyboard mashing, I type too fast for my fingers sometimes, definately too fast for the computer. But thanks for the correction

"I can bet you that if abortion was perfectly okay, and made nice and cheap so it could be afforded by the people who can't afford the child, a whole lotta teenage girls would be having sex and abortions over and over. I know a few really slutty girls who would. As I said when I first brought this point up, due to peer pressure, abortions, although not required by law, would become almost socially required (you have to f*** and abort the kid or else you're not cool etc.). "

For the Glory of God!
Emperor Tony I of Vivelo[/quote]

I might suggest, Tony, that you talk to a woman who has had an abortion, or at least show a little empathy and consider what a difficult decision a woman has to make in choosing to abort a child. Furthermore, from what I understand about the abortion procedure, it is not a pleasant one and certainly not one that encourages women to use abortion as a form of birth control.

I think that the chances of abortions ever becoming a "cool" thing to do are about as good as a snowball's in hell. Or slim anyway until it becomes "cool" for men to have unnecessary prostate surgery. Might I add, that a man has just as much responsibility to a child, born or otherwise, and before you start condemning women for having abortions, consider putting on a condom and never putting them in a position in which they have to choose whether or not to terminate the pregnancy.

A living being would be someone (or in some cases, something) that has the ability to think by himself, if not, then the organism is nothing but a living thing, thus, reduced to the level of the insignificant plants. Even then, there is nothing wrong with killing something that hasn't ever lived, if it dies, no one will be hurt, not even it. The woman is the one to decide, for the unborn is still in her body, she is the one to choose to let it live, or take it away before it gets one.

During its time in the body of the woman, the baby, or probably still just an embryon, whatever you English-speaking people call it, it is nothing but a garbage can which you feed with part of your food, nothing else. And since the baby has no real life, the woman has all the rights to kill it off, for all I care.

A baby thinks for himself/herself just not on the level we do. same thing with a person with slow mental development they think just as on the same level as us.

"I can bet you that if abortion was perfectly okay, and made nice and cheap so it could be afforded by the people who can't afford the child, a whole lotta teenage girls would be having sex and abortions over and over. I know a few really slutty girls who would. As I said when I first brought this point up, due to peer pressure, abortions, although not required by law, would become almost socially required (you have to f*** and abort the kid or else you're not cool etc.). "

For the Glory of God!
Emperor Tony I of Vivelo

I might suggest, Tony, that you talk to a woman who has had an abortion, or at least show a little empathy and consider what a difficult decision a woman has to make in choosing to abort a child. Furthermore, from what I understand about the abortion procedure, it is not a pleasant one and certainly not one that encourages women to use abortion as a form of birth control.

I think that the chances of abortions ever becoming a "cool" thing to do are about as good as a snowball's in hell. Or slim anyway until it becomes "cool" for men to have unnecessary prostate surgery. Might I add, that a man has just as much responsibility to a child, born or otherwise, and before you start condemning women for having abortions, consider putting on a condom and never putting them in a position in which they have to choose whether or not to terminate the pregnancy.[/quote]

um actually i have talked to alot of women who have had abortion and my cousin recently married one and she says that is the one thing she regrets more than anything else in her life. and that is what most of them have said to me.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Obviously you are new to this thread.


No I have read it all


Otherwise you would know that it is not the doctors job to protect life. I know; it shocked me as well.


Im shocked you are trying to simplify the role and maybe even job description of a doctor to one handy phrase that suites your argument. Do you really see the world as good and evil, black and white? Can’t you see that a doctor’s role is in the saving of lives and that aim may involve on occasion a judgement of ethics? In a way you find more comfortable “the lesser of two evils”. Just because a doctor has performed an abortion he does not after that point become “evil” and then stop saving the lives of many people.

I concede his job is not to protect “life” (as you define it) at all costs



They are actually instructed to do what is in their patient's best interests.


Yes, why is that wrong?


, and unfortunately, the patient is the mother not the child. The doctors do what they apparently feel is best for this patient.


So you are saying that the doctor should work in the best interests of the foetus, who is not the patient. “The doctors do what they apparently feel is best for this patient.” is exactly what YOU suggest. That the doctor ignores the patients interests totally and acts as some sort of guardian of your religious philosophy. Why is this a more preferable situation? I suggest if went to see a doctor I would desire that they would work in my best interests not their own or even someone else’s who I do not agree with. You desire doctors to only work in what you see is YOUR best interest why? (Im guessing you trying to secure your place in heaven, a little selfish don’t you think)

In reality doctors do not “do what they apparently feel”, they do not act on a whim as you suggest. They act according do ethical guidance from a committee within each hospital (UK im not sure U.S. or E.U. sorry) comprised of doctors, lawyers, ethicists and also religious representatives. Even so this is not the case with abortion; there is clear legislation conceived through informed debate that allows anyone who wants an abortion to have one, regardless of the doctor’s personal opinion.



an abortion would be equivalent to removing your heart. Both the heart and the unborn child are required for necessary life functions (probably any biology book will tell you that if something cannot reproduce it is not alive), and both would be removed for no medical reason. The unborn child is not as simple as removing your appendix, as I compared it to originally. Removing the unborn child is saying you don't want to be a living organism because you don't want to reproduce.


Firstly “probably any biology book” I think you knew when you wrote this it was wrong. The definition of life now im glad you brought this up. Reproduction is ONLY ONE of the criteria scientists use (I can’t remember them all off the top of my head, most use the NASA criteria however there is some debate, if any one has a good link or knows them all please share this as it is a very important point to this debate!)

No the reproduction criteria says the ability to reproduce, doesn’t say you have to nor does having an abortion preclude you from having children in the future it just stops you completing reproduction on that occasion. You are not suggesting someone who has had an abortion is no longer a living human being are you? (also a foetus can’t reproduce… hmm not alive?)


If you don't want to have a child, how hard is it to not have sex or use a contraceptive?


We might even be getting somewhere, how does it feel to be making progress? I think this is a good aim. I don’t think abstinence is realistic, those “slutty girls” you described in you last thread probably are not going to stop are they! More to the point sex is an important part of adult personal relationships (take it from me it is very satisfying) but with the correct education in the use of contraceptives a reduction of unwanted pregnancies could be achieved. This is a worthy aim.


Sex for entertainment? Really now people, there are plenty of things you can do for entertainment, all of which won't bring a new life into the world. Some of them can even be done with your boyfriend/husband or girlfriend/wife. You could see a movie together, have a romantic dinner, read a book, surf the web. You could make out, blowjob, hand job. I managed to remain sex free (no comments by of Portugal please) I am pretty f***ing happy about it.


Ok, I plead to you to look at the real world how it actually is. Sex is pleasurable; we have evolved in such a way that it cements bonds between people in a relationship. Now look out side your world. What about those in long-term adult relationships who do not wish to have children (for what ever reason… maybe just not yet due to economic circumstance). You say you were brought up to be against contraception what do you do?
Im sorry to do it to you but if you say abstinence I would have to say wait till you are more experienced, then and only then could you presume to judge other people. You have no knowledge of serious sexual relationships and how beautiful and rewarding they can be, how do label these people, how would you label me… am I evil for having sex with my girlfriend? Again it comes down to this point who are you to tell me how to live my life, what authority are you invoking (I think we both know) ?


Peer pressure is real, maybe not as direct as I stated, but it is still there and would probably lead to more unprotected sex among teens if not an excessive rise in abortions. Obviously it won't lead to the downfall of humanity; I just needed to make it seem slightly more imperative. It would still become quite a problem.


We both know peer pressure is real, that is not the issue. You had to make it seem more imperative because your argument is weak. It is accepted that peer pressure may cause more unprotected sex in teenagers that is why a good sexual education program with abortion only as a last resort can avoid running the lives of young people. How about tackling peer pressure as the cause insted of the result of it? Do you think the best way to avoid teen pregnancy is to ban abortion and scare people into abstinence? It just not realistic it didn’t work befor and it will not work again. You will increase the suffering of people around the world.

I suggest you have no evidence that abortion could affect population figures on a world scale, and even if it did I suggest this is a good thing. Less hungry mouths is less suffering something I would assume you support, although it seams you don’t.

The state of being which begins with generation, birth, or germination, and ends with death; also, the time during which this state continues; that state of an animal or plant in which all or any of its organs are capable of performing all or any of their functions; -- used of all animal and vegetable organisms.

the period during which something is functional (as between birth and death);

the period from birth to death b : a specific phase of earthly existence

Now I agree that these definitions are far from definative but they do clearly state that a feotus is not alive, when a feotus becomes a neonate (A newborn baby, 1 to 4 weeks) at birth, it begins its life

You cannot kill what doessss not live

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

I still do not understand how it is in the patient's best interests to have an abortion. To me best interests would be what is best for the patient, not what she feels like. I understand in some cases like rape, miscarriage, or being unable to care for the baby, but we as a government can solve the last problem and at least crack down on the first one. Anyone outside of these criteria who wants an abortion has no real need for it and should be grateful that it is not one of those conditions. I could rant on and on about this, but I'll probably just end up being repetitive.

For the Glory of God!
Emperor Tony I of Vivelo

tell me vivelo what is the diffrence between a baby conceived during rape or during free sex?

tell me vivelo what is the diffrence between a baby conceived during rape or during free sex?

none of portugal, they both lack the things we consider to make it a person so it doesn't really matter what the circumstance is, they should be allowed to have an abortion

I agree there is no diffrence. Except the fact of the matter is that in both cases, ITS A HUMAN BEING. and there for BABY killing. And cold blooded killing of the innocent should be banned and the women who have these and the doctors who preform them locked up as murderers and the key thrown away...

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---