NationStates Jolt Archive

Hell is an imaginary place created in your head. Abortion is not pro-death. You are not killing a human. A fetus is not human untill it can think and reason.


Have you ever burned your hand on the stove? Is that imaginary? I bet there are a few pro-death people sitting in hell right now saying exactly what you did.

*Vomits*
This is why I hate abortion.
*Continues vomiting*

Never mind that the only time this procedure would be used is in the case of a medical danger to the mother.

Have you ever burned your hand on the stove? Is that imaginary? I bet there are a few pro-death people sitting in hell right now saying exactly what you did.
Stop with the pro-death, as was explained in that very post.
And that analogy has no relation between the two parts. I've never burned my hand on Hell...

Never mind that the only time this procedure would be used is in the case of a medical danger to the mother.

This is a bold faced lie. This is the typical abortion procedure D&X that is used for most late term abortions.

Have you ever burned your hand on the stove? Is that imaginary? I bet there are a few pro-death people sitting in hell right now saying exactly what you did.

Have you ever burned in hell? Do you know any one who has burned in hell...
Personally I dont care if you believe in heavan and hell. I think you should realize that if a mother can't support her baby because she does not have enough money or it is impossible for her to give birth with out dieing. do you still think it is right to let the baby suffer because the mother cant feed it.

This is a bold faced lie. This is the typical abortion procedure D&X that is used for most late term abortions.

Wow, now you are contradicting yourself. Earlier, you said that saline abortions were the most common for late-term abortions.

Of course, late-term abortions (specifically 3rd trimester, which is the main time during which this procedure would be used) can *only* be performed when the life of the mother is in danger, the fetus is already dead, the fetus will die soon after and cannot be delivered naturally (ie. extreme hydrochephalus), or some combination of the above.

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.

And I present to you the average (red-state) american.


On another note:
Rene Descartes said, "I think, therefore I am". He's pretty respected by everybody. Take what he said and apply it to many fetuses- do they think? Not at a particularly early stage of pregnancy- The only brain wave functions, if any at the time, are no more sophisticated than an earthworm's or insect's.

This isn't much of a debate, since Descartes was a philosophisor, not a scientist. But it's something to think about.

Have you ever burned in hell? Do you know any one who has burned in hell...
Personally I dont care if you believe in heavan and hell. I think you should realize that if a mother can't support her baby because she does not have enough money or it is impossible for her to give birth with out dieing. do you still think it is right to let the baby suffer because the mother cant feed it.

In america, there are these things called WIC, private charity, adoption, and welfare. These things were created to make sure babies dont go hungry. There is nothing wrong with a child being adopted. Many families cannot have their own children so they result in adopting a child that is blessed to be in this world....alive. If there was no adoption agencies, children would be sold and used to be sexual slaves (like in those countries that got hit by the tsunami).

See, when you support abortion, you are putting money in the doctor's pocket, the pharmacutical companies pockets that make the chemicals that kill the babies, and you are taking money away from the adoption agencies which are non-profit (they're pro-life as you can imagine), and as for those families that cannot have their own children (infertility for instance), they will be sad because they have to pay some black market drug lord money to buy a baby.

Is that a good thing?

What do you think?

In america, there are these things called WIC, private charity, adoption, and welfare. These things were created to make sure babies dont go hungry. There is nothing wrong with a child being adopted. Many families cannot have their own children so they result in adopting a child that is blessed to be in this world....alive. If there was no adoption agencies, children would be sold and used to be sexual slaves (like in those countries that got hit by the tsunami).

See, when you support abortion, you are putting money in the doctor's pocket, the pharmacutical companies pockets that make the chemicals that kill the babies, and you are taking money away from the adoption agencies which are non-profit (they're pro-life as you can imagine), and as for those families that cannot have their own children (infertility for instance), they will be sad because they have to pay some black market drug lord money to buy a baby.

Is that a good thing?

What do you think?

This would be great, if it weren't for the children already sitting in orphanages and foster care waiting to be adopted because they weren't white, blue-eyed, perfectly healthy little infants when they were put there.

Of course, late-term abortions (specifically 3rd trimester, which is the main time during which this procedure would be used) can *only* be performed when the life of the mother is in danger, the fetus is already dead, the fetus will die soon after and cannot be delivered naturally (ie. extreme hydrochephalus), or some combination of the above.

I had a feeling you'd say that. The decission of the health of the mother is left up to the abortionist, which when faced with the law, is covered by doctor-patient privliges. But you know, its funny, do you know any abortionists that give a shit about human life? When faced with thousands of dollars, a human to an abortionist (as well as most liberals) is like holding crack infront of a crack-addict.

This would be great, if it weren't for the children already sitting in orphanages and foster care waiting to be adopted because they weren't white, blue-eyed, perfectly healthy little infants when they were put there.

Isnt that alone better than death? Being poor isnt a disease.

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."


we've been over this as well. you keep repeating it, but you keep ignoring my replies. e.g.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7990620&postcount=101

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


Calling a fetus a "child" or "baby" is perfectly normal English usage. Yes, of course it is intended to produce an emotional reaction, just as fetus is intended to *not* produce an emotional reaction. It is not a mis-use of the words, however.

(and now you're going to call me snippy again, I suppose).

In america, there are these things called WIC, private charity, adoption, and welfare. These things were created to make sure babies dont go hungry. There is nothing wrong with a child being adopted. Many families cannot have their own children so they result in adopting a child that is blessed to be in this world....alive. If there was no adoption agencies, children would be sold and used to be sexual slaves (like in those countries that got hit by the tsunami).


Not all countries are like america, and if you want them to be just ask george bush, hes into that kind of thing. What do you think countries who dont have WIC should do. because abortion is not just an american issue. its a world issue.

I had a feeling you'd say that. The decission of the health of the mother is left up to the abortionist, which when faced with the law, is covered by doctor-patient privliges. But you know, its funny, do you know any abortionists that give a shit about human life? When faced with thousands of dollars, a human to an abortionist (as well as most liberals) is like holding crack infront of a crack-addict.

(a) No doctor receives thousands of dollars for an abortion.

(b) Every doctor I know is very much concerned with human life.

I had a feeling you'd say that. The decission of the health of the mother is left up to the abortionist, which when faced with the law, is covered by doctor-patient privliges. But you know, its funny, do you know any abortionists that give a shit about human life? When faced with thousands of dollars, a human to an abortionist (as well as most liberals) is like holding crack infront of a crack-addict.
Please refrain from flamebaiting, as it is against forum rules.
Thank you.

Calling a fetus a "child" or "baby" is perfectly normal English usage. Yes, of course it is intended to produce an emotional reaction, just as fetus is intended to *not* produce an emotional reaction. It is not a mis-use of the words, however.

Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive.

If something is in the dictionary, that says nothing at all about proper or improper use. It simply demonstrates that enough people have used the term in that way that it has been included.

It hurts me to see that nobody ever quotes my words.

It pains.

Don't quote this.

Isnt that alone better than death? Being poor isnt a disease.

The question becomes: If something never reaches the point at which it can be considered a life, has it truly died?

Edit: I was also referring to your silly "Buy a child from a baby seller" response - which simply means that the people in question are too selfish to adopt a baby who happens to be black, or has health problems.

Dem, what is your definition of a life?

I'll find the link later, but actually looking into indivdual state laws will demonstrate the following:

In nearly every state (I believe there were two exceptions), elective abortions are allowed up until the end of the first trimester only. I know *for a fact* that this is true in Georgia.

In those states, 2nd trimester abortions require doctor agreement that an abortion is in the best interests of the mother (this can generally be for physical or psychological reasons).

After the 2nd trimester, *in every state* abortions are only allowed for severe health risks for the mother, death of the fetus, conditions where the fetus will die immediately after death, and sometimes other exceptions which have to be determined by a court order.

I don't see how that is possible in light of the three Supreme Court decisions I cited.

True, some states have kept laws that were ruled unconstitutional as a result of those decisions, but they are not enforced (and if they were they would be struck down). Could that be what is confusing you?

As it stands now, abortions before viability are elective, period. There may be minimal barriers such as a required waiting period, or providing certain information about alternatives and side-effects beforehand, but there are no *substantial* barriers.

I would be interested in any proof that this is not the case, preferably citing an actual court case.

Dem, what is your definition of a life?

My personal definition, or the clear definition from science?

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.

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.

I would like to see that research, because I suspect that it's pretty slanted. In the past, the illegality of abortion did not prevent it much at all. When it became legal, it became SAFER, which is a big deal. I THINK women now would be more concerned about their safety which might prevent some of them from having abortions, but it is likely if the children are not wanted they will be gotten rid of one way or the other. That is a frightening prospect -- I have a good idea of what poor women in China do to get rid of children they don't want, just to use an example. The number of abandoned girls and infanticides ("accidents") is staggering here compared to other countries. It's even legal to get an abortion, which is often performed for sex selection above any other reasons.

If respect for human life is the issue, I think we need to respect society as a whole, offer better resources for women in need, acquire better adoption policies, and THEN we can discuss the issue of abortion. I suspect that if you found ways to make abortion OBSOLETE, then you wouldn't have to worry about whether or not it was legal.

For now, it should be. Society hasn't learned to respect adult beings that are definitely people. I think it's hypocritical to be so concerned about personhood in a fetus if you can't see humanity in a fully-grown human.

Ge-Ren

I don't see how that is possible in light of the three Supreme Court decisions I cited.

True, some states have kept laws that were ruled unconstitutional as a result of those decisions, but they are not enforced (and if they were they would be struck down). Could that be what is confusing you?

As it stands now, abortions before viability are elective, period. There may be minimal barriers such as a required waiting period, or providing certain information about alternatives and side-effects beforehand, but there are no *substantial* barriers.

I would be interested in any proof that this is not the case, preferably citing an actual court case.

Actually, I believe the real problem here is that you are not using the medical defiition of elective. An elective procedure is one that is not medically necessary, but can be carried out for any reason. It generally refers to one which is preventitive in nature.

However, if there is a medical reason (whether we like the reason or not) for a procedure, it is not elective. And both Roe v. Wade and nearly every state law make it very possible for states to regulate that some sort of medical reason - as well as abortion only being carried out at certain specified locations (sometimes there is only one available in the entire state) be used after the first trimester.

I think you are misreading the court case because your understanding of the term elective is flawed.

My personal definition, or the clear definition from science?

What part of "YOUR" do you not understand?

What part of "YOUR" do you not understand?

Don't get snippy.

I don't claim to know at what point an embryo/fetus becomes a human life. I personally believe in the soul, and that the soul (combined with having human DNA) is what makes us human. I don't claim to know what the soul is made up of or at what point in development it is incorporated.

I just noticed something. You pro-death people are afraid to use your own words. Instead, its all about being scientific.

If you were to ask a liberal what they would replace religion with, it would be science.

I just noticed something. You pro-death people are afraid to use your own words. Instead, its all about being scientific.

If you were to ask a liberal what they would replace religion with, it would be science.

I am not afraid to profess my views, nor am I, in any way "pro-death". However, I realize that they are just that: my views. As a person who very much values her own religious freedom, I am not about to attempt to force my personal religious beliefs upon others.

Don't get snippy.

I don't claim to know at what point an embryo/fetus becomes a human life. I personally believe in the soul, and that the soul (combined with having human DNA) is what makes us human. I don't claim to know what the soul is made up of or at what point in development it is incorporated.


If you believe that it has a soul and DNA is what makes us human, so as soon as the baby is a fetus, its got DNA. Its own DNA, which the DNA is formed from both parents.

I just noticed something. You pro-death people are afraid to use your own words. Instead, its all about being scientific.

If you were to ask a liberal what they would replace religion with, it would be science.
Stop, for the fourth (I believe) time with the "pro-death" thing.
And science doesn't replace religion, but ignoring science to believe religion is a bit off. Like making the claim that everything orbits the Earth, because there are verses in the Bible that sound like that.

If you believe that it has a soul and DNA is what makes us human, so as soon as the baby is a fetus, its got DNA. Its own DNA, which the DNA is formed from both parents.

(Which has absolutely nothing to do with what I can objectively demonstrate and therefore what I can legislate).

All I can say is: Consider these facts.

"Why do women seek abortions?
76% “A baby would change my life.” (I have no idea why this wouldn't be 100%.)
68% “I can’t afford a baby now.”
51% “I’m not in a stable relationship.”
13% “The baby has a health problem.”
7% “My health is an issue.”
1% “I’m a victim of rape or incest.” "

"January 22, 1973: Roe v. Wade

American War Casualties

Revolutionary War - 25,324
Civil War - 498,332
World War I - 116,708
World War II - 407,316
Korean War - 54,246
Vietnam War - 58,655
War on the UNBORN - +/- 40,000,000"

Think of September 11th: If we take the number of people on the planes, in the towers, and in the Pentagon, then add about 600 people to that, we would have the number of babies killed that day in the United States.

Americans think that we have suffered as many casualties as we can in Iraq. (About 1,300) Take that number and multiply it by three, to have the number of babies killed every day.

Sad, isn't it?

If you believe that it has a soul and DNA is what makes us human, so as soon as the baby is a fetus, its got DNA. Its own DNA, which the DNA is formed from both parents.
You skipped the whole bit about the soul.

Sad, isn't it?
No, not really.

I just noticed something. You pro-death people are afraid to use your own words. Instead, its all about being scientific.


We are not pro-death. we are not killing anything except a fetus. it is not even a person and it will not know what is happening. do you remember being a fetus?

I am not afraid to profess my views, nor am I, in any way "pro-death". However, I realize that they are just that: my views. As a person who very much values her own religious freedom, I am not about to attempt to force my personal religious beliefs upon others.



All that is necessary for the forces of evil to prevail in the world is for enough good men to do nothing." ~ Edmund Burke

All that is necessary for the forces of evil to prevail in the world is for enough good men to do nothing." ~ Edmund Burke

If you can force your personal religion upon another person, they can force theirs upon you. Would you support legislation banning pork and beef? How about legislation requiring women to wear a burqua? How about legislation requireing that you go to synagogue on Saturdays?

belew, do you live your life by qoutes and the fear of the devil taking over the world?

Stop, for the fourth (I believe) time with the "pro-death" thing.
And science doesn't replace religion, but ignoring science to believe religion is a bit off. Like making the claim that everything orbits the Earth, because there are verses in the Bible that sound like that.


Most scientists are amoral, but not all are. Albert Einstein believed in God and science, and that they co-exist. If God is good enough for Albert Einstein, God is good enough for me.

Also, you call it pro-choice, but do not leave the baby with a choice, so why can't i say pro-death, because you are promoting the killing of a baby. The word pro-choice is propoganda.

belew, do you live your life by qoutes and the fear of the devil taking over the world?

I live my life fearing God, as did the founders of this country. And yes, i use history and quotes to shape how I should live my life. What is your secret?

Most scientists are amoral, but not all are. Albert Einstein believed in God and science, and that they co-exist. If God is good enough for Albert Einstein, God is good enough for me.
So where did this come from, and what does it have to do with this?
Also, you call it pro-choice, but do not leave the baby with a choice, so why can't i say pro-death, because you are promoting the killing of a baby. The word pro-choice is propoganda.
"Pro-death" would be saying that we are actively encouraging people to have abortions, which is nothing like what we want.

Most scientists are amoral, but not all are.

This statement is patently untrue.

Albert Einstein believed in God and science, and that they co-exist. If God is good enough for Albert Einstein, God is good enough for me.

Nearly all scientists (in fact, the same proportion as the rest of the world) believe in a god of some sort.

Also, you call it pro-choice, but do not leave the baby with a choice, so why can't i say pro-death, because you are promoting the killing of a baby. The word pro-choice is propoganda.

(a) The fetus cannot make a choice, as it is not capable of doing so.
(b) I am not promoting anything but freedom of religion.
(c) Pro-death is not accurate, as most pro-choice advocates do not encourage abortion. And, in most cases, the embryo cannot even be classified as an organism.
(c) The word pro-choice is very accurate, as it encompasses all who believe a human being should be able to make their own decisions about their own bodies. This includes those who are all for abortion, those who are opposed to it, and those who fall somewhere in between.

I live my life fearing God, as did the founders of this country. And yes, i use history and quotes to shape how I should live my life. What is your secret?

why do you live your life fearing god if hes the one that is sopposed to be helping you.

I live my life fearing God, as did the founders of this country. And yes, i use history and quotes to shape how I should live my life. What is your secret?

The God you refer to and the one which the majority of the founding fathers (those that believed at all) believed in are unlikely to be the same. Most of the founding fathers were deists, who believed that God does not interfere with the workings of the world, and thus had no reason to fear God.

Edit: Meanwhile, living your life by that carrot-stick mentality is exactly what Christ (if you are Christian, that is) came to this world to do away with.

So where did this come from, and what does it have to do with this?

"Pro-death" would be saying that we are actively encouraging people to have abortions, which is nothing like what we want.


So you posting on this message board is not promoting your view of pro-death?

And as for what I said about scientists and god, there were several posts about how religion is not needed in this discussion and that heaven/hell does not exist, and it was quoted on my message.

Also the question of when life begins is not a scientific question, but a moral question, because scientists dont even agree on when life begins.


And my view was probally collectively developed from multiple books on the subject of liberalism.

Also the question of when life begins is not a scientific question, but a moral question, because scientists dont even agree on when life begins.

(a) Any purely moral question is one which lies in the realm of philosophy and religion - and is the purview of the individual, not the government.

(b) Biologists have defined a very clear set of characteristics which something must have to be considered a living organism.

So you posting on this message board is not promoting your view of pro-death?
Error: Does Not Compute!
I've never said a single person should have an abortion, therefore I'm not "pro-death", so I can't be promoting those views.
And as for what I said about scientists and god, there were several posts about how religion is not needed in this discussion and that heaven/hell does not exist, and it was quoted on my message.
I don't think anybody said it doesn't exist, it looked to me like they said you can't prove it does.
Also the question of when life begins is not a scientific question, but a moral question, because scientists dont even agree on when life begins.
Hmm.
When scientists disagree, it becomes a moral question?

why do you live your life fearing god if hes the one that is sopposed to be helping you.


Psalms 110:10: "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom."

Hmm.
When scientists disagree, it becomes a moral question?

I never thought about it that way! The exact conformation of the ATP-powered hydrogen pump must be a moral question! =)

(a) Any purely moral question is one which lies in the realm of philosophy and religion - and is the purview of the individual, not the government.

(b) Biologists have defined a very clear set of characteristics which something must have to be considered a living organism.


What are the characteristics which something much have to be considered a living organism?

What are the characteristics which something much have to be considered a living organism?

1) Growth and development - established from the first cell division.
2) Ability to take in and use nutrients (metabolism) as an entity - established at the point at which the vasculature is developed.
3) Ability to excrete wastes as an entity- established at the same time point as above.
4) Ability to sense and respond to stimuli as an entity - established at ~the end of the first trimester - when a funtioning reflexive nervous system is developed.

I never thought about it that way! The exact conformation of the ATP-powered hydrogen pump must be a moral question! =)
Hmm.
I wonder what the Bible says about this?
Chaplain, consult the book of biochemistry!

Chaplain: Biochem, verse 12: And the lord looked upon the ATP and said, "It is good." And it was good, for cellular respiration and the powering of hydrogen pumps...

That will be all, Chaplain.

:D

Actually, I believe the real problem here is that you are not using the medical defiition of elective. An elective procedure is one that is not medically necessary, but can be carried out for any reason. It generally refers to one which is preventitive in nature.

However, if there is a medical reason (whether we like the reason or not) for a procedure, it is not elective. And both Roe v. Wade and nearly every state law make it very possible for states to regulate that some sort of medical reason - as well as abortion only being carried out at certain specified locations (sometimes there is only one available in the entire state) be used after the first trimester.

I think you are misreading the court case because your understanding of the term elective is flawed.

In a medical context elective means "not essential for survival". Which is precisely the way I have been using it. Or slightly more broadly, "not essential for avoiding a serious risk to survival".


Main Entry: elec·tive
Pronunciation: i-'lek-tiv
Function: adjective
: beneficial to the patient but not essential for survival <an elective appendectomy>

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

"if there is a medical reason for a procedure, it is not elective" - not true. that should be "if there is no medical *necessity* for a procedure" which is completely different.

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/reasonsabortions.html

Why Do Women Have Abortions?

Responses listed as primary reason %

Social Reasons (given as primary reason)
- Feels unready for responsibility 21%
- Feels she can't afford baby 21%
- Concern for how baby would change her life 16%
- Relationship problem 12%
- Feels she isn't mature enough 11%
- Has all the children she wants 8%
- Other reasons 4-5%
TOTAL: 93%

"Hard Cases" (given as primary reason)
- Mother's Health 3%
- Baby may have health problem 3%
- Rape or Incest 1%
TOTAL: 7%

*Source: Aida Torres and J.D. Forrest, "Why Do Women Have Aboritons?"
Family Planning Perspectives, Vol. 20 No. 4 (July/August 1988) p. 170.

The 93% of abortions which are due to social reasons above are certainly elective.

Elective abortions before viability are (must be) legal in every state according to the Supreme Court decisions which I quoted.

P.S. I said "abortions before viability are elective", that should read "elective abortions before viability are legal". I hope you understood it that way.

The 93% of abortions which are due to social reasons above are certainly elective.

Depends on whether you consider mental health on the same keel as physical health.

abortions suck. killing babies sucks. why kill tomorrows future. if you're too immature to have a kid, youre too immmature for sex.

abortions suck. killing babies sucks. why kill tomorrows future. if you're too immature to have a kid, youre too immmature for sex.

Way to contribute to the conversation.

Most of the founding fathers were deists, who believed that God does not interfere with the workings of the world, and thus had no reason to fear God.

"I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I, the more convincing proofs of this truth: That God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, in the Sacred Writings, that "except the lord build the House, they labour in vain that build it." I firmly believe this: I therefore beg leave to move that hense forth prayers imploring the assistance of heaven, and its blessing on our deliberations, be held in this assembly every morning." - Benjamin Franklin

Oh and by the way, they continue the tradition even today in the House and the Senate.

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people, that these liberties are the gift of god?...Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever" -Thomas Jefferson

abortions suck. killing babies sucks. why kill tomorrows future. if you're too immature to have a kid, youre too immmature for sex.
you prove a strong point...
were not here talking about killing babies. were talking about killing a fetus. which in my definition is not a baby

"I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I, the more convincing proofs of this truth: That God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, in the Sacred Writings, that "except the lord build the House, they labour in vain that build it." I firmly believe this: I therefore beg leave to move that hense forth prayers imploring the assistance of heaven, and its blessing on our deliberations, be held in this assembly every morning." - Benjamin Franklin

Ben Franklin can also be quoted as saying that the ideals of Christianity are nice, but that he doesn't really subscribe to the whole thing.

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people, that these liberties are the gift of god?...Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever" -Thomas Jefferson

Note that Thomas Jefferson would roll over in his grave if he knew that you were invoking his name in an attempt to argue that you should be able to legislate your religion upon others. Jefferson was clear that *all* things should be questioned, even the very existence of a God.

Hi there.

I voted for "Only during the first or second trimester"

I have no argument as such as to why I voted this, only that it feels right to me, I see no reason why the decision to terminate would be any later than this. I would add an extra point that should any complications arrise during the 3rd trimester that could be a risk to the mother then the option to terminate should still be viable.

And my views on other things are:

I don't believe in God
I am in support of euthanasia
I support a womans right to choose (yes the father should have a voice in the matter, but at the end of the day it's the womans body and no-one should force her to do anything she doesn't want to. If she doesn't want to carry the baby then her decision is final).

"I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I, the more convincing proofs of this truth: That God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, in the Sacred Writings, that "except the lord build the House, they labour in vain that build it." I firmly believe this: I therefore beg leave to move that hense forth prayers imploring the assistance of heaven, and its blessing on our deliberations, be held in this assembly every morning." - Benjamin Franklin

Oh and by the way, they continue the tradition even today in the House and the Senate.
Well, there's a little thing called "separation of church and state" that's in their way there...
They can't pass a law based on religion.

can we get off the subject of god? and back on the subject of abortion?

Depends on whether you consider mental health on the same keel as physical health.

True, but a risk to mental health is not a risk to survival. That's still elective.

Besides, the negative mental-health effects of abortions are well documented and a lot less serious (AFAIK) than those of carrying to term and giving birth. That would be a medical reason to *not* have abortions.

you prove a strong point...
were not here talking about killing babies. were talking about killing a fetus. which in my definition is not a baby

Pro-death is about killing babies. So yes, we're talking about killing babies. I think the post about killing babies has a good point; the biggest fear of most liberals is that they will have to stop having unprotected sex with whomever they please. If you dont want a baby, wear a condom as for some of you in this conversation, find someone of the same sex and get aids.

can we get off the subject of god? and back on the subject of abortion?
I *wish* we could...

True, but a risk to mental health is not a risk to survival. That's still elective.

A risk to mental health very much can be a risk to survival.

Besides, the negative mental-health effects of abortions are well documented and a lot less serious (AFAIK) than those of carrying to term and giving birth. That would be a medical reason to *not* have abortions.

This is completely and totally dependent on situation.

the biggest fear of most liberals is that they will have to stop having unprotected sex with whomever they please.
You're trodding the thin line of flaming there. Please refrain from flaming, as it is against forum rules.
If you dont want a baby, wear a condom as for some of you in this conversation, find someone of the same sex and get aids.
Oh, Goddess above, do you really believe that homosexuals cause AIDS?

can we get off the subject of god? and back on the subject of abortion?

I second that.

We all have our own reasons to believe in the value of life, which may or may not have anything to do with religion.

Pro-death is about killing babies.

Something no one has yet supported within this entire thread.

I think the post about killing babies has a good point; the biggest fear of most liberals is that they will have to stop having unprotected sex with whomever they please.

Wow, nothing like a completely uncalled for ad hominem attack. Meanwhile, liberals in general push for education that would increase the use of contraceptives, making unplanned pregnancies (and thus abortions) much less frequent.

If you dont want a baby, wear a condom as for some of you in this conversation, find someone of the same sex and get aids.

(a) Condoms fail
(b) AIDs has nothing to do with "same sex."

Pro-death is about killing babies. So yes, we're talking about killing babies. I think the post about killing babies has a good point; the biggest fear of most liberals is that they will have to stop having unprotected sex with whomever they please. If you dont want a baby, wear a condom as for some of you in this conversation, find someone of the same sex and get aids.

i could bet that none of us here are "pro-death" . i think it should be the womans choice on choosing if she will carry the baby or not. your on the right wing i can see because of the same sex remark. id bet you want that to be illegal to..

I second that.

We all have our own reasons to believe in the value of life, which may or may not have anything to do with religion.

There is a thin line between religion and philosophy - and both are very subjective regions to get into. However, the fact remains that these two are the only reasons to object to early term abortions.

A risk to mental health very much can be a risk to survival.

This is completely and totally dependent on situation.

OK, but those are listed as economic or social reasons, not mental health reasons which would probably be under "health of the mother". You assume that such can be equated to "mental health" and in fact to an extremely high level of risk to mental health (which would be equivalent to a risk to survival). That is not true. The most common reasons are purely "convenience reasons".

can we get off the subject of god? and back on the subject of abortion?

Why, are you feeling a little conviction? The truth is scary my friend and you shouldnt ignore it.


"Jesus saith unto Him I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father, but by me" John 14:6

no this thread is not about god and its about abortion. god has nothing to do with abortion unless he is the one giving the abortion.

Why, are you feeling a little conviction?
No, we're feeling that the argument is veering off-topic.

Would you say that the right of a person to life is based solely on its level of developtment?
That simply because one feels no pain, one may be indiscriminately killed?
Is there no inate value of a human being? :headbang:
We were created by God, and do have immortal souls, whether you choose to believe this or not.
A child is not developed, but will be.
A retarted person is not developed but can love, believe, and hope, just the same.
A person asleep feels no more pain in death than a foetus, but like a foetus eventually will.
We may not kill them, we may not kill an unborn child.

A woman's right to choose must be trumped by a childs right to life, liberty, and persuit of happiness.

Pax Christi

Something no one has yet supported within this entire thread.



Wow, nothing like a completely uncalled for ad hominem attack. Meanwhile, liberals in general push for education that would increase the use of contraceptives, making unplanned pregnancies (and thus abortions) much less frequent.



(a) Condoms fail
(b) AIDs has nothing to do with "same sex."


(a)Condoms are 98% effective. If this isnt good enough, a vasectomy is 100% effective.
(b)89 percent of persons known to have AIDS are homosexuals.

Pro-death is about killing babies.

Something no one has yet supported within this entire thread.

Technically, 18 people have voted for the baby-killing option in the poll. That was there for a reason :mp5:

Would you say that the right of a person to life is based solely on its level of developtment?
That simply because one feels no pain, one may be indiscriminately killed?
Is there no inate value of a human being? :headbang:
We were created by God, and do have immortal souls, whether you choose to believe this or not.
A child is not developed, but will be.
A retarted person is not developed but can love, believe, and hope, just the same.
A person asleep feels no more pain in death than a foetus, but like a foetus eventually will.
We may not kill them, we may not kill an unborn child.

A woman's right to choose must be trumped by a childs right to life, liberty, and persuit of happiness.

Pax Christi
I extremely agree :)

Would you say that the right of a person to life is based solely on its level of developtment?
That simply because one feels no pain, one may be indiscriminately killed?
When one is not a "one" yet, they sure can.
Is there no inate value of a human being? :headbang:
Nope.
We were created by God, and do have immortal souls, whether you choose to believe this or not.
A child is not developed, but will be.
A retarted person is not developed but can love, believe, and hope, just the same.
Invalid analogy.
A person asleep feels no more pain in death than a foetus, but like a foetus eventually will.
Still invalid, but a bit closer.

(a)Condoms are 98% effective. If this isnt good enough, a vasectomy is 100% effective.

A vasectomy doesn't help much after the fact and is, in fact, not 100% effective - as it has been known to spontaneously heal in some cases.

(b)89 percent of persons known to have AIDS are homosexuals.

Unless you are pulling this number from a report in the early '80's, it is bullshit. The vast majority of persons with AIDs are straight - and most are in Africa. The fastest growing population of patients with AIDs at the moment is straight, black women.

(b)89 percent of persons known to have AIDS are homosexuals.
I'm going to go dig up some real statistics for you.

no this thread is not about god and its about abortion. god has nothing to do with abortion unless he is the one giving the abortion.

Ummm....God has everything to do with it, as a matter a fact, there would be no exsistance if there wasn't a God.


"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16

Technically, 18 people have voted for the baby-killing option in the poll. That was there for a reason :mp5:

You are aware that posting an inflammatory poll option will result in people voting for it just for the hell of it?

In the religion poll, about 50% of the votes went to Cuthulu.

Technically, 18 people have voted for the baby-killing option in the poll. That was there for a reason :mp5:
It still has nothing to do with his "pro-death" thing, which would be actively advocating that people have abortions.

I bet that at least some of the 18 were just taking the piss, too.

I'm going to go dig up some real statistics for you.


that statistic was given to you by http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/aids.html

that statistic was given to you by http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/aids.html
The HIV virus is transmitted through the exchange of infected bodily fluids. Some 89 percent of persons known to have AIDS are homosexuals or intravenous drug users.

Nice try.

that statistic was given to you by http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/aids.html

A religion-based site is not an accurate place to derive medical statistics. Try the CDC or the WHO.

Ummm....God has everything to do with it, as a matter a fact, there would be no exsistance if there wasn't a God.


that could be argued easily. i dont belive there is a god watching over us. only loved ones that passed. i belive in the theory of evolution. so lets not bring your god into this because he has nothing to do with it.

A religion-based site is not an accurate place to derive medical statistics. Try the CDC or the WHO.
I found this page:
http://www.avert.org/usastatg.htm
Which has something that looks more accurate than his.

EDIT:
Yeah, the CDC says the same thing.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm#exposure

i could bet that none of us here are "pro-death" . i think it should be the womans choice on choosing if she will carry the baby or not. your on the right wing i can see because of the same sex remark. id bet you want that to be illegal to..


YES I consider myself to be a little bit right winged and yes, Homosexuality is wrong.


Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination"

Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"

1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

YES I consider myself to be a little bit right winged and yes, Homosexuality is wrong.


Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination"


this bible stuff that you keep putting in your posts mean nothing and they are an annoyance. have you heard of seperation of church and state.

this bible stuff that you keep putting in your posts mean nothing and they are an annoyance. have you heard of seperation of church and state.


Seperation of church and state does not exsist in our constitution.

Seperation of church and state does not exsist in our constitution.
Really...

"[...]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
[...]"

That's in the Constitution.

America is a great country. We are "free" but were not allowed to choose who we love? even if they are of the same sex... and yes it is in the constitution that there is a seperation of church and state... now put down your bible and quit being ignorant and lets get back to the abortion

Seperation of church and state does not exsist in our constitution.

Article VI.
"... no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

and

Amendment I.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."

just for starters.

Dont feed the troll. There is no way to argue with intolerant biblethumpers and you know it.

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.
Ok, there are two options. A) You deliberately misunderstand me in order to prove your point or B) You are too dumb to grasp what i am saying.
Since you choose to ignore a part of my post in your quote i will go with A). What i am saying is not that poor people should die. I am saying that if anyone wishes not to further his economic misfortune by adding another mouth to feed, there should be the option of abortion. E.g. if the already living kids of a single mother dont see much of her, because she is working two jobs in order to make ends barely meet for them, another addition to the family is the last thing they need. Do you know what most parents of abused a/o neglected childs say as an excuse? "It was going over my head". I'd rather have a child not born than to endure a childhood of abusement.
If i see that a larger quota of kids each year live in poverty and that fosterhomes have growing numbers of inhabitants, i cant believe that all those energy put into protesting abortion is not used to help the living. It is one thing to simply try forcing people to your morality, but another is actually helping. Christianity is not fire and brimstone alone, it is eucharisty as well. So if all those "Abortion is murder"-sign wavers would end their day with going to a poor family and helping with chores or playing with the kids because mom is to tired after 14 hours of work, or by bringing along some food, i could really see how they care about children. But condemning others for having unprotected sex after seeing to it that schools teach nothing about protection but abstinence only is a little bit easier, isnt it?

Most scientists are amoral, but not all are. Albert Einstein believed in God and science, and that they co-exist. If God is good enough for Albert Einstein, God is good enough for me.

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."
-Albert Einstein

I just noticed something. You pro-death people are afraid to use your own words. Instead, its all about being scientific.

i would invite anybody who has the time to check over this thread and find the quote-to-post ratio for Belew, and compare it to the quote-per-post ratio for any of the rest of us. i will lay odds he's well outstripped most (if not all) of us in terms of being "afraid" to use one's own words.

Now that this post is pretty much done being piked at, i hope you all learn that abortion truely is wrong. If you haven't come to this conclusion, i pity you, and hope you are never faced with a choice between pro-life, or destroying yours or anothers child.
-angella

YES I consider myself to be a little bit right winged and yes, Homosexuality is wrong.


Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination"

Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"

1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

And we all know that the Bible was originally written in English and dropped down from the sky.

Now that this post is pretty much done being piked at, i hope you all learn that abortion truely is wrong. If you haven't come to this conclusion, i pity you, and hope you are never faced with a choice between pro-life, or destroying yours or anothers child.
-angella
Thanks for the patronizing, but id rather like if you kept your morales for yourself and not force them unto others. You might not like it when i would do the same.
Btw, do you really believe that women are guilty for being raped sometimes?

Now that this post is pretty much done being piked at, i hope you all learn that abortion truely is wrong. If you haven't come to this conclusion, i pity you, and hope you are never faced with a choice between pro-life, or destroying yours or anothers child.
-angella
tell us, angella, do you get neck pain from having your head so far up an oriface it is not meant to be inserted into?

seriously, though...

what i have "learned" from you and the anti-choice crowd on this thread is as follows:

A fetus is a person. Shut up, it is so. You like murder and baby-killing!

It is okay to force one human being to donate their organs, blood, or tissues to another human being, even if the donor doesn't want to do so. As a human being, I have the right to demand that another human being give up their freedom and bodily integrity to prolong my life, even if they don't want to do so. Furthermore, I have the right to force another human to donate their body to prolong the life of of a THIRD human, if I really really want that third human to live. Anybody who refuses to donate is a murderer.

The Bible is always right and accurate, even if we use an English translation that has been proven to be flawed by Biblical scholars who can read the original text.

To be moral people, we should simply do the exact opposite of everything Hitler did.

Did I mention that a fetus is a person? It's a cute little baby! Look, see these pictures? It looks like a baby! You hate babies, and you like murder, and all people who are pro-choice like murdering babies!

Now that this post is pretty much done being piked at, i hope you all learn that abortion truely is wrong. If you haven't come to this conclusion, i pity you, and hope you are never faced with a choice between pro-life, or destroying yours or anothers child.
-angella
:)

I like that. :)

I, for one, also believe abortion's wrong.

:)

I like that. :)

I, for one, also believe abortion's wrong.

Hey! Me too, in most cases.

Doesn't mean that I advocate forcing my beliefs on others.

I have a mixed stance on abortion. I believe it should be regulated in a way that there is a mandatory consultation ahead of the process, naming consequences, risks involved and possibly the alternative of adoption. This consultation is to be neutral and not suggestive in any way. As i believe that the potential mother should be able to make up her mind till the end of the second trimester, an abortion after that should only be made in the case of life-threatening situations, otherwise it should be tried to save the embryo and give the child up for adoption later.
While i am strictly pro-choice, i dont like how abortions take the place of family-planning, as they are certainly more emotionally taxing on the potential parents, esp. the mother, carry health risks, may cause conflict within the wider family etc. Contraceptives are to be encouraged over abortion, the mandatory teaching of such methods should be enforced by a nation-wide law. In every nation, preferably.

I was wondering. Is it possible to do a "forced-birth abortion"? Where instead of "killing" it, you simply do a c-section and pull the fetus out, and then treat it as if it were a preemie?

I believe it should be regulated in a way that there is a mandatory consultation ahead of the process, naming consequences, risks involved and possibly the alternative of adoption. This consultation is to be neutral and not suggestive in any way.

Many places do require consultations much like this. Many clinics, such as Planned Parenthood, do so as policy, regardless of the laws. A woman is informed of *all* options available to her, as well as the risks associated with each one. She is then left to make her own decision.

While i am strictly pro-choice, i dont like how abortions take the place of family-planning, as they are certainly more emotionally taxing on the potential parents, esp. the mother, carry health risks, may cause conflict within the wider family etc. Contraceptives are to be encouraged over abortion, the mandatory teaching of such methods should be enforced by a nation-wide law. In every nation, preferably.

I couldn't agree with you more here.

I was wondering. Is it possible to do a "forced-birth abortion"? Where instead of "killing" it, you simply do a c-section and pull the fetus out, and then treat it as if it were a preemie?
yes and no. it is, obviously, possible to remove a fetus intact before it reaches term. the chances it will survive are fairly poor, and the chances it will suffer lasting defects are relatively high. however, medical technology is constantly improving the possible care for "preemies," and it is likely the gestation age of reasonable viability will continue to drop.

I was wondering. Is it possible to do a "forced-birth abortion"? Where instead of "killing" it, you simply do a c-section and pull the fetus out, and then treat it as if it were a preemie?

This would really only be feasible in 3rd trimester abortions - which are only allowed for severe health risks anyways. Thus, a C-section, in most cases, either wouldn't help the problem, or would put the mother in even more danger.

no matter how you slice it, abortion is still murder. The taking of innocent life is wrong. I am not sure if the taking of a life is okay even if it is to save another life. The atheists that try to push god out of the picture are being one dimensial. This topic has been beat to death and there is no more point in discussing the matter further. :upyours:

no matter how you slice it, abortion is still murder. The taking of innocent life is wrong. I am not sure if the taking of a life is okay even if it is to save another life. The atheists that try to push god out of the picture are being one dimensial. This topic has been beat to death and there is no more point in discussing the matter further. :upyours:

If you have nothing to contribute to the discussion at hand, why bother posting at all?

no matter how you slice it, abortion is still murder. The taking of innocent life is wrong. I am not sure if the taking of a life is okay even if it is to save another life. The atheists that try to push god out of the picture are being one dimensial. This topic has been beat to death and there is no more point in discussing the matter further. :upyours:
*sigh* BOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRING.

Yaneese, do you realize how much you embarass yourself and the pro-life position when you post things like that? i guess i should thank you, because people like you are just about the best argument AGAINST anti-choicers that anybody could come up with :).

This topic has been beat to death and there is no more point in discussing the matter further. :upyours:
This, I agree with. It's been debated to hell. It's like continuosly beating a dead carcass for 30 years on end.

This, I agree with. It's been debated to hell. It's like continuosly beating a dead carcass for 30 years on end.

Not everyone can be an extremist. Those who actually have something to contribute would like to fully form their views.

Yeah, that's true.

"Americans simply reverted to type. They're Puritans, after all, and they value linearity and firmness. Nuance and balance are not in their repertoire. In the puritan ideal, a few basic formulas suffice to guide every descision in every situation. Difficult problems MUST be solved simply. Contrary to what many here believe, the tidal wave of conservatism crashing over the US these days has little to do with ideology. It's just easier for Americans to understand than the subtleties of liberalism--or the complexities of the real world"

Stefan Kornelius

That pretty much summs up my POV on the entire "moral backlash" we're seeing today. All I can really do right now is thank any higher power there may be that Arlen Specter of all people actually came out and said that he and the senate would NOT confirm a juge who is against Roe v. Wade to the Supreme Court...

I'm not all for, but I;m not against. I just don't think they should put law on it. It's OUR choice NOT the government's. KEEP YOUR LAWS OFF MY BODY!!

Plus, if we can get public eduaction systems to teach PROTECTION, then the kid or teens won't think that they only have 5 choices: adoption, abortion, single parent, marry teen father, and abstinence.

YOU WONLDN'T HAVE TO CHOOSE IF YOU USED PROTECTION. GOD!!! It's just pisses me off!!!! LIKE THIS --> :headbang:

no matter how you slice it, abortion is still murder. The taking of innocent life is wrong. I am not sure if the taking of a life is okay even if it is to save another life. The atheists that try to push god out of the picture are being one dimensial. This topic has been beat to death and there is no more point in discussing the matter further. :upyours:

Hold up, there. Us athiests aren't against god JUST HIS FANCLUB.

LET IT LIE!!! It's not your choice!! It's not you who's having the kid!!! Religion gives you no right to dictate the lives of others.

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.


I cant believe people are jumping on the bandwagon with this arguement. It is actually one of the poorest arguements for abortion that I have heard, simply because the premise doesn't apply to the topic. You are saying that you have the right to deny blood, tissue, etc to someone regardless of the situation and this is true. However, abortion isn't a passive act. In abortion the doctor is activly scraping the unborn fetus or zygote from the mothers wound. The scenerio of 'refusing to share blood' isn't aplicable since you are activly and purposefully intending to end the beings life rather than refusing to act to save a life.

There is a second flaw in your arguement. You are only concerned with the mothers right to have a choice in the matter. I know this has been said so many times that it's almost become a mantra but; what about the choice of this unborn fetus? In your example you are denying your own tissue and blood. Again, this is certainly a right that you posess. However, in abortion you are denying the fetus a right to it's own tissue. This is a right that you do not have.

I cant believe people are jumping on the bandwagon with this arguement. It is actually one of the poorest arguements for abortion that I have heard, simply because the premise doesn't apply to the topic. You are saying that you have the right to deny blood, tissue, etc to someone regardless of the situation and this is true. However, abortion isn't a passive act. In abortion the doctor is activly scraping the unborn fetus or zygote from the mothers wound...

Not to shout you down or anything O'Reily/Hannity'esque. But, it's WOMB. Spell correctly and others might be more inclined to take you seriously...

Not to shout you down or anything O'Reily/Hannity'esque. But, it's WOMB. Spell correctly and others might be more inclined to take you seriously...

I made a typo. I must be stupid or somehting.

Originally Posted by Charpoly
I cant believe people are jumping on the bandwagon with this arguement. It is actually one of the poorest arguements for abortion that I have heard, simply because the premise doesn't apply to the topic. You are saying that you have the right to deny blood, tissue, etc to someone regardless of the situation and this is true. However, abortion isn't a passive act. In abortion the doctor is activly scraping the unborn fetus or zygote from the mothers wound...


Not to shout you down or anything O'Reily/Hannity'esque. But, it's WOMB. Spell correctly and others might be more inclined to take you seriously...

Yes, he did mean wound lol
The doctor has to cut her open to get it out i think.
Just because abortion isn't passive doesn't mean you can't do ut. THere are a lot of active duties and activies we perform just like voting. But some of us do it.

I know this has been said so many times that it's almost become a mantra but; what about the choice of this unborn fetus?
And what exactly does the unborn fetus choose? Maybe you will concede that it does not have the ability to make such a decision.

I cant believe people are jumping on the bandwagon with this arguement. It is actually one of the poorest arguements for abortion that I have heard, simply because the premise doesn't apply to the topic. You are saying that you have the right to deny blood, tissue, etc to someone regardless of the situation and this is true. However, abortion isn't a passive act. In abortion the doctor is activly scraping the unborn fetus or zygote from the mothers wound. The scenerio of 'refusing to share blood' isn't aplicable since you are activly and purposefully intending to end the beings life rather than refusing to act to save a life.

first of all, it's very nice of you to at least try to respond.

however, whether or not the abortive procedure is active or passive has nothing to do with it. according to our medical ethics and our system of law, the "activeness" of the medical procedure is not an issue here.


There is a second flaw in your arguement. You are only concerned with the mothers right to have a choice in the matter. I know this has been said so many times that it's almost become a mantra but; what about the choice of this unborn fetus?

that is not a flaw, that is exactly my point; the fetus' "choice" is not relavent in this. the "choice" of the dying person who needs a transplant is not allowed to trump the right of the potential donor to refuse if they wish, so the fetus' "choice" is not important in the slightest. that is, if we grant a fetus EXACTLY the same rights as a born human being.

additionally, a fetus is unable to express choice of any kind. if anything, the fetus would be considered a legal minor, and its parent(s) would have the power to make all medical decisions for that minor...a born infant cannot make choices about its own medical care, and doctors and parents quite often have to make the very sad decision to let an infant or young child die (due to injury, defect, etc). we do not allow human beings to make such decisions about their own medical care until many, many years after birth, so why do you presume to give a choice to fetuses that is not granted to human children of 12 years? why should a fetus have more choice than a born human?


In your example you are denying your own tissue and blood. Again, this is certainly a right that you posess. However, in abortion you are denying the fetus a right to it's own tissue. This is a right that you do not have.
no, i am not. the fetus may keep all of its own tissue, i am not asking to be allowed to keep it. i am not planning to use its tissue for my own body, nor am i asking it to do anything in particular with its tissues to sustain my body. all i am asking is that the connection between it and me be severed; that is my right as a human being, and it's "right to life" does not trump my right to my own body...that is, not if a fetus is given the same rights as all born persons.

Actually, I will not make that concession. Read your biology book. All life chooses life when faced with the option; even on the most basic celular level. Certainly, a fetus or zygote doesn't have the mental faculty to comprehend such a decision but the basic, fundemental desire for life no doubt remains. I would argue that a newborn baby shares the same inability to comprehend this choice. No doubt you will agree that the mother doesn't have a right to choose death for it then.

I cant believe people are jumping on the bandwagon with this arguement. It is actually one of the poorest arguements for abortion that I have heard, simply because the premise doesn't apply to the topic. You are saying that you have the right to deny blood, tissue, etc to someone regardless of the situation and this is true. However, abortion isn't a passive act. In abortion the doctor is activly scraping the unborn fetus or zygote from the mothers wound. The scenerio of 'refusing to share blood' isn't aplicable since you are activly and purposefully intending to end the beings life rather than refusing to act to save a life.

There is a second flaw in your arguement. You are only concerned with the mothers right to have a choice in the matter. I know this has been said so many times that it's almost become a mantra but; what about the choice of this unborn fetus? In your example you are denying your own tissue and blood. Again, this is certainly a right that you posess. However, in abortion you are denying the fetus a right to it's own tissue. This is a right that you do not have.

I assume you continue to read the thread past this point, to see if some of the issues you brought up have already been discussed?

Actually, I will not make that concession. Read your biology book. All life chooses life when faced with the option; even on the most basic celular level. Certainly, a fetus or zygote doesn't have the mental faculty to comprehend such a decision but the basic, fundemental desire for life no doubt remains. I would argue that a newborn baby shares the same inability to comprehend this choice. No doubt you will agree that the mother doesn't have a right to choose death for it then.

Of course, if you would read your biology book, you would realize that most embryos aborted do not meet the requirements to be classified as a life. As such, there is no choice to make.

Meanwhile, a newborn is self-aware, and does recognize danger.

first of all, it's very nice of you to at least try to respond.

however, whether or not the abortive procedure is active or passive has nothing to do with it. according to our medical ethics and our system of law, the "activeness" of the medical procedure is not an issue here.

Out of curiosity, did you ever read my reply to one of your posts about this much earlier in the thread?

I made a typo. I must be stupid or somehting.

I never said you were stupid. I was merely suggesting that your grammar and spelling, in a place such as this, are assumed to be a direct reflection of your general educational level. And, that it is difficult to take an argument seriously when someone uses the wrong words to reenforce said argument.

I know, I know, next you'll be calling me one of those "lib'rall city ayleets," oh well.

To deny choices to the birthed is to build a prison for future generations.

Actually, I will not make that concession. Read your biology book. All life chooses life when faced with the option; even on the most basic celular level.

While that is mostly true, it is by no means absolute. There are examples of altruism in which organisms endanger or sacrifice their life to protect others of their species.

however, whether or not the abortive procedure is active or passive has nothing to do with it. according to our medical ethics and our system of law, the "activeness" of the medical procedure is not an issue here.

Bottle, again, that is completely wrong. I've actually looked into the law for this thread, and the "activeness" of the procedure has *everything* to do with its legality.

First assume that a fetus *is* a person, at least after a certain age. Many states have "murder of a fetus" written into law, and you cannot murder a non-person. Roe v Wade says that a fetus is not a person, but I believe that decision will be overturned, at a minimum past the point of viability.

If the procedure *is* an act, and since it will directly result in the death of a person, it is illegal. End of story. Your right to make decisions about your body *does not matter*. Talk to a lawyer if you don't believe me. You do not *ever* have the right to act in a way that will directly lead to the death of another person, regardless of what rights you may be prevented from exercising by that. The only exception is in self-defense, in order to save your life from an immediate grave danger. That is a very straightforward situation, unlike the next one.

If the procedure *is not* an act but is an omission, then the question of "duty to act" comes up. Duty to act *may* exist because (a) you're a parent (b) you voluntarily assumed an obligation or (c) because the state law says so. If you have a duty to act then abortion is illegal because it would be an omission of an act that you are legally required to do. This is a complicated topic.

Is abortion an act or not? Good question. Precedents from life support suggest it is not an act, since stopping life support is not considered an act. However, those precedents are based on "letting nature take its course" i.e. doing nothing. In the case of pregnancy, I strongly suspect that "letting nature take its course" would mean carrying to term; and that abortion will be an act. That is really a question for the Supreme Court, and I have no idea what their decision will be.

However, that does not matter much. The only practical difference will be that if it is an act, then it will be illegal in all states; if it is not, it becomes a question for each state legislature.

that is not a flaw, that is exactly my point; the fetus' "choice" is not relavent in this. the "choice" of the dying person who needs a transplant is not allowed to trump the right of the potential donor to refuse if they wish

Not necessarily. If the dying person is dying because of the malicious actions of the potential donor, then the donor may have a legal duty to provide a transplant. If the dying person is the child of the potential donor, and the donation will not result in significant harm to the donor (e.g. blood transfusion), then the donor may have a legal duty to provide a transplant. There are other situations in which there will be a duty to act.

Bear in mind that refusing a transplant is definitely an omission, not an act. *If* you already had your circulatory system connected to someone else so that you were the only thing keeping them alive (and assuming no way to keep them alive artificially), I am not so sure you have the right to disconnect (since the disconnect may be an act), regardless of how the situation came about.

all i am asking is that the connection between it and me be severed; that is my right as a human being, and it's "right to life" does not trump my right to my own body...that is, not if a fetus is given the same rights as all born persons.

"Severing" sounds like an act to me. It is not for example "lapsing" or "expiring". If you *do nothing* you stay connected.

"it's "right to life" does not trump my right to my own body" -- an unsupported opinion. Whether it does or not depends on all the things I outlined above.

Bear in mind that refusing a transplant is definitely an omission, not an act. *If* you already had your circulatory system connected to someone else so that you were the only thing keeping them alive (and assuming no way to keep them alive artificially), I am not so sure you have the right to disconnect (since the disconnect may be an act), regardless of how the situation came about.

I don't believe that the disconnect would be an act, as it is essentially a refusal to act. However, shooting the person in the head because this made the disconnect less harsh on you would definitely be an act.

"Americans simply reverted to type. They're Puritans, after all, and they value linearity and firmness. Nuance and balance are not in their repertoire. In the puritan ideal, a few basic formulas suffice to guide every descision in every situation. Difficult problems MUST be solved simply. Contrary to what many here believe, the tidal wave of conservatism crashing over the US these days has little to do with ideology. It's just easier for Americans to understand than the subtleties of liberalism--or the complexities of the real world"

Stefan Kornelius

That pretty much summs up my POV on the entire "moral backlash" we're seeing today. All I can really do right now is thank any higher power there may be that Arlen Specter of all people actually came out and said that he and the senate would NOT confirm a juge who is against Roe v. Wade to the Supreme Court...

Well, there you go........at least you admit you believe yourself to be superior.

Liberals always think they are more intelligent than everyone else.....too bad the facts don't confirm that notion. Thank God for GEORGE W. BUSH. The liberals almost had our country completely destroyed. The reason liberals can't deal with the concept of a higher power.......GOD........is because liberals believe themselves to be God. The Judeo-Christian roots America was founded on is what makes the United States the greatest country in the World. It is because "In God We Trust"

I hate to burst your bubble Mol, but there will be a pro-life judge confirmed very soon.

FYI.......you need to work on your spelling genius.

Well, there you go........at least you admit you believe yourself to be superior.

Liberals always think they are more intelligent than everyone else.....too bad the facts don't confirm that notion. Thank God for GEORGE W. BUSH. The liberals almost had our country completely destroyed. The reason liberals can't deal with the concept of a higher power.......GOD........is because liberals believe themselves to be God. The Judeo-Christian roots America was founded on is what makes the United States the greatest country in the World. It is because "In God We Trust"

I hate to burst your bubble Mol, but there will be a pro-life judge confirmed very soon.

FYI.......you need to work on your spelling genius.

I just love it when people use the name of an ideology as an insult.

Of course, if we want to be absolutely truthful, both Jesus Christ and the founding fathers were extreme liberals in their cultures. No problem though - you go right on ahead and use it as an insult.

I just love it when people use the name of an ideology as an insult.

Of course, if we want to be absolutely truthful, both Jesus Christ and the founding fathers were extreme liberals in their cultures. No problem though - you go right on ahead and use it as an insult.

Thats funny, I thought that was what your little friend was doing.

Oh, and Dem......you are the one that said you believed in God and you personally thought abortion was wrong but you didn't want to force your "religious" beliefs on others. Well if you believe a human has a soul and you personally believe abortion is wrong, then why not state your belief? Christianity and Humanism don't mix. One is God centered, the other is man centered.


If you argue in favor of death then you are pro-death.

You sure aren't arguing in favor of LIFE for the child.

Jesus is PRO-LIFE...........deal with it!

Yesterday, 6:06 PM #355
Dempublicents
Sp@mQueen advisor




Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,839 Quote:
Originally Posted by The Plutonian Empire


I like that.

I, for one, also believe abortion's wrong.



Hey! Me too, in most cases.

Doesn't mean that I advocate forcing my beliefs on others.

:)

I like that. :)

I, for one, also believe abortion's wrong.

Hey! Me too, in most cases.

Doesn't mean that I advocate forcing my beliefs on others..

Talk about wishy washy!

Someone is confused.........hmmm
What? Are you talking about?

What? Are you talking about?sorry I was talking about Dem. She thinks abortion is wrong but doesn't want to impose her beliefs on others. Sounds to me like Dem is afraid to stand for what she believes in. I wasn't talking about you Putonian Empire, sorry about that.

sorry I was talking about Dem. She thinks abortion is wrong but doesn't want to impose her beliefs on others. Sounds to me like Dem is afraid to stand for what she believes in. I wasn't talking about you Putonian Empire, sorry about that.
Stand for what she believes in?
Do you think it's a good thing to force what you want on others? What Dem is doing is being a good person.

sorry I was talking about Dem. She thinks abortion is wrong but doesn't want to impose her beliefs on others. Sounds to me like Dem is afraid to stand for what she believes in. I wasn't talking about you Putonian Empire, sorry about that.
That's okay. No offense taken :)

Stand for what she believes in?
Do you think it's a good thing to force what you want on others? What Dem is doing is being a good person.

I agree. I spent most of the day looking through this thread (and most of the links that were posted). It makes intresting reading.

Am I right but are most of the people here from America? Because that's the impression I got. And out of the views expressed, I'd say I'd have to agree with bottle the most. :fluffle:

I don't believe that the disconnect would be an act, as it is essentially a refusal to act.

Hmm, well I proposed the "letting nature take its course" criterion for a non-act, this has been used in a few court cases. Do you havea similar counter-argument?

However, shooting the person in the head because this made the disconnect less harsh on you would definitely be an act.

No doubt. Incidentally that would apply to the way most second and third trimester abortions are done.

(b)89 percent of persons known to have AIDS are homosexuals.

Geee, there must be alot of gay people in Africa...

As for pro-choicers out there, why bother discussing this? You won't ever win over the religious right-wing who wish to abolish liberty, freedom and freedom of religion and everything not allowed in the bible... thou shall not eat shellfish and so on... *sigh*

My ex-girlfriend had an abortion although I wanted to have a child, I was truly crushed but in the end, it was her choice and I just have to accept that.

I just wish people would stop trying to force their beliefs upon others and discover inter-faith and all its benefits.
Plus vote out that sucker from the white house.
As for now, I'm off to bed.

Geee, there must be alot of gay people in Africa...

As for pro-choicers out there, why bother discussing this? You won't ever win over the religious right-wing who wish to abolish liberty, freedom and freedom of religion and everything not allowed in the bible... thou shall not eat shellfish and so on... *sigh*

My ex-girlfriend had an abortion although I wanted to have a child, I was truly crushed but in the end, it was her choice and I just have to accept that.

I just wish people would stop trying to force their beliefs upon others and discover inter-faith and all its benefits.
Plus vote out that sucker from the white house.
As for now, I'm off to bed.


If my girlfriend killed MY baby, just because its hers too doesnt mean that she has TOTAL CONTROL!!! OMG, I'd shoot that bitch. There would be a homicide in her house. Women like that dont deserve a good man, a family, or even to be alive.

If my girlfriend killed MY baby, just because its hers too doesnt mean that she has TOTAL CONTROL!!! OMG, I'd shoot that bitch. There would be a homicide in her house. Women like that dont deserve a good man, a family, or even to be alive.

shes stupid, but dang

If my girlfriend killed MY baby, just because its hers too doesnt mean that she has TOTAL CONTROL!!! OMG, I'd shoot that bitch. There would be a homicide in her house. Women like that dont deserve a good man, a family, or even to be alive.
Well, then you'd be breaking laws, because you certainly have no justification for killing her then. It's her body, and it should be her choice. And two wrongs don't make a right, there.

If my girlfriend killed MY baby, just because its hers too doesnt mean that she has TOTAL CONTROL!!! OMG, I'd shoot that bitch. There would be a homicide in her house. Women like that dont deserve a good man, a family, or even to be alive.

Ok calm down. I can see where you're coming from, totally. Really I can. but you need to understand that it is the woman having the baby. She has to put up with the mood swings, the craving and all the emotional instability that comes with being pregnant. Some women simply aren't up to that. i mean, I am only seventeen, and recently had a pregnancy scare. It turns out I'm not, but if I were, my boyfriend wanted to keep it, but i honestly couldn't have done it. I am not emotionally readyfor that. You need to understand that before you kill her...

Ok calm down. I can see where you're coming from, totally. Really I can. but you need to understand that it is the woman having the baby. She has to put up with the mood swings, the craving and all the emotional instability that comes with being pregnant. Some women simply aren't up to that. i mean, I am only seventeen, and recently had a pregnancy scare. It turns out I'm not, but if I were, my boyfriend wanted to keep it, but i honestly couldn't have done it. I am not emotionally readyfor that. You need to understand that before you kill her...


Well, at 17 you shouldnt be having sex. If you arent "emotionally ready" to be a mommy, then put your pants back on. No sense in killing an innocent baby just because you're not "emotionally ready". Its the man's sperm thats growing inside of you and you dont think he has to deal with your god aweful mood swings?

if youre not mentally ready for pregnancy and motherhood, youre not ready for sex. it doesnt take the head cashier at walmart to figure that out.

if youre not mentally ready for pregnancy and motherhood, youre not ready for sex. it doesnt take the head cashier at walmart to figure that out.

LOL, or even the guy that mows my lawn.

Thats funny, I thought that was what your little friend was doing.

Using the word "liberal" as an insult? So far, I've only seen you and others arguing an extremist viewpoint on here do that.

Oh, and Dem......you are the one that said you believed in God and you personally thought abortion was wrong but you didn't want to force your "religious" beliefs on others. Well if you believe a human has a soul and you personally believe abortion is wrong, then why not state your belief? Christianity and Humanism don't mix. One is God centered, the other is man centered.

Stating a belief and forcing it upon others are not the same thing. Meanwhile, Christ is pretty clear that, while you should live by your own beliefs, you should not force anything upon anyone.

If you argue in favor of death then you are pro-death.

I have never argued in favor of death, nor even in favor of abortion. I have argued in favor of the choice.

Talk about wishy washy!

Yes, it is wishy washy if I don't hold a gun to someone's head and say "MY BELIEFS ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT AND YOU WILL BELIEVE THEM!" as well.

Hmm, well I proposed the "letting nature take its course" criterion for a non-act, this has been used in a few court cases. Do you havea similar counter-argument?

The same argument still applies. A human being cannot be forced to donate their tissues/blood. If they wish to disconnect, and the disconnected will die as a result - that is the natural course.

No doubt. Incidentally that would apply to the way most second and third trimester abortions are done.

(which was exactly my argument to Bottle).

If my girlfriend killed MY baby, just because its hers too doesnt mean that she has TOTAL CONTROL!!! OMG, I'd shoot that bitch. There would be a homicide in her house. Women like that dont deserve a good man, a family, or even to be alive.

I'm very sorry that slavery is illegal in this country. Perhaps you should move to a backwards country where women are still property?

Ooh, yay, Dem is back!

Ooh, yay, Dem is back!

Must...go...to...bed...alarm...clock....going off in 3 hours!

nite nite!

Well, at 17 you shouldnt be having sex. If you arent "emotionally ready" to be a mommy, then put your pants back on. No sense in killing an innocent baby just because you're not "emotionally ready". Its the man's sperm thats growing inside of you and you dont think he has to deal with your god aweful mood swings?

Wow... how old are you, if you don't mind me asking?

1) At 17, you shouldn't be having sex. Except, in the majority of the world, where the age of consent is 16, obviously. Oh, or those places where you are allowed to marry at or before 17 - which pretty much makes sex compulsary. Or, if you lived almost anywhere in the world (including the USA) before the last 100 years or so - when girls were considered old enough to breed, as soon as they were 'old enough to bleed'.

2) If you aren't "emotionally ready" to be a mommy. What about the 'daddy'? You don't seem to acknowledge the fact that very few girls EVER get pregnant without SOME FORM of male attention. But then, I guess that doesn't fit your agenda?

3) "Its the man's sperm thats growing inside of you". No, it's not... it is some of the genetic code from the male, AND some of the genetic code from the female. Sperm is just a carrier.

4) "Its the man's sperm thats growing inside of you"... yes, because we all know that women get off light don't they?

I mean, they just have to suffer the psychological changes, hormone imbalances, physical changes, emotional changes, distortion of the body, carrying of a foetus for 9 months, and the pain and risk of childbirth.

While men, well, they get the DIFFICULT task of ejaculating. And we all know how difficult that is for the average man...

If my girlfriend killed MY baby, just because its hers too doesnt mean that she has TOTAL CONTROL!!! OMG, I'd shoot that bitch. There would be a homicide in her house. Women like that dont deserve a good man, a family, or even to be alive.
Yeah, i am soooo pro-life, i even kill for it. :rolleyes:
Maybe she doesnt deserve a good man in your eyes, but rest assured, with an asshole like you as her boyfriend she doesnt have one.

Oh, and Dem......you are the one that said you believed in God and you personally thought abortion was wrong but you didn't want to force your "religious" beliefs on others. Well if you believe a human has a soul and you personally believe abortion is wrong, then why not state your belief? Christianity and Humanism don't mix. One is God centered, the other is man centered.

How about i strangle you because my denomination of the cult of the great godess Kali wants me to bring a ritual sacrifice each year? Hey, the divine will is above all doubt and surely above human teachings.

Get it in your head, some teachings on the same scripture, in this case the Bible, value certain points more than other denominations. You favour going out and spreading the gospel and value "Thou shalt not kill" very high, others might believe in "pray in your closet" and "he who is without sin shall cast the first stone". Why do you have to submit everything to your worldview and not show some inter-faith tolerance? Who made you the lone expert on the way God thinks? Maybe your hubris does anger him more than what you perceive as straiying from the right path.

value "Thou shalt not kill"

It's "Thou shalt not murder" although the original word sorta includes manslaughter due to gross negligence. "kill" is an obvious miss-translation which you will only find in the King James version. Actually there are four different words for killing in the Bible (roughly "murder", "execute", "smite" and the generic "kill").

The same argument still applies. A human being cannot be forced to donate their tissues/blood. If they wish to disconnect, and the disconnected will die as a result - that is the natural course.

Yes, but the *disconnect itself* is not the natural course. I think their idea of natural course is basically "what would happen if you didn't touch anything". What would happen is of course carrying to term.

"cannot be forced to donate" - I don't think that exists as a legal principle or anything. In countries which have "duty to rescue" as part of the law you *would* have to donate if that posed no risk to you (e.g. donate blood in an emergency). I described some other scenarios in which you may have a legal duty to donate earlier. I think describing what happens between mother and baby as a "donate" is wrong too.

It's "Thou shalt not murder" although the original word sorta includes manslaughter due to gross negligence. "kill" is an obvious miss-translation which you will only find in the King James version. Actually there are four different words for killing in the Bible (roughly "murder", "execute", "smite" and the generic "kill").

Whatever. :rolleyes: Sorry, but does that nitpicking devalue anything i have said?

"cannot be forced to donate" - I don't think that exists as a legal principle or anything. In countries which have "duty to rescue" as part of the law you *would* have to donate if that posed no risk to you (e.g. donate blood in an emergency). I described some other scenarios in which you may have a legal duty to donate earlier.
unless you are able to provide examples, i have to say that you are totlly wrong on this. i know of no situation in modern, non-totalitarian nations, when one human being may be forced to donate their blood, tissues, or body against their wishes.


I think describing what happens between mother and baby as a "donate" is wrong too.
well, she most certainly donates blood and fluids for the majority of the pregnancy, and her organs are used by the fetus for the majority of the pregnancy as well. the organs are clearly not "donated' to the fetus, as they never are a part of the fetus and never belong to the fetus, but the FUNCTION of the organs is donated...so, effectively, forcing a female to continue a pregnancy would be like forcing me to be used as a human dialysis machine for somebody with kidney failure (for example).

Yes, but the *disconnect itself* is not the natural course. I think their idea of natural course is basically "what would happen if you didn't touch anything". What would happen is of course carrying to term.

With life support, not touching anything continues the life. However, once they disconnect, the natural course is to die.

Sorry, I haven't read the whole thread, but this remark caught my eye:

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.

Sorry if I'm repeating, but certainly here in the UK this has been proven not to be the case. See Bryson, V (1999) Feminist Debates: Issues of Theory and Political Practice. Basingstoke: Macmillan. She cites statistics provided by the Birkett Committee, which estimated that in Britain in 1939 (when terminations were still strictly illegal except to save the life of the mother), at least 16% of pregnancies ended in abortion. The UK rates are similar today, when abortion is clearly legal.

Furthermore, abortion laws are very liberal in Holland, and exceptionally restrictive in the Republic of Ireland. Yet the abortion rates for the two countries are very similar (Irish women travel to the UK or Europe to terminate pregnancies). So illegality doesn't seem to make much difference on this side of the pond; this too has been the subject of quite a bit of research.

As as for this...

If my girlfriend killed MY baby, just because its hers too doesnt mean that she has TOTAL CONTROL!!! OMG, I'd shoot that bitch. There would be a homicide in her house. Women like that dont deserve a good man, a family, or even to be alive....

I take it then, you're going to be the one that gives up your job, your nights, your friends etc and not your girlfriend? You're going to let her live her life as normal? You see, if men honestly shared care of a child with women equally, I would think you might have some very vague point. But in the overwhelming majority of cases, the majority of the childcare is left to the woman, while men (for the most part) carry on as normal.

if youre not mentally ready for pregnancy and motherhood, youre not ready for sex. it doesnt take the head cashier at walmart to figure that out.
how do you figure? some people are never ready to be a parent, but are quite ready to have sexual relationships. i was ready to have sex at 15, because the act of sharing my body with my partner was something i could deal with and be mature about, but i don't think i will EVER be ready to be a parent, not if i live to be 100. should i simply be celebate?

people need to understand that consenting to sex does not in any way equate to consenting to be pregnant or consenting to be a parent. i use this example all the damn time, but many people don't seem to get it:

if i like to ski, and i choose to go skiing because it pleases me and enriches my life, does that mean that i have no right to medical treatment if i have an accident while skiing? when i strap on my skis, do i consent to falling and breaking my leg? if i am "ready" to go skiing, does that mean i must be "ready" to break my leg, have doctors refuse to treat me or set my leg, and live for the rest of my life with the effects of a non-treated broken leg? should i simply be told that i should have been prepared for the consequences, and therefore i don't have the right to get a cast?

GETTING pregnant may be a consequence of having sex, but STAYING pregnant isn't necessarily a consequence of having sex. indeed, i think that choosing to have an abortion is almost always the most responsible and mature way to deal with an unplanned pregnancy.

furthermore, becoming a parent most certainly is not a necessary consequence of having sex, and to claim that it is only confirms how unready you are to be having sex or contemplating parenthood in the first place. to claim that anybody who is mature enough for sex must also be mature enough for parenthood is so silly that i would laugh...except that you probably actually believe that, and you might actually have children who you teach such nonsense to.

Whatever. :rolleyes: Sorry, but does that nitpicking devalue anything i have said?

No, it doesn't devalue what you said.

However, while I don't believe in the Bible, I think people should at least be aware of what it actually says if they quote it. This is probably the most important and most common mis-translation, and I tend to correct it whenever I hear it.

With life support, not touching anything continues the life.

No, it doesn't: if you didn't pay electiricy bills and supply glucose and so on, then the life support runs down on its own.

I propose we shelve the act vs omission discussion for now until either of us comes up with more evidence. After reading the reasoning behind the life-support decisions I am fairly convinced that pregnancy would be different and that terminating it is an act, but this is something that will probably end up before the Supreme Court.

On a different note, 30 states have laws that specifically deal with "murder of an unborn child": http://www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/Statehomicidelaws092302.html . The federal law is here: http://www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/UVVAEnrolled.html .

I think most of these were enacted after Roe v Wade, and I think if Roe v Wade was reexamined today it would go differently. In particular the reference to laws dealing with offences against the fetus in secion IX of the opinion of the court (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol=113) are completely out of line with current law.

Also it's pretty interesting what they have to say about common law. Apparently, abortion before quickening was not seen as a crime, but abortion after quickening was seen as a crime although less serious than murder. That is not far from what I would consider ideal.

well, she most certainly donates blood and fluids for the majority of the pregnancy, and her organs are used by the fetus for the majority of the pregnancy as well. the organs are clearly not "donated' to the fetus, as they never are a part of the fetus and never belong to the fetus, but the FUNCTION of the organs is donated...so, effectively, forcing a female to continue a pregnancy would be like forcing me to be used as a human dialysis machine for somebody with kidney failure (for example).

The difference is that child and mother are connected nearly to the point of being single organism. *Doing nothing* maintains the connection. Donation is the wrong analogy, conjoined twins is better especially since one of them may depend on the other for staying alive.

The connection is so close that even emotions may be shared: http://www.isisweb.org/ICIS2000Program/web_pages/group333.html http://my.webmd.com/content/article/60/67241.htm

"forcing me to be used as a human dialysis machine" - you are very cold. I think most women consider being pregnant and babies to be quite wonderful. That's why the human race continues, thankfully.

"forcing me to be used as a human dialysis machine" - you are very cold. I think most women consider being pregnant and babies to be quite wonderful.
I am still at a loss as to why most people view children this way. Yeah, they keep the world going, but not everyone in the world has to sprog in order to do this. If you view Bottle's opinion - which is my opinion also - as cold, then I am proud to be 'cold'. I honestly believe that I value my life, friends, career and independence more than I could any child. Like children if you want. Enjoy pregnancy if you want. But don't expect the rest of the world to always agree with you. I'm not stopping anyone else having a kid; why should people therefore expect me, and virtually all other women, to have and like them?!

EDIT: Bottle - just read your post in response to HorseTeets on the last page - didn't see any point in quoting the whole thing, but wanted to say, "Amen sister"!

Using the word "liberal" as an insult? So far, I've only seen you and others arguing an extremist viewpoint on here do that.

Extremist viewpoint?

Your the one condoning the death of innocents. A human being is a member of the species Homo sapiens. Life begins when fertilization takes place. A human being, from the time of fertilization, is genetically complete.

"If a fertilized egg is not by itself a full human being, it could never become a man, because something would have to be added to it, and we know that does not happen." prof. Jerome Lejeune, geneticist

Whether a human being is a zygote or a 25 yr. old man, they are only in different stages of development but are both still human.

Stating a belief and forcing it upon others are not the same thing. Meanwhile, Christ is pretty clear that, while you should live by your own beliefs, you should not force anything upon anyone.
If an innocent, helpless human being wasn't involved in the "pro-choice" decision that might have some merit. The problem is "pro-choice" advocates are in favor of destroying innocent human life, so that argument has no merit at all. It is very arrogant and hypocritical to say condoning death, (which pro-choice is) is not forcing a belief on others. Abortion forces death on a human being so stop trying to twist the argument into something that is a little easier to swallow. If it was only about beliefs that would be one thing. Legalized murder involves innocent victims and thats what abortion is.

I will never stop speaking out against abortion. If I can open the eyes of one person then it is worth my time. Now, on the other hand, if a person is striving to convince others that abortion should be legal and that "a woman has a right to choose" and because of that lie, a pregnant woman has an abortion and destroys that precious life, I guess thats something to really be proud of.


I have never argued in favor of death, nor even in favor of abortion. I have argued in favor of the choice.
If someone isn't against abortion, then they are in favor of abortion. Saying you are not in favor of abortion but are in favor of "choice is no different than if a group came along advocating the legislation of slavery. "We're not in favor of slavery. We just want the right to choose whether to own one." Who could doubt that group was really pro-slavery?

Extremist viewpoint?

Your the one condoning the death of innocents. A human being is a member of the species Homo sapiens. Life begins when fertilization takes place. A human being, from the time of fertilization, is genetically complete.
Meaning what?
"If a fertilized egg is not by itself a full human being, it could never become a man, because something would have to be added to it, and we know that does not happen." prof. Jerome Lejeune, geneticist

Whether a human being is a zygote or a 25 yr. old man, they are only in different stages of development but are both still human.
And your point is?

If an innocent, helpless human being wasn't involved in the "pro-choice" decision that might have some merit. The problem is "pro-choice" advocates are in favor of destroying innocent human life, so that argument has no merit at all. It is very arrogant and hypocritical to say condoning death, (which pro-choice is) is not forcing a belief on others. Abortion forces death on a human being so stop trying to twist the argument into something that is a little easier to swallow. If it was only about beliefs that would be one thing. Legalized murder involves innocent victims and thats what abortion is.
Well, the thing is, up til a point there isn't even a human life to speak of. On top of that, there's the whole "her body her choice" thing, which I won't even bother with because you won't listen to it.
I will never stop speaking out against abortion. If I can open the eyes of one person then it is worth my time. Now, on the other hand, if a person is striving to convince others that abortion should be legal and that "a woman has a right to choose" and because of that lie, a pregnant woman has an abortion and destroys that precious life, I guess thats something to really be proud of.
Yes, it is. I would be proud if I could convince even one person to quit shoving their ideals upon others.
If someone isn't against abortion, then they are in favor of abortion. Saying you are not in favor of abortion but are in favor of "choice is no different than if a group came along advocating the legislation of slavery. "We're not in favor of slavery. We just want the right to choose whether to own one." Who could doubt that group was really pro-slavery?
The problem here is that slavery is a totally different issue, and this analogy doesn't work.
You know, I believe Dem said that she doesn't like abortions, but doesn't force her ideals on others. That is the essence of pro-choice.

Those who actually have something to contribute would like to fully form their views.
What does abortion contribute to society?

LET IT LIE!!! It's not your choice!! It's not you who's having the kid!!! Religion gives you no right to dictate the lives of others.
And its not you being murdered.........

And its not you being murdered.........
Well, that's fairly obvious, as I doubt s/he is a foetus.

Well religion actually gives us no rights. We are in a society where religion cannot dictate what we legislate. But this society is based on freedom of thought, if I choose to agree with a religious idea (which I do), then I can think this to be true.

Many people always say that I cannot push my religious agenda on anyone... it is not right. But I just do not see how this is possible. We legislate morality. It is what legislation is. Laws prohibiting murder, theft, fraud, tax evasion, speeding, smoking in public places, illegal dumping, cooking corporate books, etc. are all examples of legislated morality.

Now, I am not a secular person... I cannot become a secular person because I do not agree that secularism is a viable way of living. I absolute respect the choice of other people to be secular, but I disagree. However, no person has the right to tell me that I cannot espouse what I believe is true. I am not using my religion to terrorize other people or to "take away rights." When congress passes a law saying that no one can steal something that is not theirs, they are putting an ideal on all of the world's kleptomaniacs, but it is not "shoving ideals on them," it is just legislating what congress sees as a moral necessity. Abortion is different however because there are far more people who believe that abortion is okay than believe that everyone has the right to steal. I simply do not see any reason to believe that abortion is a right a person can have. I fully support the right of any woman to do what she wants with her body. This must, however, in a free society not include shooting someone, driving into people in the crosswalk, or otherwise harming anyone else, and if a fetus is person, then she does not have the right to harm that person. That is the pro-life issue. Are there extreme religious nut jobs, oh absolutely, but they are bandwagon, unthinking, lunatics in my humble opinion. I am pro-choice in the sense that a woman can choose to do what she wants with her body, but if a fetus is a person, then the woman cannot dictate what to do with the fetus' body... it's not her choice.

Now Cassini Belt... I really thank you for your lucid and very thoughtful position. I think that for someone who is not a religious person as you stated, this is the only conclusion that can be sensibly reached. For someone who rejects a spiritual nature to human life, personhood starts and ends with the mind. The mental capability is what makes us human and separates us from animals and lumps of tissue.

Now, I think that the idea of the human soul is not a foreign one to the history of human thought, it just has been really frowned upon since the modern thinkers, especially the American Pragmatists, and I would be interested in having a discussion with you on the existence of a spiritual reality. By the way it is the spiritual reality that leads me to believe that personhood begins at conception, otherwise I would be right with you. Let me know what you think about this.

P.S. -- To everyone else... if you are going to reply that I am some sort of Godless atheist, or mindless religious nutjob, don't bother, you obviously did not read my post honestly.

SNIPPED

Three months is certainly sufficient to notice that you're pregnant and make up your mind about whether you want to carry to term.

SNIPPED
The real issue is that sex is considered as something seperate from procreation. Kind of like eating a poor diet "may" result in malnutrition. Anyone who is "sexually active" should already be dealing with that decision before the pregnancy. Contraceptives, especially the morning after pill, etc. have also whittled down the time line to hours not weeks.

For jiminey sakes, grow up, accept the linkage, talk about it & make a decision before you unzip your fly.

I said during the first and second trimester, also the most popular answer. But for those who said, abortion should only be legal if there is rape or the mothers life is involved. No, either you agree or you dont, you cant say abortion is murder and takes away the life of a human being, than say, however, if the mother could die or if there was rape, F*** the life.

What does abortion contribute to society?

More money to the doctor, less people crowding our society. I heard last year 1.2 million Americans were aborted, the sad thing is, this was an anti-abortion poster, but it made me think, well great if it stops overcrowding!

On a different note, 30 states have laws that specifically deal with "murder of an unborn child": http://www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/Statehomicidelaws092302.html . The federal law is here: http://www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/UVVAEnrolled.html .

I think most of these were enacted after Roe v Wade, and I think if Roe v Wade was reexamined today it would go differently. In particular the reference to laws dealing with offences against the fetus in secion IX of the opinion of the court (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol=113) are completely out of line with current law.

In truth, most of those laws were made specifically to go against Roe v. Wade. As such, it is much more likely that the laws would fall if challenged than that Roe would fall.

I am still at a loss as to why most people view children this way. Yeah, they keep the world going, but not everyone in the world has to sprog in order to do this. If you view Bottle's opinion - which is my opinion also - as cold, then I am proud to be 'cold'. I honestly believe that I value my life, friends, career and independence more than I could any child. Like children if you want. Enjoy pregnancy if you want. But don't expect the rest of the world to always agree with you. I'm not stopping anyone else having a kid; why should people therefore expect me, and virtually all other women, to have and like them?!

EDIT: Bottle - just read your post in response to HorseTeets on the last page - didn't see any point in quoting the whole thing, but wanted to say, "Amen sister"!

Just to add on. People who don't see children in the way described probably shouldn't be parents anyways. If you are not readily willing to make personal sacrifices and put a child's needs ahead of your own, you really shouldn't have one. No child should be brought into this world to parents who will not do this and, as such, those who do not want children simply shouldn't be parents - whether their morals dictate that they should abort or put the child up for adoption to accomplish this.

COME TO PARADISE CLUB NOW! IT'S THE GREATEST PLACE TO BE WHEN YOU WANNA TALK WITH FRIENDS AND HAVE A DRINK.

I hate the Paradise club! Its a waste off space and very boring.

Extremist viewpoint?

Anyone advocating the forcing of their own personal moral and religious viewpoints onto others is extremist.

Your the one condoning the death of innocents.

I have never once done any such thing.

A human being is a member of the species Homo sapiens.

As such, it must be an organism to *scientifically* count.

Life begins when fertilization takes place. A human being, from the time of fertilization, is genetically complete.

Your skin cells are genetically complete, dear. Does that make them human beings?

Whether a human being is a zygote or a 25 yr. old man, they are only in different stages of development but are both still human.

This is a personal opinion - one which anyone is welcome to hold, personally.

If an innocent, helpless human being wasn't involved in the "pro-choice" decision that might have some merit. The problem is "pro-choice" advocates are in favor of destroying innocent human life, so that argument has no merit at all. It is very arrogant and hypocritical to say condoning death, (which pro-choice is) is not forcing a belief on others. Abortion forces death on a human being so stop trying to twist the argument into something that is a little easier to swallow. If it was only about beliefs that would be one thing. Legalized murder involves innocent victims and thats what abortion is.

What you fail to see is that it *is* all about beliefs. Those who believe that a zygote is a full human life believe that, but have no proof for it. We have no definition of life that applies to a zygote but not to a skin cell, or a cancerous mass. You don't see this because you don't want to - you want to believe so strongly in your own infallibility that you fail to even consider the other viewpoint. This is your failing.

If someone isn't against abortion, then they are in favor of abortion. Saying you are not in favor of abortion but are in favor of "choice is no different than if a group came along advocating the legislation of slavery. "We're not in favor of slavery. We just want the right to choose whether to own one." Who could doubt that group was really pro-slavery?

Wrong. I can objectively prove that a grown human being is a human organism. As such, legalizing slavery would be objectively proven to be harming another person, not just subjectively by my own personal views.

A better analogy would be the following:
"I am not in favor of elective plastic surgery. I think it expresses vanity and involves a person going into a dangerous situation simply to meet others' expectations. I think this is an immoral act. However, I am not going to force my personal views about plastic surgery on others who wish to have the procedures done."

What does abortion contribute to society?

In my opinion? Not much.

However, I also don't think that fundamentalism, plastic surgery, alcohol, street hockey, or spiked heels contribute much to society. In fact, they are often (in some cases nearly always) detrimental. Even so, I respect the rights of others to choose to use them as they wish.

Many people always say that I cannot push my religious agenda on anyone... it is not right. But I just do not see how this is possible. We legislate morality. It is what legislation is. Laws prohibiting murder, theft, fraud, tax evasion, speeding, smoking in public places, illegal dumping, cooking corporate books, etc. are all examples of legislated morality.

These are not necessarily "legislated morality." They can, in fact, be seen as legilstated protection. The role of the government is to protect its citizens.

Now Cassini Belt... I really thank you for your lucid and very thoughtful position. I think that for someone who is not a religious person as you stated, this is the only conclusion that can be sensibly reached. For someone who rejects a spiritual nature to human life, personhood starts and ends with the mind. The mental capability is what makes us human and separates us from animals and lumps of tissue.

Thank you for the support, Dialecticus. This is what makes it all worthwhile. I am pretty sure that I am simply stating the only view that would have majority support, but that is not a vocal majority. Most of the postings here have been quite far in one direction or the other. More on that in a bit.

I do not reject a spiritual nature to human life, I simply do not believe in the existence of a deity as commonly described (I suppose I'm technically a panentheist, but to most theists I might as well be an atheist). I would also say that whatever spiritual nature there is, it certainly has something to do with the mind, because when the mind is gone it is quite obviously gone as well. I don't believe we are merely a collection of reflexes and conditioned responses. But if we are something greater, then it is only present in the mind.

Now, I think that the idea of the human soul is not a foreign one to the history of human thought, it just has been really frowned upon since the modern thinkers, especially the American Pragmatists, and I would be interested in having a discussion with you on the existence of a spiritual reality. Let me know what you think about this.

Okay, here is what I believe. A soul exists as a physical entity which is subject to laws of conservation, much like energy. Because of that it is eternal, but it does not necessarily remain in the same form. Just as a flame is a concentrated manifestation of energy, a person is a concentrated manifestation of soul. Just as a flame can go out, a person can die, but the heat (soul) remains albeit in a dispersed form.

If you're wondering what I think the physical nature of a soul is, it's basically what would be described as "hidden variables" in quantum mechanics: properties of a physical system which are unmeasurable by any means in the present and yet have definite effects in the future. The existence of such has been proven conclusively by a number of experiments. One of their interesting features, by the way, is that they are not localized in space *at all*, they can produce effects over arbitrary distances without attenuation.

I've studied both neurophysiology and quantum mechanics extensively at the graduate level, and I believe that one of the main functions of the human brain is as an amplifier/interface/focus of hidden variables. The brain is most definitely not a computer, it is structured a lot more like a quantum-mechanical transceiver. Obviously this is not well understood yet, but we are getting there.

By the way it is the spiritual reality that leads me to believe that personhood begins at conception, otherwise I would be right with you.

Well, going along with my analogy, I think that the "flame" is lit gradually. Is there even the faintest ember at an age of four weeks? I would tend to think not, but of course I have no solid evidence whatsoever. What about eight weeks? Maybe. Twelve? Quite likely. Sixteen? Definitely - just in my opinion, of course. Now I think whatever "mind" may exist at that age is very, very simple, it is at most a vague intermittent awareness of the surroundings. That is not much more than an animal mind in terms of what it can do. I suppose you could say that I value it more than I would an animal precisely because of its spiritual nature.

Many people always say that I cannot push my religious agenda on anyone... it is not right. But I just do not see how this is possible. We legislate morality. It is what legislation is. Laws prohibiting murder, theft, fraud, tax evasion, speeding, smoking in public places, illegal dumping, cooking corporate books, etc. are all examples of legislated morality. ... When congress passes a law saying that no one can steal something that is not theirs, they are putting an ideal on all of the world's kleptomaniacs, but it is not "shoving ideals on them," it is just legislating what congress sees as a moral necessity. Abortion is different however because there are far more people who believe that abortion is okay than believe that everyone has the right to steal.

That's exactly right.

I am not exactly sure what a good dividing line would be between morality that should be legislated and morality that shouldn't. Certainly, majority approval or even near-unanimous approval is *not* a good criterion. Perhaps a better guide would be our peculiarly American/British notion of Natural Rights. Legislation should only be passed as necessary to protect rights, or to specify a customary tradeoff between rights. There are many things which people might *like* everyone to do (I'm pretty sure in the 60's a law against long hair in males would have passed) but if those things are not necessary in order to protect a natural right, then they should not be legislated.

I simply do not see any reason to believe that abortion is a right a person can have. I fully support the right of any woman to do what she wants with her body. This must, however, in a free society not include shooting someone, driving into people in the crosswalk, or otherwise harming anyone else, and if a fetus is person, then she does not have the right to harm that person. That is the pro-life issue. ... I am pro-choice in the sense that a woman can choose to do what she wants with her body, but if a fetus is a person, then the woman cannot dictate what to do with the fetus' body... it's not her choice.

Quite true. Legislation often deals with conflicts of rights, and this is one, therefore a perfectly reasonable area of legislation.

I would definitely agree that a fetus is a person. Do you think that an *embryo* (age up to 8 weeks) is a person? What about a single-cell zygote? If that is a person, how is it different from any cell in your saliva?

Response to: Dempublicents


No, the role of the government in our system is to represent its citizens, we are representative republic. We want the government to protect us, we told it to. We think that murder is wrong, they make a law against it. We need to be protected against harm, evil things, immoral things.

Or another way. The government should protect the people. Okay... granted. If a fetus is a person... the government should protect it.

Response to Cassini Belt:

Well, this is where my Christian concept of a human soul comes into play. I believe that at conception the soul is united to the body. Later, the mind emerges from the brain processes and biochemical reactions, and develops into what we call the mind. (The quantam mechanics "definition" of the mind is very interesting. I think it is a bit over my head, but I'm trying to research it.)

Now, if you do not see the soul this way I can offer you no explanation of why I absolutely believe that personhood starts at conception. However, I would say that pregnancy is designed to bring a person into the world. That is what it is for. It does not aim to create a lump of cells. Potential personhood in your definition I think is important to safeguard then. Pregnancy has to do with the life of a new human person, this process should be protected.

A zygote is different from a skin cell. A skin cell will always be a skin cell. It divides and gives us another skin cell. A zygote's whole purpose is to create a human body, and also to form the brain processes that will allow a mind to emerge from them. This difference is crucial, and unique.

The argument from the soul of a person is stronger, but only if you believe in that sort of soul. To me who does though, there really is no question, so I have to disapprove of abortion at any stage as murder.

I disagree with abortion. I think that the only time it could be "acceptable" is when the mother's life is a great risk and the pregnancy is at the very early stages. as for rape and incest, well we all know that this is such a terrible thing but is it the baby's fault, y kill the child if it didnt take any part in it? thats my view on abortion. I think the original messge was great.

I'll just jump in here real quick, give my opinion, then back out as to not force my views upon anyone else.

I believe that the moment that the sperm reaches the egg, and the two half-DNA's become one full DNA is the moment that the fetus becomes a human, but more importantly, becomes a person. Generally, society holds that a person has separate DNA, and in a religious sense, has a separate soul. That is the belief that I hold to, and will until the day I die.

I have not read this entire thread, so I don't know about what I am about to say but - I don't know how many of you have had to deal with someone who may be getting an abortion. I have... and I have also talked her out of getting an abortion, because I do have an idea of what kind of physical and emotional harm that "simple" action causes.

Funny that Norma McCorvey - THE "Jane Doe" around whom this entire "argument" is centered - is now pro-life, and trying desperately to get "her" decision repealed.

Sorry, thought this was going to be shorter than it actually turned out to be.

Response to: Dempublicents


No, the role of the government in our system is to represent its citizens, we are representative republic. We want the government to protect us, we told it to. We think that murder is wrong, they make a law against it. We need to be protected against harm, evil things, immoral things.

Or another way. The government should protect the people. Okay... granted. If a fetus is a person... the government should protect it.

The government was set up as a representative republic because those setting it up felt that it was a necessary evil. A government system is necessary to protect the people - but the people should control it so that it does not overstep its bounds.

Meanwhile, I agree with you. At the time that a fetus objectively becomes a person, the law absolutely should protect it, in as much as it would define the rights granted to it vs. the rights granted to the mother, etc.

Well, this is where my Christian concept of a human soul comes into play. I believe that at conception the soul is united to the body. Later, the mind emerges from the brain processes and biochemical reactions, and develops into what we call the mind. (The quantam mechanics "definition" of the mind is very interesting. I think it is a bit over my head, but I'm trying to research it.)

I agree with the Christian concept of a soul, although your absolute placement at conception doesn't really have any backing other than your own convictions.

What would you say to the fact that the only times a fetus is mentioned in the Bible, it is very clearly delineated as lesser than a born human being?

However, I would say that pregnancy is designed to bring a person into the world. That is what it is for. It does not aim to create a lump of cells.

In truth, the majority of pregnancies end in miscarriage/improper implantation before the woman is even aware she is pregnant. As such, most fertilized eggs have no chance of creating a person.

A skin cell will always be a skin cell.

Not true, but I suppose that is besides the point.

The argument from the soul of a person is stronger, but only if you believe in that sort of soul. To me who does though, there really is no question, so I have to disapprove of abortion at any stage as murder.

Believing in a soul is great, many of us do. And for many of us, the soul is a large part of the definition of personhood. However, belief in a soul is a religious and philosophical viewpoint - one which cannot be objectively proven, nor will it ever be completely agreed upon unless it is. You may personally feel that abortion is murder, but legislating it as such is forcing your personal religious beliefs upon people who do not share your religion.

I believe that the moment that the sperm reaches the egg, and the two half-DNA's become one full DNA is the moment that the fetus becomes a human, but more importantly, becomes a person. Generally, society holds that a person has separate DNA, and in a religious sense, has a separate soul. That is the belief that I hold to, and will until the day I die.

Do you feel that it should be legislated to have the full rights of a human being at this point?

If so, are you prepared to prosecute every woman who has a miscarriage before she discovers her pregnancy because of her stressful lifestyle?

is it too late to just say that killing a baby is murder, and if it shows up on the pregnancy test, then its a baby? helloooo, fifth commandment people....

Thank you to everyone who voted in the poll. Time ot analyze the results. I will make a few assumptions... First, that anyone would be in favor of the closest choice to their own that they can actually get. In other words, a person who chooses "Never" would be in favor of "first trimester only" over "first or second trimester", a person who chooses "any time" would be in favor of "first or second trimester" over "first trimester only", and so forth. Call this the closest-thing-you-can-get vote. Second, the people who voted for the last choice, in favor of infanticide, are not serious; or if they are, they will shortly end up in jail and therefore be unable to vote in real elections. Therefore those votes will be thrown out.

The question is what choice can muster support from a majority coalition? There is only one, the "Only during the first trimester" choice which would get 60.3% support.

I suspect that a national referendum in the US would produce similar results, although slightly more pro-life. Neither the "never" side nor the "second trimester or later" side can command an absolute majority without the "first trimester only" voters.

Therefore, I have the following advice to both sides:

To the pro-lifers: Don't alienate people (like me) who believe in early abortions only. State your view that any abortions at any time are wrong, and move on, saying (for example) "Reasonable people may disagree about the legality of early abortions, but certainly the abortion of a fetus with a working brain is a barbaric practice". That will get you majority support, and win elections. You will not like it, but you have to swallow it. (Additionally: when passing laws about "fetal homicide", differentiate on the basis of age or function, it will help later in the Supreme Court).

To the pro-choicers: Don't alienate people (like me) who believe in early abortions only. State your view that abortions at any time should be a matter of choice, and move on, saying (for example) "Reasonable people may disagree about the legality of late abortions, but certainly the abortion of a tiny, undifferentiated collection of cells such as a six-week embyo is purely a matter of choice for the mother". That will get you majority support, and win elections. You will not like it, but you have to swallow it.

That's all I have to say about it. Now go ahead and flame me ;)

is it too late to just say that killing a baby is murder, and if it shows up on the pregnancy test, then its a baby? helloooo, fifth commandment people....

If you are going to start quoting the Old Testament, you should be aware that it explicitly states that killing a fetus is *not* murder, and is punishable only by a fine.

The role of the government is to protect its citizens.

No, not exactly. The role of the government is to protect the *natural rights* of its citizens. That is a small but absolutely crucial distinction.

People may choose to do things which are harmful to themselves. The government has no basis whatsoever for legislating against that. The basis for legislating against doing things harmful to other people is *only* that it violates their rights (namely, to be free from undue harm). Most things harmful to other people are also ok as long as they are completely consensual (although we have made a determination that consent is effectively impossible in some cases, such as assisted suicide).

No, a thousand times no. The role of the government is to protect the *natural rights* of its citizens.

People may choose to do things which are harmful to themselves. The government has no basis whatsoever for legislating against that. The basis for legislating against doing things harmful to other people is *only* that it violates their rights (namely, to be free from undue harm). Most things harmful to other people are also ok as long as they are completely consensual (although we have made a determination that consent is effectively impossible in some cases, such as assisted suicide).
Thanks for the poll Cassini Belt. I respect your opinions.

Do you have a Law degree? Just curious.

I just have one thing to say about the law.........
The laws against murder and theft came from The Ten Commandments. Our laws our based on our Judeo-Christian beliefs.

It cracks me up that in America, we have a group of people trying to re-write our history.

Mean people suck...........

Alright, I have said all I am going to say here.

No, not exactly. The role of the government is to protect the *natural rights* of its citizens. That is a small but absolutely crucial distinction.

People may choose to do things which are harmful to themselves. The government has no basis whatsoever for legislating against that. The basis for legislating against doing things harmful to other people is *only* that it violates their rights (namely, to be free from undue harm). Most things harmful to other people are also ok as long as they are completely consensual (although we have made a determination that consent is effectively impossible in some cases, such as assisted suicide).

Ah, good point. What I meant was that the role of the government is to protect a citizen from others, but I didn't make that clear.

Well, this is where my Christian concept of a human soul comes into play. I believe that at conception the soul is united to the body.

Up until the 19th century it was the commonly accepted Christian interpretation (including that of the Catholic church) that the soul appeared at some point after conception (usually 40 days for males and 80 for females). This is known as "mediate animation" or "thomist conception". See the writings of St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and others which basically trace back to Aristoteles. The current idea of "immediate animation" has only been the dominant view for a very short time, and even that only comes from the idea that we *don't know* when the soul appears and therefore should "err on the side of charity". The Catholic church has never, as far as I know, actually made "immediate animation" into part of the canon.

Some interesting references for this:

http://www.archindy.org/prolife/ThomistFertilization.htm
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/SFL/quickening.htm
http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=3586


However, I would say that pregnancy is designed to bring a person into the world. That is what it is for. It does not aim to create a lump of cells. Potential personhood in your definition I think is important to safeguard then. Pregnancy has to do with the life of a new human person, this process should be protected.

Agreed. The only question is to what degree.

A zygote is different from a skin cell. A skin cell will always be a skin cell. It divides and gives us another skin cell. A zygote's whole purpose is to create a human body, and also to form the brain processes that will allow a mind to emerge from them. This difference is crucial, and unique.

Not necessarily. As our medical science progresses, we will be able to grow a complete organism from any intact cell. We can already do that for some organisms, including (since very recently) mammals (sheep). The capability to do that with humans is not far away.

The question then is do you believe that something happens at the time that a skin cell is stimulated in the right way to begin to develop as a zygote which instantly gives it a soul?

Not necessarily. As our medical science progresses, we will be able to grow a complete organism from any intact cell. We can already do that for some organisms, including (since very recently) mammals (sheep). The capability to do that with humans is not far away.

Just because I'm anal:

I have to point out that we cannot do this with "any intact cell". In fact, we have only really been successful with specific types of somatic cells. Also, an egg cell is required and works much better if it is from the organism being cloned.

:headbang:

Just because I'm anal:

I have to point out that we cannot do this with "any intact cell". In fact, we have only really been successful with specific types of somatic cells. Also, an egg cell is required and works much better if it is from the organism being cloned.

I have to point out that he said "As our medical science progresses" Not "We can." :p

Up until the 19th century it was the commonly accepted Christian interpretation (including that of the Catholic church) that the soul appeared at some point after conception (usually 40 days for males and 80 for females).

Woah! I never knew that - thanks Cassini, I like learning new things.

Intriguing that the female soul takes longer to arrive. That sort of belief would work well for the Indian families who prefer to abort female fetuses because of dowry concerns and all. (Not that I advocate such a thing.)

Also interesting that the female soul took longer to arrive. Did she get lost and have to ask directions or something?

Woah! I never knew that - thanks Cassini, I like learning new things.

Also interesting that the female soul took longer to arrive. Did she get lost and have to ask directions or something?

You're welcome, I didn't know that myself until fairly recently. As for the difference, I've no idea, just sexism I guess. Still, that gives you a range of 6 to 12 weeks which is not unreasonable by modern standards.

You're welcome, I didn't know that myself until fairly recently. As for the difference, I've no idea, just sexism I guess. Still, that gives you a range of 6 to 12 weeks which is not unreasonable by modern standards.

<grin> I skimmed through the articles you linked. The second one has a footnote that points out that at 40 days the fetus has an appendage that to the uninitiated may appear to be male genitalia. However, real sex organs (male and female) do not become apparent until 80-90 days into gestation. So at least we can see where the idea came from - it's not just rampant sexism or something.

auto-bump.

don't miss the analysis of the poll results:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8053308&postcount=446

:headbang:

I have to point out that he said "As our medical science progresses" Not "We can." :p

He said "We currently have this technology in sheep." We do not.

I think that the only time it could be "acceptable" is when the mother's life is a great risk and the pregnancy is at the very early stages. as for rape and incest, well we all know that this is such a terrible thing but is it the baby's fault, y kill the child if it didnt take any part in it?

Now that's what I simply am unable to get my head round. You will quite happily let a woman go through 9 months of possible psychological distress, the pain/risks or giving birth and who knows what else if she's been raped/the victim of incest, just because (in your view) it's wrong to destroy a collection of cells. I'm sorry but in my mind that makes no sense.

He said "We currently have this technology in sheep." We do not.

You're correct, so far in vertebrates it needs an egg which can be from another organism of the same or related species. Not too many requirements about what type of donor cells to use, skin or mammary gland seem to be the standard. Apparently since I last looked into it it has been done with quite a few mammalian species in addition to sheep, including mice, cattle, goats, rabbits, pigs, mouflon, gaur, banteng... many of these clones have health problems and a reduced life span, which illustrates there is something we don't know yet, but it basically works. The latest work is on cloning a mammoth (no joke!).

While we're talking about new-fangled biology things, I should mention artificial wombs (also known as ectogenesis)


http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/000867.html

Ectogenesis is close to becoming a reality because scientists are steadily advancing reproductive technology at both ends of gestation. At one end, to help women who are having difficulty conceiving or who have defective wombs, Cornell University's Dr. Hung-Ching Liu has taken steps toward developing an artificial womb by removing cells from the lining of a woman's womb and then, using hormones, growing layers of these cells on a model of a uterus. The model eventually dissolves, leaving a new, artificial womb that continues to thrive. What's more, Liu's team found that, within days of being placed in the new womb, embryos will attach themselves to its walls and begin to grow. At that point, scientists must end the experiment to comply with in-vitro fertilization (IVF) laws, so researchers do not yet know how long after the beginning stages of gestation this artificial womb would be viable. But Liu has said she hopes to "create complete artificial wombs using these techniques in a few years"--although, given current IVF and stem-cell laws, it is not yet clear whether she will be able to continue her work in the United States.

Meanwhile, at the other end of gestation, Temple University's Dr. Thomas Schaffer is trying to save premature babies by using a synthetic amniotic fluid. He developed a breathable liquid made of perfluorocarbons--liquids that carry more oxygen than air--and has successfully tested the fluid on premature lamb fetuses not yet capable of breathing air. Schaffer says that the only reason he isn't using the technique on human beings right now is a lack of funding. "We have babies that are six hundred grams [21.9 ounces], born on a toilet, brought to a nicu [neonatal intensive care unit], and survive," he says. "Now [with perfluorocarbons] we can take care of these children."

In Japan, Dr. Yoshinori Kuwabara, a professor of obstetrics at Juntendo University, has actually created an artificial womb, using an acrylic tank filled with a fluid similar to Schaffer's amniotic fluid and attached to a machine that acts as a placenta to bring oxygen and nutrients to the fetus. Kuwabara has successfully delivered goats from this artificial womb after just three weeks of gestation--the equivalent of one human trimester. Kuwabara says that, with enough funding, his ectogenetic chamber could be ready to use on a human fetus within five years.
...
Roe v. Wade, after all, is predicated on two basic ideas: a woman's right to privacy (including the right not to be pregnant) and the viability of the fetus--defined as the ability to survive outside the mother's womb, currently placed at 24 weeks of gestation. Complete ectogenesis could dismantle both of these premises. First, it could make Roe's viability issue moot, since with ectogenesis a fetus could be technically viable outside the mother's womb from the moment of conception.

Which would surely impact the other idea underpinning Roe: a woman's right to privacy. With ectogenesis, an unwanted fetus, rather than being aborted, could be removed from a woman and placed in an ectogenetic chamber to be adopted later; the woman's right to privacy would arguably not be invaded, since removal of the fetus for implantation in an artificial womb need not be any more invasive than the abortion she was originally seeking. As bioethicists Peter Singer and Deane Wells write of ectogenesis in their book Making Babies: The New Science and Ethics of Conception, "Freedom to choose what is to happen to one's body is one thing; freedom to insist on the death of a being that is capable of living outside of one's body is another."

Although many right-to-lifers are skeptical of reproductive technology in general and view ectogenesis as an unnatural and dehumanizing possibility, others recognize that it could radically alter the abortion debate. "Roe v. Wade should be repealed anyway," says Dr. W. David Hager, an obstetrician-gynecologist and professor at the University of Kentucky School of Medicine who currently serves as head of the Bush administration's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee. "But, if we had the technology to be able to placentize or incubate in a placental environment, then I would say that would be an argument in favor of repeal."

Other pro-life activists believe ectogenesis could change public attitudes about abortion in much the way The Silent Scream--the film, taken with a sonogram, that graphically documents the abortion process from extraction to destruction--did after its 1984 release. In his book, The Hand of God, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, the former abortion doctor turned pro-life activist who filmed The Silent Scream, writes of the "enormous threat to abortion forces" that the film precipitated due to its powerful imagery. Nathanson hopes that an acrylic ectogenetic chamber, containing a month-old fetus, could act as a similar visual aid. "If [the fetus is] viable from ten weeks on," he says, "you've destroyed Roe v. Wade. It collapses."

ut, while some pro-lifers have begun grappling with this possibility, not one of the five major pro-choice organizations I contacted--Planned Parenthood, the Center for Reproductive Rights, the National Organization for Women, naral Pro-Choice America, and the Feminist Majority Foundation--has a position on ectogenesis. "For naral it's really important not to get distracted," legal director Cavendish told me. "We have to keep an eye on the prize of electing officials devoted to keeping Roe v. Wade. We can't pay too much attention to every potential tactic pro-life may use to distract us from our goal--which remains the same, notwithstanding new technological developments."

Yet, while the pro-choice mainstream remains silent on ectogenesis, more radical voices have filled the vacuum. Writing about ectogenesis in her book Human Reproduction: Principles, Practices, Policies, feminist philosopher Christine Overall argues that abortion is about the right not to procreate, not simply the right not to be pregnant. Overall claims that fetal extinction--not just extraction--is the aim of women seeking abortions and that forcing a woman to submit to a fetal extraction is like forcing her to donate organs against her will. The pregnant woman, Overall writes, is the "most appropriate person--perhaps the only one--to decide the disposition of the fetus." Extraction, extinction, disposition: Is this how the pro-choice movement wants their side of the debate to be framed in a post-ectogenesis world?

Surely there are more sophisticated arguments to be made for abortion rights in the face of ectogenesis: women who might raise their children in poverty rather than use an ectogenesis-adoption solution and face the emotional turmoil of knowing that someone else is raising their child; pregnancies resulting from rape that might be better terminated than saved; changes that could occur in the scope of fathers' rights vis à vis mothers. But you won't hear these arguments from mainstream pro-choice groups. Nor will you hear the alternative: that ectogenesis could lead to an agreement with the pro-life side that transcends the abortion debate altogether.



More articles...

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,648024,00.html
http://www.reason.com/rb/rb082003.shtml
http://www.ncpa.org/iss/hea/2003/pd121603c.html
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/3/rosen.htm

I just have one thing to say about the law.........
The laws against murder and theft came from The Ten Commandments. Our laws our based on our Judeo-Christian beliefs.
[...]
Alright, I have said all I am going to say here.
I call bullshit. How come that murder and theft are illegal in India (hinduists), Arabia (muslims), Japan (shintoists) or even "evil" North Korea (secular)? Accept it, several moral principles are so universal that you dont need a Bible to tell you what is bad.
But of course, you have said it all and will continue to dodge what you cant answer. :rolleyes:

If someone isn't against abortion, then they are in favor of abortion.

Ridiculous.

Eventually, I will die. While I do not look forward to that day, I am aware it will eventually come, and I am not averse to that knowledge.

I am not "against" my own death.

By your logic, I MUST be IN FAVOUR of my own death? You honestly believe I spend my days canvassing and campaiging in favour of my eventual demise?

Your skin cells are genetically complete, dear. Does that make them human beings?


When Dempublicents pulls out all the sarcasm stops, she's like a whirling blade of venomous death.

That's a compliment, by the way.

Just to add on. People who don't see children in the way described probably shouldn't be parents anyways. If you are not readily willing to make personal sacrifices and put a child's needs ahead of your own, you really shouldn't have one. No child should be brought into this world to parents who will not do this and, as such, those who do not want children simply shouldn't be parents - whether their morals dictate that they should abort or put the child up for adoption to accomplish this.
I quite agree. Even if I did want children (and I certainly don't), I wouldn't do it; it would not be fair on the kid, because I care too much about all the other things in my life and would resent having to curb them. That's not fair on me - and it certainly isn't fair on a child. Sadly, at least here in the UK and Ireland, irresponsible and/or selfish and/or immature people become parents all too frequently - sometimes, I do pity the next generation.

Response to Cassini Belt:

Well, this is where my Christian concept of a human soul comes into play. I believe that at conception the soul is united to the body.

That is your view. I respect that view. I would fight to defend that view.

But, since you think that YOUR view is sufficient grounds to decide what is 'human', and thus, what is legitimately 'removable' - you need to show some kind of concrete evidence as to why YOUR belief should have ANY EFFECT at all, on another.

For example, early Old Testament text CLEARLY shows that the 'soul' is PURELY the 'essence of life'... the animation of flesh... analogous with 'the blood', it seems.

That means it is not some divine aspect of personhood, merely a way of describing that the flesh does, indeed, move.

Thus, I argue against what I am perceiving as your 'sanctity of the human soul' proposal.

So - why should your view of the 'soul' affect me?

Response to Cassini Belt:

Well, this is where my Christian concept of a human soul comes into play. I believe that at conception the soul is united to the body. Later, the mind emerges from the brain processes and biochemical reactions, and develops into what we call the mind. (The quantam mechanics "definition" of the mind is very interesting. I think it is a bit over my head, but I'm trying to research it.)

Now, if you do not see the soul this way I can offer you no explanation of why I absolutely believe that personhood starts at conception. However, I would say that pregnancy is designed to bring a person into the world. That is what it is for. It does not aim to create a lump of cells. Potential personhood in your definition I think is important to safeguard then. Pregnancy has to do with the life of a new human person, this process should be protected.

I am not sure if this has been brought forward yet - but what is your stance on the most common form of medical assited pregnancy then - considering that disposing of zygotes there is a matter of routine ?

For those who do not know how this form of MAP works: the doctors manually create multiple zygotes (roughly 'impregnated eggs') outside the females body using her and the partners gametes (genetic material). These zygotes, or embryos if you prefer, are then tested for a few things, like Down syndrome, and the ones with the best chance of producing a healthy child will then be selected. One or more is/are replaced into the female, some are frozen to be able to try again at a later date, and the rest get flushed down the toilet. Or, in some clinics, kept in storage even though they will never be reimplanted. Not because they all had no chance to survive when placed into a females body (though that is the case for quite a few), but because they weren't the best available.
Also, multiple are often placed to increase the risk of succesfull pregnancy, even though carrying twins, triplets etc to birth statistically increases the chance of deformities or health problems.

Yet for some reason there is little outrage about this. Why is that ? Because it*does* actually also produce children that can go to church ?

I believe that the moment that the sperm reaches the egg, and the two half-DNA's become one full DNA is the moment that the fetus becomes a human, but more importantly, becomes a person.
my friends Amy and Marie will be interested to hear this, because your reasoning means that they are a single human person. you see, at the time of conception Amy and Marie were a single sperm and a single egg. it was not until long after fertilization that the single zygote split into two individual entities.


Generally, society holds that a person has separate DNA, and in a religious sense, has a separate soul.
do we really want to base our laws and our definition of "human person" on nothing better than "majority rules"? at one time, the majority judged that black people were not human persons...were they correct because the majority believed it? the majority of society once believed the Earth sat at the center of the universe...were they right? do all of society's misconceptions only cease being wrong when the majority has been convinced of their error, or is it possible that reality may simply not match up with what the majority believes?

remember, the majority of society will never attend medical school, will never view a fertilized egg (of any species) under a microscope, will never learn about the complex in utero development that occurs in humans (or any species), and will never even be able to name the four letters representing the "building blocks" of our genetic code. to say that the majority's false understanding of the development of human life should be supreme is like saying that we should base our understanding of elephants on the descriptions from people who have never seen an elephant in their life.


That is the belief that I hold to, and will until the day I die.
don't you think that's a bit silly? i mean, what if irrefutable proof comes to light during your lifetime? what if God comes down from on high and tells humanity the real story? how can you possibly be so arrogant as to assume you will NEVER learn ANYTHING for your ENTIRE LIFE that might change your views? or are you saying that you intend to believe in your current position no matter what you learn?

either way, pretty silly.

I beleive that every human every insect and every animal as well as every plant has a right to live so abortion should be illegal if you want to do the deeds then you have to put up with the conciquences

I beleive that every human every insect and every animal as well as every plant has a right to live so abortion should be illegal if you want to do the deeds then you have to put up with the conciquences
do you believe that every living organism has this "right to live"?

So you'll never take anti-biotics, never actually eat anything since plants/animals are alive and since they have a right to live how is it right for you do decide to kill and eat them in order that you may go on living?

So you'll never take anti-biotics, never actually eat anything since plants/animals are alive and since they have a right to live how is it right for you do decide to kill and eat them in order that you may go on living?
yeah, that's what i was leading into...

human beings must consume organic material to live, and we frequently kill ro shed living cells as a natural part of our movements and growth, so Newianland is clearly either a total hypocrite or is kidding around with us. if he really believed abortion is wrong because all living things have the right to live then he would have to also believe himself to be a mass-murderer because he, like all humans, is guilty of "killing" billions upon billions of living cells.

Not too many requirements about what type of donor cells to use, skin or mammary gland seem to be the standard.

Actually, the standard are a type of helper cells that are located in the ovaries - hence the reason that most clones are female. However, there has been some success in males with skin cells. We *are* still limited in the type of cell, however. The reason for this is the fact that most somatic cells modify the DNA to turn off certain genes. Unless we modify it back, an organism cannot be formed from the DNA. As such, most terminially differentiated cells cannot be used.

I beleive that every human every insect and every animal as well as every plant has a right to live so abortion should be illegal if you want to do the deeds then you have to put up with the conciquences
*Plutonian Citizens cheer wildly* :D

Wow... I had a really nice... very long reply to all of you, and then the server timed me out and I lost it. So, this is the abbreviated version because I do not have the energy to redo the lost post.

To Cassini Belt:

The idea that the soul eventually reaches the embryo to make it a fetal person is not as cut and dry historical as you think. From your own posted link (the Vanderbilt one): "There are two lines of exegesis of this passage. One line ascribes the fetus as holding a lesser status before either birth or a gestational midpoint, thus supporting the prohibition of only late abortions. This is the position of Augustine, Philo, and the Jewish Aramaic commentary, Targum Onkelos. The other line supports that the fetus holds a legally protected status throughout gestation. This position was held by such notables as Barnabas, Clement, Basil, Ambrose, Jerome, John Chrysostom, and the 1st Century Christian Didache." The Didache expressly forbids the killing of an embryo, and that was the first century Christian community. The thing is that the Church has always frowned on abortion, and it recently started to declare utterly authoritatively that the soul unites with the human at conception. Even before this though, those who argued against it did not make up the official view, but the view of a theologian trying to figure things out like we are.

Now your examples of cloning and artificial wombs and the like only further prove my point about the uniqueness of the zygote. In nature, the only thing that develops a human body and mind, is the zygote. We have to make a zygote for this to happen. We force a zygote into being, and then the body and mind come into development. But this is science. Natural conception is the issue here. When a zygote is formed in the womb, it's purpose is to form into body and mind. This is the point of it. So if your idea of personhood is an entity with a body and a mind, it is the zygote not science that brings this about, it is that natural process, that "little cell." That holds personhood.

This however gives me a place to respond to the idea of artificial fertilization, cloning, and the MAP issue that was mentioned. I think that it is along the lines of splitting the atom. We should never force the basics of nature to do what we want them to do... it is just too far, we cannot imagine or predict the results, and it's very dangerous. Hiroshima, Nagasaki, human cloning...

To Dempublicents:

Please think about what a free society is before you accuse anyone else of shoving their ideologies down your throat. I believe what I believe as part of an informed mind. Part of this information is religious dogmatic knowledge. This is okay. The Constitution does not prohibit me from trying to get everyone to agree with me. It is free speech, it is free society, it is pluralism. This is our system and you should not try to destroy it because you want to eliminate the Christian "meddling" in real life. Why is your view that only secular reality is reality the only view that I should have to swallow. Use your own argument on yourself and you will see that it makes no sense.

Also, the bible gives great significance to the unborn. Read Isaiah 44:2,24, 49:5, and especially Jeremiah 1:5: "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." We are given purpose as human persons from conception, before we are formed into human bodies and minds... biblically speaking.

Hope this clarifies things.

Please think about what a free society is before you accuse anyone else of shoving their ideologies down your throat.

You are confusing discussion with legislation. They are two very different things. Discussion of ideologies is not "shoving something down one's throat." However, in a purely ideological discussion, forcing an ideology onto someone through legislation clearly is.

I believe what I believe as part of an informed mind. Part of this information is religious dogmatic knowledge. This is okay.

Never said anything to suggest that it wasn't.

The Constitution does not prohibit me from trying to get everyone to agree with me. It is free speech, it is free society, it is pluralism.

Again, attempting to get everyone to agree with you and legislating that everyone must follow your view are two very different things. One is perfectly allowable, the other is unconstitutional.

This is our system and you should not try to destroy it because you want to eliminate the Christian "meddling" in real life.

Wow, way to stereotype. I never suggested that I wanted to do any such thing, especially considering that I am a Christian to begin with.

Why is your view that only secular reality is reality the only view that I should have to swallow. Use your own argument on yourself and you will see that it makes no sense.

The argument you have just argued against is not one I ever made. Please try again.

Also, the bible gives great significance to the unborn. Read Isaiah 44:2,24, 49:5, and especially Jeremiah 1:5: "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." We are given purpose as human persons from conception, before we are formed into human bodies and minds... biblically speaking.

It gives significance to the unborn, but makes it very clear in laws that they are not to be attributed the same rights as born human beings. As I pointed out, a man who killed a fetus was given only a fine, he was not stoned to death as he would have been had it been a born human being.

Abortion should be left up to the opinion of women only. Men should have no say as to whether abortion should be legal or not.

Let them decide for themselves what they want to do with their own bodies.

Abortion should be left up to the opinion of women only. Men should have no say as to whether abortion should be legal or not.

Let them decide for themselves what they want to do with their own bodies.

Ok, but bear in mind that women are slightly more pro-life than men.

You mean "do with their own bodies *and those of their children*"?

It gives significance to the unborn, but makes it very clear in laws that they are not to be attributed as life. As I pointed out, a man who killed a fetus was given only a fine, he was not stoned to death as he would have been had it been a born human being.

The relevant verses are in Exodus 21:22-25. However, it is not entirely clear what it says. First, the Hebrew and Greek texts diverge greatly:

New American Standard (translated from Hebrew, http://studylight.org/desk/?query=ex+21&t=nas&st=1&new=1&l=en)

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


Septuagint (translated from Greek, Brenton's 1851 translation, http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/septuagint-hyperlinked.html)

Exodus 21:22 And if two men strive and smite a woman with child, and her child be born imperfectly formed, he shall be forced to pay a penalty: as the woman's husband may lay upon him, he shall pay with a valuation.
21:23 But if it be perfectly formed, he shall give life for life,
21:24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
21:25 burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

The Hebrew version says that causing a premature *live* birth is punishable by a fine, but causing the injury or death of a fetus is punishable exactly the same as injury or death of an adult. The word "injury" could be inflected in a way that would mean "to her" (the mother), but it is not, therefore this is understood to refer to mother and child both.

As a matter of evidence, the Hebrew judges tended to not consider injuries to premature ("imperfectly formed") fetuses, since it was nearly impossible to determine whether death was due to premature birth or injury. The changes in the Greek Septuagint are probably based on this practice. What it prescribes is that causing a premature birth of an "imperfectly formed" (probably non-viable) fetus is punishable by fine, but causing the injury or death of a "perfectly formed" fetus is punished the same as an adult.

English common law is derived from the Septuagint (through ecclesiastical law) but instead of "perfectly formed" it uses as a criterion "quickening".

I hope that clears things up.

Demipublicents: "man who killed a fetus was given only a fine" - obviously not true, in light of the above.

You mean "do with their own bodies *and those of their children*"?

No, I mean their own bodies. Until people start having funerals for miscarriages, you wont be able to fully convince me that abortions are wrong. And if your so certain about what women want, then you should have no problem letting them decide something for themselves.

No, I mean their own bodies. Until people start having funerals for miscarriages, you wont be able to fully convince me that abortions are wrong. And if your so certain about what women want, then you should have no problem letting them decide something for themselves.

Raust: Indeed, I do not have a problem with people deciding for themselves. I also recognize that not all of those decision will be good, but I doubt anyone other than the people can consistently do better. Along those lines: if Roe v Wade was put to a referendum tomorrow, it will be repealed 65-35. Why do we still have it?

"Until people start having funerals for miscarriages" - this is done in many cultures, and in those it is not done it feels like something is missing (http://www.mend.org/newsletters/news_vol3iss2_content.htm, http://www.allaboutmoms.com/goodbye.htm, http://www.americancatholic.org/messenger/Jan2005/feature3.asp).

Raust: Indeed, I do not have a problem with people deciding for themselves. I also recognize that not all of those decision will be good, but I doubt anyone other than the people can consistently do better. Along those lines: if Roe v Wade was put to a referendum tomorrow, it will be repealed 65-35. Why do we still have it?
That is exactly right! In a democracy the people should decide. We the people were not given the chance to decide. Roe v. Wade was based on a lie. The federal judges aren't interpreting the Constitution, they are ruling as Kings from the bench. That's why democrats have blocked the republicans nominations for supreme court justices. We are supposed to be living in a democracy in the United States but the Supreme Court is overstepping its boundries. I know the brainwashed socialist liberal secular humanists will now be screaming, ranting, raving and salavating after reading these words, but hey the "extremist" gets her say..........and I do get to have my say, ME a former FETUS................hahahaha

Along those lines: if Roe v Wade was put to a referendum tomorrow, it will be repealed 65-35. Why do we still have it?

because, in America, we don't allow the "majority rules" argument to trump basic human rights. the majority of Americans once believed that black people were sub-human and should not be given equal rights to white people. the majority of Americans once believed that women should not be allowed to vote or run for political office. the majority of people once believed blacks and whites should not be allowed to intermarry. all of these majority opinions were over-ruled long before the majority succumbed to reason, because America was founded in such a way as to specifically exclude the possibility that the majority could take basic rights away from minorities. sometimes it takes the courts a little while to get their act together, especially since the Supreme Court is filled by the President (who is elected by the majority), but the Court does tend to come through in the end.

if you don't like it, take it up with TJ and the Founders. :)

I saw the results of the poll.

Honestly, to expect a woman to bring to term a child conceived as a result of rape, or incest, is indecent.

But, to expect a woman to attempt to bring to term a child, whose pregnancy may result in her death, is unrealistic. :confused:

I saw the results of the poll.

Honestly, to expect a woman to bring to term a child conceived as a result of rape, or incest, is indecent.

But, to expect a woman to attempt to bring to term a child, whose pregnancy may result in her death, is unrealistic. :confused:
i don't see why. if somebody is comfortable saying that a woman has no right of claim to her own body, and that the life of a fetus can trump her freedom to choose, then why is it a stretch for them to demand that she die rather than let the fetus perish? after all, if woman have sub-human rights and fetuses have super-human rights (which is the only way one can make abortion illegal in any situation) then a fetus' life is worth more than a woman's life, and therefore it is perfectly logical to say that a woman should die rather than allowing a fetus to die.

because, in America, we don't allow the "majority rules" argument to trump basic human rights.

True. However that is best served by a traditionalist judiciary, not an activist one. Roe v Wade throws out two thousand years of legal tradition, and the decision follows from absolutely nowhere as far as I can tell.

the majority of Americans once believed that black people were sub-human and should not be given equal rights to white people. the majority of Americans once believed that women should not be allowed to vote or run for political office. the majority of people once believed blacks and whites should not be allowed to intermarry. all of these majority opinions were over-ruled long before the majority succumbed to reason

Actually, I really doubt that was the case ("over-ruled long before the majority succumbed to reason"). There was little support even in the South for slavery at the time of the Civil War - just read General Lee's letters.

During the civil rights movement activists forced the overturning of bad laws which had stayed through intertia, not because of majority support. I think that is pretty typical.

i don't see why. if somebody is comfortable saying that a woman has no right of claim to her own body, and that the life of a fetus can trump her freedom to choose, then why is it a stretch for them to demand that she die rather than let the fetus perish?

Because in a conflict between loss of life to one person and a gross inconvenience (or non-fatal disease if that is how you want to think about it) to another, life wins.

On the other hand, in a conflict between loss of life to one person or to another, you save the more valuable person - which is a damned harsh choice, but that's how it ends up sometime.

after all, if woman have sub-human rights and fetuses have super-human rights (which is the only way one can make abortion illegal in any situation) then a fetus' life is worth more than a woman's life, and therefore it is perfectly logical to say that a woman should die rather than allowing a fetus to die.

That is so bogus it is not even funny. "Sub-human"?!

Let's reason by analogy. If someone is lying in your driveway, you do not have the right to drive over them. Yes, they are preventing you from exercising your right to move around freely on your own property, but their right to life is more important. This is especially true if they fell unconscious there through no fault of their own, rather than trying to obstruct you. Similrarly, if someone is in your womb, you do not have the right to kill them in order to get them out, even though they are preventing you from exercising your right to do as you will with your body. There is a hierarchy or rights, and conflicts should be resolved in favor of the more important rights (assuming there is no solution which satisfies everyone's rights).

Bottle, a hypothetical question (which may not be so hypothetical in a few years). Assume we had the technology to carry a fetus of any age to term in an "artificial womb". Would you then object to a law that says that any fetus removed during an abortion must be (a) removed without harm and (b) placed in such an artificial womb? In such a situation, I'd be all in favor of completely discretionary abortion.

"Until people start having funerals for miscarriages" - this is done in many cultures, and in those it is not done it feels like something is missing (http://www.mend.org/newsletters/news_vol3iss2_content.htm, http://www.allaboutmoms.com/goodbye.htm, http://www.americancatholic.org/messenger/Jan2005/feature3.asp).

On the other hand, in many cultures, including mine until relatively recently, unborn or deadborn children weren't even allowed to be buried in cemeteries.

True. However that is best served by a traditionalist judiciary, not an activist one. Roe v Wade throws out two thousand years of legal tradition, and the decision follows from absolutely nowhere as far as I can tell.


Two thousand years?

What a curious number... where on Earth did you get that number from?

Two thousand years? What a curious number... where on Earth did you get that number from?

I suppose I should have said "at least two thousand". American common law derives from English common law (dating back to the 16th century on this particular subject) which derives from ecclesiastical law which derives from the Old Testament, basically.

Only during the first three months.

Which makes it necessary to teach girls and women to recognise a pregnancy. It is also necessary that young girls have a contact person they can trust and are able to talk to about such things.

However, there a better options than abortion.

Did anyone hear about condoms and the pill?

How about education? My 6year old niece seems to know more about where the babies come from than the average American teenager.


After three months, there is still the option to give up the child for adoption after birth. Extreme cases like sixtuplets in a 12year old should have been recognised in the first three months anyway by a knowledgeable doctor.

i don`t agree with abortion, i think it is wrong, but if the mothers life is in danger then it should be done, too many people these days use it as a form of contraception haven`t they heard of the pill or condoms they should tell the men in their lives NO GLOVE NO LOVE if the man says he doesn`t like wearing condoms then tough after all he doesn`t have to carry the baby for 9 months or give birth to it or look after the baby all the time, i am a mother of two much wanted children who have grown into lovely adults so i know what i am talking about

i don`t agree with abortion, i think it is wrong, but if the mothers life is in danger then it should be done, too many people these days use it as a form of contraception haven`t they heard of the pill or condoms they should tell the men in their lives NO GLOVE NO LOVE if the man says he doesn`t like wearing condoms then tough after all he doesn`t have to carry the baby for 9 months or give birth to it or look after the baby all the time, i am a mother of two much wanted children who have grown into lovely adults so i know what i am talking about
wait, you are a mother of GROWN CHILDREN?! please, please, please tell me that English is not your first language.

*snip*

The New Revised Standard Version is translated, not through the Greek, as your references was, but directly to English from the oldest texts available.

22 When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman’s husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine. 23If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Miscarriage = killing an embryo/fetus.

No further harm refers to the woman herself. If the woman is harmed, beyond the miscarriage, the man shall pay eye for an eye. However, if only the fetus is killed, only a fine is imposed.

Because in a conflict between loss of life to one person and a gross inconvenience (or non-fatal disease if that is how you want to think about it) to another, life wins.

but it does not, when it comes to individual ownership of one's own body, in any other legal situation. why should this be the one exception?


On the other hand, in a conflict between loss of life to one person or to another, you save the more valuable person - which is a damned harsh choice, but that's how it ends up sometime.

wow, that's a little arrogant of you, don't you think? how can you possibly know if the fetus is less important than the female? how can you possibly presume to judge the relative value of two individual human lives?


That is so bogus it is not even funny. "Sub-human"?!

well, if human women are granted lesser rights than any other human being, i would say that those are sub- human rights. to forbid a woman the right of claim to her own body, while guaranteeing that right for all other human beings, seems like a sub- human right situation to me.


Let's reason by analogy. If someone is lying in your driveway, you do not have the right to drive over them. Yes, they are preventing you from exercising your right to move around freely on your own property, but their right to life is more important. This is especially true if they fell unconscious there through no fault of their own, rather than trying to obstruct you.

yeah, but you have the right to have them removed :).

also, that's a totally irrelevant analogy, for so very many reasons. can you not see how having your physical body inhabited by another being might be slightly different than having a supine trespasser in your drive?


Similrarly, if someone is in your womb, you do not have the right to kill them in order to get them out, even though they are preventing you from exercising your right to do as you will with your body.

unless you give fetuses rights that no born human has, or you take rights away from pregnant females, yes, the woman most certainly DOES have that right.


There is a hierarchy or rights, and conflicts should be resolved in favor of the more important rights (assuming there is no solution which satisfies everyone's rights).

according to our system of law, no human being has the "right" to have their life prolonged by another human being's body. there is no conflict of "rights" in this case.


Bottle, a hypothetical question (which may not be so hypothetical in a few years). Assume we had the technology to carry a fetus of any age to term in an "artificial womb". Would you then object to a law that says that any fetus removed during an abortion must be (a) removed without harm and (b) placed in such an artificial womb? In such a situation, I'd be all in favor of completely discretionary abortion.
why would i object to that? i have no particular interest in the life or death of the fetus, since that is totally irrelevant to the situation. as long as the procedure to remove the fetus did not pose any more risk to the female's life and heath than the equivalent abortion procedure, i would have no problem with removing the fetus intact. if it did pose more risk then i would support giving the female the right to choose if she wishes to go with the riskier procedure or not, since i don't believe it is right to force a woman to undergo a more dangerous procedure when there are safer alternatives. i simply feel that the woman has the right to end her part in the gestation at any time and for any reason; where the fetus goes after she severs their relationship is unimportant to my stance on that.

True. However that is best served by a traditionalist judiciary, not an activist one. Roe v Wade throws out two thousand years of legal tradition, and the decision follows from absolutely nowhere as far as I can tell.

Prior to the 40's and 50's, first term abortions were looked down upon, but not prosecuted at all. There were all sorts of nasty procedures a midwife would perform. It was only after the medical community made it safe that there was any legal action against it whatsoever.

why would i object to that? i have no particular interest in the life or death of the fetus, since that is totally irrelevant to the situation. as long as the procedure to remove the fetus did not pose any more risk to the female's life and heath than the equivalent abortion procedure, i would have no problem with removing the fetus intact. if it did pose more risk then i would support giving the female the right to choose if she wishes to go with the riskier procedure or not, since i don't believe it is right to force a woman to undergo a more dangerous procedure when there are safer alternatives. i simply feel that the woman has the right to end her part in the gestation at any time and for any reason; where the fetus goes after she severs their relationship is unimportant to my stance on that.

And here lies the problem, Bottle. If we compare this to a situation in which another human being has been hooked up to your bloodstream, living off of your body, we run into a rather large problem. Yes, you have the right to disconnect them from your body. Absolutely. But you don't have the right to shoot them in the face or cut off their limbs to do so. Late term abortion is not a simple disconnection - it is the equivalent of a shot in the head.

And here lies the problem, Bottle. If we compare this to a situation in which another human being has been hooked up to your bloodstream, living off of your body, we run into a rather large problem. Yes, you have the right to disconnect them from your body. Absolutely. But you don't have the right to shoot them in the face or cut off their limbs to do so. Late term abortion is not a simple disconnection - it is the equivalent of a shot in the head.
given that the majority of abortions occur at a time when the fetus as a 0% chance of survival following the "disconnection," i don't see that it makes much difference if you unhook them and let them slowly perish or if you give them a shot to the head. as for the cases where the fetus is potentially viable, in America those procedures can't be performed unless the fetus is going to die anyway, so again i fail to see any reason why the manner of disconnect should be a problem. as i have said, i don't object to viable fetuses being removed intact when possible...so what's the problem?

given that the majority of abortions occur at a time when the fetus as a 0% chance of survival following the "disconnection," i don't see that it makes much difference if you unhook them and let them slowly perish or if you give them a shot to the head. as for the cases where the fetus is potentially viable, in America those procedures can't be performed unless the fetus is going to die anyway, so again i fail to see any reason why the manner of disconnect should be a problem. as i have said, i don't object to viable fetuses being removed intact when possible...so what's the problem?

Actually, you have said that you will only allow viable fetuses to be removed intact if it causes absolutely no more danger to the mother - allowing her to essentially *shoot* another in the face.

Meanwhile, the majority you speak of are not under question here. 1st term abortions do not involve another human being by any definition that doesn't include your stomach cells. We are only discussion late-term abortions here. Late-term abortions, unless they are already dead/dying, *do* have a chance at survival, but not with any of the current abortion methods. As such, such methods should only be used when there is medical justification for it - not "for any reason."

The New Revised Standard Version is translated, not through the Greek, as your references was, but directly to English from the oldest texts available.

I cited one (good) translation from Hebrew and another from Greek. The Greek is obviously a more recent base text (which is nonetheless canonical for Eastern Orthodox Christians), and it reads very differently. I'm not sure what your point is?

[QUOTE=Dempublicents]Miscarriage = killing an embryo/fetus.

You cite the New Revised Standard Version as "so that there is a miscarriage". Sorry, but that is just a bad translation, the Revised Standard sucks and the New RS is only a little better. The KJV says "so that her fruit depart from her". The American Standard says "so that her fruit depart". Young's Literal says "and her children have come out" which is an accurate rendition of the Hebrew text "yalad yatsaw". It is not miscarriage. End of story, case closed.

No further harm refers to the woman herself. If the woman is harmed, beyond the miscarriage, the man shall pay eye for an eye. However, if only the fetus is killed, only a fine is imposed.

No further harm refers to both. Read any commentary about this (Adam Clarke or John Gill). The word "harm" have to be inflected in a certain way to mean "to her". It is not, therefore it means "to both". Incidentally Hebrew law has traditionally used that interpretation.