NationStates Jolt Archive

This topic seems to spark some of the hottest flames on this forum, so I felt a need to ease some tensions and to push both sides to work toward common ground. I wrote these two (far-fetched) case scenarios, which I hope will start the reach for happy compromise. Please try to stay civil with your responses.

Read this if you are pro-choice/anti-life...
A healthy woman is in her ninth month of a healthy pregnancy. After reviewing a DNA test, her doctor has told her that the baby will most likely have brown eyes. She does not like brown eyes because they are not "perfect" enough. She then decides that she no longer wants the brown-eyed baby and would like to try again until she has a hazel-eyed baby. When she goes home to discuss her decision with the father-to-be, she suddenly goes into labor. She grabs a nearby utility knife and holds it inside her so that the baby's head is dashed apart before it can emerge.

Read this if you are pro-life/anti-choice...
A 17-year-old woman is raped by her brother. Her mother tells her to have the baby anyway. Her doctor tells her that the inbred baby will have several severe birth defects. It soon becomes apparent that the baby is anencephalic (has no head) and that the baby's shoulders are so disproportionally wide that giving birth - even having a C. Section - will kill her.

Read this if you are pro-life/anti-choice...
A 17-year-old woman is raped by her brother. Her mother tells her to have the baby anyway. Her doctor tells her that the inbred baby will have several severe birth defects. It soon becomes apparent that the baby is anencephalic (has no head) and that the baby's shoulders are so disproportionally wide that giving birth - even having a C. Section - will kill her.

though phisicaly imposible.......if such a scenario were to occure we turn to the Church who tells us that if both the mother and the child are going to die than you might aswell save the mother

though phisicaly imposible.......if such a scenario were to occure we turn to the Church who tells us that if both the mother and the child are going to die than you might aswell save the mother
actually if i recall thats not the catholic chruch's position.. then agian i wasnt paying much attention, i found bugs in the grass far more itnerestign than sunday school

Read this if you are pro-choice/anti-life...
A healthy woman is in her ninth month of a healthy pregnancy. After reviewing a DNA test, her doctor has told her that the baby will most likely have brown eyes. She does not like brown eyes because they are not "perfect" enough. She then decides that she no longer wants the brown-eyed baby and would like to try again until she has a hazel-eyed baby. When she goes home to discuss her decision with the father-to-be, she suddenly goes into labor. She grabs a nearby utility knife and holds it inside her so that the baby's head is dashed apart before it can emerge.




What in god's name does that little ditty of an anecdote have to do with abortion or the abortion debate?

I have never seen "Abortion" and "Common Ground" in the same sentence before.

though phisicaly imposible.......if such a scenario were to occure we turn to the Church who tells us that if both the mother and the child are going to die than you might aswell save the mother

I'm pretty sure that the Pope has been taking steps to canonize a woman who wanted to have her baby even though she knew it would probably kill her.

I have never seen "Abortion" and "Common Ground" in the same sentence before.

...nor have I. But I think that we can find some. It's usually only those who have strong beliefs one way or the other who talk about it.

Read this if you are pro-choice/anti-life...
A healthy woman is in her ninth month of a healthy pregnancy. After reviewing a DNA test, her doctor has told her that the baby will most likely have brown eyes. She does not like brown eyes because they are not "perfect" enough. She then decides that she no longer wants the brown-eyed baby and would like to try again until she has a hazel-eyed baby. When she goes home to discuss her decision with the father-to-be, she suddenly goes into labor. She grabs a nearby utility knife and holds it inside her so that the baby's head is dashed apart before it can emerge.

You do of course realize that she or her mate would have had to have brown eyes in order for this scenario to happen. If she felt that eye color was so important than she wouldn’t have had been involved with a brown eyed man. Therefore, in all likelihood, leaving her to be the one with brown eyes. Thus making her a self hating brown eye. Why would she even want to have children to begin with knowing that there is the possibility that she will have a brown eye child?

Abortions for some...miniature american flags for others!

I'm pretty sure that the Pope has been taking steps to canonize a woman who wanted to have her baby even though she knew it would probably kill her.

indeed he has, but while he has commended her for the noble action to sacraficing her life for her child's he has not made this Church policy

if the birth of the Child will kill the mother its a choice between two lives

I'd say that "wisely" used abortions are best. But in my opinion it is far better to prevent such a situation with the use of contraceptives. Even in rape cases, the pill will stop a pregnancy.

You do of course realize that she or her mate would have had to have brown eyes in order for this scenario to happen. If she felt that eye color was so important than she wouldn’t have had been involved with a brown eyed man. Therefore, in all likelihood, leaving her to be the one with brown eyes. Thus making her a self hating brown eye. Why would she even want to have children to begin with knowing that there is the possibility that she will have a brown eye child?
um wrong ...

(sorry dont mean to be abrupt) blue and brown have a swapping resessive/dominant relationships

and if both parents have combine two recessive traits it will happen

with two brown eyed parents ... if they both have the blue eyed recessive there is a 1/4 chance of the kid having blue eye
with two brown eyed parents ... roughly because of the swaping of dominance

so theroredicaly they could have a brown resessive (not likly but it happens)

so the cube would look like

dd dr
rd rr

where there is rr there is two recessive combinations

so there is a chance
(10th grade biology)

You do of course realize that she or her mate would have had to have brown eyes in order for this scenario to happen. If she felt that eye color was so important than she wouldn’t have had been involved with a brown eyed man. Therefore, in all likelihood, leaving her to be the one with brown eyes. Thus making her a self hating brown eye. Why would she even want to have children to begin with knowing that there is the possibility that she will have a brown eye child?

I included this on purpose. This is what I call a "cosmetic abortion." Parents usually want their children to be better than they are so that they can have pride in their progeny (or possibly money in old age if the betterness leads to material success). I wanted to pose the question of whether it is okay to abort a baby simply because you want to "purify" the next generation. Would a pure generation discriminate against us, the imperfect?

Also, not every parent is smart enough to know the rules of heredity.

declaring myself to be mostly pro-choice/anti-life, I would argue that the scenario presented above doesn't reflect a true abortion scenario, being in the eight or ninth month - very very late in the pregnancy.

Regardless, I would argue that abortion in the first trimester (first three months) should be legal. Later than this is a basis for medical and moral discussion that I wouldn't claim to have the knowledge to hold a valid position on.

indeed he has, but while he has commended her for the noble action to sacraficing her life for her child's he has not made this Church policy

if the birth of the Child will kill the mother its a choice between two lives

I'm pretty sure that according to Catholic teaching, we cannot be absolutely certain that giving birth will kill the mother, in any situation. After all, miracles (according to the Catholic Church) have happened before. We do know that if the baby is aborted, it will die. Therefore, i'm pretty sure the Church's stance would still be against abortion.

I included this on purpose. This is what I call a "cosmetic abortion." Parents usually want their children to be better than they are so that they can have pride in their progeny (or possibly money in old age if the betterness leads to material success). I wanted to pose the question of whether it is okay to abort a baby simply because you want to "purify" the next generation. Would a pure generation discriminate against us, the imperfect?

Also, not every parent is smart enough to know the rules of inheritance.

If you're going to go through all that trouble, why not just make everyone take an intelligence/common sense test at, say age 12 and sterilize those that fail? Then, even if people are reproducing when you don't want them to, at least they are the cream of the generation.

declaring myself to be mostly pro-choice/anti-life, I would argue that the scenario presented above doesn't reflect a true abortion scenario, being in the eight or ninth month - very very late in the pregnancy.

Regardless, I would argue that abortion in the first trimester (first three months) should be legal. Later than this is a basis for medical and moral discussion that I wouldn't claim to have the knowledge to hold a valid position on.
though the arguement that goes with that is why that line? after that is it too "baby like" to kill?

I mean I understand dont get me wrong but why the arbitrary line? even after that the baby dosent hold all the abilitys to sell suport so can be argued not a independent entity

on the other side it has a lot of its life functions before that too ... from brain activity to movement

so why that line?

If you're going to go through all that trouble, why not just make everyone take an intelligence/common sense test at, say age 12 and sterilize those that fail? Then, even if people are reproducing when you don't want them to, at least they are the cream of the generation.

That'd better be a sarcastic reductio ad absurdum. It's not the government's job to regulate my testicular functions.

Read this if you are pro-choice/anti-life...
A healthy woman is in her ninth month of a healthy pregnancy. After reviewing a DNA test, her doctor has told her that the baby will most likely have brown eyes. She does not like brown eyes because they are not "perfect" enough. She then decides that she no longer wants the brown-eyed baby and would like to try again until she has a hazel-eyed baby. When she goes home to discuss her decision with the father-to-be, she suddenly goes into labor. She grabs a nearby utility knife and holds it inside her so that the baby's head is dashed apart before it can emerge.

1. anti-life is not really the correct term at any rate.
2. elective abortions aren't permitted into the third trimester.

though the arguement that goes with that is why that line? after that is it too "baby like" to kill?

I mean I understand dont get me wrong but why the arbitrary line? even after that the baby dosent hold all the abilitys to sell suport so can be argued not a independent entity

on the other side it has a lot of its life functions before that too ... from brain activity to movement

so why that line?
brain activity begins at 20 weeks.
at that point, it starts to qualify as an organism.
at that point, it is illegal to abort electively.

elective abortions aren't permitted into the third trimester.

This thread isn't about the current laws. It's about the gashed-apart attitudes of the pro-life and pro-choice groups and the mending thereof.

My inclusion of the disrespectful terms anti-choice and anti-life were to emphasize both the unnecessary flaming and the certain amount of "evil" in either position. This is, sorrowfully, one of the most difficult issues ever to consider because both life and liberty (choice) are two of our three founding principles, our "unalienable rights."

I'm pretty sure that according to Catholic teaching, we cannot be absolutely certain that giving birth will kill the mother, in any situation. After all, miracles (according to the Catholic Church) have happened before. We do know that if the baby is aborted, it will die. Therefore, i'm pretty sure the Church's stance would still be against abortion.
it is. they're making a woman who died in labour after being advised to abort a saint.

it's kinda funny... she had 5 kids, that was her 6th... she left 5 kids without a mother... and they're making her a saint for it.

brain activity begins at 20 weeks.
at that point, it starts to qualify as an organism.
at that point, it is illegal to abort electively.
Hmmm well the only fetal development breakdown that I could find only marked “increased brain activity” not the initiation of it

The following list describes specific changes by week.
• Week 3
o beginning development of the brain, spinal cord, and heart
o beginning development of the gastrointestinal tract
• Weeks 4 to 5
o formation of tissue that develops into the vertebra and some other bones
o further development of the heart which now beats at a regular rhythm
o movement of rudimentary blood through the main vessels
o beginning of the structures of the eye and ears
o the brain develops into five areas and some cranial nerves are visible
o arm and leg buds are visible
• Week 6
o beginning of formation of the lungs
o further development of the brain
o arms and legs have lengthened with foot and hand areas distinguishable
o hands and feet have digits, but may still be webbed
• Week 7
o nipples and hair follicles form
o elbows and toes visible
o all essential organs have at least begun to form
• Week 8
o rotation of intestines
o facial features continue to develop
o the eyelids are more developed
o the external features of the ear begin to take their final shape
The end of the eighth week marks the end of the "embryonic period" and the beginning of the "fetal period".
• Weeks 9 to 12
o the fetus reaches a length of 3.2 inches
o the head comprises nearly half of the fetus' size
o the face is well formed
o eyelids close and will not reopen until about the 28th week
o tooth buds appear for the baby teeth
o limbs are long and thin
o the fetus can make a fist with its fingers
o genitals appear well differentiated
o red blood cells are produced in the liver
• Weeks 13 to 16
o the fetus reaches a length of about 6 inches
o a fine hair develops on the head called lanugo
o fetal skin is almost transparent
o more muscle tissue and bones have developed, and the bones become harder
o the fetus makes active movements
o sucking motions are made with the mouth
o meconium is made in the intestinal tract
o the liver and pancreas produce their appropriate fluid secretions
• Week 20
o the fetus reaches a length of 8 inches
o lanugo hair covers entire body
o eyebrows and lashes appear
o nails appear on fingers and toes
o the fetus is more active with increased muscle development
o "quickening" usually occurs (the mother can feel the fetus moving)
o fetal heartbeat can be heard with a stethoscope
• Week 24
o the fetus reaches a length of 11.2 inches
o the fetus weighs about 1 lb. 10 oz.
o eyebrows and eyelashes are well formed
o all the eye components are developed
o the fetus has a hand and startle reflex
o footprints and fingerprints forming
o alveoli (air sacs) forming in lungs
• Weeks 25 to 28
o the fetus reaches a length of 15 inches
o the fetus weighs about 2 lbs. 11 oz.
o rapid brain development
o nervous system developed enough to control some body functions
o eyelids open and close
o respiratory system, while immature, has developed to the point where gas exchange is possible
o a baby born at this time may survive, but the possibilities for complications and death remain high
• Weeks 29 to 32
o the fetus reaches a length of about 15-17 inches
o the fetus weighs about 4 lbs. 6 oz.
o rapid increase in the amount of body fat
o rhythmic breathing movements occur, but lungs are not fully mature
o bones are fully developed, but still soft and pliable
o fetus begins storing iron, calcium, and phosphorus
• Week 36
o the fetus reaches a length of about 16-19 inches
o the fetus weighs about 5 lbs. 12 oz. to 6 lbs. 12 oz.
o lanugo begins to disappear
o increase in body fat
o fingernails reach the end of the fingertips
o a baby born at 36 weeks has a high chance of survival, but may require some medical interventions
• Weeks 37 to 40
o considered full-term at 37 weeks
o may be 19 to 21 inches in length
o lanugo is gone except for on the upper arms and shoulders
o fingernails extend beyond fingertips
o small breast buds are present on both sexes
o head hair is now coarse and thicker

This thread isn't about the current laws. It's about the gashed-apart attitudes of the pro-life and pro-choice groups and the mending thereof.

My inclusion of the disrespectful terms anti-choice and anti-life were to emphasize both the unnecessary flaming and the certain amount of "evil" in either position. This is, sorrowfully, one of the most difficult issues ever to consider because both life and liberty (choice) are two of our three founding principles, our "unalienable rights."
the thing is that your scenario isn't even an abortion.

labour occured, it's on its way out and she kills it. that's not even a partial birth abortion, wherein labour is induced before 9 months.

also, i'm not american... so i don't have the same unalienable rights defined on a piece of paper by guys who thought it was ok to have black slaves...

and at any rate, they don't really do amniocentesis for eye colour. i doubt they will either. that seems rather silly.

1. anti-life is not really the correct term at any rate.


Neither is anti-choice. Deal with it.

it is. they're making a woman who died in labour after being advised to abort a saint.

it's kinda funny... she had 5 kids, that was her 6th... she left 5 kids without a mother... and they're making her a saint for it.

Well, she is a form of martyr.

Neither is anti-choice. Deal with it.
anti-choice is a better term for it than pro-life.

you're against a woman's choice about what happens in her own body.

i mean are the so called pro-life people who support capital punishment and pointless, useless wars really pro-life?

although the best term is anti-abortion, i think. (the reverse doesn't apply to pro-choice though, as there is a difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion)

Well, she is a form of martyr.
have you heard the "miracles" they're attributing to her though? it's rediculous.

Read this if you are pro-choice/anti-life...
A healthy woman is in her ninth month of a healthy pregnancy. After reviewing a DNA test, her doctor has told her that the baby will most likely have brown eyes. She does not like brown eyes because they are not "perfect" enough. She then decides that she no longer wants the brown-eyed baby and would like to try again until she has a hazel-eyed baby. When she goes home to discuss her decision with the father-to-be, she suddenly goes into labor. She grabs a nearby utility knife and holds it inside her so that the baby's head is dashed apart before it can emerge.


:eek: thats ridiculous, im not sure i even believe it! where did you find that?

anyways, im mostly pro-life. i believe that the fetus is a living person and should be respected as such and given the oppurtunity of life. however in special situations such as rape, and when the mother's life is in danger, abortion should be an option.

The pro-life argument that bothers me most is the anti-Communist one, and I am glad to see that it hasn't really come up yet. For the sake of providing as much information as possible, I will tell you about it anyway.

Communism, in the Soviet sense, was pro-choice. The consolidation of the Communist state was ultimately the most important. So, if raising a family meant that you could not fulfill your communal obligation, than it would be better not to have babies in the first place. Despite the many secret religious practices, Soviets were supposed to be atheists, so religion did not interfere at all with the reasoning.

Some say that to be pro-choice means to be a "godless commie bastard." Please, don't support one policy just because you don't like the people who support the opposing policy (or just because your religion told you so). This also applies to those who are pro-choice simply because they hate the militant pro-life group that bombs abortion clinics.

:eek: thats ridiculous, im not sure i even believe it! where did you find that?

anyways, im mostly pro-life. i believe that the fetus is a living person and should be respected as such and given the oppurtunity of life. however in special situations such as rape, and when the mother's life is in danger, abortion should be an option.
Doesn’t have to be real as with the pro choice read thing it is made up exaggeration to make people think (combine that with camels nose or slippery slope argument syle)

:eek: thats ridiculous, im not sure i even believe it! where did you find that?

:rolleyes: I didn't find it. I made it up. It's meant to be farfetched yet still be possible.

ooh i see haha... makes more sense now. i think the other story was a lot more believable

This also applies to those who are pro-choice simply because they hate the militant pro-life group that bombs abortion clinics.

wtf?

She should still pick life.....Just cause the kid appears to have no head and is inbred "don't mean nuthin", we have lots of those types of pregnancy's here in the Ozark Mountains. LOL....surprisingly they do in fact live most of the time and they ussually drive older model pick-up trucks with dogs in the back and 2 large CB whip antenna's held on by rust and bondo. Of corse these fine men have wonderful names such as "Bubba", "Billy Bob" or "Junior" and these model citizens are good for the economy with all of their illegal Meth labs and moonshine stills. So, as I said, HAVE the child!!!

wtf?

OOPS
I'm sorry I didn't make that clear...

I mean that people shouldn't be pro-choice just because they disagree with the very small minority of pro-life supporters who engage in such actions. This would be unjustifiably generalizing that all pro-life supporters agree with abortion-clinic bombing.

I mean that people shouldn't be pro-choice just because they disagree with the very small minority of pro-life supporters who engage in such actions. This would be unjustifiably be generalizing that all pro-life supporters agree with abortion-clinic bombing.
i somehow doubt such people exist.

either they don't care either way (which is pretty much pro-choice anyways) or they give a shit and are pro-choice.

i don't think someone is going to be slightly anti-abortion and see someone bomb an abortion clinic and suddenly change their minds about it.

OOPS
I'm sorry I didn't make that clear...

I mean that people shouldn't be pro-choice just because they disagree with the very small minority of pro-life supporters who engage in such actions. This would be unjustifiably generalizing that all pro-life supporters agree with abortion-clinic bombing.

It would also be avoiding the actual issue entirely. Is it okay to give women the option of having abortions? Saying that it is okay because those who say otherwise go on bombing sprees is simply a "red herring fallacy."

i somehow doubt such people exist.

either they don't care either way (which is pretty much pro-choice anyways) or they give a shit and are pro-choice.

i don't think someone is going to be slightly anti-abortion and see someone bomb an abortion clinic and suddenly change their minds about it.

Such people do exist. It's a shame that such people can't deliberate over the real issue involved. I have personally heard this argument very often, much more than the anti-Communist argument on the pro-life side. But thankfully most people aren't this weak-minded.

It would also be avoiding the actual issue entirely. Is it okay to give women the option of having abortions? Saying that it is okay because those who say otherwise go on bombing sprees is simply a "red herring fallacy."
that's rediculous though.

i don't think anyone is pro-choice because of this. they may point out pro-lifers bombing abortion clinics as hypocicy in the pro-life movement... but that's not saying that they made their choice because of it.

seriously, find me one person who is pro-choice because they don't like specific anti abortionists.

OK - How about this for a scenario?

A woman I know personally was pregnant with her second child. The first child has a few behavioural issues but otherwise seems a "normal" enough kid. Not super intelligent, but not a moron either. The woman's sister, however, has two children - one with ADHD and several learning disabilities and the younger has cru de chat syndrome - serious developmental disabilities including things like not able to be toilet trained until 9 or 10, not able to talk or communicate easily. This child will need constant care for the rest of his life.

Anyway, the pregnant woman went for an ultrasound at about 10 weeks and the results showed cellular configurations that nobody, even the senior doctors had ever seen before but that seemed to indicate another child with serious deformities/disabilities.

Against advice from everybody - the medical staff, her family and friends - the woman planned to continue with her pregnancy. Fortunately (from my point of view, I hate the thought of a child suffering) nature, her body or just circumstance took over and she miscarried. Now she says that after seeing what her sister has to do for her younger child every day and how little support there is, she may have been making a poor decision when she decided to "keep" the baby.

Given the seriousness of the problems this child would certainly have if it even survived its first day as well as the obvious issues with the genetics of the family- what would you, personally do?

Me, I admit I'm selfish enough to not want to see a child of mine suffer like I've seen others do so my inclination would be to follow the medical advice.


As for the question of a cutoff point, I see it as a fairly subjective concept. Everyone has their own idea of when it should be. Mine is if the child can survive outside the womb without extensive life support, then it is too late for an abortion. The earliest premie I have heard of surviving (although with serious disabilities including blindness, deafness and respiritory illness) was about 27 weeks, I think. So I would feel very uncomfortable with a termination after 23 weeks or so.

That said, there was a terrible case in Melbourne a few years ago, where a woman with a perfectly healthy (approx) 8 month pregnancy was granted approval for an abortion because the idea of parenthood was making her suicidal. Less than 6 weeks before term, this baby was aborted. IMO, she could have been sedated/committed/whatever under supervision and then the baby could have been adopted out, fostered or anything.

To me this was a really bad decision on the part of the authorities which should never have been made.

I suppose you could say I am pro life and pro choice. I believe the two can exist in one person, just not politically. Maybe I'm just confused :confused:

I'd say that "wisely" used abortions are best. But in my opinion it is far better to prevent such a situation with the use of contraceptives. Even in rape cases, the pill will stop a pregnancy.
I think we ALL should be able to agree on this. This opposition to the abortion pill (morning-after pill) drives me insane. We ALL want less abortions. Safe, legal, but rare. The way to this is contraceptives, birth control pills, and morning after pills. If our legislators had a shred of common sense fetal abortion would only be used in extreme cases such as sudden threats to the mother, because unwanted pregnancies wouldn't get that far! The conservative sexual movement is entirely self-defeating.

Hmmm well the only fetal development breakdown that I could find only marked “increased brain activity” not the initiation of it

Put it this way, there is no fetus-initiated movement, and hence no true response to external stimuli until the time of the "quickening" - roughly the end of the first trimester.

This is (a) the point at which you may refer to the fetus as a separate organism - as it now meets all the requirements thereof and (b) the point in nearly every state at which elective abortions are not allowed.

I think we ALL should be able to agree on this. This opposition to the abortion pill (morning-after pill) drives me insane. We ALL want less abortions. Safe, legal, but rare. The way to this is contraceptives, birth control pills, and morning after pills. If our legislators had a shred of common sense fetal abortion would only be used in extreme cases such as sudden threats to the mother, because unwanted pregnancies wouldn't get that far! The conservative sexual movement is entirely self-defeating.

Of course, the fact that the "religious right" pushed through a law making it impossible to fire pharmacists that refuse to give out contraceptives and hold a woman's prescription for them hostage - I think it is clear that all people *do not* agree on it.

This topic seems to spark some of the hottest flames on this forum, so I felt a need to ease some tensions and to push both sides to work toward common ground. I wrote these two (far-fetched) case scenarios, which I hope will start the reach for happy compromise. Please try to stay civil with your responses.

Read this if you are pro-choice/anti-life...
A healthy woman is in her ninth month of a healthy pregnancy. After reviewing a DNA test, her doctor has told her that the baby will most likely have brown eyes. She does not like brown eyes because they are not "perfect" enough. She then decides that she no longer wants the brown-eyed baby and would like to try again until she has a hazel-eyed baby. When she goes home to discuss her decision with the father-to-be, she suddenly goes into labor. She grabs a nearby utility knife and holds it inside her so that the baby's head is dashed apart before it can emerge.
.
Actually Abortion debate is that others besides the mother cannot commit abortion. Its not about whether a woman can do it herself. Its the fact that others should not be involved. But I support her right to do the abortion herself. If anyone else did it legally its against the law.


Read this if you are pro-life/anti-choice...
A 17-year-old woman is raped by her brother. Her mother tells her to have the baby anyway. Her doctor tells her that the inbred baby will have several severe birth defects. It soon becomes apparent that the baby is anencephalic (has no head) and that the baby's shoulders are so disproportionally wide that giving birth - even having a C. Section - will kill her.
In this case few will say we cannot do an abortion to save the mother. Some extremeist might say we should try to save the child anyway , but no one else.

Actually Abortion debate is that others besides the mother cannot commit abortion. Its not about whether a woman can do it herself. Its the fact that others should not be involved. But I support her right to do the abortion herself. If anyone else did it legally its against the law.

snip

This is one of the things I don’t quite agree with … I understand it is the woman’s body but the father should have some say in the matter … it is his “kid” too

In the UK abortion regardless of circumstances with the consent of a doctor is legal up to 26 weeks.

Abortion is legal even during birth if it is necessary to protect the life of the mother.

This is the right approach I am convinced of this, religon has no place in medicine.

-

The first instance is ridiculas... and is legally infantocide and a crime. Pandering to ignorant pro-life propaganda.

-

Women have the RIGHT to choose - the chruch should not interfer and if it does... the state should break it :)

This is one of the things I don’t quite agree with … I understand it is the woman’s body but the father should have some say in the matter … it is his “kid” too

Unless you support slavery, the ultimate decision must always be that of the woman.

Unless you support slavery, the ultimate decision must always be that of the woman.
Lol because obviously giving some decision making capability to the male he does have a stake in it too

I understand the woman’s right to body don’t get me wrong
(oh and I love you throwing around emotionally loaded words for something that doesn’t “Quite” fit into that category)

But he has an emotional and biological stake in it all too

Lol because obviously giving some decision making capability to the male he does have a stake in it too

I understand the woman’s right to body don’t get me wrong
(oh and I love you throwing around emotionally loaded words for something that doesn’t “Quite” fit into that category)

But he has an emotional and biological stake in it all too

It absolutely fits the category. One person having control over the body of another is the very definition of slavery.

While I agree that the woman should certainly listen to the man's opinion on the situation, the man does not have to put himself in physical danger in any way. There are equal emotional dangers for both, and only the woman has physical dangers and has to have her body permanently altered. Therefore, the ultimate decision is the female's. Period. Anything else gives a man the right to a woman's body - which is slavery, plain and simple.

It absolutely fits the category. One person having control over the body of another is the very definition of slavery.

While I agree that the woman should certainly listen to the man's opinion on the situation, the man does not have to put himself in physical danger in any way. There are equal emotional dangers for both, and only the woman has physical dangers and has to have her body permanently altered. Therefore, the ultimate decision is the female's. Period. Anything else gives a man the right to a woman's body - which is slavery, plain and simple.
Doesn’t quite fit the “Bound of servitude” normally classified as slavery which is normally defined by a control of all aspects of their life (the one decision may EFFECT all aspects) but that is not the same

I would classify it as something else personally but I not going to get into this too deeply because neither of us are equipped and both a little entrenched ;) so good day

Doesn’t quite fit the “Bound of servitude” normally classified as slavery which is normally defined by a control of all aspects of their life (the one decision may EFFECT all aspects) but that is not the same

I would classify it as something else personally but I not going to get into this too deeply because neither of us are equipped and both a little entrenched ;) so good day

What do *you* call it when one person has control over another person's body?

What do *you* call it when one person has control over another person's body?
I call it a special case situation … at least when it comes along with “potential” for life or fetus or whatever you call it

I think it personally is too out there for it to be shoehorned into another term … but that’s me

This topic seems to spark some of the hottest flames on this forum, so I felt a need to ease some tensions and to push both sides to work toward common ground. I wrote these two (far-fetched) case scenarios, which I hope will start the reach for happy compromise. Please try to stay civil with your responses.

Read this if you are pro-choice/anti-life...
A healthy woman is in her ninth month of a healthy pregnancy. After reviewing a DNA test, her doctor has told her that the baby will most likely have brown eyes. She does not like brown eyes because they are not "perfect" enough. She then decides that she no longer wants the brown-eyed baby and would like to try again until she has a hazel-eyed baby. When she goes home to discuss her decision with the father-to-be, she suddenly goes into labor. She grabs a nearby utility knife and holds it inside her so that the baby's head is dashed apart before it can emerge.

what's your point? that example has nothing to do with my pro-choice stance.

I call it a special case situation … at least when it comes along with “potential” for life or fetus or whatever you call it

I think it personally is too out there for it to be shoehorned into another term … but that’s me

Which would amount to "slavery is wrong, except in this special case that we will call something else to make it sound nice." It's exactly like saying "torture is wrong, unless you think you really, really, really need that information. Then go ahead and torture away!"

*shrug* It's your opinion, but no one else will ever get rights to my body without my express permission - luckily, my boyfriend isn't the type who would ever try.

This is one of the things I don’t quite agree with … I understand it is the woman’s body but the father should have some say in the matter … it is his “kid” too
the father has the right to give or withhold the use of his body for gestation of the fetus. the mother has the right to give or withhold the use of her body for gestation of the fetus. neither has the right to give or withhold the other person's body. it's very, very simple.

the father has the right to voice his opinion, but he has absolutely no claim whatsoever over the female body. if she does not want the fetus inside her then it should be removed, at any time and for any reason, and if the father wishes to keep the fetus after that then he is welcome to it. he may do with the fetus what he feels is best, but he may not force the female to donate her body for his purposes.

the father has the right to give or withhold the use of his body for gestation of the fetus. the mother has the right to give or withhold the use of her body for gestation of the fetus. neither has the right to give or withhold the other person's body. it's very, very simple.

the father has the right to voice his opinion, but he has absolutely no claim whatsoever over the female body. if she does not want the fetus inside her then it should be removed, at any time and for any reason, and if the father wishes to keep the fetus after that then he is welcome to it. he may do with the fetus what he feels is best, but he may not force the female to donate her body for his purposes.
So black and white … cut and dried we live in a world of grays where even the status of the fetus is in question (who the hell knows where to draw the “line” of where it is life … or human life … or self supportable life) we all draw that line different … so grey

I’m not saying one should have power over the other I was just asking for consideration in the deal not for veto power yikes strong reaction to a non definite statement (should have went all the way for the amount of heat I got over it and said “women should be subservient to men _insert bullshit biblequote here_”)

Which would amount to "slavery is wrong, except in this special case that we will call something else to make it sound nice." It's exactly like saying "torture is wrong, unless you think you really, really, really need that information. Then go ahead and torture away!"

*shrug* It's your opinion, but no one else will ever get rights to my body without my express permission - luckily, my boyfriend isn't the type who would ever try.
No I am not saying a "special case to allow" I am saying a case to consider and just doesn’t seem to be categorized as anything

Grrr not trying to except the rule rather the definition
but whatever

I was thinking more of a mandatory “talking” to him
Not giving him power or anything … just at least letting him be informed about it
But if you don’t think he deserves to know …

*shrug* it is my opinion that is why I am not trying to force it on others
Luckily my girlfriend is the type that would not make that sort of decision without at least asking me

I’m not saying one should have power over the other I was just asking for consideration in the deal not for veto power yikes strong reaction to a non definite statement (should have went all the way for the amount of heat I got over it and said “women should be subservient to men _insert bullshit biblequote here_”)

Without "veto power," how exactly do you think men should have more say so? They currently have every right to say anything they need to in order to convince a woman to carry a child for them. Giving them any more power would be saying that the man could use physical force to make her carry it.

Edit: Your other post makes it sound like you agree that a man should not have rights over a woman's body - so I don't know what you've been arguing about. I never said that the man shouldn't have a part in the decision making, simply that the *ultimate* decision was that of the woman.

Without "veto power," how exactly do you think men should have more say so. They currently have every right to say anything they need to in order to convince a woman to carry a child for them. Giving them any more power would be saying that the man could use physical force to make her carry it.
Like in my next post that is assuming they are informed at all

I just think they should have to at least inform him (right now he doesn’t have to know she is even pregnant)

So he doesn’t necessary have that right to “say anything”

um wrong ...
I’m confused as to exactly why you say am I wrong.

I’m confused as to exactly why you say am I wrong.
Read the rest of the post … roaming dominance in the blue brown eyed trait … theoretically they could both be blue eyed and end up with a brown eyed kid (unlikely but possible)

um wrong ...

(sorry dont mean to be abrupt) blue and brown have a swapping resessive/dominant relationships

and if both parents have combine two recessive traits it will happen

with two brown eyed parents ... if they both have the blue eyed recessive there is a 1/4 chance of the kid having blue eye
with two brown eyed parents ... roughly because of the swaping of dominance

so theroredicaly they could have a brown resessive (not likly but it happens)

so the cube would look like

dd dr
rd rr

where there is rr there is two recessive combinations

so there is a chance
(10th grade biology)

I think you are a bit confused here darling. The brown-eye trait is dominant, while blue eyes are recessive.

Two brown eyed parents could have a blue-eyed child if they both happen to carry the blue eye recessive gene. However, two blue-eyed parents could not have a brown-eyed child without some sort of weird random mutation in the child's DNA (or cheating on the part of the mother).

I think you are a bit confused here darling. The brown-eye trait is dominant, while blue eyes are recessive.

Two brown eyed parents could have a blue-eyed child if they both happen to carry the blue eye recessive gene. However, two blue-eyed parents could not have a brown-eyed child without some sort of weird random mutation in the child's DNA (or cheating on the part of the mother).
I understand how I was confusing but there is a roaming dominance … for some reason in about 5% of the population blue is dominant (don’t ask me why … not my field of study just trying to recall classes I took in it) so THEOREDICALY there could be two blue eyed parents with a brown eyed kid …

Or the mom could just be Hitler like with the whole Arian race thing

(btw hope u caught my post on the end of the last page)

Can you use terms that are at least related to biology. I cant find anything on roaming dominance or swapping recessive/dominant relationships on the net or any of my text books.

I understand how I was confusing but there is a roaming dominance … for some reason in about 5% of the population blue is dominant (don’t ask me why … not my field of study just trying to recall classes I took in it) so THEOREDICALY there could be two blue eyed parents with a brown eyed kid …

Years of biology and I never heard that... but genetics isn't my field so I won't dismiss it out of hand.

(btw hope u caught my post on the end of the last page)

I edited my other post to reply to it. Did you see that...?

Can you use terms that are at least related to biology. I cant find anything on roaming dominance or swapping recessive/dominant relationships on the net or any of my text books.
I will try to find it ... its been years

Without "veto power," how exactly do you think men should have more say so? They currently have every right to say anything they need to in order to convince a woman to carry a child for them. Giving them any more power would be saying that the man could use physical force to make her carry it.

Edit: Your other post makes it sound like you agree that a man should not have rights over a woman's body - so I don't know what you've been arguing about. I never said that the man shouldn't have a part in the decision making, simply that the *ultimate* decision was that of the woman.
lol then what have you been arguing about I just said he should have some say ... not control :p

I think we ALL should be able to agree on this. This opposition to the abortion pill (morning-after pill) drives me insane.

the morning after pill is not an abortion pill.

an abortion can only happen after a pregnancy has occured (this happens at implantation), the furtest along something can be for the morning after pill is conception, if it's implanted, then the morning after pill won't do anything.

the abortion pill is called something else (Ru-860?)

Actually Abortion debate is that others besides the mother cannot commit abortion. Its not about whether a woman can do it herself. Its the fact that others should not be involved. But I support her right to do the abortion herself. If anyone else did it legally its against the law.
so you support a woman jabbing through her cervix with a coathanger.

how compassionate of you, jackass.

lol then what have you been arguing about I just said he should have some say ... not control :p

Your post seemed to suggest that he should have more legal rights - which would suggest the right to refuse a woman the right to have an abortion. (Believe me, I have met *plenty* of men who do think they should have this right).

Personally, I don't think a couple should have sex without first discussing their past sexual history (and possibly being tested, depending on what that history looks like) and what they both intend in the (however unlikely) event of a pregnancy. It may not sound romantic, but I don't think sex should be a rush decision you enter into lightly in the first place. That way, if the woman says that she would not carry a child to term and the man says he would not agree with an abortion, they don't have sex.

This is one of the things I don’t quite agree with … I understand it is the woman’s body but the father should have some say in the matter … it is his “kid” too
it's not a kid yet.
and he doesn't have to incubate it for nine months.

while it would be better for some consensus in the matter, it's ultimately the woman's choice.

ideally, such things should be discussed before intercourse. (not immediately, but some time before) and the possibilities should be discussed... if the opinions of the couple are the same, then they should go ahead. if not, then perhaps they might have some problems down the road.

the morning after pill is not an abortion pill.

an abortion can only happen after a pregnancy has occured (this happens at implantation), the furtest along something can be for the morning after pill is conception, if it's implanted, then the morning after pill won't do anything.

the abortion pill is called something else (Ru-860?)
Amen people getting terms confused (they really shouldn’t have called both “the morning after pill”) the original (I think it came out in the 70-s) actually did effect implantation of a fertilized egg

The new one (well relatively …) just effects the egg from dropping out of the ovaries … just like a strong dose of conventional birth control (they actually say you can take a double dose of the normal stuff and it has the same effect … at least my gf’s doctor told her that when she went to get her normal ones)

it's not a kid yet.
and he doesn't have to incubate it for nine months.

while it would be better for some consensus in the matter, it's ultimately the woman's choice.
damn straight

it's not a kid yet.
and he doesn't have to incubate it for nine months.

while it would be better for some consensus in the matter, it's ultimately the woman's choice.

ideally, such things should be discussed before intercourse. (not immediately, but some time before) and the possibilities should be discussed... if the opinions of the couple are the same, then they should go ahead. if not, then perhaps they might have some problems down the road.
you sound like a depublicants knockoff read the rest of my posts ... i was proposing a forced DISCUSSION not legal power of the guy

dont get all worked up

Your post seemed to suggest that he should have more legal rights - which would suggest the right to refuse a woman the right to have an abortion. (Believe me, I have met *plenty* of men who do think they should have this right).

Personally, I don't think a couple should have sex without first discussing their past sexual history (and possibly being tested, depending on what that history looks like) and what they both intend in the (however unlikely) event of a pregnancy. It may not sound romantic, but I don't think sex should be a rush decision you enter into lightly in the first place. That way, if the woman says that she would not carry a child to term and the man says he would not agree with an abortion, they don't have sex.
Good practical thinking ... I know me and my gf have had that talk long before having sex ... not romantic but prudent

I just think they should have to at least inform him (right now he doesn’t have to know she is even pregnant)
what if they discuss it beforehand and he doesn't want to have to know.

what if they discuss it beforehand and he doesn't want to have to know.
Then they have discussed it … or at least the consequences

He will have had some say in his being informed then … same difference to me

Unfortunately, the discussion we are currently having hinges on individuals being responsible, and the truth of the matter is that there will *always* be irresponsible individuals. =(

Unfortunately, the discussion we are currently having hinges on individuals being responsible, and the truth of the matter is that there will *always* be irresponsible individuals. =(
I understand that’s why the forced inform (or at least have him say that he doesn’t want to know) I know she wants privacy (and I think the information should be restricted to them unless she feels differently) but this is an awful big life decision to worry about privacy (at least with him)

In the end, both sides are valid and do deserve respect: they're peoples' opinions. I am, however, pro-choice and I firmly believe that, in the end, the desicion goes to the woman. She is the one that is pregnant and will have to go through all the physical changes should she decide to be a mother. The man will never experience what she goes through first hand. Yes, he was a part of the process and deserves some say...in the end it should still be her desicion and she shouldn't feel pressured to make any certain one.

I understand that’s why the forced inform (or at least have him say that he doesn’t want to know) I know she wants privacy (and I think the information should be restricted to them unless she feels differently) but this is an awful big life decision to worry about privacy (at least with him)

The questions then become:

(a) Is it a breach of her right to make medical decisions to be forced to ask someone else first? Does the doctor have to share part of her medical records with the father if she does not wish to consult him?

(b) What if the father cannot be found within the time frame that she could actually have the procedure done electively?

(c) What if she is unsure of who the father is?

(d) How does she prove that he "said he doesn't want to know"? Will there be a legal form that he fills out for that?

(e) What if there are extenuating circumstances? For instance, what if the father is abusive or authoritarian and she believes that telling him of her wish to have an abortion may result in him physically harming her, forcing her out of her home, divorcing her and attempting to gain full custody of any other children she may have?

Yes the man has a vested interest however he has no right to prevent a woman having an abortion if she chooses too...

However, I recognise that in this this presents a real problem... what if the man wants the abortion? He can't make that call but will legally have to support the child...

Now... I have difficulty with the inequality in that situation... however... the only thing I can say is contraception... even so... men have less choice than women... hmm... its something I'm uncomfortable with... however its the lesser of 2 evils. One indeed has a massive human rights issue in that one citizen can't have control over another's body... and the flip side being the other citizen can place a massive financial burden on the other if they so wish... thorny...

The questions then become:

(a) Is it a breach of her right to make medical decisions to be forced to ask someone else first? Does the doctor have to share part of her medical records with the father if she does not wish to consult him?

(b) What if the father cannot be found within the time frame that she could actually have the procedure done electively?

(c) What if she is unsure of who the father is?

(d) How does she prove that he "said he doesn't want to know"? Will there be a legal form that he fills out for that?

(e) What if there are extenuating circumstances? For instance, what if the father is abusive or authoritarian and she believes that telling him of her wish to have an abortion may result in him physically harming her, forcing her out of her home, divorcing her and attempting to gain full custody of any other children she may have?

All needs to be worked out ... I dont pretend to know all the answers just "feels" right from my pov to somehow make sure he knows if he wants to know.

Yes the man has a vested interest however he has no right to prevent a woman having an abortion if she chooses too...

However, I recognise that in this this presents a real problem... what if the man wants the abortion? He can't make that call but will legally have to support the child...

Now... I have difficulty with the inequality in that situation... however... the only thing I can say is contraception... even so... men have less choice than women... hmm... its something I'm uncomfortable with... however its the lesser of 2 evils. One indeed has a massive human rights issue in that one citizen can't have control over another's body... and the flip side being the other citizen can place a massive financial burden on the other if they so wish... thorny...
Hmmm forgot about that side of the argument she is essentially making support decisions for him forever “changing” his life too … interesting thoughts

However, I recognise that in this this presents a real problem... what if the man wants the abortion? He can't make that call but will legally have to support the child...

I, for one, fully support a man having access to a "paper abortion," in which he could legally give up all rights and responsibilities to the future child during the same time period that a woman can have an abortion.

I, for one, fully support a man having access to a "paper abortion," in which he could legally give up all rights and responsibilities to the future child during the same time period that a woman can have an abortion.
Hmmm another interesting idea … does take care of that sticky situation too :)

(though this leads to the forcing abortion through economic means argument)

Umm... it is very difficult... I can see that a paper abortion as you put it would indeed be the solution from the male perspective...

If the state has a decent welfare system however, it wouldn't force the woman to terminate the pregnancy for economic reasons... if she wanted the child badly enough I guess she'd find a way if the state would give her a crutch.

Umm... it is very difficult... I can see that a paper abortion as you put it would indeed be the solution from the male perspective...

If the state has a decent welfare system however, it wouldn't force the woman to terminate the pregnancy for economic reasons... if she wanted the child badly enough I guess she'd find a way if the state would give her a crutch.
I suppose so but that is assuming that the state pays as much as the father would have (and as things work you can get welfare AND child payments from the fauther)

I suppose so but that is assuming that the state pays as much as the father would have (and as things work you can get welfare AND child payments from the fauther)

The difference is that the woman has no *right* to the father's money.

And the simple matter is that if she has a way to absolve herself of the rights and responsibilities that come with having a child, not having one for him would be unwarranted discrimination on the basis of the law.

The discrimination the other way, that she can terminate the pregnancy without his express consent, is based on basic biological differences that cannot be bypassed. However, forcing the man to pay against his will is assuming a fundamental discrepancy between the genders that is not there - namely, that a woman cannot support herself.

Of course, the economic issues are the reason that I limited the man's decision to the same time period that the woman has (or a specified amount of time after she tells him - if she waits until too late). That way, the woman is fully informed in making her own decision.

yea, thats the problem is the state going to provide enough? Then later on help with child care so the mother can go back to work... my understanding of american welfare is that its not as good as it is in the UK =(

yea, thats the problem is the state going to provide enough? Then later on help with child care so the mother can go back to work... my understanding of american welfare is that its not as good as it is in the UK =(
Its different … I guess it does provide enough but right now it is too broadly focused … we need to figure out how to give it more specifically to the ones that really deserve/need it and we got to learn how to get people onto their own feet to work for themselves when they can too

The discrimination the other way, that she can terminate the pregnancy without his express consent, is based on basic biological differences that cannot be bypassed. However, forcing the man to pay against his will is assuming a fundamental discrepancy between the genders that is not there - namely, that a woman cannot support herself.

no it isn't. if anything, it's that she may need help to support her offsrping (which is biologically the father's offsrping as well, whether or not he wants to be a part of the kid's life)

and being a single parent seems much more difficult than going through it as a couple, wherein at least one partner could look after the kid while the other is at work or two incomes are there so the kid can go into daycare.

no it isn't. if anything, it's that she may need help to support her offsrping (which is biologically the father's offsrping as well, whether or not he wants to be a part of the kid's life)

and being a single parent seems much more difficult than going through it as a couple, wherein at least one partner could look after the kid while the other is at work or two incomes are there so the kid can go into daycare.

It is her decision to continue with having the offspring even though the father has said he will not support it, therefore she has taken the responsibility upon herself.

No one is suggesting that single parenthood is easy. However, if the woman can have the option of terminating the pregnancy against the father's will (which I believe she can), then the father must equally have the option of "terminating" his responsibility to the pregnancy. The woman then makes the decision for herself of whether or not to continue it.

and being a single parent seems much more difficult than going through it as a couple, wherein at least one partner could look after the kid while the other is at work or two incomes are there so the kid can go into daycare.

It is her decision to continue with having the offspring even though the father has said he will not support it, therefore she has taken the responsibility upon herself.

No one is suggesting that single parenthood is easy. However, if the woman can have the option of terminating the pregnancy against the father's will (which I believe she can), then the father must equally have the option of "terminating" his responsibility to the pregnancy. The woman then makes the decision for herself of whether or not to continue it.[/QUOTE]
Hear hear ... add informing him so he can make that decision ... and it would be almost exactly how I feel (at least at this part in my life)

I will try to find it ... its been years
Even if it is true, I would think a “not necessarily” would have been better than an outright “wrong.”

Even if it is true, I would think a “not necessarily” would have been better than an outright “wrong.”
You are correct sir/mam I appologise

b

Your NS name makes me hungry!

I was thinking of making it my real name until now.

You are correct sir/mam I appologise
That would be sir and no problem.

what's your point? that example has nothing to do with my pro-choice stance.

My points are that nearly all pro-choicers can agree that the abortion of a healthy baby on its way out just because it is "ugly" is "wrong" and that, likewise, nearly all pro-lifers can at least agree that abortion is "okay" here because the baby without a brain will die very soon after birth if it isn't stillborn and because, in this case, the mother's life is compromised, too.

I thought these points were very clear...

This topic seems to spark some of the hottest flames on this forum, so I felt a need to ease some tensions and to push both sides to work toward common ground. I wrote these two (far-fetched) case scenarios, which I hope will start the reach for happy compromise. Please try to stay civil with your responses.

[QUOTE=Teply]Read this if you are pro-choice/anti-life...

1. The title obviously is highly polemical. There is not a pro-choice activist who is "anti-life". There are other possibilities, and they are being shown to those wanting an abortion (in "old Europe" at least it is that way). The aim is to have the woman keep the embryo in, but not to deny her an abortion if she is insistent.

2. The example you have stated leads us to the question when human life and human suffering begin. Obviously that is the case when the baby, if it were born that very day, would live. And after about three months into the pregnancy, fetuses develop neural structures and a brain, so it could be assumed they could suffer. The ethical choice to be made is to spare living beings from unnecessary pain. So it would be an ethical choice not to abort after that date, which is about twelve weeks.

Read this if you are pro-life/anti-choice...

If one tells the mother should give birth to a child that is after all unable to live at all while the mother would die as a consequence, they are obviously anti-life. And it is also not humane for a child in general whose life would only consist of suffering. One who has no head cannot suffer from pain, but what if the child had a disease that would lead to its death and would make it suffer? Then, the ethical choice mentioned above is still applicable. Killing that child painlessy might be better than letting it suffer for some Christ's sake.

In my opinion "Pro-life" is an instance of wackoism. People want to make life easier than it is. Life is about taking responsiblity for oneself. Those people want to take that responsibility away. (Other instances are, as you might have guessed, they want to decide whom one is not allowed to have sex with even if the other consents to it, it is about the question whether to teach biblical creationism rather than evolution at public schools.)

My points are that nearly all pro-choicers can agree that the abortion of a healthy baby on its way out just because it is "ugly" is "wrong" and that, likewise, nearly all pro-lifers can at least agree that abortion is "okay" here because the baby without a brain will die very soon after birth if it isn't stillborn and because, in this case, the mother's life is compromised, too.

I thought these points were very clear...

The problem is that they are incorrect.

In the first case, you are right. I have never talked to anyone who was pro-choice that advocated terminating a pregnancy *after* the fetus was viable unless the mother's life was in danger.

In the second, you are wrong. Anti-choicers have pushed through a ban on what they like to call "partial birth abortion." It isn't pretty, but it is a procedure that is necessary in cases of severe hydrocephalus. In these cases, natural childbirth would be impossible, as the head of the fetus may be swollen up to 50 cm. On top of that, the fetus will *never* reach consciousness and will die soon after *any* type of delivery. However, they still stand by the ban because they think it sounds icky.

Anti-choicers have pushed through a ban on what they like to call "partial birth abortion."

It varies from state-to-state. In Wisconsin, where I live, the courts repeatedly stamp out the state's partial birth abortion law because it does not provide an exception in the cases where the health of the mother is at stake. The US Supreme Court has set a similar precedent with Stenberg v. Carhart, which declared a similar Nebraska law unconstitutional.

It varies from state-to-state. In Wisconsin, where I live, the courts repeatedly stamp out the state's partial birth abortion law because it does not provide an exception in the cases where the health of the mother is at stake. The US Supreme Court has set a similar precedent with Stenberg v. Carhart, which declared a similar Nebraska law unconstitutional.

Apparently you missed the news - a *federal* law was passed banning it.

Not that it matters. It is very clear that the anti-choice crowd doesn't care if the mother's life is in danger or if the fetus will never survive to reach consciousness, as these laws keep passing, and the federal law also got passed. All they care about is how "icky" it sounds. Let the mother and fetus die as far as they are concerned.

The only justification for abortion is if the mother's life is in danger...nothing else can justify the killing of the innocent baby

Apparently you missed the news - a *federal* law was passed banning it.

Not that it matters. It is very clear that the anti-choice crowd doesn't care if the mother's life is in danger or if the fetus will never survive to reach consciousness, as these laws keep passing, and the federal law also got passed. All they care about is how "icky" it sounds. Let the mother and fetus die as far as they are concerned.

Hmm...

The Carhart v. Ashcroft decision from Judge Richard G. Kopf came out on September 8, 2004:
"1. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, 18 U.S.C. § 1531, is declared to be unconstitutional in all of its applications when the fetus is not viable or when there is a doubt about the viability of the fetus in the appropriate medical judgment of the doctor performing the abortion. The court does not determine whether the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 is constitutional or unconstitutional when the fetus is indisputably viable.
2. In all cases when the fetus is not viable or when there is a doubt about the viability of the fetus in the appropriate medical judgment of the doctor performing the abortion, John Ashcroft, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States, and his employees, agents, and successors in office, are permanently enjoined from enforcing the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, 18 U.S.C. § 1531, against the plaintiffs and their officers, agents, servants, and employees, including those individuals and entities (both medical and non-medical) with whom the plaintiffs work, teach, supervise, or refer.
3. Costs are taxed to the defendant."

Hmm...

The Carhart v. Ashcroft decision from Judge Richard G. Kopf came out on September 8, 2004:
"1. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, 18 U.S.C. § 1531, is declared to be unconstitutional in all of its applications when the fetus is not viable or when there is a doubt about the viability of the fetus in the appropriate medical judgment of the doctor performing the abortion. The court does not determine whether the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 is constitutional or unconstitutional when the fetus is indisputably viable.
2. In all cases when the fetus is not viable or when there is a doubt about the viability of the fetus in the appropriate medical judgment of the doctor performing the abortion, John Ashcroft, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States, and his employees, agents, and successors in office, are permanently enjoined from enforcing the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, 18 U.S.C. § 1531, against the plaintiffs and their officers, agents, servants, and employees, including those individuals and entities (both medical and non-medical) with whom the plaintiffs work, teach, supervise, or refer.
3. Costs are taxed to the defendant."

A decision which is currently being challenged.

However, still besides the point. You stated that even those who are anti-choice agree that a fetus that will not survive that endangers the mother's life would agree that abortion is necessary. This ban proves conclusively that this is untrue.

The only justification for abortion is if the mother's life is in danger...nothing else can justify the killing of the innocent baby
it's not a baby.

it's not a baby.

The fuck it isn't....even from the very start, the zygote has 23 pairs of chromosomes...making it a human cell...and cells are alive, are they not? Therefore it is a living human cell...biology 101

it's not a baby.

ba·by Audio pronunciation of "baby" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bb)
n. pl. ba·bies

1.
1. A very young child; an infant.
2. An unborn child; a fetus.
3. The youngest member of a family or group.
4. A very young animal.
2. An adult or young person who behaves in an infantile way.
3. Slang. A girl or young woman.
4. Informal. Sweetheart; dear. Used as a term of endearment.
5. Slang. An object of personal concern or interest: Keeping the boat in good repair is your baby.

if you want to argue word choice it is ( I understand emotionaly loaded word but still technicaly correct)

The fuck it isn't....even from the very start, the zygote has 23 pairs of chromosomes...making it a human cell...and cells are alive, are they not? Therefore it is a living human cell...biology 101
it's not a human life until it qualifies as an organism, which isn't until late in the pregnancy when it begins to preform stimulus response as an organism.

before then it's a bunch of cells.

and upward thrust, that says a fetus, most abortions happen in the embryonic stage.

The fuck it isn't....even from the very start, the zygote has 23 pairs of chromosomes...making it a human cell...and cells are alive, are they not? Therefore it is a living human cell...biology 101

Cell != baby

Unless of course, I just committed murder when I scratched my arm?

A decision which is currently being challenged.

However, still besides the point. You stated that even those who are anti-choice agree that a fetus that will not survive that endangers the mother's life would agree that abortion is necessary. This ban proves conclusively that this is untrue.

MOST of them would agree so. Most of the legislators who vote for such bans do so to keep their jobs because so few of the voters who elected them ever read the bills or understand the need for a mother's health exception anyway. Ignorant voters with the power of the purse over lawmakers can be very compelling. On a side note, Kopf became the district judge through a Reagan appointment.

bacteria are single celled, and yet they are organisms...why wouldn't one human cell be a human organism?

bacteria are single celled, and yet they are organisms...why wouldn't one human cell be a human organism?

Human beings are not single-celled organisms, nor do the cells in the embryo act as single-celled organisms.

MOST of them would agree so.

Most implies a firm majority. If that were true, we wouldn't hear from those idiots any more than we hear from pro-choice people who think you can stab a healthy full-term fetus on it's way down the birth canal. Guess what, I've talked to lots of anti-choice people who support the ban, despite being told the facts about hydrocephalus. I have never met a single person who condoned the latter.

Most of the legislators who vote for such bans do so to keep their jobs because so few of the voters who elected them ever read the bills or understand the need for a mother's health exception anyway.

Actually, I have found that the problem is that they don't care. "Mother's health" means nothing to them. Their defence "there is never any reason you could possibly need this." I demonstrate to them why it might be necessary and get "there is never any reason you could possibly need this."

Ignorant voters with the power of the purse over lawmakers can be very compelling.

And the problem is that there is *much* more ignorance and complete apathy on one side than the other.

On a side note, Kopf became the district judge through a Reagan appointment.

Completely irrelevant.

it's not a human life until it qualifies as an organism, which isn't until late in the pregnancy when it begins to preform stimulus response as an organism.

before then it's a bunch of cells.

and upward thrust, that says a fetus, most abortions happen in the embryonic stage.
Going to make me keep going to sources I see

Some happen in embryonic

fe·tus Audio pronunciation of "fetus" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fts)
n. pl. fe·tus·es

1. The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.
2. In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo

So as we see the dictionary defines fetus as after 8 weeks or the embryonic stage ... if I remember right it is legal up to 20 weeks

So ...
it could be a fetus and fetus is a baby so ... it could be a bably

(hey I am not arguing one side or another just the strict "its not a baby" when it very well could be) ... hey its the english language ... it is just emotional loaded ... but we cant let emotions change what language itself is

So as we see the dictionary defines fetus as after 8 weeks or the embryonic stage ... if I remember right it is legal up to 20 weeks

In every state but one or two, elective abortions are only legal up until the time of the "quickening" - about the end of the first trimester.

After that, a clear health risk is necessary.

After 20 weeks, a clear threat to the woman's life is necessary.

One or two states don't have the middle state - but the vast majority (and the Roe v. Wade decision) do.

The *vast* majority of abortion occur during the embryo stage, and those that don't almost always have a health or life risk involved.

In every state but one or two, elective abortions are only legal up until the time of the "quickening" - about the end of the first trimester.

After that, a clear health risk is necessary.

After 20 weeks, a clear threat to the woman's life is necessary.

One or two states don't have the middle state - but the vast majority (and the Roe v. Wade decision) do.

The *vast* majority of abortion occur during the embryo stage, and those that don't almost always have a health or life risk involved.
Cool geting so many dates thown at me I get confused ... but still if I do my math right that would be the 12'th week

So between 8-12 it is a baby(fetus) (well 8 till born) but that is the normal elective range where abortions are done to "fetus's"

Most implies a firm majority. If that were true, we wouldn't hear from those idiots any more than we hear from pro-choice people who think you can stab a healthy full-term fetus on it's way down the birth canal. Guess what, I've talked to lots of anti-choice people who support the ban, despite being told the facts about hydrocephalus. I have never met a single person who condoned the latter.

Actually, I have found that the problem is that they don't care. "Mother's health" means nothing to them. Their defence "there is never any reason you could possibly need this." I demonstrate to them why it might be necessary and get "there is never any reason you could possibly need this."

And the problem is that there is *much* more ignorance and complete apathy on one side than the other.

Completely irrelevant.

Very very interesting points...

Again, I think that the people supporting the partial-birth abortion simply do not fully understand it.

I live in the Congressional district of the Republican Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee F. James Sensenbrenner, but my own city within the district is mostly pro-choice and was gerrymandered in. The pro-lifers near me usually believe what they do for religious reasons without researching the provisions of proposed bills.

Honestly, I think that most people who supported the ban on partial-birth abortion don't even know that the bill included no mother's health exception. They usually are so distanced from politics that the thought that such an exception is necessary does not even cross their minds. The name "partial-birth abortion," however, has such a semantic cleverness to it that they feel they don't even have to study it to oppose it.

A pro-lifer might support a ban until she is pregnant with a hydrocephalic baby herself and realizes how badly she has been fooled by the semantics. :headbang:

I included the mention of Reagan's appointment of Kopf because I thought it helped show the compromises possible between pro-life and pro-choice. I would guess that Kopf, yea though I know little about him, is most likely pro-life because of his Republican ties. Even he, however, saw a need to provide some exceptions.

The pro-lifers near me usually believe what they do for religious reasons without researching the provisions of proposed bills.

I didn't try to make that so alliterative. :p

Some happen in embryonic

90% of all abortions happen in the first trimester, i.e. the embryonic stage.

So as we see the dictionary defines fetus as after 8 weeks or the embryonic stage ... if I remember right it is legal up to 20 weeks

So ...
it could be a fetus and fetus is a baby so ... it could be a bably

and either way it's still not an organism until 20 weeks.

90% of all abortions happen in the first trimester, i.e. the embryonic stage.



and either way it's still not an organism until 20 weeks.
It starts being a fetus at 8 weeks … so … and a fetus is still a baby

So after 8 weeks it is a baby … elective to 12 weeks and 20 weeks is for mothers endangerment

Anyways still is a baby after 8 weeks I was arguing the language not the actual pro life pro choice side

Apparently you missed the news - a *federal* law was passed banning it.

Not that it matters. It is very clear that the anti-choice crowd doesn't care if the mother's life is in danger or if the fetus will never survive to reach consciousness, as these laws keep passing, and the federal law also got passed. All they care about is how "icky" it sounds. Let the mother and fetus die as far as they are concerned.

I just realized...

We have WAY too many statutes and cases to understand how legal abortion is. No matter where you live, if you find a good lawyer and a permissive judge, then you will almost certainly be allowed to have an abortion. Basically, even if abortion is illegal, you can make it legal unless you don't know how to use the courts or unless a Constitutional amendment is passed to ban it. Despite all the Republicans in power, based on the national mood, I highly doubt that Americans will pass such an amendment. :confused:

There should never be any restrictions against abortion, and services should be easily availiable to anyone wanting an abortion.

I am pro-choice for pragmatic reasons. If a mother doesn't want a baby, and is not allowed to abort it, then there will be negative consequences for society if the child is badly brought up a turns into a criminal.

There should never be any restrictions against abortion, and services should be easily availiable to anyone wanting an abortion.

I am pro-choice for pragmatic reasons. If a mother doesn't want a baby, and is not allowed to abort it, then there will be negative consequences for society if the child is badly brought up a turns into a criminal.
I agree though like stated before with the “paper” abortion of the dad and mandatory inform (ya got to tell him) but other then that yes it is her body

So after 8 weeks it is a baby … elective to 12 weeks and 20 weeks is for mothers endangerment

Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. The fact that people have misused the word enough to get it into the dictionary (see: ain't) does not make it *scientifically* true or proper use of the language.

Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. The fact that people have misused the word enough to get it into the dictionary (see: ain't) does not make it *scientifically* true or proper use of the language.
It was rather specific ... and if we are not going with the English language? when she was originally debating the meaning of an English language word

What makes her definition right?


I mean the English language considers a fetus a baby … that is one of the definitions of baby (including any young ) and a fetus is a fetus after 8 weeks after its embryonic stage (have looked for things contradicting that but haven’t found any)


So if it is in fetus stage it is a baby as far as I can tell

Or are you protesting the emotional content (I have no argument there … it is just correct American English(at least American I haven’t looked for an English English translation of baby …)


I was just arguing with her not wanting for it to be called a baby which as far as I can tell for a period in there it could be considered one

If its not in that stage its not … its an embryo

It was rather specific ... and if we are not going with the English language? when she was originally debating the meaning of an English language word

What makes her definition right?


I mean the English language considers a fetus a baby … that is one of the definitions of baby (including any young ) and a fetus is a fetus after 8 weeks after its embryonic stage (have looked for things contradicting that but haven’t found any)


So if it is in fetus stage it is a baby as far as I can tell

Or are you protesting the emotional content (I have no argument there … it is just correct American English(at least American I haven’t looked for an English English translation of baby …)


I was just arguing with her not wanting for it to be called a baby which as far as I can tell for a period in there it could be considered one

If its not in that stage its not … its an embryo


We are discussing scientific measures here, therefore you must use scientific terms.

The point remains, however, that a dictionary *describes* language - it does not "prescribe" language. If something is misused often enough, it becomes part of the "described" language. However, that doesn't change the fact that it grew out of a misuse of the word.

The basic point is that "it's in the dictionary" is not a valid argument for technical *correctness*.

We are discussing scientific measures here, therefore you must use scientific terms.

The point remains, however, that a dictionary *describes* language - it does not "prescribe" language. If something is misused often enough, it becomes part of the "described" language. However, that doesn't change the fact that it grew out of a misuse of the word.
Most words “change” meaning through time.

What is the scientific meaning of baby then? … I’m not sure where to find it all I can tell is it is an umbrella term used to catch a large portion of a child (fetus) whatever development after embryonic stage up to some point after toddler

Again she was arguing a strict NOT baby when by any definition I have been able to find it at least COULD

Im not saying its an end-all description but it is the most accurate one put forth so far of what a BABY IS

Most words “change” meaning through time.

What is the scientific meaning of baby then? … I’m not sure where to find it all I can tell is it is an umbrella term used to catch a large portion of a child (fetus) whatever development after embryonic stage up to some point after toddler

Again she was arguing a strict NOT baby when by any definition I have been able to find it at least COULD

Im not saying its an end-all description but it is the most accurate one put forth so far of what a BABY IS

My problem with it is that baby, by any definition anyone would use, refers to a living organism. The reason that the dictionary includes fetus is because enough people had the completely mistaken viewpoint that a fetus, at all stages of development, is a living organism. It isn't because they were correct, it is only included because there were enough people who didn't know what they were talking about that used it that way.

Scientifically, baby would equate to young child, which would mean that it could not be a baby until it had at least reached the point of being viable.

My problem with it is that baby, by any definition anyone would use, refers to a living organism. The reason that the dictionary includes fetus is because enough people had the completely mistaken viewpoint that a fetus, at all stages of development, is a living organism. It isn't because they were correct, it is only included because there were enough people who didn't know what they were talking about that used it that way.

Scientifically, baby would equate to young child, which would mean that it could not be a baby until it had at least reached the point of being viable.
How do you know it is through incorrect usage?
Rather then a lesser used term that has been there for a long period of time?
How old does the addition have to be for it to be correct? Ten twenty … a hundred years?

I guess I am saying the water is grey … she was saying it was black I was just trying to point out the possibility

I guess this whole thing gets into what makes a word a word (and language wandering) and that is not the topic of the thread so I will stop