Abortion, a sane opinion [Archive]

The Cassini Belt

19-01-2005, 07:19

Deel

19-01-2005, 07:25

I'm Deel and I approve this message.

Dragon Cows

19-01-2005, 07:31

Couldn't agree more

Dresophila Prime

19-01-2005, 07:33

The main problem is that many cases are out of just that...convenience. And besides, you cannot have people filing into an abortion clinic to see if they qualify to have an abortion.

I agree with you on most of what you said, except for the part about having an abortion as early as possible. It's like getting a lover out of your home as fast as possible to make sure you don't have an uneventful encounter with your wife. The cheating still exists, no matter how well it is masked.

What you are proposing is a race against life. A race to kill a fetus before it 'becomes human.' In my opinion, it is always human. There is no period where it suddenly is given birth after conception. It's a black and white issue. Either the child is alive or it is not. Imagine killing somebody out of cold blood and then trying to convince yourself that it was an accident, and you will get your mentality on abortion.

Not to mention that all children develop differently. If a child has reasonable brainwaves and becomes a 'human' by your definition at age 6 (weeks) by some untold anamoly, is it then considered murder to kill it?

KajunLand

19-01-2005, 07:44

I must be getting old or come from a simpler time. I remember when it used to be called MAKING a BABY

Robbopolis

19-01-2005, 07:45

The Cassini Belt

19-01-2005, 07:46

I agree with you on most of what you said, except for the part about having an abortion as early as possible.

What you are proposing is a race against life. A race to kill a fetus before it 'becomes human.' In my opinion, it is always human.

Well, I admit my opinion is more pragmatic than principled. Let me explain the scenario I see about having abortions early: suppose you're female and you miss a period. You get a pregnancy test (cost $4) and it comes out positive. The fetus is at most 5 weeks old. It doesn't have brainwaves, and is probably about as complex as an earthworm. Is killing it murder? Yeah, it could turn into a baby, but it *isn't* one yet. So if you must kill it, do it then. But you really have to catch it that early, and that means keeping records so you know when your period is supposed to be, and testing (probably twice) every time you miss one.

You say "it is always human", of course, but it is not a *person*.

Firejumpers

19-01-2005, 07:47

Roughly 36% of abortions happen in weeks 9-13 (end of first trimester), 10% during the second trimester, and 1% in the third.
So that's 53% in weeks 1-8. I'd call that safe and reasonable.

Dobbs Town

19-01-2005, 07:47

Who cares? This is as much fun as breathing chlorine. Shooting lighter fluid. Smoking toad.

A-a-a-a-a-a-a-aaaaAUUUGHHH! Please make the abortion blatherers SHUT UP already! It's like none of you have anything ELSE to talk about?

Honestly, just kill all the freakin' threads about it - yeah, that's it - ABORT them.

HEEheeheeheee he heee hee hee hee heh

The Cassini Belt

19-01-2005, 07:52

As mentioned, the point at which a fetus becomes a person is cloudy. Birth is a very arbitrary point. We can choose another point in time to stop abortions (heartbeat, etc.), but I have one question for those who would pick any point. What if you're wrong?

Well, just pick a point which is earlier than what you think, for some safety margin. I think it is pretty safe to say that a 20-to-30-day fetus is not a person.

I should also mention that Nature has a habit of aborting fetuses very early for any of a large number of reasons having to do with genetic defects or environmental stress... I think a fertilized egg has an under-50% chance of making it to 20 days.

Quikville

19-01-2005, 07:55

...You say "it is always human", of course, but it is not a *person*.

So, you are saying and killing a Human is ok, but not a person??

Firejumpers

19-01-2005, 07:57

Some things are more important than whether you are "killing" a "baby". Things like the health of the mother, health of the baby, future of the baby, etc. And all that pales in comparison to the other global problems we have now. I think the last thing on our minds should be, "Is this 6 week old fetus a baby and is killing it wrong?"
People abuse things all the time. They abuse drugs, guns, cars, and each other, so abusing the right to abortion is no different. You might as well ban alcholol, because it causes FAR more innocent deaths. Guns cause lots of deaths, too, and over the counter drugs are the spawn of numerous drugs like meth that kill yet more people.
I admit that simply because there are other problems that doesn't mean we shouldn't address this one, but I believe that seeking solutions to other problems would be a better use of time.
Even staying on abortion, how about education? Birth control? Try analyzing the source, not the symptom. Examine WHY people are getting pregnant and having abortions then help to stop it somehow. I'm in the public education system now and can tell you that it is woefully lacking in the sex education department. People don't fully understand the consequences of their actions, and until they do, there will continue to be abortions, legal or not.

The Cassini Belt

19-01-2005, 07:57

So, you are saying and killing a Human is ok, but not a person??

Legally, that is true under some circumstances. If someone has suffered irreversible brain death but is still breathing, they are human but not a person, and may be killed (taken off life support) subject to various rules.

I don't know that I'd say that's "ok" but it is not unreasonable, provided it is not abused.

Slinao

19-01-2005, 07:59

The arguement will always be, places like Ireland have it banned for the most part, except for the risk of health on the mother, United States keeps going back and forth on it, though mainly remaing fairly liberal about it.

I personally don't believe in abortion, though I can understand people getting them in cases of risk of death and harm.

Will this issue ever not be an issue, I don't think so, cause even in nations where you can't get one, they still make it an issue, and in nations where it is legal, its still an issue.

I think that there have been toooooooo many threads about it, lets get back to killing people in wars damn it, lol.

edit: though I am not sure why the Christians seem to deem it as killing a life, because even the old testament doesn't call it killing. Its a crime, but one that is supposed to be paid money set by a judge and by the parents.

The Cassini Belt

19-01-2005, 08:03

Some things are more important than whether you are "killing" a "baby".

Remove the quotes and think about that for a moment.

And all that pales in comparison to the other global problems we have now. I think the last thing on our minds should be, "Is this 6 week old fetus a baby and is killing it wrong?"

Well, I think a lot of our problems have to do with respect for life, and with responsibility, which are both right at the core of this one too.

Even staying on abortion, how about education? Birth control? Try analyzing the source, not the symptom. Examine WHY people are getting pregnant and having abortions then help to stop it somehow.

Societies always tend towards a high positive biological population growth rate. When that is opposed by social/cultural/economic forces, infanticide becomes popular. However, societies which practice infanticide do not do well in the long term.

People don't fully understand the consequences of their actions, and until they do, there will continue to be abortions, legal or not.

If abortions were illegal three-quarters of women who get them now would not even try to get them. This has been the subject of quite a bit of research.

Quikville

19-01-2005, 08:05

Legally, that is true under some circumstances. If someone has suffered irreversible brain death but is still breathing, they are human but not a person, and may be killed (taken off life support) subject to various rules.

I don't know that I'd say that's "ok" but it is not unreasonable, provided it is not abused.

I am not talking about legallity. The above case has nothing to do with abortion. That person got dealt a bad set of cards, a baby that is aborted is not dealt any. Everyone deserves the chance to live

Neo-Anarchists

19-01-2005, 08:06

InternetToughGuy

19-01-2005, 08:08

Slinao

19-01-2005, 08:11

What if we are wrong? What is the worst that could happen?
the souls are reincarnated and its chucky all over again?

The Cassini Belt

19-01-2005, 08:13

I am not talking about legallity. The above case has nothing to do with abortion. That person got dealt a bad set of cards, a baby that is aborted is not dealt any. Everyone deserves the chance to live

The problem is what is your definition of "human"? Anything that has human DNA? Sperm? A patch of skin? A bit of saliva? An entire human genetically identical to you can grow from any of those. Does that mean you are commiting mass murder every time you spit?

"Everyone deserves a chance to live" - they're not "someone" unless they have exhibited consciousness, or a reasonable outward approximation thereof. A fertilized egg is not a "someone", neither is a three-week fetus, although a 6-week fetus could *conceivably* be and a 12-week one *probably* is.

Hyperbia

19-01-2005, 08:18

Quikville

19-01-2005, 08:18

The problem is what is your definition of "human"? Anything that has human DNA? Sperm? A patch of skin? A bit of saliva? An entire human genetically identical to you can grow from any of those. Does that mean you are commiting mass murder every time you spit?

"Everyone deserves a chance to live" - they're not "someone" unless they have exhibited consciousness, or a reasonable outward approximation thereof. A fertilized egg is not a "someone", neither is a three-week fetus, although a 6-week fetus could *conceivably* be and a 12-week one *probably* is.

So like Dresophila Prime said, abortion is "A race to kill a fetus before it 'becomes human.'"

My stance is if it grows, its alive.

Slinao

19-01-2005, 08:19

Wait, abortion + sane....
cannot compute, brain frying, system imploding, oy da hwurting oyle!

Ok, now that I have that out of the way, I must say wow, there is someone out there with views similar to mine, I was begining to think that everyone in the world was a nutjob.
I still think everyone out there is a nutjob, why did that change your mind? 0.o

Quikville

19-01-2005, 08:20

Roe of Roe V Wade wants to overturn it. What does that tell you??

Neo-Anarchists

19-01-2005, 08:23

Roe of Roe V Wade wants to overturn it. What does that tell you??
That Roe is a human and has the ability to change his/her/its mind.

Neo-Anarchists

19-01-2005, 08:23

I still think everyone out there is a nutjob, why did that change your mind? 0.o
Ooh ooh!
Can I be a nutjob?

Slinao

19-01-2005, 08:24

Ooh ooh!
Can I be a nutjob?

-=waves his Dr. NOAH staff and declares=-

Rise Sir Nutjob Neo-Anarchists, and spread thine insanity upon the populace

-=and the great squirall saw and was pleased.=-

Neo-Anarchists

19-01-2005, 08:40

-=waves his Dr. NOAH staff and declares=-

Rise Sir Nutjob Neo-Anarchists, and spread thine insanity upon the populace

-=and the great squirall saw and was pleased.=-
Spread insanity?

Hmm, I wonder if Shaed will let me borrow her laser for a bit. I know some people whom I'd like to have lobotomies!

EDIT:
No, this is not a flame. I was not referring to anybody here, or even anybody in particular for that matter.

The Cassini Belt

19-01-2005, 08:45

So like Dresophila Prime said, abortion is "A race to kill a fetus before it 'becomes human.'"

My stance is if it grows, its alive.

Please, if you're going to argue, use precise language. It's "a race to kill a fetus before it becomes *a person*". And yeah, obviously it's alive and it has human DNA even as an unfertilized egg. I don't see why that should be particularly disturbing. Everyone kills living things which are not people all the time.

The Cassini Belt

19-01-2005, 08:50

Wait, abortion + sane....
cannot compute, brain frying, system imploding, oy da hwurting oyle!

Ok, now that I have that out of the way, I must say wow, there is someone out there with views similar to mine, I was begining to think that everyone in the world was a nutjob.

;)

Thanks. Yeah, actually as you can see from the polls this view is the majority view by a pretty large margin, but people are just not very vocal about it since it is not at either extreme.

Quikville

19-01-2005, 08:54

Please, if you're going to argue, use precise language. It's "a race to kill a fetus before it becomes *a person*". And yeah, obviously it's alive and it has human DNA even as an unfertilized egg. I don't see why that should be particularly disturbing. Everyone kills living things which are not people all the time.

An unfertilized egg does not grow. A fertlilzed egg does.

Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic
added: "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is
present from the moment of conception."

The Cassini Belt

19-01-2005, 09:43

None of this has any bearing on the discussion. Killing living things is "ok" under many/most circumstances. Killing people is not ok under most/any circumstances. The question is person-hood not life. Get the distinction crystal clear in your mind.

An unfertilized egg does not grow. A fertlilzed egg does.

Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic
added: "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is
present from the moment of conception."

Bottle

19-01-2005, 13:02

Since there's a whole bunch of threads on abortion, let me pitch in my opinion and some statistics.

Most reasonable people would agree that killing a *person* is wrong. Therefore the abortion debate is really a disagreement over the point at which sperm+eggs turn into a person. The two extreme views are that any fertilized egg (or sometimes even unfertilized egg, or sperm) is a person, or that a baby is not a person as long as it is bodily attached to the mother in any way. I think both extreme views are obvious nonsense. There isn't necessarily a single *point in time* at which that happens. We can pick a few milestones: first heartbeat, appearance of reflexes, normal-looking brainwaves/EEG, viability with medical assistance, unassisted viability. Requiring unassisted viability is ridiculous, since there are many people who require technical assistance to survive but who have the legal status of adults. Let's see when the milestones happen: heartbeat - 3 weeks, reflexes and brainwaves - 6 weeks, normal brainwaves - 16 weeks, viable - 19-22 weeks. Reasonable people might disagree about the details, but broadly speaking a fetus becomes a person at some point between 6 and 20 weeks after conception. I think 16, but to err on the side of caution I'll call it 12.

Therefore: an abortion during the first trimester is something that the mother can decide to do entirely at her discretion. Three months is certainly sufficient to notice that you're pregnant and make up your mind about whether you want to carry to term. Ideally abortions during weeks 10-12 should be fairly rare since the fetus is quite well developed at that point. An abortion between 3 and 4.5 months may be ok if there is an *overriding* reason such as a life-threatening medical condition or possibly in cases of rape or incest, again reasonable people may disagree about the details but most would agree it should not be something routine. An abortion beyond the 4.5-5 month point is *never* ok since the baby is independently viable at that point. Such an abortion should be treated legally and morally the same as the murder of a born child, unless there is a *clear* medical choice between saving the life of the mother or that of the child.

Now, the interesting thing is that this is precisely the majority opinion in the USA: a New York Times/CBS Poll of 1998 finds 61% think abortioh should be legal during the first trimester, 15% that it should be legal during the second trimester, and 7% that it should be legal during the third trimester (http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_poll1.htm, http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/timespoll/la-000618abortpoll,1,3490987.story?coll=la-news-times_poll&ctrack=1&cset=true). Finally, some sanity returns.

Some more statistics... 60-65% would like to overturn Roe vs Wade, there is a roughly even split on whether to allow completely discretionary abortions during the first trimester, and women are considerably more pro-life than men. Roughly 36% of abortions happen in weeks 9-13 (end of first trimester), 10% during the second trimester, and 1% in the third.

Taking a bird's eye view: life is sacred, pregnancy and birth are two of the great mysteries of life. Abortion is inherently destructive and negative - it should be viewed as choosing the lesser of two evils, somewhat akin to killing in self-defense, and *not* as an alternative to birth control. If you have to do it, it is your responsibility to do it as early as possible, and you had better have a *good* reason beyond just your convenience.
until somebody successfully responds to it, i am simply going to cut and past this into all abortion threads. if we grant fetuses the exact same rights as born human beings, then the right to abortion should be 100% guaranteed at any time and for any reason, for all human women or persons who become pregnant:

As a human being, I have the right (at least in my country), to refuse to donate my blood, organs, tissues, or life to any other being. I have the right to refuse this even if I not longer need them (am dead). I have the right to refuse them if the being in question is my wife, parent, best friend, and even my own child. I have the right to refuse them even if the need was caused by my own negligence (a car accident for example). I have the right to refuse even when that negligence is criminal (drunk driving). And most importantly, I have that right even when I intentionally cause the damage that creates the necessity in a purposeful criminal act (I.E. If I shot you).

There is no logically consistent reason why pregnant women should be the only persons denied these rights, nor why fetuses should be the only living beings granted the right to supercede these rights as held by another human being.

Wagwanimus

19-01-2005, 13:25

until somebody successfully responds to it, i am simply going to cut and past this into all abortion threads. if we grant fetuses the exact same rights as born human beings, then the right to abortion should be 100% guaranteed at any time and for any reason, for all human women or persons who become pregnant:

As a human being, I have the right (at least in my country), to refuse to donate my blood, organs, tissues, or life to any other being. I have the right to refuse this even if I not longer need them (am dead). I have the right to refuse them if the being in question is my wife, parent, best friend, and even my own child. I have the right to refuse them even if the need was caused by my own negligence (a car accident for example). I have the right to refuse even when that negligence is criminal (drunk driving). And most importantly, I have that right even when I intentionally cause the damage that creates the necessity in a purposeful criminal act (I.E. If I shot you).

There is no logically consistent reason why pregnant women should be the only persons denied these rights, nor why fetuses should be the only living beings granted the right to supercede these rights as held by another human being.

you rule - i never heard that version of argument before.

Vonners

19-01-2005, 13:35

until somebody successfully responds to it, i am simply going to cut and past this into all abortion threads. if we grant fetuses the exact same rights as born human beings, then the right to abortion should be 100% guaranteed at any time and for any reason, for all human women or persons who become pregnant:

As a human being, I have the right (at least in my country), to refuse to donate my blood, organs, tissues, or life to any other being. I have the right to refuse this even if I not longer need them (am dead). I have the right to refuse them if the being in question is my wife, parent, best friend, and even my own child. I have the right to refuse them even if the need was caused by my own negligence (a car accident for example). I have the right to refuse even when that negligence is criminal (drunk driving). And most importantly, I have that right even when I intentionally cause the damage that creates the necessity in a purposeful criminal act (I.E. If I shot you).

There is no logically consistent reason why pregnant women should be the only persons denied these rights, nor why fetuses should be the only living beings granted the right to supercede these rights as held by another human being.

LOL!!!! Bottle - only you are able to cut to the crux of the issue....choice.

You RAWK mate:)

Bottle

19-01-2005, 13:41

LOL!!!! Bottle - only you are able to cut to the crux of the issue....choice.

You RAWK mate:)
danke, but it's just the truth. all the talk of "taking responsibility" and "unborn this and that" is such a waste of time.

if i go skiing and break my leg nobody tells me i have to live with the pain because it was my bad choice to ski in the first place, and nobody tells me that the doctor shouldn't set my leg because i need to "take responsibility" by enduring my condition. nobody tries to tell me that when i chose to ski i consented to break my leg, or that i was aware of the danger so i should just have to live with a broken or improperly-set leg for the rest of my life.

and if fetuses are "unborn children" then we should all be refering to one another as "undead corpses." after all, a fetus is less than half as likely to become a child as we all are to become corpses, so if our eventual condition is to be used to define our current status then we should use the correct terminology. if fetuses should be recognized as babies because they will one day become babies then my 13 year old brother should be allowed to drive because he will one day be 16, and he should be allowed to vote because he will one day be 18...indeed, he is more likely to reach those ages than the average fetus is to reach childhood.

Neo-Anarchists

19-01-2005, 13:43

danke, but it's just the truth. all the talk of "taking responsibility" and "unborn this and that" is such a waste of time.

if i go skiing and break my leg nobody tells me i have to live with the pain because it was my bad choice to ski in the first place, and nobody tells me that the doctor shouldn't set my leg because i need to "take responsibility" by enduring my condition.

and if fetuses are "unborn children" then we should all be refering to one another as "undead corpses." after all, a fetus is less than half as likely to become a child as we all are to become corpses, so if our eventual condition is to be used to define our current status then we should use the correct terminology. if fetuses should be recognized as babies because they will one day become babies then my 13 year old brother should be allowed to drive because he will one day be 16, and he should be allowed to vote because he will one day be 18...indeed, he is more likely to reach those ages than the average fetus is to reach childhood.
Nobody ever pays attention when people say that, and it makes me angry, because it's a really good point.
:(

Vonners

19-01-2005, 13:46

danke, but it's just the truth. all the talk of "taking responsibility" and "unborn this and that" is such a waste of time.

if i go skiing and break my leg nobody tells me i have to live with the pain because it was my bad choice to ski in the first place, and nobody tells me that the doctor shouldn't set my leg because i need to "take responsibility" by enduring my condition.

and if fetuses are "unborn children" then we should all be refering to one another as "undead corpses." after all, a fetus is less than half as likely to become a child as we all are to become corpses, so if our eventual condition is to be used to define our current status then we should use the correct terminology. if fetuses should be recognized as babies because they will one day become babies then my 13 year old brother should be allowed to drive because he will one day be 16, and he should be allowed to vote because he will one day be 18...indeed, he is more likely to reach those ages than the average fetus is to reach childhood.

Quite! However logic has no place in the minds of the irrationalists.

I really cannot say more because you are speaking my mind! (scary!LOL)

Bottle

19-01-2005, 13:48

Nobody ever pays attention when people say that, and it makes me angry, because it's a really good point.
:(
it honestly gets boring; the anti-choice crowd just doesn't learn. they all say exactly the same things, all spout the same falacies, all have exactly the same holes in their "logic," and all overlook the same obvious facts in favor of arguing the same irrelevant side issues. i really wish there was just one anti-choice person capable of original and insightful dialogue...but then, if they were insightful and thought critically then they wouldn't be anti-choice any more :).

Neo-Anarchists

19-01-2005, 13:50

Quite! However logic has no place in the minds of the irrationalists
Ooh, time for me to say this! Even though it's in my profile, I'll say it anyway!

"This is still faith in their rationality, in the omnipotence of reason. The mistake? Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone."
-Ayn Rand

Bottle

19-01-2005, 13:53

Ooh, time for me to say this! Even though it's in my profile, I'll say it anyway!

"This is still faith in their rationality, in the omnipotence of reason. The mistake? Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone."
-Ayn Rand
i only wish i could leave them alone :(. sadly, like the racists of the previous generation, they are determined to infect society with their ignorant and unjust opinions, and to pass laws that force us all to live by their personal feelings at the expense of freedom and equality. if they were content to be ignorant about their own lives then i would be more than willing to live and let live, but when they try to take away the rights of others i am forced to become more actively involved. since i am not willing to bomb their meeting places to make my point, and since i don't believe it is just to take away their right to speak their opinions, i am forced to continue cleaning up their illogical messes and pointing out the many holes in their theories.

Neo-Anarchists

19-01-2005, 13:54

i only wish i could leave them alone :(. sadly, like the racists of the previous generation, they are determined to infect society with their ignorant and unjust opinions, and to pass laws that force us all to live by their personal feelings at the expense of freedom and equality. if they were content to be ignorant about their own lives then i would be more than willing to live and let live, but when they try to take away the rights of others i am forced to become more actively involved.
Hee. That bit was funny.

Bottle

19-01-2005, 13:58

Hee. That bit was funny.
but it's not so much funny "ha ha" as it is funny "uh oh."

The Cassini Belt

19-01-2005, 18:59

if we grant fetuses the exact same rights as born human beings, then the right to abortion should be 100% guaranteed at any time and for any reason, for all human women or persons who become pregnant:

As a human being, I have the right (at least in my country), to refuse to donate my blood, organs, tissues, or life to any other being. I have the right to refuse this even if I not longer need them (am dead). I have the right to refuse them if the being in question is my wife, parent, best friend, and even my own child. I have the right to refuse them even if the need was caused by my own negligence (a car accident for example). I have the right to refuse even when that negligence is criminal (drunk driving). And most importantly, I have that right even when I intentionally cause the damage that creates the necessity in a purposeful criminal act (I.E. If I shot you).

There is no logically consistent reason why pregnant women should be the only persons denied these rights, nor why fetuses should be the only living beings granted the right to supercede these rights as held by another human being.

This is an interesting argument. I'll try to counter it. Yes, you have the right to refuse to donate blood etc. Similarly you have the right not to get pregnant, or if you do to you have the right to end it early on. However, not getting an abortion during the first trimester is (or should damn well be) considered a legally-binding indication that you intend to "donate" for the remainder of the term. I'm not so sure you have the right to *change your mind* at that late point when you're created a situation in which it will cause the death of another person.

As for why pregnant women should be treated differently... the situation is closer to siamese twins than it is to blood donation. Suppose you have siamese twins of which only one has a working heart... is it his right to "refuse to donate blood" to the other one? I hardly think so.

Also you say "100% guaranteed at any time", surely it would not be guaranteed at all past the point at which the child is independently viable? (19-20 weeks) At that point the only choice, even following your logic, is to give it birth prematurely, you can't just kill it.

The Cassini Belt

19-01-2005, 19:03

The Cassini Belt

19-01-2005, 19:09

Is anyone else amused by the fact that I am being attacked by people on both the pro-life and the pro-choice sides? Not extreme enough for either, I guess.

Personal responsibilit

19-01-2005, 19:29

Personal responsibilit

19-01-2005, 19:30

Is anyone else amused by the fact that I am being attacked by people on both the pro-life and the pro-choice sides? Not extreme enough for either, I guess.

Don't worry, I won't attack you. I just disagree with you.

InternetToughGuy

19-01-2005, 19:32

InternetToughGuy

19-01-2005, 19:34

Is anyone else amused by the fact that I am being attacked by people on both the pro-life and the pro-choice sides? Not extreme enough for either, I guess.

*punches Cassini Belt*

Ha, and I'm a pacifist.

The Cassini Belt

19-01-2005, 19:44

I have a question:

If a person:

1) Is not self-aware and has never been self-aware

or

2) Is not self-aware and has no chance of regaining self-awareness

Is it immoral to kill them or let them die?

You mean "if a being/creature/living thing" not "person". (1) is not a person, (2) is not a person anymore although they used to be. I would say it is ok to kill them or let them die, but you can't just rush into it, you have to be very careful because you could be wrong about either their self-awareness or their future chances for recovery. This is very abuse-prone, I would not like to see the rules relaxed.

Deo Garricko

19-01-2005, 19:49

The scientific definition of life is when an organism developes its own unique genetic structure. All fetuses has this characteristic no matter how many weeks it has been since conception.

Even if the fetus is not a *person* untill the third trimester the abortion still destroys a life just before it has begun. How is that any different from ending a life at any other point?

InternetToughGuy

19-01-2005, 19:56

You mean "if a being/creature/living thing" not "person". (1) is not a person, (2) is not a person anymore although they used to be. I would say it is ok to kill them or let them die, but you can't just rush into it, you have to be very careful because you could be wrong about either their self-awareness or their future chances for recovery. This is very abuse-prone, I would not like to see the rules relaxed.

By "person" I meant human being. At what point in the a human being's life does it become self-aware.

The Cassini Belt

19-01-2005, 19:58

The Cassini Belt

19-01-2005, 20:18

By "person" I meant human being. At what point in the a human being's life does it become self-aware.

At what point does a human being become self-aware? Well, first brain activity happens around week 6, and completely normal brain activity around week 16. I would say weeks 10-12: you have a lot of responses to environmental stimuli by that point. You could make an argument that it's as early as week 8. The real answer is we don't know exactly, and it doesn't happen all at once, but gradually between weeks 6 and 16. After that, a baby spends most of its time asleep and apparently dreaming, although it appears to be awake for maybe a few minutes a day.

P.S. "person" is not the same as "human being". I think some non-human critters have a pretty good claim to being persons (e.g. dolphins, primates, elephants), and some human beings don't have much of a claim to being persons (e.g. permanent brain death).

Goed Twee

19-01-2005, 20:24

So like Dresophila Prime said, abortion is "A race to kill a fetus before it 'becomes human.'"

My stance is if it grows, its alive.

Tumours grow.

Just saying...

13942

19-01-2005, 20:24

I personally believe that abortion, in any trimester, is wrong. In the case of rape I will support first trimester abortion only because the mother didnt choose to have sex. However, if you're 'mature' enough to make the decision about having sex than you're sure as hell old enough to have the baby. One other instance in which I can accept the idea of abortion is if it puts serious risk on the mother. I dont care how old it has to be to be a baby, it still has the potential to be a active human being that could have a fabulous future, if its life isnt cut short by some immature murderer who thinks only of themselves. It's called protection!! I mean we have a million ways to prevent pregnancy so if you dont want a baby then either abstain or use some protection. Many people arent financially stable enough to have a baby and I understand that but you could damn well put it up for adoption. It's not your life to take, whether it's in your body or not. You chose to put that baby in your body, that baby didnt choose to be concieved. that'd be like shooting someone because they live in your hosue and you dont want them. IT'S NOT YOUR LIFE SO DONT DESTROY IT!!! People are so selfish. Do you really think that karma isnt gonna bite you in the ass for that. Deep down inside everyone knows its murder. I was a volunteer at Planned Parenthood purely because I support them giving out birth control and the fact that if they weren't there people will still be using coat hangers, and that could kill two people instead of one. I realize that every woman should have control over their own body but its not their body theyre hurting. It's just not.

InternetToughGuy

19-01-2005, 20:46

Well, "person" is not the same as "human being". I think some non-human critters have a good claim to being persons (e.g. dolphins, primates, elephants), and some human beings don't have much of a claim to being persons (e.g. permanent brain death).

At what point does a human being become self-aware? Well, first brain activity happens around week 6, and completely normal brain activity around week 16. I would say weeks 10-12: you have a lot of responses to environmental stimuli by that point. The real answer is we don't know exactly, and it doesn't happen all at once, but gradually between weeks 6 and 16. After that, a baby spends most of its time asleep and (apparently) dreaming.

A functioning brain does not equal self-awareness.

The Cassini Belt

19-01-2005, 21:10

A functioning brain does not equal self-awareness.

I don't have any better way to measure it, do you?

There are many states which are interesting gray areas (dreaming, sleepwalking, coma, general anasthesia).

I'm not sure about self-awareness being the proper criterion, in any case. How about consciousness?

I think a baby in the womb is in a state closest to adult sleep most of the time, although they start waking up for brief periods maybe at 16-20 weeks. Bear in mind that someone who is asleep is definitely aware of their surroundings, they just choose to ignore most stimuli. Are they conscious or not? Damn good question. I'd say yes, however.

InternetToughGuy

19-01-2005, 21:21

I don't have any better way to measure it, do you?

There are many states which are interesting gray areas (dreaming, sleepwalking, coma, general anasthesia).

I'm not sure about self-awareness being the proper criterion, in any case. How about consciousness?

I think a baby in the womb is in a state closest to adult sleep most of the time, although they start waking up for brief periods maybe at 16-20 weeks. Bear in mind that someone who is asleep is definitely aware of their surroundings, they just choose to ignore most stimuli. Are they conscious or not? Damn good question. I'd say yes, however.

How about a recognition of their own existence.

That is what I am trying to address. Is it immoral to kill someone who does not recognize their own existence? It's a "If a tree falls in a forrest" type of question, and basically comes down to asking "Does a person who has never recognized their own existence actually have a viable existence at all?"

In relation to abortion you have to ask when a human being develops the ability to recognize their own existence.

The Cassini Belt

19-01-2005, 21:39

How about a recognition of their own existence.

That is what I am trying to address. Is it immoral to kill someone who does not recognize their own existence? It's a "If a tree falls in a forrest" type of question, and basically comes down to asking "Does a person who has never recognized their own existence actually have a viable existence at all?"

In relation to abortion you have to ask when a human being develops the ability to recognize their own existence.

I'm not sure I completely agree with your premise. In any case, you'd have to answer whether an adult who is asleep recognizes their own existence at that time.

If yes, then a baby becomes self-aware around the 6-10 week mark, if not 16-20 weeks. They're not going to have a high IQ, but they do generally react in ways similar to babies outside of the womb.

InternetToughGuy

19-01-2005, 21:52

I'm not sure I completely agree with your premise. In any case, you'd have to answer whether an adult who is asleep recognizes their own existence at that time.

If yes, then a baby becomes self-aware around the 6-10 week mark, if not 16-20 weeks. They're not going to have a high IQ, but they do generally react in ways similar to babies outside of the womb.

Self awareness isn't a day-to-day thing, it is more of a mental recognition. I would consider a point in which you can understand that life is more than a necessary function.

I will ask you this: What makes a human life more valuable than that of a dog or cat, or any other animal? Why do you value your own life?

Dempublicents

19-01-2005, 22:03

I'm not sure I completely agree with your premise. In any case, you'd have to answer whether an adult who is asleep recognizes their own existence at that time.

If yes, then a baby becomes self-aware around the 6-10 week mark, if not 16-20 weeks. They're not going to have a high IQ, but they do generally react in ways similar to babies outside of the womb.

This is patently untrue. At ~8-12 weeks, a fetus has a *reflexive* nervous system. However, the brain is not yet developed enough for any type of awareness. The brain itself is developed enough for this at ~16-20 weeks.

A leech, which has only the most rudimentary of nervous systems, will reflexively move when touched, but it does not have the type of systems needed to be self-aware.

Smallie

19-01-2005, 22:05

my girlfriend had an abortion 2 months ago, i dont know what i should say about that.
all i can say is that we both agreed to do it, its not like killing a person.
my girlfriend is 18 y/o and i'm 20, so not in the right age to have a baby, we're both on school.
btw I'm from the netherlands, we've got other law systems about abortions . .

Dempublicents

19-01-2005, 22:08

The scientific definition of life is when an organism developes its own unique genetic structure. All fetuses has this characteristic no matter how many weeks it has been since conception.

This is also patently untrue. Don't purport to know biology when you obviously haven't bothered to study it. By your definition, most of the cells in your body are their own separate organism.

A fetus cannot be defined as an organism until it meets the prerequisites to be such:
1) Ability to obtain and use nutrients (metabolism)
2) Ability to excrete wastes
3) Growth and development
4) Ability to sense and respond to stimuli as an entity

It does not meet these requirements until it has developed a rudimentary nervous system, generally between weeks 8 and 12.

Even if the fetus is not a *person* untill the third trimester the abortion still destroys a life just before it has begun. How is that any different from ending a life at any other point?

When I decided not to have sex last night, I ended a life before it had begun. Is that a horrible thing? When I take hormones that keep me from ovulating, I end lives before they ever begin?

Dempublicents

19-01-2005, 22:10

At what point does a human being become self-aware? Well, first brain activity happens around week 6, and completely normal brain activity around week 16. I would say weeks 10-12: you have a lot of responses to environmental stimuli by that point. You could make an argument that it's as early as week 8. The real answer is we don't know exactly, and it doesn't happen all at once, but gradually between weeks 6 and 16. After that, a baby spends most of its time asleep and apparently dreaming, although it appears to be awake for maybe a few minutes a day.

I don't know where you got your information on embryonic development, but it is completely wrong according to all of the medical sources I have ever seen (which ends up adding to quite a bit).

Bottle

19-01-2005, 23:33

This is an interesting argument. I'll try to counter it. Yes, you have the right to refuse to donate blood etc. Similarly you have the right not to get pregnant, or if you do to you have the right to end it early on.

again, that is like saying "you have the right to not go skiing, but if you break your leg you don't get to have it fixed because you choose to go skiing. or, at least, you only have a finite window in which you have the right to get your leg set, and if that time course lapses then you have to just live with it. i don't see any other situation in which an individual gives up their right to medical treatment simply because of the time elapsed since the condition presented itself...do you?

However, not getting an abortion during the first trimester is (or should damn well be) considered a legally-binding indication that you intend to "donate" for the remainder of the term. I'm not so sure you have the right to *change your mind* at that late point when you're created a situation in which it will cause the death of another person.

again, i see no other situation in which a person's right to choose what happens to their body is limited by the time elapsed from a given event. if you can list a credible parallel that would be helpful.

As for why pregnant women should be treated differently... the situation is closer to siamese twins than it is to blood donation. Suppose you have siamese twins of which only one has a working heart... is it his right to "refuse to donate blood" to the other one? I hardly think so.

conjoined twins often share body material; since there is no distinction between them genetically, and since they quite often share blood supply, there is no way to determine ownership of such fluids (and many tissues, depending on how they are conjoined). since ownership is ambiguous, it is not possible to make a clear case for who owns the body parts.

that is not the case with pregnancy. the female's organs are clearly and genetically distinct from the fetus at all times, and there is no point at which an infant "owns" any part of its mother's body. there is no point at which she and the fetus are genetically identical, making it quite easy to determine if the blood cells being "donated" to the fetus are its own material or those of the mother. if they belong to her, then they are hers to withhold (according to our definition of human rights).

Also you say "100% guaranteed at any time", surely it would not be guaranteed at all past the point at which the child is independently viable? (19-20 weeks) At that point the only choice, even following your logic, is to give it birth prematurely, you can't just kill it.
a female should have the right to abort a pregnancy at any time and for any reason, if we are consistent in our human rights law and give fetuses exactly the same rights as all other humans. the means by which the fetus is removed are secondary; as long as there is no more risk to the female in delivering an intact fetus, that would be a perfectly acceptable option, but if her life or health would be in greater risk from doing so then she has the right to choose to have the fetus removed through other methods.

Bottle

19-01-2005, 23:40

as i have already pointed out, whether or not a fetus is a human person has nothing to do with whether the right to choose an abortion should be guaranteed to women; if a fetus is a full human person, with all the rights that go along with that, abortion should still be 100% legal at any time and for any reason under our system of law.

discussion of the personhood of a fetus is, thus, not relavent to any discussion of abortion legislation, but i understand it is an important topic. i have therefore started a fresh topic to discuss the nature of human personhood, so that this thread will not be further de-railed by the topic of personhood.

The Cassini Belt

20-01-2005, 00:31

I don't know where you got your information on embryonic development, but it is completely wrong according to all of the medical sources I have ever seen (which ends up adding to quite a bit).

I think you just said what I had said earlier: "The brain itself is developed enough for this [for awarenes] at ~16-20 weeks."

Yes, at 6 weeks you have reflexive responses. At 10-12, you have quite a bit more. At 16 you have normal REM sleep. I'm not sure when the first awake periods happen, but I'd guess 16-20.

If you think I'm wrong, enlighten us as to the timeline.

The Cassini Belt

20-01-2005, 01:00

i don't see any other situation in which an individual gives up their right to medical treatment simply because of the time elapsed since the condition presented itself...do you?

it's not medical treatment (>90% of the time). there is no medical reason for it.

again, i see no other situation in which a person's right to choose what happens to their body is limited by the time elapsed from a given event. if you can list a credible parallel that would be helpful.

It is generally held that parents are legally bound to provide for the well-being of their children. You may have a right to do with your property whatever you will; but if you are a parent, you must buy food for your children *first*, and so you do not in fact have an absolute right to your property. Similarly, if you have an unborn child, you are legally bound to provide for its wellbeing. In that case you do not have an absolute right to do whatever you want with your body.

I also believe that a fertilized zygote becomes an unborn child around the age of 10-12 weeks but certainly no later than 16. Before that, you can do whatever the hell you want, including kill it.

conjoined twins often share body material; since there is no distinction between them genetically, and since they quite often share blood supply, there is no way to determine ownership of such fluids (and many tissues, depending on how they are conjoined). since ownership is ambiguous, it is not possible to make a clear case for who owns the body parts.

that is not the case with pregnancy. the female's organs are clearly and genetically distinct from the fetus at all times, and there is no point at which an infant "owns" any part of its mother's body. there is no point at which she and the fetus are genetically identical, making it quite easy to determine if the blood cells being "donated" to the fetus are its own material or those of the mother. if they belong to her, then they are hers to withhold (according to our definition of human rights).

"Ownership" of body parts does not necessarily come from genetic equivalence. By that reasoning, a female does not own her ova.

I see a female with child as being very similar to conjoined twins. They are not distinct organisms but rather a single inseparable organism inhabited by two persons. You're free to disagree, of course.

a female should have the right to abort a pregnancy at any time and for any reason, if we are consistent in our human rights law and give fetuses exactly the same rights as all other humans. the means by which the fetus is removed are secondary; as long as there is no more risk to the female in delivering an intact fetus, that would be a perfectly acceptable option, but if her life or health would be in greater risk from doing so then she has the right to choose to have the fetus removed through other methods.

"as long as there is no more risk" - not true, this is a triage situation. should be "unless the risk to the mother is not so great as to balance the certainty of death to the baby".

"perfectly acceptable option" - should be "the only legal option" past the middle of second trimester.

The Cassini Belt

20-01-2005, 01:12

if we are consistent in our human rights law

This has nothing to do with "human rights". You are right that under US law there is no legal "duty to help". However in admiralty law (and I'm sure in other legal systems) there is a "duty to help".

Ordinarily, if you saw a house that had just caught fire and had a bucket full of water, you do not have to do anything at all. Under admiralty law you would be legally bound to put out the fire if you could do so without excessive risk to yourself. Ships at sea *must* answer distress calls, and *must* render whatever assistance they can. Whether or not US law should include a "duty to help" in any particular case is entirely up to the voters to decide.

13942

20-01-2005, 01:53

Self awareness isn't a day-to-day thing, it is more of a mental recognition. I would consider a point in which you can understand that life is more than a necessary function.

I will ask you this: What makes a human life more valuable than that of a dog or cat, or any other animal? Why do you value your own life?

Why should we even consider that our lives are more valuable. They should have just as much right to this planet as us, we're just greedy selfish murderers. an animals life is just as valuable as any human's probably more so in certain cases. I think that's complete bullshit that humans think they are better just because we 'control' the planet when in all actuallity we wouldnt exist without animals.

InternetToughGuy

20-01-2005, 02:04

Why should we even consider that our lives are more valuable. They should have just as much right to this planet as us, we're just greedy selfish murderers. an animals life is just as valuable as any human's probably more so in certain cases. I think that's complete bullshit that humans think they are better just because we 'control' the planet when in all actuallity we wouldnt exist without animals.

The award for "Completely Missed the Point of the Thread" goes to Number 13942.

13942

20-01-2005, 02:15

The award for "Completely Missed the Point of the Thread" goes to Number 13942.
I didnt miss the point of the thread, it just pissed me off that you assumed that your life was more valuable than that of an animals. As for your opinions on abortion, I disagree wholeheartedly.

InternetToughGuy

20-01-2005, 02:23

I didnt miss the point of the thread, it just pissed me off that you assumed that your life was more valuable than that of an animals. As for your opinions on abortion, I disagree wholeheartedly.

Human life is more valuable than animal life. We are a higher species.

Why do you disagree with my opinions on abortion?

Bogstonia

20-01-2005, 04:24

Ok, I have always avoided posting on abortion threads. While I have my opinion, these threads are generally at least 50% extremists who refuse to hear alternate arguments and simply scream their opinions at these threads like maniacs. However, my opinions are fairly similar to The Cassini Belt's postings and he has managed to present them in an intelligent manner without becoming over zealous or insulting to other posters as so often occurs in these abortion threads.

I realise this post isn't very constructive but I just thought I would throw The Cassini Belt some kudos and acknowledge that I agree with most, if not all, of what he has posted. Sorted.

Bottle

20-01-2005, 04:57

it's not medical treatment (>90% of the time). there is no medical reason for it.

totally incorrect. something does not need to be medically NECESSARY to qualify as medical treatment. for instance, having an unsightly mole removed by a surgeon for purely aesthetic reasons is medical treatment, even if the mole poses absolutely no threat whatsoever.

It is generally held that parents are legally bound to provide for the well-being of their children. You may have a right to do with your property whatever you will; but if you are a parent, you must buy food for your children *first*, and so you do not in fact have an absolute right to your property. Similarly, if you have an unborn child, you are legally bound to provide for its wellbeing. In that case you do not have an absolute right to do whatever you want with your body.

totally incorrect again. no parent may be compelled to donate their own body for the sustenance of their offspring, period end paragraph. doesn't matter how badly the kid needs it, no parent may be FORCED to donate their body to their own child, in any way. they may be expected to show a given level of responsibility for any child legally in their care, but women could very easily sign away parental rights and then abort a fetus...it would just add one more step, if you like.

I also believe that a fertilized zygote becomes an unborn child around the age of 10-12 weeks but certainly no later than 16. Before that, you can do whatever the hell you want, including kill it.

if a fetus is an unborn child then all of us should be refered to as "undead corpses." stop using incorrect language to evoke emotion and cloud the issue...it is boring, and an unworthy failing.

"Ownership" of body parts does not necessarily come from genetic equivalence. By that reasoning, a female does not own her ova.

true, since identical but non-conjoined twins do not own each other's bodies. however, the fact that the female is both genetically and physiologically distinct from the fetus at all times makes your entire line of though in this area totally irrelevant and an incorrect parallel. there is no time at which it would be possible to confuse the female's organs and tissues for the fetus', and therefore there is no confusion about the person to whom they belong any more than there is confusion about who my vagina belongs to if i am having sex with somebody. merely having another person physically engulfed in your body does not give them ownership of your organs.

I see a female with child as being very similar to conjoined twins. They are not distinct organisms but rather a single inseparable organism inhabited by two persons. You're free to disagree, of course.
i do, because your conclusion is logically inconsistent and does not correspond to the empirical facts. you are free to feel that way, just please be aware that your opinion is nothing more than that: your feelings. it is not based on reality, it is based on your feelings, and that's okay as long as you don't try to insist that reality conform to your feelings.

"as long as there is no more risk" - not true, this is a triage situation. should be "unless the risk to the mother is not so great as to balance the certainty of death to the baby".

no, again, the female's rights come first. if removing a fetus intact would put her at greater risk then she, like all human beings, has the right to choose a medical procedure she wants more. until you can cite a situation in which a person is not guaranteed this right, you are simply re-writing law to suit your purposes...you can't just selectively ignore the rights of a few inconvenient people if you want to consider yourself just.

"perfectly acceptable option" - should be "the only legal option" past the middle of second trimester.
only if you are willing to stomach being unjust and, effectively, endorsing slavery by allowing the ownership of a person's body by someone other than the individual themselves. i am not content to allow slavery, so i do not believe that should be the law.

The Cassini Belt

20-01-2005, 06:18

totally incorrect. something does not need to be medically NECESSARY to qualify as medical treatment. for instance, having an unsightly mole removed by a surgeon for purely aesthetic reasons is medical treatment, even if the mole poses absolutely no threat whatsoever.

No, that's cosmetic, not medical.

totally incorrect again. no parent may be compelled to donate their own body for the sustenance of their offspring, period end paragraph. doesn't matter how badly the kid needs it, no parent may be FORCED to donate their body to their own child, in any way.

Of course they can be compelled if the law says so. There is nothing whatever preventing the legislature from saying that if someone needs a blood transfusion their relatives must donate, if it would not be life-threatening for them to do so. As I said, in present US law there is no "duty to help" in any situation I know of but that can certainly be added.

EDIT: If you are on a ship in international waters, you generally *have to* help anyone who needs help. I assume that would apply to blood transfusions as well.

Incidentally, the mother is not "compelled to donate". She has already *elected to donate* the use of her body to the child. Given that as the situation, it is not necessary to *do anything* in order for it to happen; you have to do something to *prevent it*. Refusing to do what is necessary to stop a "donation" is very different from requiring it in the first place. There is an implied agreement, you're just forcing the mother to stick with it. Think in terms of contract law: nobody can force you to sign a contract but once you do you can be forced to fulfill its terms.

if a fetus is an unborn child then all of us should be refered to as "undead corpses." stop using incorrect language to evoke emotion and cloud the issue...it is boring, and an unworthy failing.

No, there is a very good reason for that. "Fetus" (and other wonderful terms such as "fetal matter" and "uterine tissue") are terms that refer to a non-person. "Unborn child" very clearly refers to a person. It's pretty hard to say that you want to "kill a child", much easier to say that you want to "abort a pregnancy" or (better yet "remove fetal matter").

P.S. We're not "undead corpses" because we are not corpses. "Unborn children" are children. False analogy.

there is no time at which it would be possible to confuse the female's organs and tissues for the fetus', and therefore there is no confusion about the person to whom they belong any more than there is confusion about who my vagina belongs to if i am having sex with somebody. merely having another person physically engulfed in your body does not give them ownership of your organs.

No, but electing to *put* another person in that situation, so that their survival depends on you (and the use of your organs), makes you responsible for their survival. If you're holding someone over a precipice, you do not have the right to let go.

Regarding late abortions...

no, again, the female's rights come first. if removing a fetus intact would put her at greater risk then she, like all human beings, has the right to choose a medical procedure she wants more.

The situation that we're discussing is inherently one in which the rights of one person have to be traded off against the rights of another. The "medical procedure" is a procedure which affects both mother and child, therefore they should have equal choice in the matter.

only if you are willing to stomach being unjust and, effectively, endorsing slavery by allowing the ownership of a person's body by someone other than the individual themselves. i am not content to allow slavery, so i do not believe that should be the law.

Okay, let's get over this ownership thing. You own your body, and that is a non-transferable right. However, you can certainly enter contracts that impose certain obligations on you and specifically on your body (actually any employment contract is a form of that since your body will have to do some work). That is not slavery. In particular you can enter a legal contract that says you will donate blood; and you can renege on it; but you will be sued, especially if someone dies as a result. If you want to be awfully legalistic about it, I claim that there is an implied contract between mother and baby. Since the consequences of reneging on that contract are severe for one of the parties involved (death), I think there should be some penalties for the other party, and for any accessories in the act.

The Cassini Belt

20-01-2005, 06:39

Added poll. Go vote ;)

Omega the Black

20-01-2005, 07:20

Well, I admit my opinion is more pragmatic than principled. Let me explain the scenario I see about having abortions early: suppose you're female and you miss a period. You get a pregnancy test (cost $4) and it comes out positive. The fetus is at most 5 weeks old. It doesn't have brainwaves, and is probably about as complex as an earthworm. Is killing it murder? Yeah, it could turn into a baby, but it *isn't* one yet. So if you must kill it, do it then. But you really have to catch it that early, and that means keeping records so you know when your period is supposed to be, and testing (probably twice) every time you miss one.
You say "it is always human", of course, but it is not a *person*.
Now see my wife had 3 neg. pee-on-a-sticks and 1 neg. blood test when she was pregnant with our son. It was close to the 4 month point when the ultrasound finally confirmed what she already knew. I have a friend who had an abortion because of a tubal(baby was forming in the faolopian tube not the uterus-would have killed both mother and baby). We supported her through that one but when she got preg. the second time "by accident" (they were only using condoms maybe 1/2 the time) then we refused to support her because 1) she was using it like birth control, 2) she just about killed herself after the first one, 3) every one increases the probability that she would become barren and she did want to have children. At the same time I had a friend who had to pay to have her tubes untied so that she and her 2nd husband could have a child together but abortions are paid for by the gov't.

Omega the Black

20-01-2005, 07:29

no, again, the female's rights come first. if removing a fetus intact would put her at greater risk then she, like all human beings, has the right to choose a medical procedure she wants more.
Okay, let's get over this ownership thing. You own your body, and that is a non-transferable right. However, you can certainly enter contracts that impose certain obligations on you and specifically on your body (actually any employment contract is a form of that). That is not slavery (some people might say it is, but I say it is not). In particular you can enter a legal contract that says you will donate blood; and you can renege on it; but you will be sued, especially if someone dies as a result. If you want to be awfully legalistic about it, I claim that there is an implied contract between mother and baby. Since the consequences of reneging on that contract are severe for one of the parties involved (death), I think there should be some penalties for the other party, and for any accessories in the act.
Alright, yes it is your body just as it is the baby's body and you entered into a contract that was automatically certified during consumation. If you don't want to run the risk of having a child then be an adult and keep it in your pants. My wife became pregnant with our first child while on the pill and is now pregnant with our second while using a condom. Neither form is 100% so you enter into the contract warned by the products themselves and have accepted the risk. And if you choose not to use anything well... Murder is murder no matter how young so grow up and be adult about accepting the responsability for your actions.
:sniper:

The Cassini Belt

20-01-2005, 09:16

no parent may be compelled to donate their own body for the sustenance of their offspring

Of course they can be compelled if the law says so. There is nothing whatever preventing the legislature from saying that if someone needs a blood transfusion their relatives must donate, if it would not be life-threatening for them to do so. As I said, in present US law there is no "duty to help" in any situation I know of but that can certainly be added.

More on this...

Actually, it turns out there is "duty to help" (it's usually called "duty to rescue") in some jurisdictions in the US.

The law makes a pretty strong distinction between acts of omission (i.e. failing to act to help someone) and affirmative acts or actus reus (i.e. acting to put someone in danger). I'm pretty sure that legally abortion would be viewed as actus reus, since it is an act and not the omission of an act. This puts it in a completely different legal category from refusing a blood donation for example.

Assuming that the child is a person before the law, if abortion *is* an actus reus then it is absolutely against the law: it is murder, and the fact that the mother has the legal right to make decisions about her body does not matter in the least. It is important to note that what we're talking about is not as you say "compelled to donate their own body for the sustenance of their offspring" but rather "prevented from withdrawing the sustenance of their own body from their offspring" which is a completely different thing from a legal point of view (and moral, but that's another story).

If an abortion is *not* an actus reus, then the existence of a "duty to rescue" would become an issue. While there is no general duty to rescue in common law, there would be a duty to rescue in this case because of the status relationship (parent-child), because duty was voluntarily assumed, and because the perilous situation was created by the potential rescuer. Even if there is no specific duty to rescue for any of these common-law reasons, such a duty may still be imposed by the legislature. See http://www.agulnicklaw.com/articles/duty.html .

In short, there are at least four strong arguments about why a mother cannot legally abort a child which has the status of a person, and even if all four fail, the legislature can still impose a requirement to carry to term.

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

http://w3.uchastings.edu/leeet_01/Crimlaw/Outlines/02Lec_Outline/04_Lec_03.htm

e. A person can be punished for a failure to act only if he or she had a legal duty to act
i. Duty to act can be established only by the following circumstances:
A. statute imposes duty
B. status relationship imposes duty
C. contract creates duty
D. duty was voluntarily assumed, then abandoned, thereby leaving victim in a worse position
E. status as landowner imposes duty
F. tort duty to control certain third persons (e.g., children, employees)
G. defendant created peril in first place

http://www.sixthform.info/law/01_modules/mod3/12_2tort_introduction/12_2_1_duty/2_duty_omissions.htm

No one is under a (legal) obligation to to assist others [unless] He has a personal relationship with the other person [in which case] There is a positive duty to prevent harm

For example:
* an employer owes a duty to employees,
* a parent owes a duty to a child.

The essence of the relationship is that the victim has relied, expressly or impliedly, on the alleged wrongdoer to keep the victim free from harm.

http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/puzz17.html
Every European country has a duty to rescue law on its books.... five states (Massachustts, Rhode Island, Vermont, Minnesota and Hawaii) have enacted "Good Samaritan" laws. Vermont's law reads in part as follows:

Any person who knows that another is exposed to grave physical harm shall, to the extent that the same can be rendered without danger or peril to himself or without interference with important duties to others, give reasonable assistance to the exposed person unless that assistance or care is being provided by others.

The Cassini Belt

20-01-2005, 10:29

Now see my wife had 3 neg. pee-on-a-sticks and 1 neg. blood test when she was pregnant with our son. It was close to the 4 month point when the ultrasound finally confirmed what she already knew.

I understand that can happen, but I don't think it would be too common. You guys certainly did due dilligence. Congratulations on your boy, by the way!

The Cassini Belt

20-01-2005, 11:26

Thank you to everyone who took the poll already!

It is going the way I expected it to: a narrow majority in favor of first-trimester-only abortions, with the remainder opposed to any abortions except maybe in special cases. That's what all the national polls say too. Unfortunately, that is not the laws we have at the moment.

If you have a position at one extreme end or the other of the spectrum - especially on the extreme pro-choice side - think about the poll results for a minute.

Omega the Black

20-01-2005, 12:27

totally incorrect. something does not need to be medically NECESSARY to qualify as medical treatment. for instance, having an unsightly mole removed by a surgeon for purely aesthetic reasons is medical treatment, even if the mole poses absolutely no threat whatsoever.
This is cosmetic surgery not a medical treatment.

totally incorrect again. no parent may be compelled to donate their own body for the sustenance of their offspring, period end paragraph. doesn't matter how badly the kid needs it, no parent may be FORCED to donate their body to their own child, in any way. they may be expected to show a given level of responsibility for any child legally in their care, but women could very easily sign away parental rights and then abort a fetus...it would just add one more step, if you like.
No a parent can't be forced to give up their life for their child but it would be a pretty poor parent that wouldn't. But failure to supply necessities of life to your child is a Felony and will lead to you being charged for complicity in the death of a minor. There is no reason this should not extend to pre-birth/post-conception.
if a fetus is an unborn child then all of us should be refered to as "undead corpses." stop using incorrect language to evoke emotion and cloud the issue...it is boring, and an unworthy failing.
Now this is truly one of your so called flawed arguments. You accuse us of trying to invoke emotional response and here you are trying to paint a morbid and disgusting picture to revolt others. "Undead corpse" is the true incorrect language and a bad attempt to cloud the issue.
true, since identical but non-conjoined twins do not own each other's bodies. however, the fact that the female is both genetically and physiologically distinct from the fetus at all times makes your entire line of though in this area totally irrelevant and an incorrect parallel. there is no time at which it would be possible to confuse the female's organs and tissues for the fetus', and therefore there is no confusion about the person to whom they belong any more than there is confusion about who my vagina belongs to if i am having sex with somebody. merely having another person physically engulfed in your body does not give them ownership of your organs.
First off you were abused as a child weren't you! You really should start seeing a councilor/psychologist before it begins affecting your life more in other areas. Now back to the discussion; So where exactly does the woman end and the fetus begin? They share the same blood, energy source, oxygen source, etc...
i do, because your conclusion is logically inconsistent and does not correspond to the empirical facts. you are free to feel that way, just please be aware that your opinion is nothing more than that: your feelings. it is not based on reality, it is based on your feelings, and that's okay as long as you don't try to insist that reality conform to your feelings.
So how exactly is it that their opinion is exactly that: their feelings. Feelings are emotion based, opinions are mentally based. You now are trying to make it seem like your arguements are based in science when they really are based in your fear of maybe, possibly, in a way, sort-off giving up control of your body. As my wife points out you still have FULL control and can do what ever you want to do all it really changes is your dress size and means you shouldn't go sluting it up at the local bars.

The Cassini Belt

20-01-2005, 12:44

First off you were abused as a child weren't you! ... means you shouldn't go sluting it up at the local bars.

Omega, let's keep this civil, shall we? No ad hominem attacks, please.

I admit that some of the more clinical language used by the lady disturbs me, but that is no reason to call anyone names.

Dempublicents

20-01-2005, 15:12

I believe it should be almost exactly as it is in the laws:

Elective abortions legal up until the time of "quickening", when nervous system activity can be observed. Currently, this is set at the end of the first trimester, but the earliest timepoints in medical journals seem to have it possible at 8 weeks, so we should probably develop a test for it.

Abortions for medical reasons up until viability.

Abortions for danger to the life of the mother only once the fetus is viable.

Dempublicents

20-01-2005, 15:15

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

http://w3.uchastings.edu/leeet_01/Crimlaw/Outlines/02Lec_Outline/04_Lec_03.htm

http://www.sixthform.info/law/01_modules/mod3/12_2tort_introduction/12_2_1_duty/2_duty_omissions.htm

http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/puzz17.html

These types of laws are *exactly* the reason that legally conferring personhood upon an embryo would be so dangerous. You would start having women who miscarry sued for neglecting their embryos before they even knew they were pregnant.

Bottle

20-01-2005, 15:17

This is cosmetic surgery not a medical treatment.

wrong. learn to use terms correctly: such surgery IS medical treatment, and under our system of law must be performed by a licensed medical professional. performing cosmetic procedures without a MEDICAL license is illegal...why would that be, if it were not in the domain of medical treatment?

No a parent can't be forced to give up their life for their child but it would be a pretty poor parent that wouldn't. But failure to supply necessities of life to your child is a Felony and will lead to you being charged for complicity in the death of a minor. There is no reason this should not extend to pre-birth/post-conception.

so? maybe it makes you a poor parent to choose not to donate your organs, but you still have that choice. and, as i said, the woman could very easily sever her parental rights before aborting, thus eliminating any legal responsibility she has toward the fetus. no problem there.

Now this is truly one of your so called flawed arguments. You accuse us of trying to invoke emotional response and here you are trying to paint a morbid and disgusting picture to revolt others. "Undead corpse" is the true incorrect language and a bad attempt to cloud the issue.

"undead corpses" is as correct as "unborn children." unless you can explain why potentiality should = actuality for fetuses but not for any other beings we recognize as human persons, you have no ground to stand on.

First off you were abused as a child weren't you! You really should start seeing a councilor/psychologist before it begins affecting your life more in other areas. Now back to the discussion; So where exactly does the woman end and the fetus begin? They share the same blood, energy source, oxygen source, etc...

lol, i love it when freshman psych courses rear their ugly heads. if you think a person must be abused in order for them to believe in justice, freedom, and the idea that slavery is wrong, then i really am afraid of your vision of "healthy childhood."

if you are curious about where a fetus begins and ends while inside a female, please speak to any licensed doctor or biology professor. it is quite easy to recognize boundaries between organisms, even when one is engulfed by the other. we can recognize the distinction between mitochondria and cells, even, and those are entities so small they can never be perceived by the naked eye...a woman and a fetus are child's play, by comparison.

So how exactly is it that their opinion is exactly that: their feelings. Feelings are emotion based, opinions are mentally based.

really? not according to my dictionary...

o·pin·ion (-pnyn) n.

1. A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: “The world is not run by thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion” (Elizabeth Drew).
2. A judgment based on special knowledge and given by an expert: a medical opinion.
3. A judgment or estimation of the merit of a person or thing: has a low opinion of braggarts.
4. The prevailing view: public opinion.

only one of those is necessarily based on "mental" factors, and it's the one that has to do with an expert in a field...unless you are a ob/gyn, that ain't you. once again you simply don't seem to understand the English language; you can't just redefine words whenever you like, that's not how it works.

You now are trying to make it seem like your arguements are based in science when they really are based in your fear of maybe, possibly, in a way, sort-off giving up control of your body.

my arguments are based on science, and unless you can show how they are unscientific you are just blowing more hot air. i am citing scientific facts, as well as legal facts, and the truth of such facts would not be changed by my personal feelings about those facts.

as for my fears of giving up control of my body, why would i be scared of that? i never will have to do that.

As my wife points out you still have FULL control and can do what ever you want to do all it really changes is your dress size and means you shouldn't go sluting it up at the local bars.
lol, if you (or your wife) thinks pregancy only changes your dress size then i would advise you speak to a physician. the physical changes from pregnancy endure for the remainder of a woman's life, and the process of pregnancy carries several serious risks. that doesn't mean it's horrible or wrong or that nobody should do it, just that nobody should take it lightly.

also, if you believe "slutting it up in bars" is the only way that an unplanned pregnancy can occur, i would invite you to come visit the clinic i volunteer at. once you look into the eyes of a 12 year old who is pregnant by her father, you change your tune a bit. you can speak to women who have 7 children already and cannot feed them, but who belong to religions that forbid them to use contraception with their husbands. you can speak to young girls who were told you can't get pregnant if you are on top, or if it is your first time, or if you jump up and down for 30 minutes after sex. you can meet up with women who were raped, women who used contraception that failed, women who found out they carry a genetic disease that will cripple any child they carry to term...

if you really think abortion is an issue that can be simplified to dress sizes and bar sluts then you have a lot of growing up to do.

Dempublicents

20-01-2005, 15:19

This is cosmetic surgery not a medical treatment.

It is still a medical treatment, albeit an elective one.

No a parent can't be forced to give up their life for their child but it would be a pretty poor parent that wouldn't. But failure to supply necessities of life to your child is a Felony and will lead to you being charged for complicity in the death of a minor. There is no reason this should not extend to pre-birth/post-conception.

Yes, and I suppose you would be the first in line to put a woman in jail for miscarrying.

Now this is truly one of your so called flawed arguments. You accuse us of trying to invoke emotional response and here you are trying to paint a morbid and disgusting picture to revolt others. "Undead corpse" is the true incorrect language and a bad attempt to cloud the issue.

Actually, it really is just as correct as "unborn child." You are invoking potentiality in exactly the same way.

Now back to the discussion; So where exactly does the woman end and the fetus begin? They share the same blood, energy source, oxygen source, etc...

Once the fetus' circulatory system is established (the first finished organ system), it does *not* share the same blood. As for nutrients and oxygen, it pulls these out of the mother's bloodstream much as a parasite would. Fetal hemoglobin, for instance, has a much higher affinity for oxygen than adult hemoglobin, allowing the fetus to pull oxygen out of the mother's blood.

As my wife points out you still have FULL control and can do what ever you want to do all it really changes is your dress size

If your wife really said this, she is either very, very lucky or a prize idiot.

Bottle

20-01-2005, 15:19

It is still a medical treatment, albeit an elective one.

Yes, and I suppose you would be the first in line to put a woman in jail for miscarrying.

Actually, it really is just as correct as "unborn child." You are invoking potentiality in exactly the same way.

Once the fetus' circulatory system is established (the first finished organ system), it does *not* share the same blood. As for nutrients and oxygen, it pulls these out of the mother's bloodstream much as a parasite would. Fetal hemoglobin, for instance, has a much higher affinity for oxygen than adult hemoglobin, allowing the fetus to pull oxygen out of the mother's blood.

If your wife really said this, she is either very, very lucky or a prize idiot.

thanks Demi, it's nice to be reminded that there are still people with a rudamentary grasp of English, Biology, and medicine. it sickens me that people who don't even understand the terms, let alone the biological processes, are allowed to vote on issues like abortion...they don't even know what they are voting on, for crying out loud!

Saxdonia

20-01-2005, 15:35

I personally am pro-choice. I used to be pro-life. But I actually looked at the facts and realised that to not give women the choice puts us under the age old myth we can live in some utopian perfect world.

If the right to chose is lost, then we will resort back to the backstreet abortions of yesteryear. Some women DO NOT feel ready to ahve children. We are a high species living in circumstances where we cannot naturally raise children whenever the need becomes apparent. Women now have a lot more to worry about than just the rearing of children. This goes back to the time when they were seen as baby making machines and nothing more.

Women have feelings, and worries. An unborn fetus has not lived any life, and so has no conscious idea of a self. I do think that perhaps the time limit should be reduced slightly, although concessions should be made for dangerous births and deformed babies.

Sex is a natural part of life, and I am not saying it is peoples divine right to have sex, but lets face the facts, it is one of few natural pleasures left for the human race. Sex does happen, and the sooner people can accept this the better. Encouragement of contraception and "safe sex" should be where these people attack and not the "cure" thy so desperatley seek. Better sex education and better contraceptive availibility should be what they fight for, then they can moan about the women who don't feel ready to have a baby.

Imagine for a moment if all these women were forced to go through these pregnancies? They would either have the child adopted, more heartache, or they would raise the child with resentment, and maybe with not half the things they would have been able to provide at another time in life where they had more money due to a better career, or better circumstances, or the prescence of the father. You ahve to think about the consequences of taking the choice away from women.

The Cassini Belt

20-01-2005, 18:38

Dempublicents

20-01-2005, 18:51

Demipublicents: I agree, that would be a reasonable set of laws. However, this is not
"exactly as it is in the laws" we have at the moment. Not even close.

It is in every state in the US but one or two.

And it is *exactly* as delineated by Roe v. Wade.

Bottle

20-01-2005, 18:54

It is in every state in the US but one or two.

And it is *exactly* as delineated by Roe v. Wade.
sadly, i still cannot accept that, not until somebody explains why a fetus should be the only living being to have the right of claim to another human being's body. i think it would be appropriate to remove viable fetuses intact if the mother wishes to end the pregnancy, but i cannot see any just reason why any woman could be denied the right to cut off her parental rights and end her participation in a pregnancy at any time.

Dempublicents

20-01-2005, 18:56

sadly, i still cannot accept that, not until somebody explains why a fetus should be the only living being to have the right of claim to another human being's body. i think it would be appropriate to remove viable fetuses intact if the mother wishes to end the pregnancy, but i cannot see any just reason why any woman could be denied the right to cut off her parental rights and end her participation in a pregnancy at any time.

I understand the logic behind your position. However, there is no other case to compare it to. There is *no* precendent for a human being fully dependent on another for life without consent (of either party). As such, this is a completely different case, with no precedent on either side. You and I have obviously come to differnet conclusions on it.

Personal responsibilit

20-01-2005, 19:01

sadly, i still cannot accept that, not until somebody explains why a fetus should be the only living being to have the right of claim to another human being's body. i think it would be appropriate to remove viable fetuses intact if the mother wishes to end the pregnancy, but i cannot see any just reason why any woman could be denied the right to cut off her parental rights and end her participation in a pregnancy at any time.

Though not as directly, a 1 year old is still completely dependent upon someone else to be viable and thereby have rights that tax someone's human body and when those human's don't provide appropriate care and the child dies if it is cause by a direct willful action it is murder, if it is due to neglect it is negligent homicide.

It just depends on how and when you want to define human life.

The other thing is, in most cases, the parent chose the actions that led to the existance of a fetus who is involuntarily dependent on those who chose to bring it into existance.

Bottle

20-01-2005, 19:04

I understand the logic behind your position. However, there is no other case to compare it to. There is *no* precendent for a human being fully dependent on another for life without consent (of either party). As such, this is a completely different case, with no precedent on either side. You and I have obviously come to differnet conclusions on it.
there certainly is such precident...there was a case brought up in my ethics class this week, actually:

car wreck, serious injuries, a set of identical twins who also happened to be of very unique racial background. the twin who was a passenger in the car is more seriously injured, must receive an organ transplant (i believe it was a liver and kidney he needed) to survive. other twin not so seriously injured, and the only person who would be able to donate organs (because of the very unusual racial mix, finding matches would be close to impossible) before the other twin died.

one person totally dependent upon another for tissues, neither having consenting to the initial situation that made the donation necessary. healthier twin did not want to be organ donor, and wanted to stop donating blood to his twin (which he was already doing). our question was what we would do, ethically, in this situation, and the whole reason it was a question was because the healthy twin is totally within his rights to deny donation...if he could be compelled to donate against his wishes that would have totally changed the situation, and would also have changed the medical ethics regarding putting pressure on him to donate if that is not his desire.

Bottle

20-01-2005, 19:07

Though not as directly, a 1 year old is still completely dependent upon someone else to be viable and thereby have rights that tax someone's human body and when those human's don't provide appropriate care and the child dies if it is cause by a direct willful action it is murder, if it is due to neglect it is negligent homicide.

and we allow people to sever parental rights if they no longer wish to be legally responsible for a child. there is no case in which any person may be FORCED to use their body to support the life and/or health of another human being.

It just depends on how and when you want to define human life.

no, it doesn't. even if one assumes a fetus is a complete human person, entitled to precisely the same rights as all living human persons, that wouldn't change anything...women should still have the right to end a pregnancy at any time and for any reason, though the fetus should be removed intact if it is viable.

The other thing is, in most cases, the parent chose the actions that led to the existance of a fetus who is involuntarily dependent on those who chose to bring it into existance.
so? if i choose to go skiing and break my leg i am not told that i cannot have it set simply because i choose the action that led to the existence of my broken leg.

Personal responsibilit

20-01-2005, 19:09

and we allow people to sever parental rights if they no longer wish to be legally responsible for a child. there is no case in which any person may be FORCED to use their body to support the life and/or health of another human being.

no, it doesn't. even if one assumes a fetus is a complete human person, entitled to precisely the same rights as all living human persons, that wouldn't change anything...women should still have the right to end a pregnancy at any time and for any reason, though the fetus should be removed intact if it is viable.

so? if i choose to go skiing and break my leg i am not told that i cannot have it set simply because i choose the action that led to the existence of my broken leg.

If rights conflict, IMO, the right to life supercedes the others... and another human life is not a broken leg. You're trying to compare apples to eggplant.

The Cassini Belt

20-01-2005, 19:18

"undead corpses" is as correct as "unborn children." unless you can explain why potentiality should = actuality for fetuses but not for any other beings we recognize as human persons, you have no ground to stand on.

Referring to a fetus as a "child" or "baby" is perfectly correct usage. It is also very much traditional, e.g. "she's with child" or "I can feel my baby kicking". I don't think many mothers would say "I can feel my fetus kicking", do you? Check your dictionary (or any five dictionaries for that matter). This usage is not about "potentiality", it is a simple statement of fact. Fetuses *are* children (and persons), adults *are not* corpses.

Main Entry: child
Pronunciation: 'chI(&)ld
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural chil·dren /'chil-dr&n, -d&rn/
1 : an unborn or recently born person
2 : a young person especially between infancy and youth —with child : PREGNANT
Source: Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

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.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

The Cassini Belt

20-01-2005, 19:30

one person totally dependent upon another for tissues, neither having consenting to the initial situation that made the donation necessary. healthier twin did not want to be organ donor, and wanted to stop donating blood to his twin (which he was already doing). our question was what we would do, ethically, in this situation, and the whole reason it was a question was because the healthy twin is totally within his rights to deny donation...if he could be compelled to donate against his wishes that would have totally changed the situation, and would also have changed the medical ethics regarding putting pressure on him to donate if that is not his desire.

Bottle, please have a look at my post #82
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7988044&postcount=82

Basically, there is a huge legal difference between doing something (abortion) and failing to do something (refusing to donate blood). They are not comparable. If you found yourself in a situation where you can save the life of another, in the US you have no duty to save them (if they are a total stranger; this may not be true otherwise). However if you are in a situation where their life depends on you *continuing* to do something which you are already doing, then you cannot stop, to stop would be viewed legally as murder.

Additionally, parents *do* have a duty to save the lives of their children, and the legal reasoning behind that is (quote) "the victim has relied, expressly or impliedly, on the alleged wrongdoer to keep the victim free from harm" and "duty was voluntarily assumed".

The Cassini Belt

20-01-2005, 19:48

It is in every state in the US but one or two.

And it is *exactly* as delineated by Roe v. Wade.

No, it isn't. According to Roe v Wade, during the first trimester, the state may not regulate abortion at all; during the second trimester, only in order to protect the health of the mother; and during the third trimester, to protect the health of the mother and to promote the potential life of the fetus. A companion case, Doe v Bolton, defines health as "all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the well-being of the patient". This pretty much covers all the reasons why one might want to have an abortion, but it is not what I would think of as "medical reasons".

In short, Roe v Wade requires the states to allow perfectly discretionary abortions in the first and second trimester, and abortions for extremely broadly defined "health" reasons during the third.

Roe v Wade also specifically states that a fetus is not a person.

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 151. "If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically." Id. at 157. "The Constitution does not define 'person' in so many words," but none of the instances of its use "indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application." Id. at 158. Therefore, "the word 'person,' as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn." Id. at 159.

The Cassini Belt

20-01-2005, 19:52

A good summary of Roe v Wade, by the way...

http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/roe-sum.htm
First Trimester: The state has no "compelling interest" in protecting the health of the woman because "abortion in early pregnancy, although not without its risks, is relatively safe." The state also has no "compelling interest" in protecting the potentiality of human life because "the compelling point is at viability." Therefore, the state may not regulate abortion at all except to require that the procedure be preformed by a physician.

Second Trimester: Since "the risk to the woman increases as her pregnancy continues," the state, in promoting its interest in protecting the health of the woman "may regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health." Examples of permissible state regulation are requirements as to the qualifications of the person performing the abortion or the licensure of the abortion facility.

Third Trimester: Since the fetus has the capability of "meaningful life" outside the pregnant woman's womb at "about 28 weeks, but as early as 24 weeks," the state's interest in protecting potential life becomes "compelling" at this point of "viability." Therefore, the state, if it chooses, may regulate and even proscribe abortion except where it is necessary for the preservation of the life or health of the woman.

Bill Mutz

20-01-2005, 19:59

Since there's a whole bunch of threads on abortion, let me pitch in my opinion and some statistics.

Most reasonable people would agree that killing a *person* is wrong. Therefore the abortion debate is really a disagreement over the point at which sperm+eggs turn into a person. The two extreme views are that any fertilized egg (or sometimes even unfertilized egg, or sperm) is a person, or that a baby is not a person as long as it is bodily attached to the mother in any way. I think both extreme views are obvious nonsense. There isn't necessarily a single *point in time* at which that happens. We can pick a few milestones: first heartbeat, appearance of reflexes, normal-looking brainwaves/EEG, viability with medical assistance, unassisted viability. Requiring unassisted viability is ridiculous, since there are many people who require technical assistance to survive but who have the legal status of adults. Let's see when the milestones happen: heartbeat - 3 weeks, reflexes and brainwaves - 6 weeks, normal brainwaves - 16 weeks, viable - 19-22 weeks. Reasonable people might disagree about the details, but broadly speaking a fetus becomes a person at some point between 6 and 20 weeks after conception. I think 16, but to err on the side of caution I'll call it 12.

Therefore: an abortion during the first trimester is something that the mother can decide to do entirely at her discretion. Three months is certainly sufficient to notice that you're pregnant and make up your mind about whether you want to carry to term. Ideally abortions during weeks 10-12 should be fairly rare since the fetus is quite well developed at that point. An abortion between 3 and 4.5 months may be ok if there is an *overriding* reason such as a life-threatening medical condition or possibly in cases of rape or incest, again reasonable people may disagree about the details but most would agree it should not be something routine. An abortion beyond the 4.5-5 month point is *never* ok since the baby is independently viable at that point. Such an abortion should be treated legally and morally the same as the murder of a born child, unless there is a *clear* medical choice between saving the life of the mother or that of the child.

Now, the interesting thing is that this is precisely the majority opinion in the USA: a New York Times/CBS Poll of 1998 finds 61% think abortioh should be legal during the first trimester, 15% that it should be legal during the second trimester, and 7% that it should be legal during the third trimester (http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_poll1.htm, http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/timespoll/la-000618abortpoll,1,3490987.story?coll=la-news-times_poll&ctrack=1&cset=true). Finally, some sanity returns.

Some more statistics... 60-65% would like to overturn Roe vs Wade, there is a roughly even split on whether to allow completely discretionary abortions during the first trimester, and women are considerably more pro-life than men. Roughly 36% of abortions happen in weeks 9-13 (end of first trimester), 10% during the second trimester, and 1% in the third.

Taking a bird's eye view: life is sacred, pregnancy and birth are two of the great mysteries of life. Abortion is inherently destructive and negative - it should be viewed as choosing the lesser of two evils, somewhat akin to killing in self-defense, and *not* as an alternative to birth control. If you have to do it, it is your responsibility to do it as early as possible, and you had better have a *good* reason beyond just your convenience.Personally, I disagree. There is nothing intrinsically sacred about "life." Morality is not absolute but determined entirely by society. Those who object to this notion, I think, don't like the idea of carrying such a burden of responsibility. This is to say that I consider those who rely upon divine authority moral cowards, and I, for one, consider this reprehensible. If we extend the right of life to fetuses, then let us do so with our eyes open.

Personally, I prefer "freedom to live" over "right to live." If we do not give children full freedom of speech or rights of suffrage, are we not treating children differently? Parents make decisions on our behalf from the day that we are concieved, often even before. Is it so very different that a mother can choose for her would-be offspring whether or not it lives? Not unless we say so, in my opinion. Therefore, we have a moral decision to make. We, as a society, are left to decide when or whether abortion is right and when or whether it is wrong. The decision that we make will define the morality of this action, and there will be no wrong except an we deem wrong commited. We are the legislature, the judge, and the jury. This is, perhaps, an awesome responsibility, but it is one that cannot be cast off anymore than it can be laid upon the shoulders of a divine figure when divine figures are merely a shadow cast in the light of imaginations that may one day move the hands of sculptors of worlds and suns.

This is as far as I go with my opinion in this, and I will underline here that my mind will not be changed, lest I become embroiled in another fruitless debate in which old, tiresome arguments are rehashed and rehashed again and still left as worthless or unremarkable. If society chooses one way, I will not say that I would have chosen another anymore vocally than I endorse it.

The Cassini Belt

20-01-2005, 20:39

We, as a society, are left to decide when or whether abortion is right and when or whether it is wrong. The decision that we make will define the morality of this action, and there will be no wrong except an we deem wrong commited. We are the legislature, the judge, and the jury.

Bill, I think you're confused about legality vs morality, they are not the same. Yes, we are the legislature, the judge, and the jury - but ultimately we have to deal with the consequences of our decisions. Reality will not be denied, she is the ultimate judge. If our decisions are bad, we will surely suffer the consequences. That is the real source of morality and of "natural rights".

Dempublicents

20-01-2005, 22:41

there certainly is such precident...there was a case brought up in my ethics class this week, actually:

car wreck, serious injuries, a set of identical twins who also happened to be of very unique racial background. the twin who was a passenger in the car is more seriously injured, must receive an organ transplant (i believe it was a liver and kidney he needed) to survive. other twin not so seriously injured, and the only person who would be able to donate organs (because of the very unusual racial mix, finding matches would be close to impossible) before the other twin died.

one person totally dependent upon another for tissues, neither having consenting to the initial situation that made the donation necessary. healthier twin did not want to be organ donor, and wanted to stop donating blood to his twin (which he was already doing). our question was what we would do, ethically, in this situation, and the whole reason it was a question was because the healthy twin is totally within his rights to deny donation...if he could be compelled to donate against his wishes that would have totally changed the situation, and would also have changed the medical ethics regarding putting pressure on him to donate if that is not his desire.

This is in no way a precedent for someone already being hooked up and completely dependent upon another for all processes. The only analogy that even comes close would be the following:

Suppose, without my request or consent and only the barest of implied consent from you, I was hooked up to you. I lived completely off your bloodstream. Suppose you asked how long this would go on, and you were told that I would be able to live on my own in 9 months and you agreed. Now, 8 months into it, you are correct that you could sever the tie. It would not matter how much longer I needed, how likely I was to survive said severing, nor what reason you had for doing so. If it involved simply cutting the cord that connected us, that would be your right.

However, we must remember that abortion is not simply severing a cord. If it were, your analogy would stand. However, late-term abortion involves an active role in killing an organism (whether we define it as a human person or not, it is an organism). We are not simply talking about cutting the cord and letting the fetus fair as it may. This would be akin to, in the above situation, you saying "I don't want you connected anymore," shooting me in the head, and then having me disconnected, something which would *not* be your right to do, even if it made the disconnection process slightly less risky.

As it is, there is no true comparison here. There is no medical procedure in which one life is placed into a situation in which it is completely dependent upon another.

On top of that, there *is* precedent for not allowing a human being to harm an organism (whether it be human or not) just on a whim. Even when performing medical research, we must provide huge amounts of documentation on why we are harming/killing an animal, that we are doing it in the least painful way possible, etc. Thus, I don't think it is out of line to ask that a woman have a reason beyond "Oh, I just feel like it," to cause harm to a living organism (which the fetus is once a rudimentary nervous system has been developed).

And to Cassini: What you define as medical reason is not what the medical community defines as such. Mental harm is very much a medical reason, just as physical harm is. The point is that, while a woman can have an elective abortion at any time during the first trimester, she must have a solid reason to do so during the second. During the third, her own life must be in danger.

Dempublicents

20-01-2005, 22:44

No, it isn't. According to Roe v Wade, during the first trimester, the state may not regulate abortion at all; during the second trimester, only in order to protect the health of the mother; and during the third trimester, to protect the health of the mother and to promote the potential life of the fetus.

Note that this is exactly what I said.

The Cassini Belt

20-01-2005, 23:48

If it involved simply cutting the cord that connected us, that would be your right.

That is actually not true from a legal point of view. It would be your right to refuse to have someone hooked up to you; but once they are, it is not your right to disconnect them. The law makes a distinction between an act and the omission of an act, even when the consequences are the same.

Dempublicents

20-01-2005, 23:51

That is actually not true from a legal point of view. It would be your right to refuse to have someone hooked up to you; but once they are, it is not your right to disconnect them. The law makes a distinction between an act and the omission of an act, even when the consequences are the same.

Simple disconnection would not be directly killing someone and, as such, would be the omission of an act. It would be no different than, if I were giving someone montly blood donations, to stop donating. However, active killing (not just disconnecting and letting whatever happens happen) would qualify as an actual action under such rules.

The Cassini Belt

20-01-2005, 23:57

Note that this is exactly what I said.

Demipublicents, I think you're wrong about what Roe v Wade says. You said...

Elective abortions legal up until the time of "quickening", when nervous system activity can be observed. Currently, this is set at the end of the first trimester, but the earliest timepoints in medical journals seem to have it possible at 8 weeks, so we should probably develop a test for it.

Abortions for medical reasons up until viability.

Abortions for danger to the life of the mother only once the fetus is viable.

Actually, as I understand it, Roe v Wade requires states to allow elective abortions until viability, and abortions for "health" reasons until birth. Not the same thing at all.

In particular, the rules for the second trimester are that abortions may be regulated in order to promote the wellbeing of the mother *only*. That's still elective; it's a non-restriction.

Once the fetus is viable, the rules are that abortions are allowed for any health reason (including some BS ones), not "danger to the life of the mother only".

Btw, You are right that mental health is important, however the greater risk is from post-abortion trauma which is a very serious problem and a high suicide risk too. I don't think there is a huge risk from carrying to term, except in special cases.

EDIT: There are later decisions which may have modified Roe v Wade. I will look that up.

The Cassini Belt

21-01-2005, 00:00

Simple disconnection would not be directly killing someone and, as such, would be the omission of an act. It would be no different than, if I were giving someone montly blood donations, to stop donating. However, active killing (not just disconnecting and letting whatever happens happen) would qualify as an actual action under such rules.

Disconnection is definitely an act, it is considered that way in the law dealing with people on life support. There are very different rules for disconnection compared to not putting them on life support in the first place. Stopping monthly blood donations *may* be an act, it depends on whether you created an expectation that there will be regular donations. The rules are a bit fuzzy there.

Dempublicents

21-01-2005, 00:04

Actually, as I understand it, Roe v Wade requires states to allow elective abortions until viability, and abortions for "health" reasons until birth. Not the same thing at all.

Roe v. Wade certainly *allows* this, as it only regulates at what points legislation regulating the reasons for abortion can be placed. It does not make the actual state laws. Thus, one or two states do allow this.

In particular, the rules for the second trimester are that abortions may be regulated in order to promote the wellbeing of the mother *only*. That's still elective; it's a non-restriction.

You do realize that "wellbeing of the mother" is considered to mean "health of the mother"? Thus, all states but two do *not* allow elective abortions in the second trimester. The mother must show adequate medical cause.

Once the fetus is viable, the rules are that abortions are allowed for any health reason (including some BS ones), not "danger to the life of the mother only".

Abortions in the third trimester, in *every* state are only allowed for the following reasons: Mother's health is in grave danger, fetus is already dead, fetus will be dead shortly after birth.

Perhaps you should actually look into the laws.

Dempublicents

21-01-2005, 00:07

Disconnection is definitely an act, it is considered that way in the law covering people on life support. again, very different rules from not putting them on life support in the first place. Stopping monthly blood donations *may* be an act, it depends on whether you created an expectation that there will be regular donations. The rules are a bit fuzzy there.

It may be an act, but it does not directly cause death. As such, it is *exactly* like stopping monthly blood donations, and even if you told someone a million times that you would continue the donations, you could stop at any time and be well within your rights.

The Cassini Belt

21-01-2005, 00:09

Perhaps you should actually look into the laws.

Could be ;) I think at least some of that comes from later decisions. I am 100% certain that Roe v Wade required states to allow elective abortions during the second trimester. I believe you if you say those are not the current laws, but I am not sure which decision changed that. I will look into it though.

The Cassini Belt

21-01-2005, 00:30

It may be an act, but it does not directly cause death. As such, it is *exactly* like stopping monthly blood donations, and even if you told someone a million times that you would continue the donations, you could stop at any time and be well within your rights.

I think you're wrong on both counts. Maybe you could cite some precedents?

If you agree that an abortion is an act, and not the omission of an act: for the crime of murder or manslaughter all you have to prove is that a death would not have occured had the defendant not acted as he/she did. The crime is defined by the result, not by the act. What the defendant does and how it leads, directly or indirectly, to a death does not matter, as long as the death would not have occured without it.

Murder additionally requires that there was a culpable state of mind (mens rea), for which it is sufficient that the defendant knew or intended that a death will result.

http://www.sixthform.info/law/01_modules/mod3/12_1crime_introduction/12_1_1actus_reus/12_1_5_causation.htm
http://www.sixthform.info/law/01_modules/mod4/13_1_murder/13_1_02_actus_reus_murder.htm
http://www.sixthform.info/law/01_modules/mod3/12_1crime_introduction/12_1_1actus_reus/12_1_3_omissions.htm
http://www.sixthform.info/law/02_cases/mod4/murder/13_1_murder_and_intention.htm#Re%20A%20(Children)%20(2000)%20CA

Dempublicents

21-01-2005, 00:41

If you agree that an abortion is an act, it is not the omission of an act: for the crime of murder or manslaughter all you have to prove is that a death would not have occured had the defendant not acted as he/she did.

Abortion is obviously an act, but does not currently factor into a discussion of murder/manslaughter, as an embryo/fetus is not considered to be a human being. Up until the second trimester, there is no reason at all to consider it as such. Afterwards, there is room for debate.

http://www.sixthform.info/law/01_modules/mod3/12_1crime_introduction/12_1_1actus_reus/12_1_3_omissions.htm

First of all, everything you have quoted is English law, which does not necessarily mean it is US law.

Secondly, the above link is where a simple disconection would fall. You have committed an act of omission by no longer providing your blood to the patient. Your intention is not their death, and leaving yourself in that situation puts you in danger (however small). As such, it is well within your rights to refuse to donate any longer.

Dempublicents

21-01-2005, 00:46

Could be ;) I think at least some of that comes from later decisions. I am 100% certain that Roe v Wade required states to allow elective abortions during the second trimester. I believe you if you say those are not the current laws, but I am not sure which decision changed that. I will look into it though.

You quoted the Roe v. Wade decision above, which clearly states that the states do *not* have to allow elective abortions during the second trimester - that they can regulate them to ensure that there is a medical reason (whether you agree with what the medical community deems as valid reasons) to do so. In the second trimester in nearly every state, a woman must have a statement from a medical doctor that she needs an abortion - as such, it is not elective.

The Cassini Belt

21-01-2005, 01:38

Abortion is obviously an act, but does not currently factor into a discussion of murder/manslaughter, as an embryo/fetus is not considered to be a human being. Up until the second trimester, there is no reason at all to consider it as such. Afterwards, there is room for debate.

Agreed, an embryo is not a human being. A fetus *should* certainly be considered a human being, certainly past the age of 16 weeks (maybe earlier). A discussion of murder/manslaughter is extremely relevant especially since 30 states specifically recognize the murder of an unborn as a separate crime (although they illogically exclude abortion). Since last year, this is a federal law as well - "Unborn Victims of Violence Act".

Secondly, the above link is where a simple disconection would fall. You have committed an act of omission by no longer providing your blood to the patient. Your intention is not their death, and leaving yourself in that situation puts you in danger (however small). As such, it is well within your rights to refuse to donate any longer.

Look at the section that says "Assumption of care for another"...

Also, if a person voluntarily undertakes to care for another who is unable to care for himself as a result of age, illness or other infirmity, that person may thereby incur a duty to discharge that undertaking, at least until such time as he hands it over to someone else.

The duty not to omit to save the life of someone for whom D had a duty of care was established in R v Instan [1893]

In such circumstances there is no need to prove that the accused had been obliged by law to undertake the particular duty, or that he was bound by contract to care for the other; it is sufficient that he voluntarily undertook the care of another in circumstances in which that other was unable to fend for himself.

The Cassini Belt

21-01-2005, 01:44

You quoted the Roe v. Wade decision above, which clearly states that the states do *not* have to allow elective abortions during the second trimester.

Have another look at #104

Second Trimester: Since "the risk to the woman increases as her pregnancy continues," the state, in promoting its interest in protecting the health of the woman "may regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health." Examples of permissible state regulation are requirements as to the qualifications of the person performing the abortion or the licensure of the abortion facility.

Sounds elective to me, but I will look it up.

Bill Mutz

21-01-2005, 01:45

Bill, I think you're confused about legality vs morality, they are not the same.Abortion is a strictly moral issue.

Yes, we are the legislature, the judge, and the jury - but ultimately we have to deal with the consequences of our decisions.So, let's go by the consequences: women won't have to carry fetuses that they don't want. Sounds good to me.

Reality will not be denied, she is the ultimate judge. If our decisions are bad, we will surely suffer the consequences. That is the real source of morality and of "natural rights".The consequences of our actions do have a shaping influence on our morals. However, in such cases as animal rights, we extend an existing moral concept to non-humans. This is a strictly moral matter. Humans do not determine their ideas about morality entirely upon pragmatic analysis of consequences. We are capable of being compassionate. That's part of what makes us human. We don't believe that our ability to get away with something necessarily makes it right. There is nothing divine or esoteric about this. It's just one of the quirks of the human mind.

The Cassini Belt

21-01-2005, 01:52

Humans do not determine their ideas about morality entirely upon pragmatic analysis of consequences.

Bill, I should explain what I mean at greater length...

About "legality vs morality": legality is a social construct, morality is not. Natural rights (and other moral rules) have an existence completely separate from any set of opinions a society may hold. How do we know that? Because societies that have the wrong opinions fare poorly. Human history has been a trial and error search for the ideal moral rules. We may not be there yet, but certainly what we have now is incomparably better to anything which existed five thousand years ago.

True, the way most humans arrive at ideas about morality has little to do with the analysis of consequences.. it is what "feels right" at some intuitive level. However that often leads to the same moral rules as what an analysis of consequences *would* dictate. That is a minor miracle in itself.

Abortion is both a moral and a legal issue... we will legislate what our version of morality tells us, and we will deal with the consequences. Some of the near-term consequences might be along the lines of the Groningen "Protocols of Death" (http://posseincitatus.typepad.com/posse_incitatus/2004/12/protocols_of_de.html, http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/616jszlg.asp), a blood-curdling and widespread practice of infanticide (and killing of older children) perpetrated by "doctors" in the Netherlands. The long-term consequences... well, just extrapolate.

Bill Mutz

21-01-2005, 06:43

About "legality vs morality": legality is a social construct, morality is not.If not, then what is it? Our laws are a construct that act as a solution to certain problems. Our morals are there more for aesthetics but often serve a similar purpose.

Natural rights (and other moral rules) have an existence completely separate from any set of opinions a society may hold.Believe me, there is nothing magical or esoteric about morality. It's a very simple matter at the bare bones of it, and the complexities are mostly in what is built upon the basic principles, much like the rest of universe. Don't make it harder than it is.

How do we know that? Because societies that have the wrong opinions fare poorly.They fare poorly for very logical reasons, and it has nothing to do with their proximity to some moral ideal that is probably based on some religious concept. Talking to me about an ideal morality is like talking to an architect about an ideal house or to an artist about an ideal form of art.

Human history has been a trial and error search for the ideal moral rules. We may not be there yet, but certainly what we have now is incomparably better to anything which existed five thousand years ago.Yes, and after the next paradigm shift, our grandkids will be saying the same thing...and those of us who are still around will call it the end of civilization just like those who came before have done. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

True, the way most humans arrive at ideas about morality has little to do with the analysis of consequences.. it is what "feels right" at some intuitive level. However that often leads to the same moral rules as what an analysis of consequences *would* dictate. That is a minor miracle in itself.Miracle, shmiracle. A lot of our moralizing doesn't make a boatload of sense, but some of us like it anyway. Take PETA for example. Yeah, they're a militant group who use gruesome images to get their message through. At least they don't go out of their way to ruin the reputations of people who own slaughterhouses or shoot butchers. Have I made my point quite crystaline?

Abortion is both a moral and a legal issue... we will legislate what our version of morality tells us, and we will deal with the consequences. Some of the near-term consequences might be along the lines of the Groningen "Protocols of Death" (http://posseincitatus.typepad.com/posse_incitatus/2004/12/protocols_of_de.html, http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/616jszlg.asp), a blood-curdling and widespread practice of infanticide (and killing of older children) perpetrated by "doctors" in the Netherlands. The long-term consequences... well, just extrapolate.These people are driven by the same kind of compassion that feuls the pro-birth nutjobs over here in the states. No, I don't really think you're nutjobs. I intended that merely as a way of ironically underlining your failure to recognize your kinsmen just because they are dressed differently. For those who are too lazy to click the link, they're just some people throwing a tantrum over some Dutch doctors euthanizing the terminally ill.

Respecting the moral outlook of others doesn't require that you adopt it as your own. There are people who think that the customs of ther tribe and island are the laws of nature; we call them barbarians.

Any engineer will tell you that there's more than one way to pluck a crane.

The Cassini Belt

21-01-2005, 09:13

If not, then what is it [morality]?

It's a law of nature, perhaps imperfectly understood.

They fare poorly for very logical reasons, and it has nothing to do with their proximity to some moral ideal that is probably based on some religious concept.

Yes, they fare poorly for very logical reasons which have everything to do with their lack of proximity to the moral ideal. The moral ideal is by definition the one that works. It's just cause and effect, although not necessarily very simple or direct. Why drag religion into it?

Talking to me about an ideal morality is like talking to an architect about an ideal house.

No, it's more like talking to an architect about physics. You can build a house (=society) without understanding physics (=morals), but it will collapse. You can have any set of opinions about the laws of physics, but only one of those will result in houses that do not collapse. Or you could just be sort of close and you will have a house that stays up, most of the time. Which is where we are now.

Yes, and after the next paradigm shift, our grandkids will be saying the same thing...and those of us who are still around will call it the end of civilization just like those who came before have done.

Yes, it's called progress.

For those who are too lazy to click the link, they're just some people throwing a tantrum over some Dutch doctors euthanizing the terminally ill.

Not quite. They are killing, without parental consent, children who in their opinion would suffer from "poor quality of life". Nearly 1 in 12 children in the Netherlands are so judged.

These people are driven by the same kind of compassion that feuls the pro-birth nutjobs over here in the states. No, I don't really think you're nutjobs. I intended that merely as a way of ironically underlining your failure to recognize your kinsmen just because they are dressed differently.

Ah, zealots of a different stripe, is that it? Won't wash. Not much zeal here, nor any religion. Yes, I do hold certain principles, which are completely opposite to these doctors in the Netherlands. I think they are *your* kinsmen, not mine. After all, they appear to believe that anything is relative, that from the right point of view, killing is actually helping.

Respecting the moral outlook of others doesn't require that you adopt it as your own. There are people who think that the customs of ther tribe and island are the laws of nature; we call them barbarians.

Do we? I don't know about you, but I reserve the term for people who would do this: http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/bulghar2.jpg http://massgraves.info/48.jpg

Bill, you are very *sophisticated*. But is there anything you *believe in*? Anything at all?

Are all beliefs made equal? I say they are not. Some result in wholesale slaughter, others result in a free, civilized society in which people can have conversations like the one we are having. Some beliefs result in a dark age, others result in a space age. Some in this: http://www.visiontv.ca/RememberRwanda/Photogallery/Pics/IMG_1171.jpg , others in this: http://www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/gallery/X-Prize_2/04_10_04_SpaceShipOne_X_Prize_2_re_entry . They are *not the same*.

There is a very wide field of beliefs I can respect, but there is a line around them. That line *is* damn well a law of nature ("We hold these Truths to be self-evident...") whatever you may say.

Call me a naive simpleton brainwashed into a narrow worldview and a neanderthal, but I say that anything which steps over that line is not worthy of respect, in fact it is categorically unacceptable, and a reason to fight, if it came to that. And the fact is that you with your so-sophisticated beliefs owe your very existance to much simpler people with beliefs like mine. Enjoy.

Dempublicents

21-01-2005, 16:20

Look at the section that says "Assumption of care for another"...

Notice the "voluntary" part. The example used specifically stated that no express consent was given in the first place. As such, there was no voluntary assumption of care.

The Cassini Belt

21-01-2005, 19:12

Notice the "voluntary" part. The example used specifically stated that no express consent was given in the first place. As such, there was no voluntary assumption of care.

It doesn't have to be express consent, it can be implied consent. I'd say a) getting pregnant and b) carrying to the end of the first trimester (to the point at which a fetus becomes a person) constitutes voluntary assumption of care.

Dempublicents

21-01-2005, 19:26

It doesn't have to be express consent, it can be implied consent. I'd say a) getting pregnant and b) carrying to the end of the first trimester (to the point at which a fetus becomes a person) constitutes voluntary assumption of care.

(a) Sex is never implicit consent to pregnancy, as we have many ways to prevent pregnancy. If, and only if, it can be shown that a person took absolutely no steps whatsoever to prevent pregnancy, you might have a point.

(b) Not all women know that they are pregnant before the end of the first trimester. Most do, but not all.

(c) Caring for someone and having someone completley live off of your bodily systems are two different things. It is all well and good to have an analogy to work with, but remember that no analogy is perfect. By our own laws, no human being can ever give up the right to control their own body.

The Cassini Belt

21-01-2005, 19:57

(a) Sex is never implicit consent to pregnancy, as we have many ways to prevent pregnancy. If, and only if, it can be shown that a person took absolutely no steps whatsoever to prevent pregnancy, you might have a point.

(b) Not all women know that they are pregnant before the end of the first trimester. Most do, but not all.

(c) Caring for someone and having someone completley live off of your bodily systems are two different things. It is all well and good to have an analogy to work with, but remember that no analogy is perfect. By our own laws, no human being can ever give up the right to control their own body.

(a) agreed.
(b) also true, I think that should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis but women certainly could make a bit more of an effort considering how important it is. we already have places that offer free testing.
(c) that's true. however no human can ever give up the right to life either. in a case where there is an irreducible conflict between rights, you have to decide in favor of the more important one. think of it this way: you also have a right to property; however when you have children, your right to property is restricted by the need to provide for your children; you don't have a right not to feed them, because to do so would be to infringe on a more important right than your right to property. also, you can voluntarily enter into agreements in which your rights are restricted, that is the essence of most contract or other relationships (including parent-child and voluntary assumption of care). i think basically in very simple terms the legal argument is that when you voluntarily do something which results in another person being dependent on you, you cannot change your mind. that's really common sense.

also: the voluntary-assumption-of-care discussion is interesting but it *only* applies if abortion is the omission of an act (since it establishes a duty-to-act). if abortion is an *act* itself, as I believe it is, then whether you had a duty does not matter in the least, it meets all the necessary criteria for murder.

Dempublicents

21-01-2005, 20:05

(c) that's true. however no human can ever give up the right to life either. in a case where there is an irreducible conflict between rights, you have to decide in favor of the more important one. think of it this way: you also have a right to property; however when you have children, your right to property is restricted by the need to provide for your children; you don't have a right not to feed them, because to do so would be to infringe on a more important right than your right to property. also, you can voluntarily enter into agreements in which your rights are restricted, that is the essence of most contract or other relationships (including parent-child and voluntary assumption of care). i think basically in very simple terms the legal argument is that when you voluntarily do something which results in another person being dependent on you, you cannot change your mind. that's really common sense.

I would tend to agree.

However, we must remember that a fetus is not defined as a human person (legally) and that to do so would bring up all sorts of inane but important legal issues. As it is, we already have hospitals attempting to remove a woman's right to determine her own medical course. Not that long ago, there was a hospital which tried to get a court order to force a woman to have a C-section, although she believed she could deliver naturally (and had already delivered large babies naturally in the past). They attempted to force her into a medical decision about her own body, with the threat that they would prosecute her for murder otherwise. There is a very real problem there.

We must also remember again that there is absolutely no other situation to which we can compare pregnancy. There is no other situation in which one entity which might be considered a human being is completely and totally dependent upon another's body for every bodily process. Even in cases of contractual agreements, the law has always held that a person cannot give up the right to their own liberty - ie. the right to control their own body. I could sign a contract enslaving myself to you, but it would be completely unenforcable under the law when I decided I didn't want to be a slave anymore.

Note: This post is not really intended as an argument against anything you have said. I just feel that all of us, on either side of the issue, must remember that this is not a black and white, right and wrong, issue. There is no absolute here. We are in the greyest of grey areas and we need to be very careful about making absolute assertions.

Also note:

also: the voluntary-assumption-of-care discussion is interesting but it *only* applies if abortion is the omission of an act (since it establishes a duty-to-act). if abortion is an *act* itself, as I believe it is, then whether you had a duty does not matter in the least, it meets all the necessary criteria for murder.

This was basically my argument to Bottle. If we really were talking simply about a severing of the connection (as in my analogy), I feel that she would be absolutely right. However, we are not talking about a simple omission in late-term abortions. In such procedures, *active* measures are taken to kill (I won't go as far as to say "murder," as we still have not yet defined whether or not a late-term fetus is yet a human being) the fetus before the connection is severed. As such, it is an act.

The Roxburry

21-01-2005, 20:11

I consider it all murder and even if you did get raped then well its not the childs fault give it up for adoption.

The Cassini Belt

21-01-2005, 22:00

I would tend to agree.

However, we must remember that a fetus is not defined as a human person (legally) and that to do so would bring up all sorts of inane but important legal issues.

Well, it exists in a weird in-between. Roe v Wade very clearly stated that it is *not* a human person at any time up until actual birth. On the other hand, there are numerous laws, state and federal, under which you can go to jail for the murder of a fetus. How can you murder a non-person? Beats the hell out of me. I suspect that one point of Roe v Wade will be overturned soon, since it doesn't make any sense.

As it is, we already have hospitals attempting to remove a woman's right to determine her own medical course. Not that long ago, there was a hospital which tried to get a court order to force a woman to have a C-section, although she believed she could deliver naturally (and had already delivered large babies naturally in the past). They attempted to force her into a medical decision about her own body, with the threat that they would prosecute her for murder otherwise. There is a very real problem there.

Yes, it's a problem, but more with overzealous doctors. If there was *no doubt at all* that they were right, they might have a point.

We must also remember again that there is absolutely no other situation to which we can compare pregnancy. There is no other situation in which one entity which might be considered a human being is completely and totally dependent upon another's body for every bodily process.

Yes, although conjoined twins sometimes comes close.

Even in cases of contractual agreements, the law has always held that a person cannot give up the right to their own liberty - ie. the right to control their own body. I could sign a contract enslaving myself to you, but it would be completely unenforcable under the law when I decided I didn't want to be a slave anymore.

True, in general you cannot be forced to perform the terms of any contract. However there may be penalties for non-performance. I think the main problems with a "slavery contract" are that (a) it is completely open-ended and (b) that it is not a reasonable trade. I don't see any particular problems with a surrogate-mother contract, on the other hand (a contract to carry the child of another to term). And yes, you can renege on that, but you will be sued for consequential damages (at least).

Note: This post is not really intended as an argument against anything you have said. I just feel that all of us, on either side of the issue, must remember that this is not a black and white, right and wrong, issue. There is no absolute here. We are in the greyest of grey areas and we need to be very careful about making absolute assertions.

Agreed. Well, I *am* taking fire from both sides ;)

This was basically my argument to Bottle. If we really were talking simply about a severing of the connection (as in my analogy), I feel that she would be absolutely right. However, we are not talking about a simple omission in late-term abortions. In such procedures, *active* measures are taken to kill (I won't go as far as to say "murder," as we still have not yet defined whether or not a late-term fetus is yet a human being) the fetus before the connection is severed. As such, it is an act.

"*active* measures are taken to kill" - that's absolutely right, and that is an act no matter how you look at it.

"we still have not yet defined whether or not a late-term fetus is yet a human being" - I think the only reasonable argument is when it becomes one, not if. It doesn't make sense that it should gain that status miraculously right at the moment of birth since it's almost exactly the same being right after as it was right before birth.

Severing the connection also an act is not an omission. If you *don't do anything* they stay connected. Can you come up with an argument for why it would be an omission? (no, the analogy with stopping blood donations doesn't count - more like stopping life support which *is* an act).

Dempublicents

21-01-2005, 22:59

Well, it exists in a weird in-between. Roe v Wade very clearly stated that it is *not* a human person at any time up until actual birth. On the other hand, there are numerous laws, state and federal, under which you can go to jail for the murder of a fetus. How can you murder a non-person? Beats the hell out of me. I suspect that one point of Roe v Wade will be overturned soon, since it doesn't make any sense.

Actually, until such time as the fetus is viable, these laws do not make sense (and I have yet to see any case where they were used and actually upheld before this time). In truth, the laws themselves are nothing more than a right-wing attack on abortion.

Yes, it's a problem, but more with overzealous doctors. If there was *no doubt at all* that they were right, they might have a point.

Except that:

(a) There is no such thing as "no doubt at all." Even if the woman had complications and the fetus died, there would be no clear proof that this was due to her decision.
(b) It wouldn't matter if there wasn't any doubt. A human being has the right to determine which, if any, medical treatment is right for them. If a woman wants to have her baby in a bathtub with only her mother present, it's probably a bad idea, but it is her right. Anyone can refuse medical treatment at any time.

Yes, although conjoined twins sometimes comes close.

True, in general you cannot be forced to perform the terms of any contract. However there may be penalties for non-performance. I think the main problems with a "slavery contract" are that (a) it is completely open-ended and (b) that it is not a reasonable trade. I don't see any particular problems with a surrogate-mother contract, on the other hand (a contract to carry the child of another to term). And yes, you can renege on that, but you will be sued for consequential damages (at least).

Agreed. Well, I *am* taking fire from both sides ;)

Get used to it. If you fall along the moderate side of any issue, no one wants to agree with you. =(

"*active* measures are taken to kill" - that's absolutely right, and that is an act no matter how you look at it.

(which is exactly what I said).

"we still have not yet defined whether or not a late-term fetus is yet a human being" - I think the only reasonable argument is when it becomes one, not if. It doesn't make sense that it should gain that status miraculously right at the moment of birth since it's almost exactly the same being right after as it was right before birth.

However, it is not a completely separate entity until it is born. There is a very clear difference. The question is whether or not it is enough.

Severing the connection also an act is not an omission. If you *don't do anything* they stay connected. Can you come up with an argument for why it would be an omission? (no, the analogy with stopping blood donations doesn't count - more like stopping life support which *is* an act).

Actually, giving aid is an act. Refusal to give aid is an ommission. Severing the connection would be the latter. The fact that you were giving sustenance beforehand is irrelevant, as you did not agree to provide it in the first place. You cannot force someone into something without consent and then say "Oh wait! you can't stop doing it! That would be illegal! HAHAHAHAHA!"

Aral

22-01-2005, 00:25

I am for "legal during the ENTIRE PREGNANCY"

Why? Because while I would rather abortions done only in the first tri- I realize that things can go FUBAR, seriously bleeping fubar, during a pregnancy. And making somebody who dearly wanted to carry to term have to appeal to some sour faced pompous old sod who would, by possession of male gender, NEVER have to face the same circumstances to beg permission to have a late term abortion really gets to me.

Of course I also object to the idea of the 24 hour wait period too. If a female wants to get an abortion, odds are, she has ALREADY thought it through.

Bill Mutz

22-01-2005, 01:55

It's a law of nature, perhaps imperfectly understood.There's your claim. This is the crux of the issue. We could theoretically drop everything that follows to bicker over this, and we'd be arguing the same point. You provide no support for this claim.

Yes, they fare poorly for very logical reasons which have everything to do with their lack of proximity to the moral ideal. The moral ideal is by definition the one that works. It's just cause and effect, although not necessarily very simple or direct.You're making a very simple error here. You are making the assumption that there is only one proper solution to a given problem. You have not proven this. This is like saying that there is only one way to build a bridge that can be driven across to reach the other side of a river.

Why drag religion into it?I didn't intend to. People who believe in moral absolutes usually end up doing so, and that's the only reason I mentioned it.

No, it's more like talking to an architect about physics. You can build a house (=society) without understanding physics (=morals), but it will collapse. You can have any set of opinions about the laws of physics, but only one of those will result in houses that do not collapse. Or you could just be sort of close and you will have a house that stays up, most of the time. Which is where we are now.You might find the subject of Sociology entertaining. I certainly did. You seem to miss the point, though. If you ask the architect what the ideal house is, the answer you get depends on what sort of house he needs or desires, what he thinks is most important to a good house. The Dutch doctors hold mercy to be most important and consider protecting life secondary. They have a clear and simple motive. If our primary objective were to be merciful, they would be on the right track. The pro-lifers consider the protection of life more important and consider mercy secondary as evidenced by their refusal to accept even voluntary euthanasia. Pro-choicers think that consent is the highest imperitive and say that the doctors and the clergymen are being unreasonable. The Chinese government thinks that the lot of them are off their hinges and think that the highest imperitive is to preserve the future stability of the state. Bill Mutz thinks that they all have good intentions and that who we choose to go with depends upon what we most value.

Yes, it's called progress.Get a tat on your forehead that reads: "Bill Mutz said that you'd be calling the mores of this generation the beginning of the end of civilization. Don't you love progress?" Wear a hat to cover it until you begin to complain about the moral decline.

Not quite. They are killing, without parental consent, children who in their opinion would suffer from "poor quality of life". Nearly 1 in 12 children in the Netherlands are so judged.Where did you get that figure? It's nowhere in the article linked in the blog, but here's a quote from the article that offers a fair explanation of the mentality behind this:"It is for very sad cases," said a hospital spokesman, who declined to be identified. "After years of discussions, we made our own protocol to cover the small number of infants born with such severe disabilities that doctors can see they have extreme pain and no hope for life. Our estimate is that it will not be used but 10 to 15 times a year."Also, the article linked to in the blog states that the number of doctor-assisted deaths has not risen significantly in the ten years that it's been legal.

Ah, zealots of a different stripe, is that it? Won't wash. Not much zeal here, nor any religion. Yes, I do hold certain principles, which are completely opposite to these doctors in the Netherlands. I think they are *your* kinsmen, not mine. After all, they appear to believe that anything is relative, that from the right point of view, killing is actually helping.You missed the point, though. These doctors are motivated by compassion. Pro-lifers think that it is compassionate to protect the continued existence of fetuses, and the doctors think that it is more compassionate to alleviate the discomfort of the terminally ill. They both think that they are being compassionate.

Do we? I don't know about you, but I reserve the term for people who would do this: http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/bulghar2.jpg http://massgraves.info/48.jpgHow shocking. I couldn't possibly disagree with you now that you've shown me a "shocking" image. I am not a moral relativist anymore than I believe in moral absolutes, and I am offended that you equate my open-mindedness to abortion and euthanasia to this sort of mulch. There is no mentality behind this sort of thing, merely blind animal desperation. Even many of the worst religious zealots would be against wholesale slaughter.

Bill, you are very *sophisticated*. But is there anything you *believe in*? Anything at all?I believe many things, most notably that my beliefs and the rhetoric that I use to support them have no effect on the actual reality of things. The moon would not turn to green cheese if I concocted a strong argument in support of a theory that it is.

Are all beliefs made equal? I say they are not.As would I. If I said at any point that all beliefs are equal, please show me where.

Some result in wholesale slaughter, others result in a free, civilized society in which people can have conversations like the one we are having.Of course, but there is no natural law that makes one state better than others unless you count natural selection.

Some beliefs result in a dark age, others result in a space age. Some in this: http://www.visiontv.ca/RememberRwanda/Photogallery/Pics/IMG_1171.jpg , others in this: http://www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/gallery/X-Prize_2/04_10_04_SpaceShipOne_X_Prize_2_re_entry . They are *not the same*.Yay, more shocking images. Of course they aren't the same. These shock images do not have any link to euthanizing the terminally ill, though. Enough with the emotional appeals. I will say nothing of my capacities other than that I am certainly not profoundly stupid. These attempts at distraction are pathetic and tiresome.

There is a very wide field of beliefs I can respect, but there is a line around them. That line *is* damn well a law of nature ("We hold these Truths to be self-evident...") whatever you may say.Then try stepping out of your box long enough to understand the mentality behind euthanizing the terminally ill. You may not agree with the action, but you might find the motives honorable.

Call me a naive simpleton brainwashed into a narrow worldview and a neanderthal,I think that I'd rather refrain from doing so. I do suggest that you try expanding your horizens just a tad.

but I say that anything which steps over that line is not worthy of respect, in fact it is categorically unacceptable, and a reason to fight, if it came to that. And the fact is that you with your so-sophisticated beliefs owe your very existance to much simpler people with beliefs like mine. Enjoy.On the contrary, simple-minded people such as yourself owe your existence to people who are willing to seek understanding and common ground. If you wish to pick a fight over euthanazing the terminally ill, do me a favor, and make sure that you understand exactly what you are picking a fight over instead of blundering stupidly into a confrontation.

Dempublicents

22-01-2005, 01:55

Because while I would rather abortions done only in the first tri- I realize that things can go FUBAR, seriously bleeping fubar, during a pregnancy. And making somebody who dearly wanted to carry to term have to appeal to some sour faced pompous old sod who would, by possession of male gender, NEVER have to face the same circumstances to beg permission to have a late term abortion really gets to me.

A woman can go to a female OB/Gyn. What on earth makes you think that she would have to appeal to a male, much less a "sour faced pompous old sod"?

These type of absolute statements and broad generalizations are exactly what we should attempt to avoid in these conversations.

Of course I also object to the idea of the 24 hour wait period too. If a female wants to get an abortion, odds are, she has ALREADY thought it through.

What an *incredibly* naive thing to say. If every woman who had an unplanned pregnancy was already fully aware of all of her options, we'd have a whole lot less unplanned pregnancies. There are many women out there who are not fully informed of their options and decide to have an abortion out of pure desperation, rather than out of a rational choice. In places where a wait period is imposed, one of the restrictions is that the clinic must make sure that the woman is well-informed of *all* options. Surely you are not opposed to such an idea?

The Cassini Belt

22-01-2005, 09:21

Actually, until such time as the fetus is viable, these laws do not make sense (and I have yet to see any case where they were used and actually upheld before this time). In truth, the laws themselves are nothing more than a right-wing attack on abortion.

Well, the "non-person" decision in Roe v Wade definitely bothers me. If these laws lead to it being overturned, that's all right.

However, it is not a completely separate entity until it is born. There is a very clear difference. The question is whether or not it is enough.

Incidentally: the point at which a baby becomes a "person" under current law is not when it is separated from the umbilical, but rather when it is completely physically outside the womb. This is why partial birth abortions work the way they do... the baby is killed while *not entirely* outside the womb, therefore that is not murder. Makes sense? (Hell no)

Except that:

(a) There is no such thing as "no doubt at all." Even if the woman had complications and the fetus died, there would be no clear proof that this was due to her decision.
(b) It wouldn't matter if there wasn't any doubt. A human being has the right to determine which, if any, medical treatment is right for them. If a woman wants to have her baby in a bathtub with only her mother present, it's probably a bad idea, but it is her right. Anyone can refuse medical treatment at any time.

You're right. I thought it through, the mother would be a legal guardian of the baby so she could make medical decisions both for the baby and herself (although by the same reasoning the father should also have a 25% say ;) ). She can do that even if the decisions are obviously bad ones.

Actually, giving aid is an act. Refusal to give aid is an ommission.

Interesting... it would appear that at least in the case of life support you are correct. I finally found a precedent for this:

http://www.4lawschool.com/outlines/bank/crimlaw.htm
Distinguishing Acts From Omissions

Barber v. Superior Court p.124 Cali

Facts: Two doctors unplugged the life support system to include the intravenous feeding tubes of the victim. There was consulting with the family and the prognosis was extremely poor.

Issues: Whether the evidence presented before the magistrate was sufficient to support his determination and petitioners should not be held to answer to the charges of murder and conspiracy to commit murder.

Rule: “Life” is brain function rather than mere metabolic processes which result from respiration and circulation.

Application: The cessation of life support measures is not an affirmative act but rather a withdrawal or omission of further treatment. Although there may be a duty to provide life-support in the immediate aftermath of a arrest, there is no duty to continue its use once it has become futile.

Conclusion/Holding: The petitioners’ omission to continue treatment under the circumstances was not an unlawful failure to perform a legal duty.

If life-support is a good analogy (and I think it is) then the question moves to whether there is a duty to act (i.e. to provide support).

You cannot force someone into something without consent and then say "Oh wait! you can't stop doing it! That would be illegal! HAHAHAHAHA!"

True. But if you do have consent (including implied consent) that is exactly what happens, including the gotcha. Also, a duty to act can arise from an existing relationship (e.g. parent-child, husband-wife, employer-employee and quite a few others). I think both voluntary undertaking of a duty and duty arising from a relationship would apply here.

Dempublicents

22-01-2005, 17:10

Incidentally: the point at which a baby becomes a "person" under current law is not when it is separated from the umbilical, but rather when it is completely physically outside the womb. This is why partial birth abortions work the way they do... the baby is killed while *not entirely* outside the womb, therefore that is not murder. Makes sense? (Hell no)

I don't think D&X is all that relevant to the conversation, since it is only performed when the mother's life is in danger, the fetus is already dead, or the fetus won't survive to reach consciousness.

You're right. I thought it through, the mother would be a legal guardian of the baby so she could make medical decisions both for the baby and herself (although by the same reasoning the father should also have a 25% say ;) ). She can do that even if the decisions are obviously bad ones.

The father can never have any type of power over the woman's medical decisions. Incidentally, if the mother doesn't *choose* to put the father on the birth certificate in many states, he has no rights to the child anyways.

Interesting... it would appear that at least in the case of life support you are correct. I finally found a precedent for this:

http://www.4lawschool.com/outlines/bank/crimlaw.htm

If life-support is a good analogy (and I think it is) then the question moves to whether there is a duty to act (i.e. to provide support).

That's how I thought it worked. You can always decide to pull the plug on someone under your care, you just can't *actively* kill them.

True. But if you do have consent (including implied consent) that is exactly what happens, including the gotcha. Also, a duty to act can arise from an existing relationship (e.g. parent-child, husband-wife, employer-employee and quite a few others). I think both voluntary undertaking of a duty and duty arising from a relationship would apply here.

Implied consent is a tricky subject. How do we determine it? Does something that counts in one case count for all?

The Cassini Belt

22-01-2005, 20:31

That's how I thought it worked. You can always decide to pull the plug on someone under your care, you just can't *actively* kill them.

Done some more research. I'm not so sure the analogy works anymore. The life-support decisions are based on the idea that "letting nature take its course" is not an act. What would be the equivalent here? Probably carrying to term, but I'm not sure.

Implied consent is a tricky subject. How do we determine it?

If you had a chance to make that decision earlier and didn't, that counts. If a reasonable person in the same circumstances would have had a chance to make that decision earlier, that counts also. E.g. if you did get tested but the test came out a false negative, there is no implied consent. But if you didn't get tested when you had a reason to there is implied consent, because a reasonable person would have gotten tested.

Dempublicents

22-01-2005, 20:37

Done some more research. I'm not so sure the analogy works anymore. The life-support decisions are based on the idea that "letting nature take its course" is not an act. What would be the equivalent here? Probably carrying to term, but I'm not sure.

You are trying to carry the analogy too far. Remember that the conversation is predicated on the idea that no one can be forced to use their body for the sustenance of another. This idea was already incorporated. The discussion was on whether removal of sustenance was an action or the ommission of one.

If you had a chance to make that decision earlier and didn't, that counts. If a reasonable person in the same circumstances would have had a chance to make that decision earlier, that counts also. E.g. if you did get tested but the test came out a false negative, there is no implied consent. But if you didn't get tested when you had a reason to there is implied consent, because a reasonable person would have gotten tested.

That's nice, but still very subjective. There are an infinite number of "special cases" you would have to attend to. Like so many other things, there is no black and white here.

Savagettes

24-01-2005, 20:56

CHILD -
1 : an unborn or recently born person
2 : a young person especially between infancy and youth —with child : PREGNANT

Source: Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

UNBORN - Not yet born: an unborn child.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000

Its easy to be pro-choice when you're not the one being killed...
Abortion stops a BEATING HEART

life (lf)
n. pl. lives (lvz)

The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.
The characteristic state or condition of a living organism.
Living organisms considered as a group.
A living being, especially a person.

Source: The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary
Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.

I'm so tired of hearing the pro-death excuse that its a womans right to choose. No one has the right to kill another person, legally abortion is legal, but it is still murder, legalized murder. A woman has the right to keep her legs shut but once that woman becomes pregnant, the child should be protected by the MOTHER, not ripped apart because the new life is a nuisance.

Yes, I am a woman, and a mother of two boys.

Be thankful that your mother chose to let you live!

Dempublicents

24-01-2005, 21:01

Its easy to be pro-choice when you're not the one being killed...
Abortion stops a BEATING HEART

(a) Not in all cases.
(b) A beating heart does not constitute a living organism.

life (lf)
n. pl. lives (lvz)

The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.

This is very close to the biological definition of an organism (ie. a life) which the embryo does not satisfy until a point in time after most abortions occur.

Thanks so much for proving the pro-choice point.

Jester III

24-01-2005, 22:03

I often wonder how people who claim that life is more important than freedom excuse their countrymen dying in foreign countries in order to protect freedom.
Just some brainfood i wanted to toss in after reading the rather rabid but uneducated post from Savagettes.

Belew

24-01-2005, 22:35

When my countrymen die for freedom, they are dying for A CAUSE!!!! When you kill a baby, it is dying because you dont want it. You're comparing apples to watermellons.

Jester III

24-01-2005, 22:43

When my countrymen die for freedom, they are dying for A CAUSE!!!! When you kill a baby, it is dying because you dont want it. You're comparing apples to watermellons.
Then those people who i targeted should abstain from absolutes. And why is "not throwing a baby into the misery that is my life now" not a cause.
Besides, the cause those soldiers die for is, among other things, the freedom to have an abortion. Because the US legal system views abortion as a legal freedom.

Smurflyn

24-01-2005, 23:10

I'll state right now that i didn't go read every single thing that has been said. I didn't have the time to. However, I just wanted to point out the reason that I don't agree with abortion- the logical point, not my personal moral one. I know that it all hinges on what people define as a "person", but hear me out. :) In the US we believe that every single human being has certain rights that come simply from being human. One of those rights (I believe) is the right to life and another is the right to choose. Now, a mother has a right to choose, but doesn't the unborn have the right to choose also? Is it fair to deny that child his/her choice to live? In my opinion, abortion is wrong because it is denying a human being the right to have any say in their future, and I think that is WRONG.
I do make exceptions to when the mother is in life threatening danger, rape, and incest. I think that those are decisions that need to be carefully thought about. Personally, I would like to think that a potential mother would care more about the baby than herself, and take all aspects into consideration.
I also think that if the baby is capable of surviving outside of the womb then the mother has NO right to decide to end it's life. Modern medicine can do some amazing things, and if it can save the child I believe that we have a responsibility to try. If I could I would personally take care of the children who would have been aborted. I'm willing to pay extra taxes so that those children have a chance at life. I may not know them, but I care and I would do what I could to help them. And that goes for a child in any country anywhere on this earth.
So, to sum it up, if the baby could live outside the womb, the woman has no right to end it's life. By that time she had PLENTY of time to decide to do something and chose not to, so she should take some responsibility for her actions. I knew girls in highschool who got pregnant and got abortions because they were too selfish and irresponsible to admit that they'd made a choice and it they needed to deal w/ the result. I know many people who would have done anything for a baby but who can't have one. I'm going to adopt if I can. Those are my thoughts.

Dempublicents

24-01-2005, 23:13

So, to sum it up, if the baby could live outside the womb, the woman has no right to end it's life.

Note that elective abortions are not allowed at any place in this country once the fetus is viable.

Bill Mutz

24-01-2005, 23:25

Savagettes

25-01-2005, 01:50

What do you think?
*********************
Survivor of a saline abortion
Testimony of Gianna Jessen

Hearing on H.R. 4292, the "Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2000"

House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution

July 20, 2000

My name is Gianna Jessen. I would like to say thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I count it no small thing to speak the truth. I
depend solely on the grace of God to do this. I am 23 years old. I was aborted and I did not die. My biological mother was 7 months pregnant
when she went to Planned Parenthood in southern California and they advised her to have a late-term saline abortion.

A saline abortion is a solution of salt saline that is injected into the mothers womb. The baby then gulps the solution, it burns the baby inside and out and then the mother is to deliver a dead baby within 24 hours.

This happened to me! I remained in the solution for approximately 18 hours and was delivered ALIVE on April 6, 1977 at 6:00 am in a California abortion clinic. There were young women in the room who had already been given their injections and were waiting to deliver dead babies. When they saw me they experienced the horror of murder. A nurse called an ambulance, while
the abortionist was not yet on duty, and had me transferred to the hospital. I weighed a mere two pounds. I was saved by the sheer power of Jesus
Christ.

Ladies and gentleman I should be blind, burned.....I should be dead! And yet, I live! Due to a lack of oxygen supply during the abortion I live with cerebral palsy.

When I was diagnosed with this, all I could do was lie there. "They" said that was all I would ever do! Through prayer and hard work by my foster
mother, I was walking at age 31/2 with the help of a walker and leg braces. At that time I was also adopted into my wonderful family. Today I am left
only with a slight limp. I no longer have need of a walker or leg braces.

I am so thankful for my Cerebral Palsy. It allows me to really depend on Jesus for everything.

When the freedoms of one group of helpless citizens are infringed upon, such as the unborn, the newborn, the disabled and so called "imperfect," what we do not realize is that our freedoms as a NATION and Individuals are
in great peril.

I come today in favor of this Bill, in favor of the Protection of Life. I come to speak on behalf of the infants who have died and for those appointed to death. Learned Hand, a well respected American Jurist (within our own century) said: " The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the minds of other men and women; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which weighs their interests alongside its own without bias; the spirit of liberty remembers that not even a sparrow falls to earth unheeded; the spirit of liberty is the spirit of
Him who, near 2000 years ago, taught mankind that lesson it has never learned, but has never quite forgotten; that there is a kingdom where the
least shall be heard and considered side by side with the greatest."

Where is the soul of America?! Members of this committee: where is YOUR heart? How can you deal with the issues of a nation without examining her soul? A murderous spirit will stop at nothing until it has devoured a nation. Psalm 53:1-3 says: "The fool has said in his heart, 'there is no God'; they are corrupt, and have done abominable iniquity; there is none who does
good. God looks down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there are any who understand, who seek God. Every one of

them has turned aside; they have together become corrupt; there is none who does good, no, not one."

Adolph Hitler once said: "The receptive ability of the great masses is only very limited, their understanding is small; on the other hand their
forgetfulness is great. This being so, all effective propaganda should be limited to a very few points which in turn, should be used as slogans until the very last man is able to imagine what is meant by such words." Today's slogans are: "a woman's right to choose" and "freedom of choice," etcetera.

There was once a man speaking from hell (recorded in Luke 16) who said "I am tormented in this flame." Hell is real. So is Satan, and the same hatred that crucified Jesus 2000 years ago, still resides in the hearts of sinful people today. Why do you think this whole room trembles when I mention the name Jesus Christ? It is because He is REAL! He is able to give grace
for repentance and forgiveness to you and to America. We are under the judgement of God - but we can be saved through Christ. Romans 5:8-10 "But God demonstrates his own love towards us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. For when we were ENEMIES we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life."

Death did not prevail over me....and I am so Thankful!!
***************************************************
The material contained in this file is made
available courtesy contributors and editors of
Pro-Life E-News.

Copying of this material is free for non-commercial educational and research use. Unless explicitly stated, copyright of this material is owned by the author and/or sponsoring organization, and/or newswire services.

Dempublicents

25-01-2005, 01:54

*Snip*

I don't have to think. I know for a fact that the only way a woman who is seven months pregnant can have an abortion in this country is if her life is in danger, the fetus is already dead, or the fetus will be dead soon after birth as the fetus is generally considered viable at that time.

This leads me to believe that the account is either false, that it ocurred before Roe v. Wade, the mother's life was in danger, or that it was an isolated and illegal case.

Bottle

25-01-2005, 02:00

I don't have to think. I know for a fact that the only way a woman who is seven months pregnant can have an abortion in this country is if her life is in danger, the fetus is already dead, or the fetus will be dead soon after birth as the fetus is generally considered viable at that time.

This leads me to believe that the account is either false, that it ocurred before Roe v. Wade, the mother's life was in danger, or that it was an isolated and illegal case.
*hums "Have I Told You Lately That I Love You?"*

Savagettes

25-01-2005, 02:07

No, no one has to think. Thats the problem.......NOT THINKING. Yes a woman can have an abortion at any stage in her pregnancy. The health of the mother may be defined as anything, including "all factors--physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age--relevant to the well-being of the patient."

In 1982, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee concluded in an official report after extensive hearings:

"No significant legal barriers of any kind whatsoever exist today in the United States for a woman to obtain an abortion for any reason during any stage of pregnancy."

You should check the FACTS and maybe do some THINKING. A beating heart is a living organism, and life includes GROWING organisms.......use the KISS rule.......If its growing it is alive.

Dempublicents

25-01-2005, 02:12

Yes a woman can have an abortion at any stage in her pregnancy. The health of the mother may be defined as anything, including "all factors--physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age--relevant to the well-being of the patient."

That quote refers to *second trimester* abortions, not to third trimester. Check the laws my dear, third trimester abortions are only legal in the cases I mentioned above.

A beating heart is a living organism,

Funny, I've had a heart beating in a culture plate without being hooked up to any organism. It wasn't a living organism.

Study biology my dear, a beating heart does not equate to a living organism.

and life includes GROWING organisms.......use the KISS rule.......If its growing it is alive.

Fire grows. Mountains grow. I guess they are all alive.

There are several requirements to be considered a living organism and *all* of them must be met. All of them are necessary, but no single one is sufficient.

Skaje

25-01-2005, 02:21

It's funny how small minorities support the complete banning of abortion, and total legalization of all abortion up to birth. Whereas the vast majority falls somewhere in the middle. Thus the debate is constantly obscured and fixed into two camps ("Pro-Choice" and "Pro-Life") without acknowledging that most people are somewhere inbetween. Most people want abortion to be safe, legal, and rare. They object strongly to the notion of using late-term abortions as an afterthought to not using a condom, but are supportive of raped women being able to terminate their pregnancy early. The majority seems to get sidelined by the two extreme ends however.

btw, I support abortion right up to birth because that is the only way to stop legal attacks on pregnant women otherwise. If we want to narrow it down to raped women, what about women who are raped but cannot prove it? Too much possibilities of women being forced to carry unwanted pregnancies.

Savagettes

25-01-2005, 02:21

Well the heart I am referring to is connected to a living being, one with a soul, and is very much alive. If the human being, the unborn child, or the fetus as you refer to it, is permitted to CONTINUE its natural growing process, it will be born and have all the legal rights of a fully developed human being, but it is no less alive just because it is in the mothers womb. Not until the abortionist gets to it!

Marshmallow Fluff

25-01-2005, 02:47

Hot topic that will never cool. But for what it's worth, here's my two sids.

To me, a fetus in its first and second trimester is a leech. Nothing more or less. If you were to deliver it at first trimester, rather than abort, even if it is at 100% health and capacity to grow within, it will die. It has absolutely zero chance of surviving, because it has become detached from its host (the womb).

Second trimester is the same, though there have been some rare exceptions in the last week or so. Third trimester, IF the fetus is at full health, could probably be delivered safely and continue to grow outside the womb into a normal, if prematurely born, infant.

Infanticide is a misnomer that the abortionists like to use. An infant is a BORN child. A fetus isn't born yet, therefore it can't be an infant. So just toss that arguement out, it's stupid.

As for morals - muh. My morals aren't the same as yours (the generic you). Toss morality out of there too. This is a point of law, not a point of morality, and if you wanna play the morals game you'd best be prepared to play MINE as well as yours. I shouldn't be subjected to your morals any more than you should be subjected to mine. Morals are irrelevant.

My womb, my body, my choice. And what about all these anti-abortionists? How many of them have offered to take each and every delivered, unwanted baby into their own homes and adopt them and raise them? How many aren't willing/able to do so? Take those out of the equation, and I'll bet you dollars to donuts that the anti-abortionists who can walk the walk are in the VAST minority.

It's easy to talk ethics and morality and religious laws - not so easy to live them. When the anti-abortionists open their homes to unwanted babies, I'll consider changing my mind on the subject. Til then, they can damned well stay away from my womb.

Bottle

25-01-2005, 02:52

If the human being, the unborn child, or the fetus as you refer to it, is permitted to CONTINUE its natural growing process, it will be born and have all the legal rights of a fully developed human being,
if the fetus is permitted to continue its natural growing process, it will grow into a senior citizen...should we allow fetuses to collect social security because they will one day grow into elderly persons?

Savagettes

25-01-2005, 03:10

they can damned well stay away from my womb. I really don't think you have to worry about anyone getting their hands on your womb, unless you want them to get their hands on your womb. Unfortunately, the unborn child has no say so in whether or not their body can be touched or torn apart.

Omega the Black

25-01-2005, 03:41

it honestly gets boring; the anti-choice crowd just doesn't learn. they all say exactly the same things, all spout the same falacies, all have exactly the same holes in their "logic," and all overlook the same obvious facts in favor of arguing the same irrelevant side issues. i really wish there was just one anti-choice person capable of original and insightful dialogue...but then, if they were insightful and thought critically then they wouldn't be anti-choice any more :).
I find it is quite funny to hear you of all people talk about holes in our logic when you of all people have a MAJOR flaw in yours;
if we grant fetuses the exact same rights as born human beings, then the right to abortion should be 100% guaranteed at any time and for any reason, for all human women or persons who become pregnant
If we grant fetuses the same right as "born human beings" then killing them would be murder PERIOD. It does not come down to your right to do what you want with your body.

If you go into a quaritined area and become infected with a virus it isn't someone elses fault it is yours and you must live with the consequences. You get to play host to the virus until it has run its course or killed ya, you can help it run it's course faster but you are still stuck with it. As for not being compelled to give up some of yourself to save another your right however failure to supply the necessities of life to a child at any point that they are dependant on you is illegal and you can be charged for it, oops minor detail right? My wife wants to know if Bottle has children and suggests that someone as cold as you should not be allowed the privilage of procreating so go get sterilized and then this will be a mute point.

Omega the Black

25-01-2005, 04:02

if the fetus is permitted to continue its natural growing process, it will grow into a senior citizen...should we allow fetuses to collect social security because they will one day grow into elderly persons?
So you don't think that we should allow those that may one day be a drain on society to live? Do you honestly think that we should be rewarding people for what they haven't done? Rewarding a fetus with continued exsistance for having life and struggling to survive is very different from paying them for something they haven't done. Make no mistake it is a struggle for survival since a woman's body is not the most hospitalable place to be.

Italian Korea

25-01-2005, 04:50

What do you think?
*********************
Survivor of a saline abortion
Testimony of Gianna Jessen

My name is Gianna Jessen. I would like to say thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I count it no small thing to speak the truth. I
depend solely on the grace of God to do this. I am 23 years old. I was aborted and I did not die. My biological mother was 7 months pregnant
when she went to Planned Parenthood in southern California and they advised her to have a late-term saline abortion.
...
I was saved by the sheer power of Jesus
Christ.
...

I am so thankful for my Cerebral Palsy. It allows me to really depend on Jesus for everything.
...

I come today in favor of this Bill, in favor of the Protection of Life. I come to speak on behalf of the infants who have died and for those appointed to death. Learned Hand, a well respected American Jurist (within our own century) said: " The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the minds of other men and women; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which weighs their interests alongside its own without bias; the spirit of liberty remembers that not even a sparrow falls to earth unheeded; the spirit of liberty is the spirit of
Him who, near 2000 years ago, taught mankind that lesson it has never learned, but has never quite forgotten; that there is a kingdom where the
least shall be heard and considered side by side with the greatest."

Where is the soul of America?! Members of this committee: where is YOUR heart? How can you deal with the issues of a nation without examining her soul? A murderous spirit will stop at nothing until it has devoured a nation. Psalm 53:1-3 says: "The fool has said in his heart, 'there is no God'; they are corrupt, and have done abominable iniquity; there is none who does
good. God looks down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there are any who understand, who seek God. Every one of

them has turned aside; they have together become corrupt; there is none who does good, no, not one."

Adolph Hitler once said: "The receptive ability of the great masses is only very limited, their understanding is small; on the other hand their
forgetfulness is great. This being so, all effective propaganda should be limited to a very few points which in turn, should be used as slogans until the very last man is able to imagine what is meant by such words." Today's slogans are: "a woman's right to choose" and "freedom of choice," etcetera.

There was once a man speaking from hell (recorded in Luke 16) who said "I am tormented in this flame." Hell is real. So is Satan, and the same hatred that crucified Jesus 2000 years ago, still resides in the hearts of sinful people today. Why do you think this whole room trembles when I mention the name Jesus Christ? It is because He is REAL! He is able to give grace
for repentance and forgiveness to you and to America. We are under the judgement of God - but we can be saved through Christ. Romans 5:8-10 "But God demonstrates his own love towards us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. For when we were ENEMIES we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life."

Death did not prevail over me....and I am so Thankful!!
***************************************************

I can tolerate logical, moral views against a lot of abortion; while Cassini Belt is a bit too anti-choice for me, his views make absolute sense. However, when people bring in that goddamn religion and "morals", it really, REALLY pisses me off. Would someone please give me a quote from the bible that says that abortion is bad?

Not that religion has much factual (or reasonable) basis at all anyways.

What I quoted seems to aim at people's emotions. As good of a strategy as it is, it is very IMMORAL to try and con someone to your side by saying things meant to invoke an emotional response, without any regard to reason. Humanity doesn't matter much in the long run anyway (It's still in our best interests to preserve as a species, seeing how it's us).

Minus the emotional and religious debates, this is actually a very viable discussion, this whole abortion thing. It's the zealots who tarnish it extremely. It's much more gray than gay rights and the like. (Why would someone want to deprive the rights of an entire, naturally-occuring, eternally-present sect of society? It's worse than anti-black people! But I digress.)

Those are my thoughts. Please quote me and find holes in my logic so that the next time I argue this, I'll have a better stance.

Bottle

25-01-2005, 04:59

If we grant fetuses the same right as "born human beings" then killing them would be murder PERIOD. It does not come down to your right to do what you want with your body.

100% wrong. allowing another human to die by withholding the use of my own tissues to sustain that human's life is NOT murder under the law. indeed, there are many cases in which killing a human being is not murder.

If you go into a quaritined area and become infected with a virus it isn't someone elses fault it is yours and you must live with the consequences. You get to play host to the virus until it has run its course or killed ya, you can help it run it's course faster but you are still stuck with it.

really? you aren't allowed to seek treatment for the virus? you aren't allowed to receive medical care if you stay out in the cold too long and catch the flu?

As for not being compelled to give up some of yourself to save another your right however failure to supply the necessities of life to a child at any point that they are dependant on you is illegal and you can be charged for it, oops minor detail right?

quite a minor one, actually, and one that i already responded to: a woman could simply sever her parental rights before aborting, and thus would have no more legal obligation to provide for the welfare of the fetus than i have to provide for the welfare of your children.

My wife wants to know if Bottle has children and suggests that someone as cold as you should not be allowed the privilage of procreating so go get sterilized and then this will be a mute point.
Bottle has reared two children (is, indeed, still rearing them), though has never produced any of her own. if nurturing the belief in justice, equality, and basic human rights is "cold" then i am proud to be devoid of your brand of "warmth."

also, please ask your wife why she is so devoid of maturity and rationality that she must resort to emotive personal attacks instead of producing substantive arguments, and why she feels her lack of objectivity and logical thought is a benefit in child rearing.

Bottle

25-01-2005, 05:03

So you don't think that we should allow those that may one day be a drain on society to live?

BUH?! i was making a point about the falacy of equating potentiality and actuality. i wasn't making any particular point about the merits of social security or support of the elderly.

Do you honestly think that we should be rewarding people for what they haven't done?

no, and that was my whole point: a fetus is not a human child, any more than it is a senior citizen. to grant it the rights of either simply because it may one day become them is foolish.

Rewarding a fetus with continued exsistance for having life and struggling to survive is very different from paying them for something they haven't done.

granting a fetus the rights of a full human person for no reason other than that it may one day become a human person is ludicrous. now, if you believe a fetus already is a full human person that's a different matter entirely, but people were trying to claim that a fetus should be given full human rights not because it is a human person but because it may one day grow into a human person. i was pointing out the error of that.

Make no mistake it is a struggle for survival since a woman's body is not the most hospitalable place to be.
a female's reproductive system is designed to be perfectly hospitable to a human fetus. thousands of years of evolution have shaped it to be that way. there is, in fact, no more hospitable environment for a human fetus, and no other place where a fetus would have LESS of a "struggle" for survival.

Belew

25-01-2005, 05:55

Belew

25-01-2005, 06:01

Abortion, by Paul G. Dextraze

Oh mothers, do you hear the screams
Of bleeding babies in your dreams?
Will you make the loving choice,
And listen to your baby's voice?

The stench of death pervades the room,
As stainless steel invades the womb.
The target is a human life,
Surrendered to the butcher's knife.

The baby turns away in fear;
He feels an icy presence near.
The sterile blade draws closer still,
And stalks the prey it came to kill.

It stabs the baby in the back,
Then heartlessly proceeds to hack.
It tears its victim's limbs apart;
What terror grips his tiny heart!

Oh mothers, do you hear the screams
Of bleeding babies in your dreams?
Will you make the loving choice,
And listen to your baby's voice?

In spite of propaganda's lies,
A mother knows her baby dies.
She feels the piercing labor pains,
As suction takes her child's remains.

A motor makes a grisly sound;
It grinds the bones that won't be found.
But this is not the story's end;
The little victim has a Friend.

Oh mothers, do you hear the screams
Of bleeding babies in your dreams?
Will you make the loving choice,
And listen to your baby's voice?

Belew

25-01-2005, 06:46

Quote:
Margaret Sanger's American Birth Control League (which later became Planned Parenthood). This group advocated sterilization for all "dependents such as the unemployed, the deaf the deformed and the blind; the delinquents such as the wayward and the criminals; the mentally deficient such as the morons and the idiots…"

In 1933, the Birth Control Review estimated that over 25,000,000 of the 125,000,000 people living in the United States were "socially maladjusted or unadjusted" and thus candidates for sterilization.

1933. Although never adopted in the United States, the idea of family limitation by law was implemented in China in the 1970's. This has resulted in an epidemic of infanticide directed primarily at little girls

Taken from: LifeDynamics.com (http://www.ldi.org/)

So what makes the nazi party and pro-death supporters different?

What do you think?

Bottle

25-01-2005, 12:18

What do you think?

:headbang:

http://www.mttu.com/abort-pics/freedom.jpg

http://www.mttu.com/abort-pics/Malachi.jpg

http://www.mttu.com/abort-pics/Civilr~1.jpg

http://www.mttu.com/abort-pics/new-baby%20choice%202.jpg

http://www.mttu.com/abort-pics/10wkssuc.jpg
THIS JUST IN:

humans over the age of 5 do not judge the rightness or wrongness of things based on how gross they look. this is good news for any person who has ever needed to have their appendix out (a procedure which, i can personally assure you, is MUCH grosser than those pictures).

Neo-Anarchists

25-01-2005, 12:20

Eww, thanks for all the gross pictures, whoever posted that. Hooray for sensationalism!

I'm not going to look at this thread for at least another page, for fear of seeing those again and vomiting.

Bitchkitten

25-01-2005, 12:28

My step-mother says abortion should be retro-active until the kid's twenty-one. :p

Bottle

25-01-2005, 12:44

Abortion, by Paul G. Dextraze

Oh mothers, do you hear the screams
Of bleeding babies in your dreams?
Will you make the loving choice,
And listen to your baby's voice?

the vast majority of abortions occur before the fetus develops vocal chords and/or the respiratory ability to scream. the vast majority of abortions also occur before the fetus has any blood of its own, so any "bleeding" of the "baby" would actually be the woman's blood.

The stench of death pervades the room,

tissue does not begin to "smell like death" for quite some time after organismal death, and medical fascilities are sterilized to eliminate any dead tissue long before it would ever reach that point. so if the "stench of death" was "pervading" the room where an abortion was performed then that would indicate that either the mother or fetus involved in the procedure was already long dead. in that situation, why would you have any objection to the abortion? it's not like the pregnancy was going to continue, anyway.

As stainless steel invades the womb.

the tools for most modern abortions are chemical rather than mechanical. indeed, if you want to increase the number of barbaric metal impliments used in abortive procedures, the best way to acheive that would be to render safe, medical abortions illegal.

The target is a human life,

the target in removing a human tumor is also human life; the cells are human, they are alive, and they are being targetting for removal. perhaps the author meant to say "human person"? no, that wouldn't rhyme well with the next bit...

Surrendered to the butcher's knife.

hmm, no, no butcher's knives used in legal abortive procedures, though they would be logical tools for back-alley abortions if qualified doctors were forbidden to perform these procedures. so hey, good news, the author can just change the preceding line, because this one can be thrown out!

The baby turns away in fear;
He feels an icy presence near.

the vast majority of abortive procedures are performed before the fetus has the brain structures necessary to experience any emotion, let alone fear. the only abortive procedures performed at a time when the fetus might have the ability to experience fear are performed ONLY in cases where continuing the pregnancy would kill the mother (and usually kill the child at the same time). women old enough to bear young are most definitely able to experience fear, and i would think they would be quite terrified if somebody told them "you will die if we don't end this pregnancy now, but we aren't going to do that and we aren't going to allow anybody else to do it."

The sterile blade draws closer still,
And stalks the prey it came to kill.

sterile blades are not the impliments used to kill the fetus in any AMA-sanctioned abortive procedure i am aware of.

It stabs the baby in the back,
Then heartlessly proceeds to hack.
It tears its victim's limbs apart;
What terror grips his tiny heart!

again, the use of a sterile blade to dismember a fetus is not part of any medically-sanctioned abortion procedure. it's really a matter of practicality; chopping the fetus into little bits while it was still inside the female would make it more difficult to remove it (and would increase the chances of leaving pieces behind), while chopping it up after it is outside the mother would serve no purpose at all.

Oh mothers, do you hear the screams
Of bleeding babies in your dreams?
Will you make the loving choice,
And listen to your baby's voice?

oh, this is the chorus...i get it.

In spite of propaganda's lies,
A mother knows her baby dies.

i don't believe there is any propaganda claiming that a fetus still lives after an abortion. no "baby" dies in an abortion procedure, any more than a toddler or an adolescent child dies, because those words are not accurate for describing a human life at that age.

given the number of inaccurate statements and flat-out fictions in these verses, i find it ammusing that the author is attempting to attack "propaganda." he seems to have based his words entirely upon the urban myths that have been created by anti-abortionists, with no grounding in the medical realities of the situation...but by saying that such medical fact is "propaganda's lies" i guess he has us beat, right?

She feels the piercing labor pains,
As suction takes her child's remains.

A motor makes a grisly sound;
It grinds the bones that won't be found.

having been present at a few abortions, i can't really say much to this except that it has absolutely no grounding in fact. all four of these lines are so far from the truth as to be utterly meaningless. for one thing, the motor on the one machine in the room made a far less grisly sound than my refrigerator makes.

But this is not the story's end;
The little victim has a Friend.

whoa, is this like, "say hello to my little friend"?! are you saying that fetuses are PACKING?!

Oh mothers, do you hear the screams
Of bleeding babies in your dreams?
Will you make the loving choice,
And listen to your baby's voice?
and one last round of the chorus, EVERYBODY NOW!

sigh. it's so dull when people who have never had, witnessed, or ever read about actual abortions decide to compose maudlin poetry about the random urban myths that have been invented about it.

Dempublicents

25-01-2005, 13:19

Well the heart I am referring to is connected to a living being, one with a soul, and is very much alive.

The soul is a purely religious construct with no actual supporting evidence. While I may agree with you on its existence, many others do not. What gives you the right to force your religious beliefs upon another?

Meanwhile, biologically, the fetus is *not* "very much alive." It does not even qualify as a life until it has developed a rudimentary nervous system and can sense and respond to stimuli, thus finally meeting all prerequisites to be determined as such. This is well after the heart begins beating.

If the human being, the unborn child, or the fetus as you refer to it, is permitted to CONTINUE its natural growing process, it will be born and have all the legal rights of a fully developed human being, but it is no less alive just because it is in the mothers womb.

It has nothing to do with location. Something is not a life until it meets all the requirements to be classified as such.

And potentiality and actuality are not the same thing. If I am permitted to continue my studies, I will have a Ph.D. Does that mean they should just hand me the paper now?

Kangten

25-01-2005, 13:49

Alive or not their going to be it's tampering with gods creation :upyours:

Bottle

25-01-2005, 13:53

Alive or not their going to be it's tampering with gods creation :upyours:
poor grammar, hideous spelling, re-stated argument that has been debunked countless times on the thread already, flip-the-bird emoticon...

what a champion of a first post you have made!

Dempublicents

25-01-2005, 14:42

poor grammar, hideous spelling, re-stated argument that has been debunked countless times on the thread already, flip-the-bird emoticon...

what a champion of a first post you have made!

Yeah, I was enjoying the much more calm, reasonable conversation earlier. All of a sudden all we have are emotional responses from people who need a healthy dose of reality.

Savagettes

25-01-2005, 14:58

The soul is a purely religious construct with no actual supporting evidence. While I may agree with you on its existence, many others do not. What gives you the right to force your religious beliefs upon another?

Meanwhile, biologically, the fetus is *not* "very much alive." It does not even qualify as a life until it has developed a rudimentary nervous system and can sense and respond to stimuli, thus finally meeting all prerequisites to be determined as such. This is well after the heart begins beating.

It has nothing to do with location. Something is not a life until it meets all the requirements to be classified as such.

And potentiality and actuality are not the same thing. If I am permitted to continue my studies, I will have a Ph.D. Does that mean they should just hand me the paper now?
The unborn baby is alive from the moment of fertilization.
The unborn baby has a heartbeat at three weeks and brain waves at six weeks.
The unborn baby is programmed from the inside for an ongoing process of growth and development.
The unborn baby has 46 chromosomes in the cells of his or her body -- the scientifically verifiable human genetic code.
You were you from the moment of fertilization -- a unique human being never to be repeated in all of history.

Nothing magic occurs at birth which suddenly makes an unborn baby human. The baby is the same baby, whether inside or outside the uterus.

Every unborn baby is a complete, individual, living human being from the earliest moment of his or her existence at fertilization.

In a liberal, self-centered, distorted view of human rights, the pro-death people approve of and celebrate abortion as a woman's right to choose, but real human rights would recognize the rights of all human beings. The most basic right should prevail...not that of the most powerful. Abortion is the ultimate violation of another human being's most fundamental right.

What gives you the right to play God with human life? I am not forcing religion on anyone, but I do have a right to speak of GOD and whether you want to believe it or not is up to you, but on judgement day we will ALL answer to GOD. Every knee shall bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. Just because you don't believe it doesn't mean it's not so.

Personal responsibilit

25-01-2005, 15:11

You know, after looking at all the arguing going on here, I don't think there is any such thing as a "sane" opinion on this subject that can be agreed upon. Our opinions of what is sane seem to be based in our belief structure/world view/perspective and there are so many differences here, that I doubt well ever agree without some authority bigger than us.

Kaboodlez

25-01-2005, 15:26

ABORTION IS TOTALLY WRONG!
Even in the case of rape or incest, this shouldn't be considered. So a man rapes a young lady and she becomes pregnant. Sometimes we blame the man...how they digust me. Sometimes we blame the woman, for putting herself in that situation. These are both just causes for fault. But instead of punishing them, we punish the completely innocent party...the child.
In America today, if 5 minutes after a child is born, you go to the back of a hospital and throw it in the trash, you could be thrown in prison for murder. How is this any different from killing a child before it comes to full term. Many people say, we can kill it cuz rite now it's just tissue...BULL CRAP! The first thing that develops in a child is their heart! That means its a living being, NOT just tissue!
Any mothers out there who are considering this option STOP! How do you know that maybe this child could become the next Martin Luther King Jr, or someone else who could impact this world for the better! Adoption is the best choice. Many disagree with that. They say this will cause the child to be passed around all it's life, and to never be on its own. Well many famous people started out as orphans. Many couples strive to adopt a child, but can't find the right one. Well maybe your child is the right one.
I personally understand this. My sister has had 2 children w/o being married, and just last year we found another one was on the way. Her mother told her to get an abortion, but she refused. Now her child, Russell Jackson Harms Jr, has been adopted by the perfect family. The father is a lawyer who could help w/ any legal problems, and the mother is a nurse, which helps considering Jack was a month premature. He is now gaining weight and we get pictures of him every week. If that child had been destroyed, the family that have adopted him may never have found the right child.
I hope you understand what i have written. Abortion is wrong.
-Angella

Jester III

25-01-2005, 15:39

No, no one has to think. Thats the problem.......NOT THINKING. [...] FACTS [...] THINKING. [...] GROWING [...] KISS
Is there anyway you could contribute without the electronic equivalent of yelling into my ears?
What you see as not thinking is coming to other conclusions, based on a less emotional but nonetheless valid outlook on life. Accept it or not, other peoples oppinions vary without them being stupid.

Dempublicents

25-01-2005, 15:40

The unborn baby is alive from the moment of fertilization.

Alive and "a life" are not the same thing.

The unborn baby has a heartbeat at three weeks and brain waves at six weeks.

Functional brain waves are not seen until 16-20 weeks. Way to use false information.

The unborn baby has 46 chromosomes in the cells of his or her body -- the scientifically verifiable human genetic code.

So does a skin cell. So does a cancer cell. Each of these cells also is programmed for growth and development.

Nothing magic occurs at birth which suddenly makes an unborn baby human. The baby is the same baby, whether inside or outside the uterus.

No one has said anything about "at birth."

Every unborn baby is a complete, individual, living human being from the earliest moment of his or her existence at fertilization.

Personal opinion, contrary to science. (Unless every human cell is a complete, individual, living human being.)

What gives you the right to play God with human life?

People define playing God differently. I do research into a field called tissue engineering. Some would consider this "playing God."

I am not forcing religion on anyone, but I do have a right to speak of GOD and whether you want to believe it or not is up to you, but on judgement day we will ALL answer to GOD. Every knee shall bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. Just because you don't believe it doesn't mean it's not so.

(a) I do believe it. Way to jump to false conclusions.

(b) It doesn't matter if I do believe it. Legislating it would be forcing my religion upon others.

Dempublicents

25-01-2005, 15:42

Savagettes

25-01-2005, 15:42

Yeah, I was enjoying the much more calm, reasonable conversation earlier. All of a sudden all we have are emotional responses from people who need a healthy dose of reality.
Healthy dose of reality? You should be greatful you didn't receive the same reality as aborted children. How arrogant you are. How dare you talk about reality. You can "talk" "reality" because your mother chose LIFE for you. Pro-choice is no choice at all. If abortion is the answer, the question must really be stupid!

"Years ago, while giving an anesthetic for a ruptured tubal pregnancy (at two months) I was handed what I believed to be the smallest human being ever seen. The embryo sac was intact and transparent. Within the sac was a tiny human male, swimming extremely vigorously in the amnionic fluid, while attached to the wall by the umbilical cord. The tiny human was perfectly developed, with long, tapering fingers, feet and toes. It was almost transparent as regards to the skin, and the delicate arteries and veins were prominent to the ends of the fingers. The baby was extremely alive and did not look at all like the photos and drawings of 'embryos' which I have seen"
- Paul E. Rockwell, M.D.

Savagettes

25-01-2005, 15:54

Anyone who would blame a woman for being raped deserves no further consideration. Kaboodlez wasn't blaming a woman for being raped. You missed the whole point but then again, to you, there is no difference between an unborn child and a tumor......thats almost funny.

Personal responsibilit

25-01-2005, 15:55

Personal opinion, contrary to science. (Unless every human cell is a complete, individual, living human being.)

So is it okay to cut someone's living skin cell off without their consent?

We can argue forever about this, but you're not going to change my mind that at conception a human being is form. I agree that it is also a single celled entity without all of the functional capacities of an born child nor does a born child have the capacities of and adolescent and so on. It is still a human being that has a right to life. Calling it something other than a human being is little less than a means of justifying murder.

The Hitler Jugend

25-01-2005, 16:04

Any mothers out there who are considering this option STOP! How do you know that maybe this child could become the next Martin Luther King Jr, or someone else who could impact this world for the better!

I'll ignore the rest of your incoherent rambling and get to the point. Why the hell would anyone want another Martin Luther King Jr?

Savagettes

25-01-2005, 16:38

"Every woman has these same two questions: First, 'Is it a baby?' 'No,' the counselor assures her. 'It is a product of conception (or a blood clot, or a piece of tissue)' Even though these counselors see six week babies daily, with arms, legs and eyes that are closed like newborn puppies, they lie to the women. How many women would have an abortion, if they told them the truth?"
Carol Everett, former owner of two clinics and director of four "A Walk Through an Abortion Clinic" by Carol Everett ALL About Issues magazine Aug-Sept 1991, p 117.

Savagettes

25-01-2005, 16:58

Bottle

25-01-2005, 17:10

Healthy dose of reality? You should be greatful you didn't receive the same reality as aborted children. How arrogant you are. How dare you talk about reality. You can "talk" "reality" because your mother chose LIFE for you. Pro-choice is no choice at all. If abortion is the answer, the question must really be stupid!
my very close friend, Dan, is only alive because his mother had an abortion earlier in her life. does he, therefore, get to debate this issue? he would not be able to talk about "reality" or the relative merits of abortion if his mother had not chosen to abort, so i guess that qualifies him (according to your logic).

Bottle

25-01-2005, 17:19

In the United States abortion is legal for any reason, at any time during pregnancy. The account is not false at all, but I would'nt want to confuse you with the facts.
http://www.modbee.com/life/faithvalues/story/9774051p-10637283c.html
hint: trying to use links with "faithvalues" in them is not a credible way to participate in this discussion.

Savagettes

25-01-2005, 17:22

my very close friend, Dan, is only alive because his mother had an abortion earlier in her life. does he, therefore, get to debate this issue? he would not be able to talk about "reality" or the relative merits of abortion if his mother had not chosen to abort, so i guess that qualifies him (according to your logic).
I think you are a liar. Your friend is not alive because his mother chose to abort another child. Murder is murder, even if it is legal.

Savagettes

25-01-2005, 17:26

hint: trying to use links with "faithvalues" in them is not a credible way to participate in this discussion. regardless of the name "faithvalues" the link leads to the article in reference to the girl or was born alive at an abortion clinic in 1997 in the United States, Los Angeles, California. I was told it was not true by your pro-death friend dem whatever. It really doesn't matter how much you deny the truth, it is still the truth.

Jester III

25-01-2005, 17:58

What gives you the right to play God with human life? I am not forcing religion on anyone, but I do have a right to speak of GOD and whether you want to believe it or not is up to you, but on judgement day we will ALL answer to GOD. Every knee shall bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. Just because you don't believe it doesn't mean it's not so.
Then leave the sinners to their own, God will decide upon them. The souls of the babies will surely go to heaven, which is the best that could happen to anyone, right? And the sinning woman will surely go to hell, which is the worst that could happen.
Who are you to call for additional penance under the laws of man?

Bottle

25-01-2005, 18:24

I think you are a liar. Your friend is not alive because his mother chose to abort another child. Murder is murder, even if it is legal.
if Dan's mother had carried her first pregnancy to term, she would not have been able to move away to go to college when she did. she most certainly would not have been able to be on the Ski Team that winter (as she would have been 8 months pregnant at the beginning of the season), and would never have met the man that would later become Dan's father. since you claim that a person is totally defined by their DNA (something i personally don't believe, but i am adopting your view for the sake of argument), then Dan would never have existed because his DNA would never have come into being.

Bottle

25-01-2005, 18:27

regardless of the name "faithvalues" the link leads to the article in reference to the girl or was born alive at an abortion clinic in 1997 in the United States, Los Angeles, California. I was told it was not true by your pro-death friend dem whatever. It really doesn't matter how much you deny the truth, it is still the truth.
Demi pointed out, correctly, that the procedure described in that story is not one that could have been legally performed by a medical professional in America during the time described if it were an elective procedure, nor could the outcome have been (medically) as that story describes. if that procedure was performed it was done illegally, and therefore it has nothing to do with a debate about the status of LEGAL abortion...if anything, it would be further support for legal, medically sound abortions because they help minimize the chances of such mistakes taking place.

furthermore, just because somebody posts a story on the internet doesn't make it Truth. i can write a story about how getting an abortion turned me into a magical pixie, and i can post it on a great many sites, but that won't make it true.

EDIT: and WOW, do you ever need to check your dates! if you claim that woman was born in 1997, how the hell is she 27 years old?

Bottle

25-01-2005, 18:29

Then leave the sinners to their own, God will decide upon them. The souls of the babies will surely go to heaven, which is the best that could happen to anyone, right? And the sinning woman will surely go to hell, which is the worst that could happen.
Who are you to call for additional penance under the laws of man?
Bingo. if God is loving he will take the dead fetuses up to Heaven, right? and Heaven is the best place anybody could be, by definition, right? so the fetuses will get to go straight to Heaven without ever having to suffer or experience the hardships of mortal life, and without ever risking committing a sin that would get them sent to Hell...if anything, the mothers who abort them should be rewarded for providing their "children" with a free ticket into Paradise!

Jester III

25-01-2005, 18:49

regardless of the name "faithvalues" the link leads to the article in reference to the girl or was born alive at an abortion clinic in 1997 in the United States, Los Angeles, California
That same girl, "Gianna Jessen testifies on Capitol Hill before a House subcommittee on abortion in 1996." I dont believe she was born a year later, no.

Savagettes

25-01-2005, 18:55

Demi pointed out, correctly, that the procedure described in that story is not one that could have been legally performed by a medical professional in America during the time described if it were an elective procedure, nor could the outcome have been (medically) as that story describes. if that procedure was performed it was done illegally, and therefore it has nothing to do with a debate about the status of LEGAL abortion...if anything, it would be further support for legal, medically sound abortions because they help minimize the chances of such mistakes taking place.The procedure took place in 1977, and yes it was legal in the United States then. It was a legal abortion, prove it wrong then.

Savagettes

25-01-2005, 18:56

That same girl, "Gianna Jessen testifies on Capitol Hill before a House subcommittee on abortion in 1996." I dont believe she was born a year later, no.
That was a typo, it was 1977...but you can look the story up. Prove it wrong....I dare you to!

Savagettes

25-01-2005, 18:57

if Dan's mother had carried her first pregnancy to term, she would not have been able to move away to go to college when she did. she most certainly would not have been able to be on the Ski Team that winter (as she would have been 8 months pregnant at the beginning of the season), and would never have met the man that would later become Dan's father. since you claim that a person is totally defined by their DNA (something i personally don't believe, but i am adopting your view for the sake of argument), then Dan would never have existed because his DNA would never have come into being. That does not justify murder.

Bottle

25-01-2005, 18:58

The procedure took place in 1977, and yes it was legal in the United States then.

so it WAS legal, and no long is legal. if you are so concerned about that particular situation then your work is done. what are you bitching about?

It was a legal abortion, prove it wrong then.
why would i try to prove it was wrong? i believe that all abortion should be legal at any time and for any reason the mother wishes. i believe there should be no time at which a woman does not have the right to end a pregnancy. i believe that viable fetuses should be removed intact when possible, but that the priority should always be the safeguarding of the life of the mother. i don't believe it was wrong for that woman's mother to seek an abortion (assuming it even happened, which i don't believe it did), i don't believe it was wrong for a medical professional to perform the abortion, and i don't believe there is any reason for examples like that one (even if they were true) to impact a woman's right to choose.

Nsendalen

25-01-2005, 18:59

But if you forced the woman to carry to term you would be committing murder YOURSELF because this would prevent Dan from being born, same as an abortion would.

So your answer to murder is... murder?

Bottle

25-01-2005, 18:59

That does not justify murder.
tisk tisk, that's not what we were talking about. you said we don't have the right to discuss this because we would not be alive if our mother's had chosen to abort. i have shown you a case where a person could ONLY be alive if their mother chose to abort, and asked if that person can then debate the issue.

the ISSUE is whether or not abortion is murder, and my question is if Dan has the right to debate it based on his circumstances. you are avoiding the question and being dull. please stop.

Bottle

25-01-2005, 19:01

But if you forced the woman to carry to term you would be committing murder YOURSELF because this would prevent Dan from being born, same as an abortion would.

So your answer to murder is... murder?
indeed...if a fetus is a person because it may one day grow into one, then Dan was a potential person just waiting to be born. if his mother had been forced to carry her first pregnancy to term, Dan would never have been given the chance to exist. therefore, forcing his mother to carry the pregnancy to term would have "murdered" Dan.

that is, if we follow the warped "potential is the same as actual" logic that is being proposed :P.

Jester III

25-01-2005, 19:14

That was a typo, it was 1977...but you can look the story up. Prove it wrong....I dare you to!
I believe that the story is true, but what does it prove? That abortions can get messed up and messed up medical processes involving unborn can damage the brain of these. You may call it a wonder or whatever, but what exactly does it contribute to the discussion? In contrast maybe we should get the testimonial of a teenager who survived his third suicide attempt, to which he was driven because all he ever knew was neglect and abuse from parents who never wanted him in the first place. You care about life as existance, but dont give a second thought about what the conditions are for the kid and involved family. Otherwise i cant explain how many children live in poverty, even within the US. And its mainly those families who will have another of those precious fetuses ending up in a miserable life. Where are all the pro-lifers forming lines to care about those poor little children? There, i can go Emotional Avenue, too. Not that it should have a place in a serious discussion, but there seems no other way to get through.

Savagettes

25-01-2005, 21:17

indeed...if a fetus is a person because it may one day grow into one, then Dan was a potential person just waiting to be born. if his mother had been forced to carry her first pregnancy to term, Dan would never have been given the chance to exist. therefore, forcing his mother to carry the pregnancy to term would have "murdered" Dan.

that is, if we follow the warped "potential is the same as actual" logic that is being proposed :P. No, a "fetus" as you call it, is a person not because it may one day grow into one but because a "fetus" as you call it, is already a person, not a potential person.

Dan couldn't be murdered if he never existed, if that is your reasoning.

How do you know, Dan's mom could have still met Dan's dad and he could have still been Dan. Thats a whole different discussion.

Someone trying to rationalize murder does so to make themselves feel better, plain and simple. Nice try though. Try to be a little more logical next time.............

Bottle

25-01-2005, 21:22

No, a "fetus" as you call it, is a person not because it may one day grow into one but because a "fetus" as you call it, is already a person, not a potential person.

okay, so at what point in gestation does it become a person? are the sperm and egg a person? is the fertilized ovum a person? is the zygote a person?

How do you know, Dan's mom could have still met Dan's dad and he could have still been Dan. Thats a whole different discussion.

indeed it is...i could go into more detail, but you could also just take my word for it that there is no possible way Dan's mother and father would have met when they did, and thus (at the very least) Dan would never have been conceived at the exact time he was. whether or not Dan's mom and dad might have met and had sex is the least of it...if they had sex even a split second later, the sperm that carried half of Dan's DNA might have been in a slightly different place, and might not have been the one to fertilize the egg that was supposed to be the other half of Dan.

Someone trying to rationalize murder does so to make themselves feel better, plain and simple. Nice try though. Try to be a little more logical next time.............
*sigh* regardless of your beliefs on abortion, using the term "murder" is not accurate based on YOUR OWN STATEMENTS. murder is the UNLAWFUL ending of a human life, and you have spent a great deal of time telling us all how legal abortion is. either you must believe that abortion is illegal, or you must accept that abortion is not murder. or you could just keep making up definitions of words to suit yourself, and totally ignore the actual meanings of those words...you know, whatever is fun for you.

Savagettes

25-01-2005, 21:23

You care about life as existance, but dont give a second thought about what the conditions are for the kid and involved family. Otherwise i cant explain how many children live in poverty, even within the US. And its mainly those families who will have another of those precious fetuses ending up in a miserable life. Where are all the pro-lifers forming lines to care about those poor little children?
So all poor people should die too? Why do you assume, pro-lifers don't care about kids? Thats really amazing coming from a pro-death advocate such as yourself.

Eastern Coast America

25-01-2005, 21:28

In my opinion. Only first trimester should be legal. If your gonna change your mind after that, you might as well go all the way.

Third trimester should definantly be illegal, since the fetus has a pretty good chance of surviving after that. Second? Thats up for grabs.

You could say you should take concequences for your action, therefore you can't have abortion. But for me? I'm pro choice.

Savagettes

25-01-2005, 21:28

regardless of your beliefs on abortion, using the term "murder" is not accurate based on YOUR OWN STATEMENTS.
the term "abortion" is a euphemism for legalized murder

Hakartopia

25-01-2005, 21:57

the term "abortion" is a euphemism for legalized murder

The term 'legalised murder' is an oxymoron, and assuming you are not too stupid to realise this, I guess you're just attempting to use emotional blackmail to make up for your lack of actual arguments.

The Cassini Belt

25-01-2005, 21:58

*sigh* regardless of your beliefs on abortion, using the term "murder" is not accurate based on YOUR OWN STATEMENTS. murder is the UNLAWFUL ending of a human life, and you have spent a great deal of time telling us all how legal abortion is. either you must believe that abortion is illegal, or you must accept that abortion is not murder. or you could just keep making up definitions of words to suit yourself, and totally ignore the actual meanings of those words...you know, whatever is fun for you.

Bottle: unlawful is not the same as illegal. To simplify, unlawful=unjust, and illegal=prohibited. Look up the difference between the latin terms "jus" and "lex".

Murder is defined as unlawful killing, not illegal killing. In countries with messed-up laws, when they kill people in perfect accordance with their written laws (e.g. Saudi Arabia, stoning to death for adultery) that is still murder.

The Cassini Belt

25-01-2005, 22:00

The term 'legalised murder' is an oxymoron, and assuming you are not too stupid to realise this, I guess you're just attempting to use emotional blackmail to make up for your lack of actual arguments.

See my post above. It is not a contradition in terms. You are simply confused about legal vs lawful, which is not unusual for english speakers since "law" can mean two completely different things (i.e. "the law" vs "laws").

Terra Formi

25-01-2005, 22:22

After reading all these posts, I've come to the only logical conclusion that anyone could come to.

The best way to deal with the issue of abortion, is the same as the best way to deal with all issues: Simply kill all the humans right now, and then we won't have to worry about them any more.

If you're going to say "What defines a human?" (As some people tend to ask pro-lifers) then I'll go with the even more comprehendable solution, which is to eradicate the Earth entirely, and maybe build a nice hyperspace bypass over it.

However, I imagine that these solutions wouldn't go over too well with either group. Fortunately, there's a third solution that neither would disagree with. I'll kill myself. I'm quite fed up with all the problems of the world, and all of those are the faults of humans. I can therefore easily remove myself from this situation by committing suicide.

Of course, suicide is illegal in some places too. Should it be? After all, it's my own body, I should be allowed to do what I want with it, right?

Good, I'm glad you agree.

Now personally, I think if we're going to have legal abortions, the doctor who performs it should first ask the mother if she wants to keep the fetus in a jar. (As they sometimes do with tonsils.) If not, then the doctor should be allowed to eat the fetus. If I were one of these doctors, I would bite it's head off violently, and shake the body around in my mouth like a dog, getting all the blood and fluid over everything. And I'd do it right in front of the mother.

After all, it's dead anyway, right?

(And if you haven't guessed by now, nothing in this post is serious. Except the part about me wanting to commit suicide, of course.)

Dempublicents

25-01-2005, 22:39

Kaboodlez wasn't blaming a woman for being raped.

"Sometimes we blame the woman for putting herself in that situation." Yeah, that's not blame at all.

there is no difference between an unborn child and a tumor

I never suggested this.

The Cassini Belt

25-01-2005, 22:39

okay, so at what point in gestation does it become a person? are the sperm and egg a person? is the fertilized ovum a person? is the zygote a person?

This was extensively debated earlier in the thread. In my opinion, a *zygote* or *embryo* is not a person, but a *fetus* is a person at any age (although ages 8-12 weeks are somewhat of a gray area).

Dempublicents

25-01-2005, 22:41

In the United States abortion is legal for any reason, at any time during pregnancy. The account is not false at all, but I would'nt want to confuse you with the facts.
http://www.modbee.com/life/faithvalues/story/9774051p-10637283c.html

Nothing like ignoring the actual law, which completely contradicts your statement.

Red Iguanna

25-01-2005, 22:45

too stupid to realise this hey you socialized liberal nazi....the correct spelling is r e a l i z e
Wow you sound smart! (not)

Nsendalen

25-01-2005, 22:46

You go little man! You attack a region-specific spelling while ignoring his posts! Wooo you!

/sarcasm.

Dempublicents

25-01-2005, 22:48

We can argue forever about this, but you're not going to change my mind that at conception a human being is form. I agree that it is also a single celled entity without all of the functional capacities of an born child nor does a born child have the capacities of and adolescent and so on. It is still a human being that has a right to life. Calling it something other than a human being is little less than a means of justifying murder.

I'm not trying to change your mind. I am pointing out that your contention that it *is* a person is an opinion based in emotion and religion, not in hard, testable facts. As this is not something you can objectively demonstrate, it has no business in law. If you want to believe that a tree is a human person, I don't care - just don't try to legislate it.

Dempublicents

25-01-2005, 22:50

I was told it was not true by your pro-death friend dem whatever.

Note the following:

(a) Pro-death is an incorrect term, as I am not even pro-abortion. In truth, I am personally anti-abortion, but pro-choice.

(b) I did not say it was false. If you would like to go back to the post, you will see that it was one of a list of possibilities.

Red Iguanna

25-01-2005, 22:52

Nothing like ignoring the actual law, which completely contradicts your statement. Its not that hard to look it up oh dem, the witted one.

Dempublicents

25-01-2005, 23:00

Its not that hard to look it up oh dem, the witted one.

And I have, numerous times. However, Sav doesn't care about the actual law. She obviously just wishes to rant and rave and pull "facts" out of her rear end.

Bottle

26-01-2005, 00:22

This was extensively debated earlier in the thread. In my opinion, a *zygote* or *embryo* is not a person, but a *fetus* is a person at any age (although ages 8-12 weeks are somewhat of a gray area).
*confused*

are you and Sav the same person? if so, i'm sorry for having asked you to repeat your previously-stated opinions; i thought Sav was a different person and therefore wanted to establish his/her take on the subject.

The Cassini Belt

26-01-2005, 01:00

*confused*

are you and Sav the same person? if so, i'm sorry for having asked you to repeat your previously-stated opinions; i thought Sav was a different person and therefore wanted to establish his/her take on the subject.

You don't have a monopoly on this thread. You asked a question, I answered it. Yes, you were quoting Sav at the time, but your question was not specifically addressed to her - and even if it were I could damn well still jump in.

Bottle

26-01-2005, 01:06

You don't have a monopoly on this thread. You asked a question, I answered it. Yes, you were quoting Sav at the time, but your question was not specifically addressed to her - and even if it were I could damn well still jump in.
whoa dude, chill. you seemed irate when you responded to the question i addressed to Sav (pointing out that you had already answered it many times) so i thought perhaps you were ticked off because you WERE Sav and you felt you had already explained yourself in full. if you are NOT Sav, then why would you have been so annoyed at my directing that question to a person who has not yet answered it (as far as i know)? and, seeing as how you have already answered it, why would you feel the need to respond to my question again? the ONLY reason i asked that question was to establish Sav's point of view as related to points he/she was making; your opinion on the subject isn't really relavent to what i was asking, since Sav is the one making the set of arguments i am addressing.

of course you still have the right to "jump in," and i never said you couldn't. i never attacked you, told you to shut up, insulted your response, or in any way indicated that you didn't have the right to answer a question i posed to another person in this public format. however, your decision to become snippy about the matter is extremely confusing and somewhat rude. perhaps you should take a break from this topic to cool down a bit, so we can minimize this sort of miscommunication in the future.

The Cassini Belt

26-01-2005, 01:26

And I have, numerous times. However, Sav doesn't care about the actual law. She obviously just wishes to rant and rave and pull "facts" out of her rear end.

Actual law, as near as I can make it out:

Roe v. Wade (1973) -- fetus is not a person; abortion is an individual right arising from the right to privacy; "trimester framework" - state may not regulate first-trimester abortions, may regulate second-trimester only to promote the health of the mother, and may regulate third trimester to promote both the health of the mother and the life of the fetus. A companion decision (Doe v Bolton) defines "health" as essentially a synonym for wellbeing.

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989) and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992) -- drops the "trimester framework"; states may not impose "undue burden", defined as a "substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking the abortion of a nonviable fetus." ("viable" is understood to mean assisted viability, currently around 20 weeks)

These decisions only deal with what the states *cannot* legislate. Basically, between 1973 and 1989 completely elective abortions must be legal during the first and second trimester (26 weeks), at a minimum, in all states. Since 1989, elective abortions must be legal until the point of viability (20 weeks). Elective abortions *may* be legal beyond that point, and the standard for determining necessity can vary, that is entirely up to the states.

I challenge anyone to provide any evidence of any restrictions or obstacles between weeks 13 and 20 in present law. There aren't any.

The Cassini Belt

26-01-2005, 01:39

whoa dude, chill. ... i never attacked you

I admit I didn't like the suggestion that I was Sav. That is obviously nonsense since our writing styles are completely different. I took it as an innuendo/suggestion that I was using different forum names to create the impression of more support for my point of view, which would be a pretty low ad-hominem attack. If that is not what you meant, I apologize.

Bottle

26-01-2005, 01:41

I admit I didn't like the suggestion that I was Sav. That is obviously nonsense since our writing styles are completely different. I took it as an innuendo/suggestion that I was using different forum names to create the impression of more support for my point of view, which would be a pretty low ad-hominem attack. If that is not what you meant, I apologize.
erm, the ONLY reason i thought you were Sav was that you acted annoyed when you responded to a question i directed at Sav. you pointed out the question had already been addressed previously...why answer it again, if you weren't Sav and you had already answered it before? why choose to answer a question that wasn't directed at you, if you were just going to act annoyed that it was asked in the first place?

Lynchathon

26-01-2005, 01:43

Note the following:

(a) Pro-death is an incorrect term, as I am not even pro-abortion. In truth, I am personally anti-abortion, but pro-choice.

How could you possibly be anti-abortion, but still be pro-choice. Your just contradicting yourself.

Bottle

26-01-2005, 01:46

How could you possibly be anti-abortion, but still be pro-choice. Your just contradicting yourself.
nothing contradictory there...she personally feels abortion is wrong, but believes that she does not have the right to dictate what other people choose on the subject.

a parallel example:

i am anti-fried chicken. i think it is horrible stuff, and that people who eat it are doing something foolish and unhealthy. i would never choose to eat friend chicken myself. however, i don't presume to dictate the diets of other people...what they choose to do with their own bodies is their business, not mine. i am anti-fried chicken, but i am still pro-choice.

Lynchathon

26-01-2005, 01:50

What im getting from you bottle is that you don't care if other people have abortions, your just not going to go out and get one. Correct me if im wrong.

Bottle

26-01-2005, 01:59

What im getting from you bottle is that you don't care if other people have abortions, your just not going to go out and get one. Correct me if im wrong.
ooops, sorry for the confusion:

i was attempting to describe how i think Demi feels about abortion, and how it is quite possible for somebody to believe that a given action is very wrong but also to believe that they don't have the right to force other people to believe it is wrong.

personally, i don't believe there is anything wrong with abortion. indeed, i think that it is the best possible choice that can be made in many situations, and i believe that abortion is ALWAYS a better decision than carrying to term with the full intention of putting the infant up for adoption. my opinion on this subject is very different from Demi's in several key places, but we have discussed it enough that i felt confident in taking a stab at summarizing her anti-abortion and pro-choice position.

Belew

26-01-2005, 02:02

the tools for most modern abortions are chemical rather than mechanical. indeed, if you want to increase the number of barbaric metal impliments used in abortive procedures, the best way to acheive that would be to render safe, medical abortions illegal.

A significant number of the instruments required during an abortion, are only used to create a pathway large enough for the actual killing instruments to enter the mother, and her baby to be removed. The instruments that are used to get to the baby and remove it are as follow:

The Cannula, which can be seen here:

http://www.bionximplants.com/productImages/C7210Pressure-Sens-Cannula-.jpg

The Curette, which can also be seen here:

http://www.track.com.pk/a27.gif

The Forceps:

http://www.medisave.co.uk/images/ns507.jpg

The Syringe with Spinal Needle:

http://www.edu.rcsed.ac.uk/images/475.jpg

Now, these sterile weapons of mass destruction are only used to get to the baby. The instruments used to kill the defenseless human being depend greatly on the age and size and the method of abortion used.

This is the most common method of abortion during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. General or local anaesthesia is given to the mother and her cervix is quickly dilated. A suction curette (hollow tube with a knife-edged tip) is inserted into the womb. This instrument is then connected to a vacuum machine by a transparent tube. The vacuum suction, 29 times more powerful than a household vacuum cleaner, tears the fetus and placenta into small pieces which are sucked through the tube into a bottle and discarded.

Dilation and Curettage (D&C):

This method is similar to the suction method with the added insertion of a hook shaped knife (curette) which cuts the baby into pieces. The pieces are scraped out through the cervix and discarded

Dilation and Evacuation (D&E):

This method is used up to 18 weeks' gestation. Instead of the loop-shaped knife used in D&C abortions, a pair of forceps is inserted into the womb to grasp part of the fetus. The teeth of the forceps twist and tear the bones of the unborn child. This process is repeated until the fetus is totally dismembered and removed. Usually the spine must be snapped and the skull crushed in order to remove them.

Salt Poisoning (Bottle's prefered chemical weapon):

Used after 16 weeks (four months) when enough fluid has accumulated. A long needle injects a strong salt solution through the mother's abdomen into the baby's sac. The baby swallows this fluid and is poisoned by it. It also acts as a corrosive, burning off the outer layer of skin. It normally takes somewhat over an hour for the baby to die from this. Within 24 hours, labor will usually set in and the mother will give birth to a dead or dying baby.

There have been many cases of these babies being born alive (Gianna Jessen ). They are usually left unattended to die. However, a few have survived and later been adopted.

Prostaglandin Chemical Abortion (Another form of Bottle's Chemical Torture):

This form of abortion uses chemicals developed by the Upjohn Pharmaceutical Co. which cause the uterus to contract intensely, pushing out the developing baby. The contractions are more violent than normal, natural contractions, so the unborn baby is frequently killed by them -- some have even been decapitated. Many, however, have also been born alive.

And just incase you might be wondering how to perform a partial birth abortion (outlawed by the great president George Walker Bush):

1) Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby's legs with forceps.

2) The baby's leg is pulled out into the birth canal.

3) The abortionist delivers the baby's entire body, except for the head

4) The abortionist jams scissors into the baby's skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the skull.

5) The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child's brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed.

Skaje

26-01-2005, 02:08

nothing contradictory there...she personally feels abortion is wrong, but believes that she does not have the right to dictate what other people choose on the subject.

a parallel example:

i am anti-fried chicken. i think it is horrible stuff, and that people who eat it are doing something foolish and unhealthy. i would never choose to eat friend chicken myself. however, i don't presume to dictate the diets of other people...what they choose to do with their own bodies is their business, not mine. i am anti-fried chicken, but i am still pro-choice.
Social libertarians unite!!! Let everyone manage their own business as long as it affects no one else!

btw, abortion is a sticky issue since a lot of people believe fetuses are people, and there are even people who believe zygotes are people.

Belew

26-01-2005, 02:10

nothing contradictory there...she personally feels abortion is wrong, but believes that she does not have the right to dictate what other people choose on the subject.

How can you be pro-choice when the baby is not given the choice to live? You were given that choice, why play god and not do the same for another human being? What about the innocent baby's choice on this matter? That sounds like Pro-Death to me.

"The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood

Bottle

26-01-2005, 02:14

A significant number of the instruments required during an abortion, are only used to create a pathway large enough for the actual killing instruments to enter the mother, and her baby to be removed. The instruments that are used to get to the baby and remove it are as follow:

*clipped for length*
i'm sorry you went to all this trouble, but if you had read my original post more carefully you would have realized that none of what you posted disproves my original statment...MOST abortions performed in the United States are chemical in nature, because they occur long before it would be necessary to use such mechanical procedures. i never claimed there were no abortion procedures requiring these tools, nor did i claim that abortions requiring those tools were especially unusual, i simply pointed out that the majority of the abortions which occur do not involve such things.

Belew

26-01-2005, 02:15

Chansu

26-01-2005, 02:17

How can you be pro-choice when the baby is not given the choice to live? You were given that choice, why play god and not do the same for another human being? What about the innocent baby's choice on this matter? That sounds like Pro-Death to me.

The baby CAN'T choose. Even if it is capable of deciding it wants to live, it has no way of expressing it, no way of make sure that it DOES live, it has no control. I didn't CHOOSE to live. I don't recall thinking to myself "You know what! I think I want to LIVE!". My parents chose to have sex, and my mother decided to carry me to full term, and to keep me. I never choose to do ANYTHING in that regard.

Bottle

26-01-2005, 02:19

How can you be pro-choice when the baby is not given the choice to live? You were given that choice, why play god and not do the same for another human being?
???

i was not given the choice to live. i was not even capable of understanding the question "do you wish to live" until several years after i became alive. nobody gave me the choice, it was a decision made by my mother and my father. did somebody ask you, in utero, if you wished to be born? did you respond? if so, is there any record of this? because my developmental neurology lab would LOVE to check it out!

What about the innocent baby's choice on this matter?

there is no baby in these situations. to refer to a human zygote or fetus as a "baby" is as inaccurate as refering to that fetus as a "toddler," or refering to a human infant as an "adult."

That sounds like Pro-Death to me.

why am i not surprised?

Belew

26-01-2005, 02:24

The baby CAN'T choose. Even if it is capable of deciding it wants to live, it has no way of expressing it, no way of make sure that it DOES live, it has no control. I didn't CHOOSE to live. I don't recall thinking to myself "You know what! I think I want to LIVE!". My parents chose to have sex, and my mother decided to carry me to full term, and to keep me. I never choose to do ANYTHING in that regard.

Well, are you happy to be alive today? Or would you rather die of being jabbed in the back of the head, then have your brains sucked out? Oh wait, you probally would have liked the method of being sucked out into a tube into tiny little pieces when you least expect it. Maybe you prefer Bottle's method of being poisoned by chemical weapons? Is that it? If I have not mentioned your prefered way of murdering someone, please feel free, enlighten me.

Bottle

26-01-2005, 02:26

Hey by the way, here is some brain candy.

When the Nazis came to power in 1933 one of the first acts Hitler did was to legalize abortion. By 1935 Germany with 65 million people was the place where over 500,000 abortions were being performed each year. Although Hitler and his government encourged Aryan women to produce a lot of children, he left the matter of abortion and all its facets in the hands of a decidely pro- abortion medical establishment. Even in the midst of Nazi propaganda aimed at increasing the Aryan population, scores of Aryan women still chose to abort their unborn children. The medical publication Deutsches Aerzleblatt reported the abortions in Germany each year reached a half-million.

-Taken from http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id15.html
here's some even more fun facts, made much more interesting by virtue of being actual FACTS:

Totalitarian leaders Hitler and Stalin believed that the individual should be sacrificed to the state. Both instituted harsh abortion laws, outlawed other women's rights, and forced women to stay home, bear children, and be subservient to their husbands. Russian women were criticized for treating childbearing "as if it were a personal matter." Hitler said, "Use of contraceptives means a violation of nature and a degradation of womanhood, motherhood and love...."

Under Hitler, choosing abortion became sabotage; a crime punishable by hard labor for the woman and a possible death penalty for the abortionist.

Hitler supported abortion for non-Aryans, because he wanted those races to die out...he totally opposed abortion for the only people he felt mattered, the Aryans. So if your reasoning is "Hitler supported abortion, therefore we should oppose it" then you are in a bit of trouble because your logic leads us to conclude abortion should be made illegal for all non-whites but legal for all whites (if we are simply going to base our judgment of morality on doing the opposite of what Adolf Hitler did).

Bottle

26-01-2005, 02:28

Well, are you happy to be alive today? Or would you rather die of being jabbed in the back of the head, then have your brains sucked out? Oh wait, you probally would have liked the method of being sucked out into a tube into tiny little pieces when you least expect it. Maybe you prefer Bottle's method of being poisoned by chemical weapons? Is that it? If I have not mentioned your prefered way of murdering someone, please feel free, enlighten me.
were any of those things to have happened to me before i had brain function, or if any of them were to occur after i lose brain function, i really wouldn't care in the slightest. i wouldn't be able to care, by definition.

seriously, do you have ANYTHING in your bag besides the same old boring emotive tactics we have all seen a billion times before? it's old hat, baby, get a new trick.

Belew

26-01-2005, 02:30

here's some even more fun facts, made much more interesting by virtue of being actual FACTS:

Totalitarian leaders Hitler and Stalin believed that the individual should be sacrificed to the state. Both instituted harsh abortion laws, outlawed other women's rights, and forced women to stay home, bear children, and be subservient to their husbands. Russian women were criticized for treating childbearing "as if it were a personal matter." Hitler said, "Use of contraceptives means a violation of nature and a degradation of womanhood, motherhood and love...."

Under Hitler, choosing abortion became sabotage; a crime punishable by hard labor for the woman and a possible death penalty for the abortionist.

Hitler supported abortion for non-Aryans, because he wanted those races to die out...he totally opposed abortion for the only people he felt mattered, the Aryans. So if your reasoning is "Hitler supported abortion, therefore we should oppose it" then you are in a bit of trouble because your logic leads us to conclude abortion should be made illegal for all non-whites but legal for all whites (if we are simply going to base our judgment of morality on doing the opposite of what Adolf Hitler did).

Hitler and his regime were adamantly pro-abortion. To depict Hitler as anti-abortion is a ludicrous as calling him anti-genocide or pro- Jewish. Both Hitler and his government had little regard for human life perceived as subpar, whether born or preborn.

Bottle

26-01-2005, 02:31

Hitler and his regime were adamantly pro-abortion. To depict Hitler as anti-abortion is a ludicrous as calling him anti-genocide or pro- Jewish. Both Hitler and his government had little regard for human life perceived as subpar, whether born or preborn.
sorry, but historical fact does not agree with you :(. it's nice that you were trying, though, it sure beats your emotive material!

Belew

26-01-2005, 02:47

Bottle, is that all you have? To say my argument is only emontional? To have a pro-life stance is not an emotional stance. Everything that the greatest country on earth (The USA) stands for is totally against everything you and your liberal views stand for. Its alright, you can have your beliefs. Just because you believe that scientists have the right to attempt to smear GOD out of the picture, doesnt mean you're right. I wasnt planning to get personal on this subject, but you had to. Your a typical left-wing coward. I imagine your favorite colour is the rainbow and you love it from behind. You probally think John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and Al Gore are good people. I imagine you hate sports, love to hate America, and get an electric charge in your pants from watching an abortion (Which you previously said you had attened a few). Your athiest views are not shared by a majority in this country, thats why the greatest president this world has seen (G W) is taking a stance on your kind. You make me sick. It wouldnt hurt my feelings to give you people your own little state and turn our backs on you. Of course it would have to be in the wilderness somewhere, cause most of your kind are enviormentalists too. OH WAIT! We've already done so. Its called CANADA. Thats the problem here. Idiotism and bigotry are bleeding into our country.

"In America, our sense of decency, morality, and society's, moral underpendings are rooted in a Judeo-Christian heritage as expressed in the Bible. Without that foundation, we'd have a jungle." -Michael Savage PHD.(Scientist)

NationStates Jolt Archive

Abortion, a sane opinion