NationStates Jolt Archive

DISCLAIMER: The second person format is generally used throughout this post, due to the awkward lack of an unbiased third person in the English language. Stupid 'he/she'. None of these sentences that say 'you' directly relate to you as a person. Except that one. Anyway...

I doubt that very many people are actually anti-abortion while being pro-choice. I mean, think on it: If you are against abortion, then what problem do you have with it? (and let me know if I left out a number)

1) Is there anything terrible about it abortion? Is a human individual killed for the comfort of another? If that is your belief, then why would you ever be 'pro-choice'? If you say, "I disagree with murder, but I'm for the right of a murderer to choose", then people will laugh at you to your face. They'd actually probably get offended that you were implying a comparison between abortion and other killing, but I digress.

2) If you are against abortion because it is bad to kill a pre-natal in the same sense that it is bad to kill an animal, then your stance makes a little more sense. After all, most of us don't like to kill dogs, but we might run over a passing canine if the alternative is a major traffic collision. It's second-class humanity, of course, but it's consistant.

3) If you are against abortion because it is killing an individual human, but you believe a person's right to control over her own body supercedes that, then you are not really against abortion. You think abortion is an unfortunate, necessary evil that must exist to guarantee freedom of choice. This is for, not against.

4) If you are against abortion solely because it could have a traumatic or unsafe effect on the mother, then you're stance is actually very stable. It's along the lines of legalising smoking in one's own home or legalising suicide: damaging to the single person, but only directly affecting that single person.
-----

Tell me if I'm wrong, but I think most of the people who are "Anti-Abortion but Pro-Choice" fall under the first three numbers. The dying cries of a comfortable practice.

You've all heard this before, but justifying abortion by denying humanity is retarded. Religious rightists are criticised all the time (sometimes justly) for working against science, but where does logic fit in the abortion argument? Living, individual human chromosomes make a living, individual human. No, not a very useful human. A parasitic human, in fact. But is usefulness the determinant for humanity now? Are conjoined twins considered a single person, or mutual parasites? If a pair of conjoined twins could separate, with one guaranteed to survive the operation and one only potentially able to do so, then would the one guaranteed to survive have the right to force the operation if the other desired not to have it?

Or is it brain functioning? Is that the single, definitive moment of humanity? Because it can't be the definitive moment of life, considering a person is inarguably alive before then. Does this mean that an eagle is not an eagle until brain waves develop in the egg? Or any other animal? Is that how evolution works, that we constantly evolve from lesser lifeforms in a female's womb until becoming a homo sapien at the moment our brain sends out a signal?

When we gain the technology to remove a fetus from a woman's womb after initial fertilization and allow it to grow and develop in a separate environment, then will fetuses suddenly be considered human?

Denying the humanity of prenatals is a slap in the face of science and liberalism. The trend of the left is supposed to be RECOGNIZING and making EQUAL more and more forms of humanity, perhaps even someday non-human animal equality. Since when does it mean extending property rights to the already priveleged? Of all the people in favor of abortion, how many are in favor of more education on the specific practice? Most people I speak to in this situation hate the idea of education, believing that a woman should be able to choose without receiving any information that might dissuade her. Most people find the picture of an aborted child offensive. They love sausage but hate to see how it's made, hate to even know how its made or what it's made of.

Like literal creationism, it is on the wrong side of science. Like slavery, it is on the wrong side of human rights. As much as I'd like to see it die, however, the trend is going the other direction. In the Netherlands, hospitals are even allowing 'infant euthanasia'. Post-birth abortions. Forget the humanity; it doesn't even matter.

In the meantime though, please get a stance that is not self-contradictory. If you are against abortion but for choice because you think it is unhealthy for the mother, then okay. Anything else, though, and you're trying to find a middleground that cannot exist.

You've all heard this before, but justifying abortion by denying humanity is retarded. Religious rightists are criticised all the time (sometimes justly) for working against science, but where does logic fit in the abortion argument? Living, individual human chromosomes make a living, individual human. By this logic, a heart or a sperm cell would have to be a living, individual human, since hearts and sperm cells have living, individual chromosomes.

No, not a very useful human. A parasitic human, in fact. But is usefulness the determinant for humanity now? No, there are other factors.


When we gain the technology to remove a fetus from a woman's womb after initial fertilization and allow it to grow and develop in a separate environment, then will fetuses suddenly be considered human?No. The argument against terminating the fetus growing in the incubator would be different against terminating the pregnancy, but the characteristics of what a human is would stay the same.

Of all the people in favor of abortion, how many are in favor of more education on the specific practice? Most people I speak to in this situation hate the idea of education, believing that a woman should be able to choose without receiving any information that might dissuade her. Most people find the picture of an aborted child offensive. They love sausage but hate to see how it's made, hate to even know how its made or what it's made of.I fully support more education for women on what an abortion is and how to deal with any stress, either before or after the abortion. (Incidentally, I believe that everyone who eats meat should view videos of meat packing plants, but that's a separate issue.)

In the meantime though, please get a stance that is not self-contradictory. If you are against abortion but for choice because you think it is unhealthy for the mother, then okay. Anything else, though, and you're trying to find a middleground that cannot exist.Not at all. I am for choice regardless of whether or not it is healthy for the mother, and don't believe that my views cannot exist.

2) If you are against abortion because it is bad to kill a pre-natal in the same sense that it is bad to kill an animal, then your stance makes a little more sense.

Actually it doesn't. Most animals for which humans care have feelings -an embryo in the early stages has not. Killing a dog can be said to be bad if he doesn't want to die - but an embryo in the earliest stage of pregnancy doesn't want anything. Cannot want anything due to the lack of having something to want and feel with.

A more valid comparison therefor is between embryo and other living cells or tissue, until the foetus develops a nervous system. Then the animal comparison is valid - but at this stage of pregnancy abortion is illegal anyway unless the mothers life is in danger.

You left out the most widely used argument against abortion by the way: the assumed existence of a soul which enters the body at conception. If you consider the termination of a soul bad, then abortion is bad too.

The last poll option is funny in a dark comedy sort of way: mandatory abortion. I'd love to see an argument in favor of that (as long as the person making the argument doesn't actually believe it.)

I am against abortion. Some hard-core pro-choicers like to dismiss it as something as simple as 'removing a parasite,' as if its a trivial non-decision. Well, I've known a few women who have gotten abortions and it is NOT trivial. A woman who knows she is pregnant, and terminates the pregnancy, is doing a bit more than (for example) two people having sex and using contraception. It can be a traumatic experience and it shouldn't be taken or undergone lightly.

However, I am pro-choice, and I don't make the logical mistake of assuming you're 'killing a child' just because a fetus "will grow up to be a child." That kind of assumption would make me a MASS MURDERER! Now=/=The future. I mean, going down that slippery slope, we could try children as adults... after all, they "will become" adults, right? Or maybe killing a person is a non-crime, since after all, the victim "will become" a corpse one day inevitably. No?

3) If you are against abortion because it is killing an individual human, but you believe a person's right to control over her own body supercedes that, then you are not really against abortion. You think abortion is an unfortunate, necessary evil that must exist to guarantee freedom of choice. This is for, not against.

Well, not necessarily.

Can not one oppose lying while supporting freedom of speech, for instance?

The last poll option is funny in a dark comedy sort of way: mandatory abortion. I'd love to see an argument in favor of that (as long as the person making the argument doesn't actually believe it.)

See China. One child per family to end overpopulation.

I'm bush like. I'm sick of all those "Laberals" who do nothing but want to marry homosexuals and kill babies, while hugging a tree. Republicans are moraly correct people and a moraly correct political party. Can you imagine two women in sexual positions, I assure you I would never do that. Because I'm a republican and I'm moraly correct. The environment is a a burden on us all, we dont need to worry about it so much. Global warming does not exist. The president said so. And I'm tired of "laberals" trying to stop me from getting my "earl", shit, I mean uh um ... um help oppressed people who have oppression.

The last poll option is funny in a dark comedy sort of way: mandatory abortion. I'd love to see an argument in favor of that (as long as the person making the argument doesn't actually believe it.)

Eugenics! The government taking on the project of purging the human (or at least their nation's) gene pool. Fetuses that aren't up to snuff get the boot.

Or overpopulation control being taken very, very seriously. Already have your allotted two children? The next one will never exist. Then again, a better option would probably be mandatory sterilization after the birth of two children.

Or maybe in an attempt to destroy the human race aliens release a pathogen that infects and alters developing fetsuses turning them into creatures of death and destruction.

...Okay, anything after that is getting even more ridiculous.

However, though I do not support mandatory abortion, I DO support abortion if wanted. I'd probably have an abortion myself if I ever got pregnant. The likelihood of my ever having to make that choice, however, is very low. Huzzah!

I'm pro-choice but anti-abortion, but that's because we really have no way of knowing at this time when an embryo actually becomes alive: at conception, when its heartbeat starts, when its nervous system develops... Until we know more, we shouldn't allow abortions to be performed, as they might be killing a living organism.

Of course, if a woman wants to have an abortion, there's not much I can do to stop her. And I won't even if I can, because it really isn't my choice.

I am against abortion because it is the killing of a child, which is a part of its mother (off-spring). However, I do not support society dictating to people what they can and cannot do with their body. Fortunately, the society I live in (Canada) has been very careful not to tred into that area.

This stance is sincerely against abortion. It is also against legislating abortion laws.

I'm bush like. I'm sick of all those "Laberals" who do nothing but want to marry homosexuals and kill babies, while hugging a tree. Republicans are moraly correct people and a moraly correct political party. Can you imagine two women in sexual positions, I assure you I would never do that. Because I'm a republican and I'm moraly correct. The environment is a a burden on us all, we dont need to worry about it so much. Global warming does not exist. The president said so. And I'm tired of "laberals" trying to stop me from getting my "earl", shit, I mean uh um ... um help oppressed people who have oppression.
I like sarcasm. *points to title*

I'm bush like. I'm sick of all those "Laberals" who do nothing but want to marry homosexuals and kill babies, while hugging a tree. Republicans are moraly correct people and a moraly correct political party. Can you imagine two women in sexual positions, I assure you I would never do that. Because I'm a republican and I'm moraly correct. The environment is a a burden on us all, we dont need to worry about it so much. Global warming does not exist. The president said so. And I'm tired of "laberals" trying to stop me from getting my "earl", shit, I mean uh um ... um help oppressed people who have oppression.

whats wrong with that? laberals do like killing babies and marrying homosexuals. and global warming does not exist.

I am against abortion because it is the killing of a child, which is a part of its mother (off-spring).

The "child" doesn't care about that though... for it there is no difference between never having been conceived and being aborted before it has had a chance to have feelings. The "child" isn't harmed by abortion.

The stress of the mother, as indicated by option 4 in the startingpost is however quite real. But that is also why it should be her decision.

By this logic, a heart or a sperm cell would have to be a living, individual human, since hearts and sperm cells have living, individual chromosomes.

Only because my statement was imcomplete. COMPLETE, living, individual human chromosomes, as in the 46 mark. Give the child sustenance, and it will grow. A heart remains a heart. Sperm cells cannot grow 'more human' without complementary eggs. The embryonic child grows, as does a child after birth, as all of us are. Someone who is a month old might not be tried as an adult (even though the potential for being an adult is there), but the monther has laws protecting it regardless of the fact it still has the potential to grow into a person.

I fully support more education for women on what an abortion is and how to deal with any stress, either before or after the abortion. (Incidentally, I believe that everyone who eats meat should view videos of meat packing plants, but that's a separate issue.)

Agreed.

Not at all. I am for choice regardless of whether or not it is healthy for the mother, and don't believe that my views cannot exist.

Alright, then your belief is similar to my #4, solely concerning the effects on the mother. I said that argument is stable, even if flawed.

Actually it doesn't. Most animals for which humans care have feelings -an embryo in the early stages has not. Killing a dog can be said to be bad if he doesn't want to die - but an embryo in the earliest stage of pregnancy doesn't want anything. Cannot want anything due to the lack of having something to want and feel with.

A more valid comparison therefor is between embryo and other living cells or tissue, until the foetus develops a nervous system. Then the animal comparison is valid - but at this stage of pregnancy abortion is illegal anyway unless the mothers life is in danger.

I think I understand. But, by this logic, there's nothing wrong with killing the comatose. Or someone who's asleep. If your a vegetarian because it's cruel to animals, you can still harvest unborn calves and eat those. Or, rather, give an animal or person enough drugs so that it doesn't know or care what's going on, and then do as you fancy.

[QUOTE]You left out the most widely used argument against abortion by the way: the assumed existence of a soul which enters the body at conception. If you consider the termination of a soul bad, then abortion is bad too.

Yeah, but most of those people tend to stay against abortion. That's been my experience, anyway. The fact of the matter is that the pro-life argument does not require any mention of the soul to exist as a cohesive whole. Whenever we start disregarding humanity and killing off anyone who gets in the way... well, then the situation will be different.

However, I am pro-choice, and I don't make the logical mistake of assuming you're 'killing a child' just because a fetus "will grow up to be a child." That kind of assumption would make me a MASS MURDERER! Now=/=The future. I mean, going down that slippery slope, we could try children as adults... after all, they "will become" adults, right? Or maybe killing a person is a non-crime, since after all, the victim "will become" a corpse one day inevitably. No?

Right. Someone who kills children is not 'killing an adult' just because a child will grow up to be an adult. Or someone who kills a middle-aged person is not killing the elderly just because that person will grow up to be elderly. It's all killing humans. This is not a slippery slope; it is a fall of itself.

And I take the 'MASS MURDERER' remark to apply to all of those naturally killed fetuses. Yeah, a lot of children have died in history not long after birth because of conditions we could not control. That has no effect on whether we should be allowed to kill them ourselves.

Well, not necessarily.

Can not one oppose lying while supporting freedom of speech, for instance?

No. Freedom of speech concerns opinions. As for outright lying, perjury is illegal when push comes to shove. The government won't arrest someone for lying when no legalities are involved, but that's just because the stakes are lower.

whats wrong with that? laberals do like killing babies and marrying homosexuals. and global warming does not exist.
Laberals do in fact like doing that sort of thing, but I'm not too sure about liberals. :)

My perspectives can be found here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_perspectives_on_abortion). Too lazy/busy to type in own words.

Many libertarians split from conventional positions. For example, some doubt not the authority or morality of government to pass laws against abortion, but the effectiveness of such laws. Abortion laws may turn out to be futile in stopping abortion, as drug laws are allegedly futile in stopping drug use. Others fear that an abortion ban would start a "War on Abortion," parallel to the "War on Drugs" and "War on Terror," which many libertarians view as some of the biggest threats to individual liberty.

The "child" doesn't care about that though... for it there is no difference between never having been conceived and being aborted before it has had a chance to have feelings. The "child" isn't harmed by abortion.

The stress of the mother, as indicated by option 4 in the startingpost is however quite real. But that is also why it should be her decision.
But I care.

And presumably the mother cares.

It isn't about the child, it's about the caring adults. As you say, the child is not yet developed enough to care.

It must be the parents' decision.

abortion = murder

It isn't about the child, it's about the caring adults. As you say, the child is not yet developed enough to care.

It must be the parents' decision.

the child won't be "developed" enough to care untill what? age 3 at least? so under the too-young-to-know-the-difference logic why not bump abortion up to there?

abortion = murder
Why?

the child won't be "developed" enough to care untill what? age 3 at least? so under the too-young-to-know-the-difference logic why not bump abortion up to there?
Because "too young to care" is not the reason to have an abortion. As I said, it's about the adults.

Because "too young to care" is not the reason to have an abortion. As I said, it's about the adults.

I understood that chief, but wouldn't that same logic apply to infantacide?

abortion = murder

But only where it's illegal.

Why?
a person is a person, no matter how small

once something has its own DNA it is a human being and should not be killed

I'm bush like. I'm sick of all those "Laberals" who do nothing but want to marry homosexuals and kill babies, while hugging a tree. Republicans are moraly correct people and a moraly correct political party. Can you imagine two women in sexual positions, I assure you I would never do that. Because I'm a republican and I'm moraly correct. The environment is a a burden on us all, we dont need to worry about it so much. Global warming does not exist. The president said so. And I'm tired of "laberals" trying to stop me from getting my "earl", shit, I mean uh um ... um help oppressed people who have oppression.

I'm against government-recognized marriage and for environment legislation. I think the anti-abortion stance is only Republican through some freak accident combined with a little religion.

However, though I do not support mandatory abortion, I DO support abortion if wanted. I'd probably have an abortion myself if I ever got pregnant. The likelihood of my ever having to make that choice, however, is very low. Huzzah!

No refutations. No arguments. Just the statement that you can and will. Nice. Some call that fascism, but in all fairness imperialism came first. But you probably already knew that, shouting the defiant 'Huzzah' and all.

I'm pro-choice but anti-abortion, but that's because we really have no way of knowing at this time when an embryo actually becomes alive: at conception, when its heartbeat starts, when its nervous system develops... Until we know more, we shouldn't allow abortions to be performed, as they might be killing a living organism.

Oh, we know; many just don't like the answers. It contradicts their moral faith, or something. Life begins long before conception; few will deny that a cell is living. Humanity traces through humanity: humans create and give birth to other humans. Individuality begins when the child has received all it needs to grow the rest of its life; in this case, I believe the sperm and egg would apply. The rest of it is just growth and development, processes we still go through. Yeah, science knows.

Of course, if a woman wants to have an abortion, there's not much I can do to stop her. And I won't even if I can, because it really isn't my choice.

Change "have an abortion" to "throw her baby in the river" and there's still not much you can do to stop her. Crime still exists, though there are laws against it. Enforceability is a poor excuse.

I am against abortion because it is the killing of a child, which is a part of its mother (off-spring). However, I do not support society dictating to people what they can and cannot do with their body. Fortunately, the society I live in (Canada) has been very careful not to tred into that area.

This stance is sincerely against abortion. It is also against legislating abortion laws.

I still think Canada's cool, but they're wrong here. The stance you sight is not against abortion, it's against investigating the issue. By avoiding the legislation of laws against abortion, you allow it. Pro-Abortion. NOT anti-abortion. Not treading into the area. You just told me that abortion kills a child, but that's okay because it concerns the mothers' body. Comfort and property rights over basic human survival rights; sounds right-wing to me. You think abortion should be allowed to exist. You are for legalised abortion.

I understood that chief, but wouldn't that same logic apply to infantacide?
Which logic?

Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Many libertarians split from conventional positions. For example, some doubt not the authority or morality of government to pass laws against abortion, but the effectiveness of such laws. Abortion laws may turn out to be futile in stopping abortion, as drug laws are allegedly futile in stopping drug use. Others fear that an abortion ban would start a "War on Abortion," parallel to the "War on Drugs" and "War on Terror," which many libertarians view as some of the biggest threats to individual liberty.

So abortion is terrible and deplorable, but we cannot enforce it, so why bother trying?

As I said earlier, it applies also to infanticide; the enforceability argument is weak. I believe the same argument kept segregation alive for so long.

I doubt that very many people are actually anti-abortion while being pro-choice. I mean, think on it: If you are against abortion, then what problem do you have with it? (and let me know if I left out a number)

Different people have very different problems with it that would make them opposed to the practice. Some of us, however, are logical enough to realize that many such reasons (all that I have heard, in fact) are subjective opinions. As such, while they may be enough to make said person choose not to have an abortion, they are not enough to force the opinion upon others.

I am personally opposed to abortion because, although I recognize the very valid argument that an embryo is not yet a human person, although it is certainly human tissue, I still attribute a (subjective) importance to the potential of that embryo. I do believe in the soul, but I do not claim to know when the soul becomes a part of the person. Again, the argument that it would coincide with brain activity makes sense, but there is really no way to know. Thus, I would want to err on the side of caution.

For these reasons, and others, I do not think that the majority of abortions are "right". I am personally morally opposed to them. However, I personally morally opposed to many things that I recognize to be my own subjective opinions that I have no objective reason to force upon others.

You've all heard this before, but justifying abortion by denying humanity is retarded. Religious rightists are criticised all the time (sometimes justly) for working against science, but where does logic fit in the abortion argument? Living, individual human chromosomes make a living, individual human.

There is no such thing as a living chromosome. There are cells which contain chromosomes which are living. There are cells which are stand-alone organisms. There are living cells which combine into a multi-celled organism.

The individual cells of an embryo are definitely human cells. They are living cells. But up until the fetus, as an entity, meets all of the requirements to be deemed an organism, it cannot be definitely called a human life. This, by the way, occurs around the end of the first trimester, when the fetus can sense and respond to stimuli as an entity..

Or is it brain functioning? Is that the single, definitive moment of humanity? Because it can't be the definitive moment of life, considering a person is inarguably alive before then.

Considering that sensing and responding to stimuli is one of the requirements of deeming something to be alive, and the human being uses the nervous system to do so, making the statement that a "person" is "inarguably alive before then," is pretty irrational. If we redefined life, that might be true.

Does this mean that an eagle is not an eagle until brain waves develop in the egg?

Brain waves generally delineate higher order function. However, an eagle would not be a live eagle, by the definition of life, until it could sense and respond to stimuli in some way, and eagles use their nervous system for that as well.

When we gain the technology to remove a fetus from a woman's womb after initial fertilization and allow it to grow and develop in a separate environment, then will fetuses suddenly be considered human?

You can't remove a fetus from a woman's womb directly after fertilization. There is no fetus at all until 8 weeks.

Of all the people in favor of abortion, how many are in favor of more education on the specific practice?

I'm not "in favor of abortion", but I do think that any person undergoing any type of medical treatment should know all they can possibly understand about it. A woman considering her options with an unwanted pregnancy should be adequately presented with all of them, provided with an outlet for any questions she may have, and then left to make her decision.

Most people find the picture of an aborted child offensive.

Most pictures people throw around are of abortions that can only be carried out for medical reasons. It isn't that the picture itself is offensive - it is the fact that those using it are simply telling lies to those around them that is offensive.

In the Netherlands, hospitals are even allowing 'infant euthanasia'. Post-birth abortions.

Wow, way to demonstrate your complete lack of, well, honesty. The hospitals allow for euthenasia of infants that are going to die anyways - those whose lives are nothing but pain and cannot survive.

In the meantime though, please get a stance that is not self-contradictory. If you are against abortion but for choice because you think it is unhealthy for the mother, then okay. Anything else, though, and you're trying to find a middleground that cannot exist.

I'm so glad I have you to tell me whether or not my opinion is ok.

No refutations. No arguments. Just the statement that you can and will. Nice. Some call that fascism, but in all fairness imperialism came first. But you probably already knew that, shouting the defiant 'Huzzah' and all.


All I have to say to that is, eh? I don't quite get what you're saying. If you actually care whether or not I answer further, could you please clarify?

And as for the 'huzzah', it was more sarcastic than anything.

once something has its own DNA it is a human being and should not be killed

Human beings don't all have a single DNA. Does that mean that some of us are two persons?

There was a woman with a reproductive system with completely different DNA from the rest of her body. Does that mean that her reproductive system is a separate person and she should never be allowed to have a hysterectomy?

I still think Canada's cool, but they're wrong here. The stance you sight is not against abortion, it's against investigating the issue. By avoiding the legislation of laws against abortion, you allow it.
We cannot disallow it, same as we cannot disallow murders from happening. They can and do, everyday.

Abortion legislation has nothing to do with allowing it to happen. Legislating laws against abortion has to do with penalities that will be levied when it does happen. Legislating laws against abortion will close clinics, and greatly increase the jeaopardy for those who do, and then lock them away for life when it does happen.

I believe that adult humans should have full say over their inner workings. There should be no penalty for someone doing something within/to their own body. (This stance covers everything ear piercings to suicide. It's their life.)

Pro-Abortion. NOT anti-abortion.
Pro-Life and Pro-Choice.

Not treading into the area. You just told me that abortion kills a child, but that's okay because it concerns the mothers' body. Comfort and property rights over basic human survival rights; sounds right-wing to me. You think abortion should be allowed to exist. You are for legalised abortion.
It's not okay with me. I said I was against it.

Comfort has nothing to do with it. I sincerely doubt it is a comfortable experience in any sense of the word.

Property rights have something to do with it. The child is a part of its mother, and so it is her right to dispose of it if she sees fit. It's wrong i.e. "not okay", but it's her right.

Smoking, drinking alcohol, doing drugs, all are not okay, too, but it's their right.

I'm not legalising abortion. It's already legal.

Human beings don't all have a single DNA. Does that mean that some of us are two persons?

There was a woman with a reproductive system with completely different DNA from the rest of her body. Does that mean that her reproductive system is a separate person and she should never be allowed to have a hysterectomy?

I doubt that her reproductive system has a heart and brain or considered human.

So abortion is terrible and deplorable, but we cannot enforce it, so why bother trying?
I never said NOT to enforece abortion laws. But the sound of a War on Abortion has a chilling effect on my psyche, just as chilling as abortion itself. :(

There's only a few instances abortion should be unconditionally legal: rape, the mother's life is at risk, incest, and the like. Otherwise I think it might best be handled as a state issue (there are just some areas of the US that would NEVER ban abortion).

I doubt that her reproductive system has a heart and brain or considered human.

Exacty my point (well, damn close anyways)!

Most pictures people throw around are of abortions that can only be carried out for medical reasons. It isn't that the picture itself is offensive - it is the fact that those using it are simply telling lies to those around them that is offensive.

two thoughts - #1 - prove it, #2 - its not as if every slave was whipped as badly as those in the pictures the abolitionists showed


Wow, way to demonstrate your complete lack of, well, honesty. The hospitals allow for euthenasia of infants that are going to die anyways - those whose lives are nothing but pain and cannot survive.

so if I kill a man with terminal cancer is that not murder?

I never said NOT to enforece abortion laws. But the sound of a War on Abortion has a chilling effect on my psyche, just as chilling as abortion itself. :(

eh? it worked for Poland

two thoughts - #1 - prove it,

The majority of the pictures show late-term abortions. Even a cursory check of the law would demonstrate that these can only be performed for medical reasons.

A quick search of the CDC webpage would also reveal that over 80% of abortions are performed before week 13. About 60% of those are performed before/by week 8 - in other words, before there is even a fetus.

#2 - its not as if every slave was whipped as badly as those in the pictures the abolitionists showed

And, if the abolitionists were attempting to use those pictures as their justification, they would be just as wrong. You can't show an extreme case of something and go, "Look what they are doing!!! OH MY GOD!!!" It would be like me saying that all Muslims fly planes into buildings, or all Christians bomb clinics, or all governmental leaders torture Kurds.

so if I kill a man with terminal cancer is that not murder?

If you kill him without his consent or the consent of his designated caretakers, it is murder. Otherwise, it is not.

Of course, you are really comparing apples and oranges here. We are talking about a person who has had time to develop psychological ties to other human beings and to the world, vs. one who has known and will know *only* pain.

I'm against abortion, but for killing babies. That way, the babies don't have to be aborted, thus pleasing the conservatives. And liberals get the orgasmic joy of murdering another child so it makes them happy too. Everyone wins. Either that, or everyone loses and I win. The end.

But what is your (and by that I mean those who bother to reply) opinion on abortion if it is shown that a baby cannot live?
My friend had to have an abortion because her baby would not be able to breathe...that is, it would live until it was born and then it would suffocate. Or it could live for a while in a machine, but it would never be able to wake up...
Is that killing your baby? if you know that it can't live and won't live, is having an abortion then a murder? was it anyway?

I'm against abortion, but for killing babies. That way, the babies don't have to be aborted, thus pleasing the conservatives. And liberals get the orgasmic joy of murdering another child so it makes them happy too. Everyone wins. Either that, or everyone loses and I win. The end.

been reading Maddox (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=regressive)?

I'm against abortion, but for killing babies. That way, the babies don't have to be aborted, thus pleasing the conservatives. And liberals get the orgasmic joy of murdering another child so it makes them happy too. Everyone wins. Either that, or everyone loses and I win. The end.

Hey as I understand it, it's already often a lesser offense to kill a baby, especially a newborn. Those mothers who have their child then toss him/her into a dumpster like garbage will often get lesser sentences then those who kill older people. Sickening but I'm sure it is the same liberal idea for abortion. Babies aren't at the same "level" of older children for they don't really think so why not give a lesser prison sentence to a mother who was in over her head and saw no other option but to kill her child.

a person is a person, no matter how small

once something has its own DNA it is a human being and should not be killed
So you're against most birth control pills then (which can be used as plan b medication)?

It can't be killed if it isn't living. It's the same argument with PVS victims, they have no higher order functions, they don't think, hell, they haven't even differentiated into different types of cells yet.

Well I hate to disappoint you, but I believe I fall into the 4th category. I had an abortion when I was young and I suffered severe emotional distress and nightmares for years afterward. If one of my daughters were in an unwanted pregnancy situation and asked my opinion, I would advise against it because of my own personal experience. That being said, I do NOT believe the government (or anyone else) has any business interfering with this very personal decision and I would NEVER support banning abortion.

I'm not sure if I should get sucked in to this topic, but what the hell. 2 things:
1] Sperm cells are haploid - they only have 1/2 of human DNA and their DNA is directly from the parent, the same as half the parent's DNA
2] Sure, I wouldn't balk at seeing a video of the inside of a slaughterhouse, as long as it's not an IBP one. But that's beside the point…

I'm against abortion because it is in many cases an escape from responsibility. I don't care how much birth control you use, if you have sex, you're putting a bullet in the chamber. Every time you have sex, there's a chance that something will go wrong... deal with it (I like to think of hilarious prayers every time). If you get pregnant, that fetus becomes your responsibility, and I don't like the idea of just running from it because it is an inconvenience.

I'm pro-choice because first because there are plenty of cases where it is not an escape from responsibility. Secondly, while I find it morally questionable, I also don't like the idea of a government legislating it too much.

Finally, here is how I see things by trimester,
1st trimester abortions = okay (not good, but okay)
2nd trimester abortions = not so okay, but still legal
3rd trimester abortions = you've gotta be kidding me, you couldn't get your shit together in 6 months?

Hey as I understand it, it's already often a lesser offense to kill a baby, especially a newborn. Those mothers who have their child then toss him/her into a dumpster like garbage will often get lesser sentences then those who kill older people. Sickening but I'm sure it is the same liberal idea for abortion. Babies aren't at the same "level" of older children for they don't really think so why not give a lesser prison sentence to a mother who was in over her head and saw no other option but to kill her child.

Wow, I deplore of humanity sometimes, but you seem to have a worse view than me.

The reason that women sometimes (and it is sometimes) get lower sentences in these cases generally have to do with depression and chemical and hormonal imbalances brought about by pregnancy. It has nothing at all to do with abortion.

For killing babies.

For "A Modest Proposal"

I picked anti-abortion and pro-choice.

Simply because no one should have to go through an abortion and in an ideal world, no one would. Birth control would be perfect, rape would never happen, no woman would have health issues that would make it risky for her to carry to term et c. It's traumatic and unhealthy for the individual and it's best to be avoided.

I'm against abortion because it is in many cases an escape from responsibility. I don't care how much birth control you use, if you have sex, you're putting a bullet in the chamber. Every time you have sex, there's a chance that something will go wrong... deal with it (I like to think of hilarious prayers every time). If you get pregnant, that fetus becomes your responsibility, and I don't like the idea of just running from it because it is an inconvenience.

I've never understood the "sex is an offense punishable by baby" mindset. It's not fair to any of the parties involved, the parents and the resulting unwanted child.

I'm pro-choice on everything but abortion.

Abortion is useful. It's not pleasant and, since humans aren't able to act fully independent of their emotions, it's also traumatic. The problem with the arguments set out by the proposal author is that they are ideological/logical and, while I wish this were not so, humans are not fully logical and are certainly not capable of adhering in convincing fashion to any ideology.

Pragmatically speaking, we should keep abortion legal as the consequences of criminalising the act are too problematic to be worth dealing with.

Furthermore - and this is a deeply controversial position I expect few people to have sympathy for - there's no big deal. Babies die every day. Conception fails to take place every day. Miscarriages occur every day. One less baby? Phew. One less mouth to feed, one less squealing mess to deal with.

Wow, I deplore of humanity sometimes, but you seem to have a worse view than me.

The reason that women sometimes (and it is sometimes) get lower sentences in these cases generally have to do with depression and chemical and hormonal imbalances brought about by pregnancy. It has nothing at all to do with abortion.

That's just it! These women try to find excuses for why they murdered their child. While I hate abortion it IS legal so they can get one if they wanted. So to not go to jail they need to come up with some excuse like they were depressed. I guess I'd be depressed to if I was facing prison.

I never quite understood how this issue became a political issue. Abortion has been around for centuries...now there are just safer ways to go about it. Anyone here know how or when or why this actually became a serious social issue. The policy we have on abortion now is set up perfectly I think. The government isn't invading private lives...It's leaving the choice up to the individual...and it's setting a time frame up of when an abortion should be done as to not cause pain to the "unborn" child. I think it's set up for all sides to be happy. Why can't we just leave it at a win-win compromise?

That's just it! These women try to find excuses for why they murdered their child. While I hate abortion it IS legal so they can get one if they wanted. So to not go to jail they need to come up with some excuse like they were depressed. I guess I'd be depressed to if I was facing prison.
Depression and hormonal imbalance are medical conditions, not excuses.

No. Freedom of speech concerns opinions. As for outright lying, perjury is illegal when push comes to shove. The government won't arrest someone for lying when no legalities are involved, but that's just because the stakes are lower.

Freedom of speech does not concern opinions, it concerns expression. One does not have to believe what one expresses for it to be protected.

What happens to be legal or illegal at the moment is irrelevant, since I do not think I commented on current laws, merely on principles.

I've never understood the "sex is an offense punishable by baby" mindset. It's not fair to any of the parties involved, the parents and the resulting unwanted child.

I don't recall saying that "sex is an offense" of any sort. Nor was I trying to imply that it was. Sex is great. So is driving fast. But as soon as I get behind the wheel, I accept that any accidents that I'm involved in will be at least partially my responsibility. Actions, even the most innocuous ones, have consequences that I'd rather not run from.

That said, I don't see how my thoughts are unfair (whether "fairness" is an issue is another matter).

"The resulting unwanted child" ... you're right, we should eliminate him or her because he or she is unwanted. The same goes for the homeless, the insane, and the lonely.

Depression and hormonal imbalance are medical conditions, not excuses.

A medical condition doesn't excuse committing murder. Saying it does is an excuse. Unhappiness gives them a free pass? I don't think so.

I don't recall saying that "sex is an offense" of any sort. Nor was I trying to imply that it was. Sex is great. So is driving fast. But as soon as I get behind the wheel, I accept that any accidents that I'm involved in will be at least partially my responsibility. Actions, even the most innocuous ones, have consequences that I'd rather not run from.

That said, I don't see how my thoughts are unfair (whether "fairness" is an issue is another matter).

"The resulting unwanted child" ... you're right, we should eliminate him or her because he or she is unwanted. The same goes for the homeless, the insane, and the lonely.

No, you weren't quite at the level of those who believe that, but it was close enough that I picked it out to make that point. Sorry.

Also, I don't see how abortion is running from a problem. It isn't, it's a legimate way of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy. I'd say more, but I'm having a horrible time at figuring out how to get this point across properly.

By having an abortion, there is no unwanted child. Also, are the homeless, insane and lonely born that way? Though actually, I suppose some people ARE born homeless. However, I think that's one case in someone SHOULD have an abortion. Having a child that you know you can't take care of is irresponsible in my opinion.

But! Seeing as I'm completely failing at figuring out how to voice my opinions, I'm going to butt out.

No, you weren't quite at the level of those who believe that, but it was close enough that I picked it out to make that point. Sorry.

Also, I don't see how abortion is running from a problem. It isn't, it's a legimate way of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy. I'd say more, but I'm having a horrible time at figuring out how to get this point across properly.

By having an abortion, there is no unwanted child. Also, are the homeless, insane and lonely born that way? Though actually, I suppose some people ARE born homeless. However, I think that's one case in someone SHOULD have an abortion. Having a child that you know you can't take care of is irresponsible in my opinion.

But! Seeing as I'm completely failing at figuring out how to voice my opinions, I'm going to butt out.

I agree that abortion is a legitimate way of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy. This is why I don't want it outlawed. That doesn't mean I can't have a problem with it. I just think that too many people have sex without thinking hard about the consequences.

I also agree that it sucks for a child to be born that no one will take care of or love. However, I think that the answer to that is better social services, not more abortions. Also, some (not many) children will rise above those circumstances, and I don't like the idea of not giving them the chance.

Of course, if a woman wants to have an abortion, there's not much I can do to stop her. And I won't even if I can, because it really isn't my choice.

Would you close your eyes to a murder?

Some pro choice arguments, and my reactions.

1: The fetus is not a human, just a mass of tissue.

A human being is basically a mass of tissue. A fetus is its earliest state of development. From the moment that mass of tissue is created – conception – there is a human growing there. Even if you do not believe life or humanity begins at conception, you will concede the matter of when a fetus becomes human is a grey area, and open to debate, even between pro-abortionists. Therefore, aborting a fetus is taking a risk. Is it worth taking this risk – the risk that what you are killing is a human being? No.

If a fetus is not human, then what exactly is the definition of human? Adult intelligence, fully developed sentience? These are traits a one-year-old does not yet possess, so is it not fully human? Could you justify killing a one-year-old? Of course not. A child still in the womb should be no different.

2: Abortion is safer than childbirth.

Not for the infant, the one most affected by, and yet most overlooked in an abortion procedure.

3: Every child should be a wanted child. Aborting unwanted children reduces the number of abused children.

More importantly, it reduces the number of children who have a chance to experience the world.
Ideally all children born would be wanted, but as an even more basic and essential right, every child should be given the chance to live.
Also, if a child is not wanted by his or her biological parents, there are many, many couples willing to adopt.

4: The number of abortions is relatively small.

This is not to say there are few abortions. All this states is that there are more births than abortions.
In any case, even one abortion is a tragedy.

5: Nobody has the right to impose his or her morals on me.

To a certain extent, yes they do. Murder is not tolerated by society, and nobody will contest that. The distinction made by pro-abortionists between a murdered child and an aborted fetus is emotional – not logical. Just because it has not aquired human form does not make it inhuman.

6: A woman should be able to control her own body.

A fetus is dependent on its mother’s body for survival, but that does not mean it is just a part of her body. It is something new, an individual. Yes, a woman should have control of her own body, but that does not give her the right to end a human life dependent on her.

7: Abortion must be kept legal, especially for all the rape and incest pregnancies.

Rape and incest are amoung the worst crimes ever comitted, but an unborn child does not carry his or her father’s guilt. The child is not “a piece of the criminal”, but rather a completely new individual.
This child is completely innocent, and his or her death will not undo the crime comitted by the father.

8: If abortion is outlawed women will be forced to go to back-alley abortion clinics.

Thousands of people all over the world die from drug abuse, but that is not an argument to legalise drugs and so make them safer.
To legalise something gradually makes it acceptable to society, and so to put something into law encourages it.
A doctor’s oath is to protect human life. Performing an abortion is therefore a violation of this oath, except in a case where an abortion is essential to save the mother’s life.

9: If every sperm is a potential human, masturbation = abortion.

You cannot abort a fetus if it does not exist yet.
A sperm is just a sperm. A cell in a man’s body. Just like an egg in a woman’s. Both are regularly ejected from the body naturally. A zygote is entirely different. At conception, egg and sperm cease to be just egg and sperm, they become a new, growing, individual.

10: We need to remember that we are overpopulating the planet.

True, but that does not justify killing. A better solution would be carefull family planning – avoiding conception when children are not yet wanted.

Different people have very different problems with it that would make them opposed to the practice. Some of us, however, are logical enough to realize that many such reasons (all that I have heard, in fact) are subjective opinions. As such, while they may be enough to make said person choose not to have an abortion, they are not enough to force the opinion upon others.[QUOTE]

Subjective and opinions? Saying that living people have the right to kill overs because of body rights is subjective. Saying that some children would be happier at never having been born is subjective. Saying that an embryo is a PERSON is even subjective in the sense that the definition 'personhood' has changed over time. Saying that the embryo is human, living, and individual is objective. Isn't this enough to be considered a person?

[QUOTE]There is no such thing as a living chromosome. There are cells which contain chromosomes which are living. There are cells which are stand-alone organisms. There are living cells which combine into a multi-celled organism.

D'oh! Conceded. But the point is that the living cells in this case already possess the 46 human chromosomes.

The individual cells of an embryo are definitely human cells. They are living cells. But up until the fetus, as an entity, meets all of the requirements to be deemed an organism, it cannot be definitely called a human life. This, by the way, occurs around the end of the first trimester, when the fetus can sense and respond to stimuli as an entity..

Organism. Organs, organelles, yeah, I remember all this. But I'm not seeing the application to "human life" as you claim. It's not about whether it's human or whether it's alive; it is undeniable that it is alive and human. That's where all the jokes about comparison to tissues and organs come from.

It's about individuality. I argue that the unborn child is individual because it possesses all the parts it needs to grow and develop. People on life support aren't arbitrarily killed off, but, then again, they depend on machines instead of another body.

Considering that sensing and responding to stimuli is one of the requirements of deeming something to be alive, and the human being uses the nervous system to do so, making the statement that a "person" is "inarguably alive before then," is pretty irrational. If we redefined life, that might be true.

Ability to procreate is also a requirement for being deemed alive, which would exclude mules. A few things on that list we learned in ol' BIOL 1000 have problems.

Brain waves generally delineate higher order function. However, an eagle would not be a live eagle, by the definition of life, until it could sense and respond to stimuli in some way, and eagles use their nervous system for that as well.

So, until it leaves that egg, the eagle is just a bunch of the mother eagle's cells. Until poof. Then it can survive separate from the mother. Or something.

You can't remove a fetus from a woman's womb directly after fertilization. There is no fetus at all until 8 weeks.

::sigh:: Conceded again. Very well, change my previous statement from 'fetus' to 'fertilized egg', and it still holds.

Most pictures people throw around are of abortions that can only be carried out for medical reasons. It isn't that the picture itself is offensive - it is the fact that those using it are simply telling lies to those around them that is offensive.

A lot of people ARE in favor of later term abortions, even if it's not currently legal. And when those people hold a picture of an abortion and say 'this is what abortion looks like', they are not lying.

Wow, way to demonstrate your complete lack of, well, honesty. The hospitals allow for euthenasia of infants that are going to die anyways - those whose lives are nothing but pain and cannot survive.

I did say 'infant euthanasia', and euthanasia is generally only used if people think things will be better after the killing's done. Same with abortion. This may be the only way infant euthanasia applies now, but remember that the newborn cannot consent. To what extent do parents get to decide that death is best for their child?

All I have to say to that is, eh? I don't quite get what you're saying. If you actually care whether or not I answer further, could you please clarify?

And as for the 'huzzah', it was more sarcastic than anything.

What I meant was that you said you are in favor of abortions and would probably have an abortion if the situation came up. The huzzah, while sarcastic, flowed nicely because of the whole 'I'll do it if I want to because I CAN' mentality. Strength equals correctness.

We cannot disallow it, same as we cannot disallow murders from happening. They can and do, everyday.

Okay, then. No more resisting murder.

Okay, okay, I'll be fair! ;) Your quote was that legislation is not the same as allowing/disallowing because of power issues. Very well, but the same applies to, as you said, murder or any other crime that still exists.

And, if the abolitionists were attempting to use those pictures as their justification, they would be just as wrong. You can't show an extreme case of something and go, "Look what they are doing!!! OH MY GOD!!!" It would be like me saying that all Muslims fly planes into buildings, or all Christians bomb clinics, or all governmental leaders torture Kurds.

Oh, nice. So no pictures of Auchswitz, I suppose, as an argument against militant Anti-Semitism, internment camps, or anything of the like. One of Harriet Beecher Stowe's main points in Uncle Tom's Cabin was not that ALL slaveowners were as bad as the fictional Simon Legree, but some where, and that fact that the law allowed it to happen even in theory was terrible.

But what is your (and by that I mean those who bother to reply) opinion on abortion if it is shown that a baby cannot live?
My friend had to have an abortion because her baby would not be able to breathe...that is, it would live until it was born and then it would suffocate. Or it could live for a while in a machine, but it would never be able to wake up...
Is that killing your baby? if you know that it can't live and won't live, is having an abortion then a murder? was it anyway?

Good questions. If the baby cannot live, I'd consider it real euthanasia, which I am against but still has some solid arguments in favor of it. If the mother cannot live, then it's a case of taking away one life to save another (usually someone you've grown attached to). Regardless of how you feel about that, it's not denying the child's humanity just to make yourself feel better.

That's just it! These women try to find excuses for why they murdered their child. While I hate abortion it IS legal so they can get one if they wanted. So to not go to jail they need to come up with some excuse like they were depressed. I guess I'd be depressed to if I was facing prison.

You can't, "come up with some excuse like" depression. Depression is a medical condition that can be diagnosed. It isn't simply a matter of being sad - it is a chemical imbalance in the brain that can and does affect the ability to make decisions. Do some people try to use it as an excuse? Certainly - and one would hope that these people would not be diagnosed as legitimate patients.

1: The fetus is not a human, just a mass of tissue.

A human being is basically a mass of tissue.

...which meets all the requirements of life, including the ability to sense and respond to stimuli.

A fetus is its earliest state of development.

Technically, if we are going back to conception, a fetus is not the earliest stage of development at all. A zygote is, followed by a blastocyst, followed by an embryo, and then, at 8 weeks, a fetus.

Of course, the first evidence of the ability to sense and respond to stimuli as an entity does occur during the fetus stage, so from some points of view you would be right.

From the moment that mass of tissue is created – conception – there is a human growing there.

This is a matter of opinion, as you yourself admit just after.

2: Abortion is safer than childbirth.

Not for the infant, the one most affected by, and yet most overlooked in an abortion procedure.

Self-defense is not very safe for the person the defender harms. However, we don 't discount the right to self-defense. In some cases, that is exactly what abortion is.


Also, if a child is not wanted by his or her biological parents, there are many, many couples willing to adopt.

Sure, if the child is a white, perfectly healthy infant with no chance for genetic disease or damage due to decisions of the mother. Most other infants simply get passed into the foster care or orphanage system. Those children who have already passed the infant stage have very, very little chance at being adopted.

5: Nobody has the right to impose his or her morals on me.

To a certain extent, yes they do. Murder is not tolerated by society, and nobody will contest that.

Murder can be absolutely and objectively demonstrated to harm a human being. Abortion can be subjectively demonstrated to do so, but it is all dependent on subjective opinion.

The distinction made by pro-abortionists between a murdered child and an aborted fetus is emotional – not logical. Just because it has not aquired human form does not make it inhuman.

It all depends on what you coonsider to be human. Some people consider psychopaths to be inhuman - as they do not exhibit traits generally associated with humanity. Some consider your humanity to be your personality, your ability to think.

6: A woman should be able to control her own body.

A fetus is dependent on its mother’s body for survival, but that does not mean it is just a part of her body. It is something new, an individual. Yes, a woman should have control of her own body, but that does not give her the right to end a human life dependent on her.

So, if I were to hook myself up to your bodily systems and become dependent on them, you would just have to deal with that?

To legalise something gradually makes it acceptable to society, and so to put something into law encourages it.

Bullshit. First off, it is technically impossible in our system to "legalize" something. You can either make it illegal, or leave it alone. Anything that is not made illegal is assumed to be legal. That doesn't mean that the government specifically endorses or encourages it.

A doctor’s oath is to protect human life. Performing an abortion is therefore a violation of this oath, except in a case where an abortion is essential to save the mother’s life.

So it is ok to kill something to save your own life?

You cannot abort a fetus if it does not exist yet.

Well, 60% of abortions occur before a fetus exists.

Both are regularly ejected from the body naturally. A zygote is entirely different. At conception, egg and sperm cease to be just egg and sperm, they become a new, growing, individual.

If we are talking about regular ejection, you would have to concede that a zygote is regularly ejected. A good 50% of all conceptions never make it to full term.

10: We need to remember that we are overpopulating the planet.

True, but that does not justify killing. A better solution would be carefull family planning – avoiding conception when children are not yet wanted.

If people were better than they ever have been....


Subjective and opinions? Saying that living people have the right to kill overs because of body rights is subjective. Saying that some children would be happier at never having been born is subjective. Saying that an embryo is a PERSON is even subjective in the sense that the definition 'personhood' has changed over time. Saying that the embryo is human, living, and individual is objective. Isn't this enough to be considered a person?

You were absolutely right, up until that last sentence. The individual cells are certainly living, just as every individual cell in my body is living. However, the embryo does not meet all of the requirements of life. Thus, whether or not it is, as an entity, living is up for debate. The embryo may be individual. It may split into two. Two embryos may become one. The embryo stage is much too early to assume individuality. And you are right that it is human, in much the same way that my heart is human. However, whether or not it is a human person, again, is a matter of subjective opinion.

Ability to procreate is also a requirement for being deemed alive, which would exclude mules. A few things on that list we learned in ol' BIOL 1000 have problems.

Actually, ability to procreate has more application in determining whether or not something is a species than whether or not it is alive.

A lot of people ARE in favor of later term abortions, even if it's not currently legal. And when those people hold a picture of an abortion and say 'this is what abortion looks like', they are not lying.

Really? Where are all of these people hiding? I have "met" maybe two. The idea that, for instance, elective third trimester abortions should be legal is very much a fringe opinion. Of course, such a fetus is viable, and can be objectively labeled as a human person at that point, as it meets all the requirements of everything else we call a human person.


So, until it leaves that egg, the eagle is just a bunch of the mother eagle's cells. Until poof. Then it can survive separate from the mother. Or something.

Are you under the impression that a nervous system and viability suddenly spring into existence at birth/hatching?

Oh, nice. So no pictures of Auchswitz, I suppose, as an argument against militant Anti-Semitism, internment camps, or anything of the like.

Those pictures would adequately describe internment camps. They would adequately describe the wishes of the militant anti-Semitics.

One of Harriet Beecher Stowe's main points in Uncle Tom's Cabin was not that ALL slaveowners were as bad as the fictional Simon Legree, but some where, and that fact that the law allowed it to happen even in theory was terrible.

And it was a stupid point. The argument against slavery is not that some slaveowners are horrible people that beat their slaves. The logical argument is that human beings all have the same rights, regardless of ethnicity, and thus cannot be denied those rights. The idea of whether or not beatings occur is irrelevant.

I'm sorry, but the idea of everything involved in childbirth is still a bit unsettling for my immature mind. However, I do believe that woman should have the right to abortion. If abortion was illegal, then the unwanted children born would have to lead a horrible life and they would also be a burden on the state.

Dempublicents1 ,am I right in saying your main argument against what I've said is the "when is it human" issue? I myself think that from conception, since there is undeniably a new "unit" growing there, there is human life.
If you don't believe this, then naming the point where cells become a human being becomes very difficult. A grey area. So, how can you kill what might possibly be human?
You did make a good point on adoption. Still, a hard life is better than no life.
A bum on the street with no home, job, family, or friends doesn't deserve to be executed. All human life has a value.

And if you were hooked up to my body,yes, I would put up with it for 9 months if it meant you didnt die.

Few people are Pro-Abortion, in the sense of "WHOOOOT! LET'S ALL GO OUT AND HAVE ABORTIONS BECAUSE IT'S FUN!!!11ONE". However, they(we) maintain that since it is someone else's body we should not try to force one person to carry inside them another.

Dempublicents1 ,am I right in saying your main argument against what I've said is the "when is it human" issue?

I'm not really arguing with you. I am pointing out that there are a myriad of opinions on it - none of which can be objectively demonstrated. Thus, in the end, it all comes down to subjective opinion.

I myself think that from conception, since there is undeniably a new "unit" growing there, there is human life.

Come up with a single definition of human person that includes an embryo and does not include other things that we definitely would not call a human person. It also cannot include potential, as calling something anything just because it might eventually become that is illogical, and cannot include a soul, which is religious.

If you don't believe this, then naming the point where cells become a human being becomes very difficult. A grey area. So, how can you kill what might possibly be human?

I can't. It is the reason I would never have an abortion, unless it were to save my own life or the fetus itself could not survive - and even then it would be a hard decision. However, again, attaching importance to that potential is a subjective thing. It is a grey area no matter how you look at it. Placing it at the earliest possible point makes it no less grey, it just assuages your own conscience about the possibility.

And if you were hooked up to my body,yes, I would put up with it for 9 months if it meant you didnt die.

And that would be your decision. What if I were hooked up to someone else? What if that person had to work less or even give up their job due to the complications it caused? What if my very presence was causing irreversible changes in that person's body that might cause them problems later on in life? And that person didn't want me to be hooked up to them. Should they be legally required to leave me there anyways, or should they be able to choose whether or not to grant me the right to be there?

Dempublicents1 ,am I right in saying your main argument against what I've said is the "when is it human" issue? I myself think that from conception, since there is undeniably a new "unit" growing there, there is human life.
If you don't believe this, then naming the point where cells become a human being becomes very difficult.

Ah. Problem with this discussion is that people are convinced that "life" is by definition something good. It is not - it is just a neutral fact. The way you live your life, the grand total of your experiences and how you are a part of the experiences of others, is what gives value to it, what determines if it is good or not.

An embryo therefor starts at 0. If you abort it it stays at 0.
The 0 only changes if you let it develop enough to have experiences. And THEN the choice what to do with its life is its.

I say stop Abortions.

I'm bush like. I'm sick of all those "Laberals" who do nothing but want to marry homosexuals and kill babies, while hugging a tree. Republicans are moraly correct people and a moraly correct political party. Can you imagine two women in sexual positions, I assure you I would never do that. Because I'm a republican and I'm moraly correct. The environment is a a burden on us all, we dont need to worry about it so much. Global warming does not exist. The president said so. And I'm tired of "laberals" trying to stop me from getting my "earl", shit, I mean uh um ... um help oppressed people who have oppression.

Is this guy being sarcastic? At times its hard to tell around this forum.

If you actually mean what you're typing, how are you powering your PC in your trailer?

Dont have so much sexs dammit!

My two cents.

Why should the most socially conservative group get to make the choice for the entire population? The whole premise is that they restrict CHOICE because they want to impose THEIR OWN moral beliefs on the rest of the population?

My two cents.

Why should the most socially conservative group get to make the choice for the entire population? The whole premise is that they restrict CHOICE because they want to impose THEIR OWN moral beliefs on the rest of the population?
Why should someone have the right to kill something so small and then repeat because they dont understand sex has concequences?

It is IMPOSSIBLE to get pregnant by accident!!! IMPOSSIBLE!!
You know the risks and accept them.
It is wrong to kill a baby because of your mistake.

Yeah who actually believes doing it on a phone book is a form of contrception?

It is IMPOSSIBLE to get pregnant by accident!!! IMPOSSIBLE!!
You know the risks and accept them.
It is wrong to kill a baby because of your mistake.

Sure, punish the child for the mistakes of the parents... :rolleyes:

Why should someone have the right to kill something so small and then repeat because they dont understand sex has concequences?

Because the alternative would be even worse?

Why should someone have the right to kill something so small and then repeat because they dont understand sex has concequences?
Yes, because abortions are the most pleasant procedures in the world.

Ah. Problem with this discussion is that people are convinced that "life" is by definition something good. It is not - it is just a neutral fact. The way you live your life, the grand total of your experiences and how you are a part of the experiences of others, is what gives value to it, what determines if it is good or not.

An embryo therefor starts at 0. If you abort it it stays at 0.
The 0 only changes if you let it develop enough to have experiences. And THEN the choice what to do with its life is its.
I think the above point is worth emphasising.

Well, I'm pro-choice, and pro-abortion, myself. However, I believe that there should be, as in my school [ugh, those god damned pro-lifers*] extensive education availiable to both female and male types. However, they shouldn't be the people who did our Abortion and Contraception talks, which brings me to the reason behind my asterisk - people who include "condom" in the same sentence as "devil" and "prostitute" should not be doing any kind of talks in schools. Oh, I'm not kidding.

Now, the reason I am both pro-choice and pro-abortion are several.

Firstly, as a female-type who is quite posessive about my body and self, shall we say, I like to think that should anything horribly, horribly heinous happen, such as the most foul of all offenses - rape - I will be able to take whatever action I feel is most necessary. If I were to get pregnant from rape, I would have an abortion. There is no question, no pause.

If I were, for some reason, unable to carry a child to term without dying, I would try for having the child premature. Or whatever. And then whatever happens, happens.

If the child is not going to have a quality of life - severe disability, for example, or if I were unable to care for it as it deserves, I would have an abortion, but only if my partner also agreed, in the case of disability or what not.
And as for not being able to care for it, I consider that to be dictated by the situation of both parents. Adoption is not an option I would ever consider, for a few reasons:
1. There are already SO MANY starving, dying, homeless, unwanted, abused, lost, lonely children in the world - and I do mean so many - that I wouldn't add to that.
2. The world IS overpopulated, and humans are certainly a driving force in our world's careening wildly out of control into the inevidable downwards spiral that is a cesspool of uninhabitability.
3. I'm the first to admit that in this, it's also a selfish thing. I'm not going through the inconvenience, stress, pain, etc of pregnancy just to give it away. Not to mention the shame. That's right! Vanity!
But, again, unless my partner were violently opposed to it...

And, on the other hand, I don't think people who could take care of children should have abortions. I mean, it's up to them, but I wouldn't do it. For example, if I were 22, with a job, possibly married, or whatever, and somehow got pregnant, it would be an inconvenience, and I might be like "well, damn", but I'd keep it, because I could. And I'd probably not regret it all that much in the end, because children are pleasant things.

But, if someone my age [18] or [heaven forbid] younger, someone doing full-time study and only working 9 hours a week, or unemployed, or, to put it shortly, someone who is unable to support themself [this includes living at home], I think that it would be their responsibility to have an abortion.

Also, if you have a child, the two parents should stay together, and seriously do their damndest to stay together, and at least should stay friends in close contact. Because I have two young second cousins who's parents are not together or friends, and it makes me very sad to see how confused they are [eg. calling their grandma mummy]. I think family is terribly important.

[I]However, if you're retarded enough to get accidentally pregnant more than once, and once only, you should be denied abortions in future for all reasons that are not rape or medical.

For the record, I also think that Euthanasia should be legal. But interestingly, not the death penalty - and before you call me a hypocrite, always remember that the death penalty can be administered mistakenly, whereas Abortion can not.

Oh wait, some closing points:
- While abortion is legal, it should be either only accessible once [save in situations of rape/medical reasons, although I should hope that nobody would have to go through rape more than once, if ever]
- There should certainly be extensive education on the risks, procedure and effects of abortion. Please don't reply mentioning the "risk to the infant", because that's obvious, intentional, not to mention a retarded point to make
- There should be counciling made readily availiable to people who go through with abortion. Because.

By the way, I am all for human rights. But I wouldn't be surprised if many people would disagree.

That's my two cents.

I think the above point is worth emphasising.
As do I.

Yes, because abortions are the most pleasant procedures in the world.

Ditto. I very strongly doubt anyone would want to go through it twice. I'm quite sure it'd do quite a bit of lesson-teaching.

In the Netherlands, hospitals are even allowing 'infant euthanasia'. Post-birth abortions. Forget the humanity; it doesn't even matter.


As a citizen of the Netherlands I would like to point out that this is a very stupid statement. In the case of infant euthanesia the humanity is not forgotten. Infant euthanesia is only considered if the child has not long to live or will live a (probably short) life in pain.

You make us look like barbarians here. So you might want to consider to appologize for being rude to all Dutch telling only the part of the story that fits your story here.

a person is a person, no matter how small

once something has its own DNA it is a human being and should not be killed

So you consider your faeces to be a human being? It contains human DNA too.

Stop the killing of human waste! Faeces are people too!

If you'd like to add additional critera (must be living, etc) you'll still find that, until the end of the first trimester (the point where ELECTIVE abortions become illegal), the infant doesn't count as a separate organism. So it is literally still part of the mother. So it is a human being - the mother.

I doubt that her reproductive system has a heart and brain or considered human.

So you are pro-choice? Allowing abortion in cases before the fetus has formed a heart/brain/is classified as its own organism?

Sometimes it's really damn hard to know what side people are on in these debates. Ignorance sometimes looks like knowledge, and vice versa. Blasted internet, making my life harder.

Sex is great. So is driving fast. But as soon as I get behind the wheel, I accept that any accidents that I'm involved in will be at least partially my responsibility. Actions, even the most innocuous ones, have consequences that I'd rather not run from.

Well, everytime you get in a car you know that an accident is possible, not just when the accident is your fault.

And I suspect you'd change your stance damn quickly if you got in an accident and the doctor at the ER said "Jeez, we're real sorry, but we can't perform necessary surgery, even though its your body and you're giving consent. See... you were driving a car. You knew you could crash. So there's really nothing we can do now. You have to take responsibility for your actions".

So you are pro-choice? Allowing abortion in cases before the fetus has formed a heart/brain/is classified as its own organism?

I am not pro-choice! I simply find that comparing an unborn baby to some other part of the body is a foolish thing because they are nothing alike.

I am not pro-choice! I simply find that comparing an unborn baby to some other part of the body is a foolish thing because they are nothing alike.

... but like... they aren't not-alike. Because, like... they fill all the same biological criterea as all the other body parts. Until the end of the first trimester, when they become a separate organism when they form a fully functioning nervous system.

Before that point, they *are* like any other body part... because, you know... they actually *are* just another body part.

Ah well, at least there was a brief period of hope that there was someone else around that understood science (hi Demi!).

Ah well, at least there was a brief period of hope that there was someone else around that understood science (hi Demi!).

Unlike other body parts (?) I'm assuming many pro-lifers assign the fetus a "soul". Can anyone show me what a soul looks like?

I think it looks something like this:

http://www.cooksrecipes.com/recipe_pics_3/creamy_lemon_meringue_pie.jpg

Unlike other body parts (?) I'm assuming many pro-lifers assign the fetus a "soul". Can anyone show me what a soul looks like?

I assume hair shaped. After all:

- Hair is the part of your body which is closest to heaven when standing, kneeling (especially with back hair) and so on.
- Many holy books are against shaving.
- Samson lost his power when his hair was cut
- God is often displayed as a beard in the sky

So the soul is probably found inside the hair. Which means that a hairless embryo is not human.

So the soul is probably found inside the hair. Which means that a hairless embryo is not human.

ZING!

You can't, "come up with some excuse like" depression. Depression is a medical condition that can be diagnosed. It isn't simply a matter of being sad - it is a chemical imbalance in the brain that can and does affect the ability to make decisions. Do some people try to use it as an excuse? Certainly - and one would hope that these people would not be diagnosed as legitimate patients

What does it matter if it is a medical condition? Is it supposed to make murder alright? She was unhappy so give her a get out of jail free card? A "chemical imbalance" affects the ability to make decisions? Bullshit. It is just an excuse to give people a reason to feel unhappy and for drug companies to sell Zoloft. Whether legitamate or not doesn't matter - these killers still need to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

What does it matter if it is a medical condition? Is it supposed to make murder alright? She was unhappy so give her a get out of jail free card? A "chemical imbalance" affects the ability to make decisions? Bullshit. It is just an excuse to give people a reason to feel unhappy and for drug companies to sell Zoloft. Whether legitamate or not doesn't matter - these killers still need to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Who's talking about murder? We're talking about abortion here...

Who's talking about murder? We're talking about abortion here...

I mentioned newborn babies in an earlier post and I am responding to Dempublicents1 post. Though I do also consider abortion to be murder.

I mentioned newborn babies in an earlier post and I am responding to Dempublicents1 post. Though I do also consider abortion to be murder.

murder

• noun 1 the unlawful premeditated killing of one person by another. Source (http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/murder?view=uk)

Two points in that definiton make it very clear that abortion is not murder :

1) It's not unlawful
2) The fetus or embryo is not a person

What does it matter if it is a medical condition?

What does it matter if anything is a medical condition? Should we put people who have mental problems in jail, where they will not be helped, or in a mental institution, where they might?

Is it supposed to make murder alright?

Nothing makes murder alright. However, no one is claiming that it does. They are claiming that a person who is not in complete control of their own decisions cannot be held completely responsible for their own decisions.

Like I said, is it misused sometimes? Yes. Is the idea itself flawed? No.

She was unhappy so give her a get out of jail free card?

Again, you demonstrate your ignorance. There is much more to depression than simply being unhappy.

A "chemical imbalance" affects the ability to make decisions? Bullshit.

Really? So your brain isn't what you use to make decisions with? You use some entity with no physical component which is therefore not affected by the physical world to make decisions?

I suppose Alzheimer's patients are perfectly capable of making decisions as well - they are just looking for an excuse, eh? Parkinson's patients are perfectly capable of standing still when the tremors come - they are just looking for an excuse, eh?

It is just an excuse to give people a reason to feel unhappy and for drug companies to sell Zoloft.

Are you a scientologist? I didn't know anyone rich enough for that frequented the forums...

Whether legitamate or not doesn't matter - these killers still need to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

They are prosecuted to the full extent of the law, but the law recognizes medical conditions as affecting human beings. Go figure.

A "chemical imbalance" affects the ability to make decisions? Bullshit.
Really? So your brain isn't what you use to make decisions with? You use some entity with no physical component which is therefore not affected by the physical world to make decisions?

I suppose Alzheimer's patients are perfectly capable of making decisions as well - they are just looking for an excuse, eh? Parkinson's patients are perfectly capable of standing still when the tremors come - they are just looking for an excuse, eh?
Not to mention people under the influence of alcohol and drugs who are just "looking for an excuse" to smash their cars into telephone poles.

Freedom of speech does not concern opinions, it concerns expression. One does not have to believe what one expresses for it to be protected.

What happens to be legal or illegal at the moment is irrelevant, since I do not think I commented on current laws, merely on principles.

Legal or illegal, I don't think people should be allowed to express themselves by unnecessarily yelling "FIRE!" in a public setting just to create panic. Fortunately, it is illegal.

You were absolutely right, up until that last sentence. The individual cells are certainly living, just as every individual cell in my body is living. However, the embryo does not meet all of the requirements of life. Thus, whether or not it is, as an entity, living is up for debate. The embryo may be individual. It may split into two. Two embryos may become one. The embryo stage is much too early to assume individuality. And you are right that it is human, in much the same way that my heart is human. However, whether or not it is a human person, again, is a matter of subjective opinion.

As you said, the individual cells are living, just like the cells in your body. But these are not the cells of the mother's body; they are cells of the child's body. They, collectively, are a growing life-form; they aren't separate living entities that suddenly confederate when all the parts are there.

You seem to love the response to stimuli life requirement, but you dismiss the procreation one...

Actually, ability to procreate has more application in determining whether or not something is a species than whether or not it is alive.

Yes, it does have more application in that area. But it is on the same list of requirements for life that response to stimuli appears on. The list is flawed.

We could call the unborn a collection of living cells and try to deny humanity on that basis: the cellular parts are alive, but not the human. But we can apply that to any living thing, as someone has already said.

Really? Where are all of these people hiding? I have "met" maybe two. The idea that, for instance, elective third trimester abortions should be legal is very much a fringe opinion. Of course, such a fetus is viable, and can be objectively labeled as a human person at that point, as it meets all the requirements of everything else we call a human person.

I've met more. You say humanity comes with nerves. Some say a heartbeat. Some say brain activity. Some say it's once the child breathes the air outside. Some, like my father, say only when the umbilical cord is cut. They are the fringe groups, but they use the same arguments as the early-term only proponents.

Are you under the impression that a nervous system and viability suddenly spring into existence at birth/hatching?

Right, your argument was on nervous system and viability, not independence, sorry.

Those pictures would adequately describe internment camps. They would adequately describe the wishes of the militant anti-Semitics.

Well, yeah, but they'd only be the most extreme cases. I might just want to put every Jew in one big ghetto and let them die of diseases, but I don't want to outright EXECUTE them. Or, I might just want to kill off religious Jews, those who actually observe Jewish practices. Auschwitz and those other death camps killed off anyone with Jewish relations. Come on, that's crazy! Those are real people!

And it was a stupid point. The argument against slavery is not that some slaveowners are horrible people that beat their slaves. The logical argument is that human beings all have the same rights, regardless of ethnicity, and thus cannot be denied those rights. The idea of whether or not beatings occur is irrelevant.

And since then, we've extended that argument beyond just ethnicity, haven't we?

Few people are Pro-Abortion, in the sense of "WHOOOOT! LET'S ALL GO OUT AND HAVE ABORTIONS BECAUSE IT'S FUN!!!11ONE". However, they(we) maintain that since it is someone else's body we should not try to force one person to carry inside them another.

But that means they are Pro-Allowing Abortion to Exist. If they're that way only because it's unhealthy for the mother, then the stance is stable. If they're that way because human life has too much value nowadays, then it's also stable. Any other way, and there's some conflict of priorities going on.

Ah. Problem with this discussion is that people are convinced that "life" is by definition something good. It is not - it is just a neutral fact. The way you live your life, the grand total of your experiences and how you are a part of the experiences of others, is what gives value to it, what determines if it is good or not.

An embryo therefor starts at 0. If you abort it it stays at 0.
The 0 only changes if you let it develop enough to have experiences. And THEN the choice what to do with its life is its.

I suppose we should all commit mass suicide before our value numbers get too high.

As a citizen of the Netherlands I would like to point out that this is a very stupid statement. In the case of infant euthanesia the humanity is not forgotten. Infant euthanesia is only considered if the child has not long to live or will live a (probably short) life in pain.

You make us look like barbarians here. So you might want to consider to appologize for being rude to all Dutch telling only the part of the story that fits your story here.

I started getting nervous when I read "this is a very stupid statement." I expected you to say that it was not true, or that it had happened once illegally, or something. But no.

I should not have said that humanity was forgotten, because what I meant was that it was acknowledged and disregarded. Can the parents obtain infant euthanasia if the child has down syndrome or some other disability? How painful and how "probably short" are we talking here?

I'm sorry it was rude. I suppose I could have said "some places" instead of saying "the Netherlands".

If you'd like to add additional critera (must be living, etc) you'll still find that, until the end of the first trimester (the point where ELECTIVE abortions become illegal), the infant doesn't count as a separate organism. So it is literally still part of the mother. So it is a human being - the mother.

Oh, I see. It "doesn't count". Because inside = part of. Until nerves are developed.

And I suspect you'd change your stance damn quickly if you got in an accident and the doctor at the ER said "Jeez, we're real sorry, but we can't perform necessary surgery, even though its your body and you're giving consent. See... you were driving a car. You knew you could crash. So there's really nothing we can do now. You have to take responsibility for your actions".

Nice. "We can't perform the necessary surgery, so you have to die, just like mothers have to give birth. After all, we have to save the life of the... of the... the car?" Sorry, I can't keep this metaphor together anymore.

Before that point, they *are* like any other body part... because, you know... they actually *are* just another body part.

Yeah? What does it do for the mother? Until it gets rebellious, I mean, and secedes to form its own creature.

murder

• noun 1 the unlawful premeditated killing of one person by another. Source

Two points in that definiton make it very clear that abortion is not murder :

1) It's not unlawful
2) The fetus or embryo is not a person

1) Okay, then it's not murder. It's killing. If it ever becomes illegal, then it will be murder.
2) You just made a statement whose best defense right now is 'it is not living because it is only a group of smaller things that are living; it only becomes living when that group of smaller living things suddenly makes a different, more specific living thing to join the group'.

I am against abortion, but for choice because...

I believe that mothers ought to be able to kill their children whenever necessary for their peace of mind.

Actually, I believe that there should be no restrictions on the choices we can make regarding how we can screw up our own lives, or the lives of those we affect, because I think that only through going to the rock bottom will anyone realize that they need someone to lift them up, and that someone needs to be more than human, so they may end up with Jesus.

;)

Not to mention people under the influence of alcohol and drugs who are just "looking for an excuse" to smash their cars into telephone poles.

Of course, the difference here is that those peopel chose (unless they were drugged by others) to cause a chemical change that would affect their decisions and reflexes. Such people have no excuse - no explanation that is acceptable - for getting behind the wheel of a car.

A chemical imbalance from depression or hormones is not something a person chooses to have.

As you said, the individual cells are living, just like the cells in your body. But these are not the cells of the mother's body; they are cells of the child's body.

Even by the most liberal definition of the word - which defines a fetus as a child, there is no child to speak of until 8 weeks.

Meanwhile, one could argue that these absolutely are cells of the mother's body. The entire embryo develops from her egg. Is the egg not part of her body when it is in the ovary, Fallopian tubes, or uterus? The argument that it suddenly becomes a separate entity just because it is added to is no better than the argument that a fetus is not alive before birth and is alive after birth.

They, collectively, are a growing life-form;

Define life-form in such a way that includes an embryo and excludes a single human cell or organ. In the interest of preserving logic, you cannot use potential in your argument, nor can you use your own religious views. You also cannot whine about it having different DNA, as it has already been demonstrated that a single entity can have different sets of DNA.

Have fun.

Yes, it does have more application in that area.

And thus is irrelevant to this discussion.

But it is on the same list of requirements for life that response to stimuli appears on.

That all depends who you talk to.

The list is flawed.

Perhaps, but the scientific definition of life is really all we have at this point that has at least been arrived at using a logical process. If you would like to provide a better definition that we can all use, please feel free.

We could call the unborn a collection of living cells and try to deny humanity on that basis: the cellular parts are alive, but not the human. But we can apply that to any living thing, as someone has already said.

How exactly would you logically apply that to something which does meet the definition?

You say humanity comes with nerves.

I don't say any such thing. I say that humanity comes from the soul. However, my belief in the soul is a religious belief for which I have no empirical evidence and is therefore something which I would not purport to force upon others.

Meanwhile, we weren't discussing humanity, we were discussing whether or not something is a living organism. The discussion of what determines humanity is, on its face, much more subjective - and is a philosophical question which science cannot answer.

I should not have said that humanity was forgotten, because what I meant was that it was acknowledged and disregarded. Can the parents obtain infant euthanasia if the child has down syndrome or some other disability? How painful and how "probably short" are we talking here?


We are talking about cases like the recent one in the US, where a child was born with it's ribcage so small, that it's organs could not possibly develop. There was no way for this infant to survive off machines, the chances of surviving past a month or two, even then, were pretty much nil, and the child was in constant pain. In the US, euthenasia is illegal, so they could not simply put this child out of its pain. Instead, they had to wait until the child died on its own (for like the 5th time) and simply not resuscitate it that time. The crazy mother (who claimed that her child was immortal and that she could her him talking in her head) fought the hospital's decision, but the child was finally allowed to leave his misery.

1) Okay, then it's not murder. It's killing. If it ever becomes illegal, then it will be murder.

Only if the law also defines the embryo as a person, which could cause all kinds of messes.

For one, a woman who had a miscarriage would have to be investigated for manslaughter in case something about her lifestyle caused the miscarriage.

The drinking age would be changed to 20 years and 3 months after your birth, since age would have to be determined from conception. Of course, if you were born at say, 7 months, your drinking age might actually be 20 years and 5 months after your birth. I suppose if your conception date were undetermined, we would just go with the 20 years and 3 months, although you might actually be too young.

The death rate in this country would skyrocket, as at least 50% of all pregnancies never even make it to birth.

Even by the most liberal definition of the word - which defines a fetus as a child, there is no child to speak of until 8 weeks.[QUOTE]

Then clearly it is not the most liberal definition, as most pro-lifers' and some anti-abortion-pro-choicers' extends to fertilization.

[QUOTE]Meanwhile, one could argue that these absolutely are cells of the mother's body. The entire embryo develops from her egg. Is the egg not part of her body when it is in the ovary, Fallopian tubes, or uterus? The argument that it suddenly becomes a separate entity just because it is added to is no better than the argument that a fetus is not alive before birth and is alive after birth.

It becomes a separate entity after the sperm fertilizes it because it has the components it needs to grow individually. The birth-only argument is based on location, not substance; but you don't advocate that argument either, so ::shrug::.

Define life-form in such a way that includes an embryo and excludes a single human cell or organ. In the interest of preserving logic, you cannot use potential in your argument, nor can you use your own religious views. You also cannot whine about it having different DNA, as it has already been demonstrated that a single entity can have different sets of DNA.

Have fun.

Life-form. Living individual. So in that sense a cell or organ could be considered a living, individual cell or organ, respectively. But not an individual human being. The cell or organ will not grow more into a human. The fact that the pre-natal will grow more into a human is more than potential; it correlates to the fact that a child will grow more into a human or an adolescent will grow more into a human. Already some with potential for more. As for DNA, I tend to stress complete chromosome count more, especially considering twins share DNA.

Perhaps, but the scientific definition of life is really all we have at this point that has at least been arrived at using a logical process. If you would like to provide a better definition that we can all use, please feel free.

'Responds to stimuli' is something that most living things do, just as 'Is able to procreate' is something most living things do. It is a generalization and thus has exceptions. It is a generalization, an estimate; not the inevitable conclusion of a logical process. A logical definition would be that anything is living if it can ever die. Sure, it gets tricky when immortals get involved...

We are talking about cases like the recent one in the US, where a child was born with it's ribcage so small, that it's organs could not possibly develop. There was no way for this infant to survive off machines, the chances of surviving past a month or two, even then, were pretty much nil, and the child was in constant pain. In the US, euthenasia is illegal, so they could not simply put this child out of its pain. Instead, they had to wait until the child died on its own (for like the 5th time) and simply not resuscitate it that time. The crazy mother (who claimed that her child was immortal and that she could her him talking in her head) fought the hospital's decision, but the child was finally allowed to leave his misery.

If that truly is the case, then I do apologize. I do still object to it, but on a slightly lesser level. Whenever the parents gain the right to kill their child even when death is not imminent, then I'll probably start whining again. :D

Only because my statement was imcomplete. COMPLETE, living, individual human chromosomes, as in the 46 mark. Give the child sustenance, and it will grow. A heart remains a heart. Sperm cells cannot grow 'more human' without complementary eggs. The embryonic child grows, as does a child after birth, as all of us are. Someone who is a month old might not be tried as an adult (even though the potential for being an adult is there), but the monther has laws protecting it regardless of the fact it still has the potential to grow into a person.So then we should make legal decisions based upon the potential of something or someone, and not the current state of being of something or someone?


Alright, then your belief is similar to my #4, solely concerning the effects on the mother. I said that argument is stable, even if flawed.Oh, I see. I thought your argument was dealing solely with the mother's physical health, which is why I put in that I'm for abortion whether or not giving birth would affect the mother's physical health. Now that I've reread #4, it doesn't say only physical health, it could mean other types of health as well.

I am against abortion because it is the killing of a child, which is a part of its mother (off-spring). However, I do not support society dictating to people what they can and cannot do with their body. Fortunately, the society I live in (Canada) has been very careful not to tred into that area.

This stance is sincerely against abortion. It is also against legislating abortion laws.

Which one? Child OR part of it's 'mother'?

a person is a person, no matter how small

once something has its own DNA it is a human being and should not be killed

Are you aware that a person can have different 'DNA'? I believe it's called "Chimeric" DNA... I will have to check on that.

By your logic, the cells of a person that are Chimerical, are actually a different person?

In fact, ALL humans have at least 2 'different' DNA's.... since we have mitochondrial DNA.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to get pregnant by accident!!! IMPOSSIBLE!!
You know the risks and accept them.
It is wrong to kill a baby because of your mistake.

Of course, with some of the backwater approaches to sex education, this is entirely untrue, isn't it?

Some people honestly do not know what 'makes' a pregnancy. They certainly have never explained the risks (or how to minimise them) explained to them.

You should visit some of the rural Bible Belt... there is practically a policy of withholding education, AND contraception... and then blaming the girl because she ends up pregnant...

It is interesting that you even begin this thread with a bias. It is not "Anti-abortion and Pro-choice." Some might think it should be Pro-life and Pro-abortion." The only unbiased way to do this is use the prefered term by both sides, "Pro-life and Pro-choice." When ever you start somthing with "anti" you give it a negative connotation.

It is interesting that you even begin this thread with a bias. It is not "Anti-abortion and Pro-choice." Some might think it should be Pro-life and Pro-abortion." The only unbiased way to do this is use the prefered term by both sides, "Pro-life and Pro-choice." When ever you start somthing with "anti" you give it a negative connotation.

No necessarily. You will find that most pro-choice people are actually anti-abortion. They would just consider abortion to be the lesser of two evils.

Only if the law also defines the embryo as a person, which could cause all kinds of messes.

For one, a woman who had a miscarriage would have to be investigated for manslaughter in case something about her lifestyle caused the miscarriage.

Good point. There probably couldn't be a practical investigation unless it was obvious that she had beaten her womb or taken specific medicines on purpose, or the like.

The drinking age would be changed to 20 years and 3 months after your birth, since age would have to be determined from conception. Of course, if you were born at say, 7 months, your drinking age might actually be 20 years and 5 months after your birth. I suppose if your conception date were undetermined, we would just go with the 20 years and 3 months, although you might actually be too young.

This isn't so major. We did away with the B.C./A.D. measurement system by simply changing it to B.C.E./C.E. No reworking of the years or anything. Age can be measured by post-birth just the same, for the sake of convenience.

The death rate in this country would skyrocket, as at least 50% of all pregnancies never even make it to birth.

It's not that the death rate suddenly skyrockets; whether something dies or not does not depend on whether the law says it does.

The death rate was atrocious in older times, but an unproportionally high amount of the deaths were very young children. If it's too much of a burden on the U.S. Census and we still want to record it, a separate category can be made.

The points you make are good ones. It's just a frame of mind, though.

Then clearly it is not the most liberal definition, as most pro-lifers' and some anti-abortion-pro-choicers' extends to fertilization.

Actually, most pro-lifers don't do any such thing. Very few people would attempt to call a zygote a child. It is completely improper.

It becomes a separate entity after the sperm fertilizes it because it has the components it needs to grow individually.

Every cell in the body has the components it needs to grow individually. Every cell in your body has the components needed to make an entire human being.

Life-form. Living individual. So in that sense a cell or organ could be considered a living, individual cell or organ, respectively. But not an individual human being. The cell or organ will not grow more into a human. The fact that the pre-natal will grow more into a human is more than potential; it correlates to the fact that a child will grow more into a human or an adolescent will grow more into a human. Already some with potential for more.

You have just made the potential argument, and then tried to say it isn't potential. You cannot say, "It will be X, therefore it is X." You admit within your argument that a zygote is not yet a human, as you say that it will grow into a human. You are relying upon potential. A child is a human person and cannot "grow more into a human." An adolescent cannot "grow more into a human", as it already is a human person.

Meanwhile, you still haven't provided a definition. If a life-form is a "living individual," you fall into one of two traps. Either the embryo is not a life form, as it does not meet all the requirements we place upon life-forms, or every individual cell is a life-form, even if it is part of a multi-celled organism, and every time I scratch my arm I commit murder.

As for DNA, I tend to stress complete chromosome count more, especially considering twins share DNA.

So a person missing a chromosome is not a human being? How about a person with an extra chromosome?

Meanwhile, if life begins at fertilization, then a set of twins is a single person. A chimera is two people.

'Responds to stimuli' is something that most living things do,

Name a single living thing that doesn't respond to stimuli and I'll show you something either dead or nonliving.

A logical definition would be that anything is living if it can ever die.

No, that wouldn't be logical at all, since death is defined by the loss life. You have to define life to even know what death is. You can't do it bass-ackwards and try to base your definition of life upon death.


Good point. There probably couldn't be a practical investigation unless it was obvious that she had beaten her womb or taken specific medicines on purpose, or the like.


No, those, if we defined an embryo as a person, would be examples of premeditated, 1st-degree murder. Manslaughter is defined as anything you do which you know might cause harm to another human being, but you do not mean to kill them. Thus, if a woman didn't yet know she was pregnant, but was sexually active and thus knew that she might be pregnant, and went out drinking, causing a mscarriage, she would be guilty of manslaughter. If a woman did not know she was pregnant, but knew she might be pregnant, and went skiing, fell down, and caused a miscarriage, she would be guilty of manslaughter. If a woman did not know she was pregnant but knew that she might be and worked at a stressful job and skipped a lot of meals, resulting in a miscarriage, she would be guilty of manslaughter.

Meanwhile, these all assume that we are beginning, "citizenship" at conception. If we begin it at fertilization, we have to prosecute any woman with an IUD or who takes the birth control pill. To do so, we would have to examine the menses of every woman every month to be sure that there was not a fertilized egg in them. If there is not a clear genetic reason for the implantation to not occur, we have to investigate the mother.

This isn't so major. We did away with the B.C./A.D. measurement system by simply changing it to B.C.E./C.E. No reworking of the years or anything. Age can be measured by post-birth just the same, for the sake of convenience.

There is a difference here. We didn't change the reference. In this case, we are clearly changing the reference. We are stating that a something is a human person at fertilzation - and thus a citizen at that point. We can't simply ignore the first 9 months of that citizen's "life" as if they didn't

Pro-Choice up to 12 weeks.

I don't like abortion, I think it a moral quagmire. However, I am a pragmatist above all, in some cases abortion is needed for the health of the mother or in cases of rape. I believe in abstiance before marriage, but I don't think its the goverment's job to legislate morality. To me, it is simple. Don't want babies? Don't have sex.

Which one? Child OR part of it's 'mother'?
Both.

No, those, if we defined an embryo as a person, would be examples of premeditated, 1st-degree murder. Manslaughter is defined as anything you do which you know might cause harm to another human being, but you do not mean to kill them. Thus, if a woman didn't yet know she was pregnant, but was sexually active and thus knew that she might be pregnant, and went out drinking, causing a mscarriage, she would be guilty of manslaughter. If a woman did not know she was pregnant, but knew she might be pregnant, and went skiing, fell down, and caused a miscarriage, she would be guilty of manslaughter. If a woman did not know she was pregnant but knew that she might be and worked at a stressful job and skipped a lot of meals, resulting in a miscarriage, she would be guilty of manslaughter.
Is there really precedence of prosecution of such?

anti-abortion but pro choice

the way i can justify it is that while i think abortion is wrong
if people are forced to make a correct decision, then it isnt really their decision.

people should have to learn on their own to make their own decisions, and to take the consequences for them.


im a libertarian in the sense that i believe people should be free to do whatever they want to do, but having said that, i do NOT believe that everything you can do is right or beneficial.

No, those, if we defined an embryo as a person, would be examples of premeditated, 1st-degree murder. Manslaughter is defined as anything you do which you know might cause harm to another human being, but you do not mean to kill them. Thus, if a woman didn't yet know she was pregnant, but was sexually active and thus knew that she might be pregnant, and went out drinking, causing a mscarriage, she would be guilty of manslaughter. If a woman did not know she was pregnant, but knew she might be pregnant, and went skiing, fell down, and caused a miscarriage, she would be guilty of manslaughter. If a woman did not know she was pregnant but knew that she might be and worked at a stressful job and skipped a lot of meals, resulting in a miscarriage, she would be guilty of manslaughter.


pretty good laymans definition of manslaughter, but you are incorrect
volentary manslaughter: an intentional killing without malice or premeditation, during the heat of passion

EXAMPLE: you find your wife sleeping with a guy. you take the boyfriend and beat him to death, however you only wanted to hurt him badly, but took it a little to far......


involentary manslaughter: death was unintentional, but happened because of a concious disregard of risks. IOW taking a substantial and unjustifyable risk that endangered another persons life.



so of all the examples given, none of them would have been crimes, because it was not 1) volentary [so it cannot be volentary manslaughter] or 2)a concious disregard of risks [so it cannot be involentary] because she had no concious knowledge that she was pregnant, only that she might be.
a very fine line, and very hard to judge.

What I meant was that you said you are in favor of abortions and would probably have an abortion if the situation came up. The huzzah, while sarcastic, flowed nicely because of the whole 'I'll do it if I want to because I CAN' mentality. Strength equals correctness.

Er... I wouldn't just have an abortion because I can. I'd have an abortion because I don't want a baby. For which I have my reasons, but I don't see how personal reasons matter much in this as an abortion is an abortion.

However I'm for abortion because I believe women should have control over their bodies and not be forced into being incubators.

a couple snazzy bumper sticker phrases exist out there,


"Abortion, on demand and without appology"

or perhaps a bit less 'in your face':

"This uterus is not government policy"




Abortion is a matter of human rights.

The state, or government, does not own a woman or
her uterus.
Why could someone want government to own women
and/or their uterus'?
If this were communist China, I suppose the state
could say if you could have children or whatever.
It's pretty close to the opposite of China's one child policy.

It is interesting that you even begin this thread with a bias. It is not "Anti-abortion and Pro-choice." Some might think it should be Pro-life and Pro-abortion." The only unbiased way to do this is use the prefered term by both sides, "Pro-life and Pro-choice." When ever you start somthing with "anti" you give it a negative connotation.

No - Anti-abortion is far more accurate than pro-life. Most pro-lifers are for instance not Peta members or vegetarians. Nor are they all against the death penalty. Nor do they think that women should be permanently pregnant, being nothing more than babyfactories - which after all would produce more life.

What does it matter if anything is a medical condition? Should we put people who have mental problems in jail, where they will not be helped, or in a mental institution, where they might?

You are comparing women who kill their newborns with people with mental problems? Besides I believe that people who claim to be insane are just using it as a tactic for their defense attorneys. There are many people who can claim to be insane but there are not many who can truly claim not to know right from wrong. They just don't care. Prison should still be used for these criminals who do not fit in that category of not knowing right from wrong.

No - Anti-abortion is far more accurate than pro-life. Most pro-lifers are for instance not Peta members or vegetarians. Nor are they all against the death penalty. Nor do they think that women should be permanently pregnant, being nothing more than babyfactories - which after all would produce more life.
Pro-Life has nothing to do with animal rights, capital punishment or vegetarianism.

The Pro-Life movement is a movement set on getting abortion legislated. That's all.

Pro-Life has nothing to do with animal rights, capital punishment or vegetarianism.
The Pro-Life movement is a movement set on getting abortion legislated. That's all.

Which means that the name "Pro-life" is completely inaccurate. They are not "pro-life" - they are anti-abortion.

Is there really precedence of prosecution of such?

Of course not. A zygote has never been considered a human person by the law. My point is that, should we define a zygote as a human person, it would have to be protected by the law, thus any action by the mother that caused failure to implant or miscarriage, even if no harm was intended, could incur a manslaughter charge, unless one could show that she had no idea that she might be pregnant (which, if she was sexually active, could only happen if she somehow didn't know that having sex can get you pregnant) or didn't know that the action posed any risk to a possible zygote/embryo (but most people know that drinking, falling, stress on the body can cause such harm.)

Meanwhile, there have been attempts to prosecute women whose children are born with fetal alcohol syndrome. Thus far, none of them have stuck.


so of all the examples given, none of them would have been crimes, because it was not 1) volentary [so it cannot be volentary manslaughter] or 2)a concious disregard of risks [so it cannot be involentary] because she had no concious knowledge that she was pregnant, only that she might be.
a very fine line, and very hard to judge.

It doesn't matter if she knows she is pregnant or not. She knows that her actions might harm another human being because another human being might be there. Thus, if she does not take a pregnancy test before every action that might possibly cause harm to a zygote/embryo, she is not taking precaution to ensure that she is not endangering another human being. Thus, she is consciously disregarding the risks.

If I go to demolish a house, but don't take some precaution to ensure that no one is inside, I am guilty of involuntary manslaughter if someone is inside and dies. This is because, while I may not have known someone was there, I knew that it was physically possible for someone to be there, and I did not check before demolishing it.

You are comparing women who kill their newborns with people with mental problems?

No, I am comparing people who are clinically depressed with people who have mental problems. Why? Because clinical depression is, itself, a mental problem.

Besides I believe that people who claim to be insane are just using it as a tactic for their defense attorneys.

And some people may attempt to be depressed simply as a tactic. Of course, in all cases but the nebulous "temporary insanity" case, we have objective measurements that define these disorders - and can measure for them.