NationStates Jolt Archive

Pro-choice =/= pro-abortion.

I think a lot of people need to get this straight. Even a lot of pro-choice people need to get this, I think. Believing a woman should have the choice to get an abortion doesn't mean you think it's a good thing or that you would ever have, advise, or perform one.

Poll to come.

Sounds a lot like something my math teacher would teach me.

*dead voice*
"And even though A = B, C =/= B because C =/= A...."

God...

But yeah I supposedly agree. It's a rather unsaid thing that probably needs to be said.

I support mandatory abortions.

Pro-choice =/= pro-abortion.

I think a lot of people need to get this straight. Even a lot of pro-choice people need to get this, I think. Believing a woman should have the choice to get an abortion doesn't mean you think it's a good thing or that you would ever have, advise, or perform one.

Poll to come.
you missed the "pro-abortion" poll option, however. MOST pro-choice people are not pro-abortion, but there are some pro-abortion folks out there who should be recognized.

for instance, i would have an abortion if i became pregnant, no matter what the situation. i believe abortion is a wonderful boon to the world. i think the world would be a better place if more women chose to have abortions. i am not in favor of forcing abortion on ANYBODY, so i still consider myself pro-choice at the most fundamental level, but i don't think it would be inaccurate to also refer to me as pro-abortion.

You can not say you are pro-choice but not pro-abortion anymore than you can say you are against the war but support the troops. :headbang:

You can not say you are pro-choice but not pro-abortion anymore than you can say you are against the war but support the troops. :headbang:
no, YOU cannot say those things, because you have a limited mind that is (apparently) not equiped to evaluate complex topics and concepts.

human adults with normal cognitive function most certainly CAN make the distinction between personally endorsing a given choice and supporting other peoples' right to make decisions regardless of your opinions on the given subject.

I don't particurlarly like abortion and think it should only be used as a last resort and personally I only would if I absolutly had to but I think every woman (and father though maybe to a lesser extent) should have that choice and not be questioned or judged.

I don't particurlarly like abortion and think it should only be used as a last resort and personally I only would if I absolutly had to but I think every woman (and father though maybe to a lesser extent) should have that choice and not be questioned or judged.
see, Celtlund?

there's a person who is clearly not pro-abortion but who supports the right to choose.

The poll neglected the option "Pro-life but would have an abortion if had an unwanted pregancy." I have quite a few republican friends and I know that that is a large demographic. Of course they only admit it when they're pregnant. Before and after they're just "Pro-life."

I'm Pro-Choice, it's the woman's body, it should be her decision. However, I don't think I could of ever had one or ever could have one.

You can not say you are pro-choice but not pro-abortion anymore than you can say you are against the war but support the troops. :headbang:
Sure you can. You are supporting the troops by wishing they were out of unnecessary harm's way. You are against the politicians that started the war. Troops =/= politicians.

Im pro choice but personally am not too fond of it

The poll neglected the option "Pro-life but would have an abortion if had an unwanted pregancy." I have quite a few republican friends and I know that that is a large demographic. Of course they only admit it when they're pregnant.
That's not a real position on the issue. That's just hypocrisy.

you missed the "pro-abortion" poll option.

that's what i meant by the first one

Silence helps the oppressors, never the oppressed.

Tell me this, if you think abortion is wrong and you think people shouldn't get them, then why do you think they should have the choice to?

Silence helps the oppressors, never the oppressed.

Tell me this, if you think abortion is wrong and you think people shouldn't get them, then why do you think they should have the choice to?

Because I'm not them, and I don't go sticking my fat Italian ass in other people's private decisions.

Pro-choice =/= pro-abortion.

I think a lot of people need to get this straight. Even a lot of pro-choice people need to get this, I think. Believing a woman should have the choice to get an abortion doesn't mean you think it's a good thing or that you would ever have, advise, or perform one.

Poll to come.

You summed everything up quite well and I agree with you. I salute you ma'am.

You do understand however that the second that Commando2, jesussaves, Servus Dei, or VoteEarly gets a wiff of this they'll trounce in and bury you in "you're going to hell!" right?

Pro-choice, iffy on abortion.

Being male, the idea is slightly less of a concern for me, since i'm not the one on the table in either circumstance. However, if a woman in my life were to decide to get an abortion, I would fully support her. If they don't, I'll still support her. I see no reason why a woman should not have the right to decide for herself what to do with her own child.

Three things:

1. Please replace "pro-life" by "against abortion". I'm sick of seeing people saying they are pro-life as well as pro-death penalty, pro-war, pro-meateating, pro-fur wearing etc. Let them make up their minds.

2. I still wonder why everyone gets worked up about abortion, while noone bothers with medically assisted pregnancy which generally kills more fetuses.

3. To say a certain action harms someone you must be able to compare it with a previous situation. E.g.: I have 1000 dollars. You rob 500. I now have less than before, therefor I was harmed. So tell me.. I abort a baby... how have I harmed it, since there was no previous situation ?

3. To say a certain action harms someone you must be able to compare it with a previous situation. E.g.: I have 1000 dollars. You rob 500. I now have less than before, therefor I was harmed. So tell me.. I abort a baby... how have I harmed it, since there was no previous situation ?

I believe it would depend on whether the "fetus" were able to survive outside of the Womb on it's own, wouldn't it?

If you are "taking" a Right to "live" from something isn't that murder?

Just because it wasn’t "alive" before it was taken from the Womb doesn't mean it couldn't, does it? I mean, we have premature "Births" all of the time and a good many of them are able to live before they are considered "Babies", right?

So perhaps you could tell me when YOU believe the BABY has EARNED the Right to Life?

By the way, I support a woman’s Right to choose. There just comes a point when they no longer have that Right, in my mind, and it comes at the beginning of or sometime soon after the third trimester begins, again in my mind.

A woman does not have a Right to "choose" up until the date of the Birth, do they? I believe there has to be a "sensible" line drawn...

Regards,
Gaar

How about a new definition of Pro-life? (Or at least a new option on the poll.) As in: Favouring the course of action which results in the preservation of the most life, as such allowing for abortions if the mother's life is in danger.

You can not say you are pro-choice but not pro-abortion anymore than you can say you are against the war but support the troops. :headbang:


i would not have an abortion.

that is my decision

my decision has no bearing on the actions of anyone but me.

this means that i will not stand in the way of someone who wants one, even though i am personally agains it.


as for supporting the troops:

you want them in iraq, getting shot at.

i want them home, with their families, alive.

who's more supportive?

that's what i thought

Pro-choice is the only sensical opinion.

I am pro-choice, and would get an abortion myself if a certain situation did indeed arise – and obviously it never will, as I am male. None the less, I fully support a woman’s right to choose, at least during the first trimester (and possibly through the early parts of the second)- her right's far outweigh those of an undeveloped clump of cells.

As a Communist and a supporter of the feminist movement I strongly support abortion in all circumstances and I believe it is essential for the continued advancement of women's rights that they have complete control over their own bodies. The reactionary right wing bigots and male chauvinists who oppose abortion would like to see a society where women are treated as second class citizens and all progressive people must unite to ensure that this is not the case and that the fight for complete equality between both sexes is won as soon as possible.

I believe it would depend on whether the "fetus" were able to survive outside of the Womb on it's own, wouldn't it?

I would agree with you. Though the point of viability isn’t so easy to determine, and varies in individual cases. Some pre-mature babies, for example, require life-support when they are first born. Though I suppose the counter-argument is that once born, a baby is no longer part of its mothers' body and thus cannot be 'aborted'.

If you are "taking" a Right to "live" from something isn't that murder?

Only a person can be murdered.

That is true.
And it's not like people who would have an abortion in certain situation, like me for example, think abortions are a barrel of laughs either...

Just thought I'd point that out.

Because I'm not them, and I don't go sticking my fat Italian ass in other people's private decisions.

It's not a private decision. BTW, if you actually read the court opinion in Roe v. Wade, they say that it's not entirely a private decision.

Let me ask you this:

Is surgery a private decision?

Yeah, it is.

But you have to get parents approval if you're a minor, spousal approval is expected, doctors have to be specially certified...I could go on and on, but you get the idea.

So the government is allowed to "stick its ass" in the business of surgery, but not abortion, which is, essentially, surgery?

Did you know that a girl can get an abortion without even telling her parents that she was ever pregnant? I can't miss one frigging day of school without getting a note signed by my parents.

Let me ask you this:

Is surgery a private decision?

Yeah, it is.

But you have to get parents approval if you're a minor, spousal approval is expected, doctors have to be specially certified...I could go on and on, but you get the idea.

So the government is allowed to "stick its ass" in the business of surgery, but not abortion, which is, essentially, surgery?

Did you know that a girl can get an abortion without even telling her parents that she was ever pregnant? I can't miss one frigging day of school without getting a note signed by my parents.

So what you are saying, then, is that you are for abortion, but you want to see stricter rules governing its availability?

Silence helps the oppressors, never the oppressed.

Tell me this, if you think abortion is wrong and you think people shouldn't get them, then why do you think they should have the choice to?

In the same way that I think that Big Brother is wrong, and that I think it never should have been thought up, yet I think that people have the right to watch and participate in it.

But you have to get parents approval if you're a minor, spousal approval is expected, doctors have to be specially certified...I could go on and on, but you get the idea.
Do you have to get parental approval? Because I though doctors make most of their decisions based on competence, not on age directly. And that's how it should be. If there is a requirement about age and parents, it's purely legalistic, not practical or related to the "surgery" itself.
Spousal approval is expected? wtf?
And well duh, doctors have to be certified. The doctors that perform abortions are... You must be confusing them with the backyard practitioners that spring up when abortions are RESTRICTED.

Did you know that a girl can get an abortion without even telling her parents that she was ever pregnant? I can't miss one frigging day of school without getting a note signed by my parents. You know why that is? It's part of the oath that doctors take. (It's not quite the original Hippocratic...) They must cause less harm than good. Do you know how much stigma a teen pregnancy causes? How much disruption of life. What if her parents are anti-abortion?

I'm sorry, if she's old enough to be having consensual sex, she's old enough to be having an abortion if needs be.

(I realise that sounds awfully abortion happy. I mean, ideally nobody would have to have a pregnancy terminated, but it's an unpleasant reality. Deal with it.)

Edit: 'More good than harm' is probably a better way to put that whole oath thing. :)

So what you are saying, then, is that you are for abortion, but you want to see stricter rules governing its availability?
No, but that would be a start.

I was just pointing out the ludicracy of the pro-choice people. It's harder to get a nose-job than it is to get an abortion. That's just messed up.

It's harder to get a nose-job than it is to get an abortion. That's just messed up.

Not getting a nose job is HARDLY going to screw up your life forever. (unless you have body dysmorphia and kill yourself...)

And you can WAIT for a nosejob. An abortion needs to be done in a certain timeframe.

No, but that would be a start.

I was just pointing out the ludicracy of the pro-choice people. It's harder to get a nose-job than it is to get an abortion. That's just messed up.

Well then your analogy is irrelevant. You aren't arguing for stricter regulations. You're arguing for an out and out ban. It's one thing to make something safer and more efficient; it's an entirely different thing to try to eliminate it completely because you disagree with it.

Just a note… abortion laws vary from country to country.

Do you have to get parental approval? Because I though doctors make most of their decisions based on competence, not on age directly. And that's how it should be. If there is a requirement about age and parents, it's purely legalistic, not practical or related to the "surgery" itself.
In America, if you are under 18, you must have signed parental approval before any surgery.

Spousal approval is expected? wtf?
Yes. They don't make you, but it's understood and assumed that your spouse knows about the surgery.

And well duh, doctors have to be certified. The doctors that perform abortions are... You must be confusing them with the backyard practitioners that spring up when abortions are RESTRICTED.
A heart surgen must be certified in heart surgery. A brain surgen must be certified in brain surgery.

A doctor giving an abortion only has to be a doctor. No training is required for an abortion other than standard medical training.

You know why that is? It's part of the oath that doctors take. (It's not quite the original Hippocratic...) They must cause less harm than good. Do you know how much stigma a teen pregnancy causes?
Actually, I do, because I have a close friend who's pregnant right now. She also lives in a messed-up home, and her parents aren't supporting her much at all. They're hardly giving her a place to live.
Do you have any idea how much stigma getting an abortion can cause? Lot more than being pregnant.

How much disruption of life. What if her parents are anti-abortion?
Emmancipation. Adoption. Hell, the court could even allow her to go around her parents. But to not have to tell them at all? That's messed up. Like I said, I can't miss school without telling my parents...Yet you'd allow someone to get a major operation and possible emotional trauma without even telling the parents that she's pregant?

I'm sorry, if she's old enough to be having consensual sex, she's old enough to be having an abortion if needs be.
And if she wasn't old enough to have consensual sex? Plenty of teenagers think they're old enough.

(I realise that sounds awfully abortion happy. I mean, ideally nobody would have to have a pregnancy terminated, but it's an unpleasant reality. Deal with it.)
Ideally, people could have sex whenever they wanted. But people get pregnant. It's an unpleasant reality. Deal with it.

A heart surgen must be certified in heart surgery. A brain surgen must be certified in brain surgery.

A doctor giving an abortion only has to be a doctor. No training is required for an abortion other than standard medical training.

Well, when I finish my medical degree I will have a degree in SURGERY too. It's not specialist surgery, but you can perform smaller operations. I'm assuming that's where this falls. So don't you go and try to prove that the doctors are unqualified or whatever.

Actually, I do, because I have a close friend who's pregnant right now. She also lives in a messed-up home, and her parents aren't supporting her much at all. They're hardly giving her a place to live.
Do you have any idea how much stigma getting an abortion can cause? Lot more than being pregnant.
So having her parents giving her shit is better than her having an abortion?

And the stigma is only because of people like you! If people accepted a woman's choice there would be NO stigma. Talk about circular logic.

Emmancipation. Adoption. Hell, the court could even allow her to go around her parents. But to not have to tell them at all? That's messed up. Like I said, I can't miss school without telling my parents...Yet you'd allow someone to get a major operation and possible emotional trauma without even telling the parents that she's pregant?
Firstly, abortion is one of the safer surgeries you can have - day surgery in most cases. And if telling her parents causes more harm than good, then yes, I would rather she didn't tell them. She can telll them when she's older and they can't go crazy about it. You seem to not understand the concept of non-harm.


Ideally, people could have sex whenever they wanted. But people get pregnant. It's an unpleasant reality. Deal with it. I am, in a way that I believe causes the last harm. Maybe you should have to deal with an unwanted pregnancy, or one that could kill you, or will result in a child that dies within a few days/weeks and lives in terrible suffering. Then come back and try to ban abortion.

So tell me.. I abort a baby... how have I harmed it, since there was no previous situation ?

Can't beleive you said that. It was alive and now it is dead. You killed it, that is how you "harmed it." :(

New Zealand needs to adopt a more US-approach to the abortion law. Right now, a woman can only get an abortion once two certified consultants have agreed that her mental or physical health is at risk, and in cases of rape or incest.

I am, in a way that I believe causes the last harm. Maybe you should have to deal with an unwanted pregnancy, or one that could kill you, or will result in a child that dies within a few days/weeks and lives in terrible suffering. Then come back and try to ban abortion.

Indeed.

:headbang: Whether or not one is pro-choice, one need not believe that abortion is moral or believe one would have an abortion. One need only respect an individual's right to control her own body (or any number of other rights).

Whether or not one believes abortion is morally acceptable, one need to be "pro-abortion" in the sense that one believes abortion is good.

Other than devil's advocates, you'll find few, if any, who are pro-abortion.

BTW, almost half of all women have an abortion sometime in their life.

At a minimum, the following a different things:


Whether or not you believe a person has a right to control her own body and therefore has a right to choose abortion
Whether or not one believes abortion is immoral, unethical, wrong, etc.
Whether or not one believes abortion is a good thing (perhaps for population control)
Whether or not one's view of the morality of abortion changes with the length of the pregancy
Whether or not one has had an abortion
Whether or not one believes one would choose to have an abortion under ordinary circumstances
Whether or not one believes one would have an abortion under extraordinary circumstances
Whether or not one would actually have an abortion under either ordinary or extraordinary circumstances
Whether or not one respects another individual's ability to determine if abortion is the best alternative under that individual's circumstnaces


Note, I haven't even touched on the variety of beliefs about when or if a fetus, zygote, etc., is a human life and/or merits ethical consideration prior to birth.

Pro-choice =/= pro-abortion.

I think a lot of people need to get this straight. Even a lot of pro-choice people need to get this, I think. Believing a woman should have the choice to get an abortion doesn't mean you think it's a good thing or that you would ever have, advise, or perform one.

Poll to come.
Actually, Pro choice ~ Proabortion. THere's a difference.

New Zealand needs to adopt a more US-approach to the abortion law. Right now, a woman can only get an abortion once two certified consultants have agreed that her mental or physical health is at risk, and in cases of rape or incest.

The NZ approach sounds a lot better to me. Maybe the US should adopt your laws.

i think you should only get one if you got raped or some thing like that oher wize i am prolife :mp5:

The NZ approach sounds a lot better to me. Maybe the US should adopt your laws.

The NZ approach is based on the UK approach, and in actuality both laws are easily 'abused'.

no, YOU cannot say those things, because you have a limited mind that is (apparently) not equiped to evaluate complex topics and concepts.

human adults with normal cognitive function most certainly CAN make the distinction between personally endorsing a given choice and supporting other peoples' right to make decisions regardless of your opinions on the given subject.

Well if you take his statement in its entirety then he's quite correct. You can't say you're pro-choice but anti abortion anymore than you can say that you're against the war but support the troops.

To say that you're against the war but you support the troops means that you simply want them to come home safe as quickly as possible. That's not a lack of support, and so there's no contradiction.

To say that you don't like the idea of abortion but realize that the effects on society as a whole will be worse than the relative handful of abortions that do occur under safe and legal conditions. Especially if you favor programs that will cut down on abortions like economic reforms that will help money pool at the bottome instead of having it pool at the top and trying to keep faith that rich people will spend more when it's already prooven that they don't.

The people who have to account for the appearant contradictions on both issues are the republicans who favor candidates that both oppose abortions and favor the economic conditions that encourage them. Also, the people who say that supporting troops means trying to see to it that they keep getting their arms and legs blown off. And what exactly does "support" mean? Do you write them letters and send them the stuff that the government isn't providing them like coffee and beer and body armor? Didn't think so. "Support" to you probably just means voting republican and sending them off to die.

Point being you can't accuse pro-choice people of being pro-abortion anymore than you can claim that you can support the war AND the troops.

I'm pro-choice in the sense that i believe all women should be able to decide for themselves whether or not to have one. I just don't know if i ever would. I can't say for sure i wouldn't though because i have never been in a situation where i have had to make that decision. If i was raped or something, i might not want to carry a baby to term.

That's not a real position on the issue. That's just hypocrisy.

Yes, but that's a very common position from the religious right and those who seek to profit from their insane stigmatizing. Like when Newt Gingrich's sucessor criticized Bill Clinton for cheating on his wife and then it turned out he cheated on his. Or the reporter for "Talon News" who favored the anti gay "pro family" agenda of the Bush administration to the point that he was almost willing to fellate Bush on the spot. Then it turned out he was a gay prostitute.

Most avidly anti choice people are the first to avail themselves of that choice when they need it themselves. That's why you see so few "don't kill your baby, give it to me" groups.

tell me, if i was to go and kill a handicapped person who was essentially a vegatable would you consider this morally correct? if i was to go and kill a child of 1 month old would you consider that morally correct? life isn't considered sentient until it can percieve itself, and babies of 1 month old consider themselves as an extension of their mother, in essense they are no different than a feotus, so using the same theories as most of the pro-abortion posters in this topic, it's ok to kill babies... only that's quite clearly not right and nor is having an abortion! abortions need to be stopped completely because it is essentially murder. end of the day if you don't want children don't get pregnant! if people couldn't chuck their problems away so easily the world would be a better place.

So what you are saying, then, is that you are for abortion, but you want to see stricter rules governing its availability?

Maybe he's saying he wants it to be easier for him to skip school?

Personally, I have no business telling a person what they can and can not do.

tell me, if i was to go and kill a handicapped person who was essentially a vegatable would you consider this morally correct? if i was to go and kill a child of 1 month old would you consider that morally correct? life isn't considered sentient until it can percieve itself, and babies of 1 month old consider themselves as an extension of their mother, in essense they are no different than a feotus, so using the same theories as most of the pro-abortion posters in this topic, it's ok to kill babies... only that's quite clearly not right and nor is having an abortion! abortions need to be stopped completely because it is essentially murder. end of the day if you don't want children don't get pregnant! if people couldn't chuck their problems away so easily the world would be a better place.

Well all of the same metabolic proceces that go on in a zygote also go on in unfertalized eggs in the generation of polar bodies. By your logic menstruation should be considered murder.

See? Making up stupid scenarios and then slotting your opponents position into the linguisticly convenient slots isn't really an argument.

It's as stupid as those people who call abortion a holocaust because actual genocides classify an entire group of people as undesierable and then kills them and the practice of abortion kills of the entire population off "fetuses that have been aborted." It's a colorless green idea. The sentence sounds like it should mean something, but it really doesn't and the only people who think otherwise are those people who understand so little in the world that they've become comfotable with the idea of letting other people do their thinking for them.

I do agree with it because I wouldn't want a child to be born because the mother was a whore or something :fluffle:

There seems to be several posts about abortion lately, i posted on one earlier today and i'll say the same thing here. I believe in the right to choose, however, i believe it should only be if the mother or child's life is on danger or if someone was raped. I personaly would never have one under any circumstance because the thought disgusts me, but i think under extreme circumstances it should be an option.

yet an unfertilized egg isn't an organism and never will be, it lacks severly key factors that would classify it as a lifeform and that's pretty much clear. if you wish to try and justify your believes go ahead, and but don't use a bunch of fancy words and lies to do so.

tell me, if i was to go and kill a handicapped person who was essentially a vegatable would you consider this morally correct? if i was to go and kill a child of 1 month old would you consider that morally correct? life isn't considered sentient until it can percieve itself, and babies of 1 month old consider themselves as an extension of their mother, in essense they are no different than a feotus, so using the same theories as most of the pro-abortion posters in this topic, it's ok to kill babies... only that's quite clearly not right and nor is having an abortion! abortions need to be stopped completely because it is essentially murder. end of the day if you don't want children don't get pregnant! if people couldn't chuck their problems away so easily the world would be a better place.

You should be aware that there are different stages of pregnancy. Most abortions are carried out in the first trimester, when the 'baby' is a mere clump of cells - you cannot compare the embryo to the life of a 1 month old child.

so if the mother might die, yet the baby might live you'd condemn the baby to death just because the mother wishes to live? surely she should be the last person who decides since she obviously has a conflict of interest.

so if the mother might die, yet the baby might live you'd condemn the baby to death just because the mother wishes to live? surely she should be the last person who decides since she obviously has a conflict of interest.

Sorry?

Serdica, we're obviously not going to agree, but no, i would never kill a handicapped person, or a one month old baby, or any fully developed, independent human being. Unless they were sound enough of mind to request euthanasia for a terminal illness or something. I don't believe that a fetus in the early stages of pregnancy is an independent, human entity, so to me, there is a difference. A one month old child might prefer its mother, and one might argue it needs her for emotional strength. For sheer physical survival though, it only needs a responsible adult who is willing to feed it, clothe it, and put a roof over its head. A fetus in the early stages of pregnancy though, literally can't survive on its own. I don't believe in late term abortion, unless the mother's life is in danger, because once a child can survive on its own outside the womb, it is an independent being, at least to me.

yet a 1 month year old baby like i have said, and no concept of self, no individuality, yet has future potentail to develop into one, just like a feotus has. so seriously where is the difference? it's ok saying there is a difference but it's not ok if you don't back up your statements.

so your saying if i took a baby, stripped it of all human and animal contact, and placed it in a field on its own, it would survive *because it is independant*? like i have already stated. babies veiw themselves as an extension of their mother. so where is the invididuality and independance you talk about?

yet a 1 month year old baby like i have said, and no concept of self, no individuality, yet has future potentail to develop into one, just like a feotus has. so seriously where is the difference? it's ok saying there is a difference but it's not ok if you don't back up your statements.

Do you have a problem with abortions carried out during the first three months of pregnancy? That is, when the undeveloped child is classed as an embryo and not a fetus?

Silence helps the oppressors, never the oppressed.

Tell me this, if you think abortion is wrong and you think people shouldn't get them, then why do you think they should have the choice to?
There is a difference between thinking abortion is wrong and that people shouldn't get them, and thinking that you personally wouldn't want to have an abortion for whatever reason.

Personally, I would never recommend to anyone to have an abortion unless it endangered the mother in some way, and would even encourage my own girlfriend to keep a child conceived out of rape were such a thing to happen to her and raise the child as my own, but I would never condemn a girl who chose to get one, even "out of convenience" as some would label it. I would, however, question a girl who could have multiple abortions like it was no big deal. I also believe that the decision to abort should be made within the first trimester or as soon as the pregnancy is discovered, but that after that point, you shouldn't be able to go back and say "Oh, I changed my mind, I don't want it after all" and should only be able to do so if complications arise.
tell me, if i was to go and kill a handicapped person who was essentially a vegatable would you consider this morally correct? if i was to go and kill a child of 1 month old would you consider that morally correct? life isn't considered sentient until it can percieve itself, and babies of 1 month old consider themselves as an extension of their mother, in essense they are no different than a feotus, so using the same theories as most of the pro-abortion posters in this topic, it's ok to kill babies... only that's quite clearly not right and nor is having an abortion! abortions need to be stopped completely because it is essentially murder. end of the day if you don't want children don't get pregnant! if people couldn't chuck their problems away so easily the world would be a better place.
If people couldn't chuck their problems away so easily, they'd find a messier, less sanitary, and more dangerous way to do so, and the world would be a much uglier place... As for the rest of your absurdity, the difference between a fetus and a 1 month old is that a fetus is a part of a woman's body, a baby is no longer connected to her by the umbilical chord, and us thus no longer an extension of their mother. Hell, ten year old wouldn't be able to last long without a parent figure around for support, so why stop at 1 month?

And simply saying abortion is a way to "chuck their problems away" is quite inaccurate, because having an abortion is rarely a consequence-free solution, and I have a friend who's girlfriend chose to have an abortion, he supported it, and it turned out to be the worst decision they could have made, she hates him for it, and they both have serious emotional problems over it. There is nothing easy about the issue of abortion.

No, i don't think a one month old child could survive without any human contact. When i said independent, i meant that it has the ability to think, as primitive as that thought process would be, and it has the ability to feel. It has some awareness about the world. I don't think a fetus in the early stages of pregnancy does. This is just my opinion though, as i said, i have never tried to pass it off as fact.

i agree with any type of abortion accept for aborting say, a clump of cancerous cells that doesn't actually constitute life. babies like feotuses are very mentally undeveloped. infact all of their behaviour and respones are innate ones. just like your pupil's dilating when the light changes. a baby is no more an individual than a feotus. this doesn't mean its ok to kill babies.

*disagree

Personally, I wouldn't consider having an abortion unless there was a good chance that carrying the baby to term would kill me, or if it had a serious disease/deformity that would cause it and me a great deal of pain.

I don't like the idea of abortion, and the arguements often used by the pro-choice make my skin crawl.

However, I cannot in good conscience support (even theoretically) banning or restricting the availability of abortions now or in the near future. There is too much stigma attached to teen pregnancies and single mothers, too little (financial) support for young women trying to raise children on their own, and the chances of a child put up for adoption going straight into a suitable loving environment are just not good enough.

In my opinion, the debate about whether abortion is morally acceptable is irrelevant, because banning it is definitely not. So I guess I'm pro-choice but personally against.

i still don't quite understand what your trying to say. you disagree unless it dangers the mother? isn't that the exact same way as saying it's ok to murder one individual to save another? and that i'm allowed to make this decision on behalf of the individual who cannot represent themselves.

also i'm not trying to start a stupid little forum war here, im here for serious conversation. simply dismissing my veiws as absurd is completely odd since you give no reason for them being absurd.

so the loss of an umbilicle cord makes you an individual? so it's ok for me to kill a baby if it has been born but is still connected to its mother with the cord??

In my opinion, the debate about whether abortion is morally acceptable is irrelevant, because banning it is definitely not.

Agreed.

so your quoting financial reasons to keep it? do you also agree with the way chinese parents often murder or dump their new born daughters because they are no good on a farm and they are hence a financail burden?

so if the mother might die, yet the baby might live you'd condemn the baby to death just because the mother wishes to live? surely she should be the last person who decides since she obviously has a conflict of interest.
So, a human being who has friends, a family, and years of emotional bonds built up to said friends and family is less worthy of life than a fetus who hasn't even freed itself of parasite status? That's sad...
so your saying if i took a baby, stripped it of all human and animal contact, and placed it in a field on its own, it would survive *because it is independant*? like i have already stated. babies veiw themselves as an extension of their mother. so where is the invididuality and independance you talk about?
Who's to say babies view themselves as anything, let alone an extension of their mother? Wouldn't that require a concept of self, which you claim they do not have?

that is exactly the point, my arm doesn't look at itself as an arm and it certainly isn't independant. which i prick it, it jerks away. when i burn it it hurts. yet it doesnt have the mental capacity to be an individual, very much like a baby.

I don't know who you are addressing with the absurd comment, but i never said your opinion is absurd, and i don't think it is, i just disagree with it. If something about my posts made you think i was ridiculing you, than i'm sorry, it wasn't my intention.

I don't think it is the loss of the umbilical cord that makes one a sentient life, i think it is the months of development in the womb. In the first month or two of pregnancy it has not even become a fetus, it is an embryo. At that stage, i don't think it has the ability to feel anything. It doesn't have a brain capable of any sort of stimulus, a heart that can beat on its own, it can't even breathe on its own. At some point though, when the baby is developed enough to be viable outside the womb, it does have those things. I also think if a person has been declared brain dead, people should be able to pull the plug, because i think at that point they cease being truly human.

We can go around and around in circles about this, nothing is going to change.

Your arm though wouldn't hurt if it wasn't attached to your body. The only reason it does is because your brain is sending signals that it feels pain. A baby, once it is viable outside the womb, may not have a sense of self yet, but it still feels pain, it still cries, it still laughs. It feels many things that adult humans do, even when alone. I see a fetus, an embryo, like an arm, with almost no human characteristics. A baby i see as a hell of a lot more human.

so your quoting financial reasons to keep it? do you also agree with the way chinese parents often murder or dump their new born daughters because they are no good on a farm and they are hence a financail burden?

Was that directed at me?

The lack of financial support for pregnant women who cannot afford to support a child is merely one of a number of things that convince me that banning abortion is not currently an option.

Would you like millions of extra unwanted children to be born into poverty? And spend their life believing they are the cause?

No, I don't approve of murder. I don't approve of eating chicken sandwhiches either.

so your arguement against an embyro not being a sentient lifeform is the fact that it doesn't have a heart or brain. so if a baby was born, but without medical attention it would die, is it really a lifeform? with modern technology it certainlly wouldn't be viable. you arguement is like saying... well this baby is missing gene #26 on chromosome 5, so it's not a lifeform. as for a babies, they aren't capable of *any* sort of simulus they merely react to environmental stimulus. a baby's brain can be compared to an artificial intelligence. yet that doesn't make a robotical bug, that has been programmed to react to stimuli a lifeform.

yet there is no difference between killing a baby for financial gain and having an abortion for financial gain. we wouldnt want some poor chinese girl thinking she was the reason that her parents were poor now would we?

that is exactly the point, my arm doesn't look at itself as an arm and it certainly isn't independant. which i prick it, it jerks away. when i burn it it hurts. yet it doesnt have the mental capacity to be an individual, very much like a baby.
And yet, you'd still argue that if there was a chance that the arm could live, we should let the person die to save the arm?

yet a baby crying is merely a programmed innate response to certain stimuli. they aren't crying because they feel hurt. they are crying because they are reacting to a stimuli and that is why although they may seem to have a lot more mentally than an embryo, they infact do not.

i mean seriously, let the women do 2 her body whut she wants 2 do. If her life's in danger if she has the baby or was raped she should have every right 2 an abortion. The government needs 2 stay out of a women's body.
But with President Bush :( he'll will pack the courts with right-wing nutheads and women will no longer have basic privacy rights.
g-d why did we elect this stupid cowboy from texas?

i used the arm as an analogy, the arm however has no future potentail to develop into an individual. my point is, a baby inherently is no different than an embryo so how can you justify killing one instead of the other?

Animals don't have a sense of self either, the way humans do, but i don't believe in killing them. I don't think they know what pain is, but i still think they feel it, and they suffer because of it. A baby may only react to environmental stimulus, but they still feel pain, and if you killed one, or let it die because you refused to put it on a ventilator, it would suffer. I don't think a fetus would. Babies aren't brain dead, regardless of what their reactions are, they are still reactions, their brains still react. If a doctor told a couple that their baby would never breathe on their own, would have to live on a ventilator for how ever long its life was, then yes, i think they would have the right to turn off the ventilator. Healthy babies are not the same as that.

so your arguement against an embyro not being a sentient lifeform is the fact that it doesn't have a heart or brain. so if a baby was born, but without medical attention it would die, is it really a lifeform? with modern technology it certainlly wouldn't be viable. you arguement is like saying... well this baby is missing gene #26 on chromosome 5, so it's not a lifeform. as for a babies, they aren't capable of *any* sort of simulus they merely react to environmental stimulus. a baby's brain can be compared to an artificial intelligence. yet that doesn't make a robotical bug, that has been programmed to react to stimuli a lifeform.

Hold on. Nobody is denying that it's a lifeform (well, not with out looking like a fool). The question is, can we consider the fetus to be a 'person'? To be protected under the same laws that you and I are.

i mean seriously, let the women do 2 her body whut she wants 2 do. If her life's in danger if she has the baby or was raped she should have every right 2 an abortion. The government needs 2 stay out of a women's body.
But with President Bush :( he'll will pack the courts with right-wing nutheads and women will no longer have basic privacy rights.
g-d why did we elect this stupid cowboy from texas?
Because people are stupid and selfish, and Bush caters to the lowest common denominator. I liked all the people who considered Bush their personal hero because he was brave enough to go against gay marriage, despite 51% of the country being against it... The way they talked, it's like they thought an overwhelming majority was for it.

Serdica, I think you misunderstand my position. If I thought that banning abortion would not have widespread negative consequences, then I would be much more hesitant about my stance on the subject. I don't know what the situation is in China, so if you want to discuss the issue with me further you will have to use a different analogy.

Erezt, i agree the governemnt should keep the hell away from a woman body. but the same applies to pregnant females having abortions. it's not their life they are playing with or ending. it's not their body they are killing. they should stay the hell away from it if they only have the evilest of intentions.

It's rather difficult to stay away from something growing inside of you and not have it affect your life...

I also can't help but question how much you can value human life if you believe someone who would kill you, intentionally or not, is more deserving of life than you are...

banning abortions would not have widespread repurcussions. just look up history, abortions didn't bring on a golden age because suddenly there was less crime, and society moved forward. in fact, in the past hundred years society has moved backwards for the majority.

The biggest problem with making abortions illegal is that it won't stop them from happening. Instead they would just be back alley ones, that often leave women to bleed to death or leave them infertile. Which is exactly what happened when they were illegal. Regardless of what side of the abortion debate we fall on, i think most of us can agree that we don't want that to happen to people.

Does a woman desserve much of anything if she's going to be a murderer? What sort of rights should someone have if they want an abortion? If you're going to argue about the government staying out of a womans body and her decisions about it, how about thinking the woman should consider who else she's letting into her body. Willingly having sex and getting pregnant and then killing a child should not be allowed and giving those rights to women (even those who are in fininacial or have been raped situations) it allows them to get away with it.

and it's difficult for a morally minded person to let someone murder under any circumstances, especailly however when it is planned and the only reason is for convienience.

planned, cruel, malicious <--- sounds like a regular comic book villian

It has just occured to me. If we compare the undeveloped fetus to a fully developed person, can we compare Serdica to a lifeless corpse?

banning abortions would not have widespread repurcussions. just look up history, abortions didn't bring on a golden age because suddenly there was less crime, and society moved forward. in fact, in the past hundred years society has moved backwards for the majority.
And how is forcing women to abort illegally a good thing prey tell? Banning abortions doesn't make abortions go away I hope you realize...

when someone dies, their brain sends a kill signal, telling all the cells in their body to die. so hence forth, no i am not a lifeless corpse.

and ranger... do i want that to happen? what happens when you steal something, you get put into jail. what happens when you kill someone, you get put into jail. i'm seeing action/consequence here. if someone goes to a back alley doctor then yes they deserve to have something horrible happen to them.

Does a woman desserve much of anything if she's going to be a murderer? What sort of rights should someone have if they want an abortion? If you're going to argue about the government staying out of a womans body and her decisions about it, how about thinking the woman should consider who else she's letting into her body. Willingly having sex and getting pregnant and then killing a child should not be allowed and giving those rights to women (even those who are in fininacial or have been raped situations) it allows them to get away with it.

You must understand that the whole argument falls around whether or not an embryo or fetus can be classed as a 'person'. If it's a person then it is entitled to the same rights as you and I... but if it isn't a person, then killing it isn't murder.

many class-A drugs are banned and for good reason. you get some idiots going around drugged up raping people and killing people or maybe they get behind a car and run someone over... but wait a minute, they get their drugs for a backstreet dealer who maybe giving them drugs with impurities. this must stop! let us give out free clean drugs to everyone!! how about not? it would be morally corrupt. murderers shouldn't recieve support for their misgivings

when someone dies, their brain sends a kill signal, telling all the cells in their body to die. so hence forth, no i am not a lifeless corpse.

The logic of comparing a clump of cells to a 1 month old baby would suggest otherwise.

so your saying because someone isn't lawfully a *person* that it isn't murder? so if america's constitution and laws were re-written to classify all hawaiians are non-people it would be ok to kill them?

jrv, once you have learnt anything about phycology and physicology come back to the forum. until them talk about things you know about...

Serdica, the one thing i will agree with you on is that if a person thinks that abortion is murder, than obviously they will never be okay with it. If you have that position, it would be hard to just agree to disagree, which is normally why i don't debate as much in most abortion threads as i have in this one. I don't think a fetus is a human, most pro-lifers do. Since i don't believe the opposition are a bunch of murderers, i guess it's easier for me to resign myself to the opposing point of view, which, believe it or not, i do respect.

many class-A drugs are banned and for good reason. you get some idiots going around drugged up raping people and killing people or maybe they get behind a car and run someone over... but wait a minute, they get their drugs for a backstreet dealer who maybe giving them drugs with impurities. this must stop! let us give out free clean drugs to everyone!! how about not? it would be morally corrupt. murderers shouldn't recieve support for their misgivings
Meanwhile, a lucrative blackmarket springs up and people are now willing to kill over the right to make such a profit and not be caught doing so, doing nothing to stop the problem of people using drugs, and causing even more people to be hurt and killed because of them... Yeah, such wonderful solution that was :rolleyes:

And who has the right to determine what is and isn't a person? There are so many cases in which people in heirachy say *do this do that, kill these people they are nothing...*

Well i think drugs should be legalized too, but that is a debate for a different day which i won't delve in too deeply here.

giving people a slap on the wrist and sending them to rehabilitation makes the problem worse. people don't get drugs forced down their throat. they choose to take them. if you can't work in society, then you shouldnt be a part of it.

and along the lines of embryo's not legally being classed people, i guess it sucks for all them jews. cos obviously your suggesting that hitler was morally correct in his crusade.

so your saying because someone isn't lawfully a *person* that it isn't murder? so if america's constitution and laws were re-written to classify all hawaiians are non-people it would be ok to kill them?

Tell me, can you be charged with murdering a tree? Or with murdering a frog?

A fetus has the potential to survive and be a *person* a human being. So though it may not be concious as to anything what so ever, it is still murder. That's like killing someone in their sleep, they won't know who did it or when it was happening, but its still death. I don't understand the difference here.

so your suggesting that a tree and frog are on the same level as a human beind? time to go out on a killing spree... hehehehehehe... uh wait. how about not!

I am against abortion but for killing babies. :headbang:

jrv, once you have learnt anything about phycology and physicology come back to the forum. until them talk about things you know about...

Lemme know when 'phycology' becomes a science...

*being

Are you adding that ridiculous remark because it wasnt spelled correctly or because you really don't think they're reliable sciences...

giving people a slap on the wrist and sending them to rehabilitation makes the problem worse. people don't get drugs forced down their throat. they choose to take them. if you can't work in society, then you shouldnt be a part of it.

and along the lines of embryo's not legally being classed people, i guess it sucks for all them jews. cos obviously your suggesting that hitler was morally correct in his crusade.
:rolleyes: Yep, gotta love close-minded people who'll come up with anything to justify their beliefs and force them on others...

so your suggesting that a tree and frog are on the same level as a human beind? time to go out on a killing spree... hehehehehehe... uh wait. how about not!

Are you saying that an embryo has the same mentality as a 1 month old child?

jrv, thats the whole point, everything i have quoted is scientific fact. noone has even tried to dispute this. instead you merely say *well i think*. yes just like creationists still believe the world is 4000 years old and that it is flat... it's easier to deny than learn i guess...

not exactly the same, but it is on the same level. babies respond to external stimuli just as an embryo's cell's respond to external stimuli. babies don't *think* they respond.

jrv, thats the whole point, everything i have quoted is scientific fact. noone has even tried to dispute this. instead you merely say *well i think*. yes just like creationists still believe the world is 4000 years old and that it is flat... it's easier to deny than learn i guess...

It is scientific fact that the embryo is not comparable to a newborn baby, in any way. Yet you seem to think that they have the same mentality.

See, this is why i usually try and avoid these debates. No, i don't think Hitler was right, because i see Jews as human beings, i think my grandpa, who was in a concentration camp, was human. I see anyone who can survive outside the womb on their own as human. I don't see a clump of cells as human, even if they have the potential to be. I have been respectful of you in this thread, so i would appreciate it if you could refrain from hurling those kinds of insults at me, or whoever the statement was meant for. We disagree. I don't expect you to be able to see my point of view because you see it as murder, fine, but i do expect you to be civil. I'll remove myself from this debate if you can't be.

it is scientific fact how? yet again you post is missing an explanation. it's simply a *i think* comment. you have done nothing to dismiss the fact that i have said babies act purely innately at a young age. you have neither agreed or disagreed with this fact actually. you merely say my whole concept is wrong, without picking a hole anywhere. that would be like me saying *i dont agree with america* and the someone saying *why*... welll uhhhhh no comment

Does it matter how much mentality it has at that moment? That goes back to the point that no one bothers to deffend. It has the potential of life, of breathing and thinking and living. Yet they don't desserve that opportunity?

since when was i being uncivil? when i mentioned hawaiian's you said nothing of the sort. but as soon as it was hitler suddenly it's some huge mess of uncivilness. it wasn't meant as an insult, it merely highlights a point. i'm not condoning hitler's actions, but if people are going to point beleives that's would infer they agree with him then he shall be mentioned.

A fetus has the potential to survive and be a *person* a human being. So though it may not be concious as to anything what so ever, it is still murder. That's like killing someone in their sleep, they won't know who did it or when it was happening, but its still death. I don't understand the difference here.

You cannot confuse potentality with actuality.

a baby isn't an actuality, their mind hasn't reached any sort of state where it can be consider independant. they merely have innate responses. the actuality comes when a person starts *to think*

In various other abortion threads on this site, people have put up scientific links saying that a fetus is not the same as a baby. I have just been expressing my opinion, as i said. When i make it clear that it's my opinion, i don't have to provide a link to anything because i never claimed to have proof. You just said though that all this stuff you posted has scientific proof. Those kinds of statements demand a link, because you are passing it off as fact. Don't expect others to provide links if you won't.

I don't think anyone is being disrespectful. Surely we're all stating our beliefs here and nothing more.

I see anyone who can survive outside the womb on their own as human -Rangerville

What about those who cannot survive without the help of a machine or another person to take care of them. What about the mentally disabled? The physcos'? Are these people able to survive on their own, or atleast well enough ? No, but we don't go and kill them all.

a baby isn't an actuality, their mind hasn't reached any sort of state where it can be consider independant. they merely have innate responses. the actuality comes when a person starts *to think*

Babies think...

I just forgot to mention the Hawaiians, sorry, i don't think they should all be killed either. It's uncivil and insulting to me because i don't believe in murder. You may think i do because i am pro-choice, but i don't consider it murder. You inferred that from my post because you disagree with me, I didn't infer it when i wrote it. It's that nasty difference of opinion thing again.

i shall look for a link

babies think jrv? and where is your proof...

babies think jrv? and where is your proof...
We're still waiting for your proof that the mentality of a 1 month old baby is the same as newly conceived embryo, after all, you're the one who originally made the point...

It's kinda funny how you demand proof from us without providing any of your own.

i don't exactly look at phychology papers every day and make lists of their links to be used in arguements...

I've already said that if a person is brain dead, their loved ones should have the right to pull the plug.

People who are mentally and physically disabled can survive outside the womb, they may need help, but they can live. For many their IQ's are lower than normal, but they aren't hooked up to machines or anything like that. A fetus in the first couple of months of pregnancy couldn't survive even with help. Mentally and physically disabled people can still feel. I have known plenty of mentally challenged people who all felt emotion. Most of them went to a regular school and had the ability to learn. Many of them can also be happy and aware. I don't think a fetus can be.

I've already said that if a person is brain dead, their loved ones should have the right to pull the plug.

People who are mentally and physically disabled can survive outside the womb, they may need help, but they can live. For many their IQ's are lower than normal, but they aren't hooked up to machines or anything like that. A fetus in the first couple of months of pregnancy couldn't survive even with help. Mentally and physically disabled people can still feel. I have known plenty of mentally challenged people who all felt emotion. Most of them went to a regular school and had the ability to learn. Many of them can also be happy and aware. I don't think a fetus can be.
Hey, I was about to jump in with all that, but luckily you beat me to it and probably had far less grammatical errors than I would have made! Yay!

Anyway...
What she said.

AND i need a very specific link, since i could send you a link describing what innate behaviour is. i could send a link describing that babies have innate behaviour. but you'd still want more. you'd want a huge thesis paper with the title *why babies are mentally incapable* and at the end of the day, educated people who have been training in phychology don't need papers like this.

i don't exactly look at phychology papers every day and make lists of their links to be used in arguements...
And still you expect us to provide proof of our beliefs, yet at the same time to accept your beliefs as fact without proof of you own?

And it's kinda said when people training in psychology can't even properly spell it... Also, there's a difference between being mentally incapable and having no brain to speak of (which an embryo hasn't even begun to develop yet).

At 24-27 weeks the fetal brain's higher functions develop. The cerebral cortex is in place, and the large scale linking up of neurons begins...

we are talking about people who cannot survive on their own here. that was your keyword not ours. embryo's arent the only beings that can't live on their own. someone born with no lungs can't live on their own, they'd need a pretty permanent quick fix. maybe be a bit exaggerated but there are people who arent viable without help, yet they exist because they get it

i don't exactly look at phychology papers every day and make lists of their links to be used in arguements...

What makes you think that I or anybody else does?

It's hard to bother making any points if you are going to disregard them all. You put if they can survive -on their own- then they are human. You should watch more carefully what you say if you want me to take it seriously and reply. Instead you're trying to make my comment very stupid.. Also I was referring to people needing machines to live because of health not the handicapped. I am also aware that all these people have feelings whereas a fetus may not, but the point was, they need help to survive, they cannot do it on their own, yet we don't kill them.

we are talking about people who cannot survive on their own here. that was your keyword not ours. embryo's arent the only beings that can't live on their own. someone born with no lungs can't live on their own, they'd need a pretty permanent quick fix. maybe be a bit exaggerated but there are people who arent viable without help, yet they exist because they get it

Yes. And I don't have a problem with allowing the parents to make a decision as to whether or not keep the baby alive. At least I'm not a hypocrite.

It's hard to bother making any points if you are going to disregard them all. You put if they can survive -on their own- then they are human. You should watch more carefully what you say if you want me to take it seriously and reply. Instead you're trying to make my comment very stupid.. Also I was referring to people needing machines to live because of health not the handicapped. I am also aware that all these people have feelings whereas a fetus may not, but the point was, they need help to survive, they cannot do it on their own, yet we don't kill them.
Actually, the family of someone needing to live on machines does have the option to pull the plug on them... How is this any different than a potential mother denying a fetus the life support that is her own body?

brains higher functions... which higher functions the cognative ones or what? and i don't see a link either. you are just quoting from a website without understandign what it means and you are probably taking things out of context too. what that basically means is, the brain can tell the heart to function. but yet again do you know how the heart works? it certainly doesn't involve thought...

Actually, the family of someone needing to live on machines does have the option to pull the plug on them... How is this any different than a potential mother denying a fetus the life support that is her own body?

Exactly.

The person who is on the machine is most likely in misery or near death or no hope of living. Where as this life has not even been given the chance

since when am i being hypracritical? and im not talking about people led in a bed in a coma. i'm talkiing about someone who can walk about but cannot think... does the family get a choise there?

brains higher functions... which higher functions the cognative ones or what? and i don't see a link either. you are just quoting from a website without understandign what it means and you are probably taking things out of context too. what that basically means is, the brain can tell the heart to function. but yet again do you know how the heart works? it certainly doesn't involve thought...

Have you read Carl Sagan's last book? Do so. For copyright reasons I unfortuantely can't exactly send it to you over the Internet...

so you can tell me to write a book, by which time the forum will be a distant memory instead of just telling me what you mean. also chances are your wrong and your giving yourself breathing space by saying basically *go look over here*

since when am i being hypracritical? and im not talking about people led in a bed in a coma. i'm talkiing about someone who can walk about but cannot think... does the family get a choise there?

Do learn to spell and some grammar too...

if you can't do something properly why try at all? your grammer isn't 100% so that makes your statement hypacritical.

so you can tell me to write a book, by which time the forum will be a distant memory instead of just telling me what you mean. also chances are your wrong and your giving yourself breathing space by saying basically *go look over here*

Eh? Whether I give you a link or refer you to a book, what's the difference? I'm still giving you my source. And some how, I don't think you understand what I posted either...

JRV are you going to stay on topic or name call and pick about people's grammer? Grow up and write something important or leave the forum

your telling me to go and look at a book without revealing what the book reveals or what topic it is on. for all i know the book could be about the evolutionary history of albino pygmi penguins.

lol...no grammatical errors is one of the few things ever guaranteed from me.

You're right, i should have been more specific. When i said can't survive outside the womb, i meant people who can't survive even with help, people who would have no way of living even hooked up to machines. As for the disabled, if you didn't mention them, then i apologize. There have been so many posts, i might have forgotten what you typed.

I honestly don't care if you take my posts seriously or not. I already know you disagree with me, which is fine, this world would be pretty boring if we all agreed. I just enjoy discussing things, that's all.

^^ At least he has provided a source, a book to read is just as valid as a link. You have yet to even provide the title and author of one of these "phychology" (Still find it funny that you can't even spell something you're studying, at first I thought it a typo, but when you use it on 2 or 3 different occasions...) papers you've read.
The person who is on the machine is most likely in misery or near death or no hope of living. Where as this life has not even been given the chance
So if they've never even been given the chance at life, you're not taking too much away from them anyways, are you? And in the case of a coma, there is a chance the person will eventually awaken and resume their life, but there's also a chance they'll spend the next few decades in a coma until the rest of their body can no longer sustain itself, yet you still get the option to pull the plug on them.

if you can't do something properly why try at all? your grammer isn't 100% so that makes your statement hypacritical.

I said learn some grammar. I was referring more to your spelling at any rate. 'Hypacritical'... not sure what that means, sorry.

your telling me to go and look at a book without revealing what the book reveals or what topic it is on. for all i know the book could be about the evolutionary history of albino pygmi penguins.

All you had to do was ask. Instead you've been telling me that I don't know what I'm talking about, and that I should supply a website. Besides, you talk like you are an expert, and already know everything there is to know without even giving your own sources and backing up your own claims - so you'll forgive me.

Billions and Billions: Thoughts on Life and Death at the Brink of the Millennium

rangerville, of course i am taking your posts seriously. like i have said previously i'm not 100% against abortion. if someone is knowingly going to give birth to mass of cancerous cells... and other terrible things OR if they alreayd know the baby is dead. my point along the lines of disabled people is not people in coma's, but is people like autistic people. some people can walk about, eat, sleep and do everything we can. except they have no thought, they are a bunch of innate responses. wether they can live on their own (highly doubtful) isn't the issue. the point was should you be able to kill them since they are no more developed than a feotus mentally. i think the answer is no, if the answer is no to this then it is also no to abortion, it's a very black white area, since there are no logic grey area's.

Lastly i think quite a few people are just prooving previous points i have made. your attacking my grammer to prove what? that i can't spell and my english skills suck even though it's my primary language. well done to you, but it's off topic and has nothing to do with abortion.

I should add that i respect other people's veiws if they are well thought out, and have no obviously logical errors with them. i'm waiting to see a proper reply that prooves or suggests that a person's mental state doesn't define what they are. i believe it does, but i'm sure there are alternative veiw out there, noone has yet to offer one though and at the end of the day *changing* a beings perceived mental state to argue your point isn't going to make me think *oh wow look they are right*. it will only make me think *what the hell are they trying to do*

Actually, many autistics are really good at math, or music, because they can memorize things really well, or just play things by ear. That takes a certain kind of intelligence, or at least mental capacity. I was watching a show on the Knowlege Network here in Canada and they gave behavioural therapy to autistic kids, and most of them greatly improved. The biggest problems with autistics is that they are lost in their own world, they don't have socialization skills, but many of them are highly creative and do think, they just can't express their thoughts in the same way we can. It affects social interaction and communication. Some children with autism can be taught to speak and express themselves. Many can't live on their own as adults, but that is because of their inability to communicate with people, not because they don't have a thought process. I think that puts them above a fetus. Many even go on to live productive lives.

http://www.autism-society.org/site/PageServer?pagename=allaboutautism

http://www.autismwebsite.com/ari/intro/autism.htm

http://www.autism.net/

Here are a few links, since this post went beyond just my opinion.

Sorry that took so long, the site went down for a few minutes

Pro-choice =/= pro-abortion.

I think a lot of people need to get this straight. Even a lot of pro-choice people need to get this, I think. Believing a woman should have the choice to get an abortion doesn't mean you think it's a good thing or that you would ever have, advise, or perform one.

Poll to come.

WTF

you can make that arugment for anything, I could say I'm not pro W I just voted for him because I though he deserved the chance to sit in the white house

I don't give a damn what your motivations are - actions speak louder than words

pro-choice = pro-abortion

OR if they alreayd know the baby is dead.

just so ya know, thats called a stillbirth and its not abortion (in both the moral and the legal sense)

This is what i think constitutes sentience:

Weeks 25 to 28
the fetus reaches a length of 15 inches
the fetus weighs about 2 lbs. 11 oz.
rapid brain development
nervous system developed enough to control some body functions
eyelids open and close
respiratory system, while immature, has developed to the point where gas exchange is possible
a baby born at this time may survive, but the possibilities for complications and death remain high

That is at six months. I realize the brain is formed before that, but this is when it grows and actually becomes useful.

http://www.umm.edu/ency/article/002398.htm

http://health.allrefer.com/health/fetal-development-info.html

http://www.healthscout.com/ency/article/002398.htm

As for when life truly does begin, i don't know. I have been looking for scientific evidence as to when sentience begins, but i can't find it. I don't even know if scientists can agree on the issue. There are varying opinions. When i look it up, all i get is people's opinions.

WTF

you can make that arugment for anything, I could say I'm not pro W I just voted for him because I though he deserved the chance to sit in the white house

I don't give a damn what your motivations are - actions speak louder than words

pro-choice = pro-abortion
Pro-choice = you respect another person's right to make the decision for themselves, even if you wouldn't necessarily make such a decision yourself. I despise American Idol, but I won't stop other people from watching it, does that mean I'm pro-American Idol simply because I'm not willing to shove my opinions down other people's throats?

That is Wikipedia's definition of what sentience is, and what i believe it to be, but that doesn't answer the question of when that occurs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/

That article is interesting and it says right in the beginning that there is no agreed upon idea of what constitutes consciousness

Pro-choice = you respect another person's right to make the decision for themselves, even if you wouldn't necessarily make such a decision yourself. I despise American Idol, but I won't stop other people from watching it, does that mean I'm pro-American Idol simply because I'm not willing to shove my opinions down other people's throats?

in American idol were a legal matter and you were voting for legeslation to keep it legal then yes, you would be defacto pro-American idol

As for when life truly does begin, i don't know.

then play it on the safe side

Pro choice. End of discussion. I don't try and legislate my views of morality onto others.

in American idol were a legal matter and you were voting for legeslation to keep it legal then yes, you would be defacto pro-American idol
I feel sorry for people like you who cannot recognize the difference between making personal decisions and making decisions for others.

I believe it would depend on whether the "fetus" were able to survive outside of the Womb on it's own, wouldn't it?

No, it wouldn't. It depends on the question if I'm harming it by abortion, so if you say 'yes' you will have to show me it is off worse than it was.

If you are "taking" a Right to "live" from something isn't that murder?

Only if at least all of the following 5 conditions are met:
a. something actually lives
b. you ascribe to this something a right to live.
c. the right to life of this something is more important than the lives of what is required to die to support it.
d. you assume life is in all cases superior to non-life.
e. the potential to get a life is considered equivalent to having had one.

Explanation:
Condition a is met for an embryo/fetus, but many skincells also live. As did every sperm that didn't make it to the egg. You however kill them without thinking. Therefor it alone is not enough.

Condition b solves the problem of condition a where humans, and to some extent higher lifeforms in general, are concerned. However, it only applies this situation if you can either show that a bunch of embryocells truly is different from a few spermcells or just grant it that right "because it feels right". Of course, the latter is not objective reasoning.

If you have somehow met condition b, condition c arises. Humans need to kill things to stay alive - our diet requires plants and according to many animals (though that is not a real biological necessity). In some cases allowing the fetus to fully develop may kill, or severely hurt (mentally in case of rape e.g.) the mother.

And then conditions d and e, which are the ones actually relevant to my point. First d: Is life ALWAYS preferable to non-life ? Even if a baby will be born with deformities that will cause it to feel horrible pain for as long as it lives for instance ? Is living with insufferable pain still better than non-existance ? Can you even compare the two, or is that pointless ?

And e.. we are talking about potentials here. Not about something that has already had experiences. Before the conception there was no embryo. After the abortion there was no embryo. There were no experiences in between. Is ending its "life" therefor the same as murder ?

So perhaps you could tell me when YOU believe the BABY has EARNED the Right to Life?

Once you can show killing it harms it. For a fetus/embryo: for instance when you can prove taking away the potential to get experiences from something that has never had one yet is harmful .