NationStates Jolt Archive

again, not according to biology. what you are describing is culture rather than scientific, and the "sub-species" classification for different ethnicities is not accepted by the medical or scientific community. this is mainly because of studies of mitochondrial DNA, which confirms that "races" are actually not genetically different in any significant way. i can give more details if you really want, but it gets kind of technical and i don't want to bore people or derail the thread.

are you telling me there is no distince genetic difference between a nigerian and a norwegian

First of all, learn that America isn't the world. I live in Canada. Secondly, I have told you if you have a problem with third term abortions, contact your representative. The matter of third term abortions, and their legality in some places, is irrelevant to my beliefs.

And I'm sorry to inform you that a person in a coma does have consciousness. My father's first wife was in a coma for over 6 months before she died. My father himself was in a coma for 7 days before he died. I spoke to him during that time, and you could see him react to what was being said.

He couldn't tell you what he was feeling, but you could tell he understood what was being said. He would smile or cry, he would turn his head from side to side as if fighting to be able to speak, he would squeeze my hand when I held it.

His mind was there. His body had just let go.

while i sympathize with you, the personal example you gave doesn't bear directly on the discussion. yes, there are comas of varying natures, but i think what people are talking about is the comas in which a patient is brain-dead or has only brainstem functioning...cases when consciousness is absent in every measurable way. your situation was clearly not one of those, and would never have been mistaken for one.

though my heart does go out to your family...my mother went through something similar with a sister, and it's absolute torture.

First of all, learn that America isn't the world. I live in Canada. Secondly, I have told you if you have a problem with third term abortions, contact your representative. The matter of third term abortions, and their legality in some places, is irrelevant to my beliefs.

And I'm sorry to inform you that a person in a coma does have consciousness. My father's first wife was in a coma for over 6 months before she died. My father himself was in a coma for 7 days before he died. I spoke to him during that time, and you could see him react to what was being said.

He couldn't tell you what he was feeling, but you could tell he understood what was being said. He would smile or cry, he would turn his head from side to side as if fighting to be able to speak, he would squeeze my hand when I held it.

His mind was there. His body had just let go.

my representitive did vote to end it, unfortunatly we have judges, non-elected people that wake up one day and decide that they, against the will of the people want to legalize things like gay marriage and third term abortion

you can see a fetus move and react to the enviroment around him and to the emotions of the mother

are you telling me there is no distince genetic difference between a nigerian and a norwegian

i'm telling you that the difference between a nigerian and a norwegian is, on average, no greater than the genetic difference between two nigerians or two norwegians. there are, obviously, always differences between individuals, but there has not been any reputable study showing that the genetic disparity between "races" is great enough to consider them sub-species. in fact, if you take blind samples between individuals of all races and you try to sort them into groups by how alike they are you will almost NEVER get groupings that correspond to the ethnicity of the individuals. we tried exactly that experiment in my senior bio seminar, and it was pretty amazing...my closest "relative" based on genetics was a Japanese exchange student, and my family is Hungarian and Western European for at least 8 generations (on either side).

Just a footnote, stay off of gay marrige, you've mentioned it a couple times now. Stay on topic.

i'm telling you that the difference between a nigerian and a norwegian is, on average, no greater than the genetic difference between two nigerians or two norwegians. there are, obviously, always differences between individuals, but there has not been any reputable study showing that the genetic disparity between "races" is great enough to consider them sub-species. in fact, if you take blind samples between individuals of all races and you try to sort them into groups by how alike they are you will almost NEVER get groupings that correspond to the ethnicity of the individuals. we tried exactly that experiment in my senior bio seminar, and it was pretty amazing...my closest "relative" based on genetics was a Japanese exchange student, and my family is Hungarian and Western European for at least 8 generations (on either side).

do you have any proof on that

while i sympathize with you, the personal example you gave doesn't bear directly on the discussion. yes, there are comas of varying natures, but i think what people are talking about is the comas in which a patient is brain-dead or has only brainstem functioning...cases when consciousness is absent in every measurable way. your situation was clearly not one of those, and would never have been mistaken for one.

though my heart does go out to your family...my mother went through something similar with a sister, and it's absolute torture.

It does indeed bear directly on the discussion. A coma and being alive are not mutually exclusive. Brain-dead is the same as dead. As you said, there are varying levels. I don't deny being brain-dead is to be dead (the name kind of gives a hint), a coma is not inherently death.

Therefore, the argument that people in comas are inherently on the same level as fetuses is invalid.

Just a footnote, stay off of gay marrige, you've mentioned it a couple times now. Stay on topic.

I'm just using it as an example to point out the neffarious type of people that brought us 3rd. term abortion

you act like homosexual marrige is a bad thing :p

This is not the place to do so. So don't.

my representitive did vote to end it, unfortunatly we have judges, non-elected people that wake up one day and decide that they, against the will of the people want to legalize things like gay marriage and third term abortion

you can see a fetus move and react to the enviroment around him and to the emotions of the mother

I'm sorry to hear that. However I still don't see why you continue to bring up third term abortions. I'm pretty sure I made it clear I don't approve of them, however am fine with abortion before the third term.

Moving doesn't equate life. He could easily be acting on reflex, as a reaction to chemicals in the mothers system, as misfired signals from the developing brain, or any number of unseen stimuli.

I can manipulate a corpse (macabre as it would be) and have them dance and jump and play. It won't mean they have consciousness.

you act like homosexual marrige is a bad thing :p

This is not the place to do so. So don't.

I'm not going to argue pro or con right now

but look at how it came about, no discussion, no voting, just one day you wake up and its there. that one of the big reasons people hate it so much

people voted and argued and disscussed the banning of third term abortion for over a decade in congress and one day one evil women and SF userps the whole demicratic process to enforce her views on the country

do you have any proof on that

well, i don't have any way to upload my gel electrophoresis plates. but i can give you some more facts on the subject, and a few links if you want to read more.

about 85 percent of all identified human genetic variation is between any two individuals from the same ethnic group. another 8 percent of all the variation is between ethnic groups within a race—say, between Spaniards, Irish, Italians, and Britons—and only 7 percent of all human genetic variation lies on the average between major human races such as those of Africa, Asia, Europe, and Oceania.

here's an excerpt from a good article with Shirley M. Tilghman, the director of the Lewis-Sigler Institute for Integrative Genomics: (i also linked the article below)

Another realization coming from the genome project might have a profound effect on social understanding. "From a scientific perspective," Tilghman said, "there is no such thing as race. You cannot scientifically distinguish a race of people genetically from a different race of people. Now you can find a gene that affects skin color, and you can show that this gene has one form in people of African descent and is different form of people, let's say, of Danish descent. But that's just one little change. That doesn't make them a race." If you look at all the other things in their DNA that determine all the ways in which we're the same, in fact the two DNAs are indistinguishable.

So it seems that there is only one race: the human race. "There are variants," Tilghman said, "and the variants we pay more attention to are the variants that are visible to us. But in fact the variants that probably matter much more than whether your skin is black or your skin is white are variants that predispose you to breast cancer. And those occur in all populations; variants that predispose you to heart disease; variants that predispose you to Alzheimer's disease. And those do not track by race. So the important ones are not the visible ones."

Reference: http://www.princeton.edu/~paw/web_exclusives/features/features_05.html

here's another good article:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/344/18/1392?ijkey=7b7b889f80642ce8970ebddbd0c51f408cde2025&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

I'm not going to argue pro or con right now

but look at how it came about, no discussion, no voting, just one day you wake up and its there. that one of the big reasons people hate it so much

people voted and argued and disscussed the banning of third term abortion for over a decade in congress and one day one evil women and SF userps the whole demicratic process to enforce her views on the country

people debated desegregation for decades and then some activist politician and uppity Negros went and changed things! even though over half the country was against it, they made us let darkies into our clean white schools!

I'm sorry to hear that. However I still don't see why you continue to bring up third term abortions. I'm pretty sure I made it clear I don't approve of them, however am fine with abortion before the third term.

Moving doesn't equate life. He could easily be acting on reflex, as a reaction to chemicals in the mothers system, as misfired signals from the developing brain, or any number of unseen stimuli.

I can manipulate a corpse (macabre as it would be) and have them dance and jump and play. It won't mean they have consciousness.

so what's the difference between a human whos been in his mother's womb for 23 weeks 6 days 23 hours 59 minutes and 59 secconds VS. a human whos been in his mothers womb for 24 weeks?

what biological change occurs at that point that makes it immoral to abort a baby, but moraly acceptable to abort one before that point in your eyes?

well, i don't have any way to upload my gel electrophoresis plates. but i can give you some more facts on the subject, and a few links if you want to read more.

about 85 percent of all identified human genetic variation is between any two individuals from the same ethnic group. another 8 percent of all the variation is between ethnic groups within a race—say, between Spaniards, Irish, Italians, and Britons—and only 7 percent of all human genetic variation lies on the average between major human races such as those of Africa, Asia, Europe, and Oceania.

here's an excerpt from a good article with Shirley M. Tilghman, the director of the Lewis-Sigler Institute for Integrative Genomics: (i also linked the article below)

Another realization coming from the genome project might have a profound effect on social understanding. "From a scientific perspective," Tilghman said, "there is no such thing as race. You cannot scientifically distinguish a race of people genetically from a different race of people. Now you can find a gene that affects skin color, and you can show that this gene has one form in people of African descent and is different form of people, let's say, of Danish descent. But that's just one little change. That doesn't make them a race." If you look at all the other things in their DNA that determine all the ways in which we're the same, in fact the two DNAs are indistinguishable.

So it seems that there is only one race: the human race. "There are variants," Tilghman said, "and the variants we pay more attention to are the variants that are visible to us. But in fact the variants that probably matter much more than whether your skin is black or your skin is white are variants that predispose you to breast cancer. And those occur in all populations; variants that predispose you to heart disease; variants that predispose you to Alzheimer's disease. And those do not track by race. So the important ones are not the visible ones."

Reference: http://www.princeton.edu/~paw/web_exclusives/features/features_05.html

here's another good article:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/344/18/1392?ijkey=7b7b889f80642ce8970ebddbd0c51f408cde2025&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

what's the genetic differnece between a american short hair cat and a persian cat

not a whole lote but it still makes for sifferent sub-species

Well, in my eyes, I view it evil...........
Hey, it don't matter, u're basically killin' a life. Hey, women want rights, too, yet what 'bout the kid? It should have as much rights as women. It's wrong, n it decreases the pop.
In ways, when a women's raped, she could could give the child up for adoption, but if they really don't want to accept the responsiblity of being the mother of the babe, then why did she 'come xually active? Through that comes life, not death.........it don't really matter. In the end, it'll be too late when ppl open up their eyes.

people debated desegregation for decades and then some activist politician and uppity Negros went and changed things! even though over half the country was against it, they made us let darkies into our clean white schools!

perhaps you've never heard of the 1964 civil rights act (OF CONGRESS)

so what's the difference between a human whos been in his mother's womb for 23 weeks 6 days 23 hours 59 minutes and 59 secconds VS. a human whos been in his mothers womb for 24 weeks?

what biological change occurs at that point that makes it immoral to abort a baby, but moraly acceptable to abort one before that point in your eyes?

So you'd rather we said '24 weeks... give or take' or something like that? There has to be a legal limit.
If I get caught driving with 2.9 units of alcohol in my blood, I get off without so much as a warning. If I get caught with 3.0 units, I lose my license. 0.1 units doesn't make much difference in real-terms, but there needs to be a legal limit.

perhaps you've never heard of the 1964 civil rights act (OF CONGRESS)

Perhaps you've never heard of Brown vs. Topeka.

So you'd rather we said '24 weeks... give or take' or something like that? There has to be a legal limit.
If I get caught driving with 2.9 units of alcohol in my blood, I get off without so much as a warning. If I get caught with 3.0 units, I lose my license. 0.1 units doesn't make much difference in real-terms, but there needs to be a legal limit.

good point, but this is human life, people claim that something happens in that seccond

I'm just trying to figure out what

so what's the difference between a human whos been in his mother's womb for 23 weeks 6 days 23 hours 59 minutes and 59 secconds VS. a human whos been in his mothers womb for 24 weeks?

what biological change occurs at that point that makes it immoral to abort a baby, but moraly acceptable to abort one before that point in your eyes?

As was stated above, it's just a legal standard. There has to be a cut-off point somewhere. 24 weeks seems like a safe bet to avoid the child having attained consciousness. Soon after that, it's just too hard to be sure.

Perhaps you've never heard of Brown vs. Topeka.

indeed, it happened, then we voted on it

after we already voted on several integration issues, integration of the armed foces for example

As was stated above, it's just a legal standard. There has to be a cut-off point somewhere. 24 weeks seems like a safe bet to avoid the child having attained consciousness. Soon after that, it's just too hard to be sure.

actually its not a legal standerd anymore (thank you judges)

but many people claim 3rd. term to be immoral and abortion befor that moral, what happens in that seccond

what's the genetic differnece between a american short hair cat and a persian cat

not a whole lote but it still makes for sifferent sub-species

i think you are simply confused as to what "subspecies" refers to. if two groups would interbreed freely provided only that some external barrier was removed (like there's a desert in the way or an earthquake separated the continent) then they are subspecies. the distinction between a species and a subspecies depends ONLY on the likelihood that (absent external barriers) the two populations would merge back into a single, genetically unified population. it has nothing to do with 'how different' the two groups appear to be to the human observer.

different kinds of cats are actually not subspecies, they are breeds, sometimes called infrasubspecies, or often times "strains" if they are very very purebred. a breed is a classification one step below subspecies.

i think you are simply confused as to what "subspecies" refers to. if two groups would interbreed freely provided only that some external barrier was removed (like there's a desert in the way or an earthquake separated the continent) then they are subspecies. the distinction between a species and a subspecies depends ONLY on the likelihood that (absent external barriers) the two populations would merge back into a single, genetically unified population. it has nothing to do with 'how different' the two groups appear to be to the human observer.

different kinds of cats are actually not subspecies, they are breeds, sometimes called infrasubspecies, or often times "strains" if they are very very purebred. a breed is a classification one step below subspecies.

call it breed call it a strain, races of people are distinctly different

call it breed call it a strain, races of people are distinctly different

again, according to science they are not different "races" or species. they may have distinctive traits that we can use to classify them in society, but those traits do not hold up when it comes to biological classifications. that was my point to begin with.

actually its not a legal standerd anymore (thank you judges)

but many people claim 3rd. term to be immoral and abortion befor that moral, what happens in that seccond

I do not live in the United States of America. Please stop applying your legal standards to me. When I speak of the 6 month mark, I am referring to my local laws. Stating that those laws do not exist simply because the USA has different laws does not make any sense.

With that out of the way with. There is no instant metamorphosis where the child goes from non-consciousness to consciousness. It's a slow and gradual process.

Let's assume I draw a line in the middle of the street with chalk, and step back 10 paces. I start moving towards that line, but stop directly in front of it at 9 paces. That's the equivalent of the abortion limitation.

The child may be close to achieving consciousness, he might be one 'step' away. But until he is there, until I take the final step and cross the chalk line, nothing has actually happened. Somewhere in those remaining 3 months, consciousness will form, and he will be alive (by my standards).

Before that, he's just moving towards it.

again, according to science they are not different "races" or species. they may have distinctive traits that we can use to classify them in society, but those traits do not hold up when it comes to biological classifications. that was my point to begin with.

we have distinctive traits that we use to classify them in society, the nazis belived that some justified murder

we have distinctive traits that we use to classify people's stages of development, you belive that some justify murder

we have distinctive traits that we use to classify them in society, the nazis belived that some justified murder

we have distinctive traits that we use to classify people's stages of development, you belive that some justify murder

um, again, my distinction is supported by empirical science rather than by purely subjective culture. that was what i said to begin with.

I do not live in the United States of America. Please stop applying your legal standards to me. When I speak of the 6 month mark, I am referring to my local laws. Stating that those laws do not exist simply because the USA has different laws does not make any sense.

With that out of the way with. There is no instant metamorphosis where the child goes from non-consciousness to consciousness. It's a slow and gradual process.

Let's assume I draw a line in the middle of the street with chalk, and step back 10 paces. I start moving towards that line, but stop directly in front of it at 9 paces. That's the equivalent of the abortion limitation.

The child may be close to achieving consciousness, he might be one 'step' away. But until he is there, until I take the final step and cross the chalk line, nothing has actually happened. Somewhere in those remaining 3 months, consciousness will form, and he will be alive (by my standards).

Before that, he's just moving towards it.

so conciousness developes at 24 weeks?

um, again, my distinction is supported by empirical science rather than by purely subjective culture. that was what i said to begin with.

and its empirical science to say that there is a distinct differnece between a fetus at 23 weeks, 23 hours, 59 minutes, 59 secconds and one at 24 weeks

or a distinct difference between a baby with a toe still in his mother (up for partcial birth abortion) and one with his toe out

and its empirical science to say that there is a distinct differnece between a fetus at 23 weeks, 23 hours, 59 minutes, 59 secconds and one at 24 weeks

or a distinct difference between a baby with a toe still in his mother (up for partcial birth abortion) and one with his toe out

um, i don't think i have ever claimed that, so i don't know why you are directing it at me. i don't base my support of abortion on the fetus' consciousness (or lack thereof), nor have i claimed there is a specific moment at which consciousness becomes present.

further, the "toe in or out" idea is pure hyperbole, and the medical community laughs opennly at the fact that such tripe is repeated as though it were fact. late term abortions are not provided on such a whim, ever, and have never been in the United States. but hey, keep trying to appeal to peoples' emotions, since the facts aren't on your side :P.

so conciousness developes at 24 weeks?

Nope. 24 weeks is as close as I feel we can comfortably come to without risking crossing the line. They may not develop consciousness for weeks after that, maybe even a month or more. I really can't be sure.

However I'm confident that before 24 weeks, they don't have consciousness. After that, not near so sure. So to play it safe, no abortions after 24 weeks. That way, regardless of where in the remaining 3 months it occurs, there is no risk of a 'living' fetus being aborted.

um, i don't think i have ever claimed that, so i don't know why you are directing it at me. i don't base my support of abortion on the fetus' consciousness (or lack thereof), nor have i claimed there is a specific moment at which consciousness becomes present.

further, the "toe in or out" idea is pure hyperbole, and the medical community laughs opennly at the fact that such tripe is repeated as though it were fact. late term abortions are not provided on such a whim, ever, and have never been in the United States. but hey, keep trying to appeal to peoples' emotions, since the facts aren't on your side :P.

pure hyperbole? that is the line for abortion in the US and if you remember roe vs. wade the US has abortion on demand, so long as you have the money and a toe in you get an abortion

pure hyperbole? that is the line for abortion in the US and if you remember roe vs. wade the US has abortion on demand, so long as you have the money and a toe in you get an abortion
the "toe in" nonsense is an editorialization constructed by anti-choice activists, and has NEVER been medical practice in the United states. i certainly do remember Roe V. Wade, and i totally support abortion on demand for any reason, any time.

Nope. 24 weeks is as close as I feel we can comfortably come to without risking crossing the line. They may not develop consciousness for weeks after that, maybe even a month or more. I really can't be sure.

However I'm confident that before 24 weeks, they don't have consciousness. After that, not near so sure. So to play it safe, no abortions after 24 weeks. That way, regardless of where in the remaining 3 months it occurs, there is no risk of a 'living' fetus being aborted.

I hate to put you on the spot, but where did you come to this 24 week conclusion and what evadence to you have that that is the time

the "toe in" nonsense is an editorialization constructed by anti-choice activists, and has NEVER been medical practice in the United states. i certainly do remember Roe V. Wade, and i totally support abortion on demand for any reason, any time.

you see abortion on demand means when ever you want it, and that includes the third term which legaly doesn't end untill the baby is 100% out

what did you think partial birth abortion was anyway?

I hate to put you on the spot, but where did you come to this 24 week conclusion and what evadence to you have that that is the time

I believe 24 weeks is where the cells that form the embryo begin to differentiate (IE turn from stem cells into the cell layers, those that form the brain, lungs, skin, ect ect)

Correct me if I'm wrong, its been a bit since I last took bio.

I believe 24 weeks is where the cells that form the embryo begin to differentiate (IE turn from stem cells into the cell layers, those that form the brain, lungs, skin, ect ect)

Correct me if I'm wrong, its been a bit since I last took bio.

that actually starts around the 6th. week (I just finnished bio too, and I live with two pro-life doctors)

I believe 24 weeks is where the cells that form the embryo begin to differentiate (IE turn from stem cells into the cell layers, those that form the brain, lungs, skin, ect ect)

Correct me if I'm wrong, its been a bit since I last took bio.

You're describing something a bit earlier. But there's a nice graphic here:

http://www.visembryo.com/baby/

Click and see the fetus at multiple weeks of development.

that actually starts around the 6th. week (I just finnished bio too, and I live with two pro-life doctors)


Sorry, my mistake, as I said, it has been a while. I'm more in favor of the 21st day cutoff.

you see abortion on demand means when ever you want it, and that includes the third term which legaly doesn't end untill the baby is 100% out

what did you think partial birth abortion was anyway?

i suppose i should be more detailed:

i believe in fetal viability as the determining factor for a procedure. a woman has the right to have a fetus removed from her body whenever she choses, the instant she wants, no exceptions. however, if a qualified Ob/Gyn believes the fetus has better than a 30% chance of survival outside the womb then i believe the fetus should be removed whole and allowed to try to survive. the only exceptions would be cases where removing the fetus whole would put the woman's health or reproductive ability in danger, in which case the fetus should always be aborted in the way that will be safest for the woman.

"partial birth" abortion is pretty much never used on an elective basis, and never has been. less than 1% of "partial birth" abortions EVER PERFORMED were elective, and not one single such procedure within the last 15 years has been deemed elective by the medical community that i know of. in virtually every state there are long-standing laws prohibiting elective late-term abortions, further disproving the anti-choice myth that innocent little babies are killed at the last minute by heartless doctors and evil mothers.

late-term abortions are performed in one of two situations: when the mother's life is in serious danger and there is no alternative, or when the fetus is ALREADY DEAD (which is the case more often than not). because of advanced medicine, a dangerous pregnancy can usually be spotted long before it reaches the final trimester, so late-term abortions are actually most often performed to remove the corpse of a fetus that has died in utero; leaving such a body inside the woman puts her life and her reproductive tract in serious danger, and it would not be medically sound to require her to carry the dead body to term.

so yes, i totally support "partial-birth" abortions.

i suppose i should be more detailed:

i believe in fetal viability as the determining factor for a procedure. a woman has the right to have a fetus removed from her body whenever she choses, the instant she wants, no exceptions. however, if a qualified Ob/Gyn believes the fetus has better than a 30% chance of survival outside the womb then i believe the fetus should be removed whole and allowed to try to survive. the only exceptions would be cases where removing the fetus whole would put the woman's health or reproductive ability in danger, in which case the fetus should always be aborted in the way that will be safest for the woman.

"partial birth" abortion is pretty much never used on an elective basis, and never has been. less than 1% of "partial birth" abortions EVER PERFORMED were elective, and not one single such procedure within the last 15 years has been deemed elective by the medical community that i know of. in virtually every state there are long-standing laws prohibiting elective late-term abortions, further disproving the anti-choice myth that innocent little babies are killed at the last minute by heartless doctors and evil mothers.

late-term abortions are performed in one of two situations: when the mother's life is in serious danger and there is no alternative, or when the fetus is ALREADY DEAD (which is the case more often than not). because of advanced medicine, a dangerous pregnancy can usually be spotted long before it reaches the final trimester, so late-term abortions are actually most often performed to remove the corpse of a fetus that has died in utero; leaving such a body inside the woman puts her life and her reproductive tract in serious danger, and it would not be medically sound to require her to carry the dead body to term.

so yes, i totally support "partial-birth" abortions.

1 - then I have to ask, what makes 30 the magical %, why not 28 or 31?

2 - where did you get that information?

3 - states are not allowed to make those laws, Colorado recently made one but it was overturned by, can anyone gusse? may favorite people in the world federal judges

and once again, roe vs. wade specified ABORTION ON DEMAND which means WHEN EVER FOR WHAT EVER REASON

Sorry, my mistake, as I said, it has been a while. I'm more in favor of the 21st day cutoff.

you know I have to ask, what makes 20th. day 23rd. hour 59th minute and 59th. seccond fetuses abortable in your eyes but not 21ts. day ones

you know I have to ask, what makes 20th. day 23rd. hour 59th minute and 59th. seccond fetuses abortable in your eyes but not 21ts. day ones


Margin of error.

Margin of error.

margin of error with a human life?

1 - then I have to ask, what makes 30 the magical %, why not 28 or 31?

2 - where did you get that information?

3 - states are not allowed to make those laws, Colorado recently made one but it was overturned by, can anyone gusse? may favorite people in the world federal judges

and once again, roe vs. wade specified ABORTION ON DEMAND which means WHEN EVER FOR WHAT EVER REASON

1. the 30% chance is purely arbitrary, and very generous if you think about it. i personally think it is cruel to deliver a fetus whole if that fetus has no chance of surviving and will simply die horribly and slowly, but i do believe that we must give leeway to nature; after all, standard births don't have a 100% survival rate. i use 30% because that is currently the average standard when dealing with premature births; if there is less than a 30% chance the infant will survive, the doctor will usually advise the family that it is cruel to force the infant to suffer and will recommend discontinuing lifesupport and using drugs to let the infant die peacefully. the family is within their rights to demand care continue, and that's just fine with me, but the doctor is obligated to prevent unnecessary suffering when possible.

i certainly would be willing to consider a different percentage of survival likelihood, but only if the medical community could give sufficient justification and evidence that it was an ethical choice.

2. i get my information from 3 years of classes taken along with medical students, from a year interning with a county clerk, and from my own personal research into the subject. if you expect me to provide a source list then i will ask you to provide the same as well...i have had far too many people on NS demand i give sources and then refuse to read them or to provide any of their own.

3. states most certainly were allowed to make those laws. 40 states have them on the books at this very moment, and most have had them in place since the whole abortion kickoff back in the Roe V. Wade days. that ruling did not allow carte blanche for abortion, contrary to what you seem to think, and i would strongly encourage you to speak to a practicing Ob/Gyn or a medical attourney so you can get these misconceptions cleared up.

margin of error with a human life?
You have the chance of human life around 21 days+. Gastulation is generally complete by then, and three cell types are beginning to form the organs.

I hate to put you on the spot, but where did you come to this 24 week conclusion and what evadence to you have that that is the time

As I've said, before then the child doesn't display any level of consciousness which I feel indicates 'life'. Or playing Devil's Advocate, if said level of consciousness does in fact exist, modern science has failed to prove it to a degree which sways me.

Now with that said, I know that the child at birth does exhibit this consciousness. If we assume that he hasn't developed it before 24 weeks, but will have it at birth, then logic states he must develop it within the remaining 3 months (assuming he is carried to a 9 month term exactly, which not all children are).

Since we cannot predict to the day when consciousness becomes a reality for the child, it's a general good rule to leave some 'buffer space'. As I said, it may be weeks after the third trimester starts before he actually attains consciousness.

But with such a small time frame left, and it becoming more and more difficult to really deny the fetus is alive, I don't see much reason to push our luck and try to cut it to the exact day. 24 weeks isn't jumping the gun, nor is it playing a game of chicken. It leaves a wide enough margin that we can be safe, without preventing large amounts of abortions of not yet alive fetuses.

Hope that answers your question.

1. the 30% chance is purely arbitrary, and very generous if you think about it. i personally think it is cruel to deliver a fetus whole if that fetus has no chance of surviving and will simply die horribly and slowly, but i do believe that we must give leeway to nature; after all, standard births don't have a 100% survival rate. i use 30% because that is currently the average standard when dealing with premature births; if there is less than a 30% chance the infant will survive, the doctor will usually advise the family that it is cruel to force the infant to suffer and will recommend discontinuing lifesupport and using drugs to let the infant die peacefully. the family is within their rights to demand care continue, and that's just fine with me, but the doctor is obligated to prevent unnecessary suffering when possible.

i certainly would be willing to consider a different percentage of survival likelihood, but only if the medical community could give sufficient justification and evidence that it was an ethical choice.

2. i get my information from 3 years of classes taken along with medical students, from a year interning with a county clerk, and from my own personal research into the subject. if you expect me to provide a source list then i will ask you to provide the same as well...i have had far too many people on NS demand i give sources and then refuse to read them or to provide any of their own.

3. states most certainly were allowed to make those laws. 40 states have them on the books at this very moment, and most have had them in place since the whole abortion kickoff back in the Roe V. Wade days. that ruling did not allow carte blanche for abortion, contrary to what you seem to think, and i would strongly encourage you to speak to a practicing Ob/Gyn or a medical attourney so you can get these misconceptions cleared up.

I'm looking for a JAMA artical or a USDH study

those states may have laws but since the third term amendment was taken out (thank you federal judges) those bills are no more than paper.
See: Colorado

As I've said, before then the child doesn't display any level of consciousness which I feel indicates 'life'. Or playing Devil's Advocate, if said level of consciousness does in fact exist, modern science has failed to prove it to a degree which sways me.

Now with that said, I know that the child at birth does exhibit this consciousness. If we assume that he hasn't developed it before 24 weeks, but will have it at birth, then logic states he must develop it within the remaining 3 months (assuming he is carried to a 9 month term exactly, which not all children are).

Since we cannot predict to the day when consciousness becomes a reality for the child, it's a general good rule to leave some 'buffer space'. As I said, it may be weeks after the third trimester starts before he actually attains consciousness.

But with such a small time frame left, and it becoming more and more difficult to really deny the fetus is alive, I don't see much reason to push our luck and try to cut it to the exact day. 24 weeks isn't jumping the gun, nor is it playing a game of chicken. It leaves a wide enough margin that we can be safe, without preventing large amounts of abortions of not yet alive fetuses.

Hope that answers your question.

how can we be certian? what makes you think these things can't develope before the (in some couyntries) all important 24 hour marker

how can we be certian? what makes you think these things can't develope before the (in some couyntries) all important 24 hour marker

Perhaps I wasn't clear, as there seems to be some misconception as to what I'm proposing. The fetus does not have consciousness (in my opinion) as 23 weeks, 23 hours and 59 minutes. And I would think it exceptionally unlikely he will have consciousness at 24 weeks, or 24 weeks and 1 day, or 24 weeks and 2 days, nor a week after 24 weeks, and so on.

Beyond 24 weeks marks the point of 'murky waters'. Up until that point, there really isn't any doubt in my mind of the lack of consciousness (as pertains to the definition of life). For me, it's as true and solid as the ground beneath my feet. From there on in, the odds of an actual living fetus being aborted will rise more and more as we approach the date of birth.

We stop at the 24 week point specifically to ensure there is ample room for error. Exactly because we don't know to the day when it will become 'alive', we (in some places at least) ban abortion well in advance of when the fetus may actually attain consciousness.

Because of the large amount of room left for error, it would be nearly impossible for a living fetus to be aborted (again, by my opinion of the requirements for life). I say 'nearly' since nothing is truly impossible. However, the absolutely minimal chance of such an incident occuring is not sufficient for me to support banning abortions altogether.

It's not as if we wait until there are 60 seconds left before the child becomes 'alive'. Abortion (again, in some places) is banned as much as weeks before the child may ever gain consciousness.

You may feel the risk is still too great, and that's your choice of course. It doesn't sway my opinion however. Science will have to offer some pretty damning proof that awareness and consciousness exist before the 6 month mark for that to happen.

Perhaps I wasn't clear, as there seems to be some misconception as to what I'm proposing. The fetus does not have consciousness (in my opinion) as 23 weeks, 23 hours and 59 minutes. And I would think it exceptionally unlikely he will have consciousness at 24 weeks, or 24 weeks and 1 day, or 24 weeks and 2 days, nor a week after 24 weeks, and so on.

Beyond 24 weeks marks the point of 'murky waters'. Up until that point, there really isn't any doubt in my mind of the lack of consciousness (as pertains to the definition of life). For me, it's as true and solid as the ground beneath my feet. From there on in, the odds of an actual living fetus being aborted will rise more and more as we approach the date of birth.

We stop at the 24 week point specifically to ensure there is ample room for error. Exactly because we don't know to the day when it will become 'alive', we (in some places at least) ban abortion well in advance of when the fetus may actually attain consciousness.

Because of the large amount of room left for error, it would be nearly impossible for a living fetus to be aborted (again, by my opinion of the requirements for life). I say 'nearly' since nothing is truly impossible. However, the absolutely minimal chance of such an incident occuring is not sufficient for me to support banning abortions altogether.

It's not as if we wait until there are 60 seconds left before the child becomes 'alive'. Abortion (again, in some places) is banned as much as weeks before the child may ever gain consciousness.

You may feel the risk is still too great, and that's your choice of course. It doesn't sway my opinion however. Science will have to offer some pretty damning proof that awareness and consciousness exist before the 6 month mark for that to happen.

ha, to make sure a living fetus isn't aborted, a little late

(and just for your information, in America they abort half born babies, so while I sure don't agree with your 24 weeks stance I do agree it sure would be a step up)

ha, to make sure a living fetus isn't aborted, a little late

(and just for your information, in America they abort half born babies, so while I sure don't agree with your 24 weeks stance I do agree it sure would be a step up)

WHAT?! If you mean abort as in kill a living fetus, that's not true. If you mean abort as in natural abortions, where the fetus is already dead, will die on birth, or will kill the mother, then yes.

Get away from the idea that baby is coming out and some doctor kills it. If a doctor did do that, it would be illegal, by anyone's definition.

WHAT?! If you mean abort as in kill a living fetus, that's not true. If you mean abort as in natural abortions, where the fetus is already dead, will die on birth, or will kill the mother, then yes.

Get away from the idea that baby is coming out and some doctor kills it. If a doctor did do that, it would be illegal, by anyone's definition.

I think what Sydenia was saying was that in their opinion a fetus is not alive before 24 weeks (not something I agree with but thats irrelevant). Schrandtopia said it is a bit late once it is aborted to decide if it was alive or dead before the abortion took place. I don't think they were talking about killing a child after birth.

In my post above, I'm referring to the idea that "in America they abort half-born babies"

I do NOT agree with that

WHAT?! If you mean abort as in kill a living fetus, that's not true. If you mean abort as in natural abortions, where the fetus is already dead, will die on birth, or will kill the mother, then yes.

Get away from the idea that baby is coming out and some doctor kills it. If a doctor did do that, it would be illegal, by anyone's definition.


I hate to be the one to tell you this but...THATS WHAT PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION IS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I hate to be the one to tell you this but...THATS WHAT PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION IS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A better term would be aborting a viable/living fetus. Half-born implies they're in the process of being born, which I believe most people would take to mean the approximately 12-24 hours in which a woman is in labor.

And please, show me numbers of partial birth abortions in the US that had no reason other than the mother didn't want the baby. I don't consider ones that result from the fetus already being dead or risk to the mother to be wanton killing of living beings.

A better term would be aborting a viable/living fetus. Half-born implies they're in the process of being born, which I believe most people would take to mean the approximately 12-24 hours in which a woman is in labor.

And please, show me numbers of partial birth abortions in the US that had no reason other than the mother didn't want the baby. I don't consider ones that result from the fetus already being dead or risk to the mother to be wanton killing of living beings.

yeah hunney, no one condisers that abortion

and they are in the process of being born, the head is out, the baby is breathing and crying and then bye bye

the number is over 600 a year

remeber the whole big debate over this, we passed a bill in congress about it (but it was overturned thanks to my favorite people in the world, federal judges)

Okay, here's part of the law: (apparently struck down)

A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion--an abortion in which a physician deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living, unborn child's body until either the entire baby's head is outside the body of the mother, or any part of the baby's trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother and only the head remains inside the womb, for the purpose of performing an overt act (usually the puncturing of the back of the child's skull and removing the baby's brains) that the person knows will kill the partially delivered infant, performs this act, and then completes delivery of the dead infant--is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited.

So... Some problems with it (taken from ACLU)

1. No exception for mother's health
2. Ban is not confined to 3rd trimester, could apply back to 13th week of pregnancy
3. Is not confined to one form of delivery, which you describe


And if you agree with the third trimester being the problem time, like I do, you can be reassured by the fact that:
"Long-standing, unchallenged statutes in 40 states and the District of Columbia prohibit third-trimester abortions except when the life or health of the woman is at stake."

So Congress really didn't need to pass a ban anyways!

If you pro-lifers want something to really complain about, stop looking at home because abortion is very restricted there (especially in theocratic nations and the US), and look at a place like China where the government AUTHORIZES abortions as a punishment for women who are illegally pregnant. Yes... In order to have a child, the couple must receive permission from the state and then if approved, can only have one. However, if a woman is found pregnant and isn't allowed, the Granny Police (older women at the head of the community), will alert authories and the woman is taken along with others for a "ride", where they abort the fetus with or without her consent.

Now that is wrong. It's not wrong when a woman does it by choice. It's wrong if someone else forces you to.

Why is it double murder to kill a pregnant woman but abortion is alright?

Why is it double murder to kill a pregnant woman but abortion is alright?
Because of the laws of this world... They're funny like that...

Why is it double murder to kill a pregnant woman but abortion is alright?

I think that's just their way of saying "What the crap, you killed a pregnant lady? What the hell is wrong with you?"

This is an awful question. Both evil and good are so subjective and individualistic as to make the question meaningless, not to mention that they aren't opposites so asking which something is, is idiotic. On top of that, asking such a simple question on such a complex issue limits the thinking of those to whom it is presented and restrict answers in scale and meaning such that the question is better not asked.

This is an awful question. Both evil and good are so subjective and individualistic as to make the question meaningless, not to mention that they aren't opposites so asking which something is, is idiotic. On top of that, asking such a simple question on such a complex issue limits the thinking of those to whom it is presented and restrict answers in scale and meaning such that the question is better not asked.

they're are only two answers, you either think its okay or you don't

Okay, here's part of the law: (apparently struck down)

A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion--an abortion in which a physician deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living, unborn child's body until either the entire baby's head is outside the body of the mother, or any part of the baby's trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother and only the head remains inside the womb, for the purpose of performing an overt act (usually the puncturing of the back of the child's skull and removing the baby's brains) that the person knows will kill the partially delivered infant, performs this act, and then completes delivery of the dead infant--is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited.

So... Some problems with it (taken from ACLU)

1. No exception for mother's health
2. Ban is not confined to 3rd trimester, could apply back to 13th week of pregnancy
3. Is not confined to one form of delivery, which you describe


And if you agree with the third trimester being the problem time, like I do, you can be reassured by the fact that:
"Long-standing, unchallenged statutes in 40 states and the District of Columbia prohibit third-trimester abortions except when the life or health of the woman is at stake."

So Congress really didn't need to pass a ban anyways!

ok, those laws are like Delaware's laws on the slave trade

yes, they exist on paper but are have been over ruled by federal legeslature and are no longer potent

you can get a third term abortion in any of those states

If you pro-lifers want something to really complain about, stop looking at home because abortion is very restricted there (especially in theocratic nations and the US), and look at a place like China where the government AUTHORIZES abortions as a punishment for women who are illegally pregnant. Yes... In order to have a child, the couple must receive permission from the state and then if approved, can only have one. However, if a woman is found pregnant and isn't allowed, the Granny Police (older women at the head of the community), will alert authories and the woman is taken along with others for a "ride", where they abort the fetus with or without her consent.

Now that is wrong. It's not wrong when a woman does it by choice. It's wrong if someone else forces you to.

#1 - we would have to invade china to stop that

#2 - the pro-life lobby got the government to cut funding to the UNDP over that issue for the third year in a row (that's right, durring the clinton era it was our tax dollars that were paying for those abortions)

#3 - we are a highly organized international movment, we can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time

Perhaps I wasn't clear, as there seems to be some misconception as to what I'm proposing. The fetus does not have consciousness (in my opinion) as 23 weeks, 23 hours and 59 minutes. And I would think it exceptionally unlikely he will have consciousness at 24 weeks, or 24 weeks and 1 day, or 24 weeks and 2 days, nor a week after 24 weeks, and so on.

Beyond 24 weeks marks the point of 'murky waters'. Up until that point, there really isn't any doubt in my mind of the lack of consciousness (as pertains to the definition of life). For me, it's as true and solid as the ground beneath my feet. From there on in, the odds of an actual living fetus being aborted will rise more and more as we approach the date of birth.

We stop at the 24 week point specifically to ensure there is ample room for error. Exactly because we don't know to the day when it will become 'alive', we (in some places at least) ban abortion well in advance of when the fetus may actually attain consciousness.

Because of the large amount of room left for error, it would be nearly impossible for a living fetus to be aborted (again, by my opinion of the requirements for life). I say 'nearly' since nothing is truly impossible. However, the absolutely minimal chance of such an incident occuring is not sufficient for me to support banning abortions altogether.

It's not as if we wait until there are 60 seconds left before the child becomes 'alive'. Abortion (again, in some places) is banned as much as weeks before the child may ever gain consciousness.

You may feel the risk is still too great, and that's your choice of course. It doesn't sway my opinion however. Science will have to offer some pretty damning proof that awareness and consciousness exist before the 6 month mark for that to happen.

Just for the record i do agree abortion should be legal but only before something like 13 weeks.

Since some babies have been born prematurely at 24 weeks (not induced early birth in the case of partial birth abortions) and have actually been kept alive and gone on to live due to advances in these areas, dont you think value of 24 weeks as a cut off point for abortions is rather late.

I know in britian at the moment it is something like 24 weeks although there are laws in the process of being discussed to lower the limit to around 12 weeks in line with the rest of europe.

Just for the record i do agree abortion should be legal but only before something like 13 weeks.

Since some babies have been born prematurely at 24 weeks (not induced early birth in the case of partial birth abortions) and have actually been kept alive and gone on to live due to advances in these areas, dont you think value of 24 weeks as a cut off point for abortions is rather late.

I know in britian at the moment it is something like 24 weeks although there are laws in the process of being discussed to lower the limit to around 12 weeks in line with the rest of europe.

so what is the vast bilogical difference between 12 weeks 23 hours 59 minutes 59 secconds and 13 weeks that justifies murder?

so what is the vast bilogical difference between 12 weeks 23 hours 59 minutes 59 secconds and 13 weeks that justifies murder?

There is almost no difference between 12 23:59:59* and 13 weeks, its just in order to pass a law you have to put the cut off point somewhere and there is a point where the foetus is not concious and is not close to becoming concious.

*EDIT:that should be "12 weeks, 6 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes and 59 seconds".

so what is the vast bilogical difference between 12 weeks 23 hours 59 minutes 59 secconds and 13 weeks that justifies murder?

A lot can happen in six days and one second. :P

Presumably the cut off is there, to spare us the moral debate about the difference between 13 weeks, 6 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes 59 seconds, and fourteen weeks.

A lot can happen in six days and one second.

fine, i should have wrote "between 12 weeks, 6 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes and 59 seconds and 13 weeks" okay?

they're are only two answers, you either think its okay or you don't

First off, "good" and "evil" are not the same as "okay" ant "not." Second, There is a lot more involved in this issue that just "is abortion good?" I think most people agree that in general abortion is bad. It is a rare person who says "you know, there should be more abortions," but at the same time there are many reasons why abortion should be allowed, though not promoted. Banning abortion poses serious problems of a woman's right to privacy as well as her right to choose what happens to her body. Enforcing a ban on abortions is entirely impossible without destroying any platform of personal freedom and privacy we have. To successfully prevent abortions a government would need to, somehow, track conceptions so that it would know if a pregnancy was terminated. At the same time it would need a way of determining if a miscarriage was the result of natural causes or if the mother took an abortive (there are a number of substances which can cause abortions which appear as miscarriages). The intrusion into a person's life that would be necessary is unimaginable, and while the idea of allowing the deaths of millions of innocents is also terrifying the choice is extremely complicated and should not, cannot, be oversimplified.

[QUOTE=Dezzan]i'm not sure that any woman would look upon abortion as 'good'...even if their life was in danger from the pregnancy continuing and therefore needed an abortion!

There are times when abortion is advisable...for reasons which vary with each case...when not to do so would be bad. Whether this makes abortion 'good' i'm not sure.
(These times you speak of where it actually is safer than pregnancy are remote.)

I think it a great evil that women should be forced to have children if they don't want them!

(They aren't forced to 'have' them. A) in the normal abortion no one forced them into having sex, b) They do not have to raise a child who is given up to foster care/adoption)

That other people have a greater say about what i do with my body seems evil. But how you feel about that depends on whether you consider morality as stemming from religion or not i guess...

(How is it religious to believe killing someone is wrong? Under any circumstances. Would you shoot an innocent person in the head to save another? Would you accuse someone of being a religious nut for trying to stop you?--- I think you should just limit it to whether or not someone considers morality. Because most bioethicists side on the pro-life side with the exception of Peter Singer who believes babies can be killed 6-8 months after delivery -hence whackball. Secondly it is not a part of thier body if it was it would not be enclosed in its own organ systems and have its own blood supply/type)

If you pro-lifers want something to really complain about, stop looking at home because abortion is very restricted there (especially in theocratic nations and the US), and look at a place like China where the government AUTHORIZES abortions as a punishment for women who are illegally pregnant. Yes... In order to have a child, the couple must receive permission from the state and then if approved, can only have one. However, if a woman is found pregnant and isn't allowed, the Granny Police (older women at the head of the community), will alert authories and the woman is taken along with others for a "ride", where they abort the fetus with or without her consent.

Now that is wrong. It's not wrong when a woman does it by choice. It's wrong if someone else forces you to.

Very restricted in the US? Since when? Since it began more people have died in just the US then in the Rwanda, Kosovo, and Bosnian genocides. I don't find that restrictive even in the least. Permitting one death is not restrictive enough. Also since US is a large donater to UNICEF (a global contributer to destruction of human life and dehumanization world wide) it lowers abortion rates significantly.
On a related topic abortion also aggravates our allies in the Middle East. Because we push it on them through UNICEF and other organizations. IF we do the right thing and actually ban abortions in our own country the funding ends worldwide as well and anti-american backlash from it goes down. This also goes against your theocratic nations argument because the international loaning agencies ask the country to adhere to certain US standards before receiving aid one of those is commonly abortion. Sounds pretty ethocentric if not downright dispicable.
I fail to see how the China thing is relevent in the least. The same could be said about Hitler not being so bad in his time because Stalin killed more. Your logic has no real merit whatsoever it doesen't justify anything and skirts the issue entirely. Since when was the topic in any way within the boundaries of a nation?

Perhaps a better question might be "is abortion the lesser of two evils"?


It's either clinics or coat-hangers...*shrug*

Killing is broken into different degrees. If someone kills someone out of self-defense, does that equate to murder? No. If a soldier kills an enemy soldier in combat, does that equate to murder? No.
Sorry for the delay in responding, no internet access at weekends (hell, I was drinking solidly the whole time anyway...).

But in combat and self-defence (and numerous other scenarios) not killing places yourself (and maybe others) in danger. Once a person is detained and convicted they are neutralised as a danger. The act of killing then becomes unnecessary.

Hypothetical situation: (I of course don't know you at all, but run with me here....assume you have a sister, whether you actually do or not...) I brutally murder your sister with an axe. (no real threat implied, of course). I get arrested and convicted. Would you rather see me, the same person who viciously killed your own sibling, get the ultimate punishment of death or be locked in prison -- where I may even have the chance of getting out and committing that same crime to someone else?
It's impossible to judge how one would feel in an emotionally charged situation. I suspect I'd be after vengeance and would want to personally inflict it, if I'm honest. However, this is a good reason to keep dispensation of justice out of the hands of victims. The point for me is that our justice system is a reflection of our society. My opposition to capital punishment has virtually nothing to do with the 'rights' of the perpetrator. Every execution carried out by the state is done in the name of the people the state represents, thus putting the blood on all our hands. Capital punishment is hypocrisy writ large.

To return to an earlier point (my forum access was playing up), when was it determined that the development of observable consciousness is the definition of human life? Who gets to make that decision, not the decision about when consciousness develops, but the decision that consciousness is the relevant criterion to determine the existence of human life?
Using independent survival as a criterion is problematic as well, although I accept that few pro-choicers are trying that.
If you use a genetic criterion instead, conception is the obvious start point of human life.

Abortion is evil because murder is evil. Abortion is murder and thus should be punished in the same way as any other murderous crime.

Ok... Now, explain to me how an embryo in the first trimester is to survive outside of the mother's womb? Hell, it's so bloody tiny, it looks like something I'd throw up if I ate something bad.

Yes, I did look at the pictures.

BTW, did you post a warning for those who can't take graphic images? I had no problem.

I never asserted that a child in the first trimester needs to be able to survive outside the mother's womb. And no I did not specificly say "these images are graphic". If you click on link that claims to be pictures of aborted babies and think that it's going to be pretty, then it's your own fault.

the crappiest argument against abortion is the "LOOK HOW GROSS IT IS!!!" argument. i can say from experience that the aftermath of an abortion is less disgusting than the aftermath of liposuction (having seen both firsthand), and the aftermath of an emergency appendectomy is worse than both. just because something is gross doesn't mean it's wrong or bad. in fact, in the case of the appendectomy the grosser the removed product is the BETTER the procedure was, in the sense that it removed that much more deformed a tissue. grossness and morality cannot be equated by anybody who has left the 2nd grade, so i wish the pro-lifers would get on with their lives already.

Was I making the "look how gross it is!" argument? No. I was arguing that the victims of abortion are not mere blobs of cells as someone else stated. Maybe you should get on with your life by not attributing false claims to others.

Of course, if the 'parents' do not want to conceive, they should use birth control. Period. But there is no excuse for rape. If the rape was 'consented', then it wouldn't be rape. I don't think any child would want to grow up knowing they were the result of a crime, nor would any woman want to live with a constant reminder of how she is a victim.

Quoting random guy saying "use some kind of birth control". Condoms and pills etc are not 100% safe. So what do you think about a girl who gets pregnant eventho she or the guy she sleept with used some kind of protection? Should they get an abortion?

Anyway, I am for the choice of abortion. I mean, it's not like you have to choice an abortion just because it wasn't meant to happen just because you have the right to do so.

Most of you guys are yanks, right? Bush is supposed to be Christian, right? and he is against abortions, right? But still, when he was govener (sp?) in Texas there was a new record of deathpenelties carried out in the state, right? How can you be pro(right word?) deathpenalty and against abortion cause you think it's murder? I think that's double standards.

You can not attempt to make an argument of moral equivalency between abortion and the death penalty. A person up for the death penalty receives a trial and rights. In an abortion, there is no trial, the child has no rights. While some innocents are put to death under the death penalty, not one child who is aborted is guilty of anything.

The bottom line is that killing people is wrong, no? That's what you do when you carry out a death penalty. And, as you think, when you do an abortion. Sure, there is a trial etc before the person is executed, but it's not like you can undo it. And it's pretty sad you can't undo it, cause some who are convicted and executed are after thier death(or shall i say after they are murdered by the goverment in vengeance?), sometimes, found undoubtlessly unguilty.

So, a woman who gets drunk is asking to be raped?


You can also then say that any women are asking to be raped because most men would be stronger than them. Most rapes are afaik not done cause the woman is so high/drunk that she can't say no or fight back hard enough. It's cause the rapist has a physical advantage.

You can not attempt to make an argument of moral equivalency between abortion and the death penalty. A person up for the death penalty receives a trial and rights. In an abortion, there is no trial, the child has no rights. While some innocents are put to death under the death penalty, not one child who is aborted is guilty of anything.
Just to make a point...the people who are against abortion are typically the people who believe in original sin, therefore saying an "unborn child" is guilty of nothing is wrong for one of those people to believe. And what rights does the American constitution grant to non-citizens? Anyway, don't think I'm evil, I'm just making points that I think you should address, so address them and realize I made them so you could address them...

The bottom line is that killing people is wrong, no? That's what you do when you carry out a death penalty. And, as you think, when you do an abortion. Sure, there is a trial etc before the person is executed, but it's not like you can undo it. And it's pretty sad you can't undo it, cause some who are convicted and executed are after thier death(or shall i say after they are murdered by the goverment in vengeance?), sometimes, found undoubtlessly unguilty.
Although, taking the other side of the argument..."unborn children" are aborted because of one of two reasons (that I know of), 1) the child is unwanted (for any number of reasons including rape and unplanned pregnancy) or 2) it is a life/death situation for the mother...so...would it be okay for us to "abort" the already born people that are unwanted? Like...homeless people, Bill Gates, and your in-laws?

You can also then say that any women are asking to be raped because most men would be stronger than them. Most rapes are afaik not done cause the woman is so high/drunk that she can't say no or fight back hard enough. It's cause the rapist has a physical advantage.
off topic and failing to grasp the original point...anyway...

Actually it starts becoming humanoid about 2 weeks before the end of the first trimester, but you make a good point. When exactly does the sperm/egg combo become a human? Is it murder to have an abortion in the first month of the pregnancy? Heck, these anti-aborters might go as far to say female birth control is murder, I mean, you are killing eggs, which are potential humans. Who are we to say that that egg didn't deserve to live?

kinda funny, cause then a man who masturbates would be a massmurderer. Hey, even sex would be murder then since only one of those "guys" can win. Or, well, normaly just one, if any.

kinda funny, cause then a man who masturbates would be a massmurderer. Hey, even sex would be murder then since only one of those "guys" can win. Or, well, normaly just one, if any.
I hope you are adding a joke on to a joke...and not thinking that my post you quoted was entirely serious...(although it had a very small slant toward seriousness in it...more like a humorous way of getting a point across...

Well abortion is obviously an issue based on religion and morality, and therefore I don't want to impose my opinion on anyone else. However, my opinion is this. Abortion is not evil (and by the way, don't be so quick to use the word evil, it is kind of hurtful). Abortion is one option which should be used ONLY when there is nothing better. Obviously it would be best for abortion to never have to happen, but in cases like rape or a mother who has no means or no health to look after the child, abortion is a valid option. Those who say "well the pregnancy never should have happend in the first place so abortion is wrong" make absoloutely not sense. OF COURSE it never should have happened, but the fact is, it did. When you invent a time machine and travel back in time to change the past, then maybe that's a valid argument.

I guess what I am trying to say is this: bringing a child into this world who is just going to live in poverty or be placed in an obviously flawed foster care system is crazy, however, if there is just one family memeber in the world who would love the child and look after it, then abortion should not be used.

Although, taking the other side of the argument..."unborn children" are aborted because of one of two reasons (that I know of), 1) the child is unwanted (for any number of reasons including rape and unplanned pregnancy) or 2) it is a life/death situation for the mother...so...would it be okay for us to "abort" the already born people that are unwanted? Like...homeless people, Bill Gates, and your in-laws?

What do you think my answer is to that, really, when I have stated that I am pretty much against death penalty? Those are, undoubtly, persons. And why on earth do you come up with homeless people first? This are poor people that needs help, while there are other that indeed should rather be executed before these, such as drugdealers(making money on ruining lots of peoples lifeand causing thier death aswell) etc.

And aditionally, I don't think the fetus in the beginning is a person. And no, i don't know enough to say exacly when i think a fetus becomes a person.

Edit: ? instead of . ending the first sentence.

off topic and failing to grasp the original point...anyway...

Yeah, off topic, i agree. But then again you started it, didn't you? or whoever it was.

And no, I don't fail to grasp the point. You are saying that the women puts herself in a situation where she can be taken advantage of. Well, I am sorry, but it's pretty easy(or atleast very doable) to take advantage of someone that you are stronger then.

I hope you are adding a joke on to a joke...and not thinking that my post you quoted was entirely serious...(although it had a very small slant toward seriousness in it...more like a humorous way of getting a point across...

Lol, no, ofc i saw he wasn't serious about birthcontroll would be equal to murder. Was just extending the sarcasm or whatever you would call it.

Yeah, off topic, i agree. But then again you started it, didn't you? or whoever it was.

And no, I don't fail to grasp the point. You are saying that the women puts herself in a situation where she can be taken advantage of. Well, I am sorry, but it's pretty easy(or atleast very doable) to take advantage of someone that you are stronger then.
Uh, you continue to show to me that you're not grasping the point I attempted making. Sorry. Don't say you know what I'm talking about if I'm telling you that you don't.

Abortion is evil because murder is evil. Abortion is murder and thus should be punished in the same way as any other murderous crime.

Saying murder is 'evil' suggests a theological basis for the assumption, otherwise you could have said it was socially harmful, or destructive, or even just wrong. Most of the christians I know consider murder to be 'evil', and cite their religion as the basis for their belief. At the same time, they have no problem with the biblical orders to 'not suffer a witch to live' or 'not suffer a Canaanite to live', etc. For most, it seems, murder is a question of definition, and you define it wherever it fits your political or religious agenda.

Re: Abortion is murder. In one court case so far, in the US, has a seperate death status actually been definitively conferred upon an unborn - and this is certainly not the common convention. It seems logical that there can be no murder of an entity that is entirely unable to support itself - at the stage where a foetus could survive outside the womb, maybe then you would have some basis for the 'murder' case.

Re: punished the same as 'any other murderous crime'. This is probably the most ridiculous part of the statement, since there is no convention at all for punishing 'all' murderous crimes. Drunk drivers do not get the same sentences as police officers who run over pedestrians; a peace officer who shoots someone that later turns out innocent does not get the same sentence as an army vet that kills a man in a bar-room brawl; a doctor that helps a patient die does not get the same sentence as a person shooting indiscriminately off of a bridge. And if you kill a hundred people, you're a celebrity. And if you are the head of a regime that kills millions, you can get away with it until you kill people from another country.

The problem with 'discussing' an issue like abortion, is that some people seem to be unable to leave their own personal baggage out of the equation.

Uh, you continue to show to me that you're not grasping the point I attempted making. Sorry. Don't say you know what I'm talking about if I'm telling you that you don't.

Maybe it's so that I think i get what you are talking about but you don't see what I am talking about?

This is the best debate I've seen on all of these forums yet. Keep up the good work guys. Short, sweet, simple. Besides, pages and pages of non-sense accomplish nothing really. I mean, when was the last time anyone changed their mind in a debate on NS forums? Especially on a question of morallity...
you are very wise

Maybe it's so that I think i get what you are talking about but you don't see what I am talking about?
I see what you are talking about but you don't understand that I've tried explaining my side to a lot of people and I'm tired of explaining it and defending it to people. You either get it or you don't get it and then you either disagree or agree with it. I can tell by the statements you are making about it that you don't get it, but it doesn't change the fact that it is all still off topic...

I see what you are talking about but you don't understand that I've tried explaining my side to a lot of people and I'm tired of explaining it and defending it to people. You either get it or you don't get it and then you either disagree or agree with it. I can tell by the statements you are making about it that you don't get it, but it doesn't change the fact that it is all still off topic...

Come on. Now you are just beeing silly. It was NOT me who started this off topic part. Maybe it wasn't you either, but you sure did join it before me and are still hanging on to it. Either go make a new thread about it or ignore it if it bothers you that much.

As I see it you think a woman that walks into a dark place when drunk/high should know she had it comming since she she put her into a situation where she could been taken advantage of. Atleast that's how more then just me think you are meaning. If it's not, then i guess you are explaining your point poorly. What I am pointing out is that because the fact that men are on average on a physical advantage over women they are pretty much always in a situation where they can be abused.