NationStates Jolt Archive

You are enforcing your opinion on me and I don't wish to have it thank you. It's a matter of opinion, (or at least that's better than me starting this into saying that absolute truth is absolute truth no matter if no one believes in it or/and that it is absolute truth and then we get into a discussion about does god exist, does his rules count, is this one of them, etc, etc.) Anyway I don't understand how you can trust in something so absolutly that is always in flux. There is a whole load of theories that if I could come up with a better explanation would be changed (and if I was that good I would, but I 'm not so I'll just cope with it for now). Abortion to some IS murder, to others just a convenient way of shifting cells, problems and blame.

Oh and just so you know, I am studying biology at the moment, don't claim to know everything about it, but then who does? Plan to take it on further.
(UHH, I hate having to do backing up statements *le sigh*)
biology says that an embryo doesnt have a brain. it is therefore no more of a living human being than a brain dead person. i and others have said this before on this thread multiple times. if something is not alive then it can't be murdered.
i never forced my opinions on you. dont confuse me with someone who is pro-life. i have never forced an abortion on anyone or advocated legislation forcing anyone to get an abortion.

Let's try this a differnt way, who are you to say it is/isn't? Huh? huh? Are you completly, utterly unbiased without ulterior motivations? I think that the answer to that is no, because if it isn't you are lying purely and simply. Give me a reason why you should make the end decision on these sort of things? *raises eyebrow* At least I'm trying to be civil and comprimise.

And now before I get too sarcastic, and lose my rag I'm going to bed, I think that is safer for all concerned.
who am i? i am no one. the mother is the person who decides.
what alterior motives do i have? i cant get an abortion as i am not a woman.
what is this you are a lier bull shit. it just completely comes out of nowhere...care to explain?
i dont make the end decision, the mother does. i never pretended to make the end decision.
what compromise are you making. you said i was a lyer and that i was trying to force someone to do something. when did i do this?

p.s. highschool or college biology?

Has cannan explained the 'logic behind' his statement that sex implies consent to carry a pregnancy to term yet?

Nope.

Abortion to some IS murder, to others just a convenient way of shifting cells, problems and blame.

and, to others, abortion is a responsible choice that sometimes is made by those who are doing what they believe is best. anybody with an appropriately humble, rational, and respectful frame of mind will leave such a decision to those who are directly involved in the situation. only the supremely arrogant will presume to define life, humanity, personhood, and "morality" for other people.

Oh and just so you know, I am studying biology at the moment, don't claim to know everything about it, but then who does?

i do. at least, that's what my degrees say...


Plan to take it on further.

good. please don't try to form an opinion until you do.

(UHH, I hate having to do backing up statements *le sigh*)
if that's the case, you probably shouldn't be getting into the sciences.

Flaw in logic: That is a matter of opinion, some of (me included) believe it is.
incorrect. the phrase "abortion is not murder" is objectively true, because murder is the unlawful killing of a human being. abortion is lawful, and fetuses are not legally recognized as human beings. therefore, whether or not you feel abortion SHOULD be considered murder, it is not murder according to the definition of the relavent terms.

first off RELIGON IS NOT LAW


yes, many want it to be, but its not. When harming a fetus/embryo/bundle of cells/whatever murder? well, thats always a problem. Judiasm iin fact says its 30 days AFTER BIRTH. Catholics believe the moment of conception. Science wants to tell us around 6 weeks. Many believe the date of birth


well, who knows and whose to say one over the other?




and heres another idea, if your pro-life than why dont you just not get an abortion?

Oh, and one more speck of my thoughts: WHy do men always seem to be the ones passing the laws on this? I feel as though this should be dealt with by women.--its so much easier for men to be like its immoral as they woukld never be in the position to abort

No.

Malthus is wrong and twisted.

And parents do not own their children. Children are not to be abused. They are not to be killed.

Children do not have the same rights as adults, but they do have a right to life.

Ripping up a drawing is morally different from killing a child.

The comparison is unworthy.

I wouldn't agree with that. What is a child until it's born? Ripping up a drawing is almost worse.
Drawings are a form of artwork, once created, they can bring joy to society. Children...you never know until 30 years later.
no one has said WHY a child's life is so important
And don't give me that "It's human!" bull because that holds ground. Why is a child so much more important that veal?
What makes a human life so great?
Once more, children should not get rights over their parents in ANY situation. If they're not allowed to have a cookie before dinner and their parents can, but they are allowed to severely dent a parent's budget and potentially ruin job opportunities, it seems like the cookie idea is an empty victory.

problem is, pro-lifers say its murder (which its not), and murder we can all agree should be illegal no matter what religion.
good job ignoring everything said up until this point digga

Has cannan explained the 'logic behind' his statement that sex implies consent to carry a pregnancy to term yet?

I have explained it several times but people refuse to listen. Ok here goes again.

Sex can create life. This does not mean that the primary purpose of sex is to create new life (though some might say that it is, and I am one of them but thats not what this is about). Therefore if you have sex you concent to the possibility (however small) that a new life may be created. If it is then you should not destroy it. Why? Because you concented to creating a new LIFE. By concenting to that, and what life entails, destroying said life is WRONG. Because if you destroy that life then it is murder.

and heres another idea, if your pro-life than why dont you just not get an abortion?


By that logic we could say "If you dont agree with herroin and believe its unsafe then dont take it" and legalise it.

Once more, children should not get rights over their parents in ANY situation. If they're not allowed to have a cookie before dinner and their parents can, but they are allowed to severely dent a parent's budget and potentially ruin job opportunities, it seems like the cookie idea is an empty victory.

Is something a blow against freedom because it can seriously damage your wealth?

I wouldn't agree with that. What is a child until it's born? Ripping up a drawing is almost worse.
Drawings are a form of artwork, once created, they can bring joy to society. Children...you never know until 30 years later.
no one has said WHY a child's life is so important
And don't give me that "It's human!" bull because that holds ground. Why is a child so much more important that veal?
What makes a human life so great?
Once more, children should not get rights over their parents in ANY situation. If they're not allowed to have a cookie before dinner and their parents can, but they are allowed to severely dent a parent's budget and potentially ruin job opportunities, it seems like the cookie idea is an empty victory.

Anyone think it's just as wrong to end a future serial killer as it is to end a future president/scientist/awesome person?

By that logic we could say "If you dont agree with herroin and believe its unsafe then dont take it" and legalise it.
exactly. personal decisions are precisely that...PERSONAL. i don't care if somebody else does heroin, as long as they aren't forcing ME to do heroin. i don't care if somebody else carries a pregnancy to term and puts the baby up for adoption (even though i think that's a reprehensible act, and would never even remotely consider doing it myself), because it's their body and their business. it's not my job to run their life.

Sex can create life. This does not mean that the primary purpose of sex is to create new life (though some might say that it is, and I am one of them but thats not what this is about). Therefore if you have sex you concent to the possibility (however small) that a new life may be created. If it is then you should not destroy it. Why? Because you concented to creating a new LIFE. By concenting to that, and what life entails, destroying said life is WRONG. Because if you destroy that life then it is murder.
and we've explained why that is crap many, many times over.

if you decide to go skiing, you do so with the knowledge that there's a chance you will be hurt. does this mean that you forfeit your right to medical care in the event that you fall and break your leg? no. it is true that you consented to the risks when you got up on the skis, but that does NOT equate to consenting to endure the consequences without access to treatment.

if a woman has sex, she should be doing so with full knowledge of the risks. she may get pregnant, just as you may fall while skiing. however, she is most certainly not consenting to REMAIN pregnant and carry to term, just as you are not consenting to endure your broken leg without painkillers, casts, or a doctor's care.

until you are prepared to forbid medical treatment to those who injure themselves playing sports, your argument is worth exactly zip.

and we've explained why that is crap many, many times over.

if you decide to go skiing, you do so with the knowledge that there's a chance you will be hurt. does this mean that you forfeit your right to medical care in the event that you fall and break your leg? no. it is true that you consented to the risks when you got up on the skis, but that does NOT equate to consenting to endure the consequences without access to treatment.

if a woman has sex, she should be doing so with full knowledge of the risks. she may get pregnant, just as you may fall while skiing. however, she is most certainly not consenting to REMAIN pregnant and carry to term, just as you are not consenting to endure your broken leg without painkillers, casts, or a doctor's care.

until you are prepared to forbid medical treatment to those who injure themselves playing sports, your argument is worth exactly zip.

No, because unlike being injured, in abortion you are killing something

You can repair the consequences to your injury in skiing without killing something else

When you go skiing, you concent to the possibility of being injured, and by being injered you then get medical treetment, but in the process of getting that treetment you dont kill anyone or anything.

Skiing is not comparable, because being injured is not a direct part of the outcome if you do it properly. Its only if you make a mistake. Whereas with sex, a child is a normal part of the outcome and not an abnormal one.

exactly. personal decisions are precisely that...PERSONAL. i don't care if somebody else does heroin, as long as they aren't forcing ME to do heroin. i don't care if somebody else carries a pregnancy to term and puts the baby up for adoption (even though i think that's a reprehensible act, and would never even remotely consider doing it myself), because it's their body and their business. it's not my job to run their life.

Thats an extremely selfish and irrisponsable attiude. "As long as it doesnt affect ME its ok" "As long as it doesnt harm my interests its ok" "Everyone else be dammed, I'm worried about ME". Please, thats just plain selfish.

No, because unlike being injured, in abortion you are killing something

You can repair the consequences to your injury in skiing without killing something else.

first of all, your argument is that women consent to be pregnant (and remain pregnant) when they have sex. whether or not the fetus is a living organism is irrelevant to the argument you are making.

second, you kill living material when you set a broken leg. you've yet to show why a fetus deserves more consideration than that living material, since both are alive, functioning, and human.


Skiing is not comparable, because being injured is not a direct part of the outcome if you do it properly. Its only if you make a mistake. Whereas with sex, a child is a normal part of the outcome and not an abnormal one.
1. if you have sex using a condom and you get pregnant, i would say that's not the "normal outcome," and i would say a mistake or accident occured.
2. medical treatment is not denied based on intent, to my knowledge. if i deliberately cut my wrists open the doctors will still try to save my life. if i intentionally shoot myself in the foot, the doctors will still treat me. whether or not i intended the outcome does not preclude my receiving medical care.

Thats an extremely selfish and irrisponsable attiude. "As long as it doesnt affect ME its ok" "As long as it doesnt harm my interests its ok" "Everyone else be dammed, I'm worried about ME". Please, thats just plain selfish.
it's more like, "i don't demand the right to boss people around in their personal lives."

personally, i think you're the one with the selfish position. i say that people are free to make their own choices, even if i don't like those choices, unless their choice directly interferes with another human's right to the same level of choice. you say, "i don't like when people make that choice, and--even though it doesn't infringe on my rights or freedom--i'm going to try to pass laws that make them do things my way. i can't be happy unless everybody follows my values, so i'm going to try to get them sent to jail if they won't do as i say."

I agree with the original author of the thread. I myself am an atheist, but I also follow a celibacy, simply because I do not find the pursuit of carneal lusts fitting to my general life filosophy.

If I have sex, it will be to create a child, as I personally feel there are many other ways to share love and intimacy with a woman apart from sex that are of, in my eyes, a higher order. And thus, if I have sex, I make a conscience choice, and will stand by that choice, and hopefully so will she.

However, and it's bold for a reason, I have no intention of forcing my filosophy unto that of others. My filosophy is best suited to me at this time, and might not be suited for others.
This is why I believe in freedom. The more freedom, the more we leave others to find themselves, and to evaluate what moral values they feel are best for them, and what makes them feel good.

Mr U
HomoUniversalis

first of all, your argument is that women consent to be pregnant (and remain pregnant) when they have sex. whether or not the fetus is a living organism is irrelevant to the argument you are making.

second, you kill living material when you set a broken leg. you've yet to show why a fetus deserves more consideration than that living material, since both are alive, functioning, and human.

Becuase unlike the broken leg, the fetus is developing into a life form. It may die naturally but thats no excuse to kill it anyway. Without intervention there is a posibilty it will develop into a sentient lifeform. Unlike fragments of a leg.


1. if you have sex using a condom and you get pregnant, i would say that's not the "normal outcome," and i would say a mistake or accident occured.
2. medical treatment is not denied based on intent, to my knowledge. if i deliberately cut my wrists open the doctors will still try to save my life. if i intentionally shoot myself in the foot, the doctors will still treat me. whether or not i intended the outcome does not preclude my receiving medical care.

1. No because a condom is humans attempting to circumvent nature for their own benefits. You are essentially cutting out the creation of life part of sex from sex so you can have sex just for pleasure. While there is nothing wrong with this, it does mean that you are aware that sex does create life. Therefore your not having an accident by conciving in terms of sex, but in terms of the condom.

2. Medical treatment is given when a life is threatend. Thus if anything, in this case medical treetment should be given to the featus, to ensure it is safe. Unless the womens life is at serious risk by having a baby then abortion is not an option.

it's more like, "i don't demand the right to boss people around in their personal lives."

personally, i think you're the one with the selfish position. i say that people are free to make their own choices, even if i don't like those choices, unless their choice directly interferes with another human's right to the same level of choice. you say, "i don't like when people make that choice, and--even though it doesn't infringe on my rights or freedom--i'm going to try to pass laws that make them do things my way. i can't be happy unless everybody follows my values, so i'm going to try to get them sent to jail if they won't do as i say."

Doesnt abortion interfere with the unborn child's right to life? And what right is the birth of a child threatening the woman? Her right to a convienent lifestyle? Her right to not have others depend on her? What right under your precisious American constituon is removed from a women by denying her abortion?

My postion may seem bigotted to you, but I (unlike several people here) have not lost sight that the job of a government is to govern. By voting for it, you accept that it passes laws. As long as those laws do not inhibit actual personal freedoms then it is that governments right to do what it wants. Those freedoms are

Freedom of thought
Freedom of worship
Freedom of speech
Freedom of movement

There is no such thing as a freedom of action.

Doesnt abortion interfere with the unborn child's right to life? And what right is the birth of a child threatening the woman? Her right to a convienent lifestyle? Her right to not have others depend on her? What right under your precisious American constituon is removed from a women by denying her abortion?

My postion may seem bigotted to you, but I (unlike several people here) have not lost sight that the job of a government is to govern. By voting for it, you accept that it passes laws. As long as those laws do not inhibit actual personal freedoms then it is that governments right to do what it wants. Those freedoms are

Freedom of thought
Freedom of worship
Freedom of speech
Freedom of movement

There is no such thing as a freedom of action.

How about her right to her body? Because, you know, while the zygote/fetus is inside her, it's using *her* blood and *her* nutrients. In every other case of law, a person has the right to remove consent for another person to use their body.

Explain why women should be the *only* persons this right should be removed from, and *only* for the nine months of their pregnancy, despite the fact that the comparison (in the case of elective abortions) is equivilent to FORCING someone to donate their blood *against their will*, to someone who is clinically brain dead.

Also, you seem to say that if a man gets a woman pregnant, he should be forced to support her throughout the pregnancy. What if he is abusive - should the woman be forced to accept his 'help'? What if she doesn't know who the father is? Should all of her sexual partners be forced to provide this nebulous 'help'?

Doesnt abortion interfere with the unborn child's right to life? And what right is the birth of a child threatening the woman? Her right to a convienent lifestyle? Her right to not have others depend on her? What right under your precisious American constituon is removed from a women by denying her abortion?

no born human being has the right to demand sustenance from the body of another human being. no born human being may force another human being to donate tissues, organs, or nutrients, even if it is a life-or-death matter. i see no reason why fetuses should be given rights no human being has.


My postion may seem bigotted to you, but I (unlike several people here) have not lost sight that the job of a government is to govern. By voting for it, you accept that it passes laws. As long as those laws do not inhibit actual personal freedoms then it is that governments right to do what it wants. Those freedoms are

Freedom of thought
Freedom of worship
Freedom of speech
Freedom of movement

There is no such thing as a freedom of action.
it must be fun to make up concepts and state them as truth. it sure looks like fun. here, let me try:

there is no freedom to eat, so the government is fully within its rights to deny food to citizens at any time. eating is an action, and there is no freedom of action, therefore the government can order that we be fed intravenously but (to protect our "right to life") but that we can never eat.

wheeeee, the fun of absurdity!

How about her right to her body?.

Right to body? So you protect the womens over the childs? If both can suvive why not let both?


Because, you know, while the zygote/fetus is inside her, it's using *her* blood and *her* nutrients. In every other case of law, a person has the right to remove consent for another person to use their body.

I have explained this. The women gives her concent to the possibility of a life depending on her body by having sex. She knows there is a chance that she could get pregnant and as a result she accepts that chance when she has sex. There is no 100% effective contriception so she has to accept it. The reason she then has to carry it through pregnancy is that sex in that situation has created life. Ergo that life demands that it be protected in the same way that her own life is.


Explain why women should be the *only* persons this right should be removed from, and *only* for the nine months of their pregnancy, despite the fact that the comparison (in the case of elective abortions) is equivilent to FORCING someone to donate their blood *against their will*, to someone who is clinically brain dead.?

Because it will become a life. Unlike something which is actually just dead cells it will become a life.


Also, you seem to say that if a man gets a woman pregnant, he should be forced to support her throughout the pregnancy. What if he is abusive - should the woman be forced to accept his 'help'? What if she doesn't know who the father is? Should all of her sexual partners be forced to provide this nebulous 'help'?

Well this is far more situation based for me than a general rule. In the best case scenerio it is the womans wishes how much the man is involved. The child is as much his responsablity as it is hers. If she wants his help, he is rearly in no position to refuse as it is his child as much as hers. I do not believe however that the woman should just deny the father any access to the child unless the child was under threat or she was. It is his child too and so he has the right to acess to it and a level of responsablity to take care of it.

I've never understood that posistion. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it but i dont understand it. To me its like saying:murder, i personally beleive its wrong apart from in self defence but i'll allow it because i dont want to force my views on others.

I dont think anyone got the point i was trying to make here. The quote is about a post i replied to concernced someone who beleived that abortion was wrong but was politically pro choice because they beleived it was wrong to force their opinion on others.

First off let me say: I'm pro-choice. As far as i'm concerned the foetus is not a human untill it has some form of working brain.

What i was trying to say was IF you beleive that abortion is murder (which i dont) then how can you say that anyone else should be able to have one? If murder was suddenly declared legal then wouldnt you protest about that?

Well i suppose its not that important anyway in terms of the general debate.

Sex can create life. This does not mean that the primary purpose of sex is to create new life (though some might say that it is, and I am one of them but thats not what this is about). Therefore if you have sex you concent to the possibility (however small) that a new life may be created. If it is then you should not destroy it. Why? Because you concented to creating a new LIFE. By concenting to that, and what life entails, destroying said life is WRONG. Because if you destroy that life then it is murder.

I disagree, but I'll come to that later. First, I hope your logic does dictate to you that a woman who has been raped, and thus has *not* consented to sex, is perfectly justified in having an abortion?

Now, your earlier argument along the lines of 'If you kill me at 17, you're killing me at 24, so if you kill me at minus eight months it's the same thing': At the age of 17, you are a sentient living being, who is self-aware and has the will to live. A few weeks after conception, you are none of these things. So you cannot be 'murdered'.

no born human being has the right to demand sustenance from the body of another human being. no born human being may force another human being to donate tissues, organs, or nutrients, even if it is a life-or-death matter. i see no reason why fetuses should be given rights no human being has.!

Because the women has concented to the child using those subsances by having sex. She knows that a child is a possible outcome therefore she accepts that there may be a life form growing inside her.


it must be fun to make up concepts and state them as truth. it sure looks like fun. here, let me try:

there is no freedom to eat, so the government is fully within its rights to deny food to citizens at any time. eating is an action, and there is no freedom of action, therefore the government can order that we be fed intravenously but (to protect our "right to life") but that we can never eat.

wheeeee, the fun of absurdity!

The government does control our freedom to eat, in the sense that it sets up food standards agencies and other quangos to regulate the food industry. As for denying food at any time, well the supermarkes are not government controlled so to deny us food for any ammount of time would go beyond the governments power. Thats more about freedom of a capitialist economy. Ok so a capitalist economy is free but regulated. Dont know about America but in the UK there is no VAT on food. So the governemnt cant control food directly now but there is nothing stopping them doing so. There is no human right to people allowed to be eating certian food. So yes, the government could control the ammount of food we eat and what we eat if it so choose. Of course to do so would be electoral suicide and so long as democratic freedoms exist then it is a completely fair system.

I disagree, but I'll come to that later. First, I hope your logic does dictate to you that a woman who has been raped, and thus has *not* consented to sex, is perfectly justified in having an abortion?

In the case of abortion, I would argue that a women could have an abortion but a much better idea would be to have the child and put it up for adoption. That is the only situation where its considerable.


Now, your earlier argument along the lines of 'If you kill me at 17, you're killing me at 24, so if you kill me at minus eight months it's the same thing': At the age of 17, you are a sentient living being, who is self-aware and has the will to live. A few weeks after conception, you are none of these things. So you cannot be 'murdered'.

Yes but a few weeks after conception you are developing into something that will one day have the will to live. And how exactly do you know that an unborn fetus will not have the will to live when it is sentient. You are deciding its fate above its own abiltiy to decide. It is a being that is developing into a fully formed life form.

Yes but a few weeks after conception you are developing into something that will one day have the will to live. And how exactly do you know that an unborn fetus will not have the will to live when it is sentient. You are deciding its fate above its own abiltiy to decide. It is a being that is developing into a fully formed life form.
Potentiality does not equal actuality. It does not carry the same value.

Right to body? So you protect the womens over the childs? If both can suvive why not let both?

So if there was a way to remove unborn infants from women ALIVE, and then either inplant them into another, willing woman, or into an artificial incubatir, that would be fine with you? Since then both could survive and you wouldn't be forcing women to undergo serious medical risks for the sake of a person with, effectively, no consciousness? Currently that's my stance: A woman always has the right to sever the connection, but if we can stop the infants dying from that severance then that's the better option.

I have explained this. The women gives her concent to the possibility of a life depending on her body by having sex. She knows there is a chance that she could get pregnant and as a result she accepts that chance when she has sex. There is no 100% effective contriception so she has to accept it. The reason she then has to carry it through pregnancy is that sex in that situation has created life. Ergo that life demands that it be protected in the same way that her own life is.

So if you get hit by a car crossing the street, you gave *consent* for that to happen, simply because you knew it was *possible* that it would happen? Does this mean you should be refused medical care?

What if you hit someone else while driving, and they'll die without an organ transplant? Should you be forced, possibly against your will to donate that organ, regardless of the medical risks that operation might pose to you? Simply because you knew that, by getting in the car, you might hit someone and injure them?

[QUOTE]Because it will become a life. Unlike something which is actually just dead cells it will become a life.

Should I be given a disability pension because I have the potential to be injured? Or youth allowance because I have the potential to become a mother? Can I get someone locked up in prison because they have the potential to commit murder, or to rob me, or rape me, or commit frued?

The law does not operate on potentialities, and the world would be an absolute mess if it did.

On the other hand, I'm willing to side with you that once the child has a brain, it has a human consciousness (albeit not fully formed) and should no longer be able to be aborted, unless the mother will die otherwise, or the child will die shortly after birth.

And guess what? That's already what the law says - elective abortions are *not* an option once the child has formed a brain.

Well this is far more situation based for me than a general rule. In the best case scenerio it is the womans wishes how much the man is involved. The child is as much his responsablity as it is hers. If she wants his help, he is rearly in no position to refuse as it is his child as much as hers. I do not believe however that the woman should just deny the father any access to the child unless the child was under threat or she was. It is his child too and so he has the right to acess to it and a level of responsablity to take care of it.

The law has to be formed to deal with situation based problems - if you want your view to be made law, you really need to consider such problems. And if you meant women shouldn't be able to 'deny the father access' in the context of having an abortion... well, again; I support the developement of technology that allows unborn infants to be removed (when their mother removes consent for them to use her body) and then incubated outside the unwilling mother. If the father's want to take on that role (either by paying for the incubator or by finding a surragate mother, or by offering up their own body, depending on the technology), that's just fine by me. But I'm very very much against using people as means, instead of ends. A woman isn't just there to grow children, and her rights can't be overturned simply to futher the ends of another person.

Whatever your beliefs on the issue of abortion, I think we can all agree with the assertion that any legislation banning abortion by the current administration would be legislating based on personal religious beliefs, and would thus be unconstitutional. As it stands now, if a woman is pro-life, she is in no way forced to have one. Nobody is pro-abortion, only pro-choice. We realize that the choice to have an abortion is between the woman, her doctor and whatever god she worships. The man can give his oppinion if he plans to support the child, but ultimately the descision lies with the woman. Look at the logic of pro-chioce. Pro-life imposes beliefs upon others and forces them to not have an abortion, whereas pro-choice does not force pro-lifers to have an abortion, and it allows those who are not opposed to such a procedure to have an abortion in a clean safe environment.

Because the women has concented to the child using those subsances by having sex. She knows that a child is a possible outcome therefore she accepts that there may be a life form growing inside her.


Yes, and every other human has the right to *remove that consent* at any point during the donation of blood/organ. That is what a woman is doing when she gets an abortion - removing consent for the infant to use her body.

Unless you believe that you should not be allowed to change your mind if you, say, go to donate blood (ie, from the point you sign the forms, you have no say whatsoever over the designated amount of blood, even if it is still inside your body).

Again, 'knowing possible outcomes' does not equal 'consent' unless you 'consent' to dying a horrible death in a car crash everytime you get in a car, simply because you know there is a remote chance that might happen. And if you *do* think that equals consent, does that mean you should be refused medical attention if you are in a car accident, since you 'consented' to be in it?

Yes, and every other human has the right to *remove that consent* at any point during the donation of blood/organ. That is what a woman is doing when she gets an abortion - removing consent for the infant to use her body

That concent cant be taken away because she gave it up when she had sex. If she had sex and concieved then she effectively has created life. She cannot remove concent by killing that life.


Again, 'knowing possible outcomes' does not equal 'consent' unless you 'consent' to dying a horrible death in a car crash everytime you get in a car, simply because you know there is a remote chance that might happen. And if you *do* think that equals consent, does that mean you should be refused medical attention if you are in a car accident, since you 'consented' to be in it?

Thats a massive strech.

A car crash is an undesired and unlikely outcome and not the direct purpose of a driving a car. However if you look at sex, you can clearly see it is biologically designed to procreate. That is not to say that sex cannot be had for other purposes but its the original and primary purpose. A better analogy would be that the insurance company will not pay you any insurence payouts if you crash your car while trying to use it as a plane by jumping it over Tower Bridge whilst it was half raised.

Whatever your beliefs on the issue of abortion, I think we can all agree with the assertion that any legislation banning abortion by the current administration would be legislating based on personal religious beliefs, and would thus be unconstitutional. As it stands now, if a woman is pro-life, she is in no way forced to have one. Nobody is pro-abortion, only pro-choice. We realize that the choice to have an abortion is between the woman, her doctor and whatever god she worships. The man can give his oppinion if he plans to support the child, but ultimately the descision lies with the woman. Look at the logic of pro-chioce. Pro-life imposes beliefs upon others and forces them to not have an abortion, whereas pro-choice does not force pro-lifers to have an abortion, and it allows those who are not opposed to such a procedure to have an abortion in a clean safe environment.

Not nessecarly. The may believe that aborition is wrong on a purely secular belief that it is murder. You don't have to be religous to be pro life.

Thats a massive strech.

A car crash is an undesired and unlikely outcome and not the direct purpose of a driving a car. However if you look at sex, you can clearly see it is biologically designed to procreate. That is not to say that sex cannot be had for other purposes but its the original and primary purpose. A better analogy would be that the insurance company will not pay you any insurence payouts if you crash your car while trying to use it as a plane by jumping it over Tower Bridge whilst it was half raised.


Wait a moment, sex is not clearly to procreate, it is cleary to give pleasure.

Look at it reasonably, sex between a man and a woman, even without contraception, has a certain probability of resulting in pregnency, sometimes almost a zero percent probabiity (if timed with the menstrul cycle).

On the other hand, sex is pleasurable one hundred percent of the time. WHen you have sex you arent taking a gamble as to whether or not you'll enjoy the orgasm, that is the clear unequivocal result and therefore the purpose.

Because of its natural infrequency, pregnancy only 'sweetens the deal' so to speak.

Since reproduction is clearly not the intended and main purpose of sex, there is no responsiblity towards a fetus &c.

Becuase unlike the broken leg, the fetus is developing into a life form. It may die naturally but thats no excuse to kill it anyway. Without intervention there is a posibilty it will develop into a sentient lifeform. Unlike fragments of a leg.

Potentiality != actuality.

It may develop into a sentient lifeform, but it is not yet one.

2. Medical treatment is given when a life is threatend. Thus if anything, in this case medical treetment should be given to the featus, to ensure it is safe. Unless the womens life is at serious risk by having a baby then abortion is not an option.

Make up your mind. Are you arguing that the embryo (and embryo is the proper term here if we are talking elective abortions) is a life, or a potential life? One is pretty much bunk, the other is true - but that fact does nothing to explain *objectively* why you wish to give rights to a potential.

Not nessecarly. The may believe that aborition is wrong on a purely secular belief that it is murder. You don't have to be religous to be pro life.

You do have to be subjective to be pro-life. Legislating against abortion would be like legislating against eating meat - entirely based on the subjective views of a few.

I dont think anyone got the point i was trying to make here. The quote is about a post i replied to concernced someone who beleived that abortion was wrong but was politically pro choice because they beleived it was wrong to force their opinion on others.

First off let me say: I'm pro-choice. As far as i'm concerned the foetus is not a human untill it has some form of working brain.

What i was trying to say was IF you beleive that abortion is murder (which i dont) then how can you say that anyone else should be able to have one? If murder was suddenly declared legal then wouldnt you protest about that?

Well i suppose its not that important anyway in terms of the general debate.

I got it, and answered. I didn't say I believe abortion is murder - that would be quite a misnomer. I believe it is wrong and as such will never do it.

However, a belief that murder is wrong is objective - I can demonstrate that it is absolutely harming a living human being and removing their right to live. I can do no such thing in the case of abortion, so all I have is my personal belief that it is wrong. See the difference?

Potentiality != actuality.

It may develop into a sentient lifeform, but it is not yet one.

Make up your mind. Are you arguing that the embryo (and embryo is the proper term here if we are talking elective abortions) is a life, or a potential life? One is pretty much bunk, the other is true - but that fact does nothing to explain *objectively* why you wish to give rights to a potential.

The simple reason is that without intervention it may develop into a life. What right do humans have to stop it becoming one? The answer is none and so it should be allowed to develop.

You do have to be subjective to be pro-life. Legislating against abortion would be like legislating against eating meat - entirely based on the subjective views of a few.

You also have to be subjective to leglislate theft. But that doesnt stop the government

*Insert hippy style drawel* You cant, like OWN a car, a car IS man!, you cant OWN it, it just IS man (etc)

A government can legislate on aboriton if it so chooses.

The simple reason is that without intervention it may develop into a life. What right do humans have to stop it becoming one? The answer is none and so it should be allowed to develop.

Well, a woman has the right to remove anything from her body that she wants.

One could just as easily argue that a tapeworm has the ability to develop and lay eggs and continue its life-cycle. Who are we to stop it?

A child will one day be capable of driving. Who are we to stop a two-year old from getting behind the wheel of a car?

You do have to be subjective to be pro-life. Legislating against abortion would be like legislating against eating meat - entirely based on the subjective views of a few.

You also have to be subjective to leglislate theft. But that doesnt stop the government

*Insert hippy style drawel* You cant, like OWN a car, a car IS man!, you cant OWN it, it just IS man (etc)

A government can legislate on aboriton if it so chooses.

You also have to be subjective to leglislate theft. But that doesnt stop the government

No, you don't. Stealing from one person objectively harms them, by making them less able to provide for themselves.

No, you don't. Stealing from one person objectively harms them, by making them less able to provide for themselves.

Ending a fetus life before it can develop stops it from developing thus making it less able to exist. You see?

Ending a fetus life before it can develop stops it from developing thus making it less able to exist. You see?

So? Every time I have my period I am making the egg less able to develop into a person and exist.

Meanwhile, the right to exist only applies to those who already exist. You can't apply a right to a possibility.

Well, a woman has the right to remove anything from her body that she wants.

One could just as easily argue that a tapeworm has the ability to develop and lay eggs and continue its life-cycle. Who are we to stop it?

Because of several diffrences

1) A tapeworm will not develop into a sentient creature

2) The tapeworm was not placed there with the concent of the women who holds it. By having sex the women both caused the fetus to be there and accepted the responablity for it being there.


A child will one day be capable of driving. Who are we to stop a two-year old from getting behind the wheel of a car?

Obvious safety reasons. Allowing a child to control a car is dangerous. Allowing a fetus to develop is not.

The simple reason is that without intervention it may develop into a life. What right do humans have to stop it becoming one? The answer is none and so it should be allowed to develop.

The argument of abortion has nothing to do with what the foetus will be only with what it is when the abortion is perfomed. Numerous progressivley stupider examples have already been prosted illustrating this.

So? Every time I have my period I am making the egg less able to develop into a person and exist.

Meanwhile, the right to exist only applies to those who already exist. You can't apply a right to a possibility.

A posibilty which is increasing and increasing all the time. It may not exist yet but without intervention there is a high chance it will. Do you seriously believe that causation does not apply in this case. An analogy, if abiogenesis is accurate (and I am not for one moment saying it is, but this is hypotehtical) suppose I went back in time and bombed the planet with several hundurd high power nuclear warheads, thus making it impossible for life to evolve there. Have I not just killed the entire human race?

The argument of abortion has nothing to do with what the foetus will be only with what it is when the abortion is perfomed. Numerous progressivley stupider examples have already been prosted illustrating this.

What right do humans have to interfear with something that will become a life?

A posibilty which is increasing and increasing all the time. It may not exist yet but without intervention there is a high chance it will. Do you seriously believe that causation does not apply in this case. An analogy, if abiogenesis is accurate (and I am not for one moment saying it is, but this is hypotehtical) suppose I went back in time and bombed the planet with several hundurd high power nuclear warheads, thus making it impossible for life to evolve there. Have I not just killed the entire human race?

No, you haven't, as there was no human race to kill.

What right do humans have to interfear with something that will become a life?


Every right.

We have obligations only to human life, not to objects that have a possiblity of becoming human life.

Every right.

We have obligations only to human life, not to objects that have a possiblity of becoming human life.

Why? They are becoming human life. Thats effectively murder. In the same way that if someone was drowning and I had a rope but refused to throw it to him that would be effectively murder.

No, you haven't, as there was no human race to kill.

Yes dear, but it was certian one would evolve (again, assuming aboigenesis is true, which I dont). Ergo you are ending any possibility of there being one and have thus killed them all.

Why? They are becoming human life. Thats effectively murder. In the same way that if someone was drowning and I had a rope but refused to throw it to him that would be effectively murder.



Possibility does not equal actuality.

If a five year old refuses to be drafted, can he be imprisoned?

Of course not, because the five year old is actually not subject to the draft laws, even if he might possibly one day be.

Yes dear, but it was certian one would evolve (again, assuming aboigenesis is true, which I dont). Ergo you are ending any possibility of there being one and have thus killed them all.

It doesn't matter what you are certain of - it is impossible to kill something that does not yet exist.

I am certain that, should I go off the pill, I would get pregnant. That doesn't mean that I am killing anything by being on the pill.

Why? They are becoming human life. Thats effectively murder. In the same way that if someone was drowning and I had a rope but refused to throw it to him that would be effectively murder.

If someone was drowning, they would be alive.

A true analogy would be: If I ate an acorn, would I be killing a tree?

Not nessecarly. The may believe that aborition is wrong on a purely secular belief that it is murder. You don't have to be religous to be pro life.

I never stated that being pro-life was solely a religious position, but the pressure being but on the government to reverse Roe V. Wade is predominantly from right-wing christian fundamentalists. Any logical person would never believe that a 20-cell blastula constitutes human life. My appendix is closer to a human life than a fertilized egg, but religious fundamentalists still prevent life saving research on embryos even though such research has already given paraplegics the ability to walk again.

I never stated that being pro-life was solely a religious position, but the pressure being but on the government to reverse Roe V. Wade is predominantly from right-wing christian fundamentalists. Any logical person would never believe that a 20-cell blastula constitutes human life. My appendix is closer to a human life than a fertilized egg, but religious fundamentalists still prevent life saving research on embryos even though such research has already given paraplegics the ability to walk again.

As much as I support stem cell research - you are going to have to back up that absolutely outrageous claim.

As much as I support stem cell research - you are going to have to back up that absolutely outrageous claim.

There is a clinic in Lisbon that is currently administering stem cell treatments. Here is the website with the specifics of one girl, told by American doctors that she will never walk again, who now can, thanks to stem cells.

http://www.medtech1.com/new_tech/newtechnologyfeature.cfm/203/1

There is a clinic in Lisbon that is currently administering stem cell treatments. Here is the website with the specifics of one girl, told by American doctors that she will never walk again, who now can, thanks to stem cells.

http://www.medtech1.com/new_tech/newtechnologyfeature.cfm/203/1

Second paragraph reveals that those are not embryonic stem cells and thus have nothing to do with what you were talking about.

Meanwhile, these doctors have been very unethical in giving out this treatment, as they didn't bother to study the risks and benefits before simply beginning. They also have not done any tests to demonstrate that the olfactory cells are creating a difference at all. It could simply be cleaning out the scar tissue that is doing it. It could be that the patients were already healing. We won't know for quite a while.

Doesnt abortion interfere with the unborn child's right to life? And what right is the birth of a child threatening the woman? Her right to a convienent lifestyle? Her right to not have others depend on her? What right under your precisious American constituon is removed from a women by denying her abortion?

My postion may seem bigotted to you, but I (unlike several people here) have not lost sight that the job of a government is to govern. By voting for it, you accept that it passes laws. As long as those laws do not inhibit actual personal freedoms then it is that governments right to do what it wants. Those freedoms are

Freedom of thought
Freedom of worship
Freedom of speech
Freedom of movement

There is no such thing as a freedom of action.

This is pure nonsense. You were better off arguing about moral rights than you are arguing about legal rights about which you know nothing.

There is a right to liberty enshrined in the Constitution. That right includes the right to self-ownership and bodily integrity. Ironically, it is the only source you will find for a "freedom of movement."

Our precision US Constitution protects liberty, a right to privacy, a right to bodily integrity, etc.

It also protects a person's right to life. The unborn are not persons under the Constitutuion, however.

Nonetheless, in an overabundance of caution, the interests in protecting the lives of the unborn allows the banning of abortion in the third trimester and/or the point of viability (whichever is earlier) except when abortion is necessary for the life or health of the mother.

Roe v. Wade and its progeny are, in fact, a compromise. Abortion can (and generally is) banned prior to the point a fetus develops a brain or working nervous system. Abortions are allowed after the point of viability only in extreme circumstances. Only 2% of all abortions in the United States occur after 20 weeks and only 0.08% occur after 24 weeks. Those abortions fit the extreme criteria -- for example, many involve removing a fetus that has already died.

Abortion can (and generally is) banned prior to the point a fetus develops a brain or working nervous system.

That would depend on what you call a "working nervous system". Fetuses have a functional reflexive nervous system, allowing them to begin moving on their own, around the end of the first trimester. This is termed the "quickening" and is generally the reasoning behind the restrictions.

If I remember correctly, most states allow elective abortions up until either the quickening or the end of the first trimester, then require a doctor's suggestion up until the end of the second trimester, then require medical necessity until birth.

Right to body? So you protect the womens over the childs? If both can suvive why not let both?

I have explained this. The women gives her concent to the possibility of a life depending on her body by having sex. She knows there is a chance that she could get pregnant and as a result she accepts that chance when she has sex. There is no 100% effective contriception so she has to accept it. The reason she then has to carry it through pregnancy is that sex in that situation has created life. Ergo that life demands that it be protected in the same way that her own life is.

Because it will become a life. Unlike something which is actually just dead cells it will become a life.

Well this is far more situation based for me than a general rule. In the best case scenerio it is the womans wishes how much the man is involved. The child is as much his responsablity as it is hers. If she wants his help, he is rearly in no position to refuse as it is his child as much as hers. I do not believe however that the woman should just deny the father any access to the child unless the child was under threat or she was. It is his child too and so he has the right to acess to it and a level of responsablity to take care of it.

Neo,

You've been going around in circles with the same argument and refusing to see the problems with. Let me try to clarify. Although I will critique your argument in parts, this analysis is not meant to be insulting or even so much an attempt to disprove your argument as to point out a way in which you are creating confusion in your own argument.

One thing you are doing is confusing to seperate points -- neither of which is sufficient to carry the day -- in order to create a false whole. Your argument is like a thaumatrope. A thaumatrope is a small disc, held on opposite sides of its circumference by pieces of string. An image is drawn on each side of the disc, and is selected in such a way that when the disc is spun, the two images appear to become superimposed. Here both of your arguments are flawed and the illusion created by combining them is also flawed.

1. One the one hand, you argue that conception creates a life and that life has a right to life that cannot be violated.

Many flaws to this theory have been pointed out. Your language is imprecise and you often lapse into equating a person with rights, a human being, a life, a potential life, a potential person or human being, etc.

You have refused to ever provide any criteria for determining what entities are entitled to rights or a justification for such rights. You repeatedly assert that a zygote has an absolute right to life -- but do not explain why this is so and a pig does not have such a right. I, at least, believe that the reasons why we recognize rights in some entities and not others is directly related to the justification for those rights. Under such criteria, a zygote-embryo-fetus does not have a claim to rights until at least the latter portion of a pregnancy.

Although almost all here would agree that a person has a right to life, you fail to explain why a potential person has the same right. Simply saying it could become a person is not providing a moral argument as to why that compels a right to life. Moreover, it is not true that conception inevitably leads to personhood. Both non-human natural forces or humans may intervene. As humans are part of nature, it is meaningless to say that human intervention would be unnatural. You must provide some reason why intervention is immoral -- which is the question at hand.

Further, even if a zygote-embryo-fetus has a right to life, you fail to establish why that right supercedes a woman's rights. Rights may conflict and some rights may yeild to others. You have to provide a reason why a fetus's rights must prevail. This is where your argument about consent by sex comes in.

2. Your argument about consent both falls short and inevitably relies on #1. Consent to sex may be a consent to the possibility of conception. (There are arguments otherwise, but let's ignore them for now.) As has been pointed out repeatedly, consent to the possibility of conception does not necessarily mean consent to carry a pregnancy to birth. Again, birth is not an inevitable outcome of conception. To the contrary, whether human intervention prior to birth is moral is the question at hand. You tend to say that once conception creates life there is an obligation to preserve that life -- but at this point you are relying on argument #1 and not any argument based on consent.

I don't know if this adds any clarity to the debate. I hope it does.

That would depend on what you call a "working nervous system". Fetuses have a functional reflexive nervous system, allowing them to begin moving on their own, around the end of the first trimester. This is termed the "quickening" and is generally the reasoning behind the restrictions.

If I remember correctly, most states allow elective abortions up until either the quickening or the end of the first trimester, then require a doctor's suggestion up until the end of the second trimester, then require medical necessity until birth.

"Quickening" occurs at about week 20 -- which would be the end of the 5th month and 2/3rds into the 2nd trimester.

Hand and startle reflex develops around week 24.

Here is an objective source (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm) re fetal development. More information re fetal development is available on the web, but I had this handy.

I believe my summary of the state of the law was accurate. Obviously, there are 50 states and each has different laws. Your summary is vaguely accurate -- although quickening has no legal significance of which I am aware.

In Roe v. Wade (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/410/113.html ), 410 US 113 (1973), the Supreme Court adopted the following trimester scheme:
For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.


For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.


For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.


Since then, in cases such as Planned Parenthood v. Casey (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/505/833.html ), 505 US 833 (1992), the Court has:

recognized of a woman's right to choose to have an abortion before fetal viability and to obtain it without undue interference from the State, whose pre-viability interests are not strong enough to support an abortion prohibition or the imposition of substantial obstacles to the woman's effective right to elect the procedure


confirmed the State's power to restrict abortions after viability, if the law contains exceptions for pregnancies endangering a woman's life or health


and held that the State has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child.


Thus states may regulate abortion throughout the pregnancy so long as it does not place an undue burden on the right to choose prior to viability of the fetus. Post-viability abortions may be banned except when necessary for the life or health of the mother.

Here is an authoritative resource (http://www.naral.org/yourstate/whodecides/index.cfm) on the abortions laws of each state. It does not provide a simple summary, however.

Here is a fairly accurate and fairly comprehensive summary of state restrictions on post-viability abortions (http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_RPA.pdf).

Here is another reasonably accurate survey of state abortion laws (http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/stablw.htm).

For those who don't trust these, here is a state by state summary (http://www.unitedforlife.org/report_cards/PDFs/2004_state_abortion_law_summary.pdf) that appears somewhat accurate from American's United for Life.

I know but it is illegal to kill people which according to your logic let us kill people of any age.

based on a flawed assumption.

It isn't illegal to kill people.

Flaw in logic: That is a matter of opinion, some of (me included) believe it is.

It doesn't matter what you 'believe'... in most of the western world (I am not so sure about the rest) abortion is NOT murder.

Try looking up the definition of 'murder' if you don't believe me.

I have explained it several times but people refuse to listen. Ok here goes again.

Sex can create life. This does not mean that the primary purpose of sex is to create new life (though some might say that it is, and I am one of them but thats not what this is about). Therefore if you have sex you concent to the possibility (however small) that a new life may be created. If it is then you should not destroy it. Why? Because you concented to creating a new LIFE. By concenting to that, and what life entails, destroying said life is WRONG. Because if you destroy that life then it is murder.

Flawed logic.

Consent to sex may carry the possibility of offspring...

But:

Consent to sex is NOT consent to childbearing.

If I eat an onion, and it gives me indigestion... did I consent to indigestion? Or was it just an unfortunate side-effect of the act I DID consent to?

Thats an extremely selfish and irrisponsable attiude. "As long as it doesnt affect ME its ok" "As long as it doesnt harm my interests its ok" "Everyone else be dammed, I'm worried about ME". Please, thats just plain selfish.

Let me get this straight...

In the gospel according to Neo.... NOT trying to force other people to do what you want them to do... is Selfish?

That's a new direction, even for you, Neo.

That concent cant be taken away because she gave it up when she had sex. If she had sex and concieved then she effectively has created life. She cannot remove concent by killing that life.



Flawed logic, Neo.... consent to intercourse STILL does not equate to consent to childbearing.

Not nessecarly. The may believe that aborition is wrong on a purely secular belief that it is murder. You don't have to be religous to be pro life.

Appealing to the sentiments?

Abortion isn't murder, Neo.

Look it up.

2) The tapeworm was not placed there with the concent of the women who holds it. By having sex the women both caused the fetus to be there and accepted the responablity for it being there.


Hypocrisy.

A person chooses to eat. They try to be as safe as they can... picking their 'meat' carefully, and making sure it is 'prepared' as thoroughly and safely as they can.

That person, unfortunately, contracts a parasite.

They DID consent to eat.

They attempted to minimise the risks.

By your own logic, that person did NOT consent to the tapeworm... and thus, may freely rid themselves of the unwanted entity.

It's not TOO difficult to see this as allegorical, now, is it?

Second paragraph reveals that those are not embryonic stem cells and thus have nothing to do with what you were talking about.

On the contrary, Stem cells are stem cells. Adult stem cells merely lack the versatility of embryonic stem cells. Embryonic stem cells can take the form of any tissue, whereas adult stem cells are limited. In order to repair broken nerves stem cells must be harvested from the nerves, a very dangerous procedure. Using embryonic stem cells, the same damage, as well as damage to any other type of tissue, can be repaired, but without endangering the patient with the extraction of the cells.

On the contrary, Stem cells are stem cells.

You are *so* out of your league here and have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about. "Stem cells are stem cells." Yeah, I'll say that at the next stem cell conference and see what kind of looks I get.

Adult stem cells merely lack the versatility of embryonic stem cells.

Oh, if that were really the only difference.

Embryonic stem cells can take the form of any tissue, whereas adult stem cells are limited.

For the most part, this is true, although there have been adult stem cells harvested in some animals that seem to be pluripotent.

In order to repair broken nerves stem cells must be harvested from the nerves, a very dangerous procedure. Using embryonic stem cells, the same damage, as well as damage to any other type of tissue, can be repaired, but without endangering the patient with the extraction of the cells.

We have not yet gotten to the point where we can take a plate of ES cells and force them all to become a certain type of neurons and implant them. Yes, this procedure is dangerous, but is all we have at the moment - and even this procedure was not properly studied before moving into human beings..

"Quickening" occurs at about week 20 -- which would be the end of the 5th month and 2/3rds into the 2nd trimester.

*shrug* Several state laws have it down earlier. Quickening isn't really a biological term anyways - I was trying to use the legal ones.

Hand and startle reflex develops around week 24.

And it is sucking its thumb by the end of the first trimester - indicating a partially active nervous system.

Like I said, it depends on exactly what you consider to be a functioning nervous system.

I've also seen different time periods for a few of these things, but I don't have an embryology book on me right now.

I believe my summary of the state of the law was accurate. Obviously, there are 50 states and each has different laws. Your summary is vaguely accurate -- although quickening has no legal significance of which I am aware.

Last time I looked up state laws, several of them had the "quickening" listed as ~end of the first trimester as the end of elective abortions.

Things I am looking at now list it as first movement that the mother can feel - which would be rather far from the first movement, so I don't really see why it would be a measure of anything at all.

Being nuked while walking in the street is a much lower probablity than having a child after having sex. Moreover the two are not linked, by walking down the street you are not causing the bombs to come down on you. But by having sex, you are creating a life.

Did we forget that having sex is not a 100% guarantee of becoming pregnant? Even without contraception, the chances of "creating a life" are very low, especially durring certain periods of the menstrual cycle, where becoming pregnant is completely improbable (i dare not say impossible because in my experience nothing is impossible). Essentially, by having sex, you are not creating a life, you are creating the possiblity to start another life. Not trying to argue your point, just trying to make you think about what you type.

No one knows how much I have wanted to reply to this topic for two days and how much trouble i went through just to get my account activiated so i could reply to THIS because I feel it EXTREMELY important, so forgive my ranting, but please listen and be enlightened:

Neo: hearing from someone like you that believes anti-choice on abortion matters makes me so sad when i think about the fact that you have the right to vote and elect the leaders that decide whether I can have an abortion or use CONTRACEPTIVES, because you can't even spell the word...therefore I think you should have no say so over what the crap happens to something inside of ME considering you probably can't even spell half of the body parts in there...

Second thing: By having sex you are definitely not giving consent to have a full term pregnancy. There's rape ( which brings me to the fact...why in the world would you want a rapist raising a child? It is so very likely that the child of a rapist will become a rapist: there are not only gentic ties, but especially being raised by one) However, I suppose you, neo, are one of those who feels a women has done something wrong to be raped and it is her fault (simply judging by your closed-minded words). Another aspect: SEXUAL URGES ARE HUMAN EMOTIONS! We as humans have little chemicals in our tiny brains called hormones that cause these urges along with the sections of the pre-frontal cortex of the brain. I understand it is an individual's decision on whether to act on these urges, as is it their decision what to do with the results of their actions. Another thing is people suffer greater consequences that getting pregnant from having sex, like I don't know...AIDS... HIV! However I suppose you, Neo, feel we should let that "live" too because by your doctrine, by having sex you are consenting to contract a deadly Immunodefficiency virus.

-inhales

THEN.... the ADOPTION option you say is so damn easy...
A. It is extremely hard for a biological mother to just give up her child no matter what her situation and ability to care for the child.
B. When you put a child up for adoption, you are putting the decision of who cares for it for the next 18 years in the hands of a stranger. Once again, no matter what a woman's situation, she wants the best for her child and this would be difficult.
C. Do you realize the likelihood of the child being sent to foster care? where the child may be subjected to a life of child abuse; emotionally, physically, and sexually, in which case the child could be put right back in the situation of their mother and become pregnant and truly NEED an abortion. I know the likelihood of a foster child in this situation seems low...but you have to take into account all of the scenarios.

In closing...life is full of possibilities...including the possibility that a woman may have a miscarriage or a stillborn baby if she doesn't have an abortion. Abortion is not murder...it is simply the destruction of a clump of cells which have no feeling up until a certain stage. Neo, please take into account everything I have said and realize that it is not up to you to decide what happens to other people and put their unwanted children into the hands of strangers who will make them feel worse. The bottom line....it's not the government's choice...it's not your choice...it is not a religious group's choice...it is the INDIVIDUAL'S choice. No matter how illegal you make it to have an abortion, people are going to do it...just like sex. Would you rather lose 2 lives (just in the eyes of you) or 1? Or do you feel murderous abortion that takes the mother with it as her punishment?

That is all I have for now...I'm sure I'll think of something else later...

By that logic we could say "If you dont agree with herroin and believe its unsafe then dont take it" and legalise it.
bad example, a large number of people do believe that.

*shrug* Several state laws have it down earlier. Quickening isn't really a biological term anyways - I was trying to use the legal ones.

And it is sucking its thumb by the end of the first trimester - indicating a partially active nervous system.

Like I said, it depends on exactly what you consider to be a functioning nervous system.

I've also seen different time periods for a few of these things, but I don't have an embryology book on me right now.

Last time I looked up state laws, several of them had the "quickening" listed as ~end of the first trimester as the end of elective abortions.

Nevermind. The National Institute of Health is undoubtedly spreading misinformation about fetal development and the Supreme Court and NARAL are unfamiliar with the status of abortion law in the United States. Thank you for setting me straight. :rolleyes:

Nevermind. The National Institute of Health is undoubtedly spreading misinformation about fetal development and the Supreme Court and NARAL are unfamiliar with the status of abortion law in the United States. Thank you for setting me straight. :rolleyes:

Holy shit, what is it with you and your martyr complex? I wasn't even actually arguing with you. I was pointing out why I said what was said before.

Meanwhile, as a biologist I am well aware that the exact timing of many things in fetal development is largely unknown and disputed. This is because we can't exactly go in day by day and explant embryos and catalogue every step of the way. One embryologist will place things at very different times than another, because there are very few studies - and pretty much none of them systematic. It can't really be taken as absolute.

Meanwhile, *your own source* said that the fetus is sucking its thumb near the end of the first trimester - surely you aren't arguing with that now?

Holy shit, what is it with you and your martyr complex? I wasn't even actually arguing with you. I was pointing out why I said what was said before.

Meanwhile, as a biologist I am well aware that the exact timing of many things in fetal development is largely unknown and disputed. This is because we can't exactly go in day by day and explant embryos and catalogue every step of the way. One embryologist will place things at very different times than another, because there are very few studies - and pretty much none of them systematic. It can't really be taken as absolute.

Meanwhile, *your own source* said that the fetus is sucking its thumb near the end of the first trimester - surely you aren't arguing with that now?

You did not indicate agreement with anything I had said -- despite my including several sources and directly citing the most relevant Supreme Court decision.

To the contrary, you directly disagreed with several things I had said -- including the main points I had made about the state of the law.

My source says nothing about the fetus sucking its thumb. Perhaps you should read more careful.

EDIT: The key point is that viability is true sticking point of the law. Purely for the sake of argument you have chosen to quibble. Do you wish to contend that a fetus is conscious at some earlier point? Do you disagree that abortion is essentially legal until the point of viability?

Wait a moment, sex is not clearly to procreate, it is cleary to give pleasure.

Look at it reasonably, sex between a man and a woman, even without contraception, has a certain probability of resulting in pregnency, sometimes almost a zero percent probabiity (if timed with the menstrul cycle).

On the other hand, sex is pleasurable one hundred percent of the time. WHen you have sex you arent taking a gamble as to whether or not you'll enjoy the orgasm, that is the clear unequivocal result and therefore the purpose.

Because of its natural infrequency, pregnancy only 'sweetens the deal' so to speak.

Since reproduction is clearly not the intended and main purpose of sex, there is no responsiblity towards a fetus &c.
rape

You did not indicate agreement with anything I had said -- despite my including several sources and directly citing the most relevant Supreme Court decision.

I indicated agreement that the quickening is apparently not at the end of the first trimester. Meanwhile, none of the things I indicated in my last post in any way disputed your sources.

To the contrary, you directly disagreed with several things I had said -- including the main points I had made about the state of the law.

Actually, I didn't. You read that in because you are apparently looking for an argument. I simply pointed out that, last time I looked into the law on these things, I found a source stating that some states have laws based on the quickening. I did not say that these sources were more valid than yours. In truth, it doesn't really matter to the conversation at hand. As such, I expressed no opinion whatsoever other than to point out the reason I had typed it in the first place.

My source says nothing about the fetus sucking its thumb. Perhaps you should read more careful.

Really, are you trying to come off looking like an ass? Go to your source on embryonic development and click on week 12.

You also have to be subjective to leglislate theft. But that doesnt stop the government

*Insert hippy style drawel* You cant, like OWN a car, a car IS man!, you cant OWN it, it just IS man (etc)

A government can legislate on aboriton if it so chooses.
you can't violate the rights of a car. you can violate the right's of a woman.
in america our system allows the court's to override legislation when a person's rights are being violated. it is therefore irrelevant.

as for not being able to legislate theft consult the bill of rights (trust me its in there im just gonna make you search for it so that maybe you'll actually try reading the whole thing)

I will speak as the catholic here. (YES I AM RELIGIOUS HA HA HA)

First the goal of life is to create life. How is not too important unless it is cloning (Yes cloning bad. Yes I hate Dolly.). Humans such as Cro magnums used to stay with there partner for four years then the father leaves to seek a younger partner(this serves a purpose, it decreases chances for birth defects.). The reason sex is pleasurable for humans, dolphins, and that monkey like thing I don't like(I don't like humans or dolphins either.) so the partners stay together longer. The longer you wait to get pregnant the more likely the child would have birth defects but overall the longevity of life increases(Dont ask how I know.). So having more then one partners is bad. Why you may ask ProAbortion people(You make me sick)? You pass(If you have) stds and other diseases, and other reasons I forgot.

One thing I dont get about liberals, why are they proabortion but were against having schiavo starved to death. Not so much difference there is there now?


One thing I don't get about Conservative bible-humpers: why do they feel the need to slam their beliefs down everyone's throats?

*snip*Go to your source on embryonic development and click on week 12.

You are correct about this. It does not appear in the timeline (and somewhat contradicts the timeline) but does appear as a caption.

EDIT: The key point is that viability is true sticking point of the law. Purely for the sake of argument you have chosen to quibble. Do you wish to contend that a fetus is conscious at some earlier point? Do you disagree that abortion is essentially legal until the point of viability?

That all depends on the state. In many states, *elective* abortion is legal only up until the end of the first trimester. GA is one case in point. After that, there must be some medical reason and the abortion must be recomended by a doctor (there are all sorts of medical reasons that fall under this umbrella, so it really isn't that difficult - but there is an added layer there). Around the point of viability, only medically necessary abortions can be carried out - as I pointed out before.

As for consciousness, we don't really know when that occurs. The best we can say is when brain waves are readable, which is well along in development. However, "consciousness" and "functioning nervous system" are not the same. All my first post was meant to point out is that, depending on one's opinion of what constitutes a "functioning nervous system", it can be placed at many points.

Why? They are becoming human life. Thats effectively murder. In the same way that if someone was drowning and I had a rope but refused to throw it to him that would be effectively murder.
saying it over and over again doesnt make it true

saying it over and over again doesnt make it true

*shhhh! Don't give the secret away*

Wait, I've been yelling that at the top of my lungs to Neo since I've been posting on NS. I guess the secret is safe. =)

That all depends on the state. In many states, *elective* abortion is legal only up until the end of the first trimester. GA is one case in point. After that, there must be some medical reason and the abortion must be recomended by a doctor (there are all sorts of medical reasons that fall under this umbrella, so it really isn't that difficult - but there is an added layer there). Around the point of viability, only medically necessary abortions can be carried out - as I pointed out before.

As for consciousness, we don't really know when that occurs. The best we can say is when brain waves are readable, which is well along in development. However, "consciousness" and "functioning nervous system" are not the same. All my first post was meant to point out is that, depending on one's opinion of what constitutes a "functioning nervous system", it can be placed at many points.

Actually, the US Supreme Court has said -- in the cases I cited -- that no state may place an undue burden on elective abortion prior to the point of viability.

Here is Georgia's abortion statute (http://www.legis.state.ga.us/cgi-bin/gl_codes_detail.pl?code=16-12-141):

16-12-141.
(a) Nothing in this article shall be construed to prohibit an abortion performed by a physician duly licensed to practice medicine and surgery pursuant to Chapter 34 of Title 43, based upon his or her best clinical judgment that an abortion is necessary, except that Code Section 16-12-144 is a prohibition of a particular abortion method which shall apply to both duly licensed physicians and laypersons.
(b) No abortion is authorized or shall be performed after the first trimester unless the abortion is performed in a licensed hospital or in a health facility licensed as an abortion facility by the Department of Human Resources.
(c) No abortion is authorized or shall be performed after the second trimester unless the physician and two consulting physicians certify that the abortion is necessary in their best clinical judgment to preserve the life or health of the woman. If the product of the abortion is capable of meaningful or sustained life, medical aid then available must be rendered.
(d) The performing physician shall file with the commissioner of human resources within ten days after an abortion procedure is performed a certificate of abortion containing such statistical data as is determined by the Department of Human Resources consistent with preserving the privacy of the woman. Hospital or other licensed health facility records shall be available to the district attorney of the judicial circuit in which the hospital or health facility is located.

Section (a) protects the right to abortion if medically necessary, but does not require medical necessity.

Section (b) poses the only additional burden after the first trimester -- which is that the abortion must be performed in a hospital or licensed abortion facility.

Section (c) bans abortion after the second trimester except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. The requirement for 3 physicians is likely not constitutional.

Club House,

I ask if one's unborn child is not a human life what is it? If your argument is "It's a fetus" a fetus a stage in the development of a human being, like baby, child, teenager, adult, senior.

It clearly is living.

According to the Law of Abiogenisis it is human

Living + Human = Living Human.

There are two places where you can draw the line of "Human Life", biologically. The moment of conception and the moment of Birth. Any point in between is completely arbitrary. Keep in mind the day before Birth, it looks like it does when it is born.

Fetuses respond to stimuli (I heard of a story where a doctor injected this fetus with something. When the fetus was injected again it used it's tiny hand to grab the needle. True story. Not Weekly World News. I'll look for the source. Don't remember where I read/heard it), are genetically human, and I bet they have some thought capactity.

Actually, the US Supreme Court has said -- in the cases I cited -- that no state may place an undue burden on elective abortion prior to the point of viability.

I didn't say anything about an undue burden.

Here is Georgia's abortion statute (http://www.legis.state.ga.us/cgi-bin/gl_codes_detail.pl?code=16-12-141):

Holy crap! How did you find that? Every time I've gone on that website looking for that I've gotten absolutely nothing to come up.

Fetuses respond to stimuli (I heard of a story where a doctor injected this fetus with something. When the fetus was injected again it used it's tiny hand to grab the needle. True story. Not Weekly World News. I'll look for the source. Don't remember where I read/heard it), are genetically human, and I bet they have some thought capactity.

(a) Fetuses after a certain point in developement respond to stimuli. Most abortions occur during the embryonic stage or the first week of the fetal stage - generally before this poitn.

(b) This is *incredibly* unlikely to actually be a true story, as even born infants often don't have that type of motor control. Even if it is true, it would be a very late term abortion, which would only be carried out for the health of the mother anyways.

(c) How do you have thought capacity before you have a brain?

(c) How do you have thought capacity before you have a brain?

Thoughts and consciousness are a function of the immortal soul. It is a purely religious idea.

Not talking about that. I am talking about things like tube tying and stuff.

I am not a puritan.

the only operation that is 100% effective to prevent creating a child is hysterectomy and castration.

vasectomy, tubal ligation, and everything else has a failure rate. it may be small, but it's there.

here's a question.

a crack whore gets pregnant. she knows she will not kick that crack habit and have a healthy baby. should that child be forced to be born, probably deformed, most likely brain damaged, and definately addicted to crack?

or should it be aborted before it gets the chance to suffer?

Club House,

I ask if one's unborn child is not a human life what is it? If your argument is "It's a fetus" a fetus a stage in the development of a human being, like baby, child, teenager, adult, senior.

It clearly is living.

According to the Law of Abiogenisis it is human

Living + Human = Living Human.

There are two places where you can draw the line of "Human Life", biologically. The moment of conception and the moment of Birth. Any point in between is completely arbitrary. Keep in mind the day before Birth, it looks like it does when it is born.

Fetuses respond to stimuli (I heard of a story where a doctor injected this fetus with something. When the fetus was injected again it used it's tiny hand to grab the needle. True story. Not Weekly World News. I'll look for the source. Don't remember where I read/heard it), are genetically human, and I bet they have some thought capactity.
what is this the 5th person whos looked at one post and has completely ignored the entire rest of the thread
biologically if you look at BRAIN DEVELOPMENT that is where human life begins.
an embryo before brain development is a blob of cells. true, they divide and are alive. however, they are no more alive than the bacteria you are killing as you smash your fingers against the keyboard. (potential for life=/=life and if you think it does, prove it objectively, scientifically, etc.)
the bacteria has no human brain hence it has no consciousness, intelligence, sentience, etc. which a living human being like you and i do have.
example as used before but you didnt bother to read: a brain dead person still has living, dividing skin cells, growing nails, etc. if i stop a brain dead person's heart from beating it is not murder. by brain dead i mean no brain function whatsoever, no thought, no future possibility of thought, nothing, NO LIVING HUMAN, etc. i dont mean vegitative state, asleep, unconsceous, etc.
the same qualities of someone who is brain dead are exhibited in an embryo which has not begun brain development. (again, potential for life=/=life and if you think it does, prove it objectively, scientifically, etc.)

Adoption, adoption, adoption. A person whose father is a rapist is no worse that a person whose father is a diligent middle class man, so why should one live, and other die before they even see the world.


obviously you've never carried a child to term.

it may "just be nine months" but it can be an eternity if every movement of that fetus flashes you back to the most painful and horrific moment of your life.

the only operation that is 100% effective to prevent creating a child is hysterectomy and castration.

vasectomy, tubal ligation, and everything else has a failure rate. it may be small, but it's there.

here's a question.

a crack whore gets pregnant. she knows she will not kick that crack habit and have a healthy baby. should that child be forced to be born, probably deformed, most likely brain damaged, and definately addicted to crack?

or should it be aborted before it gets the chance to suffer?
good question. this one is completely subjective and i am at a loss... and i dont know what current laws say... any ideas?

Holy crap! How did you find that? Every time I've gone on that website looking for that I've gotten absolutely nothing to come up.

;)

Those years in law school were good for supmin'

;)

Those years in law school were good for supmin'

=)

Seriously though, did you get that from going to the GA legislature page and doing their search? It never works for me and all I really knew about the GA legislation was what PP tells women who go there.

*Every* time I try to search that page, I end up getting nothing. It's almost like they purposely make it difficult to find things (which, knowing what I do about the GA legislature, wouldn't surprise me in the least)

good question. this one is completely subjective and i am at a loss... and i dont know what current laws say... any ideas?

I'm not sure what you mean.

There are no laws in the U.S. requiring abortion under any circumstances. That would be unconsitutional for the same reasons banning abortion is.

Abortion is legal in the US until the point of viability -- which is often assumed to be the end of the second trimester (state laws don't exactly match the Supreme Court requirements or modern biology). After the point of viability the vast majority of states ban abortion except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. Some states allow late-term abortions under other extreme circumstances -- such as severe fetal abnormality.

I hope that answers your question.

=)

Seriously though, did you get that from going to the GA legislature page and doing their search? It never works for me and all I really knew about the GA legislation was what PP tells women who go there.

*Every* time I try to search that page, I end up getting nothing. It's almost like they purposely make it difficult to find things (which, knowing what I do about the GA legislature, wouldn't surprise me in the least)

No.

I looked up the statute number on the NARAL site I had provided a link to earlier and then looked up the statute on the GA legislature site.

if your into that kinda stuff check out nexus. my dads a lawyer and he uses that. (i think theres a fee though :mad: )

No.

I looked up the statute number on the NARAL site I had provided a link to earlier and then looked up the statute on the GA legislature site.

Oh, well that won't help me when I go to look up other issues then. *sigh*

if your into that kinda stuff check out nexus. my dads a lawyer and he uses that. (i think theres a fee though :mad: )

Yeah, well, once my boyfriend gets into lawschool, I'll just have him look stuff up. I think he had access when he worked for the state senate. =)

That concent cant be taken away because she gave it up when she had sex. If she had sex and concieved then she effectively has created life. She cannot remove concent by killing that life.

Yet every other person can remove consent to donate their body at *any* point, even if the person recieving the donation dies as a *direct* consequence? Even if that person is their own child, needing the donation through a direct action of the parent?

You want to give the unborn rights that NO OTHER HUMAN BEING HAS. And you have given no compelling reason why they deserve it, even if they are considered 'human life' despite having no brain (up to the point where elective abortions cease being an option)


Thats a massive strech.

A car crash is an undesired and unlikely outcome and not the direct purpose of a driving a car. However if you look at sex, you can clearly see it is biologically designed to procreate. That is not to say that sex cannot be had for other purposes but its the original and primary purpose. A better analogy would be that the insurance company will not pay you any insurence payouts if you crash your car while trying to use it as a plane by jumping it over Tower Bridge whilst it was half raised.

Many, many people would say that a child is an 'undesired' outcome from sex - hence wearing condoms, taking the pill, having tubes tied etcetcetc. And a child is NOT the likely outcome of sex. Here, I shall put it in bold for you:

roughly 80% of fertilised eggs do not result in a child. Taking into account the fact that an egg is not fertilised everytime one has sex, and that birth control further reduces those odds, a child is NOT the most 'likely' result of sex.

And, you know... since the medical profession, which is what we are discussing, does not take into account intent, the analogy is actually perfectly fine, and it is yours that is off base and irrelevent.

---
Apologies for addressing a post from so far back in the thread, but I had to leave last night to work on a uni essay.

Why? They are becoming human life. Thats effectively murder. In the same way that if someone was drowning and I had a rope but refused to throw it to him that would be effectively murder.

That's funny... I'm fairly sure the LAW would not see that as murder. Nor would it be manslaughter.... at the most it would be 'death by negligence', I think... and then only if you were a caregiver to the person drowning - a teacher, for example. But allowing death to occur when you can stop it is not murder, according to law. I suggest you do some research into legal precendents (and basic definitions) before further tossing around the word 'murder'. It makes you appear uneducated.

The law also does not see 'becoming' as being the same as 'is' (for some 'odd' reason). It does not see potentiality as being important, thus your 'it is becoming life' argument is utterly, utterly devoid of relevance. This has been pointed out more than once before. If you keep ignoring this point, I'm simply going to assume you are unable to understand it.

That's funny... I'm fairly sure the LAW would not see that as murder. Nor would it be manslaughter.... at the most it would be 'death by negligence', I think... and then only if you were a caregiver to the person drowning - a teacher, for example. But allowing death to occur when you can stop it is not murder, according to law. I suggest you do some research into legal precendents (and basic definitions) before further tossing around the word 'murder'. It makes you appear uneducated.



Negligent homicide. It really depends on the witnesses. If you have the power to stop someone from dying, and you do not act, AND someone else is there to substantiate that your reasons for doing so were due to maliciousness, incompetence (in a medical profession), or impaired judgement, you can in fact be charged with a crime.

I suggest you take your own advice and look into the law a bit before attacking someone else's view about it.

Negligent homicide. It really depends on the witnesses. If you have the power to stop someone from dying, and you do not act, AND someone else is there to substantiate that your reasons for doing so were due to maliciousness, incompetence (in a medical profession), or impaired judgement, you can in fact be charged with a crime.

I suggest you take your own advice and look into the law a bit before attacking someone else's view about it.

Ouch. Suggestion noted.

Negligent homicide. It really depends on the witnesses. If you have the power to stop someone from dying, and you do not act, AND someone else is there to substantiate that your reasons for doing so were due to maliciousness, incompetence (in a medical profession), or impaired judgement, you can in fact be charged with a crime.

I suggest you take your own advice and look into the law a bit before attacking someone else's view about it.

This isn't universal. Here in Canada there is no legal requirement for a person to prevent the death of annother. I'm not entirely sure if medical professionals are required to intervene but i doubt it.

Many, many people would say that a child is an 'undesired' outcome from sex - hence wearing condoms, taking the pill, having tubes tied etcetcetc.
Yes, but the only reason that people enjoy sex is that evolution made reproduction our prime priority. So you could say that NOT having a child is the 'undesired' outcome from sex.
By that logic having sex without the intent of having a child is just as bad as onanism.

Yes, but the only reason that people enjoy sex is that evolution made reproduction our prime priority. So you could say that NOT having a child is the 'undesired' outcome from sex.
By that logic having sex without the intent of having a child is just as bad as onanism.

First, what is onanism?

Secondly, I do think that the reason sex exists is procreation and not pleasure.

Therefore if you have sex for pleasure and procreation results, you should be prepared to raise a child.

The purpose of driving a car is to commute quickly to work. However, some people drive a car purely for pleasure. Both cars cost a lot of money. In fact, the pleasure car costs a lot more. Why shouldn't pleasure sex have a cost in terms of reproduction?

Regarding contraception - I'm all for it. If people always used contraception, abortion wouldn't be as much of an issue. However people should abstain from sex until they're married (or in a committed relationship, since marriage isn't practical when you're stuck on a desert island or an alien planet with your beloved.) This helps prevent the spread of STDs as well as unwanted pregnancies.

Onanism is a biblical refrence. Genisis 38:8-10
I just can't remember how to spell masturbation.

have any of you even looked at what I wrote???

Joroma']have any of you even looked at what I wrote???

Yup.

Suggestion: Rudeness and insults get you nowhere.

Neocannon, your entire argument falls through on one very simple point. You state that by having sex you consent to pregnancy, this isnt true when a contrceptive is used. When you use a cotraceptive, you are denying your consent to pregnancy, the fact that no contraceptive is 100% effective has nothing to do with whether you do or do not concent to something.

I assume, then, that you are also an ardent vegan, never wear leather, and watch the pavement in front of you for insects at all times? It's not Life that's the issue here, it's Sentience.



Why do Vegans try to pretend killing plants isn't worth a life? Is it becayse pkants don't move so fast?
Is importance of life based on speed? If so are Cheetahs more important than humans?

By the way Tooth paste requires killing Diadoms (Those things in the ocean). We make the yellow road paint with then too.

Ferns have more Chromosomes than humans: aren't chromosomes important (which is why ameobas are looked down upon)?

In general, you have to kill to eat, Omnivore, Carnivore, or Herbivore you are a killer.

Why do Vegans try to pretend killing plants isn't worth a life? Is it becayse pkants don't move so fast?
Is importance of life based on speed? If so are Cheetahs more important than humans?

By the way Tooth paste requires killing Diadoms (Those things in the ocean). We make the yellow road paint with then too.

Ferns have more Chromosomes than humans: aren't chromosomes important (which is why ameobas are looked down upon)?

In general, you have to kill to eat, Omnivore, Carnivore, or Herbivore you are a killer.

I always used to wonder about this. Seeing as plants seem a lot smarter than many people I know, I struggled with the concept of humans even being allowed to eat plants. But somewhere you do have to draw the line and say that humans are more important than plants (and even animals.) Therefore they can eat them for sustenance. (Use them for clothes...)

Thoughts and consciousness are a function of the immortal soul. It is a purely religious idea.

Interesting concept. Where is the evidence to support your idea?

Yes, but the only reason that people enjoy sex is that evolution made reproduction our prime priority. So you could say that NOT having a child is the 'undesired' outcome from sex.
By that logic having sex without the intent of having a child is just as bad as onanism.

And, what is wrong with Onanism?

Apart, of course, from the fact that the word has come to mean something that wasn't originally implied in the story it is derived from.

Neocannon, your entire argument falls through on one very simple point. You state that by having sex you consent to pregnancy, this isnt true when a contrceptive is used. When you use a cotraceptive, you are denying your consent to pregnancy, the fact that no contraceptive is 100% effective has nothing to do with whether you do or do not concent to something.

Firstly, Its Neo Cannen

Secondly, a contreceptive may be used but you still have to accept the possibility that a child may occur. By using contreceptive you are allowing the idea that its a lower probability that it will happen but the probability is there all the same. If I role a dice, I may need a 5 to win the game but I concent to the possibility of it being any number between 1 to 6.

Firstly, Its Neo Cannen

Secondly, a contreceptive may be used but you still have to accept the possibility that a child may occur. By using contreceptive you are allowing the idea that its a lower probability that it will happen but the probability is there all the same. If I role a dice, I may need a 5 to win the game but I concent to the possibility of it being any number between 1 to 6.

The problem is, Neo - that you have decided what result you will have, and will manipulate the figures to convince yourself.

Okay - condoms are not ultra-reliable... so, by enacting penetration, a woman is conceding the possibility that she MIGHT become pregnant, therefore, you SOMEHOW perceive that as a tacit acceptance of reproduction?

You do realise that sperm can survive for a short time outside the body? You do realise that a single sperm is all that is needed to fertilise the ovum... and that the sperm need not actually be ejaculated INTO the female for conception to occur?

You are aware that men 'lose' sperm even when NOT engaging in reproductive actions?

So - it is a possibility that a woman who uses the same toilet facility, bathtub, etc as a man COULD become pregnant, yes? Even without any form of sexual activity.

A small possibility, but still a possibility - just like the risk of pregnancy while using contraceptives.

Thus - by your OWN logic, any woman that got pregnant by freakish accident has tacitly accepted the risk, by engaging in the action that caused the pregnancy.... like... taking a bath, for example.

So - any woman who has taken a bath has SHOULD have anticipated, and made allowances for, pregnancy.... and if she DIDN'T calculate that risk, she DESERVES to carry the foetus to term. Right?


On another thought: since they were betrothed, it is not UNLIKELY that Mary may have shared some ablutions with her beloved... perhaps her 'virgin' birth is not so mysterious after all.

The problem is, Neo - that you have decided what result you will have, and will manipulate the figures to convince yourself.

Okay - condoms are not ultra-reliable... so, by enacting penetration, a woman is conceding the possibility that she MIGHT become pregnant, therefore, you SOMEHOW perceive that as a tacit acceptance of reproduction?

You do realise that sperm can survive for a short time outside the body? You do realise that a single sperm is all that is needed to fertilise the ovum... and that the sperm need not actually be ejaculated INTO the female for conception to occur?

You are aware that men 'lose' sperm even when NOT engaging in reproductive actions?

So - it is a possibility that a woman who uses the same toilet facility, bathtub, etc as a man COULD become pregnant, yes? Even without any form of sexual activity.

A small possibility, but still a possibility - just like the risk of pregnancy while using contraceptives.

Thus - by your OWN logic, any woman that got pregnant by freakish accident has tacitly accepted the risk, by engaging in the action that caused the pregnancy.... like... taking a bath, for example.

So - any woman who has taken a bath has SHOULD have anticipated, and made allowances for, pregnancy.... and if she DIDN'T calculate that risk, she DESERVES to carry the foetus to term. Right?


On another thought: since they were betrothed, it is not UNLIKELY that Mary may have shared some ablutions with her beloved... perhaps her 'virgin' birth is not so mysterious after all.

Diffrence in your analogy, a women is actively accepting the possibility of procreation by engaing in it herself in sex. Where as in all your ideas she is taking a bath, going to the toliet etc. She is actively aware, this is a genuine accident. And in that case, the child should be put up for adoption (not that I would expect you to apriciate that). Are you also aware that the "short time" you refered to is a matter of minutes. And are you also aware that the distance from the vagina to the ovum is for sperm the equivelent of several miles for humans. And that the only reason one gets there useually is from the momentum of all the other sperm cells behind it.

Driving a car, however, is known to have a high risk of killing someone, or at least maiming them and ruining their lives.

Should people be forced to walk? Much harder to kill someone walking.

Driving a car, however, is known to have a high risk of killing someone, or at least maiming them and ruining their lives.

Should people be forced to walk? Much harder to kill someone walking.

Driving a car is not an action directly linked of itself in normal practise to killing someone. Sex is an action directly linked of itself in normal practise to creating a child. Do you want to try again?

Diffrence in your analogy, a women is actively accepting the possibility of procreation by engaing in it herself in sex. Where as in all your ideas she is taking a bath, going to the toliet etc. She is actively aware, this is a genuine accident. And in that case, the child should be put up for adoption (not that I would expect you to apriciate that). Are you also aware that the "short time" you refered to is a matter of minutes. And are you also aware that the distance from the vagina to the ovum is for sperm the equivelent of several miles for humans. And that the only reason one gets there useually is from the momentum of all the other sperm cells behind it.

No, Neo. She isn't. A woman is not actively accepting the possibility of procreation. Maybe, if she has thought about it rationally (not always possible) and has STILL decided to use NO precautions - THEN - you might have a case.

But, our bodies do not always listen too fondly to our capacity for reason, and sometimes people make 'decisions' without ANY consideration.

Under SUCH circumstance, pregnancy would be EXACTLY as much an accident, as it would be from a bath tub.

I do not, and probably will not, ever agree with your blinkered view of how a woman should be packaged and used. In MY world view, a woman has rights to governance of her own body - and those rights are not up for negotiation just because your 'church' doesn't like how she spends her Friday night.

Also - I think you are incredibly irresponsible to push a platform of automatic necessity for carrying the foetus, and then putting it up for adoption.

That kind of mind-set is what leads to teenage pregnant suicides.

Try thinking outside of your holier-than-thou perspective for a moment, and look at the reasons why a rational, sentient human female might decide she would not want to carry a foetus, or might not want to give birth.

For me - men should not even be allowed to EXPRESS anti-abortion sentiments until a man can safely carry a foetus to term.

It's trivial, I know... but when you have managed to force an object the size of agrape-fruit through an opening in your flesh the size of a lemon, maybe THEN you MIGHT have a valid 'anti-abortion' perspective.

Driving a car is not an action directly linked of itself in normal practise to killing someone. Sex is an action directly linked of itself in normal practise to creating a child. Do you want to try again?

On the contrary... you assume that sex ONLY includes regular vaginal penetration, and that it is being carried out for procreation.

Try explaining to me how anal intercourse is designed to 'create a child'?

What about oral intercourse?

What about 'gay' sexuality?

What about regular vaginal penetration WITH contraception?

It COULD be argued that most people engage fairly regularly in strictly NON-procreative sex.

a contreceptive may be used but you still have to accept the possibility that a child may occur. By using contreceptive you are allowing the idea that its a lower probability that it will happen but the probability is there all the same. If I role a dice, I may need a 5 to win the game but I concent to the possibility of it being any number between 1 to 6.

You've used this argument/analogy several times, and nobody has addressed it - I would like to comment on it.

When you roll a die, you accept a possibility of it landing on a six instead of a five.

"Abortion" would be the equivalent of deciding "I don't like a 6 - I am going to pick up the die and turn it around, so it shows a five."

In a game, you can't do that - there are rules preventing this because, without those rules, the game would be not be entertaining for the participants. A monopoly game in which everyone got the rolls they wanted would be silly.

However, life isn't a game. If I, in the privacy of my own home, roll a die and don't like that it came up as a 6 - I can full well change the roll. If I particularly felt like it, I could go and get a die right now, roll it a dozen times, and each time turn it over so it came up a five. There is nothing wrong with that.

(sorry if any of these have been mentioned, I havent read the whole thing) It just so happens that I recently read a book about this conflict. Actually, I didn't learn too much from it, so that doesn't have too much to do with anything. ^.^ anywho, I'm pro-life, all the way. If a woman willingly had sex, then she has no excuse not to carry the baby to term. She needs to take responsibility for her actions instead of killing a child she doesn't know. Now, if she was raped, I feel bad for her, but still think she should carry it. and...if it threatens her life...I really don't know. :( sorry I couldn't be very insightful...oh well...

You've used this argument/analogy several times, and nobody has addressed it - I would like to comment on it.

When you roll a die, you accept a possibility of it landing on a six instead of a five.

"Abortion" would be the equivalent of deciding "I don't like a 6 - I am going to pick up the die and turn it around, so it shows a five."

In a game, you can't do that - there are rules preventing this because, without those rules, the game would be not be entertaining for the participants. A monopoly game in which everyone got the rolls they wanted would be silly.

However, life isn't a game. If I, in the privacy of my own home, roll a die and don't like that it came up as a 6 - I can full well change the roll. If I particularly felt like it, I could go and get a die right now, roll it a dozen times, and each time turn it over so it came up a five. There is nothing wrong with that.
No you may not, because according to the analogy, having sex is like rolling a dice, when a woman has sex, she is aware of the risk that it may not be a 5, and that if it's not a 5, then she lost and holds all the responsibility of getting not a 5. Running the dice over with a steamroller however, cannot be a choice.

No you may not, because according to the analogy, having sex is like rolling a dice, when a woman has sex, she is aware of the risk that it may not be a 5, and that if it's not a 5, then she lost and holds all the responsibility of getting not a 5. Running the dice over with a steamroller however, cannot be a choice.


She is aware that the dice might turn up a '5' but it isnt a 'game' when you 'lose' if you roll a five.

In other words, even if she gets pregnent, she is under no obligation whatsoever to carry the pregnancy.

She is aware that the dice might turn up a '5' but it isnt a 'game' when you 'lose' if you roll a five.

In other words, even if she gets pregnent, she is under no obligation whatsoever to carry the pregnancy.

You keep saying that "even if she gets pregnant, she is under no obligation..."

But we really haven't established that at all, that's just an arbitrary statement on your part. So let's dig deeper, and find out why...

Arguably you could say that it is a woman's civil rights at stake. To which we will respond that a baby (fetal human) has the same rights. Which is were it will get ludicrous, because some pro-Choice person will say something along the lines of this: "humans aren't humans until _I_ say they're human."

Yet another arbitrary establishment of "fact."

This is why sex is for grown up, married individuals. If you are not mature enough to take responsibility for the potential outcome of an action, including sex, you should not be allowed to engage in that action.

Here is a better idea. Since it will be impossible to ban sex, let's simply sterilize everybody at birth, and make it so they can't have the sterilisation reversed until they're married and have gone thhrough a course in raising children.

She is aware that the dice might turn up a '5' but it isnt a 'game' when you 'lose' if you roll a five.

In other words, even if she gets pregnent, she is under no obligation whatsoever to carry the pregnancy.
Yes she is, because she agreed to accept full responsibility if she manages to accidentally get pregnant.

And life is very much like a game in some situations.

Yes she is, because she agreed to accept full responsibility if she manages to accidentally get pregnant.

And life is very much like a game in some situations.



That isnt true, she didnt agree to accept full responsiblity.

Unless you can produce a contract to that effect.

You keep saying that "even if she gets pregnant, she is under no obligation..."

But we really haven't established that at all, that's just an arbitrary statement on your part. So let's dig deeper, and find out why...

Arguably you could say that it is a woman's civil rights at stake. To which we will respond that a baby (fetal human) has the same rights. Which is were it will get ludicrous, because some pro-Choice person will say something along the lines of this: "humans aren't humans until _I_ say they're human."

Yet another arbitrary establishment of "fact."

This is why sex is for grown up, married individuals. If you are not mature enough to take responsibility for the potential outcome of an action, including sex, you should not be allowed to engage in that action.

Here is a better idea. Since it will be impossible to ban sex, let's simply sterilize everybody at birth, and make it so they can't have the sterilisation reversed until they're married and have gone thhrough a course in raising children.

1. Over half the women in the US will have an abortion during their lifetime. This isn't a few giggling teenagers and the implication that women aren't competent to make this decision is insulting.

2. "Grown up, married individuals" have abortions. There went that theory.

3. Odd you would post that some are not mature and responsible enough to have sex or have abortions, but that they should be forced to have children. Not trusted to make a choice, but trusted to raise a child. Makes no sense.

4. Actually, as no one has been able to establish a logical reason why sex obligates one to have a child, the statement that there is no such obligation is simply true.

5. As I have tried to explain several times and to which no one has offered a reasonable response, even if you assume the fetus is a person that does not give it rights that trump the woman's right to her own body.

I hate trying to discuss hypotheticals on this, but I will try a new one: I invite you to dinner. You have an allergic reaction to something in the gumbo I serve. It causes both your kidneys to fail. For various reasons, you need a transplant immediately or you will die. Dialysis isn't going to work. For various reasons, you are a very rare type to match. I happen to be a match. It is unlikely you will find a donated kidney in time.

Although highly unlikely, it was possible that serving you my gumbo could cause you to have kidney failure. I am partially responsible for your condition. Donating a kidney to you might be the right thing to do. But it is difficult to contend I have a moral obligation to do so. More critically, it cannot be seriously argued that I should be compelled against my will to do so.

(Quibble with the hypothetical facts if you wish. But that is simply dodging the question. (which is typical and why I don't usually use hypotheticals on here)).

6. The definition of persons with rights is one that pro-lifers choose to routinely ignore. If you want to assert that a embryo has a right to life, you had better be prepared to explain: (a) what entities do and do not have a right to life and (b) why.

Almost all ethical systems that justify rights such as a right to life do so on the bases that relate such rights to the nature of those who have such rights or upon corresponding obligations between right-holders. Under any of these systems, an embryo does not qualify for rights.

We do not generally recognize pigs, apes, and dolphins as having any (or any significant) right to life. Why does an embryo have a greater claim to rights than such entities?

7. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protect any "person" from being deprived of life without due process of law. An zygote-embryo-fetus is not a person under the Constitution. In fact, the Fourteenth Amendment in part expressly defines a person as one born in the US.

You keep saying that "even if she gets pregnant, she is under no obligation..."

But we really haven't established that at all, that's just an arbitrary statement on your part. So let's dig deeper, and find out why...

Arguably you could say that it is a woman's civil rights at stake. To which we will respond that a baby (fetal human) has the same rights. Which is were it will get ludicrous, because some pro-Choice person will say something along the lines of this: "humans aren't humans until _I_ say they're human."
Well, pro-lifers say that "humans are human when I say they are," which is just as arbitrary. They're just different ways of interpreting a fuzzy issue.


This is why sex is for grown up, married individuals. If you are not mature enough to take responsibility for the potential outcome of an action, including sex, you should not be allowed to engage in that action.
Define grown up.

Does marriage automatically make one mature and responsible? I know of at least one married couple that were thinking of having an abortion. It's like Cat said, grown ups have abortions too...

Marriage is a social construct and is useless in defnining when people should or shouldn't be having children.

Here is a better idea. Since it will be impossible to ban sex, let's simply sterilize everybody at birth, and make it so they can't have the sterilisation reversed until they're married and have gone thhrough a course in raising children.
I hope that's a joke.

It... Never... Ends...

*falls to the floor*

You keep saying that "even if she gets pregnant, she is under no obligation..."

But we really haven't established that at all, that's just an arbitrary statement on your part. So let's dig deeper, and find out why...

Arguably you could say that it is a woman's civil rights at stake. To which we will respond that a baby (fetal human) has the same rights. Which is were it will get ludicrous, because some pro-Choice person will say something along the lines of this: "humans aren't humans until _I_ say they're human."

Yet another arbitrary establishment of "fact."

This is why sex is for grown up, married individuals. If you are not mature enough to take responsibility for the potential outcome of an action, including sex, you should not be allowed to engage in that action.


It isn't a matter of what 'pro-Choice' people want to define... it is a matter of law, and a matter of biology. Newly conceived concepta are not 'babies'. Although individual cells may be alive, a conceptus is not 'a life' at the moment of conception. Even though it contains human cells, that does not make it a 'human being'... unless a recently-fed mosquito is ALSO a human being.

The common point at which a foetus becomes classified a 'human life' SEEMS to be the point at which the foetus developes actual brain function... sometime after the 20th (usually about the 22nd, I believe) week.

It's not THAT arbitrary... we commonly define someone as 'dead' when the brain ceases to function, so we could just as easily claim the commencement of true brain function as the 'start' of life.


Conception, on the other hand, is a much MORE arbitrary point to set as the 'start' of life... since it is nothing more than the combination of two cells... and about 30% fail to even implant on the uterus wall.


Here is a better idea. Since it will be impossible to ban sex, let's simply sterilize everybody at birth, and make it so they can't have the sterilisation reversed until they're married and have gone thhrough a course in raising children.

This, I agree with.

(sorry if any of these have been mentioned, I havent read the whole thing) It just so happens that I recently read a book about this conflict. Actually, I didn't learn too much from it, so that doesn't have too much to do with anything. ^.^ anywho, I'm pro-life, all the way. If a woman willingly had sex, then she has no excuse not to carry the baby to term. She needs to take responsibility for her actions instead of killing a child she doesn't know. Now, if she was raped, I feel bad for her, but still think she should carry it. and...if it threatens her life...I really don't know. :( sorry I couldn't be very insightful...oh well...

I don't think that anyone should have sex before they are in a committed relationship, but I wouldn't attempt to legislate that.

Arguably you could say that it is a woman's civil rights at stake. To which we will respond that a baby (fetal human) has the same rights.

Of course, you never address the fact that giving an embryo (and most abortions are embryos) these rights would take away *all* rights from a sexually active woman.

Right-wing nutjobs. /chuckle

Of course, you never address the fact that giving an embryo (and most abortions are embryos) these rights would take away *all* rights from a sexually active woman.

Being sexually active is an abrogation of your contract with society. You have lost your rights.

I'm sure there are so many people willing to adopt.

Guess what? There aren't.

Oh no! We don't want the poor baby to be brought up in an adoption home? Let's kill it! The way I see it, we should just let all babies be born and then drown the ones we don't like. I cannot see any reason why not. :D

Being sexually active is an abrogation of your contract with society. You have lost your rights.

WTF?

That had better be sarcastic.

WTF?

That had better be sarcastic.
What's an abrogation?

It sounds cool. Can I have one?

What's an abrogation?

It sounds cool. Can I have one?

An abrogation is like, if you have a $500,000 mortgage and pay $20,000 on it, then take the mortgage slip to the bank and light it on fire. A breach of contract.

Being sexually active is an abrogation of your contract with society. You have lost your rights.

I dont remember signing that contract. Someone must have forged my signature! :eek:

An abrogation is like, if you have a $500,000 mortgage and pay $20,000 on it, then take the mortgage slip to the bank and light it on fire. A breach of contract.

So - how does anyone abrogate their 'contract with society'?

There IS no contract with society... even our law is, ultimately, optional.

Being sexually active is an abrogation of your contract with society. You have lost your rights.

Since when does due process allow the government to remove your rights for doing something perfectly legal?

Okay - now being pro-Life is 'patriotic'...

These people make me feel ill.

(I really hope this is a sarcastic site...)

http://www.misspoppy.com/catalog/xcart/customer/product.php?productid=16346&cat=283&page=1

Being sexually active is an abrogation of your contract with society. You have lost your rights.

The last societal contract I abrogated was when I noticed the Emperor had no clothes and innocently pointed it out.What a furor that created until I admitted that the lack of clothes was a matter of my lack of faith.If I only believed enough,the clothes would appear. :p

Being sexually active is an egregious abrogation.If they will only believe,why,everyone will practice abstinence and humans will be removed for the next macro-evolutionary stage.Remember,no sex equals righteousness. :gundge:

May the Farce be With You ;)

My opinion

Abortions are bad.
Forcing a women to have a unwanted child is worse.
By forcing a woman to bear a unwanted child you are punishing two people.
The child and the mother, because the child will not be raised in a loving enviroment, and that forms a lot problems down the road.
Abortions are up to the woman, but I think adoptions are a better way.
If a woman wants to abort a child, then it will be aborted, whether it's in a clinic by a professional, or with a coat hanger in the shower.
I disagree with abortion, but I respect the right for them to choose, as I have seen how much impact it can have on people.