NationStates Jolt Archive

I am not completely pro-choice. I beleive that nobody has the right to kill a human being, I just think that a human being is defined by more than human DNA. An embryo or fetus that lacks enough brain to think and feel is no more human than an appendix. Abortion before the brain develops extensively is not wrong.

I believe aborion is wrong after the first trimester (first three months of developement) that is plenty of time to decide. In some very rare cases such as the people couldnt aford it, or it was a teen pregnancy and she was scared or something, than 2nd trimester (first six months) but never after that, unless it endangers the mothers life, and than only if the threat occured after the first trimester.

Hmm, so it is not wrong to kill those who are born/injured sufficently to impair rain function? Perhaps a minimum IQ is appropriate, say it's open season on those with an IQ under 60? No problem with me killing off the odd micro-cephalic idiot then?

Hmm, so it is not wrong to kill those who are born/injured sufficently to impair rain function? Perhaps a minimum IQ is appropriate, say it's open season on those with an IQ under 60? No problem with me killing off the odd micro-cephalic idiot then?
It depends on the ammount of brain function. I have no problem pulling the plug on brain dead individuals. I would not advocate killing anyone who can show sufficient emotion and curiosity about their environment. A brain the size of a peanut or less doesn't cut it.

amen.

Also, allowing the offspring to be born in certain situations is much creuler and painful, such as being born to an unprepared teenage mother or a product of rape or incest. Plus, it IS the woman's choice. There is no way a group of elderly men should be able to make a decision that will never have any affect on them whatsoever, but may ruin someone else's life, all because of their ideology.

It's interesting how often MEN want to make a ruling on this.

Before birth, the foetus has no real sense of self, no memories etc and cannot support itself outside of the mother. It simply is.

After, it can. And therefore has the chance, however good or remote, to work past its disability, and therefore has a right to be allowed to try.

Similarily, those who develop a brain disorder in the course of their life are/were fully self aware, and have a lifetime of memories. Since we can never be truly sure of what remains of the old life, we have no right to 'pull the plug'.

-- A newcomer's thoughts.

It's interesting how often MEN want to make a ruling on this.
We were in the womb once. We initiated the pregnancy. We should have _some_ say.

Hmm, so it is not wrong to kill those who are born/injured sufficently to impair rain function? Perhaps a minimum IQ is appropriate, say it's open season on those with an IQ under 60? No problem with me killing off the odd micro-cephalic idiot then?

It has more to do with the ability to sense your surroundings than intelligence.

We were in the womb once. We initiated the pregnancy. We should have _some_ say.
After birth, absolutely.

Until that point however, the fetus is holding the woman's body captive, and no man can force her to continue giving her body's nutrients to it. This applies whether or not you consider a fetus to be a human being.

Some indigenous artic populations do not treat a child as human until it is given a name, which can only happen some point after the birth. I think it illustrates the fairly subjective nature of what criterion can be used to define the construct of "humanity", and when something becomes "human" in our societies. I think the entire abortion debate also highlights the endemic belief (and ethnocentric assumption) that humans are a superior species to everything else. The view point is hypocritical, also, if they want to save the lives of children they'd be far more effective and successful if they focused all their money and campaigning on helping millions of starving and diseased pregnant mothers, infants, children throughout the world in so-called "3rd world" countries. They could save thousands more people and their communities, people who really need it.

This also ties into the pre-mature baby debate. Millions get poored into trying to keep severly pre-mature babies alive, at huge cost and the child will suffer brain damage and numerous biological systems will fail to develop fully. The child is almost always subjected to multiple resuscitations, more than an adult human would experience. This kind of money could be spent to save thousands of people, or be used to significantly benefit the poorest in the world. But instead, the life of someone born within US (or any other country that does the same) is seen as more valuable than that of others - effectively their lives are sacrificed to barely keep a US child alive and who will die extremely early in their life aswell (assuming they even survive beyond artificial means)

Every woman has a choice-- keep your pants zipped and don't get pregnant

Some indigenous artic populations do not treat a child as human until it is given a name, which can only happen some point after the birth. I think it illustrates the fairly subjective nature of what criterion can be used to define the construct of "humanity", and when something becomes "human" in our societies. I think the entire abortion debate also highlights the endemic belief (and ethnocentric assumption) that humans are a superior species to everything else. The view point is hypocritical, also, if they want to save the lives of children they'd be far more effective and successful if they focused all their money and campaigning on helping millions of starving and diseased pregnant mothers, infants, children throughout the world in so-called "3rd world" countries. They could save thousands more people and their communities, people who really need it.

This also ties into the pre-mature baby debate. Millions get poored into trying to keep severly pre-mature babies alive, at huge cost and the child will suffer brain damage and numerous biological systems will fail to develop fully. This kind of money could be spent to save thousands of people, or be used to significantly benefit the poorest in the world. But instead, the life of someone born within US (or any other country that does the same) is seen as more valuable than that of others - effectively their lives are sacrificed to barely keep a US child alive and who will die extremely early in their life aswell (assuming they even survive beyond artificial means)
You will never win this argument. We are all hard wired to keep OUR genetic investment alive. Other lives are secondary. People will always want to keep their preemies alive regardless of the cost.

My view on abortion:

I don't like it. It's killing, and I'm against killing in all its forms. However, if we were to ban abortions, people would still try to get them. And the ways of getting them would be less safe, and put both lives in danger. People would try doing it with coat hangers, because all the safe ways of doing it would be outlawed. In my mind, it's wrong, but we can't outlaw it. Then it'll be even worse.

Hmm, so it is not wrong to kill those who are born/injured sufficently to impair rain function? Perhaps a minimum IQ is appropriate, say it's open season on those with an IQ under 60? No problem with me killing off the odd micro-cephalic idiot then?
This is a very good idea. I originally was shooting for people with an IQ under 100 but I suppose those hopes are high.
This type of retroactive abortion is good, by eliminating stupid people, we take care of problems such as overcrowding. The quality of living will increase also.
I say we gun them down immediately!

This is a very good idea. I originally was shooting for people with an IQ under 100 but I suppose those hopes are high.
This type of retroactive abortion is good, by eliminating stupid people, we take care of problems such as overcrowding. The quality of living will increase also.
I say we gun them down immediately!
If only we could implement such wonderful eugenics. May I also suggest that the smartest of the survivors be bred with the most athletic and the rest be bred as a worker class?

You will never win this argument. We are all hard wired to keep OUR genetic investment alive. Other lives are secondary. People will always want to keep their preemies alive regardless of the cost.

that is simply not true, you just assume that. Humans only discovered genetics recently, and no species is hardwired to maintain a genetic investment - every species, including humans, will abandon children if the costs are too high. You'd just straight in and imposed your own cultural beliefs on the whole of humanity, without even considering the social constructs that you have glossed over

I think you will also find that the state or doctors involved in abortion (or keeping pre-mature babies alive) have no genetic investment in the children, it is based on "moral views" and not any kind of argument about maintaining US genetic investment! State systems are also social constructs of course, so it is a subjective judgement that makes you believe your own lives are worth more than those of others. It's a statement of inequality, intolerance and prejudice

I only present the argument to show the danger of the standrd, once you accept that there is a minimum ammount of brain function to be definied as human you have broken through a barrier, and now the measure can be changed. If we accept the concept that there is a minimum ammount of awareness and brain function as the defintion of human, then we can quantify how human people are. Cerainly someone with an IQ of 60 is less aware of thier surroundings than I am and probably has less brain function, so am I therefor more human than them? Further, if we adopt a minimum ammount of awareness and brain function as being the essential part of the definition, then how can we justify a particular position on the scale of possible awarenesses and brain functions as being the sole correct cut-off point? And there are beings with human DNA who are born, yet are less mentally developed than the average 6 month foetus (you can look up micro-cephalic idiots and the effects of embryonic cererbral palsey for examples if you want too), are they not to be considered human?

As for birth being some magic dividing point, how about premature babies? Is it OK to abort a nine month pregancy, but not a 10 month pregnancy? And infants at birth have been pretty well demonstrated not to have a concept of self yet and cannot support themselves.

that is simply not true, you just assume that. Humans only discovered genetics recently, and no species is hardwired to maintain a genetic investment - every species, including humans, will abandon children if the costs are too high. You'd just straight in and imposed your own cultural beliefs on the whole of humanity, without even considering the social constructs that you have glossed over

I think you will also find that the state or doctors involved in abortion (or keeping pre-mature babies alive) have no genetic investment in the children, it is based on "moral views" and not any kind of argument about maintaining US genetic investment! State systems are also social constructs of course, so it is a subjective judgement that makes you believe your own lives are worth more than those of others. It's a statement of inequality, intolerance and prejudice
Go to the zoo. Jump in the Chimp enclosure. Drop some tasty treats and try to grab a baby chimp in trade. See how you make out. It's true that humans will sometimes kill their offspring. Usually this is done to ensure the survival of the parents and the rest of the tribe/group in the knowledge that if they survive they can make another baby. If faced with the choice between my kid and yours the answere is the same in any human culture. Mine lives, yours dies. If it happens in every culture it's probably hard-wired. We want to protect kids, but when it comes down to it we protect our own a lot harder.

I only present the argument to show the danger of the standrd, once you accept that there is a minimum ammount of brain function to be definied as human you have broken through a barrier, and now the measure can be changed. If we accept the concept that there is a minimum ammount of awareness and brain function as the defintion of human, then we can quantify how human people are. Cerainly someone with an IQ of 60 is less aware of thier surroundings than I am and probably has less brain function, so am I therefor more human than them? Further, if we adopt a minimum ammount of awareness and brain function as being the essential part of the definition, then how can we justify a particular position on the scale of possible awarenesses and brain functions as being the sole correct cut-off point? And there are beings with human DNA who are born, yet are less mentally developed than the average 6 month foetus (you can look up micro-cephalic idiots and the effects of embryonic cererbral palsey for examples if you want too), are they not to be considered human?

As for birth being some magic dividing point, how about premature babies? Is it OK to abort a nine month pregancy, but not a 10 month pregnancy? And infants at birth have been pretty well demonstrated not to have a concept of self yet and cannot support themselves.
You may have broken through a barrier, but it was never a good barrier. You can erect a new one in a better place. If a child is born with less than a certain ammount of mental ability, and that standard should be very low, it should be up to the parents to decide what to do with it. In the examples you gave, perhaps they shouldn't be considered human.

(Replying to Squi)

*Sigh*

Birth is the naturally pre-determined point at which a infant is deemed ready to survive in the 'real' world with its mother, premature births and such notwithstanding.

And please, aborting a 9 month foetus? That is the even more controversial realm of partial birth abortions, if I'm not mistaken. An issue which last I heard (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/22/abortion/) was resolved to the point that 'twas banned completely, disregarding risks to the mother's health.

This is supposed to be about abortion as a whole, not taking the most highlighted and already dealt with part, and applying to the whole discussion.

and no man can force her to continue giving her body's nutrients to it.

Actually, that is not true. In Holland, where abortion is completely legal and everyone does it...

Well, if you create a child, you create it together. It's kind of egocentric to say: "thanks for impregnating me, but now, I decide what happens to it." It just doesn't work that way. If you decide to abort a baby, you can only do it with the fathers consent. You can't just kill off a child that doesn't belong exclusively to you. It's the father's child, too. Otherwise she can expect to be sued.

If, on the other hand, the father wants to abort the child, the mother has to agree to that, too. So it works both ways. That way, you can't abort a child without both parents agreeing to it.

Well, thats how it works over here, at least.

It's interesting how often MEN want to make a ruling on this.


It is interesting isn't it.

Should the issue of abortion be the exclusive remit of women then?

I am one of those "MEN" who has opinions and views on a lot of things, including abortion. BUt for a quirk of fate (and chromasones) men do actually have a hand in the conception of a new life and therefor have the right to an opinion on what happens to the life they helped creat.
Now, I can already hear your brain thinking "Oh feck, not another pro-life male who doesn't have an inkling on what a woman feels" but if you are thinking that then you wouyld be wrong.
I believe there *are* circumstances where an abortion is justified.
The rape victim.

Most victims of rape, who subsequently find they are pregnant with the rapists child, are already very traumatised by their ordeal, to ask them to carry a child full term is inhuman and cruel, the choice HAS to be with the woman in cases like that. Either she is strong enough to cope, and has been given enough time to come to her own decision to keep the child (or at least carry the child to birth and then give it up for adoption) or she may feel that an abortion is the best option for her to enable her to pick up the pieces of her life and move on.

The teenage mum

If a teenage girl indulges in consentual sex with a boyfriend and ends up pregnant I don't believe she should be able to get an abortion on demand, contraception is readily and easily available here in the UK, sex education is part of the carriculum in schools so she should be more than aware what the outcome of unprotected sex can be.
That said, if there were medical reasons why the teenager shouldn't carry a child (the girl may be underdeveloped and giving birth could be dangerous, I don't know, I'm not a doctor but I do work everyday with school kids and some girls are years more developed than other of the same age) then abortion should be an option for her without any guilt trips being heaped on her by society.
Any teenager who thinks that she couldn't cope with a baby, or who's home life precludes the very idea of bringing up a child, can always put the child forward for adoption and thereby giving a child a better start in life and making one of the many childless couples very happy indeed.

The career woman

If a woman thinks having a baby is less important than a career move then I say "tough!", a working woman should have the brains and the savvy (intelligence to all non-UK peeps) to use adequate protection. I do not believe that "abortion on demand" should be available to an otherwise sane and intelligent woman who just happened to get herself pregnant by mistake.

Abortion before the brain develops extensively is not wrong.

Err, I'm not sure about this, but I think you CAN abort without the fathers consent if the foetus is not developed enough to call it 'a child'. I don't know the exact age border.

This is a very good idea. I originally was shooting for people with an IQ under 100 but I suppose those hopes are high.
This type of retroactive abortion is good, by eliminating stupid people, we take care of problems such as overcrowding. The quality of living will increase also.
I say we gun them down immediately!

If we were to go by that criteria you and nearly everyone on this board would have been shot years ago (including me probably ;) )

You may have broken through a barrier, but it was never a good barrier. You can erect a new one in a better place. If a child is born with less than a certain ammount of mental ability, and that standard should be very low, it should be up to the parents to decide what to do with it. In the examples you gave, perhaps they shouldn't be considered human.It's not a good barrier? In a better place? If we go through the barrier and consider brain function as the defintion of human, we do not have an option to construct a compable barrier, we can only set a point on a sliding scale of what is the level of mental function to be considered human. This sort of barrier can never be as strong as the one which prevents us from the equation humanness with mental function, we can only set up a standard which is easily adjusted, perhaps in 100 years all those with an IQ of under 100 would be defined as sub-human, and while society might not kill them it may very well decide to enslave them.

Instead of using level of mentation as the qualification for humanity, why do we not use skin pigmentation? All those with too low a level of melanin in their skin are defined as not human, regrdless of their DNA and parrentage. Thus, we could off the albinos and enslave the white man, and it would be right because they do not meet the minimum standard of pigmentation to be considered human.

It's not a good barrier? In a better place? If we go through the barrier and consider brain function as the defintion of human, we do not have an option to construct a compable barrier, we can only set a point on a sliding scale of what is the level of mental function to be considered human. This sort of barrier can never be as strong as the one which prevents us from the equation humanness with mental function, we can only set up a standard which is easily adjusted, perhaps in 100 years all those with an IQ of under 100 would be defined as sub-human, and while society might not kill them it may very well decide to enslave them.

Instead of using level of mentation as the qualification for humanity, why do we not use skin pigmentation? All those with too low a level of melanin in their skin are defined as not human, regrdless of their DNA and parrentage. Thus, we could off the albinos and enslave the white man, and it would be right because they do not meet the minimum standard of pigmentation to be considered human.
The new barrier would have all the force of law backing it up. That's all the strenth it needs. Moral laws are broken constantly, so no barrier is absolute. Mental function is a good place to draw the line because the sum total of human achievement is limited not by skin pigment, not even by DNA (one could imagine a species with different DNA and more intelligence achieving greater things than us) It's limited by our brains. When we are long gone our descendants will know us through art, literature, and technology. That's what we are.

The career woman

If a woman thinks having a baby is less important than a career move then I say "tough!", a working woman should have the brains and the savvy (intelligence to all non-UK peeps) to use adequate protection. I do not believe that "abortion on demand" should be available to an otherwise sane and intelligent woman who just happened to get herself pregnant by mistake.

What about when said protection fails?

(Replying to Squi)

*Sigh*

Birth is the naturally pre-determined point at which a infant is deemed ready to survive in the 'real' world with its mother, premature births and such notwithstanding.

And please, aborting a 9 month foetus? That is the even more controversial realm of partial birth abortions, if I'm not mistaken. An issue which last I heard (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/22/abortion/) was resolved to the point that 'twas banned completely, disregarding risks to the mother's health.

This is supposed to be about abortion as a whole, not taking the most highlighted and already dealt with part, and applying to the whole discussion.It deals with the standards for determining what consitutes a human, not what is considered a legal abortion. The original argument is that abortion is not wrong because a foetus does not have the brain functions sufficent to be considered a human. If Joey P wishes to amend his argument to clarigy this to a certain level of foetal development, I am willing to accept that, but until Joey P does so, I have to consider that birth under this scheme miracuously imparts a level of mentation making one human, regardless of the point in foetal development at which the birth occurs.

It deals with the standards for determining what consitutes a human, not what is considered a legal abortion. The original argument is that abortion is not wrong because a foetus does not have the brain functions sufficent to be considered a human. If Joey P wishes to amend his argument to clarigy this to a certain level of foetal development, I am willing to accept that, but until Joey P does so, I have to consider that birth under this scheme miracuously imparts a level of mentation making one human, regardless of the point in foetal development at which the birth occurs.
CLARIFICATION:
I never meant to say that the cutoff should be at birth. I think we should agree on a level of development (end of first trimester perhaps) and allow abortion until that point.

What about when said protection fails?

I would still think she shouldn't be allowed an abortion, no job is worth more than a child and anyway, these days, at least in the UK and probably in most of Western society, descrimination by employers against employees who fall pregnant is outlawed. A Career oriented woman who falls pregnant (whether by stupidity or flawed contraceptive devices) will still have her career after the baby is born.

it should not be tolerated over the point where baby is capable to live on its own...why kill a perfectly normal human that can live? if u keep it for 5-6 months...just keep it 2 more and give it for adoption, damn it!

i personally think it is alright if a man and women both agree that abortion is what they want (although i think it is pussying out of ur responsibilities as a human being and parent and against my ethical code). The man did supply half the chromosomes for the baby and it is his as well as the mothers so he should get a say in what happens to his child.

Also i think that it is crazy and hypocritical that women scream at the courts for the man to pay child support because "its his baby too" but then say "oh noo its mine now not urs" when it comes to abortion.

What about when said protection fails?
No protection is proven to be 100% effective. Anyone with half a brain should know that(not trying to say anything about you here). If you don't know the risks of what you're doing, you shouldn't be doing it.

The best contraceptive is an asprin...













































...held firmly between the knees.

The new barrier would have all the force of law backing it up. That's all the strenth it needs. Moral laws are broken constantly, so no barrier is absolute. Mental function is a good place to draw the line because the sum total of human achievement is limited not by skin pigment, not even by DNA (one could imagine a species with different DNA and more intelligence achieving greater things than us) It's limited by our brains. When we are long gone our descendants will know us through art, literature, and technology. That's what we are.It's not a barrierr, it is a standard. A barrier is not using brain function to define humaness. A standard is usinging a level of brain function to define humaness. This standard can never equal the strength of a barrier, and would only be backed by the current force of socially acceptable laws. As for moral laws being broken, this is a good basis for examining how this works - those whose moral laws prohibit all violence (Buddhists, Amish and such) and have created a barrier which prevents violence from being considered acceptable violate their moral laws much less often than those who have accepted that violence is sometimes OK and there is a standard of what is acceptable violence - where there is an absolute barrier one does not have to worry about whether one has crossed it or not, one knows and one cannot slowly creep up to the standard and over it. If we reject using mentation as a defintion of humaness it does not mean that it never will be, but that we know that those who advocate euthanizing all those with inferior mentation are wrong, since mentation is not the standard for defining humaness.

I am not aware of a concensus that humaness is defined by DNA either, most people I know have no problem considering Down's Syndrome children to be human despite their DNA differences on a chromosonal level. The most universal definition of humaness is parentage, if one is the offspring of human parents, one is considered human.

Once again, if mentation is the standard for humaness, then many beings (look up microcephalic idiots) cannot be considered human and by implication can be killed. They will not ever be capable of leaving a lasting message for our descendants in any form. Likewise the comatose being with severe brain damage is as incapable as the foetus of meeting this minimum standrd for humaness, so there is nothing wong with killing the brain damaged?

i personally think it is alright if a man and women both agree that abortion is what they want (although i think it is pussying out of ur responsibilities as a human being and parent and against my ethical code). The man did supply half the chromosomes for the baby and it is his as well as the mothers so he should get a say in what happens to his child.

Also i think that it is crazy and hypocritical that women scream at the courts for the man to pay child support because "its his baby too" but then say "oh noo its mine now not urs" when it comes to abortion.

That last bit is an interesting point, I never thought of that.......

Well anyay, I'm just putting new spins on old arguments, like I hate people saying 'but what if the future being was destined to discover a cure for cancer!' Well, his chances of becoming a mass murderer is greater so quit using that tired example.
But think of the smaller things the child could do if given a chance, save a life by some chance in the future, become good friends with a load of people, be a HUSBAND or WIFE to someone, the list goes on.......
But of course it works the other way round too, inadvertantly ruins someones life, become a criminal, THAT list goes on too....
But, although I'm a christian dude and I think whoever performs the abortion is commiting murder, maybe the child is getting a good deal, it gets a sinless if a little short life, straight to heaven no? So on the religious side it's not so bad for the child.

It's not a barrierr, it is a standard. A barrier is not using brain function to define humaness. A standard is usinging a level of brain function to define humaness. This standard can never equal the strength of a barrier, and would only be backed by the current force of socially acceptable laws. As for moral laws being broken, this is a good basis for examining how this works - those whose moral laws prohibit all violence (Buddhists, Amish and such) and have created a barrier which prevents violence from being considered acceptable violate their moral laws much less often than those who have accepted that violence is sometimes OK and there is a standard of what is acceptable violence - where there is an absolute barrier one does not have to worry about whether one has crossed it or not, one knows and one cannot slowly creep up to the standard and over it. If we reject using mentation as a defintion of humaness it does not mean that it never will be, but that we know that those who advocate euthanizing all those with inferior mentation are wrong, since mentation is not the standard for defining humaness.

I am not aware of a concensus that humaness is defined by DNA either, most people I know have no problem considering Down's Syndrome children to be human despite their DNA differences on a chromosonal level. The most universal definition of humaness is parentage, if one is the offspring of human parents, one is considered human.

Once again, if mentation is the standard for humaness, then many beings (look up microcephalic idiots) cannot be considered human and by implication can be killed. They will not ever be capable of leaving a lasting message for our descendants in any form. Likewise the comatose being with severe brain damage is as incapable as the foetus of meeting this minimum standrd for humaness, so there is nothing wong with killing the brain damaged?
Actually, the amish have a higher rate of child sexual abuse than the population at large despite stricter morals. Possibly because they avoid bringing the law into it. We kill those who's brain function is severely impaired fairly routinely. Pulling the plug on comatose and braindead individuals for example. What's your definition of humanity BTW?

It's very interesting how women take offense to men speaking on abortion. Some Men are in the interest of saving lives, and while women have the right to the choice, It affects men just as much as it does women. Your decisions affect everyone. For example, 7 out of every 10 teens that commit suicide would not have commited suicide if they would've had just 1 friend. A Fetus, killed at 7 months, could have grown up and become that teens friend. People don't realize it does not matter who you are or where your from, but what you become. That Fetus is not alive. Yet. Men helped create that child, so they should have a say too. The women have a right to choose as long as they consider how it will affect the person around them. Sure, you can get drunk and have sex, but you know the consequences. If you become pregnant your life and the guys sitting next to you could be ruined, but so can that unborn child life, and all your close friends and family. It comes down to the idea of having sex in the first place. Don't, and you'll save a lot of problems. If you are forced to have sex against your will, go ahead and have it. I know the child of a rapist victim who is very successful in life, and she says every day that she is very happy her mother had her.

Actually, the amish have a higher rate of child sexual abuse than the population at large despite stricter morals. Possibly because they avoid bringing the law into it. We kill those who's brain function is severely impaired fairly routinely. Pulling the plug on comatose and braindead individuals for example. What's your definition of humanity BTW?I don't know what you are basing this Amish concept on, but every study I have seen reports the opposite. What does appear to happen is that although the rate is lower, those cases which do occur are more severe, but this is apparently a result of the nature of Amish society rather than Amish morality.

Actually killing those who have severely impaired brain function does occur, instead of merely allowing them to die (pulling the plug), but it is considered wrong and people go to prison for it (look up angel of mercy killings). Nor do we allow to die the severly mentally impaired because they have ceased to be human, the usual argument for allowing this is, in fact, based upon their basic human right to autonomy. But since they are no longer human under your classification system, there is no problem with maintaing them despite thier wishes or such since they no longer possess the mentation to be considered human.

I have no defintion of humanity, I just know that brain function is a bad one. I usually use the one that anyone who's parents are human is human. This of course is circular, and doesn't answer the question of how one determines if one's parents are human. I'd like to see a good defintion of human, but there are way too many problems with mentation for it to be viable. Instead of equating humaness with mentation you could equate foetal development with autonomy, this bypasses the problem of defining what is a human.

Abortion is a medical procedure and should be available any woman who requests it.

All this moralisation of 'oh if she's a career woman tough, but little teenage slutums can have one' is bullshit. It is a womans right to choose, and no matter what the man involved thinks, its her body that has to go thru the trauma of pregnancy and birth - and raise the kid because we all know that the father is more likely to run off. So, Im not opposed to men having an opinion, after all we are all entitled to one, but i think the boundary for their opinion is when legislation is made that affects my right to choose.

Until the scientists make a form of birth control that is 100% safe (and no, im not talking about abstinance, after all we are sexual beings and should be able to have sex for other reasons besides procreation) then abortions will be needed and they should be provided.

so to all those forced-birthers out there :( :mp5:

I don't know what you are basing this Amish concept on, but every study I have seen reports the opposite. What does appear to happen is that although the rate is lower, those cases which do occur are more severe, but this is apparently a result of the nature of Amish society rather than Amish morality.

Actually killing those who have severely impaired brain function does occur, instead of merely allowing them to die (pulling the plug), but it is considered wrong and people go to prison for it (look up angel of mercy killings). Nor do we allow to die the severly mentally impaired because they have ceased to be human, the usual argument for allowing this is, in fact, based upon their basic human right to autonomy. But since they are no longer human under your classification system, there is no problem with maintaing them despite thier wishes or such since they no longer possess the mentation to be considered human.

I have no defintion of humanity, I just know that brain function is a bad one. I usually use the one that anyone who's parents are human is human. This of course is circular, and doesn't answer the question of how one determines if one's parents are human. I'd like to see a good defintion of human, but there are way too many problems with mentation for it to be viable. Instead of equating humaness with mentation you could equate foetal development with autonomy, this bypasses the problem of defining what is a human.
You have no definition for humanity but you know mine is a bad one? Try to come up with something here or I can't debate you. It's like trying to debate the existance of god with someone who beleives in him but doesn't agree to any definition.

You have no definition for humanity but you know mine is a bad one? Try to come up with something here or I can't debate you. It's like trying to debate the existance of god with someone who beleives in him but doesn't agree to any definition.I am under no obligation to present a counter-defintion to deomonstrate that yours is flawed. I have not argued the existance of a good defintion of "human", so I am under no reguirment to support this contention. If the issue at hand were the best defintion of human I would be forced to present a counter-defintion so we could determine the best, but the issue is whether or not brain function is a good defintion of human and a counter-defintion would only detract from that debate.

You argue that using brain function as a criterion for determining when abortion is allowed is flawed in part because defining humans by their brain function is a bad definition. You argue in favor of banning abortion completely. Would this ban be in force against Chimp abortions? If not why? Because they are not human? Why is a chimp less human than a mass of stem cells? You must have a definition. Let me weigh it against mine.

You argue that using brain function as a criterion for determining when abortion is allowed is flawed in part because defining humans by their brain function is a bad definition. You argue in favor of banning abortion completely. Would this ban be in force against Chimp abortions? If not why? Because they are not human? Why is a chimp less human than a mass of stem cells? You must have a definition. Let me weigh it against mine.I've never even argued about banning abortion, only using mentation as a rational for defining humaness. I did digress for a bit about birth being a dividing line in mentational development, but that was not adressing abortion per se. I recomend instead of arguning that a foetus is not human you argue that a foetus is non-autonomous. Once you start aguing autonomy you can change the argument into one if whether or not one human can lay claim to the use of the body of another, which abortion is a way to prevent. Here we have competing human rights, which is superior a woman's right to control the use of her body or a foetuses right to use a woman's body for it's own purposes. One can with autonomy and mentation thrown in argue that a foetus is not mentally developed enough to lay claim to someone else's body. Admittedly this could be used to justify abortion thoughout pregnancy, and is likewise a slippery slope instead of absolute barrier since we accept that an infant has claim to the products of the labour of it's parents bodies, but we've already broken down the barrier of children having a claim on the rights of parents.

I've never even argued about banning abortion, only using mentation as a rational for defining humaness. I did digress for a bit about birth being a dividing line in mentational development, but that was not adressing abortion per se. I recomend instead of arguning that a foetus is not human you argue that a foetus is non-autonomous. Once you start aguing autonomy you can change the argument into one if whether or not one human can lay claim to the use of the body of another, which abortion is a way to prevent. Here we have competing human rights, which is superior a woman's right to control the use of her body or a foetuses right to use a woman's body for it's own purposes. One can with autonomy and mentation thrown in argue that a foetus is not mentally developed enough to lay claim to someone else's body. Admittedly this could be used to justify abortion thoughout pregnancy, and is likewise a slippery slope instead of absolute barrier since we accept that an infant has claim to the products of the labour of it's parents bodies, but we've already broken down the barrier of children having a claim on the rights of parents.
Sorry, I misunderstood your position. I don't beleive in slippery slopes. We deal with them everyday. For instance age of consent laws. People are quite good at recognizing mutually agreed upon restrictions and not crossing them. Those that do eventually get caught and pay a price.

I am not completely pro-choice. I beleive that nobody has the right to kill a human being, I just think that a human being is defined by more than human DNA. An embryo or fetus that lacks enough brain to think and feel is no more human than an appendix. Abortion before the brain develops extensively is not wrong.



The problem with these "it's not human unless..." threads is that they're so arbitrary. Some people say you need brain waves, some people say you need a heartbeat, some people say you need them to be breathing some people say you need to be able to survive on your own. Why are any of those legit? I could say, "it's ok to kill anyone who can't run one hundred meters in under eleven seconds because they aren't really alive." Does that mean it should be ok to kill anyone who can't run that fast?

You say that "feeling" is what makes someone human. So if someone gets in an accident and suffers severe head trauma and goes in a coma, it's ok for me to kill him? What about an old man with dementia? Why is it ok to do lab experiments on animals and cause them so much pain. They feel it right? Does that make them human? Does an appendix eventually develop into a baby which later develops into an adult?

How can you justify an unborn not being human or alive when it clearly has it's own human DNA and is developing and changing. It obviously isn't dead. It's obviously it's own entity. It's obviously human. How could you say otherwise?

It is a womans right to choose, and no matter what the man involved thinks, its her body that has to go thru the trauma of pregnancy and birth - and raise the kid because we all know that the father is more likely to run off.

It was my sperm that wiggled its way to victory and eventually sprouted into a little fetus. It was my dick that put that sperm in there. Yeah, it's a woman's body, but I (ME) produced that little fetus after much sweating and thumping and wailing in the bedroom. Without male sperm, that little fetus isn't possible. So therefor, it shouldn't be considered JUST a woman's choice. It's a man's just as much as a woman's. I think it's ridiculous that a woman can go ahead and get an abortion without the consent of their partner (or former partner). Earlier today I read an article about a woman who wanted an abortion but her teenage husband protested it heavily. When she went ahead with it anyway, he shot her. That fetus, regardless of whether it has a brain or not, has two parents. Both need to consent.

Then again, I'm not for any abortion whatsoever. But if it has to be legal, I'm thinking both of the fetus' creators need to consent, not just one. That's bullshit.

Well anyay, I'm just putting new spins on old arguments, like I hate people saying 'but what if the future being was destined to discover a cure for cancer!' Well, his chances of becoming a mass murderer is greater so quit using that tired example.

The guessing game of what becomes of the baby is irrelevant in this discussion. Noone knows what will become of the baby. Even if you had an idea, it wouldn't be right to kill him.
Let's say you have 16 year old who is clearly on the wrong path in life. He bullies others, gets in to drugs, gangs, etc. It still wouldn't be right to kill him.




But, although I'm a christian dude and I think whoever performs the abortion is commiting murder, maybe the child is getting a good deal, it gets a sinless if a little short life, straight to heaven no? So on the religious side it's not so bad for the child.

It doesn't matter. What if someone thought that you were a really good Christian and that you would go to heaven if you died right now? Does that make it ok for him to kill you?

The problem with these "it's not human unless..." threads is that they're so arbitrary. Some people say you need brain waves, some people say you need a heartbeat, some people say you need them to be breathing some people say you need to be able to survive on your own. Why are any of those legit? I could say, "it's ok to kill anyone who can't run one hundred meters in under eleven seconds because they aren't really alive." Does that mean it should be ok to kill anyone who can't run that fast?

You say that "feeling" is what makes someone human. So if someone gets in an accident and suffers severe head trauma and goes in a coma, it's ok for me to kill him? What about an old man with dementia? Why is it ok to do lab experiments on animals and cause them so much pain. They feel it right? Does that make them human? Does an appendix eventually develop into a baby which later develops into an adult?

How can you justify an unborn not being human or alive when it clearly has it's own human DNA and is developing and changing. It obviously isn't dead. It's obviously it's own entity. It's obviously human. How could you say otherwise?

What I love most is how they say "well, it can't think", or "it can't survive on its own". Given the proper amount of time, the fetus WILL be a baby. It WILL be a complete human. If you know it will be a complete human in a matter of months, how can you justify stomping its existence out? Abortion is wrong, because you're slaughtering potential friends, geniuses, families...the list goes on and on. Life is a precious thing, and I believe everyone should be given the chance to have one, even a little itty bitty fetus with no brain.

Abortion is a medical procedure and should be available any woman who requests it.



Convince me that the unborn is not human or alive and I will agree that it is just another "medical procedure".

What I love most is how they say "well, it can't think", or "it can't survive on its own". Given the proper amount of time, the fetus WILL be a baby. It WILL be a complete human. If you know it will be a complete human in a matter of months, how can you justify stomping its existence out?

Agreed.

I agree, murder is not just another medical procedure. I'm against abortion in any case, unless the mother's life is in danger. A career, finishing school, etc. is not worth taking another person's life. I also think it's ridiculous to put standards as to what is human and what isnt, it doesnt work. Let's say anyone with an IQ below 60 was unhuman. Then people with a higher IQ would be "more human" than those with a lower IQ. Or lets say that someone got into a car accident or w/e, and has brain damage, how could they have stopped being human because of that? It just doesnt make sense to me....

It was my sperm that wiggled its way to victory and eventually sprouted into a little fetus. It was my dick that put that sperm in there. Yeah, it's a woman's body, but I (ME) produced that little fetus after much sweating and thumping and wailing in the bedroom. Without male sperm, that little fetus isn't possible. So therefor, it shouldn't be considered JUST a
woman's choice. It's a man's just as much as a woman's.

yeah, i'm sure you put a whole lot of effort into making them sperm, right? and that sex, you were doing all that hard work specifically to make a baby, and not because you got any kind of enjoyment out of it, right? :)

if you want to gestate the fetus then feel free to do so, but you don't have the right to force anybody else to do it for you. she can't tell you what to do with your body, and you can't tell her what to do with hers.


I think it's ridiculous that a woman can go ahead and get an abortion without the consent of their partner (or former partner). Earlier today I read an article about a woman who wanted an abortion but her teenage husband protested it heavily. When she went ahead with it anyway, he shot her.

and you bring this up because...? are you saying he was justified in his actions? or that women should avoid abortion out of fear of violence from their partner? it seems like your example is a strong case in support of abortion rights: would you really want that guy to be a PARENT?!


That fetus, regardless of whether it has a brain or not, has two parents. Both need to consent.

the fetus may have two parents, but only one of them has the fetus inside her body. both parents have equal rights, and therefore both have equal right to their own bodies and freedom; both parents can give or withhold consent for gestation of the fetus in their own body, and neither parent has the right to decide for the other. indeed, no human being has the right to compel another human being to give up their body, and no human being has the right to control the body parts of any other human being. to suggest that a male gains such rights over a female by virtue of sexual intercourse is nothing less than slavery, and to claim that a fetus gains such rights is to grant it super-human status by giving it rights that no human being has.


Then again, I'm not for any abortion whatsoever. But if it has to be legal, I'm thinking both of the fetus' creators need to consent, not just one. That's bullshit.
the right to choice has nothing to do with who "owns" the fetus. it is ONLY about who owns the female's body, and the pure, simple truth is that she does...nobody else. if the man wants to keep the fetus he can have it, but he cannot keep it inside the woman's body if she doesn't want it there.

I say that if you are against murder and think it is wrong then you are a hypocrite if you think abortion is ok. Abortion is murder, you are killing another human being, an underdeveloped one, yes, but it is still a human being. What else would it be? A horse? Most people have abortions either because they don't care about the value of human life, or they are pressured into doing it by either their boyfriend, family, community, or society in general. Abortion is wrong,and we, as an entire race, really need to look at what we are doing to ourselves. We kill our own offspring.

Most people have abortions either because they don't care about the value of human life, or they are pressured into doing it by either their boyfriend, family, community, or society in general.
cite sources, please.

Feh.

I bet abortion would be completely legal, with government funding and and special programs to promote it if men had to carry a fetus around for nine months.

- Asylum Nova

Feh.

I bet abortion would be completely legal, with government funding and and special programs to promote it if men had to carry a fetus around for nine months.

- Asylum Nova

I bet if men carried around the fetus it would still be just as alive and just as human...

Feh.

I bet abortion would be completely legal, with government funding and and special programs to promote it if men had to carry a fetus around for nine months.

- Asylum Nova
lol, well OF COURSE. hell, there would be Halmark cards saying "Congratulations on Your Wise Decision!" for men who aborted. men who chose family planning would be seen as wise, rational, and responsible, especially if they were waiting until their career was established before they had kids. people would shake their heads and cluck at how irresponsible women are, having babies for such emotional reasons, and would praise men for being more in control and practical about child bearing :P.

the right to choice has nothing to do with who "owns" the fetus. it is ONLY about who owns the female's body, and the pure, simple truth is that she does...nobody else. if the man wants to keep the fetus he can have it, but he cannot keep it inside the woman's body if she doesn't want it there.

What about the unborn and it's right to not have its body destroyed?

yeah, i'm sure you put a whole lot of effort into making them sperm, right? and that sex, you were doing all that hard work specifically to make a baby, and not because you got any kind of enjoyment out of it, right? :)

Maybe because I wanted to have a child. The truth is, without male sperm, *you wouldn't be around today, buddy.

if you want to gestate the fetus then feel free to do so, but you don't have the right to force anybody else to do it for you. she can't tell you what to do with your body, and you can't tell her what to do with hers.

I SHOULD be able to have some say in what she does to my future child.


and you bring this up because...? are you saying he was justified in his actions? or that women should avoid abortion out of fear of violence from their partner? it seems like your example is a strong case in support of abortion rights: would you really want that guy to be a PARENT?!

I brought it up because the man obviously wanted to keep his child. He wanted his child to have a future; that fetus had a part of him in it. He cared for it, yet despite the fact that he was a huge factor in determining the fetus' existence, he had to sit by and watch his wife abort it. Both parents should agree. I'd be unimaginably emotionally distraught if my wife tried to abort MY child, and I was forced to stand by and watch it helplessly.


the fetus may have two parents, but only one of them has the fetus inside her body.

That fetus wouldn't be possible without the sperm of a male.

both parents have equal rights, and therefore both have equal right to their own bodies and freedom; both parents can give or withhold consent for gestation of the fetus in their own body, and neither parent has the right to decide for the other.

Bullshit. Once again, that fetus is a product of TWO parents, not one. Pregnancy is harsh, but so is losing a future child.

indeed, no human being has the right to compel another human being to give up their body, and no human being has the right to control the body parts of any other human being. to suggest that a male gains such rights over a female by virtue of sexual intercourse is nothing less than slavery, and to claim that a fetus gains such rights is to grant it super-human status by giving it rights that no human being has.

Slavery? Somebody is a little ridiculous. I'll give you a clue, it isn't me. I understand you're so far left, you're toppling off the planet, but giving a male say in whether an abortion should take place or not has nothing to do with slavery or rights. It has everything to do with a male losing what he helped produce, what he loves. A male's consent should be given first, no doubt.


the right to choice has nothing to do with who "owns" the fetus. it is ONLY about who owns the female's body, and the pure, simple truth is that she does...nobody else. if the man wants to keep the fetus he can have it, but he cannot keep it inside the woman's body if she doesn't want it there.

Well, since the woman bears the child, she should be able to kill it even after it's born, right? After all, the male didn't have to go through labor, it wasn't in HIS body. It developed in the female's body, so the female should be able to do whatever she likes with it, right? WRONG.

What about the unborn and it's right to not have its body destroyed?
as i said, NO HUMAN BEING has claim to another human being's body. i cannot be forced to donate blood against my will, even if i am the direct cause of the need for blood (like if i hit somebody with my car and they needed blood to live), even if my action was criminal to begin with (like if i were driving drunk at the time). no human being can decide what i do with my body, no matter how many lives are at stake; i cannot be forced to give up my organs, tissues, and fluids if i don't want to, and that is considered the most fundamental human right there is...the right to ownership of one's own body.

as i said, NO HUMAN BEING has claim to another human being's body.

Yet you can destroy the BODY of an unborn child?

as i said, NO HUMAN BEING has claim to another human being's body.

Yet you can destroy the BODY of an unborn child?
a woman has the right to deny the use of her body for gestation of a fetus, based on the fundamental right i have outlined. whether or not the fetus can live independent from her is not relavent to her right to her own body. if technology progresses to a point where a fetus can be removed intact and kept alive artificially then that's fine and dandy; i don't have any vested interest in the death of the fetus, only in the rights of all human beings. all human beings own their own bodies, and have the right to withhold the use of their own bodies.

a woman has the right to deny the use of her body for gestation of a fetus, based on the fundamental right i have outlined. whether or not the fetus can live independent from her is not relavent to her right to her own body. if technology progresses to a point where a fetus can be removed intact and kept alive artificially then that's fine and dandy; i don't have any vested interest in the death of the fetus, only in the rights of all human beings. all human beings own their own bodies, and have the right to withhold the use of their own bodies.

Nope, not buying it. By aborting the fetus you are denying it its rights and are destroying its body. You said that "NO HUMAN BEING has claim to another human being's body. " There is no greater "claim to another human beings body" than to destroy it. That's the ultimate violation of another's body. The right to life is the right that all others must be based on.

We were in the womb once. We initiated the pregnancy. We should have _some_ say.

perhaps in YOUR wifes pregnancy (or girlfriend/fiancee) Not in some woman you have never met. It isn't YOUR business what someone does with his/her life. I'm no feminist, and i'm a male to boot.

It isn't YOUR business what someone does with his/her life.

Tell that to the unborn child you're aborting.

Hmm, so it is not wrong to kill those who are born/injured sufficently to impair rain function? Perhaps a minimum IQ is appropriate, say it's open season on those with an IQ under 60? No problem with me killing off the odd micro-cephalic idiot then?

Too much discussion came from this.

It is not wrong to kill those that are idiots(I believe that is the correct term for those with 60 or less IQ, I could be wrong). Killing under a 100, at least for these days, is not plausible for economic reasons.

Nope, not buying it. By aborting the fetus you are denying it its rights and are destroying its body.

no, you are not violating its rights, at least not if it is a human (as you claim). no human being has the rights you are attributing to the fetus.


You said that "NO HUMAN BEING has claim to another human being's body. " There is no greater "claim to another human beings body" than to destroy it.

as i have said, the woman has the right to have the fetus removed whenever she chooses. if you would prefer the fetus be removed alive then you get your wish in most abortion cases; the majority of abortion occur at a stage when the zygote is small enough to be passed from the woman's body without killing it in utero, and thus it is still alive when it exits her body. in the cases (like "partial birth" abortion) where the fetus is damaged in utero, the vast majority are cases in which the fetus is already dead; the skull is collapsed so the corpse of the fetus can be removed less invasively from the female body, to avoid further needless damage to her. in the remainder of cases, the fetus is either so severely deformed that it will never be able to live, or allowing it to reach term will kill the woman as well as the fetus.

but regardless, even if a 8 month fetus were aborted totally electively it would still not be a violation of the rights of the fetus. the woman has the right to deny use of her body, no matter what happens to the fetus. hopefully some day we will be able to remove the fetus intact and gestate it in some other environment, but until then we are limited by the methods we have. we cannot justify taking away basic human rights from pregnant women in favor of granting super-human status to fetuses.


That's the ultimate violation of another's body. The right to life is the right that all others must be based on.
there is no unqualified right to life. if i am dying because i need a liver transplant, and you have a perfect match for me, i am not allowed to kill you and take your liver. if i need a bone marrow transplant to live, and you are the only possible donor for me, i am not allowed to force you to donate, even if i will die as a result of your refusal. my right to my life does NOT supercede your right to your own body.

Nope, not buying it. By aborting the fetus you are denying it its rights and are destroying its body. You said that "NO HUMAN BEING has claim to another human being's body. " There is no greater "claim to another human beings body" than to destroy it. That's the ultimate violation of another's body. The right to life is the right that all others must be based on.

until the fetus has full mental capacity (20-24th week is the general consensus) it should be regarded as an animal. With some rights, but not enough to trump a humans. In regard to brain dead children, sorry to say this but i see no point in them. I don't mean mentally disabled people, i mean ones who are led around with jingling, shiny, objects. (we have one or two at my school.) They will never do anything, never can, never will. I know they didn't choose to be that way, but neither do geniuses. All they will ever do is use resources. In all honesty, i think the kindest thing for brain dead children is to abort, or humanely kill them. (painless poison sort of thing.)

It is not wrong to kill those that are idiots.

Actually it's illegal and you can go to jail. So I don't recommend doing it.

no, you are not violating its rights, at least not if it is a human (as you claim). no human being has the rights you are attributing to the fetus.


as i have said, the woman has the right to have the fetus removed whenever she chooses. if you would prefer the fetus be removed alive then you get your wish in most abortion cases; the majority of abortion occur at a stage when the zygote is small enough to be passed from the woman's body without killing it in utero, and thus it is still alive when it exits her body. in the cases (like "partial birth" abortion) where the fetus is damaged in utero, the vast majority are cases in which the fetus is already dead; the skull is collapsed so the corpse of the fetus can be removed less invasively from the female body, to avoid further needless damage to her. in the remainder of cases, the fetus is either so severely deformed that it will never be able to live, or allowing it to reach term will kill the woman as well as the fetus.

but regardless, even if a 8 month fetus were aborted totally electively it would still not be a violation of the rights of the fetus. the woman has the right to deny use of her body, no matter what happens to the fetus. hopefully some day we will be able to remove the fetus intact and gestate it in some other environment, but until then we are limited by the methods we have. we cannot justify taking away basic human rights from pregnant women in favor of granting super-human status to fetuses.


there is no unqualified right to life. if i am dying because i need a liver transplant, and you have a perfect match for me, i am not allowed to kill you and take your liver. if i need a bone marrow transplant to live, and you are the only possible donor for me, i am not allowed to force you to donate, even if i will die as a result of your refusal. my right to my life does NOT supercede your right to your own body.

Did you see my post? Just making sure.

Tell that to the unborn child you're aborting.

tell that to the rape victim. Tell that to the poor boy who sits on the street because his mother couldn't take care of him. Tell it to the victim's family. Why there son/daughter died during a robbery. You tell them i'll tell the fetus. Yes fetus not baby. Actuality does not equal potentiality. and yes, i know this is not every case.

i personally think it is alright if a man and women both agree that abortion is what they want (although i think it is pussying out of ur responsibilities as a human being and parent and against my ethical code). The man did supply half the chromosomes for the baby and it is his as well as the mothers so he should get a say in what happens to his child.

Also i think that it is crazy and hypocritical that women scream at the courts for the man to pay child support because "its his baby too" but then say "oh noo its mine now not urs" when it comes to abortion.
Fine and dandy if 'the man' can take over the pregnancy...however providing up to one half of the genetic code (and less than in the case of males), doesnt make the contribution even, and children are not about ownership, so there is no justification there that I can see for your conclusion.

With regards to the latter paragraph, WTF? Firstly if they are asking for child support, it's a bit past time for an abortion, once you go to court and say, he fathered my child and needs to help support it, you are well past the point where you can 'oh no it's mine' and have it 'aborted'...
in the second place, the two issues are not related. Even if any or a number of people who had abortions without the father's permission all were receiving or later recieved child support for some other child, the two issues are seperate. Evidently I wouldnt advise women scream at (or even in) a court, there's laws against that. I think that you are somewhat confused regarding child support. You appear to imply that it is something crazy or malicious women go after for their gain. You should know that men also seek and receive child support, and that courts award child support for the purpose of supporting children on the premise that this is in the child's interests, not because they have a headache and figure it's the only way to shut all the crazy screaming women up... :rolleyes:

It was my sperm that wiggled its way to victory and eventually sprouted into a little fetus. It was my dick that put that sperm in there. Yeah, it's a woman's body, but I (ME) produced that little fetus after much sweating and thumping and wailing in the bedroom. Without male sperm, that little fetus isn't possible. So therefor, it shouldn't be considered JUST a woman's choice. It's a man's just as much as a woman's. I think it's ridiculous that a woman can go ahead and get an abortion without the consent of their partner (or former partner). Earlier today I read an article about a woman who wanted an abortion but her teenage husband protested it heavily. When she went ahead with it anyway, he shot her. That fetus, regardless of whether it has a brain or not, has two parents. Both need to consent.

Then again, I'm not for any abortion whatsoever. But if it has to be legal, I'm thinking both of the fetus' creators need to consent, not just one. That's bullshit.
Your ownership rights over your sperm ends when you make your deposit. You are putting something into someone's possession in such a way that they cannot even if they choose to, return that something to you. If your sperm goes into a woman, ask for it back immediately, if you leave it there long enough for it fertilise an egg, it's not yours anymore, you have implied (through your actions) that you have willing rendered ownership of it to the person in whom you deposited it.
You are not required to give your sperm away, I suggest if you are concerned about what happens to your 'little swimmers' you only share with people who share your views on abortion.

I say that if you are against murder and think it is wrong then you are a hypocrite if you think abortion is ok. Abortion is murder, you are killing another human being, an underdeveloped one, yes, but it is still a human being. What else would it be? A horse? Most people have abortions either because they don't care about the value of human life, or they are pressured into doing it by either their boyfriend, family, community, or society in general. Abortion is wrong,and we, as an entire race, really need to look at what we are doing to ourselves. We kill our own offspring.

I say that if you are against murder and think it is wrong then you are a hypocrite if you think that not donating blood, and whatever spare organs you have while alive and your all organs when you are dead. Abortion is a refusal to share organs and body, yes it does result in a death, but so does kidney failure. If I cause a car accident and the victim of the accident is because of me bleeding to death, and there is a blood shortage and my blood is the needed kind, I am not legally obliged in any way to provide my blood even if the victim is my own child who I have legal responsibility for. So even if it's soley because of my behaviour that the organs are needed in order to prevent a death, and the person who will die is my legal and moral responsibility I am not obliged legally to provide the needed organs or body parts. The fact is it doesnt matter if abortion is bad, nasty or wrong, lots of things are and we dont make laws about them. I believe in the premises on which free societies are founded, and so until someone can produce a convincing sound argument consistent within that framework, for restricting someone's rights, I oppose any such restriction, even where it results in people behaving in ways I find repugnant.

What about the unborn and it's right to not have its body destroyed?
What right?

Well, since the woman bears the child, she should be able to kill it even after it's born, right? After all, the male didn't have to go through labor, it wasn't in HIS body. It developed in the female's body, so the female should be able to do whatever she likes with it, right? WRONG.
You seem to not understand why a women has a choice. It's not about ownership or who produced something, it's not about rights over the fetus, it's about rights over her own body. Once the child is not in her body, may I ask how rights over her body could be interpreted to allow her to kill someone who is not attached to her body, and who is autonomous from her body?

Actually it's illegal and you can go to jail. So I don't recommend doing it.

he means aborting it. Also he means morally wrong meathead, o wait hoofhead, o wait MORON!

tell that to the rape victim. Tell that to the poor boy who sits on the street because his mother couldn't take care of him.

Maybe if his mother wasn't so stupid, and put him up for adoption, it wouldn't be necessary to tell him at all. A miserable life is better than no life at all anyway.

]

Maybe if his mother wasn't so stupid, and put him up for adoption, it wouldn't be necessary to tell him at all. A miserable life is better than no life at all anyway.

]

how would you know? have you experienced both? Unless you are a hinduist (who believes in other lives, there may be some others but thats what comes to mind) that is impossible. Besides even if it was like that, you don't remember other lives. If you go through an unwanted labor you can call the mother stupid. Not until then. Also people in great pain often choose suicide. Mental or physical, it doesn't matter.

I am not completely pro-choice. I beleive that nobody has the right to kill a human being, I just think that a human being is defined by more than human DNA. An embryo or fetus that lacks enough brain to think and feel is no more human than an appendix. Abortion before the brain develops extensively is not wrong.

Interesting. I hadn't thought of it like that before.
I wonder... Would it be possible to somehow continue the organ growth so that we could have replacement limbs and such?

tell that to the rape victim.
So rape justifies murder? That's like robbing someone else because someone stole your wallet.


Tell that to the poor boy who sits on the street because his mother couldn't take care of him.

So now we get to make those decisions? Maybe that boy would prefer sitting on the streets rathering than being dead. Or if the boy is sitting there on the streets and isn't happy, is it ok to kill him? I don't think so. The law doesn't either.


Tell it to the victim's family.

If it were someone I knew, I would.


Yes fetus not baby. .

I've yet to hear a good reason why the fetus doesn't get the right to life.

Interesting. I hadn't thought of it like that before.
I wonder... Would it be possible to somehow continue the organ growth so that we could have replacement limbs and such?

we think so, that is what embryonic stem cell research is for. I don't know for sure tho obviously.

Maybe because I wanted to have a child. The truth is, without male sperm, *you wouldn't be around today, buddy.

so? i don't see what this has to do with a woman's right to her own body. and, just FYI, my best friend wouldn't exist today if his mother HADN'T had an abortion, so i don't think that's a particularly good line of reasoning for you to try to take.


I SHOULD be able to have some say in what she does to my future child.

you do not have the right to a woman's body, no matter how much sperm you put in her. if you want the fetus you may have it, but you do not have the right to use her body for your own purposes. both of you have equal rights in this matter: you both can give or withhold your personal consent to gestate the fetus, and neither of you may compel the other to do so. it's pretty basic, really.


I brought it up because the man obviously wanted to keep his child. He wanted his child to have a future; that fetus had a part of him in it. He cared for it, yet despite the fact that he was a huge factor in determining the fetus' existence, he had to sit by and watch his wife abort it.

that's really sad for him, but sometimes other humans make choices other than the ones we would like them to make. i don't have the right to force people to do what i feel is right with their bodies, no matter how much sex i have had with them, and i think it is amazingly and disgustingly arrogant of any person to suggest that they have some sort of inherant right to that kind of control over another person.


Both parents should agree. I'd be unimaginably emotionally distraught if my wife tried to abort MY child, and I was forced to stand by and watch it helplessly.

i agree that it would be best if both parents could agree on a solution, but if they cannot then their individual rights must be safeguarded before their personal feelings are...each of them has certain inherant rights that must come first, regardless of how sad it makes the other person.


That fetus wouldn't be possible without the sperm of a male.

actually, in these amazing times of ours, yes it would :). but that's beside the point. you persist in thinking that this is a debate about ownership of the fetus, when it is not. the male can have the fetus if he wants it, he just can't force the woman to have it inside her body if she doesn't want it there.


Bullshit. Once again, that fetus is a product of TWO parents, not one. Pregnancy is harsh, but so is losing a future child.

AGAIN, both parents have equal right to give or withhold their bodies for sustenance of the fetus. if the man wants to use his body to gestate the fetus he may give it a go, but he may not force the woman to do so. whether or not the fetus is the product of his sperm is irrelevant.


Slavery? Somebody is a little ridiculous. I'll give you a clue, it isn't me. I understand you're so far left, you're toppling off the planet, but giving a male say in whether an abortion should take place or not has nothing to do with slavery or rights. It has everything to do with a male losing what he helped produce, what he loves. A male's consent should be given first, no doubt.

a man may give or withhold consent regarding his own body, but no man or woman may give or withhold consent for another human being (except for special circumstances like when a spouse is in a coma or something nutty like that).

oh, and for the record: i'm actually not left wing at all, but nice try with the stereotyping. i know it's much more fun to make personal attacks then it is to attend the issue, but i would ask that you show a little restraint and stick to the subject.



Well, since the woman bears the child, she should be able to kill it even after it's born, right?

i feel as though you are not paying attention to what i am saying, but are instead replying to arguments that you think all pro-choice people will make. it's not very productive.

this debate is not about the woman's right to kill anything, it is about her right to withhold the use of her own body. if the child is no longer inside the woman's body then obviously she has no more right to end its life than anybody else does, since the issue has NEVER been about who has the right to end the life.


After all, the male didn't have to go through labor, it wasn't in HIS body. It developed in the female's body, so the female should be able to do whatever she likes with it, right? WRONG.
*sigh* again, this is not about who has what rights to the FETUS, it is about who has the right to control the woman's body. she has the right to say, "my body may not be used for this purpose." that has nothing to do with the killing of a post-natal infant.

I BELIVE a fetus is a human as soon as it is concived. However I can not PROVE this.
Science has proven that the baby is alive(brain function accuring) during the third trimester.
I think Laws should be passed based on Proven facts and not belives. That is why I think abortion should be legal duing the first half of the pregnacy.
And always legal if the doctor says that the womans life is in danger because of the pregancy. If the woman dies giving birth to the baby then who will raise that baby?

Did you see my post? Just making sure.
i had not, until you drew my attention to it...thanks, and sorry for missing it the first time around.

So rape justifies murder? That's like robbing someone else because someone stole your wallet.



So now we get to make those decisions? Maybe that boy would prefer sitting on the streets rathering than being dead. Or if the boy is sitting there on the streets and isn't happy, is it ok to kill him? I don't think so. The law doesn't either.




If it were someone I knew, I would.




I've yet to hear a good reason why the fetus doesn't get the right to life.

I've yet to hear why the fetuse's rights trump the mother's. So some worthless crumb bum is worth more than a hardworking victim nice thought. Why should you get to make the decision for the mother? Are you a woman? If so don't get an abortion. I am sick and tired of men (like myself) trying to get women to forgo rights that don't ever matter to us. Murder is a legal definition, so abortion isn't murder till it is illegal.

Fine and dandy if 'the man' can take over the pregnancy...however providing up to one half of the genetic code (and less than in the case of males), doesnt make the contribution even, and children are not about ownership, so there is no justification there that I can see for your conclusion.

Get this through your skull. YOU. Yes, YOU wouldn't be alive if it weren't for the sperm of a MALE. Males make human life possible.

Your ownership rights over your sperm ends when you make your deposit. You are putting something into someone's possession in such a way that they cannot even if they choose to, return that something to you.

Who are you to decide when "ownership" rights end or begin? It takes two people to put forth a fetus, therefor two people should have to give consent in order for an abortion to take place. Yes, it is in a woman's body, but that fetus has genetic code from the male...that fetus is possible BECAUSE of male sperm. Why is this hard to understand? Why is this so unreasonable, to ask for the consent of two? Why should a woman be able to abort the child that *I* helped to produce if I want it? Part of me is IN THAT FETUS. I won't let part of me be destroyed.


If your sperm goes into a woman, ask for it back immediately, if you leave it there long enough for it fertilise an egg, it's not yours anymore, you have implied (through your actions) that you have willing rendered ownership of it to the person in whom you deposited it.

What the fuck? Who are you to decide that the fetus belongs solely to a woman? I haven't implied that she can do what she will with my future child.



You are not required to give your sperm away, I suggest if you are concerned about what happens to your 'little swimmers' you only share with people who share your views on abortion.

If I want to have children, I AM required.


What right?


You seem to not understand why a women has a choice. It's not about ownership or who produced something, it's not about rights over the fetus, it's about rights over her own body.

Actually, it is. She owns the body, but half of that fetus is MINE. Without male sperm, NONE OF US WOULD EXIST. Males play an integral part in the creation of children, therefor they should be asked for consent before their wife can get an abortion.


Once the child is not in her body, may I ask how rights over her body could be interpreted to allow her to kill someone who is not attached to her body, and who is autonomous from her body?

It was raised in her body, wasn't it? It's hers to destroy, just like I can do whatever I want with my property. At least by your logic it is.

I've yet to hear a good reason why the fetus doesn't get the right to life.
Hardly surprising since there is no requirement or need for anyone to do so until such a right is firstly established.

I BELIVE a fetus is a human as soon as it is concived. However I can not PROVE this.
Own DNA? Own body? Development? Will continue to live as long as it's not killed?
If it's not human, than what is it? If it's not alive, is it dead??


Science has proven that the baby is alive(brain function accuring) during the third trimester.

I've already said in this thread why I believe this to be a poor way of judging.


I think Laws should be passed based on Proven facts and not belives.
Let them prove that the unborn isn't human and isn't alive. If they do that, then we can pass laws on it, ok?

Abortion is murder.

The moment a sperm meets and egg a unique genetic code is created, which can never be duplicated again.

Unfortunatley sometimes it is a necessary evil.............


:(
mattr0cka

Get this through your skull. YOU. Yes, YOU wouldn't be alive if it weren't for the sperm of a MALE. Males make human life possible.

Who are you to decide when "ownership" rights end or begin? It takes two people to put forth a fetus, therefor two people should have to give consent in order for an abortion to take place. Yes, it is in a woman's body, but that fetus has genetic code from the male...that fetus is possible BECAUSE of male sperm. Why is this hard to understand? Why is this so unreasonable, to ask for the consent of two? Why should a woman be able to abort the child that *I* helped to produce if I want it? Part of me is IN THAT FETUS. I won't let part of me be destroyed.

What the fuck? Who are you to decide that the fetus belongs solely to a woman? I haven't implied that she can do what she will with my future child.



If I want to have children, I AM required.


Actually, it is. She owns the body, but half of that fetus is MINE. Without male sperm, NONE OF US WOULD EXIST. Males play an integral part in the creation of children, therefor they should be asked for consent before their wife can get an abortion.

It was raised in her body, wasn't it? It's hers to destroy, just like I can do whatever I want with my property. At least by your logic it is.

Who are you to decide either buddy? Why do you get to decide it belongs to you too? Calm down. stop cussing. if you do do it like this F#*k admins can't do anything then. For the last bloody time, if you don't like abortion, don't get one yourself (o wait you can't lol) If in the near future we can gentetically alter ourselves get yourself pregnant. (put sperm in petri dish and insert thorugh correct hole.) until then, stop saying what women can and acannot do with THEIR bodies.

Hardly surprising since there is no requirement or need for anyone to do so until such a right is firstly established.

Right to life? Human beings get that you know. If you want to say that fetuses don't, then prove to me that it isn't human or isn't alive.

Florida by the way, yeah i wouldn't have existed without my dad having sex with my mom, but they both wanted me. Not jsut my dad. Not just my mom. And if you don't want your wife to get an abortion, talk her out of it. I wouldn't reccomend swearing at her tho. ;)

While it may be true that a woman's right to her body overrides her childs right to life legally, I dont think that that's right morally. I dont think there should be anything other than the mother's life being in danger that justifies killing the child. Besides, if the mother didn't want to consent to supporting the baby, she should have thought about that before....

And yes, sometimes, but only a small fraction of the time, the mother is a rape victim, but it makes no sense to kill the child because of the crimes of his father.

Right to life? Human beings get that you know. If you want to say that fetuses don't, then prove to me that it isn't human or isn't alive.

before you take away a woman's right, prove that it is. If i showed you two slides, one of a monkey at an early stage in development, and another of a human in an early stage of devopment, you couldn't tell the diffrence. Their mental capcity isn't real diffrent at that stage either. until full mental capacity, they should be treated as animals with rights, not that trump a humans however.

so? i don't see what this has to do with a woman's right to her own body. and, just FYI, my best friend wouldn't exist today if his mother HADN'T had an abortion, so i don't think that's a particularly good line of reasoning for you to try to take.

It has nothing to do with the woman's right to her own body, but everything to do with a male's right to his own child.


you do not have the right to a woman's body, no matter how much sperm you put in her. if you want the fetus you may have it, but you do not have the right to use her body for your own purposes. both of you have equal rights in this matter: you both can give or withhold your personal consent to gestate the fetus, and neither of you may compel the other to do so. it's pretty basic, really.

What's pretty basic is the fact that a fetus is a result of a male AND a female. Not just one. If a male wants to keep his future child from being aborted, he should be able to do so. What's the problem if the male agrees to support it and take care of it?


that's really sad for him, but sometimes other humans make choices other than the ones we would like them to make. i don't have the right to force people to do what i feel is right with their bodies, no matter how much sex i have had with them, and i think it is amazingly and disgustingly arrogant of any person to suggest that they have some sort of inherant right to that kind of control over another person.

It's more than sad. If you had a child and I took them from you, you'd be devastated. Losing a child is perhaps the most emotionally distressing thing that can happen to a person. It can ruin lives. Induce suicide. I think it is amazingly arrogant and disgusting that you're suggesting here that a male shouldn't have any say in the death of his own.


i agree that it would be best if both parents could agree on a solution, but if they cannot then their individual rights must be safeguarded before their personal feelings are...each of them has certain inherant rights that must come first, regardless of how sad it makes the other person.

This is where our opinions clearly differ.


actually, in these amazing times of ours, yes it would :). but that's beside the point. you persist in thinking that this is a debate about ownership of the fetus, when it is not. the male can have the fetus if he wants it, he just can't force the woman to have it inside her body if she doesn't want it there.

Well if a woman has a child as the result of artificially created sperm, there'd be no need for male consent. But such is not the case most of the time. You persist in thinking that women have the right to take a man's child away. I disagree.


AGAIN, both parents have equal right to give or withhold their bodies for sustenance of the fetus. if the man wants to use his body to gestate the fetus he may give it a go, but he may not force the woman to do so. whether or not the fetus is the product of his sperm is irrelevant.

It isn't irrelevant. That's the point you're missing. You've got no compassion; that scares me.

oh, and for the record: i'm actually not left wing at all, but nice try with the stereotyping. i know it's much more fun to make personal attacks then it is to attend the issue, but i would ask that you show a little restraint and stick to the subject.

I've stuck to the subject throughout the entire thread. I see you're pro-choice and pro-gay marriage, two typically leftist stances, so I made an assumption. Call yourself what you will; I classify people by what they say.


i feel as though you are not paying attention to what i am saying, but are instead replying to arguments that you think all pro-choice people will make. it's not very productive.

That reply wasn't very productive.

this debate is not about the woman's right to kill anything, it is about her right to withhold the use of her own body.

No, this debate is about the women's right to kill a man's future child, without his consent. It is about killing. You just don't see logic.


if the child is no longer inside the woman's body then obviously she has no more right to end its life than anybody else does, since the issue has NEVER been about who has the right to end the life.

I addressed this in a previous reply.


*sigh* again, this is not about who has what rights to the FETUS, it is about who has the right to control the woman's body. she has the right to say, "my body may not be used for this purpose." that has nothing to do with the killing of a post-natal infant.

*sigh*
It has everything to do with the fetus. Maybe you haven't been paying attention to this thread, but the reason people want to make abortion completely illegal is because of the fetus.

jesus christ people. I havent read all of these but i see where it's going.

To the pro-lifers: If you think abortions are wrong, then good for you. Dont have one. But abortions are LEAGAL, not mandatory. Just stop trying to force your opinions on other people who may NEED an abortion for serious reasons. You guys (women) seem like the kind that hate gays and dont want them marrying. If i could find one of you, I'd rape you every nine months and watch you beg for an abortion.

To the pro-choicers: What's wrong with you? If you were aborted, you wouldn't even have a say in this. You wouldn't be anything. Have you ever even thought abuut death? I don't believe in heaven or hell, but imagine being killed without even having a chance. Without even having a choice. Kinda ironic, aint it?


I tried as hard as possible not to be biased in my arguments, so I'm soory if it seems like I'm leaning to one end of the spectrum. The truth is, I have a lot more things to say to pro-lifers than I know to say to pro-choicers. If I HAD to pick though, I'd be pro-choice, just because everyone's happy. The key word is "CHOICE."

before you take away a woman's right, prove that it is. If i showed you two slides, one of a monkey at an early stage in development, and another of a human in an early stage of devopment, you couldn't tell the diffrence. Their mental capcity isn't real diffrent at that stage either. until full mental capacity, they should be treated as animals with rights, not that trump a humans however.

Own DNA? Own body? Development? Will continue to live as long as it's not killed?
If it's not human, than what is it? If it's not alive, is it dead??

Why don't you prove that it isn't alive? We don't put bodies in the ground without checking to see if the person is really dead. How would you like waking up in a coffin because someone thought you were dead when you were really just sleeping?

My view on abortion:

I don't like it. It's killing, and I'm against killing in all its forms. However, if we were to ban abortions, people would still try to get them. And the ways of getting them would be less safe, and put both lives in danger. People would try doing it with coat hangers, because all the safe ways of doing it would be outlawed. In my mind, it's wrong, but we can't outlaw it. Then it'll be even worse.

I agree as it concerns the illegality. If you think about it that way, every in-vitro fertilization would be murder then. There are several embryoes created, tested and then two or three inplanted into the woman's body. Do the other 16-32 cell human embryoes not have the same right to live?

If you think about it the other way: I know a family with a severly brain-damaged child; the parents are retired, their son is nearly 40 and still on the level of a 10-year-old. They have serious conserns of what will happen to their son (he is in full day-care) after they depart; if he can work it up...
Is that a life? I always hear that it takes and creates more love to raise such a child than a normal one, but if you would knew it while the beginning of pregnancy, wouldn't you spare yourself and another individual (your son/dauther) such a thing?

Actually, with rapes, incest or unwanted children, I stay with the 3-months rule. It's about this time the fetus makes the first movements, begins to persieve it's environment and "live". It's not completely stated, but I think after this stage, they can also feel pain, so actually if there is no grave reason, the child should be born after that.

I didn't want to fall into contravercy, I just wanted the pro- and con-activists to have something to think about...

he means aborting it. Also he means morally wrong meathead, o wait hoofhead, o wait MORON!

Flaming bad, so stop now.

Who are you to decide either buddy? Why do you get to decide it belongs to you too?

Because it is the result of MY BODY, as it is the result of a woman's body. My sperm, my genes, my body.

Calm down. stop cussing. if you do do it like this F#*k admins can't do anything then. For the last bloody time, if you don't like abortion, don't get one yourself (o wait you can't lol) If in the near future we can gentetically alter ourselves get yourself pregnant. (put sperm in petri dish and insert thorugh correct hole.) until then, stop saying what women can and acannot do with THEIR bodies.

Or men's future children, which they helped create. This argument is futile. We all have different views, and nobody is going to reason with anybody. I think I'll just quit here, regardless of what responses I incite.

It has nothing to do with the woman's right to her own body, but everything to do with a male's right to his own child.

What's pretty basic is the fact that a fetus is a result of a male AND a female. Not just one. If a male wants to keep his future child from being aborted, he should be able to do so. What's the problem if the male agrees to support it and take care of it?

It's more than sad. If you had a child and I took them from you, you'd be devastated. Losing a child is perhaps the most emotionally distressing thing that can happen to a person. It can ruin lives. Induce suicide. I think it is amazingly arrogant and disgusting that you're suggesting here that a male shouldn't have any say in the death of his own.

This is where our opinions clearly differ.

Well if a woman has a child as the result of artificially created sperm, there'd be no need for male consent. But such is not the case most of the time. You persist in thinking that women have the right to take a man's child away. I disagree.

It isn't irrelevant. That's the point you're missing. You've got no compassion; that scares me.

I've stuck to the subject throughout the entire thread. I see you're pro-choice and pro-gay marriage, two typically leftist stances, so I made an assumption. Call yourself what you will; I classify people by what they say.

That reply wasn't very productive.



No, this debate is about the women's right to kill a man's future child, without his consent. It is about killing. You just don't see logic.




I addressed this in a previous reply.




*sigh*
It has everything to do with the fetus. Maybe you haven't been paying attention to this thread, but the reason people want to make abortion completely illegal is because of the fetus.

than adopt, if you want a kid, your wife doesn't want to go through childbirth, then adopt. god knows there are plenty of kids out there. Also fetuses aren't proven to be human yet. Also just curious, but what is your opinion on when the mother's life is in danger? or a brain dead fetus? retarded kids? or any combo of the three.

Flaming bad, so stop now.

k sorry forums like this often piss me off. At least i wan't swearing tho like Florida Oarnges.

*Bump*

than adopt, if you want a kid, your wife doesn't want to go through childbirth, then adopt. god knows there are plenty of kids out there. Also fetuses aren't proven to be human yet. Also just curious, but what is your opinion on when the mother's life is in danger? or a brain dead fetus? retarded kids? or any combo of the three.

Well, I'm pro-life. I'd be devastated if my wife got an abortion, which is one reason why I'd like male consent to be allowed in the matter of abortion. If the mother's life is in danger, and an abortion must take place to save her, then yes, then I would agree. A brain dead fetus would not be able to function as a human being, therefor yes, I'd be okay with abortion there also. Mentally handicapped kids I would still want to go through with. They would still be able to think and function. I think abortion should only be legal in very rare cases such as the two you listed.

jesus christ people. I havent read all of these but i see where it's going.

To the pro-lifers: If you think abortions are wrong, then good for you. Dont have one. But abortions are LEAGAL, not mandatory. Just stop trying to force your opinions on other people who may NEED an abortion for serious reasons. You guys (women) seem like the kind that hate gays and dont want them marrying. If i could find one of you, I'd rape you every nine months and watch you beg for an abortion.

To the pro-choicers: What's wrong with you? If you were aborted, you wouldn't even have a say in this. You wouldn't be anything. Have you ever even thought abuut death? I don't believe in heaven or hell, but imagine being killed without even having a chance. Without even having a choice. Kinda ironic, aint it?


I tried as hard as possible not to be biased in my arguments, so I'm soory if it seems like I'm leaning to one end of the spectrum. The truth is, I have a lot more things to say to pro-lifers than I know to say to pro-choicers. If I HAD to pick though, I'd be pro-choice, just because everyone's happy. The key word is "CHOICE."

I try not to force my opinions onto other people, even if I think they're choices are wrong. Generally though, they're choices only affect them, and that's their own business. However, its a different issue with murder, its not just about them, they're destroying someone elses life. I'm all for people making their own choices, but not when those choices are going to harm other people.

Well, I'm pro-life. I'd be devastated if my wife got an abortion, which is one reason why I'd like male consent to be allowed in the matter of abortion. If the mother's life is in danger, and an abortion must take place to save her, then yes, then I would agree. A brain dead fetus would not be able to function as a human being, therefor yes, I'd be okay with abortion there also. Mentally handicapped kids I would still want to go through with. They would still be able to think and function. I think abortion should only be legal in very rare cases such as the two you listed.

OK yeah brain dead kids are unfortunately a waste. Glad to see that you are not totally fetus is all important. And yes i don't think mentally retarded people should be just killed.

OK yeah brain dead kids are unfortunately a waste. Glad to see that you are not totally fetus is all important. And yes i don't think mentally retarded people should be just killed.

By the way, to Bobs and Bottle, I'm not trying to be nasty, and if I come off as such, my apologies. This shit gets us all heated up. These are touchy subjects, you know?

"Originally Posted by Nordur
My view on abortion:

I don't like it. It's killing, and I'm against killing in all its forms. However, if we were to ban abortions, people would still try to get them. And the ways of getting them would be less safe, and put both lives in danger. People would try doing it with coat hangers, because all the safe ways of doing it would be outlawed. In my mind, it's wrong, but we can't outlaw it. Then it'll be even worse."

Let's say that murder was legalized. You could pick out who you wanted to kill and take them to murder shops and get the job done good and clean. Think of how many lives that could save! All the innocent bistanders that were accidently shot when murder was illegal would be no more. Sometimes, when you tried to murder someone, they would react and kill you. Not with this new system. Sound good?

There is a reason that a person's medical records cannot be released to ANYONE except for them or their legal guardian...

You may want to consider that such heavy-handed attempts at control will only result in destroying what's left of a relationship between the two adults, or people simply getting the procedure done without the knowlege of their partner.

The stange thing is that partial birth abortion is illegal. The baby is almost always going to kill the mother and is often brain dead, or just dead. Also you can't ask for a partial birth abortion. It is when you're gonna die of they don't abort.

before you take away a woman's right, prove that it is. If i showed you two slides, one of a monkey at an early stage in development, and another of a human in an early stage of devopment, you couldn't tell the diffrence. Their mental capcity isn't real diffrent at that stage either. until full mental capacity, they should be treated as animals with rights, not that trump a humans however.

Actually, to turn your words around in your mouth a little bit: think about severly retarded children; ones without the ability to speak, or make any logical decidions, for instance. There are monkeys that can do that. Should the child then be treated like an animal, as protected as it may be?

By the way, to Bobs and Bottle, I'm not trying to be nasty, and if I come off as such, my apologies. This shit gets us all heated up. These are touchy subjects, you know?

yeah i know, i get that way too. Religious, moral, and political ones are always like that. it just happens.

There is a reason that a person's medical records cannot be released to ANYONE except for them or their legal guardian...

You may want to consider that such heavy-handed attempts at control will only result in destroying what's left of a relationship between the two adults, or people simply getting the procedure done without the knowlege of their partner.

I think that's wrong. I think a male should be informed of an abortion. If a woman can't tell her husband she got an abortion, she's not being honest. And if the relationship isn't an honest, healthy one where nothing is hidden, maybe it isn't that great of a relationship in the first place.

Actually, to turn your words around in your mouth a little bit: think about severly retarded children; ones without the ability to speak, or make any logical decidions, for instance. There are monkeys that can do that. Should the child then be treated like an animal, as protected as it may be?

yeah

I think that's wrong. I think a male should be informed of an abortion. If a woman can't tell her husband she got an abortion, she's not being honest. And if the relationship isn't an honest, healthy one where nothing is hidden, maybe it isn't that great of a relationship in the first place.

true, but what about teenage mothers. i have heard of cases where fathers have disowned them when they got pregnant, sometimes even beaten them. :(

Actually, to turn your words around in your mouth a little bit: think about severly retarded children; ones without the ability to speak, or make any logical decidions, for instance. There are monkeys that can do that. Should the child then be treated like an animal, as protected as it may be?

It's not legal to kill mentally handicaped people when they're adults, so it follows that it wouldn't be ok to do at any stage of life.

It's not legal to kill mentally handicaped people when they're adults, so it follows that it wouldn't be ok to do at any stage of life.

hey Boofheads, sorry about insulting you i was just in a lousy mood. Also wwhat aobut brain-dead children, and instances where birth will kill the mother?

true, but what about teenage mothers. i have heard of cases where fathers have disowned them when they got pregnant, sometimes even beaten them. :(

Than the males would probably withhold their consent. Males should only have consent in an abortion if they agree to support it, nurture it, and take care of it once the fetus is born. If they violate this agreement, they should be punished.

Get this through your skull. YOU. Yes, YOU wouldn't be alive if it weren't for the sperm of a MALE. Males make human life possible.
aha, thanks for the mini-biology lesson, but I have to say, it's not exactly news to me.

Who are you to decide when "ownership" rights end or begin?
I dont see that who I am is relevent, and certainly I didnt decide, nor am I attempting to decide when ownership rights end or begin.

It takes two people to put forth a fetus, therefor two people should have to give consent in order for an abortion to take place.
Why?

Yes, it is in a woman's body, but that fetus has genetic code from the male...
That's not relevent to whether or not the law should force someone to act as a physical life support system for another human being.

that fetus is possible BECAUSE of male sperm.
Among a whole bunch of other things, but again you failed to demonstrate why this implies that a woman should be forced to donate the use of her body and organs to act as a life support system for another organism.

Why is this hard to understand?
Why is this so unreasonable, to ask for the consent of two? [/quote]
Because that would deprive a human being of one of their basic fundamental rights.

Why should a woman be able to abort the child that *I* helped to produce if I want it?
Because just like you she has a right to her own body, she has a right to not be a life support system for another organism, just as you do.

Part of me is IN THAT FETUS. I won't let part of me be destroyed.
If you have strong feelings about the issue then I suggest (again) that you employ due caution when choosing who to share your with.

What the fuck? Who are you to decide that the fetus belongs solely to a woman?
This is where you seem to keep getting confused. I dont consider that ownership rights have anything whatsoever to do with it. The only rights are those of a woman to choose not to be a life support system and those of others to force her to be one. I percieve that the former are legitimate rights consistent with the premises of a free society and related law, I consider the latter to be in conflict with current law and the premises of a free society. Since I support the premises of a free society I will continue to oppose the restriction of anyone's rights unless sound rational consistent with the premises of a free society can substantiate that it is necessary to do otherwise.

I haven't implied that she can do what she will with my future child.
You may consider that to be the case, but I personally dont think you could substantiate such an argument in a court of law (where property rights are interpreted and ultimately decided).

If I want to have children, I AM required.
No, if you wish to have biological off-spring you will need to find a female to help you out with that. You are not required to deposit your sperm with any particular female. If you happen to choose a female and things dont work out because you picked the wrong one, hopefully you'll learn from your error and make a better choice next time. And having choosing to have children is a choice, you cant make a choice not a choice by suggesting that you chose it because you wanted it. Wanting something is often a component of choosing it, not a negation of choice...

Actually, it is. She owns the body, but half of that fetus is MINE. Without male sperm, NONE OF US WOULD EXIST. Males play an integral part in the creation of children, therefor they should be asked for consent before their wife can get an abortion.
No it's not. Whether or not someone 'owns' their body in a property type matter is neither here nor there since it is a matter of philosophical semantics. The point with regards to a womens body is that certain rights derived from law are attached to that body. One need not demonstrate ownership in connection with such rights, since they are not premised or contingent on ownership. Ownership is not the reason why women have a right to not be a life support system and even if it were, the ability to do something with one's body being premised on ownership would not grant you ownership of something that is not currently part of your body and which is attached to another person.

It was raised in her body, wasn't it? It's hers to destroy, just like I can do whatever I want with my property. At least by your logic it is.
No not by my logic, (and not by anything that I recognise as logic either). It may save you a lot of time if I point out that I know what I believe, I have reasoned through it many times and so am not easily convinced that I believe, have posted or even implied things which I have not. You appear to be implying that I have attributed a right to destroy something, I have not, you seem to imply that I attribute a women's right to an abortion as being premised on some kind of property rights, I dont.

Also wwhat aobut brain-dead children,

Still have the right to life, even with their unfortunate situaition.

and instances where birth will kill the mother?

The toughest of all situations. I believe that if one tries to help the mother stay alive and the baby is killed as a consequence of that, then that isn't wrong. However, it's a tricky situation. I've heard of stories of doctors telling the mother she would die if she gave birth, she went ahead and did it anyway, and the baby and mother both turned out fine. Also, every pregnency has some risk to the mother, so where would we draw the line? These are questions we'd have to ask. I think about this fairly frequently and it's not something I believe we should just give a quick solution to.

By the way, I'll be leaving for several hours so I wont be able to post more for now.

You may consider that to be the case, but I personally dont think you could substantiate such an argument in a court of law (where property rights are interpreted and ultimately decided).


For the record, in a court of law if you beat on a pregnant woman you can be charged with double assault. A court of law seems to recognize a fetus as a human being to a certain degree. So leave the law out of this. The law disagrees with you that a fetus isn't a human being.

As for everything else, I've explained myself several times. I'm not going to keep regurgitating everything I say. Read my posts, thoroughly. Just because you're too lazy to look through my posts and find the answers to the questions you asked doesn't mean I'm going to keep repeating myself.

Right to life? Human beings get that you know. If you want to say that fetuses don't, then prove to me that it isn't human or isn't alive.
What do you mean by right to life? The same right that doesnt grant you the right to my organs if that is necessary to keep you alive? The same right that is considered not to have been infringed if one person's actions end the life of another where those actions were the minimal actions that would result in the cessation of unwanted physical contact?

As it happens I'm not convinced that the right you refer to applicable on the facts, I'm not convinced of how much protection it offers non-citizen human beings, and frankly I'm not convinced that a fetus is a human being. So far as proof goes, the burden is on the affirmative.

For the record, in a court of law if you beat on a pregnant woman you can be charged with double assault. A court of law seems to recognize a fetus as a human being to a certain degree. So leave the law out of this. The law disagrees with you that a fetus isn't a human being.
For the record, only some courts of law would allow for two charges of assault. Such law is not in the least relevent to any of the points I made regarding property. Many courts of law do not recognise that a fetus is a human being. Evidently the law cannot disagree with me with regards to whether or not a fetus is human, as I pointed out, I am aware of my own thinking on this issue. I have not premised that a fetus is not a human, any more than I have premised that a fetus is a human.

As for everything else, I've explained myself several times. I'm not going to keep regurgitating everything I say. Read my posts, thoroughly. Just because you're too lazy to look through my posts and find the answers to the questions you asked doesn't mean I'm going to keep repeating myself.
I have read your posts. As it happens I believe I understand perfectly the content of them, and further I believe that you either do not understand the content of my posts, or simply find the content unpalatable and yet have no legitmate counter arguments against the points raised.

I am not completely pro-choice. I beleive that nobody has the right to kill a human being, I just think that a human being is defined by more than human DNA. An embryo or fetus that lacks enough brain to think and feel is no more human than an appendix. Abortion before the brain develops extensively is not wrong.

And the fetus says................

WRONG ANSWER!

If you can substantiate your now removed comments sunshine, I suggest you do so, that way I wont have to think that you're bold enough on the typing but somewhat shy on the intellectualising..... :p

I have two questions for anyone who thinks that abortion is not muder. Are you a human? And if so, were you not once a fetus?


Think, people...

Also it's interesting to note that in the Peterson trial he's being charged for the murder of his wife's UNBORN son.

You're somewhat shy on reading skills. Learn when to end a fight. Rather than keep it going, I deleted my comments, only to see you keep reposting. Let it go. You're too full of yourself to actually try to make sense out of anyone's posts, other than your own. You replied to my original posts by asking why, or how, or what. All the answers are in my posts. You're a big boy, find them.

You're somewhat shy on reading skills.
I very much doubt that, if you can substantiate an argument that even indicates as much, I'd be most interested and most surprised.

Learn when to end a fight.
Since I dont get into fights, it's hardly a necessary skill.

Rather than keep it going, I deleted my comments, only to see you keep reposting.
If you believed them enough to post them, why not leave them, if you had substantiated your claims I wouldnt have needed to ask about them, if you were just trolling then thought better of it....oops, you should have thought better sooner (ie before you hit the submit button). I assume that posts are genunine and reply as such, by the time I hit the quote button, I'm half way to posting and your withdrawel of the comment doesnt clarify what I want to know (what exactly it is you believe I have misunderstood or failed to comprehend), so I go ahead and ask, if your post was genuine you'll have no problem pointing out what the content was referring to....if you were trolling, you deserve any inconvinience your breach of protocol causes you.

Let it go.
Let what go? I came here to read and possibly to reply and interact, if I wished to no longer do these things, I wouldnt. I enjoy interacting with others, if you dont, no one is obliging you to respond.

You're too full of yourself to actually try to make sense out of anyone's posts, other than your own.
I believe I have made sense of every post I have read in this read and that I have read every post in this thread.

You replied to my original posts by asking why, or how, or what. All the answers are in my posts. .
Did I, well you'll have to let me know who you were posting as at the time, since it wasnt under the name you are posting under right now....alteranatively if you are posting in a genuine vein (rather than doing a troll) you could simply state which points you think I've missed, otherwise I dont have much choice but to change my initial assumption about your genuineness and conclude that you are indeed on 'the troll'...

You're a big boy, find them
Ah well yes, as I pointed out, it would help to know what name you were using when you posted them..... :rolleyes:

Abortion

Greetings to one and all.

I think that this particular "thread" is somewhat more mature than the last one, of which I was a part, concerning the debate over the religious philosophy of biological evolution, which was (evidently) composed entirely of young children who were not interested in a serious scientific debate and found mudslinging far more enjoyable.

I have a point that I would like to make; it is that the most important definition of the English word "murder," according to The Oxford Desk Dictionary, is "intentional unlawful killing of a human being by another."

Let us, for a moment, accept this as an absolutely correct definition of the word in question. After such has been done, let us consider the question of abortion. I find that there are two other immediate questions which have arisen, and they are "What is a human being?" and "If abortion is lawful, then why is it spoken of by some as being murder?" Allow me to address the first question as quickly as possible, for the second question will be the one to take up most of my time. It is my opinion that a human being, by definition, is an entity which can be identified as human through an inspection of its DNA. It is also my opinion that anyone who disagrees with this point is either ignorant and inconsiderate, or mildly insane.

Let me now spend some time on the second question. It seems to me that whether one is religious makes no difference, when it comes to that person's interpretation of law, assuming that the law is explicit and clear. Even the most irreligious person should find it impossible to think that all laws are not based on moral understandings, be their origins in the Bible, the Magna Carta, or any other document. Some might argue that law is based merely on the necessities of life, and permanent establishments, designed to protect society from itself. This is indeed true, but it is also necessary to remember the true definition of morality, and that its goal is to provide society with happiness (not temporal happiness, but Platonic). The references are therefor interchangeable; but to ignore the dignity of one and assume the dignity of the other is hypocritical.

Therefor, even though the laws which we have made for ourselves govern us and allow us to do certain things, this does not make them morally right in the Platonic sense; it does not make the legislation permanent. We cannot legislate true morality, we can only tell others what to do and what not to do, in certain cases.

Having established these two points, I would like to discuss one of the greatest moral virtues, and that is the virtue of self-sacrificial love. To avoid questions from those who wish to criticize, I am indeed male, but I can make attempts at recognizing good and evil, and I think that these judgements are worthy of serious consideration, as are the judgements of everyone. The value of self-sacrificial love is constantly preached, but rarely practiced on a regular basis; the term, in and of itself, implies the sacrificing of one's self (in a physical, spiritual, and/or mental way) for the good of another. In my opinion, anyone who does not believe in practicing self-sacrificial love is terribly selfish, unjust, and possibly a very terrified coward.

I have never given birth to a child, and I assure you I never will. I will not, therefor, attempt to categorize the agony and natural fear of childbirth as being something passe and meaningless, for I do not speak of things unless I am confident that I have knowledge of them. I would not dare call any woman who is afraid of giving birth (or perhaps what might follow, such as her possible inability to support the child, or some other issue) a coward, for she certainly is not. But the beauty of morality is that it is not always easy to hold fast to - in fact, it almost never is! Therefor it is in times of trouble that it should be practiced; one should stop and think of possible consequences, and understand the very simple rule that every child should learn: all actions have reactions of some description. And, if the person in question realizes that she has made a mistake, it must be dealt with properly and the attitude of "well, now that it has occurred, there is only one thing left to do" must not be taken.

I hereby claim that abortion is unequivocally morally wrong.

"We cannot make laws that govern a person's body or invades their privacy," some might claim. I would then retort "What do you think the law does, in all cases?" The law exists for one purpose, and that is to govern in fairness and justice. Is it just and fair that the mother of her own unborn child should attempt to take its fate into her own hands, merely because she thinks that her son or daughter will not be able to emotionally cope with a physical deformity? Is she basing this on her own experience? Yes. Is that fair? I think not.

"Well, what will happen will happen, so we must provide a safe environment, even if it is morally unacceptable," some might say. Then how do we cure the rampant murder? We can't, if laws are not enforced. I am not stupid enough to say that abortions will not be carried out in secret, or that there will be shady back street "clinics" - but perhaps the prospect of such will deter women from undergoing abortions at all. "Well then, you endanger both!" Every time a woman has an abortion, her life is endangered. "Well then, you are in favor of only a few unborns being killed, but not many of them? That is hypocritical." No it isn't. If I was forced to choose between ten people dying and a thousand people dying, I wouldn't choose - I would rather die. But if ten people or ten thousand people were to die, it would certainly be a greater loss if one thousand died than if ten did.

This may sound cold to some people, but I think the alternative (abortion) should sound a great deal colder.

"Why did you waste your time and our space with this ridiculous post?" Well, firstly, I hope you don't consider it ridiculous; if the size has inconvenienced you, I am sorry, but essays sometimes roll freely from my fingers. My goal in writing this was to make anyone who reads this stop and think about his or her values (whatever they may be), and to perhaps inspire them to remember that they have one purpose in life: that is to benefit as many people as they can. My goal in life is the same.

Feel free to make a response. Thank you.

However, its a different issue with murder, its not just about them, they're destroying someone elses life. I'm all for people making their own choices, but not when those choices are going to harm other people.

A zygote is not a human. At the stage when an offspring is aborted, it's blank; it can still form anything. Even if it's considered a fetus, it doesn't have a life. If the mother was a poor crack addict/prostitue, the child is probably better-off nonexistant. And dont feed me that "adoption is the answer" bullshit. Kids who are adopted are looked down on by society. They're forgotton. "Mommy didn't love me" It's not a good thing.

A zygote is not a human. At the stage when an offspring is aborted, it's blank; it can still form anything. Even if it's considered a fetus, it doesn't have a life. If the mother was a poor crack addict/prostitue, the child is probably better-off nonexistant. And dont feed me that "adoption is the answer" bullshit. Kids who are adopted are looked down on by society. They're forgotton. "Mommy didn't love me" It's not a good thing.

so when is it thay you believe the zygote suddenly becomes human?
And just because a great life can't be guaranteed for the child, that doesnt justify killing them. Everyone is going to have problems in life, but you dont go killing all of them do you?

Do Americans who belive that abortion is a "bad thing" because it is "killing", also believe the war on Iraq is a "bad thing" because it is "killing" ?? :headbang:

I have two questions for anyone who thinks that abortion is not muder. Are you a human? And if so, were you not once a fetus?
If you want to get technical, I started out as a sperm and an egg.

Also it's interesting to note that in the Peterson trial he's being charged for the murder of his wife's UNBORN son.
Which is quite obviously bullshit.

Audiophile, you are correct - all wars are bad things. Anyone who is prolife, but thinks wars are not bad things is a hypocrite.

Anyone who believes that a zygote is not a human being deserves to be utterly ignored - just turn the lights off and walk out of the room.

hey while i was reading this i realized something. We have an accomplishment we forget about or never think about. We were the fastest sperm cells to get to the egg. So even if you feel like you have accomplished nothing you have because you were the fastest sperm

It is my opinion that a human being, by definition, is an entity which can be identified as human through an inspection of its DNA. It is also my opinion that anyone who disagrees with this point is either ignorant and inconsiderate, or mildly insane.
Uh huh. And I suppose a braindead person whose heart and lungs are being operated by machines, is still a human being?

It is my opinion that DNA doesn't mean jack about being a person. It's the brain that counts.

But if ten people or ten thousand people were to die, it would certainly be a greater loss if one thousand died than if ten died.
I would kill a thousand single-cell zygotes to save one woman. Would you?

I hereby claim that abortion is unequivocally morally wrong.




Morality is objective. Your morals are not everyone else's. My morals tell me that it is selfish and potentially destructive to bring an unwanted pregnancy to term and force a woman to have to give up her body to the sustenance of another without her consent. It's also unfair to make her carry a high-risk pregnancy, and/or a rape/incest case (where I believe that it's a further violation to make a woman carry such a pregnancy to term; it should be her choice as to what to do with it). It's unfair to the fetus to be born with defects so severe that it has the potential to become an emotional and financial burden on the family.

Let us, for a moment, accept this as an absolutely correct definition of the word in question. After such has been done, let us consider the question of abortion. I find that there are two other immediate questions which have arisen, and they are "What is a human being?" and "If abortion is lawful, then why is it spoken of by some as being murder?" Allow me to address the first question as quickly as possible, for the second question will be the one to take up most of my time. It is my opinion that a human being, by definition, is an entity which can be identified as human through an inspection of its DNA. It is also my opinion that anyone who disagrees with this point is either ignorant and inconsiderate, or mildly insane.

I will not deny that when human sperm and egg meet, a potential human life is conceived. Note, I said potential. That means that it either has the potential to be carried to term in the womb, or it has the potential to end, either through abortion or natural miscarraige (also known as spontaneous abortion!). It could even be ended when the woman is assaulted and she loses the fetus that way.

I tend to believe in reincarnation, so the whole "you only get one life" thing doesn't apply to me. I'm pagan, so the whole "it's God's will" thing doesn't apply because I don't believe in the same god you do. I'm tired of hearing arguements like that from the prolife side because it doesn't apply to me and anyone else who doesn't hold the same belief system.

I'm also tired of everything being about a fetus. What about the welfare of the woman who hosts it? Is she not a human being? She has herself well-established in the world. A fetus is a being yet to be born. It has not been established in the world because it still depends on the host female to gestate. If it is lost, it's not quite nearly as much of an impact on the world as losing the already born woman. Is it a tragedy? It depends on the feelings of the woman and her family. If it was unwanted, not so much so. If it is wanted, maybe. If the woman felt she couldn't provide for it, then it's "for the best and not the right time to have a baby".

We have enough unwanted and suffering children in this world. It's selfish to bring more unwanted children in. Some prolifers are more pro-fetus than they are prolife (like fundies, for example). They don't usually care about the kid once it's born. All they care about is control over a woman's body and that the poor innocent little fetii are "saved" from the evil abortion doctors.

Sorry to go off on a tangent, but it just really irks me that people don't stop to think about the woman's feelings or her bodily integrity or even the welfare of the already-born in general sometimes. (And that being said, I'm a woman myself.)

I believe aborion is wrong after the first trimester (first three months of developement) that is plenty of time to decide. In some very rare cases such as the people couldnt aford it, or it was a teen pregnancy and she was scared or something, than 2nd trimester (first six months) but never after that, unless it endangers the mothers life, and than only if the threat occured after the first trimester.


I agree with that. I dont agree however if it relates to autism.. as I am autistic... and an organzation called Cure Autism Now is devloping a pre-natal screening test... its pretty much a pre-planned genocide.

I agree with that. I dont agree however if it relates to autism.. as I am autistic... and an organzation called Cure Autism Now is devloping a pre-natal screening test... its pretty much a pre-planned genocide.

I wont be sarcastic because you are Autistic, but here is the actual definition of "genocide" just in case you ever want to use the word again:
genocide (n.) - The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

Uh huh. And I suppose a braindead person whose heart and lungs are being operated by machines, is still a human being?



I think they are still a human being, they're clearly not anything else, but theyre no longer actually living. A fetus is a human being, and certianly alive.

I think they are still a human being, they're clearly not anything else, but theyre no longer actually living. A fetus is a human being, and certianly alive.
Why are they not living, but a fetus is? Neither has any appreciable brain activity beyond reflexes. Both have nice little heartbeats. In any case, zygotes don't even have THAT. You'll be hard pressed to prove a single cell is a live human being.

Well, you are evidently pro-death - I am not.

Of course it is an unequivocal tragedy that the fetus dies; it doesn't matter what the mother and her family think. The most important thing is that a human being is not murdered.

And the theory of brain activity indicating humanity is utterly insane (I am laughing at this very moment).

After birth, absolutely.

Until that point however, the fetus is holding the woman's body captive, and no man can force her to continue giving her body's nutrients to it. This applies whether or not you consider a fetus to be a human being.

Thats like saying no woman can force me to keep holding this cinderblock over a babys head and if I drop it, it is not murder

The fact is, if thats MY baby I should have some say.

And the theory of brain activity indicating humanity is utterly insane (I am laughing at this very moment).
Why? How can anything without a brain be considered a human being?

Thats like saying no woman can force me to keep holding this cinderblock over a babys head and if I drop it, it is not murder.
No, it's like saying that a person is going to die unless you give them a constant blood transfusion. If you disconnect the tubes, the person dies.

Would disconnecting the tubes be murder?

I am not completely pro-choice. I beleive that nobody has the right to kill a human being, I just think that a human being is defined by more than human DNA. An embryo or fetus that lacks enough brain to think and feel is no more human than an appendix. Abortion before the brain develops extensively is not wrong.

Agreed as usual

Look . . . think very slowly for a moment . . . be careful . . . but try and think . . . Is a zygote on a developing path? What allows it to develop? Why is it developing? Why is it on its way to having a brain? Do dead things grow brains? I think not.

If the above is correct, then give me a scientific reason for believing that it is not a human being until it has brain activity. What you have offered is philosophy.

No, it's like saying that a person is going to die unless you give them a constant blood transfusion. If you disconnect the tubes, the person dies.

Would disconnecting the tubes be murder?
Its more like the hospitals owner pulling the plug to save power. Thats murder.

Why are they not living, but a fetus is? Neither has any appreciable brain activity beyond reflexes. Both have nice little heartbeats. In any case, zygotes don't even have THAT. You'll be hard pressed to prove a single cell is a live human being.

The fetuses heart beat isn't generated by machines. It's heart is beating on its own. But even a heart beat i dont think is the best way to measure humanity, suppose someones heart stops for a moment, are they not human for that moment? And yeah...I dont know if I could prove that it is a live human being at that point. I believe though, that at that stage it already has a soul, which for me it was defines human from not human...but then thats not scientific fact, just what I believe

Look . . . think very slowly for a moment . . . be careful . . . but try and think . . . Is a zygote on a developing path? What allows it to develop? Why is it developing? Why is it on its way to having a brain? Do dead things grow brains? I think not.
What if the zygote stopped developing, at around 32 cells or so? Would it still be a human being?

It grows a brain because that's what the cells are programmed to do. But until it does so, it is just a cell fulfilling a function, like any brain cell transmitting chemicals, muscle cell stretching, etc.

I could prove it . . . but I have yet to come into contact with one person on these boards who knows anything about basic life sciences, constructive philosophy, and basic logic! :headbang:

Its more like the hospitals owner pulling the plug to save power. Thats murder.
But what if that "plug" is your own body, your own nutrients and organs being hijacked for another organism (quite literally, a parasite)?

You cannot force a woman to carry a fetus any more than you can force me to donate my kidney to a dying man. I may withhold my body's support from a person, and that person dies as a direct result of that, but it is not murder. Similarly, a woman can choose to withhold her body's support to a fetus, and that fetus dies, it is not murder.

Yes, but Chodolo, you don't know that its not more than that - it could have a soul, for all you know; you can't prove it doesn't, and I wouldn't want to take that chance.

Plus, bear in mind that you are still offering philosophy - brain activity is no scientific proof of humanity.

Chodolo, you don't seem to understand that it is not simply a matter of witholding support for the "parasite" - when its neck is broken, a little more has taken place than just the removal of support, i can assure you. ;)

I could prove it . . . but I have yet to come into contact with one person on these boards who knows anything about basic life sciences, constructive philosophy, and basic logic! :headbang:
I feel the same way sometimes. ;)

Yes, but Chodolo, you don't know that its not more than that - it could have a soul, for all you know; you can't prove it doesn't, and I wouldn't want to take that chance.
Any one of my sperms could have a soul, thus masturbation is murder. That whole "every sperm is sacred" routine.

And the fact that you are bringing up "souls" does not help your argument.

Plus, bear in mind that you are still offering philosophy - brain activity is no scientific proof of humanity.
You're offering up "souls". I'm offering up brain activity because that is what makes us human. Without brain activity we are just lumps of flesh. Someone who has had their head removed is obviously "dead" although their body may still function. A single cell may be growing, but it does not have a brain, and is quite obviously not equal in worth to a full grown human.

If something has the potentential to become a human life thne i think its wrong to kill it but about abortion i think it should be illegal accept under special circumstances One of which not being the child will be mentaly handicapped you odn tknow it will for sure until the child is born you cant just belive a docter whne they say a child will be i know of two occasions that a docter was wrong about one of the cases being me the docter begged and pleaded with my mom to have me aborted but i turned out completly normal even wiht baove avergae inteligence (even though you cant tell is wiht me obivious lack of spelling skilss) If the docter was wrong with me that makes you think how many baby were aborted becauce they were going to be "handicappied" Also i think if we abort children that will be handicappied we are getting ride of the most caring sweetest nicest people we have left.
If people want to have choice on this matter choose not to do it.

Chodolo, you don't seem to understand that it is not simply a matter of witholding support for the "parasite" - when its neck is broken, a little more has taken place than just the removal of support, i can assure you. ;)
So if the fetus was removed cleanly, without its brains being vacuumed, or chopped to pieces, just brought out in one piece and then the doctors tried to save it, and failed...it would be alright?

And if you want to go earlier, using an abortion pill within the first 72 hours after sex, it prevents the zygote from attaching itself to the uterine wall, and is flushed out...that is simply removing the parasite, not killing it. Whether or not it survives in the toilet is incidental, just as whether or not the man needing your blood or kidney survives is incidental.

Well Chodolo, masturbation is not murder - that's potential human life; i am talking about real human life (i.e., sperm makign contact with egg).

By the way - 1,941 posts is a lot o' posts. :)

No, of course it wouldn't be alright, because you would be choosing to remove it, when, to the best of your knowledge, it would not survive elsewhere - you would be intentionally removing it from your body and thusly destroying it (I don't think that you presume it will prosper in the sewer).

Try to show some compassion. :)

Well Chodolo, masturbation is not murder - that's potential human life; i am talking about real human life (i.e., sperm makign contact with egg).
What is so significant about fertilization? What suddenly makes that cell a human being (completely equal in worth to a full grown adult, by your logic)? What reason at all can make that single cell equal to a thinking person?

Think about the cloning process...the nucleus of one cell removed, and a new nucleus implanted...how does this coincide with your theory?

Well, about the cloning - I tend to lean toward the direction that it is murder, because I believe in the existence of a soul; I will not say that it is or isn't murder, because I do not know that souls exist. Since the cloning process shows a cold lack of concern for human life, I would automatically be against it, however. But as to the specific process of removing the nucleus? I would have to say no, I am against it.

No, of course it wouldn't be alright, because you would be choosing to remove it, when, to the best of your knowledge, it would not survive elsewhere - you would be intentionally removing it from your body and thusly destroying it (I don't think that you presume it will prosper in the sewer).
So if you are giving an ill man a blood transfusion, it would be murder to sever the connection, because you know full well he will die without your body to live off of?

Try to show some compassion. :)
I am more apt to show compassion to a desperate woman with an unwanted pregnancy, than I am to show compassion to a single cell on a petri dish.

Anyone who believes that a zygote is not a human being deserves to be utterly ignored - just turn the lights off and walk out of the room.

Sying that a zygote is a human being is like saying that an egg is really a chicken; that vegitarians "logiacally" shouldnt eat eggs. Which reminds me: abortions are a way of life, whether you accept it or not. Certain animals will even eat their children POSTbirth. Gerbils eat their young when they sense disease in a child. It's for the better of the family.

what's significant about fertilization, is that before fertilization, the sperm can't become a fully grown human on its own, neither can the egg. After fetilization, provided that it gets the right nutrients, etc, etc it will grown and develop into a fully grown human

Frankletopia, may I remind you that we are not gerbils? May I also remind you that as nonsentient beings, gerbils have no conception of murder? That comment was really stupid, and it has nothing to do with abortion, nor does it make a point.

Well I am very apt not to show compassion to anyone who has had an abortion - a complete lack of it, I must say; resolute bitterness.

Frankletopia, may I remind you that we are not gerbils? May I also remind you that as nonsentient beings, gerbils have no conception of murder? That comment was really stupid, and it has nothing to do with abortion, nor does it make a point.


All animals (even non-human) are sentient. And for the record,most non-human mammals have been known to re-absorb abnormal fetii, miscarry, eat their own born young, or simply abandon it. Humans are no different when they neglect their own offspring and/or terminate a potentially-risky pregnancy. So yes, they did have a point and has everything to do with abortion.

I find it odd how people claim something is "unnatural" when non-human animals have been doing this sort of thing since the dawn of life on this earth.

what's significant about fertilization, is that before fertilization, the sperm can't become a fully grown human on its own, neither can the egg. After fetilization, provided that it gets the right nutrients, etc, etc it will grown and develop into a fully grown human
Wait. First you argue that a zygote is a human, then you argue that it will BECOME a human...?

Any cell in the human body can be cloned. So when does that become life? When the new nucleus is transplanted into the host cell? Also keep in mind that most clonings are not very successful, and top out somewhere between a blastula and an embryo. They just stop growing. So what do you do with a half-grown embryo?

I see no reason to treat any single cell as if it was a human being.

All animals (even non-human) are sentient. And for the record,most non-human mammals have been known to re-absorb abnormal fetii, miscarry, eat their own born young, or simply abandon it. Humans are no different when they neglect their own offspring and/or terminate a potentially-risky pregnancy. So yes, they did have a point and has everything to do with abortion.


humans have souls(if you belive in them) animals dont so animals dont ably to this fight

humans have souls(if you belive in them) animals dont so animals dont ably to this fight


Hey, if the existence of a soul unique to humans is to be the basis of our law, maybe we should start burning witches.

Since they have evil magic powers and all.

Im repeatedly astounded by the misogyny found here. What frustrates me is the constant ramblings that men should have a say in what a woman does with her own body.

Its her body, not yours... Men, how would you like a doctor to deny you a blood transfusion because the doctor is a jehovas witness (or which ever fundie religion doesnt believe in them) This is the same as what you are saying to the pregnant woman. She cannot do something because you oppose it.

If you are so forced-birth (i use this instead of pro life, because when questioned most of these people are also pro death penalty and war... not really consistant then are they) then dont have an abortion.

You dont have to have one if its not right for you, but you cant deny other people the right to decide what is the correct decision for them.

oh and what becomes of all the extra embryos created in IVF..... should we find wombs for them?

womans body = womans choice

oh and what becomes of all the extra embryos created in IVF..... should we find wombs for them?

womans body = womans choice



Indeed, outlawing abortion means (literally, not figuratively) binding a woman in chains and compelling her by force of arms to carry a pregnency to term and deliver it.

Wait. First you argue that a zygote is a human, then you argue that it will BECOME a human...?

Any cell in the human body can be cloned. So when does that become life? When the new nucleus is transplanted into the host cell? Also keep in mind that most clonings are not very successful, and top out somewhere between a blastula and an embryo. They just stop growing. So what do you do with a half-grown embryo?

I see no reason to treat any single cell as if it was a human being.

I didnt say that it will become a human, I said that it will become a fully grown human. My point was that before fertilization, there are not all the parts needed for it to be a human, after fertilization, there is, nothing else needs to be added for it to grow and develop.

Hey, if the existence of a soul unique to humans is to be the basis of our law, maybe we should start burning witches.

Since they have evil magic powers and all.
thats silly witches are still people so they have souls

abortion should be banned except when a threat occurs to the mothers very life, because if you do allow abortions some women will just say 'its okay, ill just have an abortion'

isnt there a way of taking out the baby and letting it mature in artifical conditions anyway? you know, for when a baby is too premature, besides they dont have to keep the baby do they?(probably depends on the country)


and at the very least, if abortions do have to happen(even though its wrong to kill a human being, no matter their level of development because your destroying a potential life, like going back in time and saying its allright to destroy all forests if you destroyed all the seeds.) then they shouldnt throw it out, they should use the embryo for stem cell research. (they probably do do this in someplaces though..)

anyway, killing a potential life just because its not yet had any brain activity is OK? im sorry, but thats too cold for me.

humans have souls(if you belive in them) animals dont so animals dont ably to this fight

So you're telling me my cats are just a bunch of lifeless furballs then? Nice to see human elitism still exists alive and well. /sarcasm

Animals DO have souls, and they DO have a level of intelligence and awareness, much more than humans at times. You can NOT just sit there and say to me that my cat has the personality of a paperclip when she doesn't. Far from it.

It's relevant because no matter how much humans like to say they're the superior species, they still end up acting like animals at times. Why? Because when it all boils down to it, we ARE animals. We just simply have the power to reason that animals generally don't.

It's also relevant because of what I've mentioned about non-human mammals re-absorbing abnormal fetii and spontaneously aborting their pregnancies naturally. If you're going to call abortion murder, then you might as well consider natural miscarraige or menstration murder as well.

I say if a pregnancy is not meant to be, then it's not meant to be. Whether it's terminated naturally or not.

(And for the record I'm not one of those animal rights nutbars. )

So you're telling me my cats are just a bunch of lifeless furballs then? Nice to see human elitism still exists alive and well. /sarcasm

Animals DO have souls, and they DO have a level of intelligence and awareness, much more than humans at times. You can NOT just sit there and say to me that my cat has the personality of a paperclip when she doesn't. Far from it.

It's relevant because no matter how much humans like to say they're the superior species, they still end up acting like animals at times. Why? Because when it all boils down to it, we ARE animals. We just simply have the power to reason that animals generally don't.

It's also relevant because of what I've mentioned about non-human mammals re-absorbing abnormal fetii and spontaneously aborting their pregnancies naturally. If you're going to call abortion murder, then you might as well consider natural miscarraige or menstration murder as well.

I say if a pregnancy is not meant to be...than it's not meant to be. Whether it's terminated naturally or not.

(And for the record I'm not one of those animal rights nutbars. I'm for animal welfare, yes, and I do believe that animals have souls, just as humans do, but seriously...think about it, people. If it happens in Nature, what's "unnatural" about it?)

Personality does not equal soul god created humans as the only being with souls

The way I see it, there should be two sides. Abortion should be legal, but there should be a lot more education to stop the necessity of it. Stop THIS: :fluffle: ! Too much too far is too bad.

I didnt say that it will become a human, I said that it will become a fully grown human. My point was that before fertilization, there are not all the parts needed for it to be a human, after fertilization, there is, nothing else needs to be added for it to grow and develop.
I still don't see why having "the parts" needed to make a human is significant. How can that single cell be human life when it is no more active than any other cell in the human body?

We just simply have the power to reason that animals generally don't.
That's the important thing. Zygotes cannot reason (heck, they don't even have brains!)

abortion should be banned except when a threat occurs to the mothers very life, because if you do allow abortions some women will just say 'its okay, ill just have an abortion'
How about rape?

The way I see it, there should be two sides. Abortion should be legal, but there should be a lot more education to stop the necessity of it. Stop THIS: :fluffle: ! Too much too far is too bad.
Nah, sex is good. What should happen is more access to contraception, including insurance covering the birth control pill (seeing as how insurance covers Viagra, they can add the pill to their list). More education in the public schools, condoms given out, thrown out in bundles to the students.

Sex is a great thing, the threat of pregnancy should never be used as a weapon.

Personality does not equal soul god created humans as the only being with souls

I don't believe in your God (as I'm pagan), number one, and number two, personality, brains, and living means there is a sentient soul there, human or animal.

That does not mean that I believe that a zygote/embryo has brains or personality. They don't and therefore aren't sentient lifeforms yet. Their fate can (and should) only be determined by Nature and/or the females who host them.

How about rape?

i dont think abortion should be allowed there... im sorry, but is it really the babys fault? i dont think we should FORCE the mother to take care of the child... just give it a chance, im sure there will be plenty of good people born of rape conception, its just like if we killed everyone with birth defects... our poetry and music would be less big if we did that.

i dont think abortion should be allowed there... im sorry, but is it really the babys fault? i dont think we should FORCE the mother to take care of the child... just give it a chance, im sure there will be plenty of good people born of rape conception, its just like if we killed everyone with birth defects... our poetry and music would be less big if we did that.
You would force a raped 12 year old girl to carry a baby to term? Drop out of school, experience excrutiating pain, damaging her reproductive system, destroying her hopes and dreams?

That's sick.

i dont think abortion should be allowed there... im sorry, but is it really the babys fault? i dont think we should FORCE the mother to take care of the child... just give it a chance, im sure there will be plenty of good people born of rape conception, its just like if we killed everyone with birth defects... our poetry and music would be less big if we did that.


So the woman should face a further violation and invasion of her body? If she can carry a rape-based pregnancy to term, more power to her. But if she's going to suffer mental/physical health issues because of it, then she should be allowed to abort.

I once had a friend of a friend who was the product of rape. He felt very guilty about it, even suffered from depression, even though it wasn't his fault. Do you think that's fair to place that undo burden on some poor kid if they were conceived that way?

If the pregnancy wasn't wanted to begin with, do you think it's fair if a child is born in an environment where it's abused/neglected?

I don't believe in your God (as I'm pagan), number one, and number two, personality, brains, and living means there is a sentient soul there, human or animal.


in your opinion

no, i wouldnt kill a child because a 12 year old girl got raped.

edit: there are threats to a 12 year olds reproductive system? hm, i didnt know that, im not sure about when it causes damage... but if the baby would be no problems then why not?

I once had a friend of a friend who was the product of rape. He felt very guilty about it, even suffered from depression, even though it wasn't his fault. Do you think that's fair to place that undo burden on some poor kid if they were conceived that way?

well, what about someone who killed their mother being born? should we put them outta their misery?



Double edit: i dont think its right to force the mother to take care of the child, the baby can be put in an orphanage, thats not very nice, but its better than no chance...

no, i wouldnt kill a child because a 12 year old girl got raped.

edit: there are threats to a 12 year olds reproductive system? hm, i didnt know that, im not sure about when it causes damage... but if the baby would be no problems then why not?

Yes, pregnancy CAN cause damage in certain women and girls. It's not one of those things where it's a "minor inconvenience" all the time. I have a cousin who was violently ill throughout all three of her pregnancies and after the third had her hubby sterilized so she wouldn't go through that again.


well, what about someone who killed their mother being born? should we put them outta their misery?

If the pregnancy is a serious threat to a woman's life, then it can't stay there and it's too much to expect that a woman would keep it.

If the woman chose to keep the high-risk pregnancy anyways, and the baby is born and the mother dies, who is going to be around for that baby? It would grow up without a mother and to me, that is selfishness in itself to have a child grow up motherless, especially if it was wanted.

This is not the Dark Ages where women died giving birth in appalling rates because that was an age where women were nothing less than property of their husbands and had no control over their bodies. Would you prefer it if we went back to that? Personally, I'd rather live than give birth, but that's just me.



Double edit: i dont think its right to force the mother to take care of the child, the baby can be put in an orphanage, thats not very nice, but its better than no chance...

It's not right to force a woman to go through a pregnancy that she does not want. Period. The human race will not die out because of a few aborted fetii and women are human beings and should be treated as such. By saying women must be forced to bear a pregnancy, you are reducing them to the role of incubator, thereby denying them their basic human rights and humanity. Again, this is the 21st century, not the Dark Ages.

Instead of focusing so much on the pre-born, why don't you start worrying about the already-born? There are plenty of unwanted kids in the world who need good homes, why bring more into this world?

in your opinion

It's not opinion to say that animals have souls and personality. They are living, breathing, intelligent creatures too. They may not have the power of reason and logic that we do, but that doesn't mean they lack sentience or soul.

:fluffle: It is this simple. If you are so irresponsible as to have sex young and outside of wedlock, then the RESPONSIBLE thing to do would be to give up the child to an adoption clinic. If you truly believed in Human Rights, then you would believe in the human rights of the unborn. LIFE, liberty and the persuit of happiness. It is no mistake that John Locke and Thomas Jefferson put that phrase in that order, because you can't have the other two without first having life. A human is a human is a human is a human; NO MATTER WHAT STAGE, AGE, LEVEL OF INTELLIGENCE, OR DEPENDENCY.

Come on, we've all had Biology before. Surely you all know that life begins as soon as the sperm enters the egg. Duh.
The parents have no more right to terminate the life of their child than anybody has to kill anyone else. It doesn't matter where you come from, what religion you believe in your what culture customs you practice, THE RIGHT TO LIFE IS UNIVERSAL!!!

Besides we've heard of this arguement before. When Hitler wanted to kill the Jews he classified them as NON-HUMAN. When the South wanted to keep their slaves they classified the blacks as NON-HUMAN. Are we really going to go back the times of the Roman Empire when a father could kill his children if he thought they disgraced the family honor?

And quite simply, who kicked God off the throne and gave you the power to decide who lives and dies?