NationStates Jolt Archive

Does anybody else have a problem with leagalizing abortion besides me? I don't want to start anything I just want to hear what people think. Personaly I think its murder, but what do you think?

Halleuiah. Another abortion thread.

However my views on abortion. Pro-choice from the stand point that we should take our noses out of other people's business. And that it is preferable to have safe, legal abortions rather than dangerous, illegal abortions.

Pro-choice on the basis that the mother is under no obligation to provide the baby with anything, such as body chemicals and space...

yeah but if you think of rights...why not the right of the unborn child?

yeah but if you think of rights...why not the right of the unborn child?

It doesn't have the right to someone else's body.

yeah but if you think of rights...why not the right of the unborn child?

There are no rights for the unborn child. UK law (until recently) didn't, technically, give any subject right. and the ECHR doesn't guarentee rights for the feotus.

Not sure about the US, but the constitution doesn't give unborn children rights.

Pro-choice on the basis that the mother is under no obligation to provide the baby with anything, such as body chemicals and space...

WHAT OMG!!!AHHH YOU SCARE ME! I can't belive that someone can belive that. Now wait I'll calm down, I said I didn't want tos start anything so.....dear God, how can you throw away a life beacuse this person doesn't want to provide for it when it. the child has no choice. all its wants is to survie and your saying its okay to kill it so the mother is not uncomtable? PYSCHO

Pro-choice on the basis that the mother is under no obligation to provide the baby with anything, such as body chemicals and space...

WHAT OMG!!!AHHH YOU SCARE ME! I can't belive that someone can belive that. Now wait I'll calm down, I said I didn't want tos start anything so.....dear God, how can you throw away a life beacuse this person doesn't want to provide for it when it. the child has no choice. all its wants is to survie and your saying its okay to kill it so the mother is not uncomtable? PYSCHO

I'll think about that if I ever have tape-worm

yeah but if you think of rights...why not the right of the unborn child?

There are no rights for the unborn child. UK law (until recently) didn't, technically, give any subject right. and the ECHR doesn't guarentee rights for the feotus.

Not sure about the US, but the constitution doesn't give unborn children rights.

Yes...well the Peterson law..makes the murder of a pregant woman a double homicide

and why shouldn't the babey have rights? isn't that age discrimiantion?

Pro-choice on the basis that the mother is under no obligation to provide the baby with anything, such as body chemicals and space...

WHAT OMG!!!AHHH YOU SCARE ME! I can't belive that someone can belive that. Now wait I'll calm down, I said I didn't want tos start anything so.....dear God, how can you throw away a life beacuse this person doesn't want to provide for it when it. the child has no choice. all its wants is to survie and your saying its okay to kill it so the mother is not uncomtable? PYSCHO

I see nothing wrong with what Global Market thinks.
Better than forcing the mother to have a child she doesn't want, in which case it will probably have a horrible childhood because he'll always be reminded that his mum didn't want him.

You can argue that a foetus is like a cancer (ie: all it does is take nourishment from the mother), but my main reason to be pro-choice is that it's not my damn concern.

I'm male - I'm betting you are too - so I'm never going to be pregnant (incidenally the idea of being a father scares the shit out of me too - use protection people). I've got no right to say what a women can or cannot do to her body, simply because it's her body.

You can argue that a foetus is like a cancer (ie: all it does is take nourishment from the mother), but my main reason to be pro-choice is that it's not my damn concern.

I'm male - I'm betting you are too - so I'm never going to be pregnant (incidenally the idea of being a father scares the shit out of me too - use protection people). I've got no right to say what a women can or cannot do to her body, simply because it's her body.

My thoughts exactly, Renard.

Pro-choice on the basis that the mother is under no obligation to provide the baby with anything, such as body chemicals and space...

WHAT OMG!!!AHHH YOU SCARE ME! I can't belive that someone can belive that. Now wait I'll calm down, I said I didn't want tos start anything so.....dear God, how can you throw away a life beacuse this person doesn't want to provide for it when it. the child has no choice. all its wants is to survie and your saying its okay to kill it so the mother is not uncomtable? PYSCHO

I'll think about that if I ever have tape-worm

ITS NOT THE SAME!!! The fetus, un born child, babey, human, will become something, something amazing and wonderful. it is not the same as a tape worm

Yes...well the Peterson law..makes the murder of a pregant woman a double homicide

Somewhere in Leviticus it shows God cares more about a full grown woman that an unborn child. (Wombligton posted a thread on it somewhere)

and why shouldn't the babey have rights? isn't that age discrimiantion?

Yep. But society discriminates against age in many ways. But technically it doesn't exist until it gets documentation (birth certificate).

You can argue that a foetus is like a cancer (ie: all it does is take nourishment from the mother), but my main reason to be pro-choice is that it's not my damn concern.

I'm male - I'm betting you are too - so I'm never going to be pregnant (incidenally the idea of being a father scares the shit out of me too - use protection people). I've got no right to say what a women can or cannot do to her body, simply because it's her body.

well you would be betting wrong I am a female. even if i was pregant and i was in dire circumstances I would never ever kill my unborn child aka get an abortion.

ITS NOT THE SAME!!! The fetus, un born child, babey, human, will become something, something amazing and wonderful. it is not the same as a tape worm

Only in the end result, the gestation is functionally simillar.

Even if both you and your child were to die?

I'm not sure whether that's dedication or idiocy.

You can argue that a foetus is like a cancer (ie: all it does is take nourishment from the mother), but my main reason to be pro-choice is that it's not my damn concern.

I'm male - I'm betting you are too - so I'm never going to be pregnant (incidenally the idea of being a father scares the shit out of me too - use protection people). I've got no right to say what a women can or cannot do to her body, simply because it's her body.

well you would be betting wrong I am a female. even if i was pregant and i was in dire circumstances I would never ever kill my unborn child aka get an abortion.
Fair shout, it's entirely your choice: Pro Choice means just that, your decision alone.

And I work on the assumption people on the net are like me (ie: pale and male) unless otherwise stated, seeing as I'm right most of the time :?

ITS NOT THE SAME!!! The fetus, un born child, babey, human, will become something, something amazing and wonderful. it is not the same as a tape worm
How does it become something is wonderful and/or amazing, it is a matter of opinion,. You said life, you didn't discriminate.

Pro-choice on the basis that the mother is under no obligation to provide the baby with anything, such as body chemicals and space...

WHAT OMG!!!AHHH YOU SCARE ME! I can't belive that someone can belive that. Now wait I'll calm down, I said I didn't want tos start anything so.....dear God, how can you throw away a life beacuse this person doesn't want to provide for it when it. the child has no choice. all its wants is to survie and your saying its okay to kill it so the mother is not uncomtable? PYSCHO

I see nothing wrong with what Global Market thinks.
Better than forcing the mother to have a child she doesn't want, in which case it will probably have a horrible childhood because he'll always be reminded that his mum didn't want him.

a horribel life is better than the alternative atleast the kid can say well atleast I am alive. and who are you or anyone to say that you think someone life will not be worth it and therefore never give them the chance to even live it?? you never know the mother could love the child, the child could be given up for adoption (thousands of parents waiting) find a good family and have a happy life, or they could just raise themselves above th hate and their life and be great. anythig is possible. but none of this is possibel if people sit around and say oh well it could not be a good life so lets just stop it now.

you never know unless you are in that situation... so i'm definitely pro-choice

Even if both you and your child were to die?

I'm not sure whether that's dedication or idiocy.

It could be rationalised as suicide.

Admittedly, abortion can be rationalised as homocide.

ITS NOT THE SAME!!! The fetus, un born child, babey, human, will become something, something amazing and wonderful. it is not the same as a tape worm
How does it become something is wonderful and/or amazing, it is a matter of opinion,. You said life, you didn't discriminate.

life is amazing

ITS NOT THE SAME!!! The fetus, un born child, babey, human, will become something, something amazing and wonderful. it is not the same as a tape worm
How does it become something is wonderful and/or amazing, it is a matter of opinion,. You said life, you didn't discriminate.

life is amazing

Thus, tapeworms are amazing.

a horribel life is better than the alternative atleast the kid can say well atleast I am alive. and who are you or anyone to say that you think someone life will not be worth it and therefore never give them the chance to even live it?? you never know the mother could love the child, the child could be given up for adoption (thousands of parents waiting) find a good family and have a happy life, or they could just raise themselves above th hate and their life and be great. anythig is possible. but none of this is possibel if people sit around and say oh well it could not be a good life so lets just stop it now.

Alternitively. The child can be put into adoption. Have awful, terrible experiences in orphanages/foster home/odopted homes (and it is not unusual). Be bullied at school, bladdy bladdy bladdy blah. and commit suicide at the age of 16.

ITS NOT THE SAME!!! The fetus, un born child, babey, human, will become something, something amazing and wonderful. it is not the same as a tape worm

Only in the end result, the gestation is functionally simillar.

I can't even begin to think you are being sane.

If a pregnant woman drinks alcohol, smokes (tobacco or other substances) is she really taking part in deliberate child abuse? There is certainly not intention to harm. Scary thing is, in the US it is legally allowed for relatives of the born child to sue the mother for abuse.

All human rights are based on the notion that the being in question is a complete, sentient human. I say complete, because a loose appendge (eg. a detached arm, leg) would not have human rights; it's just damaged human tissue.

Keep the religious zealots and You-must-pray-in-school conservatives away from our women's reproductive systems!

JiangGuo

a horribel life is better than the alternative atleast the kid can say well atleast I am alive. and who are you or anyone to say that you think someone life will not be worth it and therefore never give them the chance to even live it?? you never know the mother could love the child, the child could be given up for adoption (thousands of parents waiting) find a good family and have a happy life, or they could just raise themselves above th hate and their life and be great. anythig is possible. but none of this is possibel if people sit around and say oh well it could not be a good life so lets just stop it now.

I'll admit that is a good argument, but I'll bet you any money that anyone considering an abortion goes through a hell of a lot of torment before they make their choice.

a horribel life is better than the alternative atleast the kid can say well atleast I am alive. and who are you or anyone to say that you think someone life will not be worth it and therefore never give them the chance to even live it?? you never know the mother could love the child, the child could be given up for adoption (thousands of parents waiting) find a good family and have a happy life, or they could just raise themselves above th hate and their life and be great. anythig is possible. but none of this is possibel if people sit around and say oh well it could not be a good life so lets just stop it now.

Alternitively. The child can be put into adoption. Have awful, terrible experiences in orphanages/foster home/odopted homes (and it is not unusual). Be bullied at school, bladdy bladdy bladdy blah. and commit suicide at the age of 16.

lasted longer then in your plan. Atleast they had a shot.

a horribel life is better than the alternative atleast the kid can say well atleast I am alive. and who are you or anyone to say that you think someone life will not be worth it and therefore never give them the chance to even live it?? you never know the mother could love the child, the child could be given up for adoption (thousands of parents waiting) find a good family and have a happy life, or they could just raise themselves above th hate and their life and be great. anythig is possible. but none of this is possibel if people sit around and say oh well it could not be a good life so lets just stop it now.

I'll admit that is a good argument, but I'll bet you any money that anyone considering an abortion goes through a hell of a lot of torment before they make their choice.

yeap. and so people say the torment never goes away. Also abortion for the sake of just not wanting a child is cruel. there are thousands just waiting for a child to adopt beacuse they can't have one themselves

If a pregnant woman drinks alcohol, smokes (tobacco or other substances) is she really taking part in deliberate child abuse? There is certainly not intention to harm. Scary thing is, in the US it is legally allowed for relatives of the born child to sue the mother for abuse.

All human rights are based on the notion that the being in question is a complete, sentient human. I say complete, because a loose appendge (eg. a detached arm, leg) would not have human rights; it's just damaged human tissue.

Keep the religious zealots and You-must-pray-in-school conservatives away from our women's reproductive systems!

JiangGuo

well good I am gald that realtives can sue and the child's behalf. I also hope that fathers are allowed to save their children.

I'll admit that is a good argument, but I'll bet you any money that anyone considering an abortion goes through a hell of a lot of torment before they make their choice.

yeap. and so people say the torment never goes away. Also abortion for the sake of just not wanting a child is cruel. there are thousands just waiting for a child to adopt beacuse they can't have one themselves

The point being that they made their choice after weighing up the pros and cons: The fact that there are loads of people out there wanting to adopt is completely irrelevant as there are just as many children no one wants to adopt.

a horribel life is better than the alternative atleast the kid can say well atleast I am alive. and who are you or anyone to say that you think someone life will not be worth it and therefore never give them the chance to even live it?? you never know the mother could love the child, the child could be given up for adoption (thousands of parents waiting) find a good family and have a happy life, or they could just raise themselves above th hate and their life and be great. anythig is possible. but none of this is possibel if people sit around and say oh well it could not be a good life so lets just stop it now.

Alternitively. The child can be put into adoption. Have awful, terrible experiences in orphanages/foster home/odopted homes (and it is not unusual). Be bullied at school, bladdy bladdy bladdy blah. and commit suicide at the age of 16.
Seems to me like the problem is with our adoption system, then.

well good I am gald that realtives can sue and the child's behalf. I also hope that fathers are allowed to save their children.

The day men can give birth is the day they should have any say in the matter, I mean, after the first few minutes there part in the miracle of life is over.

I'll admit that is a good argument, but I'll bet you any money that anyone considering an abortion goes through a hell of a lot of torment before they make their choice.

yeap. and so people say the torment never goes away. Also abortion for the sake of just not wanting a child is cruel. there are thousands just waiting for a child to adopt beacuse they can't have one themselves

The point being that they made their choice after weighing up the pros and cons: The fact that there are loads of people out there wanting to adopt is completely irrelevant as there are just as many children no one wants to adopt.

yes but it should have never been their choice to murder at all. Its just not fair. I like the slogan, choose life, your mother did. I think it sums it all up....we should try to give everyperson every chance they have and the one thing a person shoul always be entitled to is their own life. yes i am saying the babey should have the right to their own life

yeah but if you think of rights...why not the right of the unborn child?

Human rights are for human beings, not potential human beings. Should we have equal rights for spermatozoa as well? An embryo is just a cluster of cells that contain human DNA; it is not yet a human being. I don't see any moral dilemma with abortion, until the fetus' nervous system is developed up to a certain point, after which it would be infanticide. Until it reaches that level of development, you can't murder an embryo any more than you can murder an amoeba.

well good I am gald that realtives can sue and the child's behalf. I also hope that fathers are allowed to save their children.

The day men can give birth is the day they should have any say in the matter, I mean, after the first few minutes there part in the miracle of life is over.

NO! No no no and NO. Sure bilogicaly there part is over but not pyschologly. how would you feel knowing you had a son or daughter and they were MURDERED. its the same thing. a father shoud have the right to protect their children. AT ANY COST

Question: Are/have you ever been pregnant?

I gather it's nine months of back ache, vomiting, varicose veins and carrying around a load of extra weight. Then there's the bonus of a variable length agonising labour at the end.

Shouldn't the mother have the right not to go through all that if she so chooses?

well good I am gald that realtives can sue and the child's behalf. I also hope that fathers are allowed to save their children.

The day men can give birth is the day they should have any say in the matter, I mean, after the first few minutes there part in the miracle of life is over.

NO! No no no and NO. Sure bilogicaly there part is over but not pyschologly. how would you feel knowing you had a son or daughter and they were MURDERED. its the same thing. a father shoud have the right to protect their children. AT ANY COST
I'm fairly sure I wouldn't be very bothered in the long run. Sure, I'd be cut up about it, but if I didn't love the woman I've got no business impregnating her.

Question: Are/have you ever been pregnant?

I gather it's nine months of back ache, vomiting, varicose veins and carrying around a load of extra weight. Then there's the bonus of a variable length agonising labour at the end.

Shouldn't the mother have the right not to go through all that if she so chooses?

Yes your absoltly right. A woman has the choice. ITS CALLED PROTECTION! ABSENTANCE! You know condems, not having sex, birth control! THATS WHEN THE CHOICE IS MADE

Question: Are/have you ever been pregnant?

I gather it's nine months of back ache, vomiting, varicose veins and carrying around a load of extra weight. Then there's the bonus of a variable length agonising labour at the end.

Shouldn't the mother have the right not to go through all that if she so chooses?

no, i have not been pregnant

Yes your absoltly right. A woman has the choice. ITS CALLED PROTECTION! ABSENTANCE! You know condems, not having sex, birth control! THATS WHEN THE CHOICE IS MADE

Yep, its called the condum, day-after pill, IED, or a host of other contraceptives / birth control items. The difference is these all either work within the first week or so, not by the 2nd Trimester.

On the Man vs Woman debate, I wouldn't mind having women only have a say, women are more anti-abortion (slightly) than men.

Hommen, may I ask you how old you are? I ask this because you type like a 13 year old, and I'm guessing that if you are around that age, you probably are not even capable of having children yet, and thus you do not know the terror of there even being a possibility of being pregnant.

And to the male who said he houldn't debate this because it's a womans choice, thank you. Tell that to George W. Mofo.

Yes your absoltly right. A woman has the choice. ITS CALLED PROTECTION! ABSENTANCE! You know condems, not having sex, birth control! THATS WHEN THE CHOICE IS MADE
Now try abstaining from rape.

Boom, you can't. So if a woman gets raped and gets pregnant she has to have the child? That's really charitable, the kid would just love finding out his father was a rapist.

<quote>yeah but if you think of rights...why not the right of the unborn child?</quote>

hope that quoted right.

in the first weeks of a pregnancy, it is my opinion that a fetus is not a child, and therefor has no rights other than it's link to the mother. if the mother wants it, allow it, if not abort it......afthe the baby develops, well then its too late, you need to have it, unless of course you were raped and didnt learn you were pregnant til late in the pregnancy, or the mother would definently die, leaving the baby with nothing anyway.

Hommen, may I ask you how old you are? I ask this because you type like a 13 year old, and I'm guessing that if you are around that age, you probably are not even capable of having children yet, and thus you do not know the terror of there even being a possibility of being pregnant.

And to the male who said he houldn't debate this because it's a womans choice, thank you. Tell that to George W. Mofo.

gee..I am hurt. Just beacuse I can't type does not make me 13. I am however not that old, 18. And yes possibility of being pregnant is sacry. However I know that I can do things to prevent it, absentance.

how would you feel knowing you had a son or daughter and they were MURDERED. its the same thing. a father shoud have the right to protect their children. AT ANY COST

It is not the same thing! I think anyone who has been through such an ordeal may take issue with you there. The simple fact is, abortion is legal, and should always be. You can't 'murder' a cluster of cells. Pregnancies are spontaneously aborted all the time by the mother's own body. Indeed, she may never even know that she was pregnant at all. We have more than enough trouble preserving the rights of real people!

As for birth control, no sane person promotes abstinence these days - it's a rather blinkered, sterile response which young people especially will ignore. Proper sex education and contraception advice is a start. But it should always be a woman's right to decide what goes on with her own body.

Yes your absoltly right. A woman has the choice. ITS CALLED PROTECTION! ABSENTANCE! You know condems, not having sex, birth control! THATS WHEN THE CHOICE IS MADE
Now try abstaining from rape.

Boom, you can't. So if a woman gets raped and gets pregnant she has to have the child? That's really charitable, the kid would just love finding out his father was a rapist.


yes yes i know. thats is an excellent counter argument. I have no replay. I still belive that life should be preserved at all costs, but it is an unfortante sitution and the noble mother would have the child anyways. I am still not sure however exactly how I feel in that situtation

Hommen, may I ask you how old you are? I ask this because you type like a 13 year old, and I'm guessing that if you are around that age, you probably are not even capable of having children yet, and thus you do not know the terror of there even being a possibility of being pregnant.

And to the male who said he shouldn't debate this because it's a womans choice, thank you. Tell that to George W. Mofo.

gee..I am hurt. Just beacuse I can't type does not make me 13. I am however not that old, 18. And yes possibility of being pregnant is sacry. However I know that I can do things to prevent it, absentance.

Ok, so, like you I am an 18 year old female. What exactly has lead you to possess these views? I am not saying they are wrong, they are very understandable, but it's just the fact that not everything is black and white.

Have you ever had a long term relationship? It's very hard not to want something more than kissing, especially at 18. And of course everyone should use protection, not just to prevent babies, but disease as well.

And while I know I can take care of my tapeworm, I really dont know about a baby.

yes yes i know. thats is an excellent counter argument. I have no replay. I still belive that life should be preserved at all costs, but it is an unfortante sitution and the noble mother would have the child anyways. I am still not sure however exactly how I feel in that situtation

The "I still belive that life should be preserved at all costs" thing I can understand: I do the same thing with other issues, I evaluate the situation and adopt a line. That becomes my principle in the matter, something I'll hold on to until whenever.

"I am still not sure however exactly how I feel in that situtation" is the catch, for me as well when I develop a principle: Sooner or later I come to apply the principle, and that's the acid test. I really, really, really hope no-one ever has to make a decision of this kind again, but ultimately that's unlikely.

Sooner or later someone, somewhere, is going to face this situation, and that's the reason I'm pro-choice: I'm never going to face it, so I take the opinion that it's entirely their choice in the matter. More power to you if you're willing to hold so true to a principle, mine change with the wind, but make it a personal choice.

Rapes make up an extremely small amount of abortions anyway its pretty negligent. If abortion is murder after a certain point, it dosen't make any difference how the baby is concieved.

Rapes make up an extremely small amount of abortions anyway its pretty negligent. If abortion is murder after a certain point, it dosen't make any difference how the baby is concieved.

I do agree that it is a womans responsibility to get an abortion as soon as possible after becoming pregnant.

This said, I honestly think that after a woman has been raped she is probably not in her right mind for a while, don't come down to hard and be too judgemental on a rape victim.

If a woman doesn’t want to take care of her child then she has no obligation to do such. Although it can sometimes be mind boggling as to why she engaged in such acts to get herself pregnant and then not want the child. However if a woman is not ready or willing to take care of the child, then she has no obligation to have that child and she should not be forced into having it.
__________________________________________________
Out of all the demons in this world, none is more frightening than man

I am pro-choice, not because I think abortion is a good thing, but because the idea that the fetus is a life is a purely religious one. I don't believe laws should be made based on my (or anyone else's) personal relgiion [separation of church and state] so we cannot outlaw it. Although I do not believe I would ever have an abortion, i think it is a moral choice that should be left up to the woman.

Also notice that I said I don't *think* I would ever have one because I know that until put in a difficult situation like that, no one can really say what they would or would not do. Someone could, for instance say that they would jump in front of a bus to save another person, but you don't really know until the bus is bearing down and you make the decision in that split second.

Finally, to anyone who is against abortion in all cases, I have two questions for you.
First, would you like to be the person who has to tell a 10 or 11 year old girl that she has to carry and have her own father's child to term even though her body is not nearly developed enough to do so? If so, I think there are plenty of doctors and nurses who will give you the job.
Second, do you really understand the full consequences of outlawing abortion? I'm not talking about back-alley coat hanger abortions, although those would be a problem. But if we give a fetus full rights under the law, a woman's life would *never* be her own. A woman who drinks on the night she gets pregnant can be sued for murder if alcohol causes her baby to die or child abuse if it is deformed even though she didn't even know she was pregnant. Sounds scary, huh?

well, while no one on the pro-choice side has swayed me , and now all I feel is alone on my stance I feel better informed. Thanks to those who put honset effort into putting their veiw points forward.

I am pro-choice, not because I think abortion is a good thing, but because the idea that the fetus is a life is a purely religious one.


That's a load of baloney, or a convenient cop-out. There's no basis scientifically to think of the fetus as anything but alive. Firstly, it must certainly be comprised of living tissue - how else is it supposed to be born alive? That's a fundamental law of biology - only living matter can be alive. Non-living and dead matter cannot spontaneously become alive. Therefore, whatever the fetus is, it is certainly alive.

So the question now becomes what is the fetus? You get a few good answers here..."it's part of the mother", or "it's a parasite". Okay, let's address each one of these.

To do so, let's turn to the Law of Biogenesis: parents of a particular species have children of the same species. That is to say: if two cats mate and produce offspring, their offspring will be cats, not chickens or iguanas. The same is true of humans. Our offspring will be human.

That nicely addresses the "parasite" issue. What species of parasite is it? Certainly not a tapeworm. Certainly not a fungus. It's a human...homo sapiens is its species.

Now, to the "part of the mother" issue. Is it part of the mother. It is certainly connected to her body, and reliant on the mother for food and nourishment. However, genetically, the fetus is entirely distinct from the mother - the fetus and the mother are not one and the same, and the fetus is not "part" of the mother in the same way that...say...her toe would be.


I don't believe laws should be made based on my (or anyone else's) personal relgiion [separation of church and state] so we cannot outlaw it.


What about laws based on reasoned application of scientific process and evidence? There is certainly no way to argue with the assertion that the fetus is a human being and alive, not scientifically. It must be, if it is to be born as a living human being.

Can we thus outlaw it on that basis?


Although I do not believe I would ever have an abortion, i think it is a moral choice that should be left up to the woman.


The creation of this fetus was not a gender-specific issue. A father was required. To that end, this child's life should be made a gender issue, since both parents have a genetic stake in the matter.


Also notice that I said I don't *think* I would ever have one because I know that until put in a difficult situation like that, no one can really say what they would or would not do. Someone could, for instance say that they would jump in front of a bus to save another person, but you don't really know until the bus is bearing down and you make the decision in that split second.


There are a number of arguments people will raise, playing the "what if" game, in this argument. The most common one is "what if the woman was raped".

Okay, let's look at that. Will having an abortion make the rape go away? No. Nor will it erase the memory. It might serve as a decent revenge mechanism against the father to kill something that carries part of his genetic code, but I would caution that revenge is a poor reason to make a practice that ends the life of a human being legal.

Furthermore, the rape is already a moral calamity, visited upon the victim. Is it right to complexify the moral ramifications of the situation with an abortion? I don't speak to morality in the "religious" sense, but in the simple sense of right and wrong. Like as not, we are talking about a process that ends the life of a human being, here, and thus there are certainly moral ramifications to it.


Finally, to anyone who is against abortion in all cases, I have two questions for you.


Shoot.


First, would you like to be the person who has to tell a 10 or 11 year old girl that she has to carry and have her own father's child to term even though her body is not nearly developed enough to do so?


There are other options here. Like as not, I find what her father did to her sick and perverted, but I'm not going to be one to complexify an already dicey moral issue with the death of a human being. It is the same as in cases of rape: what point is there to punishing, with death, the child for its father's crime? So I could be the one to tell her, I could.

There are options for her, as well. I mean...chances are, if her body can't sustain it, she'll miscarry. If she does carry to term, there is always a C-section so she doesn't have to risk her life in the process of giving birth.

And, of course, I'd have the father locked away and the key conveinently "lost".


If so, I think there are plenty of doctors and nurses who will give you the job.


I just volunteered. ;)


Second, do you really understand the full consequences of outlawing abortion? I'm not talking about back-alley coat hanger abortions, although those would be a problem.


Not really. The figures of "thousands of women" dying from back-alley abortions every year is really just hype. CDC Atlanta reported 39 deaths from illegal abortion procedures the year before Roe v. Wade. And the second part of that was that those deaths occurred not in back alleys, but in the back rooms of the offices of doctors who offered abortion services - clean, sterile rooms with all the proper equipment, with the procedure being done by a practicing doctor.


But if we give a fetus full rights under the law, a woman's life would *never* be her own. A woman who drinks on the night she gets pregnant can be sued for murder if alcohol causes her baby to die or child abuse if it is deformed even though she didn't even know she was pregnant. Sounds scary, huh?

Not really. We're already seeing massive campaigns against smoking/drinking while pregnant, and I can't help but watch those adds without feeling the bitter taste of hypocrisy. I mean, how can we in one breath argue that the fetus has no rights, is not human, is a part of the mother's body that she can discard at will...and then turn around and caution that "smoking during pregnancy can harm your baby"?

Secondly, your example is somewhat flawed. Copious alcohol consumption will harm a fetus, but the alternative (well-moderated periodic consumption) won't. Having a glass of wine the night she actually conceives the child will not do the child any permanent harm, nor any harm at all. And on the extremely small chance that some harm did result, I'm sure the law would be able to overlook this.

Conversely, a mother who shows the level of irreponsibility necessary to drink sufficient amounts of alcohol, or use other drugs, enough to arrest the development of the fetus in her uterus...should perhaps have to face the consequences of that irresponsibility.


Aiera

NO and no exceptions. Its murder simple as that. They, the unborn child are the weakest of society and have rights no abortion! To be moderate on this issue as the third choice is, is like saying well I support some murder but not all just a bit. absolutely not!

I am pro-choice, not because I think abortion is a good thing, but because the idea that the fetus is a life is a purely religious one.


That's a load of baloney, or a convenient cop-out. There's no basis scientifically to think of the fetus as anything but alive.

Cop-out? Not really.

Firstly, it must certainly be comprised of living tissue - how else is it supposed to be born alive? That's a fundamental law of biology - only living matter can be alive. Non-living and dead matter cannot spontaneously become alive. Therefore, whatever the fetus is, it is certainly alive.

Perhaps, but there is a difference between being alive (my skin cells are alive) and being a *separate* life. A separate life must meet all the requirements of life (also a fundamental law of biology), and a fetus does not until a certain point in development.


To do so, let's turn to the Law of Biogenesis: parents of a particular species have children of the same species. That is to say: if two cats mate and produce offspring, their offspring will be cats, not chickens or iguanas. The same is true of humans. Our offspring will be human.

No one is arguing here...

That nicely addresses the "parasite" issue. What species of parasite is it? Certainly not a tapeworm. Certainly not a fungus. It's a human...homo sapiens is its species.

A cancerous mass also has human DNA. Do we afford it rights by law?

Now, to the "part of the mother" issue. Is it part of the mother. It is certainly connected to her body, and reliant on the mother for food and nourishment. However, genetically, the fetus is entirely distinct from the mother - the fetus and the mother are not one and the same, and the fetus is not "part" of the mother in the same way that...say...her toe would be.

However, it is not yet a *separate* life in the way that...say...the person on the street would be.


I don't believe laws should be made based on my (or anyone else's) personal relgiion [separation of church and state] so we cannot outlaw it.


What about laws based on reasoned application of scientific process and evidence? There is certainly no way to argue with the assertion that the fetus is a human being and alive, not scientifically. It must be, if it is to be born as a living human being.

As I have pointed out, science would reason that it is not a separate life until a certain point in development. This is the reason that late-term abortions are outlawed unless the mother's life is in danger.

The only argument that I have against abortion is the fact that I believe human beings are given a soul. I do not know at what point this happens, so I can only assume it happens during the fetus stage. However, the existence of a soul is a purely religious view, and I have no way of scientifically proving it. That said, science cannot outlaw abortion.


Although I do not believe I would ever have an abortion, i think it is a moral choice that should be left up to the woman.


The creation of this fetus was not a gender-specific issue. A father was required. To that end, this child's life should be made a gender issue, since both parents have a genetic stake in the matter.

Nature has given the woman a greater share of the burden of bearing a child (in fact pretty much the whole share), thus the woman should have the decision-making capabilities. A man can try to change the woman's mind, but ultimately it has to be her decision.


Also notice that I said I don't *think* I would ever have one because I know that until put in a difficult situation like that, no one can really say what they would or would not do. Someone could, for instance say that they would jump in front of a bus to save another person, but you don't really know until the bus is bearing down and you make the decision in that split second.


There are a number of arguments people will raise, playing the "what if" game, in this argument. The most common one is "what if the woman was raped".

That has absolutely nothing to do with the quote from me above.

Okay, let's look at that. Will having an abortion make the rape go away? No. Nor will it erase the memory. It might serve as a decent revenge mechanism against the father to kill something that carries part of his genetic code, but I would caution that revenge is a poor reason to make a practice that ends the life of a human being legal.

Of course, if you don't consider it to be a human being yet...

Furthermore, the rape is already a moral calamity, visited upon the victim. Is it right to complexify the moral ramifications of the situation with an abortion? I don't speak to morality in the "religious" sense, but in the simple sense of right and wrong. Like as not, we are talking about a process that ends the life of a human being, here, and thus there are certainly moral ramifications to it.

Again, this is based upon your belief, and not necessarily that of the woman who is raped.

[There are other options here. Like as not, I find what her father did to her sick and perverted, but I'm not going to be one to complexify an already dicey moral issue with the death of a human being. It is the same as in cases of rape: what point is there to punishing, with death, the child for its father's crime? So I could be the one to tell her, I could.

You have fun with that.

Not really. We're already seeing massive campaigns against smoking/drinking while pregnant, and I can't help but watch those adds without feeling the bitter taste of hypocrisy. I mean, how can we in one breath argue that the fetus has no rights, is not human, is a part of the mother's body that she can discard at will...and then turn around and caution that "smoking during pregnancy can harm your baby"?

Most people believe that once a woman makes the decision to have a child, she then has a responsibility to do what she can to increase its chances of survival. This seems like a contradiction to you only because you hold a different viewpoint. Besides, campaigns against smoking/drinking during pregnancy do not mean that we would advocate sending a woman to jail because she drank before she knew she was pregnant.

[Secondly, your example is somewhat flawed. Copious alcohol consumption will harm a fetus, but the alternative (well-moderated periodic consumption) won't. Having a glass of wine the night she actually conceives the child will not do the child any permanent harm, nor any harm at all. And on the extremely small chance that some harm did result, I'm sure the law would be able to overlook this.

Actually, it is possible that *any* amount of alcohol consumed during pregnancy, especially during the first trimester, can cause birth defects. And here is the fun part, many women don't even know they are pregnant until well into the pregnancy. So, if a woman goes to a party a month into her pregnancy, before she knows she is pregnant, and gets passed-out drunk - she would be prosecuted for murder under a law giving fetuses full rights and the law could not overlook it, because she would have caused harm to another human being according to the law.

Giving a fetus full rights as a separate life could lead to any woman who is sexually active becoming nothing but a carrier for a *possible* child.

Conversely, a mother who shows the level of irreponsibility necessary to drink sufficient amounts of alcohol, or use other drugs, enough to arrest the development of the fetus in her uterus...should perhaps have to face the consequences of that irresponsibility.

Ah, but if she doesn't yet know she is pregnant...... Hmmmmm...

murder my ass....

Pro-choice all the way.

What about laws based on reasoned application of scientific process and evidence? There is certainly no way to argue with the assertion that the fetus is a human being and alive, not scientifically. It must be, if it is to be born as a living human being.

This is like arguing that a heap of engine parts, wheels, fenders, nuts, bolts, and a complicated set of blueprints is a car. It is potentially a car, or it is also potentially scrap metal. It's not a car until you can drive it.

Since an early fetus does not have a developed brain and nervous system, is not self aware, has no emotional or intellectual attachment to the world, and is not even capable of suffering, the only moral issue with aborting it must be a religious one.

And, a parasite does not necessarily have to be a different species to its host. A parasite is defined as an organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host. Since the fetus is a different organism to the mother, it fulfills all the above requirements for parasite classification.

If an embryo is a human being solely because it has the potential to become a human being, then by the same logic, a cheese and mushroom sandwich is a human being.

If you care so much about the unborn child, take it out of it's unwanting mother and care for it yourself.

Pro-choice on the basis that the mother is under no obligation to provide the baby with anything, such as body chemicals and space...

WHAT OMG!!!AHHH YOU SCARE ME! I can't belive that someone can belive that. Now wait I'll calm down, I said I didn't want tos start anything so.....dear God, how can you throw away a life beacuse this person doesn't want to provide for it when it. the child has no choice. all its wants is to survie and your saying its okay to kill it so the mother is not uncomtable? PYSCHO

I'll think about that if I ever have tape-worm

LOL++++

As for abortion, I am involved in them, and am happy to continue to be so as I see the suffering that these women are going through, and am aware of what would happen to them if an unwanted pregnancy was forced upon them.

Most anti-abortionists are not, and frankly, live on a different planet.

As evidence for saying that anti-abortionists live on a different planet, I submit this.

Question: Are/have you ever been pregnant?

I gather it's nine months of back ache, vomiting, varicose veins and carrying around a load of extra weight. Then there's the bonus of a variable length agonising labour at the end.

Shouldn't the mother have the right not to go through all that if she so chooses?

Yes your absoltly right. A woman has the choice. ITS CALLED PROTECTION! ABSENTANCE! You know condems, not having sex, birth control! THATS WHEN THE CHOICE IS MADE



When it comes to back street abortions, they do happen. Not that many women die, but many are rendered sub fertile, or infertile as a consequence.

In addition, banning abortion does not stop it from happening. The rich pay someone to do it, but they call it a D&C instead, or, as happens in Ireland, the rich pay to go somewhere where abortion is legal and have the termination carried out there.

So, a ban would just harm the poor, who really are the people who suffer more from unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

Abortion should only be legal if the mother's life is threatened by the pregnancy. There are 1 million infertile couples in the U.S. who want to adopt, and instead we murder human life at its most vulnerable stage. Insane, and evil.

Fortunately, more and more women are becoming aware, through devices like ultrasound, that what's in the womb isn't just some amorphous blob of tissue, but is a (albeit small) human being. My own view is that abortion won't be banned in the near future - as it would be if we were civilized - but the increasing moral stigma that is attaching to the procedure will in time see it become much rarer.

Normally I would turn my head on such a discussion but I am fighting the flu so I guess I am a little argumentative.

For the Relious People:

I have heard many arguments so I will address the most common:

It is birth control: There are cases of that but not as often as suggested. I have known women who have had one simply because they were in no position to support it. Education levels weak, skill levels weak. Our fastest growing poverty groups are single divorsed/unwed mothers. Which comes to the second argument.

Adoption: Yes very logical. Except it is not as easy as you think. As I always say go create a child and see how easily you can give it up. I would be more in favor of this approach if the there were no children in the system. Reality is that a child only has a certain amount of time before it will never get a home. If it's defective, the chances are next to nothing. Fact is most people only want the perfect cute pudgy same race babies.

Some of the new bills want the procedure completely killed. Even when there are conditions where there are false pregnancies. Basically there is nothing developing in the sack and the body thinks its pregnant. The woman is almost guranteed to get an infection which can kill her.

What about diseases? A local hospital mentioned that the predominate abortion cases are downs syndrome and Cystic Fibrosis children? CF is a common disease found in European/caucasions. The CDC says 1 out 85 people are carriors. To have the CF disease was best explained by a dutch doctor. "It makes you misserable, then it kills you" A friend who is a pedatrics researcher will tell you that the child will need a team of doctors for breating and a team for eating. The current brag rate is that 33% make it to teen age years.

Why inflict this on a family? It is one thing to not know the families are carriors and then have one born. In that case you deal with it the best you can. However, if you know in advance?

A friend told me this story which involved her brother. They had one child really smart and the sweetest happiest kid you could imagine. The second one is a downs child. Sever case of it. She noticed that their first child is all but forgotten by the parents. Anguish and the effort required to take care of this child.

A CF story. My sister-in-law was born with the disease back when they only had a name for it. She lived two weeks in the hospitol, under machines, and drugged out of her mind. My mother-in-law said she never got the impression the child really noticed her there. After her death they opened her up and reported "We have never seen this before" She had such an advanced case. Her organs looked like she had the disease for years.

Why inflict this on a family? My father-in-law in a spiratual crisis saught guidence from his priest and was told God was punishing him. He left the Church and never went back.

I have hear the God punishing arguement and usually ignore those people as complete idiots. I just refuse to belive God will kill you children for not loving/worshiping him right.

I have heard the test arguments. How does the death of your child make you love life more? I can tell you it makes you hate it more. So I don't buy that argument. I really have a hard time beliving God has to micromanage everybody that way.

So I belive abortion has it's place.

For the record: I have used abortion. Our child had CF. Our warning sign was the fact the genetics person said "We have never seen this before...."

I can tell you that it is the hardest choice you will ever make. Even after I still have regret.

But I think it is our regrets that give us our character.

Cop-out? Not really.


It's easy to dismiss those who oppose abortion as religious zealots, although I personally don't give my religious beliefs any stake in my stance on the issue. That's deliberate, of course, but I make a point of avoiding the theological aspects of the issue precisely because not everyone is Christian, so it is absurd to apply Christianity to this debate. Especially this one, given how loaded it tends to be.


Perhaps, but there is a difference between being alive (my skin cells are alive) and being a *separate* life. A separate life must meet all the requirements of life (also a fundamental law of biology), and a fetus does not until a certain point in development.


I fail to see how a fetus does not meet the requirements for being a "seperate" life. It is clearly a genetically distinct organism. It is clealy comprised of living material. There are questions of viability, but in the right circumstances, anyone can be non-viable (hooked up to dialysis, or to a respirator, in a coma...).

No one is arguing here...


Just making sure. Interesting.


A cancerous mass also has human DNA. Do we afford it rights by law?


Well, provided that it could develop into a fully functional human, I would argue that we should. Of course, it can't. Hardly the same thing as a fetus, then...is it? And so we shouldn't deal with it in the same way, should we?


However, it is not yet a *separate* life in the way that...say...the person on the street would be.


Not *yet*, true. But does that matter? Left to its own devices, it will be.


As I have pointed out, science would reason that it is not a separate life until a certain point in development. This is the reason that late-term abortions are outlawed unless the mother's life is in danger.


Perhaps in the glorious USA. In Canada, you are allowed to abort the fetus at any time until birth. Well, we techinically spec it at 22 weeks, but abortions that are performed much later on are not disallowed.


The only argument that I have against abortion is the fact that I believe human beings are given a soul. I do not know at what point this happens, so I can only assume it happens during the fetus stage. However, the existence of a soul is a purely religious view, and I have no way of scientifically proving it. That said, science cannot outlaw abortion.


If abortion is not the killing of a human being, then there is no reason to argue against it. If abortion is the killing of a human being, then there is no reason that can justify it. It's a somewhat well-known axiom, but it really addresses the heart of the issue. What is the fetus? Regardless of the soul (just for your information, Christianity teaches that ensoulment happens at conception. Islam teaches that it happens at 1 month.), I would argue that we cannot legitimize the killing of a human being, if in fact the fetus is one. And scientifically speaking, it is.


Nature has given the woman a greater share of the burden of bearing a child (in fact pretty much the whole share), thus the woman should have the decision-making capabilities. A man can try to change the woman's mind, but ultimately it has to be her decision.


Of course, that's assuming that anyone should be given the choice to kill a human being. Which I would argue that none should (and yes, I thus oppose the death penalty and the war in Iraq).


That has absolutely nothing to do with the quote from me above.


Fair enough, but it segues into it. The notion of "oh, we can say this, but really..." leads quite nicely into discussions of hypothetical scenarios. I was cutting to the chase.



Of course, if you don't consider it to be a human being yet...


Which is an unsubstantiated claim...


Again, this is based upon your belief, and not necessarily that of the woman who is raped.


As long as the issue involves the killing of a human being, it is going to be a morally contentious one (and I say that in a purely secular way)


You have fun with that.


It wouldn't be fun, at all, and if the father was standing there like some hypocritical prick then I'd probably have to be restrained to avoid killing him...but I could do it.


Most people believe that once a woman makes the decision to have a child, she then has a responsibility to do what she can to increase its chances of survival. This seems like a contradiction to you only because you hold a different viewpoint. Besides, campaigns against smoking/drinking during pregnancy do not mean that we would advocate sending a woman to jail because she drank before she knew she was pregnant.


So...if a woman didn't consciously plan to have a child from the get-go, she can smoke and drink the fetus' brains out?


Actually, it is possible that *any* amount of alcohol consumed during pregnancy, especially during the first trimester, can cause birth defects. And here is the fun part, many women don't even know they are pregnant until well into the pregnancy. So, if a woman goes to a party a month into her pregnancy, before she knows she is pregnant, and gets passed-out drunk - she would be prosecuted for murder under a law giving fetuses full rights and the law could not overlook it, because she would have caused harm to another human being according to the law.


I think we're now on to a seperate issue. It is one thing to accidentally get fall-down drunk. It is quite another to desire to kill the fetus outright. It is also quite another thing to know that you are pregnant and still engage in these destructive behaviours. I think any valid law would make such a distinction.


Giving a fetus full rights as a separate life could lead to any woman who is sexually active becoming nothing but a carrier for a *possible* child.


Not at all. Well, yes, given how Americans tend to overdo their legal bills. But in a more global sense, a more ideal sense if you will, no. See above.


Ah, but if she doesn't yet know she is pregnant...... Hmmmmm...

Well, obviously in that case. I believe the example of mine to which you made this reply spoke instead of a woman who knew full well she was pregnant and yet engaged in these actions anyhow.

Aiera

This is like arguing that a heap of engine parts, wheels, fenders, nuts, bolts, and a complicated set of blueprints is a car. It is potentially a car, or it is also potentially scrap metal. It's not a car until you can drive it.

Since an early fetus does not have a developed brain and nervous system, is not self aware, has no emotional or intellectual attachment to the world, and is not even capable of suffering, the only moral issue with aborting it must be a religious one.


Not at all. Left to its own devices, it is pretty much certain that the fetus will be born and be viable. In the same sense, with your example, the car is virtually certain to be constructed and driven.

And the fetus can feel pain at a relatively early stage. 13 weeks is the spec, but it's been observed as early as 8 weeks.


And, a parasite does not necessarily have to be a different species to its host. A parasite is defined as an organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host. Since the fetus is a different organism to the mother, it fulfills all the above requirements for parasite classification.


And yet you have just admitted that it is human, a human being. Thanks.


If an embryo is a human being solely because it has the potential to become a human being, then by the same logic, a cheese and mushroom sandwich is a human being.

On what planet, in what reality, can cheese, mushrooms, and bread become human.

Oh, you're one of those abiogenesis types, aren't you?

;) Aiera

If you care so much about the unborn child, take it out of it's unwanting mother and care for it yourself.

See the remark about adoption. I think in the US alone, there are something like 2,000,000 families waiting to adopt each year?

:? Aiera

lasted longer then in your plan. Atleast they had a shot.

So, in brief, your position is "Life at any cost, at any price"?

We're going to have to disagree. But thank you for contributing.

First off, stop using the "Some people can't have kids, put it up for adoption" arguement, there are children who spend their entire lives in that system without ever finding a home, no need to add your own little bit to the problem.

Secondly, I read what some of you said about forcing a young victim of incest to bear her fathers child, and I must say I am more disgusted with those people than I ever been with anyone in my nineteen years on this planet. The fact you would force a child to go through that experience says much about your character. I am absoltely sickened that you people think that you have the moral high ground when you would allow something like that to proceed. Now I've heard people wanting to force rape victims to bear children, I find that sickening as well, but you guys just took it to a whole new level.

I have to ask, what the hell is wrong with you people? :x

Abortion really should be allowed. Quality of life > quanitity of life.

my rationale for drinking, smoking, abortion.

If you care so much about the unborn child, take it out of it's unwanting mother and care for it yourself.

See the remark about adoption. I think in the US alone, there are something like 2,000,000 families waiting to adopt each year?

:? Aiera

No, now. How many of those 2,000,000 families are willing to have the baby transferred from the mother's womb to the adobting mother's womb?

Oh btw, if there's 2,000,000 families waiting to adopt, I assume there are no children waiting to be adopted?

If you care so much about the unborn child, take it out of it's unwanting mother and care for it yourself.

See the remark about adoption. I think in the US alone, there are something like 2,000,000 families waiting to adopt each year?

:? Aiera

No, now. How many of those 2,000,000 families are willing to have the baby transferred from the mother's womb to the adobting mother's womb?

Oh btw, if there's 2,000,000 families waiting to adopt, I assume there are no children waiting to be adopted?

Ahhh there is the problem. When they say they are of want of a child, it means they want a healthy complete baby.

I would be more to their camp if the system didn't have any children to adopt but that will probably never happen.

It's easy to dismiss those who oppose abortion as religious zealots, although I personally don't give my religious beliefs any stake in my stance on the issue. That's deliberate, of course, but I make a point of avoiding the theological aspects of the issue precisely because not everyone is Christian, so it is absurd to apply Christianity to this debate. Especially this one, given how loaded it tends to be.

I'll agree with you on this. I can believe it is wrong due to my religion, but my religion is not a good enough reason to make laws that affect others.


I fail to see how a fetus does not meet the requirements for being a "seperate" life. It is clearly a genetically distinct organism. It is clealy comprised of living material. There are questions of viability, but in the right circumstances, anyone can be non-viable (hooked up to dialysis, or to a respirator, in a coma...).

Up until a certain point in development, the fetus does not meet all the biological requirements that must be met in order to be alive. It does not respond to it's environment until the nervous system is developed. It cannot transport its own nutrients until the circulatory system is developed. It cannot get rid of its own waste. Until organ systems are developing, scientifically, the fetus really is little more than a ball of dividing cells. It is certainly not a separate life.

As for genetically distinct, there are cells in your body with mutations that make them genetically distinct from the rest - this does not make them a new life. Cancer cells also are often genetically distinct.

Well, provided that it could develop into a fully functional human, I would argue that we should. Of course, it can't. Hardly the same thing as a fetus, then...is it? And so we shouldn't deal with it in the same way, should we?

You cannot argue that a fetus is a person because it has the potential to be a person. By this argument, I am a rocket scientist because I have the potential to be a rocket scientist. A caterpillar is a butterfly because it has the potential to be a butterfly. This post is already on the web because it has the potential to be there.

Not *yet*, true. But does that matter? Left to its own devices, it will be.

Wrong. Left to its own devices, it will be a mass of dead cells. Left to the mother's, it may become a person.

Perhaps in the glorious USA. In Canada, you are allowed to abort the fetus at any time until birth. Well, we techinically spec it at 22 weeks, but abortions that are performed much later on are not disallowed.

Well, science is part of the reasoning behind the fact that late-term abortions are rarely allowed in the US. In fact, even second trimester abortions require the express recomendation of a doctor. All of this was specified in Roe vs. Wade.

If abortion is not the killing of a human being, then there is no reason to argue against it. If abortion is the killing of a human being, then there is no reason that can justify it. It's a somewhat well-known axiom, but it really addresses the heart of the issue. What is the fetus?

The problem is that the only way to define the fetus as a separate human being until a certain point in development is religious. Therefore, there will be disagreements, just like there are disagreements over whether or not is ok for a woman to cut her hair, or show it in pubilc.

Regardless of the soul (just for your information, Christianity teaches that ensoulment happens at conception. Islam teaches that it happens at 1 month.),

Thanks for that information. Of course, what you meant is "some Christians believe that..." and "some Muslims believe that..." After all, there are those of us who don't blindly follow what our preacher says and strive to come to conclusions based on our own personal relationship with God.

I would argue that we cannot legitimize the killing of a human being, if in fact the fetus is one. And scientifically speaking, it is.

Nothing in science has defined the fetus as a separate human being. Until it does, the only argument is religious.



Of course, if you don't consider it to be a human being yet...


Which is an unsubstantiated claim...

In your opinion....

So...if a woman didn't consciously plan to have a child from the get-go, she can smoke and drink the fetus' brains out?

I never said that, so don't try and put words into my mouth. What I said was that if the woman plans to keep the child and not abort it, she should abstain from smoking and drinking until the child is born. In case you haven't noticed, the arguments I have made relating to drinking involve a case where the mother does not yet know that she is pregnant.

I think we're now on to a seperate issue. It is one thing to accidentally get fall-down drunk. It is quite another to desire to kill the fetus outright. It is also quite another thing to know that you are pregnant and still engage in these destructive behaviours. I think any valid law would make such a distinction.

You're right. A valid law would make a distinction, just like murder laws do now. If a woman got drunk before she knew she was pregnant, it would only be 3rd-degree murder and she wouldn't get life in prison. But, according to your opinion, it would be killing a human being - so she would have to go to jail for some time.


Giving a fetus full rights as a separate life could lead to any woman who is sexually active becoming nothing but a carrier for a *possible* child.


Not at all. Well, yes, given how Americans tend to overdo their legal bills. But in a more global sense, a more ideal sense if you will, no. See above.

The problem is that laws don't work that way. We can't say "A fetus is a full life, but it's ok if you accidently kill it." At this point, we are not really giving the fetus the rights attributed to being fully alive. Unless you are going to argue that a woman never is responsible for the accidental death of her child, you have already made a clear distinction between how we treat a *possible* life and a life. If you would like to argue this, well, a woman who kills her child by accidently leaving it in a locked car in summer heat with the windows up cannot be prosecuted for anything. After all, it was accidental!


Ah, but if she doesn't yet know she is pregnant...... Hmmmmm...

Well, obviously in that case. I believe the example of mine to which you made this reply spoke instead of a woman who knew full well she was pregnant and yet engaged in these actions anyhow.

Aiera

Actually, no it didn't. I have never and will never argue that a woman who knows she is pregnant and is carrying the child to term should engage in drinking, smoking, drugs, etc. In fact, I once knew someone who did so. She was one of the biggest anti-choice people I knew. When she got pregnant, she didn't tell anyone and constantly, drank, smoked tobacco, and smoked marijuana. She barely ate so that the baby wouldn't show. When it was born at home, she killed it and dumped it off in a dumpster. These actions, I believe, were much more immoral than a woman whose religious beliefs do not define the fetus as a separate life having it removed from her body before it can feel the pain.

too many people. overpopulation is evil. people need to die. or else i start spaying and neutering all of you.
you think im kidding?
2.3 people being born per second to the net population isnt a joke.

And, a parasite does not necessarily have to be a different species to its host. A parasite is defined as an organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host. Since the fetus is a different organism to the mother, it fulfills all the above requirements for parasite classification.


And yet you have just admitted that it is human, a human being. Thanks.


If an embryo is a human being solely because it has the potential to become a human being, then by the same logic, a cheese and mushroom sandwich is a human being.

On what planet, in what reality, can cheese, mushrooms, and bread become human.

Oh, you're one of those abiogenesis types, aren't you?

;) Aiera

On what planet did I say either of those two things? Oh wait, I didn't! Watch your quotes, darling.

And, a parasite does not necessarily have to be a different species to its host. A parasite is defined as an organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host. Since the fetus is a different organism to the mother, it fulfills all the above requirements for parasite classification.


And yet you have just admitted that it is human, a human being. Thanks.


If an embryo is a human being solely because it has the potential to become a human being, then by the same logic, a cheese and mushroom sandwich is a human being.

On what planet, in what reality, can cheese, mushrooms, and bread become human.

Oh, you're one of those abiogenesis types, aren't you?

;) Aiera

On what planet did I say either of those two things? Oh wait, I didn't! Watch your quotes, darling.

Here's some interesting stuff from the Bible:

"If a man fathers a hundred children and lives many years, however many they be, but his soul is not satisfied with good things, and he does not even have a proper burial, then I say 'Better the miscarriage than he, for it comes in futility and goes into obscurity; and it's name is covered in obscurity. It never sees the sun and it never knows anything; it is better off than he." -- Ecclesiasties 6:3-5

These words of King Solomon seem to indicate that abortion is a perfectly reasonable alternative for quality of life issues, at least in as much as any passage of the Bible directly relates to modern day abortion.

Here's the passage from Exodus that was mentioned earlier. Not sure if it's been reposted yet:

"And if men struggle and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." -- Exodus 21:22-25

Clearly, for the only place in the Bible where a miscarriage is specifically caused by another person is here, the laws of the land reign supreme on the subject of abortion. Very much a case of "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's."

Mind you, this only has any impact if you are using the Bible as some sort of source for your particular stance on abortion.

i am willing to bet that a significant portion of the people who are anti-choice are christains. not being shackled so, i am proud to say that i am pro-choice. if the baby has a brain tumor, making its head so big that the 4' 10" mother is going to die if she has the kid (and it will die anyway after leading a short, painful, and miserable life), i think that she should be allowed to choose whether or not she wants to have this child. and, as a related topic, i saw a bumper sticker that said "if ya can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em" which i think is one of the best ones i've ever seen.

and, as New Mozambique said,

"Even if both you and your child were to die?

I'm not sure whether that's dedication or idiocy."

he's right. on a purely evolutionary standpoint, abortion can be a good thing. let a couple billion years of nature decide whether killing the baby (which i personally don't believe is even alive yet, so it's not really killing) to save the mother is the right choice. i am a man, and i say let the woman decide what to do with her body.

i am willing to bet that a significant portion of the people who are anti-choice are christains. not being shackled so, i am proud to say that i am pro-choice :twisted:. if the baby has a brain tumor, making its head so big that the 4' 10" mother is going to die if she has the kid (and it will die anyway after leading a short, painful, and miserable life), i think that she should be allowed to choose whether or not she wants to have this child. and, as a related topic, i saw a bumper sticker that said "if ya can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em" which i think is one of the best ones i've ever seen.

and, as New Mozambique said,

"Even if both you and your child were to die?

I'm not sure whether that's dedication or idiocy."

he's right. on a purely evolutionary standpoint, abortion can be a good thing. let a couple billion years of nature decide whether killing the baby (which i personally don't believe is even alive yet, so it's not really killing) to save the mother is the right choice. i am a man, and i say let the woman decide what to do with her body.

There are 1 million infertile couples in the U.S. who want to adopt, and instead we murder human life at its most vulnerable stage. Insane, and evil.


at this moment there are 600,000 children without families in America, just waiting to be adopted. each week in America there are roughly 1,000 children born who will be put up for adoption before the age of 10. less than half of them will ever be successfully adopted. insane, and evil.


Fortunately, more and more women are becoming aware, through devices like ultrasound, that what's in the womb isn't just some amorphous blob of tissue, but is a (albeit small) human being.


actually, women who take the time to learn about their ultrasound will learn that their fetus is physiologically indistinguishable from a cat fetus until the very end of gestation. women who learn about their bodies and their reproductive processes will know that the average female in America will carry at least 2 fetuses through the first two months without ever knowing it, due to spontaneous abortions. women who are educated are 5 times more likely to accept abortion as a reasonable choice than women who are uneduacted (no high school diploma). interesting how emotive ploys like yours only work on the uneducated or uninformed...


My own view is that abortion won't be banned in the near future - as it would be if we were civilized - but the increasing moral stigma that is attaching to the procedure will in time see it become much rarer.

actually, current studies show growing acceptance of abortion and the right to chose, higher levels than when Roe V Wade was first handed down. women in western countries have every intention of retaining their freedoms, but you are welcome to try to take them away...real women love a good fight, too ;).

Do you have a link for that, Bottle? As far as I can tell from the CBS poll I'm looking at, younger women have nearly the same exact views on abortion as older women, and the "trend" you speak of is only from '01 to now, however not nearly as many women support abortion as they did a decade ago.

Do you have a link for that, Bottle? As far as I can tell from the CBS poll I'm looking at, younger women have nearly the same exact views on abortion as older women, and the "trend" you speak of is only from '01 to now, however not nearly as many women support abortion as they did a decade ago.

yeah but if you think of rights...why not the right of the unborn child?

There are no rights for the unborn child. UK law (until recently) didn't, technically, give any subject right. and the ECHR doesn't guarentee rights for the feotus.

Not sure about the US, but the constitution doesn't give unborn children rights.

Yes...well the Peterson law..makes the murder of a pregant woman a double homicide

and why shouldn't the babey have rights? isn't that age discrimiantion?

A baby has rights. A fetus is not a baby and therefore has no rights.

An acorn is not an oak tree, a fetus is not a human.

Ahhh there is the problem. When they say they are of want of a child, it means they want a healthy complete baby.

I would be more to their camp if the system didn't have any children to adopt but that will probably never happen.

Actually, there are families willing to adopt children with disorders as well.

:? Aiera

I'll agree with you on this. I can believe it is wrong due to my religion, but my religion is not a good enough reason to make laws that affect others.


And I don't base it on that, which may come as a surprise to the people who know me. Regardless, I don't really need to. There's enough basis for it without resorting to religion.


Up until a certain point in development, the fetus does not meet all the biological requirements that must be met in order to be alive. It does not respond to it's environment until the nervous system is developed. It cannot transport its own nutrients until the circulatory system is developed. It cannot get rid of its own waste. Until organ systems are developing, scientifically, the fetus really is little more than a ball of dividing cells. It is certainly not a separate life.


Of course, by the time most women detect their pregnancies, the fetus has many of these things. By the time most elective abortions occur, the fetus is certainly posessed of distinguishable characteristics, like hands and feet, and also a rudimentary nervous system. Pain. 8 weeks. That's not that far along.


As for genetically distinct, there are cells in your body with mutations that make them genetically distinct from the rest - this does not make them a new life. Cancer cells also are often genetically distinct.


How are cancer cells like a fetus? Can I let them develop for nine months and then cut them out and raise my new daugher, Cancerina? I don't think so.

Cancer cells are malignant because the body cannot support their growth, is not designed to support their growth. Pregnancy is not malignant, because the female body is designed to support the growth of the fetus. This is not a hard difference to see!


You cannot argue that a fetus is a person because it has the potential to be a person. By this argument, I am a rocket scientist because I have the potential to be a rocket scientist. A caterpillar is a butterfly because it has the potential to be a butterfly. This post is already on the web because it has the potential to be there.


Not the same argument at all. A fetus is already human. Personhood? Personhood is not a biological trait, it is a legal status. It is easy to legally declare that the fetus is a non-person...that makes legitimate the killing thereof. I could point to a few other groups that were made legal to kill on the basis of being declared non-persons by the government in power.

But I'm not interested in whether the fetus is a person. Is it a human being. If so, then there is no sufficient grounds to kill it off.


Wrong. Left to its own devices, it will be a mass of dead cells. Left to the mother's, it may become a person.


The mother certainly provides nutrition and oxygen, but the fetus grows for itself. That's what I mean by "left to its own devices".


Well, science is part of the reasoning behind the fact that late-term abortions are rarely allowed in the US. In fact, even second trimester abortions require the express recomendation of a doctor. All of this was specified in Roe vs. Wade.


The Canadian circumstance, which I am arguing from within, is vastly different. I applaud the US on its (limited) restraint on this issue.



The problem is that the only way to define the fetus as a separate human being until a certain point in development is religious. Therefore, there will be disagreements, just like there are disagreements over whether or not is ok for a woman to cut her hair, or show it in pubilc.


Why is it so hard to define the fetus as a seperate human being without the use of religion? There is no need for religious evidence to make that distinction. Is it alive? Yes. Is it human by species? Yes. Good, it's a human being. Is it genetically the same as the mother? No, it carries partly her DNA and partly the father's DNA. Therfore, it is genetically distinct. Boom...genetically discinct (read: seperate) human being.


Thanks for that information. Of course, what you meant is "some Christians believe that..." and "some Muslims believe that..." After all, there are those of us who don't blindly follow what our preacher says and strive to come to conclusions based on our own personal relationship with God.


Fair enough. I haven't bothered to do research in this direction, but I think there is backing in the respective holy texts of both religions to support a broader claim. Maybe I'll work on that after the 22nd, when I'm done my exams.


Nothing in science has defined the fetus as a separate human being. Until it does, the only argument is religious.


Yet science has presented us with the means and, indeed, the evidence to make that distinction on a non-religious basis. Everything outside of that is politics.


In your opinion....


See above.


I never said that, so don't try and put words into my mouth. What I said was that if the woman plans to keep the child and not abort it, she should abstain from smoking and drinking until the child is born.


That goes without saying.


In case you haven't noticed, the arguments I have made relating to drinking involve a case where the mother does not yet know that she is pregnant.


And, like as not, it is fairly easy to verify that she didn't know she was pregnant. She'd tell her friends, her boyfriend/husband...if she was. So she doesn't know. And yeah, in the examples you present, she makes a mistake. Perhaps parents have made it before. It's a sad fact of life. She shouldn't be punished for it...

...because it was an accident. Elective abortion is not an accident.

To say nothing of the fact that discussions of what effect alcohol and smoking have on the fetus gives tacit recognition to its status as both human and alive.


You're right. A valid law would make a distinction, just like murder laws do now. If a woman got drunk before she knew she was pregnant, it would only be 3rd-degree murder and she wouldn't get life in prison. But, according to your opinion, it would be killing a human being - so she would have to go to jail for some time.


I would disagree. I certainly wouldn't throw her in jail, or advocate for it. Unless she then decided that she didn't want a disabled baby and aborted. Then I'd say she was in the wrong.


The problem is that laws don't work that way. We can't say "A fetus is a full life, but it's ok if you accidently kill it." At this point, we are not really giving the fetus the rights attributed to being fully alive. Unless you are going to argue that a woman never is responsible for the accidental death of her child, you have already made a clear distinction between how we treat a *possible* life and a life. If you would like to argue this, well, a woman who kills her child by accidently leaving it in a locked car in summer heat with the windows up cannot be prosecuted for anything. After all, it was accidental!


I could prosecute my parents for abuse for every time I've been "accidentally" hurt by them, too.

As I see it, what should be done is that the deliberate, elective taking of life should be outlawed, that is that. Yes, we have laws concerning manslaughter that could still come into play, as per your example, but I would think that in reality they wouldn't be. I mean, if nobody knows the fetus is there...then the woman has to be pretty early along, anyhow. If the fetus dies due to the alcohol consumption, the woman might not ever know she was pregnant. That's certainly an unfortunate thing, but any reasonable person can see that it is not in any way criminal.


Actually, no it didn't. I have never and will never argue that a woman who knows she is pregnant and is carrying the child to term should engage in drinking, smoking, drugs, etc. In fact, I once knew someone who did so. She was one of the biggest anti-choice people I knew. When she got pregnant, she didn't tell anyone and constantly, drank, smoked tobacco, and smoked marijuana. She barely ate so that the baby wouldn't show. When it was born at home, she killed it and dumped it off in a dumpster. These actions, I believe, were much more immoral than a woman whose religious beliefs do not define the fetus as a separate life having it removed from her body before it can feel the pain.

Stepping briefly into the world of theological morality, I have to say that personally I disagree that one form of killing the fetus is graver, or worse, than another. But that's because, in the end sum, I believe that all sins are equal in weight.

Stepping back out of theological morality...in the example above, a human being was killed. That's easy to recognize as wrong. And if the unborn fetus is a human being, then guess what...it's easy to recognize that killing it is, likewise, wrong.

Aiera

And, a parasite does not necessarily have to be a different species to its host. A parasite is defined as an organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host. Since the fetus is a different organism to the mother, it fulfills all the above requirements for parasite classification.


And yet you have just admitted that it is human, a human being. Thanks.


If an embryo is a human being solely because it has the potential to become a human being, then by the same logic, a cheese and mushroom sandwich is a human being.

On what planet, in what reality, can cheese, mushrooms, and bread become human.

Oh, you're one of those abiogenesis types, aren't you?

;) Aiera

On what planet did I say either of those two things? Oh wait, I didn't! Watch your quotes, darling.

Sorry, that was Vagari. I'll go back and correct it.

Point still stands.

Aiera

i am willing to bet that a significant portion of the people who are anti-choice are christains. not being shackled so, i am proud to say that i am pro-choice :twisted:. if the baby has a brain tumor, making its head so big that the 4' 10" mother is going to die if she has the kid (and it will die anyway after leading a short, painful, and miserable life), i think that she should be allowed to choose whether or not she wants to have this child.


*cough* C-section! *cough*

And, on a related note, who are we to decide that it is right to abort even in the case of a severe disability such as this? Yes, the child will suffer in its short life...but it will have lived its natural life, and died of a natural cause.

We cannot make the distinction of "wantedness" or "personhood" based on the presence or absence of mental/physical impairments & ailments, no matter how severe. If we can, then can I go grab an Uzi and hose down a hospital ward where only terminal patients are kept?

Of course not! :roll:


and, as a related topic, i saw a bumper sticker that said "if ya can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em" which i think is one of the best ones i've ever seen.


Best way to avoid breeding: not having sex. ;) Take responsibility for what your bodies can do, not to mention what they're designed for!


and, as New Mozambique said,

"Even if both you and your child were to die?

I'm not sure whether that's dedication or idiocy."


If there is a risk posed to the mother's life, it is almost always going to be posed to her during childbirth. The exception is ectopic pregnancies, and there is currently nothing we can do about those except to excise it, thus terminating it. However, since I have my resources in the Nursing faculty here at my university, I am aware of research being conducted as to how to re-implant ectopic pregnancies in the uteran wall, thus allowing them to reach term.

Anyhow, back to where I was going with this. If there is a risk to the mother posed by the birthing process...C-section, anyone?


Aiera

*sigh* Nord Land, can we just have an abortion debate here? I'd rather not have to delve into a sexual orientation debate right now. I mean...the homosexuality issue has nothing to do with the abortion issue.

"Zok, you fool! You've mixed incompatible species in the Earth terrarium!" -- Gary Larson


Aiera

In my opinion the US constitution was made to conform to the popular believe of the.. well populus. When their isnt a clear opinion present in the people of the nation then you should go with the choice that lets the individuals choose for themselves.. in this case pro-choice.

This is seperate from the fact that i am regardless pro-choice just because its the mothers body and the child isnt alive yet. If you argue that the child is a potential life then you could say that a sperm wasted on masterbation or an egg dying off before it could be fertilized is a murder.

I am also against the "religion" arguement because i believe in seperation of church and state. Even if i was religious (which i am NOT), i would be pro-choice simply because i wouldnt allow that kind of bias to disrupt and cause more laws that could be speculated against.

Also, i am completely against this idea that there could be a "special case" rule. That leds to way too much speculation on what is a special case.

In conclusion, you could take this as a stupid rant from someone who probably thinks he knows everything or you could ponder over these words and either find a counter arguement or SUMBIT TO MY WILL!!! MAUAHHAHAHAHAHHHH (sry). At any rate... here's my two bits.

Sure, but I *know* you are smart enough to know that the people who support the procedure are generally liberals. And perhaps you should avoid the use of meaningless euphemism like "sexual orientation". It's as bad as "gender". :wink:


Meaningless? Why is it meaningless? More to the point...why is gender meaningless? I mean...male, female...different, hello? Certainly both human, but the distinction is still there to be made!

As for sexual orientation...why not use the term? I mean, just because not everyone is born heterosexual, we need a way to distinguish, right?

:? Aiera

Anyway, what debate is there, there's just the usual collection of mindless, shrill liberal arguments supporting it, and a few ripostes from the other side. That's not a debate, its an opportunity for the left to have a rant. There's no dialectic here, just an opportunity to let off steam.

Lesson Number One to whoever started it: Don't begin a thread about abortion. It's a waste of time.

I think that nicely ignores the question.

Far be it from a moderate-centrist with alternatingly leftward and rightward leanings on a per-issue basis to call what appears to be a happily right-wing conservative into doubt, but were you going to answer my questions?

:D Aiera

Pro-choice huh? Well how about the choice the woman had when she met the guy? Or how about the choice when she decided not to use protection? The way i see it, she's had quite a few choices... by now, it shouldnt be her choice, it should be the fetus'.

I'm a social conservative. I loathe abortion just as I loathe "gay" rights and radical feminism and multi-culturalism and political correctness and all the other noxious concepts the cultural left has managed to poison our society with.


Hmmm. Sorry to hear that. There's a lot about a lot of those things that I like. I mean, take inclusive language...replacing man with humanity when speaking about the human race, or replacing his with his or her in legal documents, so as to avoid sidelining and disincluding women.
Or take...well, even multiculturalism isn't so bad. There are a lot of diverse and wonderful other cultures out there. That, and I really like ethnic cuisine...and don't get me started about how good my ex-girlfriend, who was Caucasian, looked in a Chinese-style dress!


Again, I repeat, "sexual orientation" is just euphemism. It's supposed to suggest that being homosexual is just a lifestyle choice, as good as any other. I don't see it that way.


This is where you present evidence to back up your statement. ;)


And the term "gender" was designed by feminists of the most extreme kind to replace "sex".


Sex is still widely used. Gender is a less confusing term, given that we also use the word "sex" to describe something else. Actually, gender is a better term, since "sex" is actually a derivative of a Latin phrase that means "to cleave to", which is to leave one and join with another. What I'm getting at here, in short, is that "sex" is a word better used, given its origin, to describe sexual activity...


This was to suggest that the sex a person is born to is again, just a lifestyle choice that in nature and activity can be changed as easily as you can change the color of your hair.


So...you're telling me that you're heterosexual because you choose to be? Just making sure...


The left constantly reworks the language to suit itself. Anyone even remotely conservative should avoid using such terms.

Cool. Guess I'm not remotely all that conservative.

:? Aiera

Okay, gloves are off now. It's open season.


Of course you're a liberal. Your claiming to be a moderate is hardly proven true by your cultural and moral relativism.


Really. What moral relativism have I displayed in this thread, hmm? Me, the one who has said time and again that killing, any killing, is wrong! Did you bother to read even one of my posts? That's not moral relativism in the least.


And if you're going to defend multi-culturalism with such idiocy as enjoying foreign cuisine etc then there's little point in taking you seriously.


You're right, there's a fair bit more to it than that. It means (horror of horrors) you actually have to accept that people are different, maybe even recognize the fact. And, dare I say it? You just might have to tolerate that fact as well. *shudder* What a terrible thing, this multiculturalism is!


I'll leave you alone to defend your corner as the lone liberal who opposes abortion. Good luck!!! :lol:

Coward. Guess it's easier to run and hide behind your prejudices than to take a stand on one issue at a time.

:D Aiera

I'll agree with you on this. I can believe it is wrong due to my religion, but my religion is not a good enough reason to make laws that affect others.


And I don't base it on that, which may come as a surprise to the people who know me. Regardless, I don't really need to. There's enough basis for it without resorting to religion.

If there is, you haven't shown it. All you have stated is an opinion that science supports your view, without actually presenting any evidence. It's a common mistake.

[Of course, by the time most women detect their pregnancies, the fetus has many of these things. By the time most elective abortions occur, the fetus is certainly posessed of distinguishable characteristics, like hands and feet, and also a rudimentary nervous system. Pain. 8 weeks. That's not that far along.

The nervous system is actually one of the last organ systems to develop to a usable point. About the time the fetus starts moving on its own. And most people (that aren't my great grandmother =) do know they are pregnant before they feel kicking.


As for genetically distinct, there are cells in your body with mutations that make them genetically distinct from the rest - this does not make them a new life. Cancer cells also are often genetically distinct.


How are cancer cells like a fetus? Can I let them develop for nine months and then cut them out and raise my new daugher, Cancerina? I don't think so.

Again, you are trying to argue that something is another thing just because it has the potential to be. That is not a valid or logical argument.

Cancer cells are malignant because the body cannot support their growth, is not designed to support their growth. Pregnancy is not malignant, because the female body is designed to support the growth of the fetus. This is not a hard difference to see!

Not a hard difference to see, but it still doesn't prove your point.


You cannot argue that a fetus is a person because it has the potential to be a person. By this argument, I am a rocket scientist because I have the potential to be a rocket scientist. A caterpillar is a butterfly because it has the potential to be a butterfly. This post is already on the web because it has the potential to be there.


Not the same argument at all. A fetus is already human.

In your opinion.

But I'm not interested in whether the fetus is a person. Is it a human being. If so, then there is no sufficient grounds to kill it off.

Yes, if so. But you haven't proved it so.

The mother certainly provides nutrition and oxygen, but the fetus grows for itself. That's what I mean by "left to its own devices".

So do cancer cells. So does my arm, in that case. My arm grows all on its own because I provide it with nutrients and oxygen and an outlet to get rid of wastes.

Why is it so hard to define the fetus as a seperate human being without the use of religion? There is no need for religious evidence to make that distinction. Is it alive? Yes. Is it human by species? Yes. Good, it's a human being. Is it genetically the same as the mother? No, it carries partly her DNA and partly the father's DNA. Therfore, it is genetically distinct. Boom...genetically discinct (read: seperate) human being.

I can put cells with human DNA into a mouse and have them become an integral part of its body. Will we then declare the mouse a human being? Every cell in your body is alive, but unless it can exist as a separate life, we don't give it rights. Does the mother even have all of her cells with exactly the same DNA? Nope. Genetically distinct doesn't make it a separte life.

Fair enough. I haven't bothered to do research in this direction, but I think there is backing in the respective holy texts of both religions to support a broader claim. Maybe I'll work on that after the 22nd, when I'm done my exams.

Actually, the Bible makes a clear distinction between an unborn and a born child in Leviticus. Of course, I don't completely trust Leviticus, so for many things I rely on my relationship with God and personal reflection.


Nothing in science has defined the fetus as a separate human being. Until it does, the only argument is religious.


Yet science has presented us with the means and, indeed, the evidence to make that distinction on a non-religious basis. Everything outside of that is politics.

And if you would present your evidence, I would be happy to examine it. But you haven't provided any scientific evidence. Like most who try to argue this point, you have only provided semantics and rhetoric.

[And, like as not, it is fairly easy to verify that she didn't know she was pregnant. She'd tell her friends, her boyfriend/husband...if she was. So she doesn't know. And yeah, in the examples you present, she makes a mistake. Perhaps parents have made it before. It's a sad fact of life. She shouldn't be punished for it...

...because it was an accident. Elective abortion is not an accident.

Ok, so any time someone kills someone by accident, they should not be punished. If I tie a bag of bricks to my windowsill and accidently let them fall and they kill someone - no big deal! It was an accident! If I fall asleep behind the wheel of my car and slam into someone - no big deal, it was an accident! Great, you've just given people a lot more leeway than they had before. Anything that is an accident you bear absolutely no personal responsibility for. FUN!

To say nothing of the fact that discussions of what effect alcohol and smoking have on the fetus gives tacit recognition to its status as both human and alive.

Not really.


You're right. A valid law would make a distinction, just like murder laws do now. If a woman got drunk before she knew she was pregnant, it would only be 3rd-degree murder and she wouldn't get life in prison. But, according to your opinion, it would be killing a human being - so she would have to go to jail for some time.


I would disagree. I certainly wouldn't throw her in jail, or advocate for it. Unless she then decided that she didn't want a disabled baby and aborted. Then I'd say she was in the wrong.

So a woman has no responsibility in protecting her child. Gotcha. If a woman leaves her one year old child at home alone and the kid knocks over a candle and burns the house down and dies, that's perfectly ok. It was an accident!


The problem is that laws don't work that way. We can't say "A fetus is a full life, but it's ok if you accidently kill it." At this point, we are not really giving the fetus the rights attributed to being fully alive. Unless you are going to argue that a woman never is responsible for the accidental death of her child, you have already made a clear distinction between how we treat a *possible* life and a life. If you would like to argue this, well, a woman who kills her child by accidently leaving it in a locked car in summer heat with the windows up cannot be prosecuted for anything. After all, it was accidental!


I could prosecute my parents for abuse for every time I've been "accidentally" hurt by them, too.

If the accidental hurt included death or permanent disability - chance are you could.

As I see it, what should be done is that the deliberate, elective taking of life should be outlawed, that is that. Yes, we have laws concerning manslaughter that could still come into play, as per your example, but I would think that in reality they wouldn't be.

Checks news to see if she can find a link of the woman they tried to sue for murder for not having a C-section.

I mean, if nobody knows the fetus is there...then the woman has to be pretty early along, anyhow. If the fetus dies due to the alcohol consumption, the woman might not ever know she was pregnant. That's certainly an unfortunate thing, but any reasonable person can see that it is not in any way criminal.

According to you, the fetus is a separate human life from the moment the sperm meets the egg. This means that the woman is instantly responsible for that life and must do anything she can to protect it. Anything less would be child neglect. Doesn't matter if she knows it's there. If I don't know my kid is in the house and I set it on fire, did I not kill the kid?

Stepping briefly into the world of theological morality, I have to say that personally I disagree that one form of killing the fetus is graver, or worse, than another. But that's because, in the end sum, I believe that all sins are equal in weight.

She didn't kill a fetus, she killed a baby.

Stepping back out of theological morality...in the example above, a human being was killed. That's easy to recognize as wrong. And if the unborn fetus is a human being, then guess what...it's easy to recognize that killing it is, likewise, wrong.

That's a big if. And the only evidence you have shown for it is "I believe it to be true" and "It should be obvious that..."

Sorry darlin, but that's not evidence.

You know what, let people do whatever they want with their own bodies. As long as it doesn't affect me. :wink:

Questions for Aiera:
If the woman first drank and then found out she was pregnant- and then proceeded to drink much more to kill the fetus (since she couldn't get an abortion) should she go to jail?
What if she didn't know that she was pregnant and she drank until the fetus died?
What if she just decided to drink heavily every weekend (not knowing if she was/had been pregnant) in case she was pregnant. Or do illegal drugs, or continue her birth control, or stop eating.
When is the fetus a baby then?
Only when the mother knows about it?
That's weak.

I, personally, definitely support abortions when the mother is in danger- cause guess how often the baby survives in such circumstances? And I'm not sure otherwise. I'd probably call myself pro-choice, but I just can't say for sure...Dempublicents has been making a lot of good points I think- you make me feel better about being pro-choice....but I wouldn't want to have an abortion... USE PROTECTION- it's free!!
I think, and many people will agree, that what makes us human, is not just our genetic material- which is nearly identical to several types of monkeys, but our ability to think, to reason (which is dependent on our central nervous system) And an undeveloped fetus (which is nearly identical to a fetus of one of those species of monkeys I mentioned) doesn't have that ability. Granted, a few full-grown humans don't either, and while I would still call them human, I would not call them alive. I guess that's what I'm getting at then- the fetus is human, but it is not alive- it is hooked up to a life support system and requires that life support system.
Sorry if anyone else has already said all this...I'm a loser and I didn't read all the rest of the thread- only the first page...also sorry for developing my thought in my post instead of developing it, THEN putting it all down. It's easier this way. And I don't feel like editing

I'm a social conservative. I loathe abortion just as I loathe "gay" rights and radical feminism and multi-culturalism and political correctness and all the other noxious concepts the cultural left has managed to poison our society with.

Wow, you sure sound like a fun guy to be around. I love how you're so opposed to multiculturalism, because I hate to break it to you, but you weren't here first. (I'm assuming you are both male and from the U.S, btw) Go back to Europe, this land isn't yours. You have no right to pass judgement on people, and treat them with such disrespect.

Again, I repeat, "sexual orientation" is just euphemism. It's supposed to suggest that being homosexual is just a lifestyle choice, as good as any other. I don't see it that way.

It is not a choice. I think most people who are gay don't want to be, especially with people like you everywhere, even governing the United States. Why does the American government waste so much time trying to prevent gay marriage, they are involved in a war, there is a massive government deficit, and so many other problems, and they care about who is getting married!


Anyone even remotely conservative should avoid using such terms.

Ever heard of free speech? If I were you, I wouldn't be telling my supports what or what not to say.

pro-small families; selfish, infantilised, individualism at the cost of community and morality. These are some really sick people.
:lol:
what, sick, evil losers, they make me ill!
What are you even talking about?
You can't really believe that having unmanageable numbers of children is moral. That's without a doubt one of the most immoral things someone can do. I mean, there's murder, rape, and this, followed by other theft and lying.

Oh, and Bottle, thanks for making my point on the problem with adoption :) though I'd like to note that there are plenty of kids to be adopted as well. A big problem, it seems, is with the government.

Pro-choice huh? Well how about the choice the woman had when she met the guy? Or how about the choice when she decided not to use protection? The way i see it, she's had quite a few choices... by now, it shouldnt be her choice, it should be the fetus'.
Well, ok, but what if she was using protection? What if she was raped? I don't take using protection as a legitimate "Not my fault" claim (But then I don't accept much as a legitimate "Not my fault" claim) Rape, however, I do. Because it's not the mother's fault, and it's not the child's fault. The mother would (possibly, depending on the person) relive the terrible abuse everytime she saw her kid- and the kid would constantly remember that he was not the sum total of the best thing that had happened to his mother, but the worst.
That's just too cruel.

KILL THE BABIES!

[/contribution]

HuLA cancer cells can develop into a unicellular lifeform, and how does one define what a woman's body is designed to support, especially if the baby's birth kills her? Most forms of abortion are actually a much safer procedure (by about threefold,) than going through with pregnancy. :)

Every single definition I have seen for when a human life develops has been contradictory, except the most simple: for example, when two zygotes are joined to form a single living organism, and when a baby is born. Either way, the line drawn to define a human being seems fairly heavily arbitrary, and thus isn't scientific at all.

KILL THE BABIES!

[/contribution]

HuLA cancer cells can develop into a unicellular lifeform, and how does one define what a woman's body is designed to support, especially if the baby's birth kills her? Most forms of abortion are actually a much safer procedure (by about threefold,) than going through with pregnancy. :)

Every single definition I have seen for when a human life develops has been contradictory, except the most simple: for example, when two zygotes are joined to form a single living organism, and when a baby is born. Either way, the line drawn to define a human being seems fairly heavily arbitrary, and thus isn't scientific at all.

...

When two zygotes join to form a single living organism, a quick abortion is probably the best bet. ;)

Pro-choice huh? Well how about the choice the woman had when she met the guy? Or how about the choice when she decided not to use protection? The way i see it, she's had quite a few choices... by now, it shouldnt be her choice, it should be the fetus'.

How do you know the fetus doesn't want to be aborted?

Maybe it's an angsty, suicidal fetus?

Sha-sha. Take the poor fetus' opinions into consideration and abort now.

Even if the fetus isn't aborted, what will happen when it'll pop out of the woman's body? She will have to take care of the damn baby even though she doesn't want to. Or if not, she'll give the stupid kid to the orphanage. Either way, the child's unwanted. Better off dead than being brought in a world without love.

Pro-choice huh? Well how about the choice the woman had when she met the guy? Or how about the choice when she decided not to use protection? The way i see it, she's had quite a few choices... by now, it shouldnt be her choice, it should be the fetus'.

How do you know the fetus doesn't want to be aborted?

Maybe it's an angsty, suicidal fetus?

Sha-sha. Take the poor fetus' opinions into consideration and abort now.

Exactly. Did you even bother getting the baby's concent before making it? Did you ask it whether it even wants to be born, do you care?
Or do you just assume it wants to?

If there is, you haven't shown it. All you have stated is an opinion that science supports your view, without actually presenting any evidence. It's a common mistake.



It's basic scientific fact and a little applied reason:

Human after birth means human before birth.
Alive after birth means alive before birth.

I don't need any more than that. Questions of viability are essentially meaningless...a person hooked up to a dialysis machine is not viable without it.


The nervous system is actually one of the last organ systems to develop to a usable point. About the time the fetus starts moving on its own. And most people (that aren't my great grandmother =) do know they are pregnant before they feel kicking.


Not true. Pain. Requires some manner of nervous system. Can be sensed at 8 to 13 weeks. That's pretty early on.


Again, you are trying to argue that something is another thing just because it has the potential to be. That is not a valid or logical argument.


I don't even think it's a question of potential. It is what it is, a human being, undergoing its first stage of development. After fetus comes infant, toddler, and onward from there.


Not a hard difference to see, but it still doesn't prove your point.


Just making sure we're all clear on whether or not a fetus is distinct from a cancerous mass.


In your opinion.


Prove me wrong.


Yes, if so. But you haven't proved it so.


It doesn't take much. A touch of reasoning applied to the Law of Biogenesis. Prove it isn't human, and then explain to me what miracle process allows it to spontaneously (a) become alive and (b) change species.


So do cancer cells. So does my arm, in that case. My arm grows all on its own because I provide it with nutrients and oxygen and an outlet to get rid of wastes.


Your arm is not genetically distinct from the rest of your body. And can your arm a different being than you?


I can put cells with human DNA into a mouse and have them become an integral part of its body. Will we then declare the mouse a human being? Every cell in your body is alive, but unless it can exist as a separate life, we don't give it rights. Does the mother even have all of her cells with exactly the same DNA? Nope. Genetically distinct doesn't make it a separte life.


The mouse will still be a mouse, because it will posess only a tiny fraction of human material. Likewise, granted...minor mutations exist in each of our genetic structures, but overall there is consistency. But it should be fairly obvious that the fetus and the mother are consistently and entirely different at a genetic level. The fetus draws only half of its genes from the mother, and the other half from the father. That combination means that it will be completely distinct from the mother...and that's qualification enough to count it as a wholly seperate entity.


Actually, the Bible makes a clear distinction between an unborn and a born child in Leviticus. Of course, I don't completely trust Leviticus, so for many things I rely on my relationship with God and personal reflection.


Indeed.


And if you would present your evidence, I would be happy to examine it. But you haven't provided any scientific evidence. Like most who try to argue this point, you have only provided semantics and rhetoric.


Not really. I mean, I could grab any biology textbook, flip it open to the Biogenesis chapter, and that's all I need.


Ok, so any time someone kills someone by accident, they should not be punished. If I tie a bag of bricks to my windowsill and accidently let them fall and they kill someone - no big deal! It was an accident! If I fall asleep behind the wheel of my car and slam into someone - no big deal, it was an accident! Great, you've just given people a lot more leeway than they had before. Anything that is an accident you bear absolutely no personal responsibility for. FUN!


Am I the one advocating for the punishments on these women, or are you? I do think there's a legal distinction between...say, tying a bag of bricks together and balancing it on the windowsill...and having a glass of wine when you don't know your pregnant. Unless you're a complete moron, you'd realize that bricks perched next to an open window are, not surprisingly, subject to gravity and might just fall.

If you suspect you are pregnant, don't drink. If you don't suspect you are pregnant, would I blame you for drinking? No. That's a long ways away from sleeping at the wheel.

If you're tired, you know you're tired. If you drive...you're just being stupid.


Not really.


If the fetus is not alive, how can smoking and drinking negatively affect its quality of life?


So a woman has no responsibility in protecting her child. Gotcha. If a woman leaves her one year old child at home alone and the kid knocks over a candle and burns the house down and dies, that's perfectly ok. It was an accident!


Heh, well, if that's the way you want it to be...

...but again, there's a difference. See above.


Checks news to see if she can find a link of the woman they tried to sue for murder for not having a C-section.


I'd need to see all the details on this one before I comment.


According to you, the fetus is a separate human life from the moment the sperm meets the egg. This means that the woman is instantly responsible for that life and must do anything she can to protect it. Anything less would be child neglect. Doesn't matter if she knows it's there. If I don't know my kid is in the house and I set it on fire, did I not kill the kid?


But again, quite a different scenario. If she has reason to suspect she might be pregnant (late on her period, morning sickness...), then yeah, she shouldn't drink. But there's not always a reason, initially, for suspiscion, and I'm not going to advocate for a paranoid society.

You, however, in your example, know for certain that you have a kid, and the thought should at least enter into your mind that s/he might be in the house when you're standing there with the matches. After all, children are often in or near the home.


She didn't kill a fetus, she killed a baby.


What's a fetus? It's the stage of human development that preceeds infancy. So really, what's the distinction? Answer: a short trip through the birth canal. I don't see what it is about the birth canal that magically confers humanity.


That's a big if. And the only evidence you have shown for it is "I believe it to be true" and "It should be obvious that..."

Sorry darlin, but that's not evidence.

See above.

:? Aiera

Pro-choice huh? Well how about the choice the woman had when she met the guy? Or how about the choice when she decided not to use protection? The way i see it, she's had quite a few choices... by now, it shouldnt be her choice, it should be the fetus'.

How do you know the fetus doesn't want to be aborted?

Maybe it's an angsty, suicidal fetus?

Sha-sha. Take the poor fetus' opinions into consideration and abort now. Wow....that just might be the most ignorant thing I've heard.

Pro-choice huh? Well how about the choice the woman had when she met the guy? Or how about the choice when she decided not to use protection? The way i see it, she's had quite a few choices... by now, it shouldnt be her choice, it should be the fetus'.

How do you know the fetus doesn't want to be aborted?

Maybe it's an angsty, suicidal fetus?

Sha-sha. Take the poor fetus' opinions into consideration and abort now.

Exactly. Did you even bother getting the baby's concent before making it? Did you ask it whether it even wants to be born, do you care?
Or do you just assume it wants to? Wait a second, I think this one might take the cake. Oh wait, this is exactly what someone else wrote, nice fucking job.

Questions for Aiera:


Goody!


If the woman first drank and then found out she was pregnant- and then proceeded to drink much more to kill the fetus (since she couldn't get an abortion) should she go to jail?


If her motive was to deliberately kill the fetus? Yes.


What if she didn't know that she was pregnant and she drank until the fetus died?


She'd have to be pretty early on in the pregnancy to not notice. She might not ever even know she was pregnant, in this circumstance. Regardless...in this case, I'd have to say no.

She was certainly irresponsible, but...well, I've addressed similar examples.


What if she just decided to drink heavily every weekend (not knowing if she was/had been pregnant) in case she was pregnant. Or do illegal drugs, or continue her birth control, or stop eating.


Again, she's deliberately trying to do harm. That's contemptible.


When is the fetus a baby then?
Only when the mother knows about it?
That's weak.


A fetus is always a baby. I mean, not knowing your pregnant is one thing. Knowing you're pregnant and acting to arrest or impair that...that's another thing entirely.

Aiera

Question: Are/have you ever been pregnant?

I gather it's nine months of back ache, vomiting, varicose veins and carrying around a load of extra weight. Then there's the bonus of a variable length agonising labour at the end.

Shouldn't the mother have the right not to go through all that if she so chooses?

Yes your absoltly right. A woman has the choice. ITS CALLED PROTECTION! ABSENTANCE! You know condems, not having sex, birth control! THATS WHEN THE CHOICE IS MADE


You know, this is going to sound mean, but if she's too stupid and/or careless to use protection, then I really don't want her genes to be passed on.
Personally, I measure the beginning of my life at the day of my birth, not anytime before that. This frees me from any moral qualms about abortion. You see, I celebrate my BIRTHday, not "my parents having sexual intercourse" day. I can see how one would see abortion as murder, though, if you happen to celebrate the latter. This view, however, is mostly based on religion, and consequently has little place in state policy. If you think abortion is wrong, then fine, just don't have one, it's not like anyone is making you. That's what pro-choice is all about.

If there is, you haven't shown it. All you have stated is an opinion that science supports your view, without actually presenting any evidence. It's a common mistake.



It's basic scientific fact and a little applied reason:

Human after birth means human before birth.
Alive after birth means alive before birth.

I don't need any more than that. Questions of viability are essentially meaningless...a person hooked up to a dialysis machine is not viable without it.


The nervous system is actually one of the last organ systems to develop to a usable point. About the time the fetus starts moving on its own. And most people (that aren't my great grandmother =) do know they are pregnant before they feel kicking.


Not true. Pain. Requires some manner of nervous system. Can be sensed at 8 to 13 weeks. That's pretty early on.


Again, you are trying to argue that something is another thing just because it has the potential to be. That is not a valid or logical argument.


I don't even think it's a question of potential. It is what it is, a human being, undergoing its first stage of development. After fetus comes infant, toddler, and onward from there.

:? Aiera

It is indeed a question of potential. Frankly, a ball of dividing cells is not a human being. It could be, but it's not. A human being, as distinct from a human potential, is a sentient being. It is not life does not define it. Bacteria are alive. Cabbages are alive. Life is very general.

Otherwise, the cancer cells are human beings.

A human potential has the potential to become a human being, but it is not a human being; and it may not infringe upon the rights of a human being.

If it were not sentience, we would not strip the brain-dead of their useful organs and switch off the life support machines.

Personally, I don't consider brain-dead people on life support machines any more sentient than a fetus.
As I said earlier, if the mother is too stupid/careless/irresponsible to use protection, I don't mind at all if she has an abortion, because I don't want her genes passed along anyway.
I myself would rather never have been born than live knowing that I wasn't wanted. I'm only thankful that wasn't the case with me.
I just don't consider a ball of cells to be a human being. If you disagree, that's fine with me, then don't have an abortion. It's as simple as that.
And another thing, women were getting abortions long before it was legal here, except instead of going to nice, safe, clean clinics, they went to dirty, seedy back alley type places where "doctors" would use a variety of implements, usually dirty, and would often demand sexual favors as payment. Considering this, I'm glad that it's legal. Again, I say, if you don't like it, then don't do it.

... I say, if you don't like it, then don't do it.

And that would be the crux of the issue.

It's basic scientific fact and a little applied reason:

Human after birth means human before birth.
Alive after birth means alive before birth.

This is not scientific fact. Based on this, butterfly after cocoon means butterfly before cocoon. Dead after burial means dead before burial. Your opinion is that the fetus should be considered alive before birth, and most agree with you. It is the exact point at which it becomes alive that is under dispute.

I don't need any more than that. Questions of viability are essentially meaningless...a person hooked up to a dialysis machine is not viable without it.

They were at one time though. They do have the systems that, if fixed would make them that way. It shouldn't be hard to see the difference.

Not true. Pain. Requires some manner of nervous system. Can be sensed at 8 to 13 weeks. That's pretty early on.

Source? Quickening occurs around 3 months (hence the trimester laws in the US)

I don't even think it's a question of potential. It is what it is, a human being, undergoing its first stage of development. After fetus comes infant, toddler, and onward from there.

Exactly, you don't think it is. This is opinion, not fact.
Your argument to the proposal of other things with the properties you put forth to amount to human life has been "Oh, but can they become a human being?" This *is* a question of potential, unless you have forgotten English.


In your opinion.


Prove me wrong.

I don't have to, I just have to show that it is opinion. And guess what, it is!

It doesn't take much. A touch of reasoning applied to the Law of Biogenesis. Prove it isn't human, and then explain to me what miracle process allows it to spontaneously (a) become alive and (b) change species.

I have shown that it is not a separate life until it has developed to a certain point. Once it reaches that point, it can be considered alive by the definition that science applies to being alive. And I never said anything about changing species.

Your arm is not genetically distinct from the rest of your body.

How do you know? I might have exposed my arm to more sunlight than the rest of my body - you never know.

And can your arm a different being than you?

(a) This is not proper English (b) You have returned to the argument of potential, which isn't a valid argument.

The mouse will still be a mouse, because it will posess only a tiny fraction of human material. Likewise, granted...minor mutations exist in each of our genetic structures, but overall there is consistency. But it should be fairly obvious that the fetus and the mother are consistently and entirely different at a genetic level. The fetus draws only half of its genes from the mother, and the other half from the father. That combination means that it will be completely distinct from the mother...and that's qualification enough to count it as a wholly seperate entity.

Suppose I have a bone marrow transplant. Now all of my blood cells have distinct DNA from the rest of my body (not to mention cells elswehere, but these would be the most separated). Are they now a separate life? I think not, I'm pretty sure no one would call it murder if I pricked my finger and let some of my blood cells die.

Not really. I mean, I could grab any biology textbook, flip it open to the Biogenesis chapter, and that's all I need.

Not really. If you grabbed a Biology book that lists the requirements for life, you would see that a fetus does not meet all of them until a certain point in development. So you book doesn't help you, and this remains a discussion of philosophy and religion.

Am I the one advocating for the punishments on these women, or are you? I do think there's a legal distinction between...say, tying a bag of bricks together and balancing it on the windowsill...and having a glass of wine when you don't know your pregnant. Unless you're a complete moron, you'd realize that bricks perched next to an open window are, not surprisingly, subject to gravity and might just fall.

Unless you're a complete moron, you'd realize that if you've had sex, you might be pregnant and since alcohol can cause birth defects and stuff, you shouldn't drink!

If you give a fetus full rights as a life, then this is what follows.

If you suspect you are pregnant, don't drink. If you don't suspect you are pregnant, would I blame you for drinking? No. That's a long ways away from sleeping at the wheel.

So you already make a definite distinction between a fetus and a living human being. Oops, looks like you just screwed your own argument.

If you're tired, you know you're tired. If you drive...you're just being stupid.

If you have sex, you might be pregnant, if you drink, lift heavy objects, drive, take allergy medication, take acne medication, take antibiotics, etc, etc, you're just being stupid.

If the fetus is not alive, how can smoking and drinking negatively affect its quality of life?

It doesn't, but if you are planning on letting it develop into a life, you are responsible for its quality of life at that point. If I own a forest and I want to cut it down completely, I don't really need to worry how I do that. But if I want to keep the forest, I need to be careful not to disrupt the ecological balance. (I know this isn't the best metaphor, but it was what came to mind)

Heh, well, if that's the way you want it to be...

...but again, there's a difference. See above.

The problem with your argument is that you are making a difference. You cannot simultaneously argue that a fetus is a full separate human life and at the same time say its ok to kill it by accident. You have made a distinction already between fetus and baby.

But again, quite a different scenario. If she has reason to suspect she might be pregnant (late on her period, morning sickness...), then yeah, she shouldn't drink. But there's not always a reason, initially, for suspiscion, and I'm not going to advocate for a paranoid society.

Again, by attempting to attribute full rights to the fetus, you are advocating a paranoid society, or you are relegating the fetus to subhuman levels. One or the other, you can't have both.

You, however, in your example, know for certain that you have a kid, and the thought should at least enter into your mind that s/he might be in the house when you're standing there with the matches. After all, children are often in or near the home.

Doesn't matter, you said as long as its an accident, it's ok. I mean, if you know that you've had sex, you know that you might be pregnant!

Besides, with that comment you put the nail in the coffin. You just admitted a clear difference between the baby I know for certain I have and the one I might have one day.

What's a fetus? It's the stage of human development that preceeds infancy. So really, what's the distinction? Answer: a short trip through the birth canal. I don't see what it is about the birth canal that magically confers humanity.

I didn't say it happens at the birth canal, although there are those that would argue that point. The distinction, scientifically, is easy - the fetus cannot yet exist as a separate life.


That's a big if. And the only evidence you have shown for it is "I believe it to be true" and "It should be obvious that..."

Sorry darlin, but that's not evidence.

See above.

Above provides the exact same "evidence". Oops again

Abortion is not only right but also good.

...

When two zygotes join to form a single living organism, a quick abortion is probably the best bet. ;)

Whoops, gametes. Me and my random words.

Human after birth means human before birth.
Alive after birth means alive before birth.

This is dodgy logic to begin with, but the gametes used to form a zygote are both most certainly human, and are both most certainly alive. The problem, of course, is defining what constitutes a human being.

Eat them with your mouth and teeth?

There are 1 million infertile couples in the U.S. who want to adopt, and instead we murder human life at its most vulnerable stage. Insane, and evil.


at this moment there are 600,000 children without families in America, just waiting to be adopted. each week in America there are roughly 1,000 children born who will be put up for adoption before the age of 10. less than half of them will ever be successfully adopted. insane, and evil.


Fortunately, more and more women are becoming aware, through devices like ultrasound, that what's in the womb isn't just some amorphous blob of tissue, but is a (albeit small) human being.


actually, women who take the time to learn about their ultrasound will learn that their fetus is physiologically indistinguishable from a cat fetus until the very end of gestation. women who learn about their bodies and their reproductive processes will know that the average female in America will carry at least 2 fetuses through the first two months without ever knowing it, due to spontaneous abortions. women who are educated are 5 times more likely to accept abortion as a reasonable choice than women who are uneduacted (no high school diploma). interesting how emotive ploys like yours only work on the uneducated or uninformed...


My own view is that abortion won't be banned in the near future - as it would be if we were civilized - but the increasing moral stigma that is attaching to the procedure will in time see it become much rarer.

actually, current studies show growing acceptance of abortion and the right to chose, higher levels than when Roe V Wade was first handed down. women in western countries have every intention of retaining their freedoms, but you are welcome to try to take them away...real women love a good fight, too ;).

This post is such a collection of cold, repellent liberal propaganda, that it hardly bears replying to. Surely anyone with a modicum of rationality or decency - any woman who has seen her 4 month-old unborn child, through ultra-sound, quite clearly a recognizable human, would think very strongly about the morality of killing it.

Quite why leftists get so upset about the idea of promoting human life is rather strange. I guess it factors into the whole anti-life concept of the left. Pro-abortion, pro-gay, pro-small families; selfish, infantilised, individualism at the cost of community and morality. These are some really sick people.

so what you're saying is that you have no evidence to disprove what i have posted, but you don't like the fact that it's true. that's fine, and quite frankly i am very happy that you are displeased with my stance...i see that as proof i am on the right track ;).

if you think a woman doesn't consider the moral implications of having an abortion then you clearly have never had contact with women's health services. i have, and i can tell you that i have never, not once, seen a single woman make the decision casually or without a great deal of careful thought. they simply reach a conclusion that you don't happen to agree with...i know it's awful when those horrid women don't get their breeding behinds into the kitchen for you, but that's the way this awful, sinful world of ours works now. if you really can't stand it then i would recommend emigration to fundamentalist Muslim nations or the Vatican. otherwise you run the risk of providing entertainment for people like me :).

also, as i have to remind so many people, I AM NOT A LEFTIST. so how exactly would my post qualify as "leftist propaganda"?

Neither the "pro-life" or the "pro-choice" ideals hold any water at all. In short, they are simple answers to a very complex issue. It's not just yes or no becuase there is more than one factor in it. There is the health of the mother, the health of the fetus, the chance od death for both, the origin of the pregnancy, and even the course of pregenancy itself it not completely static with the differnt stages of developement affecting things such as viability and sentience of the fetus, as well as the risk of anacephaly and other defects that are potentially deadly for both the mother and the child.

To say that it is simply a yes or no answer is not only intellectually backwards and degrading to human life, but in it'self is morally wrong because it's making a bianary decision to a very not bianry issue.

Thats my two cents.

Neither the "pro-life" or the "pro-choice" ideals hold any water at all. In short, they are simple answers to a very complex issue. It's not just yes or no becuase there is more than one factor in it. There is the health of the mother, the health of the fetus, the chance od death for both, the origin of the pregnancy, and even the course of pregenancy itself it not completely static with the differnt stages of developement affecting things such as viability and sentience of the fetus, as well as the risk of anacephaly and other defects that are potentially deadly for both the mother and the child.

To say that it is simply a yes or no answer is not only intellectually backwards and degrading to human life, but in it'self is morally wrong because it's making a bianary decision to a very not bianry issue.

Thats my two cents.

well it's very nice that you think that, but i hope you realize that your opinion holds no more or less water than either of the stances you denounce. it's all about personal values and priorities; you are entitled to yours, but that doesn't make you special or right.

My views:

Abortion is fine. No living thing should have any rights until it's actually able to think and make some choices. Even a newborn baby can make some choices. Like if it's happy at any particular moment. Without abortion, what if an expectant mother was raped, on welfare, a teenager. Having a child may also be life threatening to some women. Just think about it all you religious fanatics. Are you willing to sacrafice the "life" of a full grown women for the life of an unborn fetus?

Abortion is not only right but also good.

because...?

Pro-choice huh? Well how about the choice the woman had when she met the guy? Or how about the choice when she decided not to use protection? The way i see it, she's had quite a few choices... by now, it shouldnt be her choice, it should be the fetus'.

How do you know the fetus doesn't want to be aborted?

Maybe it's an angsty, suicidal fetus?

Sha-sha. Take the poor fetus' opinions into consideration and abort now. Wow....that just might be the most ignorant thing I've heard.

Roarroarroar.

Apparently sarcasm isn't one of your strong points.

"Abortions for all!"
"Boo!"
"Abortions for none!"
"Boo!"
"Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!"
"Hurrah!"

What the anti-abortion lobby fail to remember is that there are many children already looking for parents to adopt them. The difference is that these children are not babies.

Even when it comes to babies, there is a huge number of babies born in the third world and Eastern Europe that need adoptive parents.

So, when the anti-abortion lobby talk about parents looking for children, there are many already available for adoption. Just because they do not fit an "ideal" i.e. from the same country or that the child is older than a toddler, does not mean that these children should not be adopted.

What the anti-abortion lobby fail to remember is that there are many children already looking for parents to adopt them. The difference is that these children are not babies.

Even when it comes to babies, there is a huge number of babies born in the third world and Eastern Europe that need adoptive parents.

So, when the anti-abortion lobby talk about parents looking for children, there are many already available for adoption. Just because they do not fit an "ideal" i.e. from the same country or that the child is older than a toddler, does not mean that these children should not be adopted.

not to mention the fact that most adoptive parents have a very definite idea of what they want when they try to adopt. my aunt and uncle recently adopted a little boy from the Ukraine, and they were horrified by the assumptions of the people at the orphanage:

they were shown pictures of the various children available for adoption, and the administrator would immediately skip past any child over the age of 3. he also skipped past several children of the "right" age, and when my uncle asked why he said "those are dark ones...you want a blonde." apparently Americans only want the blue-eyed blondes, so he didn't want to waste time showing them the brunettes. also, children who have been in the orphanages for longer than a few years usually have learning disabilities or health problems from poor diet, so they are damaged goods and nobody will adopt them.

my new cousin is 5, brunette, and is being helped to recover from rickets and dyslexia. he's cute as a button, but when i look at him i can't help but be saddened by the reality that for every kid like him who lucks out and finds a wonderful family there are 10 more who will never do so.

also, children who have been in the orphanages for longer than a few years usually have learning disabilities or health problems from poor diet, so they are damaged goods and nobody will adopt them.


They also often have mental health problems due to the idea of having been unwanted or given up. Even those who find a good home often have such issues. This was one of the factors that led a friend of mine to decide that abortion was the right choice for her. She knew she couldn't take care of the child on her own, she had just broken off her engagement (the guy cheated on her), and she knew she could never have a child and then send it into a system like the adoption system in this country. So she decided it was the right decision for her. I don't necessarily agree that it was definitely the right thing to do, but I support her in making her own decision.

also, children who have been in the orphanages for longer than a few years usually have learning disabilities or health problems from poor diet, so they are damaged goods and nobody will adopt them.


They also often have mental health problems due to the idea of having been unwanted or given up. Even those who find a good home often have such issues. This was one of the factors that led a friend of mine to decide that abortion was the right choice for her. She knew she couldn't take care of the child on her own, she had just broken off her engagement (the guy cheated on her), and she knew she could never have a child and then send it into a system like the adoption system in this country. So she decided it was the right decision for her. I don't necessarily agree that it was definitely the right thing to do, but I support her in making her own decision.

also, children who have been in the orphanages for longer than a few years usually have learning disabilities or health problems from poor diet, so they are damaged goods and nobody will adopt them.


They also often have mental health problems due to the idea of having been unwanted or given up. Even those who find a good home often have such issues. This was one of the factors that led a friend of mine to decide that abortion was the right choice for her. She knew she couldn't take care of the child on her own, she had just broken off her engagement (the guy cheated on her), and she knew she could never have a child and then send it into a system like the adoption system in this country. So she decided it was the right decision for her. I don't necessarily agree that it was definitely the right thing to do, but I support her in making her own decision.

indeed. personally i can't understand how anybody could live with bringing a child into the world and then putting it up for adoption; that seems to me the most cowardly and cruel choice possible, far more so than halting the development of a fetus before it ever becomes a human being. i respect any woman's choice to do what she wants with her body, but i think i have seen too much of the foster care and adoption systems to have any illusions about what it truly means to give a child up to that fate.

If an embryo is a human being solely because it has the potential to become a human being, then by the same logic, a cheese and mushroom sandwich is a human being.

On what planet, in what reality, can cheese, mushrooms, and bread become human.

Oh, you're one of those abiogenesis types, aren't you?

;) Aiera

Or pickles and ice cream, or any of that other crap that pregnant women eat. A fetus doesn't magically appear out of nowhere.

As for the abiogenesis comment, I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to get at or prove, but it made you sound incredibly ignorant, not least because it had nothing to do with what I was talking about.

If an embryo is a human being solely because it has the potential to become a human being, then by the same logic, a cheese and mushroom sandwich is a human being.

On what planet, in what reality, can cheese, mushrooms, and bread become human.

Oh, you're one of those abiogenesis types, aren't you?

;) Aiera

Or pickles and ice cream, or any of that other crap that pregnant women eat. A fetus doesn't magically appear out of nowhere.

As for the abiogenesis comment, I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to get at or prove, but it made you sound incredibly ignorant, not least because it had nothing to do with what I was talking about.

to be fair, your example was a bit hard to follow. but you could just as easily reminded Aiera that if a fetus is an "unborn human" then we all need to be referred to as "undead corpses," since the natural process of life will lead to that end. thus all sex is necrophilia, and none of us should be allowed to vote (since dead people can't).

an acorn isn't an oak, a pile of lumber and nails isn't a house, a fetus isn't a human. potentiality and actuality are NOT EQUAL.

"...Seventy-five percent of a woman's FERTILIZED eggs are rinsed and flushed during those delightful few days she has. They wind up on sanitary napkins and yet they are fertilized eggs! What these anti-abortion people are telling us is that any woman who has had more than one period is a serial killer!" -George Carlin