NationStates Jolt Archive

so YOU can be a moral agent, deciding when it is OK to have an abortion and when it is immoral but a pregnant woman ISNT?

women ARE the sole agent when it comes to deciding abortion. at least in the first trimester. and they are perfectly able to decide if they should or should not carry a pregnancy to term. who knows their situations better than they do? you certainly do not.

I don't need to know their situation to understand that to take the life of an innocent human being without their consent is murder.

If the woman chooses to kill her child then that is not the kind of action that a "moral agent" would take. A "moral agent" will act on behalf of a moral way. They will not kill innocent people, especially ones who can't defend themselves.
and yet women have done just that since the beginning of time. '

if YOU can be a moral agent, so can THEY. they judge their circumstances and make a moral decision, just like you do.

The original argument of Abortion was that it was for cases such as rape, incest, and to save the mothers life. It does NOT appear to be the case now.

:mad: :(

Poor children. Sorry guys :(

If you think the fetus has the right to life, then you obviously think an abortion is an infringement upon its liberty.

Liberty does not extend to usurping the body of another person. Even if you believe that an embryo/fetus is a life at the time of elective abortion - even if you believe it is a human life, with all the rights therein, it still does not have the right to the mother's body, any more than any born person does.

You probably also think the woman's assertion that she can end her own baby's life is tantamount to slavery (the right to own someone else's life and do what you want with that life).

Of course, that isn't what abortion is. If a woman could end a pregnancy and preserve the fetus and let it keep developing, and that was safe for her, we most likely wouldn't be having any discussion. An abortion is a refusal to be pregnant, not a taking of a life.

and do you for that matter?
i do not

that is why i am pro-choice even in circumstances where others would try to force a woman to have an abortion. even if she is 12 years old, it should be her choice

Tenth amendment. Plus the amendment banning slavery.
YOU LOSE.
There is no 10th amendment. Not that I'm pro slavery either; but, where is that?
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/general/constitution/
:confused:

Personally I suspect that the people who are pro-life as well as pro-war and pro-death penalty pretty much want to keep the production of future cannon fodder going without the interruption from something as contraproductive as abortion.

Sounds like an interesting idea for a scifi novel. Or a conspiracy theory. God knows we need all the conspiracy theories we can get our nervously twitching hands on.

At least 75,000 abortions were performed in Australia during 2003.
These figures are not just pulled from thin air, these are the Medicare figures reported by the Health minister. (Link at bottom)

For non-Australians, Medicare is the Australian public health scheme, funded by the Government (Taxpayers). There also non-Medicare funded abortions, estimated at 25,000.
So with rough calculations that means at least 1 out of a 100 women had an abortion in 2003, and is more likely around the mark of 1 in 50 women. I would say that the most likely figure would be around 1 in 60 women, to allow for multiple abortions

I support the right to abortions, but this is nuts, we need to reduce this. Even if my per person is really off, 75,000+ in a nation of 20 million is too high. Not only because of the loss of unborn lives and cost financially, but also on the mental and emotional wellbeing of society.

I'm a male Deist, so my views will obviously differ to others due to gender and relegious beliefs. Incidently can someone post the Jewish and Muslim views on this, I can not find anything on it.

I think abortions should be available, but not dispersed freely or encouraged. I know people who have had them, and seen first-hand the damage that can be caused to a woman well-being. Adoption and protection such as ther pill and condoms need to be better supported as a viable alternative. Can anyone suggest other ideas besides the obvious tightening of rquirements ?

here is the source and calculations I used
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2004/s1231924.htm

Approximate calculations
20 million Australians, 50% female, 50% of Child bearing age 18-50 years
thus 5 million possible candidates
Using five values of abortions per women, and total amount
75000 total, 25000 multiple so 50000 women 1 in 100
75000 total, 0 multipe so 75000 women 1 in 67
100000 total, 0 multiple so 100000 women 1 in 50
100000 total, 20000 multiple so 80000 women 1 in 62.5
100000 total, 10000 multiple so 80000 women 1 in 62.5
100000 total, 5000 multiple so 90000 women 1 in 53
As long as all the women receiving abortions choose to have them, there is no such thing as "too many" abortions. Indeed, I believe women should be encouraged to abort if they are not ready and willing to be the best possible parent they could be. The world right now would be a far better place if more women chose to abort their unplanned and/or unwanted pregnancies.

Scientifically, a fetus canbe considered a human life.

Once it develops the ability to sense and respond to stimuli, this is true. Of course, the vast majority of elective abortions occur before that point...

The fetus isn't a parasite. The fetus is a human being with human DNA. The parasite has its own genetic code and it's not meant to be there. The fetus is in the woman because the human body is built for reproduction. That's so old and tired. You made a false analogy.

The definition of parasite does not require that the parasite be another species. A parasite is one organism living completely and bodily off of another organism - usually inside the host. A fetus, once it has developed enough to be considered an organism, meets this definition completely.

We haven't scientifically determined if the fetus is a life.

We can (and have) determine at what point the fetus meets all the requirements to be considered a life.

And yeah, the fetus has to depend on the mother. The baby also has to depend on the mother for years and years after its birth. The only difference is location. I thought we already addressed this.

No, the only difference is not location. An infant does not depend bodily upon the mother for nourishment. The mother may breastfeed, or may not (at her choice). Other forms of nourishment are available. An infant does not depend upon the mother for oxygen - respiration - it can obtain that on its own. An infant does not excrete its wastes into the mother's bloodstream. An infant does not drain calcium out of a mother's bones or keep her from menstruating.

Do you really claim that an infant does any of these things? Otherwise, you're "the only difference is location" argument is bullshit.

And the mother is still just as responsible for allowing herself to get pregnant, unless it was something like rape.
Yes, the woman is responsible for dealing with her pregnancy. And choosing to abort is one responsible choice she can make. What's the problem here?

Liberty does not extend to usurping the body of another person. Even if you believe that an embryo/fetus is a life at the time of elective abortion - even if you believe it is a human life, with all the rights therein, it still does not have the right to the mother's body, any more than any born person does.



Of course, that isn't what abortion is. If a woman could end a pregnancy and preserve the fetus and let it keep developing, and that was safe for her, we most likely wouldn't be having any discussion. An abortion is a refusal to be pregnant, not a taking of a life.

You make a really good point in your first paragraph. I hope you don't mind, but I am going to quote one of my best friends on the issue and then briefly explain his reasoning (not that he needs it):

Can a parent leave an infant to care for himself? If a father leaves his baby alone, kicks him out the house or otherwise knowingly abandons the child to its own devices has he violated any moral or ethical rule? If the answer is no then child abandonment and neglect laws are immoral. I believe the answer is yes; a parent has moral obligations to the child. Children are wards, incapable of defending themselves. Those unwilling to care for their children can give them up for adoption or to relatives if such a course seems reasonably safe for the child. However, simply abandoning a child is immoral. A baby cannot be expected to care for itself and parents are obligated to care for the baby until such time as they can safely give it up for adoption or the child grows up.

In other words, the fetus doesn't have a right to his mother or father's body, but since the fetus is a ward of his parents, the parents have moral obligations to keep him safe until such time when parental rights can be transferred. If the baby can be removed from the mother safely and placed into an artificial womb, that'd make this debate irrelevant, obviously. But since that technology doesn't exist as of yet, the mother must properly care for the child until the point at which she can transfer her parental duties and obligations to another individual who would then assume the role.

As for the point in your second paragraph, an abortion isn't a refusal to be pregnant. An abortion is an affirmative action that ends the life of the baby deliberately. The baby is dismembered or poisoned. If the woman doesn't want to be pregnant, the most your argument could support is ejection of the fetus. That's a passive response to the desire not to be pregnant. Ejecting the fetus doesn't kill the baby, but results in the baby dying. There's an ethical difference. Going back to my first point: since the woman can't abandon her baby until its safety can be guaranteed, ejection isn't an option until the point of viability. And to quote my brilliant friend again:

This means that ejecting the fetus is inappropriate except where its safety can be reasonably assured. The fetus cannot be discarded to the elements any more than the infant can be left to fend for itself on the streets.

22 months? You must be confused. :D

LOL! Weeks! Weeks!

hehe

As long as all the women receiving abortions choose to have them, there is no such thing as "too many" abortions. Indeed, I believe women should be encouraged to abort if they are not ready and willing to be the best possible parent they could be. The world right now would be a far better place if more women chose to abort their unplanned and/or unwanted pregnancies.

People should learn not to get into positions where these choices are neccessary to begin with.

1. Separate DNA is important because a few people suggested the fetus is nothing more than appendage of the mother. The fetus has its own unique DNA - a combination of its mother's and father's genetic code.

You are still making the assumption that every human being has a single genetic code. This is not true. An adult may have two completely separate genetic codes within themself.

2. 22 months? Okay, you mean 22 weeks. Anyway, do you have a source?

Every embryology textbook I've ever seen.

Heart Beat and Brainwave (http://www.cbrinfo.org/RCC/Articles/credo.html)

Biased source outside of scientific review and thus completley useless.

Another one (http://www.drspock.com/article/0,1510,9851,00.html)

I am well aware that the circulatory system develops early on - this is well-known. However, a heartbeat does not determine whether or not something is alive.

In other words, the fetus doesn't have a right to his mother or father's body, but since the fetus is a ward of his parents, the parents have moral obligations to keep him safe until such time when parental rights can be transferred.

I like this arguement. I'll have to use it in the future.

Is the entire idea of fetus or human being not really pinned down? If a mother wants her unborn child it is a baby. If she changes her mind the next day and wants it aborted it is automatically a fetus because its her body and she can kill her child if she wants. Those who want their child and those who don't have their babies described differently. I suppose it is all on the woman's state of mind. After all you can be charged with murder if you hurt a pregnant woman and her baby dies. Because she WANTED the baby. Anyway, I'm sure you don't hear a future mother say: "Hey, the fetus just kicked!"

Most of these laws have not been tested - and most would likely be found unconstitutional. The only applications that have stood thus far are those cases in which a woman in the third trimester was murdered and the suspect was charged with double murder. Of course, a viable fetus has always been protected by the law - a mother cannot have an elective abortion at that point either.

you know that thousands were killed in the 9-11 terrist attacks? it was all over the news. now, somewhere like over 8000 newborns were murdered, yes thats right murdered (how can you call killing an adult or todler muder but a consieved human an abortion?). ve got an idea. lets have abortions ages up to 18, that way if at any time you dont want your kid anymore you can murder them and not go to jail!!

Murder:
"To kill brutally or inhumanly."

God, you have a shitty dictionary.

Murder is defined as an unlawful killing. That's the legal definition of murder. Since murder is a legal term, that's all that matters.

People should learn not to get into positions where these choices are neccessary to begin with.

True, yet if they do get into these position through fault of their own they must deal with it and not show cowardice and get rid of the mistake. Pregnancy is a natural thing and should not be terminated.

Sometimes. They'll dismember the fetus and pull the big chunks out--pardon the gross factor--and then vacuum bits of skull fragments and other smaller pieces that, if left in the mother, can cause infection.

Sounds to me like you are describing, over and over, late-term abortions - which don't occur electively anyways (at least not in the US, and, I'm guessing, not in Australia either).

Sounds to me like you are describing, over and over, late-term abortions - which don't occur electively anyways (at least not in the US, and, I'm guessing, not in Australia either).

ok, what happens in abortions that do occur electively then.

you shouldnt have unpretected sex or for that matter, shouldnt have sex if you dont want a child... that should wait til you want one, otherwis if your doing a hoore (i know how to spell it but dont want to) then do W.E you plz

There is no 10th amendment. Not that I'm pro slavery either; but, where is that?
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/general/constitution/
:confused:
The discussion turned over to the U.S. about halfway through the thread.

True, yet if they do get into these position through fault of their own they must deal with it and not show cowardice and get rid of the mistake. Pregnancy is a natural thing and should not be terminated.

I agree. Which is why I have this same opinion. If a pregnancy occurs then the couple (I'm meaning both parents here not just the mother) should step up and take care of the child and not simply kill the child to avoid their new responsibility.

you shouldnt have unpretected sex or for that matter, shouldnt have sex if you dont want a child... that should wait til you want one, otherwis if your doing a hoore (i know how to spell it but dont want to) then do W.E you plz

i agree, to an extent, however use contraception if you are gonna do it.

ok, what happens in abortions that do occur electively then.
They suck a tiny blob of cells that looks vaguely like a fish out of the uterus.

you shouldnt have unpretected sex or for that matter, shouldnt have sex if you dont want a child... that should wait til you want one, otherwis if your doing a hoore (i know how to spell it but dont want to) then do W.E you plz

Isn't fascinating that it's derogatory to label a woman as a whore and yet calling a man a whore is a title of respect?

Wow a fundi are we? Sex is only for making children? No wonder you are angry. :p

I'm pro-life, so I think that the number is WAY too high. No-one has the right to destroy a child before it has even experienced a moment of life.

I do think that abortions should be available in special cases such as rape, serious deformity, and if the mother's life is in serious danger.

Well, I guess this means I'll come under attack from both pro-lifers and pro-choicers, huh?


i agree with you to a point...

if a lady gets raped then kill the rapist not the innocent baby!!
if we televised the killings of rapists thered be a lot less of em.

They suck a tiny blob of cells that looks vaguely like a fish out of the uterus.

I dunno where you learned biology, but I go to a private school, and believe me, humans don't give birth to fish.

whoever said im angry? i have morals too but if you dont want a baby have protected sex atleast

calling anyone a whore is not respectfull at all from my pov

whoever said im angry? i have morals too but if you dont want a baby have protected sex at least


and if your condom breaks, use the morning after pill.

In other words, the fetus doesn't have a right to his mother or father's body, but since the fetus is a ward of his parents,

The fetus is no such thing. A child is. A fetus is not - at least not until viability at which point it might be considered a child.

As for the point in your second paragraph, an abortion isn't a refusal to be pregnant. An abortion is an affirmative action that ends the life of the baby deliberately.

Incorrect. The ending of the life (if it is at the point that it can really be described as a life - which the vast majority of abortions are not) is a means to an end. The purpose of an abortion is to end a pregnancy.

The baby is dismembered or poisoned.

Not in all abortions.

If the woman doesn't want to be pregnant, the most your argument could support is ejection of the fetus. That's a passive response to the desire not to be pregnant. Ejecting the fetus doesn't kill the baby, but results in the baby dying. There's an ethical difference. Going back to my first point: since the woman can't abandon her baby until its safety can be guaranteed, ejection isn't an option until the point of viability. And to quote my brilliant friend again:

Your friend ignores the fact that no human being - not even a child - ever has the right to another's body. We aren't talking about taking care of a human being, we are talking about allowing a pre-human being or human being to bodily live off of you, usurping your body for its own use - a rather different situation.

ok, what happens in abortions that do occur electively then.

I can't speak to the absolute validity of this site, but it seems fairly accurate and unbiased - and it was the best I could find quickly.

http://www.optionline.org/abortion.html?wcw=google?source=google&campaign=gaabmeth

The vast majority of abortions (85%, I believe) happen at or before 13 weeks. The most "gruesome"-sounding procedure is the suction curretage. There is no use of forceps, no crushing of heads, and even no scraping, except in a little-used variation of the latest procedure.

After 13 weeks, most abortions are performed for medical necessity, dead fetus, or medical problems with the fetus.

I dunno where you learned biology, but I go to a private school, and believe me, humans don't give birth to fish.

Humans don't give birth to embryos either - although humans very often miscarry them - and over 60% of abortions performed are on embryos.

By most standards I would be considered a fundamentalist Christian, but you might call me extremely pro-choice. To the point I'm pro-life. As a Christian, is it not my calling to lead as many people to Christ as I can? Now, if I'm not mistaken (this does not apply to Catholics as their beliefs differ from mine), children up to the age of accountability, are seen as innocent in the eyes of God. This would give them a straight shot into Heaven. So, wouldn't it be in our, as Christians, best interest to abort as many as we could? That's 75,000 souls now celebrating in Heaven. I say outlaw live birth and abort every pregnancy. Sure we'll go extinct, but then the hippies will be happy because the world is returned to the animals. Christians are happy because we'll all be in Heaven. It's a win-win situation.


however didnt god say to learn as much as you can on the earth?

and if your condom breaks, use the morning after pill.

So a zygote/embryo isn't a life worthy of protection? So you mean you draw an arbitrary line as to when you think life begins?

I dunno where you learned biology, but I go to a private school, and believe me, humans don't give birth to fish.
Dude, you suck at strawmen. I said 'looks vaguely like a fish', not 'is a fish'. And at the time that most abortions are performed, the fetus looks vaguely like a fish. Hell, it's barely even humanoid.

So a zygote/embryo isn't a life worthy of protection? So you mean you draw an arbitrary line as to when you think life begins?

sorry, not the morning after pill, that stuff you put inside and it kills the sperm before it has chance to fertilise the egg.

sorry, not the morning after pill, that stuff you put inside and it kills the sperm before it has chance to fertilise the egg.

Spermicides are applied before sex. Trying to apply one afterwards (ie. after a condom breaks) isn't going to do any good if the sperm has already gotten past the vagina (which it likely has).

You are still making the assumption that every human being has a single genetic code. This is not true. An adult may have two completely separate genetic codes within themself.



Every embryology textbook I've ever seen.



Biased source outside of scientific review and thus completley useless.



I am well aware that the circulatory system develops early on - this is well-known. However, a heartbeat does not determine whether or not something is alive.

I'm not assuming anything. A fetus has 46 human chromosomes, like all humans do - 23 from its mother and 23 from its father. The fetus receives its DNA upon conception, when the sperm (containing 23 chromosomes) fertilizes the ovum (containing 23 chromosomes). That's how we all begin and that's what I mean by unique and independent human DNA. A human being can have mutated DNA that occurs post-conception as a result of exposure to radiation, X-rays, and other environmental factors, but these 46 chromosomes are the backbone of human life. To claim that fetus is an appendage of the mother is to say that 1) it has her DNA or 2) it has her mutated DNA. Neither is true. The fetus is its own separate entity that grows independently from the mother inside her womb until completion of its gestation. Hell, even if the baby were a clone of its mother, it's still *separate*.

I don't know what embryology textbooks you've been reading, but I'd really like a source. Otherwise, withdraw your assertion that the fetus' heartbeat begins at 22 weeks.

Unless you can show how its bias affects the merits of the study, simply pointing out an agenda isn't enough to negate the evidence. NOW conducts research all the time, research I use. I can't knock down that research until I can punch holes in the research method itself. I merely quoted an article that quotes an outside statistic, presumably from a reliable source. You'll need to write the author of the article and ask where he found his information before deeming it "outside of scientific review." But even if you were to completely discredit this article, which you haven't, you can't discredit the other URL which validates my point. And I agree with you - a heartbeat and a brainwave do not constitute life, neither does viability for that matter. They're both arbitrary standards.

---------

In response to your points about the location of the fetus:

Your entire list of non-location differences are all functions of location. So yes, the only major difference is location, and that's why feeding, excreting and blocking menstruation are all location-related.

The point is that there is no significant difference to the assignment of personhod between being born or not born. Are you saying that somewhere there's a list of what it takes to be considered a person and on it is "doesn't drain calcium from mother's bones?" If I managed to perform an operation whereby I drained calcium from my mom's bones, would I cease to be a person while I performed the operation? Of course not. So yeah, those are distinctions (all functions of location) but they are not important distinctions that make up the difference between person and non-person.

Abortion is wrong because it kills an innocent person, and the point is that being in the mother or outside the mother is totally irrelevant to personhood. Birth, therefore, is completely meaningless in what it means to be a person.

Sounds to me like you are describing, over and over, late-term abortions - which don't occur electively anyways (at least not in the US, and, I'm guessing, not in Australia either).

1. Many early-term abortions use vacuums. But instead of dismembering the fetus, the doctor just uses a vacuum to suck the entire baby out.

2. How do you define a late-term abortion? Congress outlawed partial-birth abortions just recently, but there are exceptions: life of the mother and health of the mother. That basically means a woman can have a partial-birth abortion if she's depressed. Also, the partial-birth abortion ban was suspended pending trial, so it's not in effect. In addition, partial-birth abortion is a type of late-term abortion, not a synonym for late-term abortion itself, which means late-term abortions are still legal in many states and can be performed electively. There are about 10 states that don't ban abortions post-viability. The 40 states that do usually just put restrictions on it like health or life of the mother.

How can you say that 25 million abortions are ok, but 75 million abortions is going to far?

I say the more abortions, the better, and I really can't understand the original poster's logic.

I was referring more to US statistics than Australian stats. I have no idea what the distribution of abortion rates among race are in Australia, but in the US, minority abortions VASTLY outnumber anglo abortions (at least in the last statistics I've read, but it's been a while, admittedly).

Put those stats together with the fact that Planned Parenthood was started by white supremacists to promote abortions among "lesser races", and you can understand my remarks.

The fact that so many have been brainwashed into thinking abortions are a good thing just makes me even sicker.

thats actually astoundingly incorrect and i would challenge you to produce statistics which reflect this.... 95% of all abortions themselves are ones of convience usually from women career oriented, or women putting off pregancy till later in life etc etc... infact minority women who are less educated are normally more religiously connected and thus feel abortion is wrong (most reflected in hispanic communities).

http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Race - 63% of abortion patients are white, however, black women are more than 3 times as likely to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are 2.5 times as likely.

Not always. It could be rape, incest, other...
And sometimes even if you have birth control you can still get pregnant, and thats not your own damn fault.
then don't have sex.

then don't have sex.

People can't help themselves I guess... No self control.

then don't have sex.
Yes! Damn those sluts, enjoying sex! Sex should not be pleasurable!


Huh. Didn't feel physically ill that time. Wait. No, nausea's back.

The fetus is no such thing. A child is. A fetus is not - at least not until viability at which point it might be considered a child.



Incorrect. The ending of the life (if it is at the point that it can really be described as a life - which the vast majority of abortions are not) is a means to an end. The purpose of an abortion is to end a pregnancy.



Not in all abortions.



Your friend ignores the fact that no human being - not even a child - ever has the right to another's body. We aren't talking about taking care of a human being, we are talking about allowing a pre-human being or human being to bodily live off of you, usurping your body for its own use - a rather different situation.



I can't speak to the absolute validity of this site, but it seems fairly accurate and unbiased - and it was the best I could find quickly.

http://www.optionline.org/abortion.html?wcw=google?source=google&campaign=gaabmeth

The vast majority of abortions (85%, I believe) happen at or before 13 weeks. The most "gruesome"-sounding procedure is the suction curretage. There is no use of forceps, no crushing of heads, and even no scraping, except in a little-used variation of the latest procedure.

After 13 weeks, most abortions are performed for medical necessity, dead fetus, or medical problems with the fetus.

Again with the arbitrary distinctions. You've just decided that viability is the point at which you think a fetus has a right to life. I'm trying to tell you that viability is no more the standard than a heartbeat or a brainwave is. From conception to the death is the life cycle of one human being. There's nothing substantively different between those two points. Heartbeat, brainwave, viability and birth are just points along that life cycle. Nothing meaningfully changes between conception and birth. Size and development aren't the definitions of life - they are along the path of life.

Ejection, not abortion, is the passive act of removing the fetus from the womb. Abortion actively murders the fetus. Thus, abortion isn't a means to an end. There's no reason to murder a person if you want him out of your house. All you have to do is eject him. I don't know how else to say this more clearly. I can't think of a single situation in which it would be necessary or acceptable or ethical to murder someone for trespassing on your property when he posed no threat and you could have just as easily have removed him without harm.

I didn't say in all abortions. They're just commonly used methods in the US.

Your friend ignores the fact that no human being - not even a child - ever has the right to another's body. We aren't talking about taking care of a human being, we are talking about allowing a pre-human being or human being to bodily live off of you, usurping your body for its own use - a rather different situation.

Actually, my friend addressed that point and so did I. You can go back to read it, but I'll say it again just in case. Nobody has the right to another person's body, but fetus is a ward of its parents, which means the parents have certain moral obligations to the ward. The mother can eject the fetus and transfer parental rights as soon as she can guarantee the child's safety--for the same reason that a mother can't leave her baby in a dumpster and 'hope' someone comes along to save it. This all rests on the premise that the fetus has a right to life, which you obviously don't believe, but the argument's logical if you accept the premises. None of your concerns hasn't been addressed; we just simply disagree on the premise that the fetus has a right to life.

I think I've made a strong case for it and I don't have anything else to say about the issue. Until we can agree on this central issue, everything else is just fluff.

All right, I'm signing off NationStates for the day. :) Thanks for the debate, everyone! It's been fun. I always like an intellectual challenge.

Unless you can show how its bias affects the merits of the study, simply pointing out an agenda isn't enough to negate the evidence. NOW conducts research all the time, research I use. I can't knock down that research until I can punch holes in the research method itself.

In a court of law, a source of evidence that is deemed to be untrustworthy is usually rejected without the need for the jury or the judge to decide exactly how the bias affected the truth and what the truth could possibly be.

In an academic setting more vigarous investigation is in order and you cannot disregard a source in its entirity unless it already has been demostrated to be false.

The point is that in a given setting there are different methods for treating biased sources. Considering this is a forum for casual discussion it is hardly fair to expect anyone to thoroughly investigate a source. If it looks like crap, you should treat it like crap, for the purposes of a forum.

I don't mean to single you out here, but for whatever it's worth I'd like to throw that out. I don't want to have to go to extreme lengths to disregard a source like rushlimbaugh.com or somesuch nonsense.

Now onto the issue of abortion,

It seems to me, Orangians, that you are trying to prove that the fetus is a living human being with all rights due as such (I don't know, I'm guessing because I came into this discussion midway through).

Well, suppose you do show that a fetus is a living, functioning, human being with no differance between an infant or a child.

Well so what?

Surely you know that in our society, though we uphold the rights of individuals, those rights are not the same. Adults, children, young adults, criminals, the mentally ill all have different rights and responcibilities. While we may want to honor the rights of the mentally ill, to let's say procreate, or hold them less accountable for crimes or torts that require substantial knowledge or pupose, we know that it is impossible in terms of practical policy making.

The fetus is a unique human being much like that of a child, a criminal, or a mentally ill person. The fetus, though a living human, has unusual needs, no responcibilities, and cannot likely even conceive of its own existance, let alone the rights it might derive thereof.

Treating the fetus differantly by not enforcing it's right to life is not inconsistant with the regular operation of our society, though it is certainly an extreme case.

The discussion turned over to the U.S. about halfway through the thread.
Dam'd American hijackers...

Dam'd American hijackers...

What's the difference between abortion in different countries? You still either support it or are against it.

What's the difference between abortion in different countries? You still either support it or are against it.
The U.S. is pretty much the only first-world country with much of a debate.

You don't see a problem with 75,000 babies being killed?

If you're pregnant it's your own damn fault.

Special cases are fine - it's just that rape, incest, etc only constitute less than 1% of the abortions.

Correct - this is also what I believe.
I'm pro-abortion, so long as it is under those special cases.
Sure, I value life, but let me give you this scenerio...

What child deserves to live that is the result of two irresponsible retarded crack-heads making love without considering the conciquences???

If you're going to have a child, both parents need to have genetics that when combined would produce offspring to your liking! ITS NATURAL SELECTION PEOPLE!!!!

My parents failed to understand this.... my mom has both beauty and brains which I (thankfully) inherited from her, however my dad is extreamely agressive and selfish. (A trait I've also inherited, unfortunately). Dangerous combonation. I think I'd be better of if my mom had me with another father. A more intelligent and respectful father. But then again, that wouldn't result in me would it? I think if I compare my life to the potential "other, could-have-been life" the other life would be more valuable than mine, in my opinion! Its just because the pro would out weigh the con, you understand.

I'm catholic, but not exactly the hard core type. And yes, even I believe contraception is "a wonderful thing"

Correct - this is also what I believe.
I'm pro-abortion, so long as it is under those special cases.
Sure, I value life, but let me give you this scenerio...

What child deserves to live that is the result of two irresponsible retarded crack-heads making love without considering the conciquences???

If you're going to have a child, both parents need to have genetics that when combined would produce offspring to your liking! ITS NATURAL SELECTION PEOPLE!!!!

My parents failed to understand this.... my mom has both beauty and brains which I (thankfully) inherited from her, however my dad is extreamely agressive and selfish. (A trait I've also inherited, unfortunately). Dangerous combonation. I think I'd be better of if my mom had me with another father. A more intelligent and respectful father. But then again, that wouldn't result in me would it? I think if I compare my life to the potential "other, could-have-been life" the other life would be more valuable than mine, in my opinion! Its just because the pro would out weigh the con, you understand.

I'm catholic, but not exactly the hard core type. And yes, even I believe contraception is "a wonderful thing"

I hope I don't see some utilitarianism in this post. John Stuart Mill pisses me off.

I'm not assuming anything. A fetus has 46 human chromosomes, like all humans do - 23 from its mother and 23 from its father.

Some actually have two very different sets of 46 - two completely unique sets - within the same fetus/person. That is what you are ignoring. Unique DNA does not a human person make.

I don't know what embryology textbooks you've been reading, but I'd really like a source. Otherwise, withdraw your assertion that the fetus' heartbeat begins at 22 weeks.

My dear, I never made any such statement. I said that brainwaves can first be measured around 22 weeks. Before then, random signals can be picked up, but nothing amounting to true brain waves.

The heart is the first major organ to develop, and starts beating almost immediately.

Unless you can show how its bias affects the merits of the study, simply pointing out an agenda isn't enough to negate the evidence.

You are working off a biased site that is not scientifically peer-reviewed. Thus, it is basically worthless. If a biased source commissioned a study - and that study was peer-reviewed, it would be worth something.

I merely quoted an article that quotes an outside statistic, presumably from a reliable source. You'll need to write the author of the article and ask where he found his information before deeming it "outside of scientific review."

If the author isn't honest enough to cite his source explicitly, he is worthless.

Your entire list of non-location differences are all functions of location. So yes, the only major difference is location, and that's why feeding, excreting and blocking menstruation are all location-related.

No, they aren't "functions of location". Even if you removed an embryo or early-term fetus from the womb, it could not perform these functions. It is incapable. That is a pretty large difference, in fact.

Abortion is wrong because it kills an innocent person, and the point is that being in the mother or outside the mother is totally irrelevant to personhood. Birth, therefore, is completely meaningless in what it means to be a person.

Birth may be, but that does not mean that development is. You won't find many people who are clamoring for legal elective abortion in the third trimester, for instance. At that point, just about everyone views the fetus as a person - because it has a chance of surviving on its own.

2. How do you define a late-term abortion? Congress outlawed partial-birth abortions just recently, but there are exceptions: life of the mother and health of the mother.

Late term describes late term. Third trimester is certainly included. I would say that late second trimester would be included as well.

Meanwhile, the law does not actually provide for health/life exceptions for the mother in dilation and extraction. It says, "There is no possible way a mother could ever need this procedure. But, you know, if it were possible, you know, in another universe, sure, we might allow it."

That basically means a woman can have a partial-birth abortion if she's depressed.

You know, I read a study recently on dilation and extraction. The study listed the reasons for the procedure. Not a single one was depression.

Also, the partial-birth abortion ban was suspended pending trial, so it's not in effect. In addition, partial-birth abortion is a type of late-term abortion, not a synonym for late-term abortion itself, which means late-term abortions are still legal in many states and can be performed electively. There are about 10 states that don't ban abortions post-viability.

This is absolutely untrue. Post-viability abortions are banned in every state except for due to health concerns of the mother or fetus. 2nd trimester abortions are heavily regulated in all but two or three states - and often a medical reason still must be provided.

You don't see a problem with 75,000 babies being killed?

If you're pregnant it's your own damn fault.

Special cases are fine - it's just that rape, incest, etc only constitute less than 1% of the abortions.

You don't get it, do you?

75,000 is still only 1.67% of all the Australian women. IT"S NOT A LOT. GET OVER IT.

i think the real problem is that abortion is a very "un-Australian" phenomenon- the Australians have been trying to populate their island for centuries, and that 75000 are much-needed citizens.

You don't see a problem with 75,000 babies being killed?

If you're pregnant it's your own damn fault.

Special cases are fine - it's just that rape, incest, etc only constitute less than 1% of the abortions.

You ARE A FOUL SEXIST PIG

My view:

Abortions are about a woman's right to control her won reproductive destiny, in reality.

"It's your own fault" sounds like she inseminated herself to me...

I am not pro-abortion, I am pro-choice,

My religious views hold that it is killing but in a world that condones meat -eating I ultimately don't see a difference as if you are Christian we are "all god's creations" not lumps of flesh to be consumed or aborted.

I'm not Christian but the hypocrisy amazes me.

Honestly, have these said Australians heard of birth control. If they used a condom once in a while they wouldn't need to get an abortion. Abortions should be used as a last resort. Rape victims have the morning after pill, and there are thousands of contraceptive options for the willingly sexually active. BIRTH CONTROL PREVENTS ABORTION!!!!!

i think the real problem is that abortion is a very "un-Australian" phenomenon- the Australians have been trying to populate their island for centuries, and that 75000 are much-needed citizens.

-_-

See immigration, under from Third World Countries.

Honestly, have these said Australians heard of birth control. If they used a condom once in a while they wouldn't need to get an abortion. Abortions should be used as a last resort. Rape victims have the morning after pill, and there are thousands of contraceptive options for the willingly sexually active. BIRTH CONTROL PREVENTS ABORTION!!!!!

Flamebait. Medicine never has an 100% success rate. Ever.

I support the right to abortions, but this is nuts, we need to reduce this. Even if my per person is really off, 75,000+ in a nation of 20 million is too high. Not only because of the loss of unborn lives and cost financially, but also on the mental and emotional wellbeing of society.

I think abortions should be available, but not dispersed freely or encouraged. I know people who have had them, and seen first-hand the damage that can be caused to a woman well-being. Adoption and protection such as ther pill and condoms need to be better supported as a viable alternative. Can anyone suggest other ideas besides the obvious tightening of rquirements ?


This backs up what I've always said.
I'm pro-life,and I often hear this argument :
"if abortion is legal it just gives people the choice,it dosn't force anyone"
The thing is,anything that is acceptable to the law becomes acceptable to society,and so legalising something encourages it.

Adoption is the obvious,simple,inexpensive,and morally certain solution to unwanted pregnancies.

This backs up what I've always said.
I'm pro-life,and I often hear this argument :
"if abortion is legal it just gives people the choice,it dosn't force anyone"
The thing is,anything that is acceptable to the law becomes acceptable to society,and so legalising something encourages it.

Adoption is the obvious,simple,inexpensive,and morally certain solution to unwanted pregnancies.

Once again, you don't understand, do you? Trying to give up a fetus is hard, but just imagine how hard it'd be to give up your own living growing child and never seeing it again.

Secondly, under your idea, because we allow gun ownership, we're condoning massacres.

Secondly, under your idea, because we allow gun ownership, we're condoning massacres.

No, by allowing someone to shoot into a crowd we are encouraging massacres, and we most certainly don't do that.

But anyways, I am quite alright if society encourages abortions.

On a final note.

75,000 is not the number of people being killed, it was the number not being born. There is a difference.

Being killed implies there were originally 75,000 and it fell to 20 million. Not being born means that it stayed at 20 million ALTHOUGH it could be a 20,075,000

By most standards I would be considered a fundamentalist Christian, but you might call me extremely pro-choice. To the point I'm pro-life. As a Christian, is it not my calling to lead as many people to Christ as I can? Now, if I'm not mistaken (this does not apply to Catholics as their beliefs differ from mine), children up to the age of accountability, are seen as innocent in the eyes of God. This would give them a straight shot into Heaven. So, wouldn't it be in our, as Christians, best interest to abort as many as we could? That's 75,000 souls now celebrating in Heaven. I say outlaw live birth and abort every pregnancy. Sure we'll go extinct, but then the hippies will be happy because the world is returned to the animals. Christians are happy because we'll all be in Heaven. It's a win-win situation.

I hate myself for seeing any logic in this

If people have consented sex within marriage, then all this abortion rubbish won't be appearing. One sin ultimately leads to another. :D

I'm pro-life, so I think that the number is WAY too high. No-one has the right to destroy a child before it has even experienced a moment of life.

I do think that abortions should be available in special cases such as rape, serious deformity, and if the mother's life is in serious danger.

Well, I guess this means I'll come under attack from both pro-lifers and pro-choicers, huh?

Hmmm...and how, specifically, do you define "serious deformity?" How about if you knew the child would be born with, say, Down's Syndrome? Is that a "serious deformity?" What about, oh, say spinal bifida or hydrocephalis? What if *gasp* they could tell the child would be GAY???

Personally, I'm pro-choice...but it looks to me like you are trying too hard to straddle the fence, and leave yourself a little too much wiggle room, if you ask me. So, you're probably right, you probably will and HAVE come under attack from both pro-life, and pro-choice sides.

I hope you don't take MY posting as an attack, because it isn't...I merely seek to clear up a rather vague "escape" statement you supplied in your original post.

Now, personally, being both asexual...and sterile...I will never BE a parent, so I really have no dog in this fight...but I'm not interested in telling others what they can or cannot do with their own bodies, and so, hence, I'm pro-choice.

Incidentally, another thing that makes me fall on the pro-choice side of the equation are the sheer number of "unwanted" kids already in the system of orphanages, foster care, and institutions, never knowing a stable, loving family...forever knowing they are unwanted...and unloved.

All the pro-choicers who blather on about adoption, adoption, adoption need to step up to the plate and adopt one or two of these kids each, or they need to shut their mouths. Put your money where your mouth is, or shut up...that's what I say.

I might feel a lot differently about the issue if there were an actual SHORTAGE of babies available for adoption...or children available for adoption, but there is no shortage. Only a shortage of WHITE babies and children, and that is a really sad commentary on our society - and YES, I am making a moral judgement with that statement, take it however you want to.

Me, I've no desire to be a parent, and do not feel up to the responsibility of being one, so I'm glad to be sterile. I don't see why others should be forced into a role of being a parent that they may not feel up to the awesome responsibility of assuming.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spazmania12
By most standards I would be considered a fundamentalist Christian, but you might call me extremely pro-choice. To the point I'm pro-life. As a Christian, is it not my calling to lead as many people to Christ as I can? Now, if I'm not mistaken (this does not apply to Catholics as their beliefs differ from mine), children up to the age of accountability, are seen as innocent in the eyes of God. This would give them a straight shot into Heaven. So, wouldn't it be in our, as Christians, best interest to abort as many as we could? That's 75,000 souls now celebrating in Heaven. I say outlaw live birth and abort every pregnancy. Sure we'll go extinct, but then the hippies will be happy because the world is returned to the animals. Christians are happy because we'll all be in Heaven. It's a win-win situation.

If you don't mind my saying so, that's a pretty weird take on the situation. May I also say that I find, in my experience, most who "try to bring others to Christ" are pretty bad messengers, because they come, not with a message of peace, joy, love, tolerance, forgiveness, understanding and mercy...but rather with fire, brimstone, threats of Hell and damnation. So...that said, what's YOUR approach?

As a Unitarian Christian myself, it sometimes pains my very soul to see just how many people in this world have God and Jesus in their head...but not in their HEART.

Again with the arbitrary distinctions. You've just decided that viability is the point at which you think a fetus has a right to life.

Actually, I haven't decided anything - nor have I given my own opinion on this matter. However, viability is the point at which one can objectively, without any doubt, call the fetus its own person. At that point, any removal would have to be benign to the fetus, unless the fetus itself is harming/risking great harm to the mother (or already dead).

I'm trying to tell you that viability is no more the standard than a heartbeat or a brainwave is.

A heartbeat is actually important in determining life, as are brainwaves - at least recognizable ones - from a scientific and objective viewpoint anyways. Viablility is a very important point, as it is the point at which the fetus could conceivably survive on its own - the point at which it can stop living a parastic lifestyle.

Of course, I am sure that these are not standards to you. You place your standard elsewhere. However, the very fact that there are different standards demonstrates that it is a subjective point-of-view.

Size and development aren't the definitions of life - they are along the path of life.

No, they aren't. The requirements for life are:

Metabolism (obtaining and using nutrients/growing)
Respiration
Excretion of wastes
Sense and respond to stimuli.

Ejection, not abortion, is the passive act of removing the fetus from the womb.

I didn't say anything about passive - you brought that in.

Abortion actively murders the fetus.

Technically, the word murder doesn't apply.

I can't think of a single situation in which it would be necessary or acceptable or ethical to murder someone for trespassing on your property when he posed no threat and you could have just as easily have removed him without harm.

Ah, and here is the problem The fetus does pose a threat and cannot be easily removed without causing harm.

Actually, my friend addressed that point and so did I. You can go back to read it, but I'll say it again just in case. Nobody has the right to another person's body, but fetus is a ward of its parents, which means the parents have certain moral obligations to the ward.

Such moral obligations never include the right to another person's body. What you are basically saying is, "No one has the right to another person's body except for a fetus."

This all rests on the premise that the fetus has a right to life, which you obviously don't believe, but the argument's logical if you accept the premises.

You shouldn't make silly assumptions about what I do and do not believe.

If people have consented sex within marriage, then all this abortion rubbish won't be appearing. One sin ultimately leads to another. :D

You are aware that a sizeable percentage of abortions are performed on married women who already have children?

Lets look at a story
www.letsnotlookbecausetherearegraphicpictures.com (Edited by Euroslavia)

In other words

The baby had the moter skills the find the hole in the mother, the ability to reach out of the hole, and the ability to grab the doctors hand. The nurse even said "they do that all the time"

But who really cares? That's all Republican Propoganda, that us republicans make to decive you. It doesnt matter that the baby has many the skills a normal, born person has, or the fact that there are alterinitives to abortion, such as adoption. No, it only matters that the mother doesnt feel like having the baby. Abortion is bad.

Oh, by the way, I thought you might be interested in reading the Doctor's view of events.

http://www.snopes.com/photos/thehand.asp

I'm pro-life, so I think that the number is WAY too high. No-one has the right to destroy a child before it has even experienced a moment of life.

I do think that abortions should be available in special cases such as rape, serious deformity, and if the mother's life is in serious danger.

Well, I guess this means I'll come under attack from both pro-lifers and pro-choicers, huh?

I will not attack you for your position. I think that everyone should be pro-life, just as everyone should honor their parents, not commit adultry, etc. Yet, the world is a strange place! Far more than 75 000 children die of malnourishment every year. Far more than 75 000 children live in fear of being brutalized by their own parents. And far more than 75 000 children every year are sold into slavery - to work many hours every day to make things for the consumer society we live in or to cater to the basest needs of some men. I'm sorry, a child is far too precious to bring into this world if he or she is not wanted and if the parents and the society cannot provide a decent life for that child.

I would like to re-iterate that I do not oppose abortions, merely that we should not have this high an amount (75,000 for a population of 20 million).
Australia has contraceptives, legally and without the amount of opposition in the U.S, I was putting forth the point that with alternatives, I feel should not be this high as we are still destroying life or potential life, at great cost both financially and emotionally/mentally.
When condoms are approximately $10 for a packet (12 or so) and the contraceptive and "Morning After" Pill are reasonably priced and fairly easy to access, hundreds of millions should not be spent on abortions that are not for medical reasons, or trauma related such as rape.

contraceptives should be free.
condoms should be handed out
the pill should be funded by the gov
and diaphragms and stuff should be a lot cheaper.
the morning after pill is already free.
and if you have a child, youre allowed to take it to the hospital and never come back for it. hands down. no name no nothing. (for all you pro-lifers)

here in america people already have to take classes before they abort their child. i think thats what australia needs. they just need more education.

on that note, killing the fetus can cause all kinds trauma and pain on behalf of the mother.

im prochoice but protection should be mandatory among teenagers. teenage mothers killing their babies is waaaaaaay too high there. they just need more precautions.

Once again, you don't understand, do you? Trying to give up a fetus is hard, but just imagine how hard it'd be to give up your own living growing child and never seeing it again.

Secondly, under your idea, because we allow gun ownership, we're condoning massacres.

No,you don't understand.Of course sending away your baby son or daughter is hard,but it's far better than killing them.

Secondly,what are you talking about.Legal gun ownership means you can own a weapon,not commit a massacre.And legal gun ownership DOES enourage the spread of weapons,so thanks for highlighting my point.

forever knowing they are unwanted...and unloved.


To that I say at least they are alive.

No,you don't understand.Of course sending away your baby son or daughter is hard,but it's far better than killing them.

Secondly,what are you talking about.Legal gun ownership means you can own a weapon,not commit a massacre.And legal gun ownership DOES enourage the spread of weapons,so thanks for highlighting my point.
yes but you are not killing your baby son or daughter. you are killing an embryo (in most cases) which can be removed without causing it any pain.

you can SAY adoption all you want, the reality is that women who bring a pregnancy to term keep their babies.

yes but you are not killing your baby son or daughter. you are killing an embryo (in most cases) which can be removed without causing it any pain.

you can SAY adoption all you want, the reality is that women who bring a pregnancy to term keep their babies. So we must adapt to reality. I mean, how much is child benefit? You couldn't keep a pair of rats alive on it.

To that I say at least they are alive.

Would YOU want to live like that? Knowing that no one wanted you and no one loved you...and the very second you turned 18, you'd be out on the street with jack-shit and no support system of any kind?

Sometimes, alive isn't better.

How'd you like to be physically alive...but emotionally and spiritually dead?